Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 16/10/17
-
No End to Chemicals for Which the Trump Nominee to Head EPA's Toxics Office Has Conflicts of Interest
Oct 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In a series of earlier posts to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to head EPA’s toxics office, would bring to the job if he is confirmed. -
US EPA Seeks Input on Recycled Byproduct Reporting Rules
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has formally announced the failure of negotiated rulemaking on easing inorganic byproduct reporting requirements. It has now asked for public comment on how to proceed. -
OPPT's Reorganization Plans . . . The Latest
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
As first reported by Inside EPA, EPA's toxics chief Jeff Morris is looking to agency staff to submit suggestions and thoughts on a planned reorganization of the agency's toxics office to better implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform. -
US Agency Releases Six Draft Toxicological Profiles
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released draft toxicological and adverse health profiles for six biocidal substances. -
US Treasury Calls for Scrapping Conflict Minerals Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US treasury department has called for scrapping the rule requiring disclosure related to conflict minerals, as well as other parts of the Dodd-Frank Act. -
Calif. Governor Signs Cleaning Product Disclosure Law
Oct 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
In a major victory for consumers’ and workers’ right to know, California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that requires manufacturers of a wide array of cleaning products to disclose ingredients. -
State Leads Disclosure of Chemicals in Cleaning Products
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California has become the first state to require companies to broadly disclose hazardous chemicals in cleaning products. -
Danish Test Finds Lead in Fidget Spinners
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Fidget spinners, the ball-bearing based toys popular with children across the world, may contain unwanted high levels of chemicals, according to Danish research. -
How Cheniere Energy Decided to Take a Gamble on Liquified Natural Gas
Oct 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nelson D. Schwartz
Every few days, a 900-foot long tanker sails from Cheniere Energy’s mammoth new Sabine Pass terminal on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, loaded with natural gas for destinations around the world. -
Project Approvals Splinter FERC, Trigger Rare Dissent
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M.Gilmer
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision last week to approve two contentious natural gas pipelines featured a rarity for the agency: a dissent. -
Worker Remains Missing After Louisiana Platform Explosion
Oct 16, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Dan Molinski
A worker remained missing Monday after an explosion at an energy storage platform in Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans that injured seven others. -
EPA to Restrict Settlements With Environmentalists
Oct 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is pledging to crack down on settlements with environmental groups that sue the EPA. -
EPA Defends Boiler MACT 'Work Practice Standards'
Oct 16, 2017 | inside EPA
EPA in a new legal filing is defending its “work practice standards” used as an alternative to compliance with numeric emissions limits during boiler startup and shutdown in its air toxics rule for the units, after judges at recent oral argument in litigation over the rule questioned the agency's use of the work practices as a compliance option. -
Cap-And-Trade Is GOP's Next Best Step on Environmental Regulation
Oct 16, 2017 | The Hill
By Alex Geisinger
On Tuesday Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency finally made clear what we all knew was coming: The EPA will repeal the Clean Power Plan. -
Utility's Pleas Don't Sway Judges to Stay Cross-State Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Unmoved by warnings of new regulations' "horrible" consequences for an Iowa city, a federal court has snuffed a local power producer's attempt to shield a 35-megawatt generating unit from added emission curbs.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Oct 16, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
In a series of earlier posts to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration’s nominee to head EPA’s toxics office, would bring to the job if he is confirmed.
(A vote on his nomination by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently scheduled for this Wednesday at 10am EDT. If he is voted out of committee, a majority vote of the full Senate would then be required for his nomination to be confirmed.)
Dourson has worked on dozens of toxic chemicals under payment from dozens of companies. Two consistent patterns emerge when his reviews are examined: The process he typically uses to conduct his reviews is riddled with conflicts of interest. And his reviews typically result in him recommending “safe” levels for the chemicals that are weaker, often much weaker, than the established standards in place at the time of his reviews.
If confirmed, Dourson would oversee most of the chemicals and companies he has worked on and with. The chemicals include numerous pesticides coming up for review shortly under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as three chemicals that are among the first 10 EPA is now considering under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
To further gauge the impact Dourson could have if confirmed, we have looked a bit farther down the road. TSCA requires EPA to be conducting risk evaluations on at least 20 chemicals by December 2019. At least half of those chemicals are to be drawn from EPA’s so-called Work Plan for Chemical Assessments.
Using information available on the website of Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), as well as his published papers, we compared the list of chemicals he/TERA have worked on to those on the EPA Work Plan. We found that 22 chemicals overlap. We then examined each chemical Dourson or TERA worked on to determine whether Dourson or TERA was paid for their work by their manufacturers or industrial users of those chemicals.
For at least half – 11 of the 22 Work Plan chemicals – we identified such funding. These include the three chemicals noted earlier that are among the first 10 EPA is currently evaluating: 1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, and trichloroethylene. These and the eight additional Work Plan chemicals we identified are listed in the accompanying table, along with the corporate interests that hired Dourson or TERA to work on them.
This analysis only deepens the basis for concern over Dourson’s nomination: If confirmed, he would have full authority over the selection of which Work Plan chemicals EPA selects next for risk evaluations, not to mention the scope and content of those evaluations. Many other aspects of TSCA implementation would fall entirely under his purview as well, including those that are central issues in current litigation over EPA’s prioritization and risk evaluation rules:
· what uses are included in and excluded from risk evaluations;
· whether risk determinations are made for specific uses rather than across uses of a chemical;
· which and how many chemicals are designated low vs. high priority;
· how many and which company-requested risk evaluations EPA grants, and the scope of those evaluations; and
· whether and when to use the expanded testing authority the new law gave EPA.
The stakes are indeed high. Public health protection demands that the Senate reject Dourson’s nomination.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/10/16/no-end-to-chemicals-for-which-the-trump-nominee-to-head-epas-toxics-office-has-conflicts-of-interest/
-
US EPA Seeks Input on Recycled Byproduct Reporting Rules
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has formally announced the failure of negotiated rulemaking on easing inorganic byproduct reporting requirements. It has now asked for public comment on how to proceed.
The new TSCA required the agency to use such rulemaking to develop a proposed rule on chemical data reporting (CDR) requirements for inorganic byproduct substances that are recycled, reused, or reprocessed. The goal was to develop and publish a proposed rule by June 2019 so that it could apply to the next CDR reporting cycle in 2020. But the committee called it quits on 14 September after three meetings.
Industry representatives said NGOs rejected all proposals to reduce reporting requirements, and in some cases questioned the basis of existing exemptions. Meanwhile, an NGO representative who took part said each industry wanted an unjustified exemption from all reporting and thought they could get a better deal if they could persuade the Trump administration to go ahead with a regular rulemaking.
In the 12 October notice, the EPA said it "encourages public input on ways to decrease the burden associated with the reporting of inorganic byproducts, while maintaining the agency's ability to receive the information it needs to understand exposure". Comments will be accepted until 11 December.
Industry groups argue that the EPA is still obligated to propose a reporting rule. However, in the announcement setting up the negotiated rulemaking, the agency took the position that TSCA required the negotiation, but if this fails it does not have to propose a rule itself.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60100/us-epa-seeks-input-on-recycled-byproduct-reporting-rules
-
OPPT's Reorganization Plans . . . The Latest
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
As first reported by Inside EPA, EPA's toxics chief Jeff Morris is looking to agency staff to submit suggestions and thoughts on a planned reorganization of the agency's toxics office to better implement Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform.
According to our exclusive reports, Morris and other leaders of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) are planning to reorganize the office to better meet its many new responsibilities within the reformed TSCA -- especially the massive new risk assessment role the office is taking on.
Morris has asked for staff input on three different proposals for how to organize branch offices within five new divisions, collapsing the existing seven divisions.
While other offices and divisions are slated for consolidating, EPA is proposing to retain -- and possibly even enlarge -- its existing Risk Assessment Division by one to three branches depending on plans proposed last month.
It is the only division not proposed for extensive revisions in the three proposals under consideration. In each, EPA proposes five divisions, with major differences seeming to revolve around where the Toxics Inventory Update program is placed -- split between two branches or maintaining its existing structure as its own branch within one of two divisions.
With events still unfolding, look to Inside EPA to keep you abreast of the situation.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/oppts-reorganization-plans-latest
-
US Agency Releases Six Draft Toxicological Profiles
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released draft toxicological and adverse health profiles for six biocidal substances.
They are:
· 1-bromopropane (1-BP);
· DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide);
· glutaraldehyde;
· nitrate and nitrite; and
· toluene.
The peer-reviewed profiles include public health statements on the chemicals, as well as health and toxicologic information on their potential for human exposure, and relevant analytical methods, regulations, advisories and guidelines.
The ATSDR is congressionally mandated to develop toxicology profiles, for substances found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. A full list of toxic substances with published profiles is available on the agency’s website.Uses
1-Bromopropane has been used in the production of pesticides, flavours and fragrances and pharmaceuticals. Currently it is more likely to be used as a solvent in the adhesives, dry cleaning, vapor degreasing and electronic and metal cleaning industries. The chemical's production has increased over the last ten years due to its use as a substitute for more harmful substances, according to the ATSDR. The European Commission added 1-bromopropane to REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list - in June.
DEET is the active ingredient in some common repellents used against mosquitos and ticks.
The formulations are typically used as sprays or mists, lotions and wipes. It has been used in sunscreen lotions for direct application to skin.
Glutaraldehyde is used for industrial, laboratory, agricultural and medical purposes, primarily to disinfect surfaces and equipment. In industry, it is used in oil and gas recovery, wastewater treatment, as a pesticide and in fogging and cleaning of poultry houses, as a chemical intermediate in the production of various materials, in the paper industry, in x-ray processing, in embalming fluid and for leather tanning.
Nitrate and nitrite are used to preserve food and in the production of munitions and explosives. Sodium nitrite is also being used in medicines and therapeutics; for example, as an antidote for cyanide poisoning and as a treatment for pulmonary arterial hypertension.
Toluene is used in making paints, paint thinners, fingernail polish, lacquers, adhesives and rubber, and in some printing and leather tanning processes. It is used in the production of benzene, nylon, plastics and polyurethane and the synthesis of trinitrotoluene (TNT), benzoic acid, benzoyl chloride and toluene diisocyanate. It is also added to gasoline, along with benzene and xylene, to improve octane ratings.
Read documents in full:
ATSDR 1-bromopropane profile
ATSDR DEET profile
ATSDR Glutaraldehyde profile
ATSDR Nitrate and nitrite profile
ATSDR Toluene profile
ATSDR websitehttps://chemicalwatch.com/60037/us-agency-releases-six-draft-toxicological-profiles
-
US Treasury Calls for Scrapping Conflict Minerals Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US treasury department has called for scrapping the rule requiring disclosure related to conflict minerals, as well as other parts of the Dodd-Frank Act.
"Federal securities laws are ill-equipped to achieve such policy goals, and the effort to use securities disclosure to advance [such] goals distracts from their purpose of providing effective disclosure to investors," the department says in its report. The report A financial system that creates economic opportunities capital markets, was released on 6 October.
The Dodd-Frank provision requires publicly traded companies to investigate and disclose their use of conflict minerals – tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold (3TG). The purpose is to prevent the support of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighbouring countries. The law has the effect of requiring companies to disclose the source of their minerals.
Getting rid of the disclosure rules would require congressional action. The House of Representatives passed a financial regulatory bill in June that would fully repeal the reporting rule. And the 2018 appropriations bill, approved by the House in September, includes a provision that would cut off funding to enforce it.
However, it may prove difficult to get a repeal, or financial reform in general, through the Senate.
In the absence of legislation, the Treasury report suggests that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) should consider exempting smaller companies from reporting.
Acting SEC Chairman Michael Piwowar issued a statement in April suggesting that the agency would not seek enforcement for failure to submit ‘enhanced disclosure’ documents, but companies are reported to have largely continued the practice.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60102/us-treasury-calls-for-scrapping-conflict-minerals-rule
-
Calif. Governor Signs Cleaning Product Disclosure Law
Oct 16, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
In a major victory for consumers’ and workers’ right to know, California Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that requires manufacturers of a wide array of cleaning products to disclose ingredients.
The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 – Senate Bill 258, authored by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens – requires the ingredients in cleaning products to be listed on both product labels and online. This applies particularly to chemicals whose ability to harm human health or the environment has been recognized by established scientific authoritative bodies. Under this law, the mandatory disclosure also applies to ingredients in fragrance mixtures, which have been tightly held secrets until now.
Lara facilitated a successful series of negotiations between NGOs and industry stakeholders, which achieved a carefully crafted compromise that won the final approval of California legislators in mid-September. The agreement provides the increased transparency consumers and workers want, while allowing companies to protect trade secrets only for chemicals not linked to negative impacts on human health or the environment. The legislation garnered the early support of companies that already practice ingredient transparency – Seventh Generation and The Honest Company – and also some of the world’s largest cleaning product companies, including Ecolab, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, SC Johnson and WD-40, along with their trade association, the Consumer Specialty Products Association.
“California will be the first in the nation to clear the air for consumers and workers about what is in their cleaning products. Consumers are demanding transparency and the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act will set a strong national standard. Consumer advocates and manufacturers worked together to disclose potentially harmful ingredients, while allowing businesses to protect proprietary information and retain some flexibility,” said Lara.
“Consumers and professional cleaners will be able to breathe easier knowing the ingredients in their household and institutional cleaning products,” said Bill Allayaud, the Environmental Working Group’s California director of government affairs. “The demand for transparency is growing, as people, workers and business owners want to make informed decisions about the cleaning products they choose to purchase and use.”
Until now, consumers, workers and public health agencies have been left in the dark about the potential presence of allergens, environmental toxicants and chemicals linked to harmful health effects in cleaning products.
“Consumers are increasingly demanding information about the ingredients in the products they use every day, and this is especially true for cleaning products. Breast cancer prevention advocates everywhere are thrilled with this historic new law because we know it will have a positive impact far beyond California. We are so proud to have sponsored this bill, and to have partnered with a very broad coalition of consumer, worker and industry groups to get it passed,” said Nancy Buermeyer, senior policy strategist for Breast Cancer Prevention Partners.
“This is truly a breakthrough! For the first time ever companies will be legally required to disclose ingredients in fragrance,” said Jamie McConnell, director of programs and policy at Women’s Voices for the Earth. “But passing SB 258 isn’t simply about listing ingredients – it’s about eliminating the barriers that prevent women and men from having the information they need to avoid concerning ingredients like powerful allergens, or synthetic musks linked to breast cancer, or known hormone disruptors like phthalates – all of which can be found in fragrance. Calling this bill a game-changer is an understatement. This is going to change lives.”
Chemicals found in some ordinary cleaning products are known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, asthma and other serious health effects. Even cleaning products advertised as “green” or “natural” may contain ingredients that can cause health problems. Ingredient transparency allows consumers to make the right choices for their families’ health.
“We all have the right to know the ingredients in the products we bring into our homes that could affect our health,” said Avinash Kar, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That’s why consumers overwhelmingly support ingredient disclosure. The cleaning product industry recognized this consumer demand and worked with our coalition to craft a solution in Sen. Lara’s bill. This puts California, once again, at the forefront of public health protections that will benefit all Americans.”
New York is close to finalizing industry guidance also requiring cleaning product ingredient disclosure. This move came in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental, public health and consumer groups, and would implement a law that has been on the books since 1971. Cleaning product companies will soon be responding to ingredient disclosure requirements generated by two of the nation’s largest states, raising a new high bar for transparency and creating powerful new incentives to reformulate their products to remove harmful ingredients, rather than publicly disclose their presence.
Some companies voluntarily label all the ingredients in their cleaning products, including fragrance ingredients, but in the absence of federal and, until now, state regulations mandating ingredient disclosure, other companies have continued to keep their product ingredients a secret.
Workers – particularly janitors and housekeeping staff – are exposed to chemicals in cleaning products all day, every day. Women account for nine out of 10 domestic workers and housekeepers, and of those, a majority are Latina or African American. Cleaning ingredients vary in the type of problems they can pose for workers: some cause acute allergic reactions, while others are associated with chronic or long-term effects such as asthma and cancer. Work-related asthma among California’s janitors and cleaners is nearly double the rate of the overall workforce.
“While research shines light on the harms of secret chemicals used in common cleaning products, very little of this information makes its way to domestic workers, like house cleaners, who are the most exposed. Domestic workers deserve the right to know and based on that information, hopefully have the ability to leverage the use of better products with their employers,” said Nancy Zuniga of the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California, or IDEPSCA. “Commercial cleaning professionals and domestic workers have a right to know what’s hiding in these products so they can protect themselves whenever possible in their workplace – their health shouldn’t be compromised for the work they do. This is an important step forward in eliminating overall toxic exposure.”
“Every day consumers are exposed to chemicals commonly found in products used to clean and disinfect their homes, cars and offices,” said Mayra Soto of Pacoima Beautiful. “Consumers of all socioeconomic backgrounds have a right to know exactly what chemicals are in the products they are buying for themselves and their children. As the expectation of more transparency continues to skyrocket, this mandatory disclosure will guarantee that consumers and workers will know what chemicals are in these cleaners to better protect their health.”
http://www.ewg.org/release/calif-governor-signs-cleaning-product-disclosure-law#.WeTfsFuCzIU
-
State Leads Disclosure of Chemicals in Cleaning Products
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
California has become the first state to require companies to broadly disclose hazardous chemicals in cleaning products.
Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the law yesterday, and it will be phased in over the next three years.
Under its terms, manufacturers must post hazardous ingredients online by 2020 and on product labels by 2021.
The bill inspired robust legislative debate and a half-dozen amendments.
State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D) said he was inspired to draft the bill by his mother, a house cleaner.
"After a day of scrubbing toilets, my mother would be dizzy and sick, but she never knew if it was the product she was using," Lara said in a statement.
Because of California's size and influence, the state law could inspire nationwide changes from manufacturers.
"The science is clear, and we have seen the data about how cleaning product chemicals affect parents, children, people with pre-existing conditions, and workers who use these products all day, every day," Lara said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/16/stories/1060063701
-
Danish Test Finds Lead in Fidget Spinners
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Fidget spinners, the ball-bearing based toys popular with children across the world, may contain unwanted high levels of chemicals, according to Danish research.
The Danish Consumer Council's Think Chemicals initiative tested 12 spinners and discovered that two had a lead content that was ten times the permitted level for toys. Meanwhile, three also released nickel in "excessive" levels – two of which also contained lead.
Three of the products had CE certification, which indicates conformity with health, safety and environmental protection standards for products sold within the European Economic Area. According to Stine Müller, Think Chemicals product manager, because these products are not properly controlled, the CE mark "does not provide any guarantee" to consumers.
"The test has confirmed our immediate concern in relation to the very large and sudden demand for fidget spinners," she said. "The risk is that manufacturers and retailers fail to ensure the products comply with toy safety rules, before they are sold to consumers."
https://chemicalwatch.com/60095/danish-test-finds-lead-in-fidget-spinners
-
How Cheniere Energy Decided to Take a Gamble on Liquified Natural Gas
Oct 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nelson D. Schwartz
Every few days, a 900-foot long tanker sails from Cheniere Energy’s mammoth new Sabine Pass terminal on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast, loaded with natural gas for destinations around the world.
Everything about the operation is oversized. The terminal straddles 1,000 acres on the Texas-Louisiana border and cost about $18 billion to build. Each shipment contains enough liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G., to heat 45,000 homes for a year.
“This is a generational opportunity for us,” said Michael Wortley, Cheniere’s chief financial officer. “We’re not talking about the next couple of years, we’re talking about the next 50 years.”
Much as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, helped drillers extract vast quantities of oil from once-inaccessible shale formations in states like Texas and North Dakota in the last decade, natural gas production has quietly traced a similar trajectory. Soaring L.N.G. exports are changing how natural gas is priced around the globe and opening new markets overseas for American drillers.
While Cheniere is the only exporter of L.N.G. from the continental United States, by 2020, new domestic L.N.G. export terminals are expected to open, “transforming the global energy market and making the United States a global gas superpower,” said Jason Bordoff, director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
But before Sabine Pass delivered its first cargo in February 2016, it wasn’t clear where all of the natural gas would go. “We have a huge amount of cheap gas as a result of the shale revolution, and we are going through a real transition since it can now be exported as L.N.G.,” said Mr. Bordoff.
For Cheniere, and for the broader global L.N.G. market, it’s a remarkable turnaround. Sabine Pass had originally been designed as an L.N.G. import terminal, but with domestic prices falling and overseas demand rising a decade ago, executives realized the natural gas needed to go out, not come in.
“We thought that if we’re going to make this thing work, we’re going to have to go all in and literally turn the plant around,” said Mr. Wortley.
At the time, Cheniere’s stock was trading at less than $3 a share, and the company had $2 billion in debt and only $50 million in cash on hand.
However, the company’s former chief executive, Charif Souki, was able to convince foreign companies like Britain’s BG Group (acquired by Shell last year) to sign long-term contracts for future deliveries, reassuring lenders and bond investors that his vision would eventually pay off.
“People thought they were crazy, but domestic gas production kept growing, and Cheniere reinvented themselves,” said Faisel Khan, an analyst at Citigroup who follows the company.
Tens of billions of dollars in investment later, the infrastructure to make that happen is coming on line. In addition to Sabine Pass, Cheniere plans to open a second facility in Corpus Christi in 2019. Before the two plants are completed, Cheniere expects to spend about $30 billion.
Cheniere’s bet has paid off for patient investors. Its stock now trades at about $47 a share.
Companies like Sempra, Dominion Energy and Kinder Morgan are working on several additional plants, which will help lift total L.N.G. export capacity to about nine billion cubic feet per day by late 2019 from a little under two billion today, Mr. Bordoff said.
“We’re at a breakthrough point for America’s L.N.G. exports and its influence in global energy markets,” said Agnia Grigas, author of “The New Geopolitics of Natural Gas.”
Unlike oil, which has been moved around the world for decades in supertankers, natural gas, as a vapor, is much more complicated — and expensive — to transport.
While pipelines carry natural gas over long distances, the only way to move it across oceans is through the L.N.G. process.
Natural gas vapor is chilled to 260 degrees Fahrenheit below zero, turning it into a liquid that can be pumped aboard specially designed ships that keep it under pressure with minimal change in temperature. Upon arrival, the liquid is slowly warmed and converted back into conventional natural gas that can be delivered to customers.
“It’s much harder to take energy out of something and cool it down than to put energy in and warm it up,” said James Carreker, an equity research analyst at U.S. Capital Advisors in Houston. “A refrigerator is more complicated than an oven.”
The Trump administration backs opening new areas to oil exploration and reducing regulations on coal to help miners, but the president has also emerged as a strong supporter of L.N.G. exports. In July, he praised the exports during a visit to Poland, a few weeks after the country took delivery of its first L.N.G. shipment from Cheniere.
The Obama administration backed L.N.G. exports as well, but the Trump administration has linked this development more closely to trade policy, especially as a way of countering Russia’s influence in Europe. “The Trump administration has tried to create L.N.G. diplomacy,” said Ms. Grigas.
Even if the administration lives up to its promise to reduce regulations, cheap natural gas means utilities will likely be reluctant to move back to coal.
“The rising L.N.G. supply has put consumers of natural gas in the driver’s seat, minimized the oil link and maximized competition,” Edward L. Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup, said. “This is a really revolutionary change.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/business/energy-environment/cheniere-energy-liquified-natural-gas.html
-
Project Approvals Splinter FERC, Trigger Rare Dissent
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M.Gilmer
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's decision last week to approve two contentious natural gas pipelines featured a rarity for the agency: a dissent.
FERC's newly appointed Chairman Neil Chatterjee and Commissioner Robert Powelson late Friday gave a green light to the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines, two projects that would transport shale gas across Appalachia.
Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, the lone Democrat on the panel, parted with her colleagues. In a dissenting statement, the former chairwoman wrote that she doesn't believe the proposals are in the public interest.
"Given the environmental impacts and possible superior alternatives, approving these two pipeline projects on this record is not a decision I can support," she wrote.
Dissents are seldom seen in FERC certificate orders for pipelines. LaFleur, who has been on the commission for seven years, previously has issued dissents for a number of electric transmission cases and one natural gas project, a compressor station. She had never dissented on a pipeline certificate until Friday.
In an interview with E&E News, LaFleur said the "difficult" decision was driven by the similarities in the two projects.
"In each case, we have to make a careful decision whether that application is in the public interest," she said. "And the overall record of the two pipelines here and the fact that they're both in the same region definitely influenced my environmental assessment."
Her decision centered on the overlapping goals of the pipelines. Both begin in West Virginia shale fields, cross the Appalachian Mountains and end in East Coast markets — Atlantic Coast in North Carolina and Mountain Valley in Virginia.
Together, they represent 900 miles of new infrastructure moving nearly 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.
"Given these similarities and overlapping issues, I believe it is appropriate to balance the collective environmental impacts of these projects on the Appalachian region against the economic need for the projects," she wrote in the dissent.
LaFleur noted that alternative proposals, including one that would essentially merge the two routes, would decrease impacts on two national forests, the Appalachian Trail and the Blue Ridge Parkway.
She said her colleagues clearly had a different view but respected her position.
"Even though there's not that many public dissents, that's why you have a multimember commission, so you have diversity of thought," she said.
Her Friday statement also raised a larger issue about how FERC weighs the public need for projects. She said the commission should consider broadening its analysis — which typically centers on whether developers can show that the natural gas will be used — to incorporate other factors.
"I didn't dissent strictly on that because I'm very conscious of not kind of changing the legal standard in the middle of the case," she told E&E News. "But I've talked about that a lot in speeches, and I thought it was time to say it in a little more public way."Debating the public interest
Opponents of the two natural gas pipelines lamented FERC's approval of the projects Friday. Landowner coalitions and environmental groups plan to urge state regulators to deny critical remaining permits for the pipelines.
They'll also press FERC to reconsider its decision and will eventually take the agency to court — potentially aided by LaFleur's dissenting position. A few legal challenges focusing on broader concerns about the pipelines, including the use of eminent domain, are already pending in federal courts.
Carolyn Elefant, a lawyer who is representing landowners in an eminent domain case, said LaFleur's dissent offered a "strong foundation" for a separate National Environmental Policy Act challenge to the pipelines. That's because it illustrates how the commission set aside project alternatives that could have had less significant impacts, she said.
"In a 2-1 decision, that is where LaFleur's dissent is particularly effective because she argued that these options should not have been foreclosed," Elefant said.
LaFleur's position earned quick praise from advocacy groups opposed to the pipelines.
"We applaud Commissioner LaFleur for recognizing what West Virginians, Virginians and North Carolinians already know — these fracked gas pipelines are not in the public interest," Sierra Club Dirty Fuels campaigner Kelly Martin said in a statement.
Southern Environmental Law Center attorney Greg Buppert echoed that sentiment, saying the "unexpected dissent shows that even within FERC, this pipeline is seen as harmful and unnecessary."
"The majority decision does not reflect an understanding of the issues at hand and is clearly not in the public interest," said Lewis Freeman, head of the grass-roots Allegheny-Blue Ridge Alliance. "It calls into serious question the agency's regulatory credibility."
Pipeline backers, of course, celebrated FERC's decision to greenlight their projects. Dominion Energy Inc., which is behind Atlantic Coast, called it "the most significant milestone yet" for the years-in-the-making development.
"The end use of this gas is well established on the public record and is a matter of urgent public necessity," Leslie Hartz, Dominion's vice president for engineering and construction, said in a statement. "Our public utility customers are depending on this infrastructure to generate cleaner electricity, heat homes and power local businesses."
The certificates include a slew of special conditions that will govern pipeline construction.Pushing for a policy shift
In addition to citing specific concerns about the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines, LaFleur raised a broader issue Friday: Is the agency's longtime policy for weighing the need for proposed pipelines due for a makeover?
The commissioner put a bull's-eye on FERC's Certificate Policy Statement, a 1999 document that lays out how the agency should evaluate the economic need for interstate gas pipelines. The policy directs FERC to consider several factors, including fuel costs, environmental effects, connection of new fuel supply and improved service.
But according to LaFleur, the commission's analysis of public need has become overly focused on precedent agreements — customer commitments that developers often secure during the proposal phase. LaFleur said those agreements should continue to play a role in the analysis but that the commission should look more broadly at other issues, as well.
"I believe that careful consideration of a fuller record could help the Commission better balance environmental issues, including downstream impacts, with the project need and its benefits," she wrote, adding that she would welcome input from industry and people affected by pipelines.
She told E&E News she thought the two Appalachia pipelines presented an opportunity to "get the conversation started."
"The discussion of the needs analysis was not the basis of my dissent, but the fact that I was writing was an opportunity to air those issues," she said.
Former Commissioner Norman Bay raised similar concerns about the policy just before he left the agency earlier this year. In a statement, he urged his colleagues to consider changing how they weigh the need for new gas pipeline infrastructure.
"As important as infrastructure is, it must also occur through processes that continue to promote public participation, transparency, and confidence," he wrote in February.
LaFleur noted in her dissent that a change in FERC's approach would not necessarily lead to more pipelines being rejected but would "provide all parties, including certificate applicants, the opportunity to more broadly debate and consider the need for a proposed project."
So is the issue likely to get any traction within FERC?
"Well, that's up to our colleagues, and they've been really busy with various things since they got there," LaFleur said, adding that she knows "they take their jobs very seriously and think about these things."
"We should always be looking at how to do our work better, how our doctrines have to evolve," she said. "I've had conversations with some of the lawyers who are frequently in our dockets, and I think they will have a lot to contribute to the conversation."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/16/stories/1060063691
-
Worker Remains Missing After Louisiana Platform Explosion
Oct 16, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Dan Molinski
A worker remained missing Monday after an explosion at an energy storage platform in Lake Pontchartrain near New Orleans that injured seven others.
Boats and helicopters continued to search for the missing man where the platform, about a mile and a half from Kenner, La., exploded in a ball of fire Sunday night, but rough conditions with 4- to 5-foot waves were making the task more difficult.
Officials on Monday said the platform appeared to store natural gas, not oil as they initially believed, and that environmental damage resulting from the accident would likely be minimal.
“There does not appear to be any environmental concern,” said Jefferson Parish Sheriff Joe Lopinto.
The seven people who were injured in the blast made it back to shore and were rushed to the hospital, where three were in critical condition Monday, said Mike Guillot, director of emergency medical services at East Jefferson General Hospital.
“Two of the patients in critical condition have blast injuries from the initial explosion,” Mr. Guillot said, adding the other critical patient was in the intensive-care unit.
Officials on Sunday evening said the blast may have happened when cleaning chemicals caught fire during a washing of the platform. But Sheriff Lopinto on Monday said that remained speculation, and that a full investigation now under way would ultimately determine the cause.
The platform is owned by Louisiana-based Clovelly Oil Co., according to a company official who didn’t provide any additional information.
Chief Dave Tibbetts of the East Bank Consolidated Fire Department said a gas line on the platform has been shut off, and residual gas will burn itself out.
“It’s doing what we want it to do at this point,” he said. “We feel confident from the firefighting aspect that we have control of the situation.”
A U.S. Coast Guard official said several overflights show no visible sheen of oil.
The search will continue for the missing worker until he is found, said Sheriff Lopinto, who said the man’s family has been notified. “The family needs some time to grieve, and hopefully we’ll be able to find him,” he said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/worker-remains-missing-after-louisiana-platform-explosion-1508168527
-
EPA to Restrict Settlements With Environmentalists
Oct 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is pledging to crack down on settlements with environmental groups that sue the EPA.
“The days of regulation through litigation are over,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement on Monday as he announced a new policy that seeks to increase transparency in the process through which the agency settles regulatory lawsuits with environmentalists and other outside groups.
“We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress,” Pruitt said, adding that he is also cracking down on attorneys’ fees paid to litigants.
Under Pruitt’s new directive, the agency will post all lawsuits online, reach out to affected states and industries and seek their input on any potential settlements.
The EPA is pledging to avoid settlements that would make for a rushed regulatory process, or that obligate the agency to take actions that the federal courts do not have the authority to force.
Any potential settlements would also be posted online and the EPA will review any related comments, Pruitt’s directive said.
Republicans and industry had accused the Obama-era EPA of using lawsuits and their settlements to force regulations or other policies without following the usual regulatory process.
The Heritage Foundation, which often criticized the Obama EPA’s actions, applauded the new policy.
“The EPA should be commended for going after the egregious sue and settle practice,” Daren Bakst, a research fellow at the conservative group, said in a statement.
“Federal regulation is supposed to be developed in an open manner with public participation. Instead though, agencies such as the EPA have been engaging in closed-door deal-making with special interests, primarily environmental pressure groups,” he said.
Environmentalists have consistently defended the settlements, as did the Obama administration.
In the previous administration, agencies like EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service settled lawsuits from outside groups that wanted the administration to abide by a regulatory deadline that it had missed, or to respond to a regulatory petition.
The agreements usually forced the agencies to decide whether to write policies.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/355632-epa-to-restrict-settlements-with-environmentalists
-
EPA Defends Boiler MACT 'Work Practice Standards'
Oct 16, 2017 | inside EPA
EPA in a new legal filing is defending its “work practice standards” used as an alternative to compliance with numeric emissions limits during boiler startup and shutdown in its air toxics rule for the units, after judges at recent oral argument in litigation over the rule questioned the agency's use of the work practices as a compliance option.
In an Oct. 13 letter advising the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit of additional authorities in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, et al., the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of EPA rebuffs an Oct. 4 letter to the court in which environmentalists cited the court's ruling in a case over EPA methane rules to bolster their argument against the boiler rule.
In the methane suit, Clean Air Council, et al. v. EPA, et al., the court found an administrative stay of methane regulations issued by the agency unlawful, citing the principle that EPA must not exceed its authority delegated by Congress. Environmentalists in their letter claimed that this supports their boiler case because EPA lacks such authority to set work practice standards for all large “major source” boilers, as the agency could have set tougher startup and shutdown conditions for at least some boilers.
But EPA in response argues that Clean Air Council is irrelevant to the boiler case, and that environmentalists misunderstand the work practice standards. Clean Air Council “has no bearing on the issues before the Court,” and “creates no relevant new law,” DOJ says in the Sierra Club litigation over the Obama-era boiler maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule.
Further, “EPA’s decision to promulgate a work practice for startup has nothing to do with whether some industrial boilers can fully engage their pollution control equipment at the time the boiler is first capable of providing useful thermal energy. “Rather, it is based on the entire startup process, which includes an initial period of using a clean startup fuel, a transition period when the operating fuel is introduced into the boiler and the startup fuel is discontinued, and the remaining period while the boiler is gradually brought up to temperature and stable operation,” DOJ says.
EPA determined in the MACT “that emissions cannot be reliably measured during this entire period because of the unstable nature of the combustion, and thus that a work practice during startup is appropriate,” DOJ says.
Environmentalists do not challenge EPA's finding that a work practice standard is necessary, but rather, “they challenge only EPA’s determination as to when startup ends, which is an element of the work practice itself,” and has no bearing on EPA's delegated authority, DOJ argues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-defends-boiler-mact-work-practice-standards
-
Cap-And-Trade Is GOP's Next Best Step on Environmental Regulation
Oct 16, 2017 | The Hill
By Alex Geisinger
On Tuesday Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency finally made clear what we all knew was coming: The EPA will repeal the Clean Power Plan.
The plan, focused on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants, the largest source of such emissions in the country, was projected to cut carbon dioxide emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. While repeal of the Clean Power Plan is frustrating to the large majority of Americans who now favor climate change regulation, it also presents an opportunity for conservatives to implement efficient climate change regulation and prove they are not held hostage to deregulatory special interests.
Conservatives pounced on the Clean Power Plan as a costly response to climate change that would impede economic growth and job creation. They also complained that the plan was a classic example of an administrative agency overreaching the powers delegated to it by Congress in a blatant power grab. We could argue about these issues all day and, indeed, we have. But now that the plan is being repealed, it is time to consider new regulatory fixes.
Let’s get one thing straight first. The idea of not regulating greenhouse gases — of leaving them to the free market — is a non-starter. Climate change has been called the world’s biggest market failure and the free market won’t work to decrease greenhouse gases the way that people want.
Free markets marry our desires, reflected by our willingness to pay for things, with what society produces. However there are many ways that markets fail to marry people’s preferences to how resources are used; common ownership of the air, imperfect information, strategic behavior and many other reasons keep the market from working to decrease greenhouse gases in the way most people want.
Market failure is not a new idea, nor is it controversial. According to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 7 in 10 Americans — including majorities in every state — support honoring our international commitment to decrease greenhouse gases. The market will not adequately respond to these desires. To decrease emissions in accordance with the desires of the American people we are going to need a regulatory response.
The Clean Air Act, signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1970, represents a first effort by Congress to regulate air pollution. While the act has been amended to respond to problems with its early implementation, there are now a number of second-generation environmental tools that could be used to regulate greenhouse gases in a relatively low-cost manner without agency overreaching. These include cap-and-trade regulation and carbon taxes.
Each of these tools relies on the market by placing a cost on the price of producing carbon. This cost then incentivizes industry to find the most cost-effective ways to decrease emissions. Very little “nanny state,” much less administrative cost, and relatively cheap compliance are the result.
The idea of cap-and-trade was championed by such conservatives as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Such a program first places a cap on the total amount of emissions. The government then creates emissions allowances (for example, a permit to emit one ton of carbon dioxide) that can be traded.
Companies that can cheaply decrease emissions will do so and sell their allowances to those who can’t. Such a scheme leaves it to industry to identify the most cost-effective ways of decreasing pollution instead of relying on the “nanny state” to specifically tell industry what to do. By passing a cap-and-trade law rather than relying on the Clean Air Act, Congress can also specifically control how the EPA regulates greenhouse gases and thus avoid overreach.
Cap and trade has been used very successfully to decrease Sulphur dioxide pollution in the U.S. and is even being used to control greenhouse gases. As reported recently by The New York Times, a consortium of northeastern and mid-Atlantic states has adopted such a program to control greenhouse gases with great success. On top of a 40 percent decrease in emissions, electricity prices in the consortium states have fallen by 3.4 percent. The program is also estimated to have produced $6 billion in additional public health benefits. Ideological objections must give way to proven results.
The planned repeal of the Clean Power Plan has opened the door for a conservative Congress and president to adopt this market-driven regulation — a regulatory scheme that reflects conservative ideals while responding to the desires of the vast majority of the American population. Failure to do so will reflect just how beholden they are to special interests rather than the American people.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/355663-cap-and-trade-is-the-gops-next-best-step-on-environmental
-
Utility's Pleas Don't Sway Judges to Stay Cross-State Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Unmoved by warnings of new regulations' "horrible" consequences for an Iowa city, a federal court has snuffed a local power producer's attempt to shield a 35-megawatt generating unit from added emission curbs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied Cedar Falls Utilities' motionto stay implementation of U.S. EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) update for the unit, saying the request had not met "the stringent requirements" needed for a pause while litigation is still playing out. A three-judge panel issued the ruling Friday for the full court.
The utility, which has about 50,000 customers in northeast Iowa, had sought the stay in August. While the generating unit, fueled mainly by natural gas and known as Streeter 7, is a backup used for emergencies or grid shortages, the muni said it faced "irreparable harm" if not given immediate relief from the rule.
"There are dozens of horrible scenarios that can occur if power is out and Streeter 7 is not available," the utility's lawyer, Harvey Sheldon, wrote in the motion, alluding to the specters of flooding, mechanical breakdowns, grid failure or terrorist attacks.
Bringing Streeter 7 into compliance, he added, would require either installation of very expensive pollution controls or an outright replacement costing "many millions of dollars."
The CSAPR update, made final last year, is intended to cut emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in 22 states that contribute to downwind compliance problems with EPA's 2008 ground-level ozone standard. EPA is defending the rule against 18 consolidated lawsuits brought mainly by power producers, including the Iowa muni, and states.
While Cedar Falls Utilities is a bit player in the legal fracas, EPA attorneys took its stay request seriously enough to offer a 21-page rebuttal. Not only was the utility's motion submitted almost eight months after a key procedural deadline, they wrote, but Streeter 7's NOx emissions are so low that the utility "likely faces no compliance costs whatsoever."
Also opposed on similar grounds were the American Lung Association and several environmental groups involved in the litigation. Cedar Falls Utilities "has not come close to identifying any irreparable harm," the groups' attorneys said.
Ozone, a lung irritant and the main ingredient in smog, is spawned by the reaction of NOx and volatile organic compounds in sunshine. It has been linked to asthma attacks in children and heightened breathing problems for people with cystic fibrosis, emphysema and other chronic respiratory diseases.
EPA's 2008 standard is 75 parts per billion. In 2015, citing research showing that ozone poses health risks at lower levels, the agency tightened the threshold to 70 ppb.
Last month, a separate three-judge panel rejected utility industry requests for a four-month extension in the litigation's briefing schedule (Greenwire, Sept. 12).
Shortly before making the August stay request with the appeals court, Sheldon wrote EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to also "encourage" him to reconsider CSAPR's applicability to Iowa, according to a letter attached to the agency's rebuttal. The filing does not say whether Pruitt responded.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/10/16/stories/1060063727
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested