Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 1/5/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Analysts See $0.39 EPS for PolyOne Corporation (POL)
Jan 5, 2018 | WeeklyHub
By Winifred Garcia
Investors sentiment increased to 0.99 in 2017 Q3. Its up 0.06, from 0.93 in 2017Q2. It is positive, as 26 investors sold PolyOne Corporation shares while 74 reduced holdings. 25 funds opened positions while 74 raised stakes. -
The Shape of Policy to Come: Our Look at 2018
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Bloomberg Environment took a look at all the issues that might come up this year for our annual Outlook series, including possible policy changes affecting chemicals, air, energy, water, and climate. -
Failing To End TSCA Fluoridation Suit, EPA Now Seeks To Limit Its Scope
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Having failed to end environmentalists' suit challenging EPA's denial of their petition to ban drinking water fluoridation, the agency is now seeking to limit the scope of the court's review by arguing that any review should be based on the administrative record rather than the broader de novo review the plaintiffs are seeking. -
Fluoride Case Ruling May Open Door To More TSCA Petitions, Attorneys Say
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The recent federal court ruling allowing environmentalists to sue EPA for rejecting their petition seeking Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules on fluoridation could open the door to new citizen petitions to the agency under section 21 of the law seeking rules on other substances. -
Hiding Its Tracks: The Black Box Of EPA’s New Chemical Reviews Just Got A Whole Lot Blacker
Jan 4, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
We have been blogging about damaging changes being made to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new chemicals review program for some time. -
(ACC Mentioned) NRDC Says Pruitt Plans To Shift IRIS To Toxics Office
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says the Trump administration plans to shift control of EPA's Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) chemical hazard evaluation program to the agency's toxics office, a move that has long been expected given the agency's implementation of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Oregon Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution In Waterways, Soil
Jan 4, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Gillian Flaccus
The state of Oregon sued the agrochemical company Monsanto on Thursday over pervasive pollution from PCBs, the toxic industrial chemicals that have accumulated in plants, fish and people around the globe for decades. The company called the lawsuit baseless. -
Cancer Label for Roundup ‘False and Misleading,’ 11 States Say
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
California's decision to label a common herbicide as carcinogenic unconstitutionally forces businesses to issue “false and misleading” statements about their products, 11 other states told a federal court. -
As Bans On Microbeads Grow, Environmentalists Urge Less Use Of Plastics
Jan 5, 2018 | CBS Chicago
Elected officials and activists are celebrating new regulations going into effect to protect the Great Lakes, and they’re vowing to do more as the White House and Congress look to erode such protections. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian NGL Storage Hub Group Invited To Apply For DOE Loan Guarantee
Jan 4, 2018 | Observer-Reporter
A group formed to deliver an ethane storage hub seen as key to furthering regional economic development from liquid natural gas being produced from shale in the Appalachian Basin has been invited to apply for funding by the U.S. Department of Energy. -
(ACC Mentioned) Daily Mail Editorial: Plans For A Natural Gas Liquids Storage Hub Clear A First Big Step
Jan 5, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
Plans for an underground natural gas liquids storage hub pegged as a major job creator for the chemical industry in Appalachia have cleared their first big hurdle, the Associated Press reported Wednesday. -
Zinke Open To Tweaks As Plan Draws Strong Reactions
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
While critics estimated the Obama administration put 94 percent of the outer continental shelf off-limits to oil and gas development, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said today he wants to make more than 90 percent of the OCS open for leasing. -
Trump Seeks to Open Most U.S. Coastal Waters to New Drilling
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is proposing to open almost all U.S. coastal waters to oil drilling, including those off California and Florida where activists have fought for decades to spare delicate ecosystems from oil spills. -
Nothing Off Limits Offshore in Trump Administration OCS Drilling Plan, but Protracted Fight Expected
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Trump administration on Thursday proposed to throw out the rule book for offshore oil and natural gas drilling, expanding leasing to politically sensitive areas including the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. -
'Like Thunder In The Ground': Texans Fear Link Between Quakes And Fracking Waste
Jan 5, 2018 | The Guardian
By Tom Dart
An earthquake, Cathy Wallace says, feels like “a rumble – it’s like thunder in the ground coming towards your house like a train and you can hear it and feel it coming”. -
LNG Exports Are Riding High, So What Happens Next?
Jan 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
If the geopolitics of oil and gas were remade as a clichéd teen comedy, this would be the scene where the former wallflower gets invited to the prom by the star athlete. -
CSB Offers Tips to Prevent Inadvertent Chemical Mixing
Jan 4, 2018 | Powder & Bulk Solids
A new case study by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB), “Key Lessons for Preventing Inadvertent Mixing During Chemical Unloading Operations,’ examines factors that led to an Oct. 2016 chemical release at a MGPI processing plant in Atchison, KS and offers guidance on how to prevent similar incidents, a press release announced Wednesday. -
BNSF Engineer's Runaway Locomotive Case Chugs On
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
BNSF Railway Co. must face wrongful discharge and tort claims brought by a former engineer who threw a runaway locomotive into reverse to prevent a collision with workers and hazardous chemical tank cars, the Western District of Washington ruled Jan. 2. -
U.S. Says Washington State Amtrak Derailment Damage Topped $40 Million
Jan 4, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By David Shepardson
The damage from a deadly Amtrak train crash in Washington state in December topped $40.4 million, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report on Thursday. -
EPA's Overdue Ozone Decisions Coming by April
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA plans by April 30 to complete its final assessment of which counties in the country violate ozone air pollution standards. -
EPA Critics Ask Court To Make April Ozone Designations Goal Binding
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and some states are urging a federal appeals court to make binding EPA's goal of completing by April 30 all designations for which areas of the country are attaining or violating the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), a process that the Clean Air Act required EPA to have done by Oct. 1 last year. -
Climate ‘Clubs’ Can Show Faster Results Than Global Pacts
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Policy makers looking to move quickly to address climate change are increasingly turning to a little-known mechanism in the social sciences called “clubs.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Analysts See $0.39 EPS for PolyOne Corporation (POL)
Jan 5, 2018 | WeeklyHub
By Winifred Garcia
Investors sentiment increased to 0.99 in 2017 Q3. Its up 0.06, from 0.93 in 2017Q2. It is positive, as 26 investors sold PolyOne Corporation shares while 74 reduced holdings. 25 funds opened positions while 74 raised stakes. 72.65 million shares or 1.67% less from 73.89 million shares in 2017Q2 were reported.
Aqr Capital Ltd Liability Com accumulated 0.02% or 348,643 shares. Ww Asset reported 5,211 shares. Royal Bank & Trust Of Canada reported 0% stake. Jfs Wealth Ltd Liability Corporation reported 0% of its portfolio in PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL). Wellington Shields Mngmt Limited Company reported 11,346 shares. 15,734 were accumulated by Proshare Limited Liability Corporation. Hsbc Hldg Public Limited reported 7,125 shares. Amer Group Inc reported 221,931 shares. Pitcairn stated it has 0.04% in PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL). Qs Invsts Ltd invested in 0% or 10 shares. Bnp Paribas Arbitrage owns 37,406 shares for 0% of their portfolio. Ny State Common Retirement Fund stated it has 204,996 shares or 0.01% of all its holdings. 10,451 were accumulated by Round Table Limited Liability. Strs Ohio holds 0% or 8,400 shares in its portfolio. Dreman Value Mgmt L L C accumulated 0.02% or 964 shares.Analysts expect PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) to report $0.39 EPS on January, 26.They anticipate $0.01 EPS change or 2.63 % from last quarter’s $0.38 EPS. POL’s profit would be $31.52 million giving it 28.60 P/E if the $0.39 EPS is correct. After having $0.58 EPS previously, PolyOne Corporation’s analysts see -32.76 % EPS growth. The stock increased 0.59% or $0.26 during the last trading session, reaching $44.61. About 312,064 shares traded. PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) has risen 5.26% since January 5, 2017 and is uptrending. It has underperformed by 11.44% the S&P500.
PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) Ratings Coverage
Among 9 analysts covering Polyone Corporation (NYSE:POL), 6 have Buy rating, 0 Sell and 3 Hold. Therefore 67% are positive. Polyone Corporation had 23 analyst reports since July 28, 2015 according to SRatingsIntel. Goldman Sachs upgraded it to “Buy” rating and $41 target in Monday, August 17 report. The company was maintained on Friday, June 30 by Jefferies. The firm has “Overweight” rating by KeyBanc Capital Markets given on Monday, April 4. The company was maintained on Monday, August 24 by Robert W. Baird. On Friday, September 15 the stock rating was maintained by Jefferies with “Hold”. The firm earned “Hold” rating on Friday, April 7 by Jefferies. The rating was maintained by KeyBanc Capital Markets on Thursday, October 26 with “Overweight”. On Wednesday, October 12 the stock rating was maintained by Jefferies with “Hold”. The stock of PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) earned “Neutral” rating by Longbow on Tuesday, July 28. The rating was maintained by Jefferies on Tuesday, October 17 with “Hold”.
PolyOne Corporation provides specialized polymer materials, services and solutions in the United States and internationally. The company has market cap of $3.61 billion. The Company’s Color, Additives, and Inks segment offers specialized color and additive concentrates in solid and liquid form for thermoplastics; dispersions for thermosets; and specialty inks, plastisols, and vinyl slush molding solutions. It currently has negative earnings. The companyÂ’s Specialty Engineered Materials segment provides specialty polymer formulations, services, and solutions for designers, assemblers, and processors of thermoplastic materials; and long glass and carbon fiber technology, and thermoset and thermoplastic composites.
More important recent PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) news were published by: Prnewswire.com which released: “PolyOne Achieves Responsible Care® Certification by American Chemistry Council” on January 04, 2018, also Nasdaq.com published article titled: “PolyOne Corporation (POL) Ex-Dividend Date Scheduled for December 14, 2017”, Prnewswire.com published: “PolyOne Expands Specialty Color and Additives Expertise with Acquisition of …” on January 02, 2018. More interesting news about PolyOne Corporation (NYSE:POL) was released by: Prnewswire.com and their article: “PolyOne Launches New Hammerheadâ„¢ Marine Composites” with publication date: December 13, 2017.
https://weeklyhub.com/analysts-see-0-39-eps-for-polyone-corporation-pol-3/
-
The Shape of Policy to Come: Our Look at 2018
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Bloomberg Environment took a look at all the issues that might come up this year for our annual Outlook series, including possible policy changes affecting chemicals, air, energy, water, and climate.
From implementation of the nation's new chemicals law to deforestation in Africa, Bloomberg Environment reporters have the story.
Law and Policy
• ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION: We spoke to almost a dozen environmental attorneys to ask them what will be on their respective radars in 2018. David Schultz and other Bloomberg Environment reporters summarize their responses in this listicle.
• ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: In addition to litigation, we also looked at potential changes to federal policy that may be coming down the pike. Amena Saiyid and Abby Smith preview the year ahead in regulatory policy.
• REGULATORY POLICY: And White House reporter Cheryl Bolen takes a look at some of the challenges that may face the Trump administration as it seeks to enact its deregulatory agenda throughout the government.
Chemicals
• TSCA AMENDMENTS: What are the EPA's major milestones on implementation of the new chemicals law this year? Pat Rizzuto outlines them and expected deadlines for industry in a series of graphics.
• CHEMICAL REGULATION: Rizzuto also takes a look at conflicts over the law's implementation between the many stakeholders who have a say in this process.
• INTERNATIONAL CHEMICALS: The U.S. is not the only country grappling with how to regulate potentially toxic chemicals. Adam Allington looks at how this process could play out in Australia, Brazil, and elsewhere.
• EUROPEAN CHEMICALS: And there's an important deadline coming up in the EU for chemical manufacturers. Correspondent Stephen Gardner lays out what it means.
Air Pollution
• FENCELINE MONITORING: More data on air pollution from refineries will be coming soon. Jennifer Lu lays out how refineries will be reporting this data and what could be done with it.
Energy
• ELECTRIC VEHICLES: The move toward renewable fuels is having a big impact. One of the areas where that can be felt is in the rise of electric vehicles, according to correspondent Jabeen Bhatti.
• ALTERNATIVE FUELS: And, of course, one of the developments that have made electric vehicles possible is the advent of newer, more efficient batteries. Adam Allington takes a look at what's on the horizon here.
• DRILLING: But fossil fuels are still around and won't be going extinct any time soon. Alan Kovski takes a look at the changing landscape for oil and gas drillerson federal lands.
• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: This was a tumultuous year for most federal agencies, and the Department of Energy was no exception. Rebecca Kern looks at where this agency will be headed on a number of policy areas, from nuclear to wind to solar and beyond.
Water
• LEAD IN WATER: The EPA has been laboring for years to update its standards for lead in water, but without success so far. David Schultz explains why it doesn't look like the agency is close to completing this years-long task.
Waste
• SUPERFUND: Sylvia Carignan provides the outlook for the EPA's Superfund program, one of the top priorities for the agency's administrator, Scott Pruitt. She says Pruitt is pushing the agency to complete cleanups faster at Superfund sites.
Climate
• SHIPPING: Whether by air or by sea, shipping has a significant carbon footprint. Ali Qassim and Peter Menyasz talk about new international rules to try to mitigate carbon emissions from the shipping industry.
• NORTH AMERICA: Menyasz also teams up with correspondent Emily Pickrell to talk about how both Canada and Mexico are addressing climate change and renewable energy.
• AUSTRALIA: Few places are more affected by climate change than Australia and New Zealand, with the Great Barrier Reef being one of the world's climate epicenters. Correspondent Murray Griffin takes a look at efforts there to curb emissions.
• CARBON TRADING: One of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses (along with, of course, the U.S.), China is setting up a carbon trading program for its energy sector. Dean Scott has the details on how it will work.
International
• CHINA: Carbon emissions aren't the only pollutants Chinese authorities are struggling to control. Correspondent Michael Standaert writes about how the country is looking to stem the pollution that is often the byproduct of a rapidly industrializing society.
• SOUTHEAST ASIA: Climate change is on the priority list for several countries in this region as well. Correspondent Lien Hoang writes about carbon emissions here as well as the tough challenge of deforestation.
• AFRICA: Deforestation is also becoming a big problem in Africa. Correspondents Wachira Kigotho and Marcia Klein break down the continent‘s varied environmental problems.
• MIDDLE EAST: Scarcity and abundance are the stories shaping the environment in the Middle East: scarcity of water and abundance of solar energy. Correspondent Matthew Kalman breaks it down.
• SOUTH AMERICA: Four of our correspondents
• team up to bring you this look at environmental issues in South and Central America, with a focus on permitting and natural resource extraction.
• KOREA: One story to keep an eye on this year is the expansion of renewable energy in South Korea. Correspondent Elaine Ramirez explains how the country is directing its resources toward research and development.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990036&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990036&jd=125990036
-
Failing To End TSCA Fluoridation Suit, EPA Now Seeks To Limit Its Scope
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Having failed to end environmentalists' suit challenging EPA's denial of their petition to ban drinking water fluoridation, the agency is now seeking to limit the scope of the court's review by arguing that any review should be based on the administrative record rather than the broader de novo review the plaintiffs are seeking.
How the court rules on the issue in the pending case, Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, could impact any future legal challenges to agency petition responses under the reformed Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) because a ruling for environmentalists in this case could open the door to plaintiffs choosing what scientific evidence courts review on chemicals' risks.
That could be especially significant given that the ruling denying EPA's motion to dismiss is expected to open the door to lots more petitions from environmentalists and other petitioners.
EPA's attorneys will argue at a Jan. 25 hearing in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that the court should grant their request to limit the court's “review to the administrative record” according to EPA's Dec. 14 motion.
The motion preceded Judge Edward Chen's Dec. 21 denial of the agency's request to dismiss the suit. Chen ruled that the reformed TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate single uses of substances, a stance at odds with the agency's position in this case.
The statute grants those petitioning EPA to act using its TSCA section 6(b) authorities, as provided in TSCA section 21, a broader scope of judicial review should they challenge EPA's denial of their petition or lack of response to a petition in court.
The updated TSCA section 21(b)(4)(B) states, “the petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to have such a petition considered by the court in a de novo proceeding. If the petitioner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court by a preponderance of the evidence” that the chemical identified in its petition “presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other nonrisk factors … the court shall order the Administrator to initiate the action requested by the petitioner.”
This possibility for de novo review of fluoride risks appealed to petitioners, who have long sought to end drinking water fluoridation but who believe their case has received short shrift from EPA. They argue the practice can result in people ingesting too much fluoride, and they point to recent studies showing neurotoxic health risks from fluoride exposure at lower levels than previously considered of concern.
But many are skeptical of claims that fluoridation, recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service in the 1940s to promote dental health, can be harmful.
Michael Connett, attorney for the petitioners in the case, told Inside EPA last year that the TSCA petition provides a new avenue to advance their efforts. "One of the reasons I was interested in the TSCA petition was to obtain a different forum" for fluoride and its risks, Connett said at the time. "It will be good to get the issue considered by people not entrenched in the issue," he added. "EPA never really applied its own risk assessment procedures to fluoride. We believe if EPA does, then it will see the . . . that fluoridation would be incompatible with the dose that would be appropriate."
EPA Brief
But EPA in its brief last month questions petitioners' concept of de novo review.
EPA argues that “the scope of review in this case should be limited to the administrative record. While EPA does not dispute that the standard of review is de novo, i.e., that the Court must independently examine the evidence in the record and need not defer to the Agency’s determinations, Plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to create an entirely new record is inconsistent with the language of section 21 and with the caselaw holding that when a plaintiff had ample opportunity to present its case to the agency, the Court’s review of the agency’s action should be based on the same information that was presented to or created by the agency, i.e., the administrative record.”
Specifically, EPA parses the meaning of section 21(b)(4)(B), which allows for “such a petition” to be considered by a court de novo. “Plaintiffs’ claim that they are entitled to discovery is based entirely on the provision in section 21(b)(4)(B) providing that 'such petition' will be considered in a de novo proceeding. However, the term 'de novo' does not, by itself, provide that a reviewing court may consider evidence outside the administrative record.”
EPA points to the 1990 ruling in a 6th Circuit case Perry v. Simplicity Engineering, which says that “[w]hen a court reviews a decision de novo, it simply decides whether or not it agrees with the decision under review.”
“The plain language of the statute demonstrates that Congress intended that, while the standard of review is de novo, i.e., the Court makes its own evaluation of the record and does not have to give deference to EPA’s conclusion, the scope of the Court’s review is limited to the administrative record before the Agency when it denied Plaintiffs’ administrative petition,” EPA's brief states.
“Any other reading would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that the petitioner must present to EPA in the petition the facts that it contends warrant the initiation of rulemaking and with the requirement that such petition is what is to be considered by the Court.”
EPA also points to the 2014 D.C. Circuit case Trumpeter Swan Society v. EPA as bolstering its argument, because it “indicated (albeit, in passing) that it considers judicial review in section 21 cases to be limited to the administrative record … 'In the normal TSCA section 21 case, we would review the administrative record.'”
EPA also asks Chen to deny plaintiff's request for a jury trial because “the right to a jury trial only applies to actions at law,” and because the government is immune from jury trials.
An attorney following the case holds a similar view, telling Inside EPA he does not “expect a jury trial or any other evidentiary hearing. Rather, I expect that the Court will make its own determination concerning whether the petitioners have satisfied their burden … This determination will be based on the Court’s own review of the preponderance of evidence in the record, without the same degree of deference to EPA discretion which would typically apply in judicial review.”
EPA cites a 1987 Supreme Court case, Tull v. United States in arguing that the case cannot be tried before a jury. “Because the only remedy available under section 21 is an injunction requiring EPA to take the requested action, this is indisputably an action in equity,” rather than an action at law.
And EPA points to a 1961 case, Lehman v. Nakshian, finding that “the United States’ sovereign immunity bars a trial by jury in cases against the United States, unless it has waived its sovereign immunity to trial by jury … and the United States has not done so here. Accordingly, a jury trial is unavailable.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/failing-end-tsca-fluoridation-suit-epa-now-seeks-limit-its-scope
-
Fluoride Case Ruling May Open Door To More TSCA Petitions, Attorneys Say
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The recent federal court ruling allowing environmentalists to sue EPA for rejecting their petition seeking Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) rules on fluoridation could open the door to new citizen petitions to the agency under section 21 of the law seeking rules on other substances.
“The fluoridation case may signal to environmental groups that the courts may be receptive to granting section 21 petitions or at a minimum that EPA’s reasons for a denial will be closely scrutinized,” Herb Estreicher, an attorney and chemist with the law firm of Keller and Heckman, tells Inside EPA.
“As a result, we may see more section 21 petitions from environmental groups and a greater willingness to challenge an EPA denial in the courts.”
An environmentalist attorney appears to echo Estreicher's view. “The judge squarely rejected EPA’s approach and underscored the important role of section 21 under the law. I think the decision will be very helpful in future section 21 cases,” the attorney tells Inside EPA.
At the same time, several attorneys say they expect that the decision will have a limited effect on environmentalists' ongoing challenges to framework rules implementing TSCA reform, where, like the fluoride case, the court is weighing the question of which uses EPA must consider when assessing chemicals for possible regulation. They say the ruling in the fluoride case will have little bearing in the framework rules cases because they hinge on different sections of the statute.
“I’m not concerned that the decision will somehow undermine the position in the framework rule challenges that the law requires risk evaluations to address all conditions of use. That issue was not before the court and wasn’t decided,” the environmentalist lawyer says.
Late last month, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied EPA's request to dismiss Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, the suit challenging it's petition's denial.
Chen ruled that the new TSCA law allows citizens to petition EPA under TSCA section 21 to regulate single uses of substances, a stance at odds with the agency's position in this case that petitioners must address all uses of a substance when bringing a petition to the agency.
This argument, included in the denial issued early in the Trump administration, is consistent with the Obama EPA interpretation that the agency must evaluate all conditions of use when evaluating chemicals' risks.
But in overruling EPA, Chen's decision in the fluoride case appears to support the agency's framework rules that grant EPA discretion to determine which uses to evaluate for possible regulation under section 6 authority.
'Fairly Scathing Rebuke'
Since the ruling, some observers have indicated that Chen's approach could have bearing in environmentalists' pending challenge to the framework rules.
In those cases, a key question is what “uses” EPA must consider when evaluating chemicals for possible regulation.
While the Obama EPA's proposed section 6 rules required the agency to assess all uses, the Trump EPA's final version grants EPA discretion to determine which uses to consider, though agency officials have largely ruled out assessing legacy uses as well as uses regulated by other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
The law firm Bergeson & Campbell describes the ruling as a “fairly scathing rebuke of EPA’s legal positions,” in a Dec. 22 blog post, adding that it “essentially rejected EPA’s interpretation that a citizen petition must evaluate all conditions of use of a chemical substance in a TSCA Section 6(b) risk evaluation.”
The blog also notes “interesting issues” the ruling raises for the environmentalists' challenges to the TSCA framework rules. Those suits “challenge EPA’s view that fewer than all conditions of use must be considered in a risk evaluation, the very position the court in Food & Water Watch rejected for purposes of Section 21 petitions challenging EPA’s interpretation of a citizen’s legal burden under TSCA Section 6(a). Given that the judicial challenge to the risk evaluation final rule is being heard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, this district court decision is particularly relevant.”
But others argue the section 21 case will have little significance in environmentalists' challenges to EPA's framework rules, issued under section 6. Several attorneys say they consider Chen's ruling specific to TSCA section 21 citizens' petitions.
They questioned whether the ruling could be applied more broadly to EPA's risk evaluation and management responsibilities contained in section 6, even though environmentalists' challenges to the framework rules will be heard in the same Ninth Circuit.
“I think the decision is cogent and persuasive on the statutory construction issues it addresses, but I question whether it will have much collateral effect on cases not involving a Section 21 petition,” one attorney familiar with the fluoride suit tells Inside EPA. “Perhaps it may provide some modest support for EPA’s construction that EPA may focus a section 6(b) risk assessment on, or a manufacturer may request such a risk assessment for, only those conditions of use that are of particular interest or concern.”
And Estreicher says the decision “provides Judge Chen's interpretation of ‘conditions of use’ but the 9th Circuit will make its own decision.”
No Conflict
Michael Connett, the plaintiffs attorney in Food & Water Watch suggested even before the judge ruled that the case would not be at cross purposes with other environmental groups who have challenged the Trump EPA's final framework rules.
There isn't “any conflict between the position taken by the environmentalists (i.e., that EPA must consider all uses when conducting risk evaluations under 6(b)), and our position here that citizen petitioners need only address one use,” Connett says now.
Two of the environmental groups suing EPA over the framework rules, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, filed an amici brief in the fluoride case, joining plaintiffs in opposing EPA's motion to dismiss the suit.
Connett points to the amici arguments that “if EPA determines that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk under the conditions of use, then section 18 of TSCA limits the ability of states to regulate or restrict any use of that chemical. It is imperative, therefore, that EPA consider all conditions of use as a finding of no risk will impact the right of state to regulate all uses. By stark contrast, any ruling by the EPA (or a district court) on a specific use identified in a citizen petition will have NO effect whatsoever on the rights of states to regulate uses not at issue in the petition.”
Connett adds that the state pre-emption issue isn't the only reason his clients' suit harmonizes with environmentalists' suits on the rules.
Similarly, the environmentalist attorney says that the fluoride case, “EPA’s interpretation of 'conditions of use' under section 6(b) was not the basis for the court’s reading of section 21, nor was it endorsed by the court. I think the main relevance of that interpretation in the decision was to highlight the contradictions in EPA’s arguments and to explain why its reading of section 21 was not entitled to deference.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/fluoride-case-ruling-may-open-door-more-tsca-petitions-attorneys-say
-
Hiding Its Tracks: The Black Box Of EPA’s New Chemical Reviews Just Got A Whole Lot Blacker
Jan 4, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
We have been blogging about damaging changes being made to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new chemicals review program for some time. Despite the reforms made in 2016 under the Lautenberg Act that were intended to significantly strengthen new chemical reviews, Scott Pruitt’s EPA has been moving since August of last year to seriously weaken the program.
Late yesterday, EPA made a change to its new chemicals website that not only reverses changes made to implement the Lautenberg Act, but actually makes the site less transparent than it has been for decades.
The change makes clear that the agency is now planning to cover its tracks as it weakens new chemical reviews: EPA will now hide from the public any information about whether its initial review of a new chemical raises any concerns or warrants a more extensive review. Is this what Scott Pruitt meant when he said he intended to bring increased “transparency” to the review program – a term he used no fewer than five times in his August news release previewing changes he was making?
For decades EPA has maintained a public website that tracks the “premanufacture notifications” (PMNs) companies must submit to EPA in advance of commencing manufacture of a new chemical. (PMNs and accompanying materials are what EPA reviews when evaluating a new chemical’s potential risks.) Anyone could enter a PMN number on this website and quickly find out whether EPA had yet held what it calls a “focus meeting” that typically occurs within a few weeks of PMN submission, and if so, what its “interim” decision on that new chemical was. As called for under the law, those interim decisions can range from a recommended “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination, to a recommendation to pursue a consent order where EPA either has insufficient information or finds that the new chemical “may present an unreasonable risk.” The interim status might also indicate the chemical warrants a more extensive review (termed by EPA “pending standard review”), that the PMN has been withdrawn by the submitter, or that the PMN has been deemed “invalid” by EPA.
This website has for years been the only means by which members of the public could gain any understanding of whether EPA’s initial review of a new chemical flagged any concerns or not. After passage of the Lautenberg Act, EPA initially enhanced the functionality of the website, including by indicating whether a final action had been taken and providing a link to certain documents related to those final actions: a “statement of finding” for any “not likely” determination, or a final consent order signed by EPA and the PMN submitter.
EDF has been able to use this website both to understand how often EPA was making various interim and final decisions, as well as to find out that information for a specific PMN submitted for a new chemical of interest.
Beginning around August of last year, however, EPA all but stopped updating this website. Until last night, only a handful of additions or changes had been made to it over the past five months – despite the fact that EPA was continuing to review and make interim (as well as final) decisions on many dozens of new chemicals. EPA simply wasn’t letting the public know about these reviews.
EDF raised concerns about this to EPA repeatedly and never was provided with a cogent response as to why EPA had halted informing the public about its reviews.
Well, last night we finally got an answer – of sorts. About 120 new PMN numbers were added to the website – all of them listing as their “interim status” only that a “Focus Meeting Occurred.”
In addition, a number of PMNs that had already been listed had their interim status changed to “Focus Meeting Occurred.” We would have been able to discern this by comparing the new list to the prior ones we have been archiving for months, but EPA made it even easier by failing to delete or overwrite the prior entries. Instead, duplicates were in the list at least until earlier this morning (some of them have now been deleted). Here are three examples, captured directly from the EPA website this morning:
In each of these cases, EPA’s initial review had raised sufficient concern to warrant potential issuance of a legally binding order or at least further review. In the first example, EPA had found that it had insufficient information about the new chemical. In the second example, EPA had found that the new chemical may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health. And in the third example, EPA acknowledged that some factor had triggered the need for a more in-depth review (EPA’s so-called “standard review”).
Despite EPA’s initially duplicating rather than replacing or overwriting these examples, its intent is now quite clear: to prevent the public from knowing when EPA’s professional staff flagged any concern in their initial review of a new chemical. Indeed, we already face that very situation for the 120 or so newly added PMNs to the website. All the public knows is that a “Focus Meeting Occurred.” Gosh, that’s helpful.
Why is EPA doing this? It’s clear from other changes the agency is making that it intends to do everything in its power to avoid issuing orders or requiring testing for new chemicals. Our and others’comments provided at EPA’s December 6 public meeting point to how EPA is going about this:by (illegally) limiting its review of a PMN substance’s potential risks only to the company’s “intended” conditions of use and relegating any consideration of potential risks from “reasonably foreseen” conditions of use to some possible future, separate review; such a review could be triggered only if EPA finalizes a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the chemical and a company submits a notice pursuant to the SNUR indicating its intent to engage in such a use;by working hand-in-hand with a company to modify its PMN so EPA can issue the company a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” determination and never develop a legally-binding order; andby not imposing testing requirements on the PMN submitter, given that testing can be required via issuance of an order but cannot be required via a SNUR.
So EPA’s changes to its website conceal from the public when a concern is initially identified because in the end EPA plans to do everything it can to give that new chemical its stamp of approval without issuing an order to address the concern.
In short: This change dramatically limits the agency’s accountability to the public, not to mention transparency.
Is it any wonder the public’s trust in the implementation of TSCA by this Administration is in freefall?
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/01/04/hiding-its-tracks-the-black-box-of-epas-new-chemical-reviews-just-got-a-whole-lot-blacker/
-
(ACC Mentioned) NRDC Says Pruitt Plans To Shift IRIS To Toxics Office
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says the Trump administration plans to shift control of EPA's Integrated Risk Information (IRIS) chemical hazard evaluation program to the agency's toxics office, a move that has long been expected given the agency's implementation of the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
But the plan is raising concerns from NRDC, which fears the plan heeds long-standing industry calls to effectively kill the program whose risk values are usually more conservative than industry favors, by putting it under the control of a former chemical industry lobbyist who new leads the toxics office.
EPA career officials have also suggested the program is unique because it provides hazard values that key agency programs, including Superfund and the drinking water office, use to set regulatory standards, suggesting that a move to the toxics office would eliminate those programs' ability to gain key regulatory data.
In a Jan. 4 blog post, “Trump-Pruitt EPA Moves to Kill Chemical Hazard Program, IRIS,” NRDC's Jennifer Sass charges that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is preparing budget documents due Jan. 9 that would move IRIS to the toxics office, where former chemical sector lobbyist Nancy Beck is a top official.
Sass urges Congress to block the move when it considers EPA's budget request.
“EPA is currently developing its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2019 and, and we expect it to include a transfer of the resources of the IRIS program into the [Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)] budget, where both will ultimately be dealt death blows by Administrator Pruitt and the polluting chemical industries that bankroll politicians,” she says. “Congress should reject this proposal when it is sent to the Hill for consideration.”
Sass argues that the chemical industry has “long hated” IRIS, which she describes as one of few independent, non-industry funded chemical evaluation programs in the world. “If there was no IRIS program, it would be much harder for governments to set limits on all kinds of industrial pollution.”
The assertion that Pruitt is seeking to shift IRIS from EPA's Office of Research and Development to the agency's toxics office comes as Pruitt has been publicly silent on his plans for IRIS, which Senate lawmakers called for de-funding in a report attached to an 2018 EPA funding bill.
Industry groups have long argued that the IRIS program produces overly strict risk analyses that they worry will lead to stringent regulations, and have pointed to the revised TSCA law's requirement for a new risk evaluation program in the toxics office as making the IRIS program redundant.
And the Styrene Information and Research Council in October comments to EPA on scoping documents supporting a planned update to a 1991 IRIS assessment of ethlybenzene urged the agency to halt plans for the IRIS review, noting that the chemical is slated for review by the agency's toxics office.
Meanwhile, agency science advisers have called for an increase in IRIS assessments, and the programs new leaders are trying to adapt the program to better help new clients, such as EPA's toxics office and states, in addition to IRIS' traditional clients in EPA's air, water and Superfund offices.
Sass argues that shifting IRIS to the toxics office, where Beck is a deputy assistant administrator, would allow the former American Chemistry Council lobbyist to essentially kill the program that serves as a basis for many of the agency's rulemaking decisions.
“The polluting chemical industry has long hated this program because IRIS assessments are used by EPA’s various offices -- air, water, solid waste, toxics, and others -- as well as local and state governments all over the country and all over the world to set clean up levels and emissions limits for toxic chemicals,” she says. “Now the Trump-Pruitt-Beck EPA has figured out a way to kill the IRIS program: put it under the direction and control of the chemical industry lobbyist running EPA’s Toxics Office, Nancy Beck."
EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nrdc-says-pruitt-plans-shift-iris-toxics-office
-
Oregon Sues Monsanto Over PCB Pollution In Waterways, Soil
Jan 4, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Gillian Flaccus
PORTLAND, Ore. — The state of Oregon sued the agrochemical company Monsanto on Thursday over pervasive pollution from PCBs, the toxic industrial chemicals that have accumulated in plants, fish and people around the globe for decades. The company called the lawsuit baseless.
The lawsuit seeks $100 million to use to mitigate pollution, particularly along a 10-mile (16 kilometer) stretch of the Willamette River in Portland that will be the target of a $1 billion cleanup announced by federal authorities in 2016.
Oregon’s lawsuit cites internal memos and correspondence indicating that Monsanto knew early on about the toxic effects of PCBs.
A 1937 internal company memo said that exposure to vapors at high temperatures or ingestion of the substances by animals produced “systemic toxic effects” and prolonged skin contact could lead to an acne-like rash, the lawsuit alleged.
Monsanto said in an emailed statement that the litigation undermined decontamination efforts in the Portland Harbor overseen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The agency declared the area a “superfund site” in 2000.
“Monsanto voluntarily stopped producing PCBs more than 40 years ago and didn’t use or dispose of any PCBs in the state of Oregon. Cleanup efforts are underway in Oregon with the full group of responsible parties under supervision of the EPA, and it’s most important that everyone stay focused on that work,” said Scott S. Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy.
In Oregon, more than two dozen rivers and streams have tested positive for PCB contamination and fish and wildlife in more than 40 watersheds have also shown signs of pollution, according to court documents.
A variety of fish species in Oregon are vulnerable because the PCBs accumulate in their fatty tissues. When seals, eagles, osprey, orca whales and humans eat those fish, that contamination is passed on, the lawsuit alleged.
In some cases, dead orca whales that washed up on shore have been treated as hazardous waste, the lawsuit said.
“PCBs cause a wide range of systemic toxic effects in humans and animals and can seriously impair the endocrine, neurologic, and reproductive systems,” according to the lawsuit.
Portland’s harbor suffered the most pollution because it was lined for a century with businesses that relied heavily on PCBs for manufacturing, metal recycling, fuel storage, railways and other industrial uses.
PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were used in many industrial and commercial applications — including paint, coolants, sealants and hydraulic fluids. Monsanto, based in Missouri, produced them from 1935 until Congress banned them in 1979.
According to the EPA, PCBs have been shown to cause a variety of health problems, including cancer in animals as well as effects on the immune, nervous and reproductive systems.
Several cities — including Portland, Oregon, and the California cities of Oakland, Berkeley, San Jose, Long Beach and San Diego —have also sued Monsanto over PCB pollution. Washington became the first state to sue Monsanto over PCBs in 2016.
The new lawsuit said that a study included in a 1955 Monsanto internal report that said “the toxicity of these compounds has been repeatedly demonstrated” and that prolonged skin exposure could cause a “serious and disfiguring dermatitis.”
A 1968 study of a waterway near a Monsanto plant characterized the creek as a “potential source of future legal problems,” the lawsuit said.
Yet Monsanto told officials around the country the contrary, the lawsuit alleged. In a letter to New Jersey’s Department of Conservation that year, Monsanto wrote, “Based on available data, manufacturing and use experience, we do not believe PCBs to be seriously toxic.”
Oregon’s lawsuit seeks damages for public nuisance, unjust enrichment and cites trespassing — saying the contamination hurt the state’s natural resources.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/b511586a-f1a0-11e7-95e3-eff284e71c8d_story.html?utm_term=.5f8bad15d166
-
Cancer Label for Roundup ‘False and Misleading,’ 11 States Say
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
California's decision to label a common herbicide as carcinogenic unconstitutionally forces businesses to issue “false and misleading” statements about their products, 11 other states told a federal court.
State attorneys general from the 11 states filed a friend of the court brief Jan. 2 to support a challenge to the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's (OEHHA) decision to list glyphosate as a carcinogen under California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, better known as Proposition 65.
California's glyphosate labeling forces businesses to issue “false and misleading” statements about their products, the attorneys general told the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The labeling also impinges on other states’ laws and rules, they claimed.
“Each state is charged in its sovereign capacity with protecting economic freedom, stimulating growth, and maintaining laws that protect consumers from misleading or false statements,” the attorneys general of Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Wisconsin said. “California's mandate impedes these duties.”
Debate Over Glyphosate
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators around the world have said that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide—has not been found to increase the risk of cancer.
But the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen, a finding that has sparked a number of lawsuits from cancer victims and their families in the U.S.
Monsanto and 11 agriculture and business groups sued California's OEHHA Nov. 15, also on First Amendment grounds.
Monsanto said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment that it welcomed the recent move from the 11 states.
“The unjustified and unconstitutional listing of glyphosate under Prop. 65 would have real consequences for farmers and consumers, including higher prices for all of us at the grocery store,” company spokesman Sam Murphey said.
Several other companies also sell herbicides containing glyphosate, but Monsanto is the only one directly involved in the suit.
Listing is ‘Frustrating’ for Firms
Constitutional claims aren't typically made in Proposition 65 enforcement lawsuits, Paul Rosenlund, an attorney with Duane Morris LLP in San Francisco, told Bloomberg Environment. That's because these challenges almost always occur in state, not federal, court.
Rosenlund, who advises and represents business clients on product liability litigation, Proposition 65, and related matters, agrees with the attorneys that the glyphosate listing has effects beyond California's borders.
Companies “really have no control of where their goods end up,” he said. A Kansas manufacturer could potentially sell glassware with lead, a Proposition 65-listed toxin, to a Missouri retailer, who could then sell the product online to someone in California. That glassmaker could then be liable if they didn't disclose the presence of a Proposition 65 chemical.
“That's an example of a situation that's frustrating a lot of companies right now,” Rosenlund said.
Unbiased Analysis?
Proposition 65 listings also find their way onto other regulators’ lists of chemicals to control as California's OEHHA is considered an authoritative agency.
The Center for Biological Diversity, which supports the Proposition 65 listing for glyphosate, criticized the latest challenge.
“It's distressing when 11 state attorneys general choose to support Monsanto's self-serving claims about glyphosate instead of the peer-reviewed findings of independent scientists,” Nate Donley, a senior scientist at the center, said in a statement.
“But their support for Monsanto cannot change the fact that an unbiased analysis of all the independent research on glyphosate found it to be a probable carcinogen.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990038&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990038&jd=125990038
-
As Bans On Microbeads Grow, Environmentalists Urge Less Use Of Plastics
Jan 5, 2018 | CBS Chicago
CHICAGO (WBBM Newsradio) — Elected officials and activists are celebrating new regulations going into effect to protect the Great Lakes, and they’re vowing to do more as the White House and Congress look to erode such protections.
They gathered today at the Shedd Aquarium, as a federal ban on the manufacturing and sales of microbeads in personal care products goes into effect.
Illinois was the first state in the U.S. to enact a microbead ban in 2014.
Canada also has moved to ban plastic microbeads in cosmetics, toiletries, and other personal care products by July.
Microbeads are tiny pieces of plastic found in many health and beauty products, and are generally used to exfoliate skin or polish teeth. However, environmentalists say they are also a harmful source of pollution, as not all water treatment plants can filter them out.
Shedd Aquarium senior policy director Andrea Densham urged everyone to resolve to use less plastic in 2018, especially single-use products like straws and bags.
Jennifer Walling, executive director of the Illinois Environmental Council, said plastic pollution in the Great Lakes and oceans is a crisis.
Walling said she believes Illinois was the first state to enact a ban, because people of all political stripes love Lake Michigan.
“When it comes to policy, there’s not a lot that Illinois does first. So this was a really big deal,” she said.
Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of the Alliance for the Great Lakes, said volunteers last year picked up 40,000 pounds of debris on Great Lakes beaches; about 90 percent of it plastic.
“Plastics don’t belong in our fresh water,” he said.
U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Mike Quigley, both Illinois Democrats, said this Congress is the worst in history when it comes to protecting the environment, and President Trump is the worst president on the issue.
Quigley and Schakowsky vowed to keep up the fight for the environment.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2018/01/04/microbeads-bans-plastics/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian NGL Storage Hub Group Invited To Apply For DOE Loan Guarantee
Jan 4, 2018 | Observer-Reporter
SOUTH CHARLESTON, W.Va. – A group formed to deliver an ethane storage hub seen as key to furthering regional economic development from liquid natural gas being produced from shale in the Appalachian Basin has been invited to apply for funding by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Appalachia Development Group LLC said in a press release Wednesday it was invited to submit a Part II Application for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee under DOE’s Title XVII Loan Guarantee Program. If approved, it would support the development of infrastructure for the Appalachia Storage & Trading Hub.
ADG acknowledged the invitation to apply for funding represents the first of several steps in the process to secure a conditional commitment and final loan agreement.
The Appalachia Storage & Trading Hub is a proposed underground storage facility for highly valuable natural gas liquids and intermediates. It is a built-for-purpose facility that enables tremendous benefits down range for both business and society.
ADG was formed as a collaborative platform to deliver the ASTH, considered to be industry’s catalyst for the industrial spread associated with the prolific shale gas developments in the Marcellus, Utica and Rodgersville Shales.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the development of the ASTH would serve as a catalyst for the creation of an estimated $36 billion in follow-on petrochemical investments and more than 100,000 new long-term jobs in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky. Proponents of the project, which has been studied for several years at West Virginia University, say it will increase the probability of American energy dominance by releasing the potential of the Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville Shale methane deposits for both domestic consumption and international consumption by America’s allies.
ADG submitted its Part I application in September, and worked with DOE’s loan program office over the last few months. It will work closely with the DOE on Part II of the application process while simultaneously working to secure a $1.4 billion equity position.
“We are pleased to have achieved this major milestone, but we are far from satisfied in our pursuit of a vibrant and growing Appalachia based in sound business principles,” said Steve Hedrick, CEO, ADG and President & CEO of Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research & Innovation Center. “We are grateful for the collaboration with the states in Appalachia, and industry, legal and financial partners.” “There is much work to be done to drive this forward, and our team is strong, prepared and highly motivated to move forward.
“I congratulate Appalachia Development Group on advancing to the second phase of consideration for the Department of Energy’s Title XVII Loan Program,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV). “This is a clear indication of the strength of their application, and it demonstrates the department’s interest in the transformative job creation and economic growth potential of developing an Appalachian market for natural gas liquids. This is another step in the right direction, and I will continue working to help make this game-changing idea a reality.”
https://observer-reporter.com/business/appalachian-ngl-storage-hub-group-invited-to-apply-for-doe/article_1138cdd8-f167-11e7-9912-c702b6604bed.html
-
Jan 5, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
Plans for an underground natural gas liquids storage hub pegged as a major job creator for the chemical industry in Appalachia have cleared their first big hurdle, the Associated Press reported Wednesday.
That’s great news for a potential rebirth of a petrochemical industry in West Virginia and surrounding states; one that is greener, cleaner, safer, more efficient and more modern than the chemical industry many in our region remember.
The Appalachia Storage & Trading Hub initiative got approval for the first of two application phases for a $1.9 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan, according to the AP. Appalachia Development Group, which is heading the project, aims to secure another $1.4 billion through other financing.
An underground storage hub would provide secure sites to safely store high-value natural gas liquids like ethane, propane and butane — prominent in natural gas from the region’s Marcellus and Utica shales — within the four-state region of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky.
Otherwise, those valuable liquids are transported to the Gulf Coast where manufacturers transform them into petrochemical products, creating jobs and revenue in other states. Or worse, the liquids are wastefully flared off because downstream users along the gas pipelines can’t consume the raw liquids in the gas stream.
Pursuing the effort is crucial for West Virginia’s economy. The American Chemistry Council estimates the facility could attract up to $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment and create 100,000 new area jobs.
“I would consider this to be a milestone and a pathway,” Steve Hedrick, CEO of Appalachian Development Group, told the State Journal. “A select few efforts make it through Part I of the loan guarantee program and get an invitation to Part II.”
The initial cost of the project could be more than $3 billion.
“[You’re talking] multiple storage locations with significant infrastructure and piping, storing and delivering natural gas liquids from intermediates to manufacturing locations — it’s not a small list,” he said.
Projects this big don’t come easy, or quick, as Hedrick pointed out in a Daily Mail Opinion column in March of 2016:
“The shale gas revolution has a tremendous opportunity, but ... we absolutely must show resilience, and we need to continue to push and fight for this shale opportunity.”
So, while much work must still be done, the initial approval is great news for growth in the things our region sorely needs — jobs, revenue for local businesses and governments, opportunities for West Virginians willing to work, educational programs, and a general sense of productivity that can help drive away the despair that causes many to turn to drugs and crime.
Congratulations for all involved in the storage hub in making it to this crucial point. Let’s be resilient and keep pushing, for our economic future’s sake.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/daily_mail_opinion/daily_mail_editorials/daily-mail-editorial-plans-for-a-natural-gas-liquids-storage/article_bef7c0c3-67cc-5d8a-91d0-52ed8946f050.html
-
Zinke Open To Tweaks As Plan Draws Strong Reactions
Jan 4, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
Talk about a reversal.
While critics estimated the Obama administration put 94 percent of the outer continental shelf off-limits to oil and gas development, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said today he wants to make more than 90 percent of the OCS open for leasing.
But Zinke said his proposal for 47 lease sales from 2019 to 2024 — the most ever for a five-year planning period — is just a start, and he made it clear he's open to tweaking the proposal.
"Today's announcement lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period," Zinke said. "Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks."
The Interior Department said it will hold public meetings around the country beginning Jan. 16 to receive comments on Zinke's plan, which calls for potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 OCS planning areas, including off California.
According to the Interior Department, the 47 lease sales would include 19 off the coast of Alaska, seven in the Pacific region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and nine in the Atlantic region (Greenwire, Jan. 4).
Zinke said gas and oil drilling had "taken a backseat" during the Obama years but that would no longer be the case.
"Today we're embarking on a new path for energy dominance in America," Zinke said.
With the plan affecting so much of the country, the robust debate Zinke expects is fully underway and certain to intensify.
A key measure will be how Congress reacts, with members getting 60 days to review any final plan.
The Interior Department said 155 members of the House and Senate sent letters to Zinke earlier in support of a new five-year plan. It would replace the current five-year plan finalized last January under the Obama administration and scheduled to run through 2022.
House Natural Resources Committee ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said the new plan would put all coastal communities at risk of an environmental disaster and open up all federal waters except Alaska's Bristol Bay to potential drilling, including areas along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts previously held off-limits by both parties.
"President Trump wants you to know his oil rigs are bigger and work better than anybody else's," Grijalva said today. "This will do nothing to put us on a sustainable energy path or decrease prices for Americans. Trump's plan means more oil drilled here and then sold overseas. Oil companies get the profits while towns from Washington to California and Maine to Florida bear the enormous costs we know are coming."
In the Senate, Louisiana's two Republican senators praised the plan and predicted it will create thousands of jobs for their state.
Sen. Bill Cassidy said the proposal would mean "better paychecks and opportunities for American workers and more affordable energy for their families," while Sen. John Kennedy called it an "extraordinary moment for American energy."
And in the House, Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said he wanted Congress to make it easier for energy companies to use seismic testing as a way to help them locate new places to drill.
"Seismic research is vital to unlocking energy potential off our coasts, and federal red tape is standing in the way," Bishop said.
Bishop also took note of the big differences between the Trump and Obama administrations.
"The previous administration's approach to offshore development started from the premise of considering as little as possible," Bishop said. "The Trump administration starts from the premise of considering as much as possible."
But Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) called Zinke’s plan "an outrageous attack on our coastal economies, culture, and environment."
"Washingtonians want to keep thriving on the coast and I will fight to protect their jobs, communities, and environment," she said.
Among interest groups, reaction broke down along predictable lines, with business groups saying the plan could lower energy prices and boost the economy while environmental groups feared the worst.
Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, said the new plan "unlocks the vast potential of American energy and expands our ability to export oil and gas to our allies around the world."
"For decades, our nation has needlessly limited our own ability to harness oil and gas resources," she said. "This new plan sets a much different course."
The National Parks Conservation Association said it fears the drilling plan could put some of the 88 national parks on coastlines at risk, including Acadia in Maine.
"For the first time in decades, the waters, wildlife and local economies of coastal parks like Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina and Channel Islands National Park in California will be at risk to the dangers of drilling," said Nick Lund, NPCA's senior manager for conservation programs.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/01/04/stories/1060070149
-
Trump Seeks to Open Most U.S. Coastal Waters to New Drilling
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is proposing to open almost all U.S. coastal waters to oil drilling, including those off California and Florida where activists have fought for decades to spare delicate ecosystems from oil spills.
The proposal released Jan. 4 will go far beyond President Donald Trump's April order directing the Interior Department to consider auctioning oil and gas leases in the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans as well as the Gulf of Mexico.
Instead, the Interior Department is proposing 47 possible auctions of drilling rights in more than 90 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf, including Pacific waters near California and Atlantic waters near Maine. The draft plan opens the door to selling leases in 25 of the nation's 26 offshore planning areas, including 19 auctions of the Alaska region, seven in the Pacific region and nine in the Atlantic, including the straits of Florida.
The plan is unprecedented in its scope; no prior administration has ever proposed so many lease sales in a single five-year offshore drilling program. And the Obama-era plan Trump is aiming to replace forces drillers to focus on the central and western Gulf of Mexico with 10 sales there and one auctioning acreage in Alaska's Cook Inlet.
The only region the Trump administration is ruling out now is the North Aleutian Planning Area in Alaska, which had been excluded from leasing by former President George W. Bush.
“Under President Trump, we are going to become the strongest energy superpower this world has ever known,” Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters in a conference call. “We want to grow our nation's offshore energy industry, instead of slowly surrendering it to foreign shores. We will produce enough energy to meet our needs at home, and we will export enough energy to lead the world.”
‘Energy Dominance’
The draft proposal illustrates the Trump administration's commitment to expanding domestic energy development beyond the Gulf of Mexico. Both Trump and Zinke have celebrated American “energy dominance,” and the president has vowed to unleash the “vast energy wealth” of the U.S.
The administration's broad approach may be strategic, because it could force environmental activists to divide their resources and fight proposed drilling off all U.S. coasts -- not just in the eastern Gulf, Arctic waters and the Atlantic Ocean where oil companies are believed to be most interested.
Environmentalists and coastal residents have fought offshore drilling that they say poses too great a risk of oil spills befouling beaches, harming marine life and jeopardizing tourism.
That kind of opposition helped persuade the Obama administration to jettison its initial Arctic and Atlantic leasing plans. Still, the Trump administration's broad approach may make it harder for activists to fight now, by forcing them to divide resources and combat proposed drilling off all U.S. coasts -- not just in the eastern Gulf, Arctic waters and the Atlantic Ocean where oil companies are believed to be most interested.
“This radical offshore drilling free-for-all is a clear example of politics over people, ignoring widespread local and state opposition,” said Diane Hoskins, a campaign director for the marine conservation group Oceana.
All three governors on the U.S. West Coast oppose expanded offshore drilling, and on the East Coast, more than 140 municipalities have lodged their opposition. The governors of North Carolina and Virginia also expressly asked the Trump administration to leave their states out of any new plan, and Florida's governor announced his opposition Jan. 4.
Politicians from Florida united in opposition Thursday, with Senators Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio arguing the government should extend an existing ban on oil development in the eastern Gulf of Mexico set to end in 2022 -- not allow new leasing there. Governor Rick Scott asked for an immediate meeting with Zinke to argue against selling leases near the state.
“The administration's backward-looking approach puts oil and gas profits first -- and will place our coastal communities and all they support at risk of the next BP-style disaster,” said Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh, referring to the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
A First Step
The Interior Department's draft is an initial step in assembling a new five-year schedule for selling offshore oil leases from 2019 to 2024, replacing Obama's plan that spanned 2017 to 2022. The process often begins broadly, with the number of potential sales and the available acreage generally whittled down as regulators work on the final plan.
For instance, the Obama administration originally proposed selling drilling rights in the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans before ultimately abandoning the idea.
The Trump administration could finalize a sale schedule by the end of the year, after multiple rounds of environmental analysis and public comment.
Zinke emphasized that the draft could be narrowed in response to feedback from the public and politicians.
“Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks,” Zinke said in a news release. “The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American energy dominance.”
Oil industry advocates argue companies need fresh territory beyond the Gulf of Mexico, where drilling has been ongoing for decades and the quest for crude has driven them into deeper waters.
National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi called the Trump proposal a “bold and broad” proposal that rightly keeps options on the table.
“Polls have repeatedly shown that most Americans want more energy to be produced domestically, including looking for more oil and natural gas resources off our shores,” Luthi said in a news release. He added that the U.S. has restricted offshore exploration as other countries including Canada and Mexico have stepped up their coastal activities.
It is not clear how much oil and gas exists under Atlantic waters off the East Coast, because existing data stems largely from decades-old geological surveys and more than four-dozen wells drilled in the 1970s and 1980s. Some petroleum geologists examining the location of continents before they drifted apart point to discoveries and development in other parts of the Atlantic Ocean as illustrating potential oil deposits along the U.S. East Coast.
Oil is still being produced from wells off southern California's coast, even though the government last sold leases in the area in 1984.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990039&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990039&jd=125990039
-
Nothing Off Limits Offshore in Trump Administration OCS Drilling Plan, but Protracted Fight Expected
Jan 4, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The Trump administration on Thursday proposed to throw out the rule book for offshore oil and natural gas drilling, expanding leasing to politically sensitive areas including the Pacific and Atlantic coasts.
In a promised expansion of offshore drilling, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said nearly all of the nation’s Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would be considered for energy development, including offshore Alaska, California, Florida and Maine, areas heretofore protected by state legislators and previous administrations.
The leaseholds under consideration in the draft OCS plan for 2019-2024 are far larger than envisioned in President Trump’s executive order issued last year that sought a new direction for offshore drilling rights. The order asked Zinke to consider expanding Atlantic and Arctic drilling.
90% Of Entire U.S. OCS Eyed for Leasing
The 2019-2024 draft proposed program (DPP) would make more than 90% of the total OCS acreage and more than 98% of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas resources in the federal offshore available for future exploration and development. By comparison, the final program in place had 94% of the OCS off limits, according to Zinke.
The revamped program also proposes the largest number of lease sales in U.S. history.
The proposal “lays out the options that are on the table and starts a lengthy and robust public comment period,” Zinke said. “Just like with mining, not all areas are appropriate for offshore drilling, and we will take that into consideration in the coming weeks. The important thing is we strike the right balance to protect our coasts and people while still powering America and achieving American energy dominance.”
The DPP includes 47 potential lease sales in 25 of the 26 planning areas, with 19 sales offshore Alaska, seven in the Pacific Region, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), and nine in the Atlantic Region.
“By proposing to open up nearly the entire OCS for potential oil and gas exploration, the United States can advance the goal of moving from aspiring for energy independence to attaining energy dominance,” said Interior’s Vincent DeVito, counselor for energy policy at Interior. “This decision could bring unprecedented access to America’s extensive offshore oil and gas resources and allows us to better compete with other oil-rich nations.”
The DPP followed nearly 816,000 comments from state governments, federal agencies, public interest groups, industry and the public, Zinke noted. The 2017-2022 Five Year Program would continue to be implemented until the new program is approved.
“This plan is an early signal to the global marketplace that the United States intends to remain a global leader in responsible offshore energy development and produce affordable American energy for many decades to come,” said Interior’s Katharine MacGregor, principal deputy assistant secretary for Land and Minerals Management. “This proposed plan shows our commitment to a vibrant offshore energy economy that supports the thousands of men and women working in the offshore energy industry, from supply vessels to rig crews.”
Inclusion of an area in the DPP is not a final indication that it would be included in the approved program or offered in a lease sale, because many decision points still remain, Zinke said.
Before any individual lease sale is held, Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) would continue to incorporate scientific information and stakeholder feedback in its reviews “to further refine the geographic scope of the lease areas.”
“American energy production can be competitive while remaining safe and environmentally sound,” said Acting BOEM Director Walter Cruickshank. “Public input is a crucial part of this process, and we hope to hear from industry groups, elected officials, other government agencies, concerned citizens and others as we move forward with developing the 2019-2024 National OCS Program.”
More Lease Sales Everywhere
In the GOM, the draft proposes 10 biannual lease sales in the Western, Central and Eastern regions that are not under Congressional moratorium or otherwise unavailable, and two sales in the portions of the Eastern and Central GOM after the expiration of the Congressional moratorium in 2022. The draft plan would offer for the first time since 1988 most of the Eastern GOM Planning Area for lease.
In Alaska, the DPP proposes three lease sales in the Chukchi Sea, three in the Beaufort Sea, two in Cook Inlet, and one sale each in 11 other program areas. No sales are proposed in the North Aleutian Basin Planning Area, which has been under presidential withdrawal since December 2014.
In the Pacific region, the DPP is proposing two lease sales each for waters offshore Northern California, Central California and Southern California, and one for Washington/Oregon. There have been no lease sales in the Pacific region since 1984, although there are 43 producing leases offshore Southern California.
For the Atlantic, three lease sales each are proposed for the Mid- and South Atlantic, with two sales proposed for the North Atlantic and one for the Straits of Florida. There have been no sales in the Atlantic since 1983, and there are no existing leases.
The DPP unveiled by Zinke during a press conference, requires three steps to be taken before the current OCS plan is tossed.
The original OCS leasing program for 2017-2022, finalized in November 2016 by the Obama administration, had, among other things, removed Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas from the program. The Mid- and South Atlantic region also was removed following criticism by coastal communities, legislators and the military. The Obama administration's plan was finalized following a multiyear process, including the submission of more than 1.4 million public comments.
The announcement Thursday is only the first step. The second step, a public comment period on the proposal, is to be followed by Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issuing a revised proposal, which would then have to be finalized.
Following President Trump’s campaign promise to open more of the United States to energy development, Zinke in May signed orders implementing an "America-first" strategy that directed a rewrite of the 2017-2022 OCS leasing plan to give "full consideration" to leasing offshore Alaska, Mid- and South-Atlantic, and the Gulf of Mexico.
Overall, the entire OCS rewrite by Interior could take at least a year. During the course of the process, Interior may remove areas from consideration for drilling, but it may not make additional areas available.
Thumbs Down By Florida Governor
In a sign that the road ahead will be bumpy, business groups and some Republican leaders voiced their disapproval, including Florida Gov. Rick Scott. He vowed to fight efforts to allow drilling near Florida, which is buoyed by tourism.
“I have already asked to immediately meet with Secretary Zinke to discuss the concerns I have with this plan and the crucial need to remove Florida from consideration,” Scott said.
The South Carolina Small Business Chapter of Commerce also was discouraged by the proposed drilling expansion. Founder Frank Knapp accused the Interior Department of favoring oil and gas over tourism.
“What part of the business sector are they listening to? It’s certainly not small or coastal businesses whose livelihoods are dependent on healthy oceans,” Knapp said.
However, CEO Karen Harbert of the U.S. Chamber’s Global Energy Institute, said the draft proposed program would unlock “the vast potential of American energy and expands our ability to export oil and gas to our allies around the world. The plan...is a long-term commitment to securing our energy future, and would help cement America’s role as an energy superpower, creating jobs and contributing to our economy.
“For decades, our nation has needlessly limited our own ability to harness oil and gas resources,” she said. “This new plan sets a much different course, allowing far greater access to offshore areas that haven’t been previously accessible using advanced technology to determine where to safely drill. Even with our remarkable energy renaissance over the past decade, we still import a significant amount of oil. We look forward to helping build support and participating in the process leading to the final adoption of the plan.”
The Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), a national advocate for energy consumers, cheered the draft plan. President David Holt said the proposal would expand energy development opportunities “as part of a rational, balanced, all-of-the-above energy policy” and “recognizes that American energy is critical to maintaining low energy prices for families across the nation, and for U.S. leadership for innovation and technology toward continued environmental progress.”
Because of “record advancements in safety procedures, regulations and technology, Americans can be confident that such development will be done safely and responsibly,” Holt said. “Growing our economy and safeguarding the environment can -- and do -- go hand in hand. The only choice is to stop the political posturing so we can work together on real energy and environmental solutions. Today, we took a big step in doing just that.”
Meanwhile, conservation groups were girding for a protracted fight too.
“The Trump administration’s dramatic expansion of offshore oil drilling is beyond reckless,” said the League of Conservation Voters’ Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director. “Seaside communities, businesses and elected officials from both parties have consistently opposed risky offshore drilling because of the grave threat it poses to their way of life, our climate and local economies that rely on tourism and fishing.”
Oceana’s campaign director Diane Hoskins said the “radical offshore drilling free-for-all is a clear example of politics over people, ignoring widespread local and state opposition.”
Interior also published a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare a draft programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS).
Public meetings are scheduled on the DPP beginning Jan. 16 to comment and help to prepare the EIS. Specific dates, times and venues are to be posted on BOEM’s website. The DPP and the NOI would be available for public comment for 60 days following publication in the Federal Register.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/112956-nothing-off-limits-offshore-in-trump-administration-ocs-drilling-plan-but-protracted-fight-expected
-
'Like Thunder In The Ground': Texans Fear Link Between Quakes And Fracking Waste
Jan 5, 2018 | The Guardian
By Tom Dart
An earthquake, Cathy Wallace says, feels like “a rumble – it’s like thunder in the ground coming towards your house like a train and you can hear it and feel it coming”.
Wallace is not based in California, or in any of the US’s well-known seismic hot-spots. She lives in north Texas, historically one of the country’s least earthquake-prone regions – until the drillers came.
Rampant energy industry activity is nothing new in Texas, but these days it does not only signify oil pumpjacks nodding lugubriously in remote fields. In little over a decade, since fracking began in earnest in the Barnett Shale, drilling sites have become part of the urban landscape in the nation’s fourth-largest metropolitan area, sometimes placed a matter of metres from houses, businesses, churches, schools, parks and the 11th-busiest passenger airport in the world.
It means jobs and income for residents and municipalities, but environmentalists have long expressed concern at the risk of air and water pollution, leaks and explosions. Now there is a growing body of evidence that oil-and-gas related activity causes earthquakes.
Significant new research led by a seismologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and published in November indicates that the spate of tremors in north Texas is occurring on faults that were inactive for at least 300m years. Using a different analytical technique to earlier studies, it backs up previous conclusions that the only plausible explanation for the earthquakes is human activity.
In Fort Worth there are 2,127 pending and approved gas well drilling permits within the limits of the city, which has a population of more than 850,000.
Since 2008, the Fort Worth Basin has changed from experiencing no confirmed recorded earthquakes to hundreds, mostly minor. The likely primary culprit is not hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in itself, but the process of wastewater injection. A common way to get rid of the vast amounts of water that are a byproduct of fracking and other extraction methods is to use disposal wells to push it underground, where it is thought to put pressure on faults.
In the fall an earthquake-tracking website was launched by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas.
It shows that in 2017 there were clusters of seismic activity around prominent oil-and-gas producing regions in west and south Texas, as well as the Dallas-Fort Worth area, home to more than 7 million people and a number of huge dams of debatable resilience.
Across Texas, according to the state oil and gas regulator, the oddly named Railroad Commission, there are 33,541 injection wells.
The new tracking website is state-funded, but environmental campaigners accuse Texas’ Republican politicians and the Railroad Commission of refusing to confirm the industry’s role in causing earthquakes and of not holding it fully accountable.
In 2015, after the much-fracked Dallas-area city of Denton prohibited frackingwithin its limits, Greg Abbott, Texas’ Republican governor, signed a bill that in effect banned the ban by asserting state control of drilling regulations.
In 2016, Ryan Sitton, a senior member of the commission, wrote an opinion piece about drilling and earthquakes published by the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in which, sounding more like an industry advocate than someone tasked with regulating it, he said: “Fear tactics and attention-grabbing headlines don’t serve anyone, and it’s important Texans know that the very same industry putting thousands of people to work, millions of dollars into our schools and roads and money into our economy, is the same one working to keep them and the environment safe.”
A commission spokesperson said that it “has long recognized the possibility of induced seismicity related to fluid injection, and the RRC [Railroad Commission] has in place some of the most stringent rules in the nation to address the issue.”
Critics suggest a decrease in earthquakes in the past couple of years owes more to a reduction in industry activity amid an oil price slump and supply glut than stricter enforcement.
“The new study says they haven’t had earthquakes in this area since the dinosaurs were here, so that’s pretty telling,” said Wallace, sitting in a cafe in Irving, maps of well locations and fault lines spread across the table.
“I think what they’re doing is extremely important and I think it’s the answer to the causation of what’s happening and for our regulators and our elected officials to keep denying it, time’s up.”
The prosperous Dallas suburb, home to ExxonMobil’s corporate headquarters, has gained a reputation as a Texas tremor capital despite its lack of injection wells, with the earth moving seemingly as a consequence of activity in surrounding counties.
“I couldn’t believe that they were doing this in this area with all these people sitting on top of these fault lines,” Wallace said.‘You have to take a stand’Ranjana Bhandari recalls being woken up in the middle of the night by an earthquake about five years ago and not realising what had happened until she saw an item in the news.
She founded Liveable Arlington, an environmental advocacy group, in the functional city of 400,000 midway between Fort Worth and Dallas that is perhaps best known for the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium.
About a decade ago “these drill sites started popping up everywhere”, Bhandari said while driving through the city in her electric car.
Chesapeake Energy, the Oklahoma-based giant, used the Texan actor Tommy Lee Jones in a billboard campaign that implicitly appealed to the patriotic potential of American energy self-sufficiency.
“Everyone was very excited about it, there was a lot of support,” Bhandari said.
“Half the neighbourhood signed up [to allow drilling on their properties]; the others held out for more money. I just thought it was too risky.”
Today, Arlington is pockmarked with drilling sites. “A lot of people feel like they don’t have the right to complain because they signed up for it but it wasn’t really informed consent,” she said.
Liveable Arlington fought a plan by another Oklahoma company to build a disposal well near Lake Arlington, one of the area’s most scenic attractions and a source of drinking water for more than 400,000 people.
Bhandari corralled 3,000 protest letters and amid rising media and political scrutiny the application was withdrawn in June.
Her group anticipates more battles with an industry feeling emboldened after the election of Donald Trump and the appointment of the fossil fuel-friendly Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.
She and her husband moved to Arlington 24 years ago and resolved not to leave despite growing health and safety concerns.
“At some point you just have to take a stand where you are,” she said.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/05/texas-earthquakes-fracking-wastewater-wells-envidence
-
LNG Exports Are Riding High, So What Happens Next?
Jan 4, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
Frackers remain on path to dominate global markets, but the 21st century poses challenges.
If the geopolitics of oil and gas were remade as a clichéd teen comedy, this would be the scene where the former wallflower gets invited to the prom by the star athlete.
Saudi Arabia wants to invest in U.S. LNG.
Aramco, the Saudi state-owned oil company, has begun talks about buying a stake in Houston-based liquefied natural gas exporter Tellurian Inc., The Wall Street Journal reported last month.
The Saudis have dominated global oil for decades from their perch atop OPEC, the international oil cartel. Domestic producers were brought to their knees in 2014 when OPEC flooded global markets in an attempt to put frackers out of business. Their resilience and ingenuity, and plentiful storage capacity, demonstrated to the world that fracked shale can stay in play even when crude hits the floor.
The Permian Basin oil and gas region has particularly caught the eye of the Saudis.
This follows on reports that U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry spoke with Prince Mohammed about U.S. LNG exports during a recent visit to the Middle East nation. Abu Dhabi's sovereign fund, Mubadala, also made a small investment in U.S. shale last year.
Industry experts think that the Middle East oil giants want a better understanding of how our nimble fracking systems work in contrast to the multi-decade investments that have been the traditional Saudi production method. Saudis might also be interested in importing LNG for heating and power, which would free up more of their crude for export.
Crude prices currently hover around $60 a barrel. U.S. production is flirting with record highs. And we're the belle of the oil and gas ball.
If you're looking for a happy ending, this is where you'd roll the credits. But there's just one problem with those clichéd teen comedies. Life goes on after high school, and anyone who peaks in their teen years is going to be in for a rough time.
Looking at decades-long trends, it's hard to be an eternal optimist about Houston's oil and gas economy in the 21st century.
Renewable energy is becoming increasingly cost competitive. Electric vehicles are predicted to become a significant part of transportation, and nations like Britain, France and China are floating plans to prohibit internal combustion vehicles.
This shift away from oil and gas as the key fuel source for cars, trucks or the electric grid has plenty of frackers pinning their hopes on plastics and petrochemicals as a long-term consumer of petroleum. That might not be a sure bet. The bioplastics industry, which makes plastic from sugar cane, wood and corn, is estimated to grow at least 50 percent over the next five years, Bloomberg News reported this week. Companies like Coca-Cola and Lego are looking to plant-based materials, instead of those made from fossil fuels, to feed their supply lines. The environmental impact of plastic has corporations and consumers looking to a greener alternative that can be designed to naturally biodegrade over time.
Environmental pressure also has institutional investors unloading industries that emit greenhouses gases.
At the end of last year, New York announced plans to divest its state retirement fund from fossil fuels. The $200 billion fund has listed holdings in more than 50 oil and gas companies, including $1 billion in ExxonMobil. New York City's comptroller announced a similar plan for its pensions, which total around $190 billion.
Norway has begun dumping fossil fuels from its massive sovereign wealth fund. Dozens of Catholic organizations have announced plans to do the same. And in December, the World Bank said it would cease lending money for oil and gas exploration.
Fracking sites have the flexibility to meet the immediate demand of a dynamic global market. They also have a lifespan of about two years. A city like Houston needs to think in terms of decades and centuries, and that means recognizing the limits to long-term growth in the oil and gas core of our economy. Houston could very well become a 21st century Rust Belt city if we fail to prepare for major changes in the energy sector. There's no guarantee of a happy ending in this. After all, real life isn't like a Hollywood movie.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Popular-oil-12474893.php
-
CSB Offers Tips to Prevent Inadvertent Chemical Mixing
Jan 4, 2018 | Powder & Bulk Solids
A new case study by the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB), “Key Lessons for Preventing Inadvertent Mixing During Chemical Unloading Operations,’ examines factors that led to an Oct. 2016 chemical release at a MGPI processing plant in Atchison, KS and offers guidance on how to prevent similar incidents, a press release announced Wednesday.
A production site for distilled spirits and specialty wheat proteins and starches, MGPI plant experienced a chemical release after sulfuric acid was accidentally unloaded from a tanker vehicle into a sodium hydrochloride tank at the facility. Combined, the materials formed into chlorine gas, which resulted in 140 hospitalizations, a shelter-in-place order, and evacuation orders for thousands of area residents.
CSB investigators determined that several issues led to the release, including the design of the chemical transfer equipment, automated and remote shut off systems, and the site’s chemical unloading procedures.
“High risk operations, like the delivery and handling of hazardous chemicals, require strict adherence to safety protocols. An inadvertent mixture can result in a chemical reaction with extremely dangerous consequences,” said the organization’s chairperson, Vanessa Allen Sutherland, in a statement. “Our findings reaffirm the need for facilities to pay careful attention to the design and operation of chemical transfer equipment to prevent similar events.”
The organization’s final report provides 11 key lessons from the MGPI plant incident and directly identifies safety improvements that can be put in place in similar facilities across the U.S. Some of the major points center on evaluations of chemical unloading equipment and processes, the implementation of safeguards, and accounting for “human factors” in the way operators use equipment.
CSB investigators also suggested that facilities should examine chemical transfer equipment and processes and install alarms and interlocks in the process control system to halt the transfer of chemicals during emergencies.
“Facilities need to work collaboratively with their chemical distributors to conduct a risk assessment and develop and agree upon procedures for chemical unloading to ensure responsibilities are clearly outlined,” said the CSB’s lead investigator for the incident, Lucy Tyler, in the organization’s release.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/CSB-Offers-Tips-to-Prevent-Inadvertent-Chemical-Mixing-01-04-2017
-
BNSF Engineer's Runaway Locomotive Case Chugs On
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
BNSF Railway Co. must face wrongful discharge and tort claims brought by a former engineer who threw a runaway locomotive into reverse to prevent a collision with workers and hazardous chemical tank cars, the Western District of Washington ruled Jan. 2.
A strong public policy—protecting human life—supported James Norvell's wrongful discharge case over his decision to prevent the crash even though it meant damaging the locomotive, the court said.
The ruling rejected BNSF's arguments that the tort claims lacked merit and were preempted by the Railway Labor Act. It also preserved Norvell's unusual state-law “tort of outrage” claim stemming from the railroad's alleged failure to fix the locomotive's faulty brakes.
Norvell was fired in 2015 despite testimony at his disciplinary hearing that BNSF knew the locomotive had defective brakes, the complaint states.
He sued BNSF, which argued that the suit required interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement and was therefore preempted by the RLA.
Here, the strong public interest in protecting the public from harm trumped BNSF's labor contract, the court said.
The outrage claim—which under Washington law requires extreme conduct that actually inflicts severe emotional distress—also was ruled viable.
BNSF's alleged failure to fix the brakes, which forced Norvell to take extreme measures to avoid a collision that resulted in his termination, could arouse “resentment against the actor” in an average member of the community that would lead him to exclaim “Outrageous!” the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington said.
Judge Benjamin H. Steele wrote the opinion.
The Quick Law Group represented Norvell.
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart represented BNSF.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990062&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990062&jd=125990062
-
U.S. Says Washington State Amtrak Derailment Damage Topped $40 Million
Jan 4, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By David Shepardson
WASHINGTON — The damage from a deadly Amtrak train crash in Washington state in December topped $40.4 million, the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board said in a preliminary report on Thursday.
The safety board also said the crash that killed three and injured 70 could have been prevented if a safety technology system known as positive train control had been operational.
The board previously said Amtrak 501 was traveling at 78 miles per hour (126 km per hour) when it derailed, far above the 30 mph speed limit. The NTSB also said it has not been able to interview either operating crewmember due to their injuries from the accident.
The NTSB reported last month that six seconds before the derailment off a bridge and onto a highway, the engineer remarked that the train was speeding. The engineer then applied the brakes but apparently not the emergency brake, NTSB said.
U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, in letters released on Tuesday, urged the nation's railroads and transit agencies to "take all possible measures" to meet congressional deadlines to install positive train control to prevent crashes.Continue reading the main story
Chao said she wanted railroads to "greatly accelerate" efforts to meet congressional deadlines.
Positive train control (PTC) is designed to prevent derailments caused by excessive speed. The NTSB has said several deadly U.S. train crashes in recent years could have been prevented if the system was in place and has for years urged its universal adoption.
In 2008, Congress mandated the implementation of PTC nationwide by the end of 2015, then extended that deadline until the end of 2018 when its installation became more complex than anticipated. The government can extend the deadline to 2020 to complete some aspects of the system.
Amtrak said last month it was "imperative that the rail industry urgently work together to get PTC activated on the national network as soon as possible - and certainly by the December 2018 federal deadline, if not before."
Washington state officials have said PTC was installed and being tested but was not yet been operational on the line where the derailment occurred.
(Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Meredith Mazzilli)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/01/04/us/04reuters-washington-train.html?_r=0
-
EPA's Overdue Ozone Decisions Coming by April
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
The EPA plans by April 30 to complete its final assessment of which counties in the country violate ozone air pollution standards.
States have been waiting for this crucial piece of information, because without it they can't begin to make certain plans to address ozone pollution.
The Environmental Protection Agency missed an Oct. 1, 2017, deadline to decide which parts of the country exceed the new and stricter national ambient air quality standards for ozone set in 2015. Environmental and public health groups sued the EPA for missing its deadline to complete the nonattainment designation process, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave the agency a Jan. 12 deadline to formulate a plan to make those decisions.
The agency would finish designating areas and grading the severity of the ozone pollution at the same time, an EPA spokesperson told Bloomberg Environment.
The announcement came tucked in a notice of availability that is scheduled to be published Jan. 5 in the Federal Register. It said the EPA had reviewed states’ recommendations for which areas have ozone pollution exceeding the 2015 standards.
These reviews, known as 120-day letters, give state air regulatory agencies advanced notice when the EPA wants to modify a state's recommendation for areas that exceed the standards. They also give the public and state air agencies a chance to respond.
120-Day Letter Contents
The EPA sent the letters letters to 32 states and the District of Columbia. In many cases, the EPA opted not to modify states’ recommendations for area designations, including those by California, Colorado, Georgia, and Arizona.
“They generally made the same recommendations that the states made,” Janice Nolen, assistant vice president of national policy at American Lung Association, told Bloomberg Environment.
For example, the EPA informed Arizona that it “intends to agree” with the state's recommendations, which included a nonattainment area around Phoenix.
“Right now, we're very happy with the letter,” Timothy Franquist, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality air quality director, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA disagreed with Wisconsin's recommendation to designate the entire state as having met updated ozone standards. But it took into account the state's argument that much of its ozone pollution came from over the lakeshore, Gail Good, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources air program director, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If you look at the 2008 ozone standard, Sheboygan County was in complete nonattainment,” Good said.
For the 2015 standards, the EPA was able to recommend a partial attainment area for the part of the county that was further inland, she said.
“It seemed like EPA had gone through a detailed analysis,” Nolen said.
Upwind Pollution
One factor that stood out in the 120-day letters was that the EPA was beginning to think upwind pollution, or transport, was an issue in the Chicago metro area, Nolen said.
“We've thought of transport more in the eastern part of the country,” she said.
Controlling pollution from upwind sources would be a new problem for Midwestern states, Nolen said.
“These are things that take a bit longer to think through,” she said. “Will [the tools] we already have help us solve the problem or are we going to have to look at doing additional steps?”
While it's helpful for states to have the information they need to get the ball rolling again, Nolen said, “this delay means the next steps are delayed and people living in this region will be breathing this pollution in longer.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990037&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990037&jd=125990037
-
EPA Critics Ask Court To Make April Ozone Designations Goal Binding
Jan 4, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists and some states are urging a federal appeals court to make binding EPA's goal of completing by April 30 all designations for which areas of the country are attaining or violating the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), a process that the Clean Air Act required EPA to have done by Oct. 1 last year.
In a Jan. 4 filing in American Lung Association, et al. v. Pruitt, et al., now before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, environmentalists suing the agency note that the agency in a Federal Register noticeslated for publication Jan. 5 says it intends to complete the designations process by April 30. Issuing the remaining hundreds of designations would complete area designations for the Obama EPA's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion, allowing states to craft state implementation plans (SIPs).
“EPA intends to complete designations for all of the areas addressed in the responses to the states and tribes no later than April 30, 2018,” the agency says in the notice. This would allow little time to release final designations after the expiration of a mandatory 120-day notice period for states of EPA's intended designations. To date, the agency has issued attainment designations for 2,646 counties, leaving some 450 counties still to designate.
EPA on or around Dec. 20 sent states “120-day letters” informing them of its intended second round of designations, that included all areas in “nonattainment” with the ozone limit. The agency earlier issued designations for most parts of the country, but 120-day letters are a necessary procedural step for areas where there may be some disagreement with states over the designations. EPA for the most part agrees with states' recommendations, but has proposed some additional nonattainment areas as well.
Environmentalists in their filing therefore ask the court to modify their requested relief in order to make EPA's self-imposed goal legally binding. “EPA’s action necessitates a change in the relief that Plaintiffs request. Plaintiffs initially sought a Court order requiring EPA to finalize designations within 180 days of this Court’s Order,” the groups say. “Plaintiffs based this request on a generous calculation that included time for EPA to issue 120-day letters, but because EPA has now issued those letters, that timeframe can and should be shortened to ensure that the public receives protection from air pollution as expeditiously as possible. Thus, Plaintiffs now request that this Court order EPA to complete designations for all remaining areas by April 30, 2018, as the agency itself has proposed to do.”
Their modified request follows a motion for summary judgment filed Dec. 29 in the same court in State of California, et al. v. Scott Pruitt, et al., by states opposed to EPA's delay in issuance of the designations, in which the states also seek a court order making the April 30 date binding.
In related litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, states and environmentalists are challenging the legality of EPA's earlier decision to delay all ozone designations until Oct. 1, 2018, then to withdraw that delay and reinstate the original Oct. 1, 2017 Clean Air Act deadline.
Although EPA says that case is moot, states and environmentalists say a court order is necessary to compel action. The court has ordered EPA to state by Jan. 12 “with precision and specificity” when it intends to issue final designations -- although the agency has yet to do so in any filing in that case, American Lung Association, et al., v. EPA, et al.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-critics-ask-court-make-april-ozone-designations-goal-binding
-
Climate ‘Clubs’ Can Show Faster Results Than Global Pacts
Jan 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Policy makers looking to move quickly to address climate change are increasingly turning to a little-known mechanism in the social sciences called “clubs.”
These clubs, or smaller groups of like-minded countries, can more easily and quickly coordinate policy than partners in big global pacts like the Paris Agreement. Smaller groups of nations are collaborating to address climate-causing pollution in various settings, from a coalition dedicated to phasing out coal to a group concerned with Arctic issues.
“I think The Paris Accord is an extremely important framework, but we need to figure out how to accelerate it,” Catherine McKenna, Canada's Minister of Environment and Climate Change, told Bloomberg Environment.
Governments have been struggling to negotiate global agreements to address climate change for close to three decades now, and now the “America First” policies of the Trump Administration are leading the U.S. to abandon its previous multilateral stance on climate change.
Even with the success of the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer and the nascent Paris Agreement on climate change, some environmentalists say progress is coming too slowly to avert a rapid rise in global temperatures and extreme weather.
“Winning slowly is the same as losing,” environmental activist and author Bill McKibben recently wrote.
Creating Climate Momentum Without the U.S
Led by Canada and Great Britain, the Powering Past Coal Alliance was announced at the COP23 in Germany last November. It supports a phaseout of coal power in developed countries by 2030 and the rest of the world by 2050.
“If the U.S. isn't going to show leadership on climate change, we're going move ahead without them,” McKenna said.
“Countries want to get out of coal, but they need support, both politically and financially,” she said.
The Paris Accord has nearly 200 member states, while the Powering Past Coal Alliance currently has 33 member states—with a goal of having 50 by the end of the year.
Notably absent from the list are many of the world's biggest coal users such as the U.S., China, India, Germany, and Russia. Still, McKenna says programs like the Alliance provide ways other countries can step up, without losing the momentum of Paris.
“Financing this transition is key, and I think programs like this one send a big signal to the market,” McKenna said. “I think the challenge for some counties is to get them to realize that renewables are actually cheaper than coal.”
Economists such as Yale's Bill Nordhaus have pointed out that curbing carbon dioxide emissions requires a massive deployment of new technologies. Those costs, he wrote, are incurred in the present, for benefits that accrue far in the future. And this creates a strong incentive for so-called free riding—reaping the benefits of an action, without being required to contribute to the costs.
Together with other club partners, McKenna feels the benefits of action will galvanize momentum, and provide incentives for other countries to join in.
“I just returned from China, and I can tell you that they are extremely committed to climate action,” McKenna said. “I saw this happen with negotiations leading up to the Paris agreement as well, where you'll have a high-ambition coalition and eventually people will want to join.”
As Canada assumes presidency of the G7 for 2018, McKenna said she thinks climate change will be a key topic at this June's summit in Quebec. And that she is “very optimistic” other countries will be announcing a coal-phase out date before then.
Arctic Ground Zero
According to a new paper in Nature Climate, gains from club cooperation in the Arctic region can realize “nearly 90 percent of the potential for abating black carbon, can be reached by as few as four countries acting in self-interest alone,” said Steffen Kallbekken, research director at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, Norway.
Black carbon refers to the tiny particles produced by incomplete combustion. It's what makes soot dark, an unwanted byproduct of diesel-powered vehicles, forest fires, or burning agricultural waste. And it's the second-biggest contributor to global warming after carbon dioxide.
Black carbon is a particular problem at the top of the world, where it darkens Arctic snow and glaciers, making them absorb more heat from the sun, accelerating melting.
While addressing climate change will ultimately require cooperation on a global scale, clubs like the eight-member Arctic Council can be much more nimble, because they don't require the same investment in complex, expensive institutions as large multilateral treaties.
“It isn't necessarily for a big idea to also have an equally large bureaucracy to yield impactful results,” said Kallbekken.
In the case of the Arctic Council, the pivotal player in climate negotiations is always Russia.
“Russia has a very large potential to reduce emissions,” Kallbekken told Bloomberg Environment. “Ironically, it's the countries like the Nordics and Canada, which have already taken measures to limit carbon, who now have the least leverage to bargain with in climate negotiations.”
The U.S., which under President Trump has indicated it will leave the Paris Agreement, also is an Arctic Council member.
‘Like Trying to Stop a Supertanker’
Compared to carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for approximately a century, actions to reduce so-called “short-lived climate pollutants” (SLCPs) such as black carbon and methane would yield quicker results.
“Fighting warming by just focusing on CO2 is like trying to slow down a super tanker—it takes much longer,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “SLCPs however, are more like a speedboat—once you cut the engine, it stops.”
And that's where so-called “minilateralist” climate agreements are proving their value.
“One of most important things about the club approach is that it disaggregates the broad problem of climate change down into manageable pieces,” said Zaelke.
According to United Nations data, fast action to reduce SLCPs could slow down warming by as much as 1.1 degree Fahrenheit through 2050.
The Arctic Council is playing a key voluntary role by sharing data, which can be turned into solutions on the ground, Zaelke said.
“If we start solving one piece of the problem, and prove it can be done efficiently, then other countries are much more likely to follow along.”
In the U.S. alone, black carbon emissions have dropped dramatically because of regulations on diesel engines.
Other Roads Forward
The U.N. estimates that current pledges under the Paris Agreement deliver only about one third of what is needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
While the Paris Agreement always envisioned national commitments becoming stronger down the road, some governments are using the club model to create new avenues now for cooperative climate action.
As part of their climate action plans, 119 companies—including Google, Facebook, and Walmart—have committed to sourcing renewable energy for 100 percent of their operations through the RE100 initiative.
Other areas for climate clubs include the livestock sector, responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. But until quite recently, farming has been almost completely absent from greenhouse gas reduction targets and carbon pricing.
“Developed and developing countries have disagreed for years about how to treat agriculture in climate negotiations,” said Lini Wollenberg, a research professor at the Gund Institute for Environment.
Emissions from farms include methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, from manure and cattle belching, as well as ozone-depleting nitrous oxide, a byproduct of nitrogen fertilizer in the soil.
For the first time ever, negotiators at the U.N.'s climate convention in Bonn, Germany—a followup to the 2015 talks that led to the Paris Agreement—last year agreed to “jointly address” agriculture emissions by improving feed quality, reducing waste, and better managing fertilizer use.
So while the big global pact is moving to address the issue, Wollenberg said climate funds are playing a more immediate role. The BioCarbon Fund at the World Bank includes projects with a livestock component. Even large companies like the Netherland's FrieslandCampina are creating a group among nonstate actors targeting livestock.
“These multilateral actions attract state attention and build networks that lay the foundation for club-like action,” she said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=125990041&vname=dennotallissues&fn=125990041&jd=125990041
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested