Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 30/01/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) TQL Earns Certification for American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care Partnership Program
Jan 30, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
Total Quality Logistics, America’s 2nd largest freight brokerage firm, announced today that it has received certification as a Responsible Care Partner in the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care Partnership Program. -
Company Plans to Offer Filters to Some North Carolinians
Jan 30, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The company that makes a chemical that's been found in private wells near its North Carolina plant wants to install water filter systems at homes served by those wells. -
National Company That Released Chemical Wants Filters in Nearby Wells
Jan 30, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The company that makes a chemical that has been found in private wells near its North Carolina plant wants to install water filter systems at homes served by those wells. -
Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. Chief, Assailed Trump in a 2016 Interview
Jan 30, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
A year before President Trump named Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, where Mr. Pruitt quickly became a presidential favorite by gutting pollution rules and slashing staff, the former Oklahoma attorney general assailed Mr. Trump on a talk radio show, saying he would be “abusive to the Constitution.” -
Scott Pruitt Once said Trump ‘Would Be More Abusive to the Constitution Than Barack Obama — and That’s Saying a Lot’
Jan 30, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a 2016 interview that “Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama,” according to an audio recording released Tuesday by an advocacy group, prompting questions as he faced the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for the first time since taking office. -
Production of Industrial Toxics Up in 2016 — EPA
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Industrial production of toxic chemicals tracked by U.S. EPA grew 2 percent during the final year of the Obama administration, the agency announced today. -
(ACC Mentioned) On Eve of NAS Review, ACC Questions IRIS' Future Due to Lack of Reforms
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
As the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) prepares to review EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a top American Chemistry Council (ACC) official is critiquing the chemical assessment program for not adopting prior NAS advice on reforming IRIS, though the official stops short of taking a position on whether IRIS should continue. -
#Glyphosate: Hysteria Wins Out Yet Again Over Science and Rationality
Jan 30, 2018 | EU Reporter
By Colin Stevens
Angela Merkel’s inability to form a government since last September’s elections, however, has once again put the European agricultural industry in jeopardy. -
ExxonMobil Plans to Triple Permian Output by 2025, Spend $50B in U.S. Over Next Five Years
Jan 30, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
ExxonMobil Corp. on Tuesday announced it would triple Permian Basin production to more than 600,000 boe/d by 2025, with tight oil output from the Delaware and Midland sub-basins alone increasing five-fold. -
Fight Between Kids and Regulators Heads to Colo. High Court
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Colorado's highest court will hear a high-stakes case that could change the way oil and gas development is regulated in the state. -
EPA Revises Hydraulic Fracturing Webpage
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA has revised its page about hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas production. -
When Pollution Threatens the Health of the Baby on the Way
Jan 30, 2018 | U.S. News and World Report
By Michael O. Schroeder
Expectant mothers as well as women trying to get pregnant, and their partners, already have a lot to think about. -
Rover Developer Defends Methods in Response to FERC Stop-Work Order
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The developer of the Rover natural gas pipeline project in Ohio has come out swinging against federal regulators who ordered a stop-work order last week. -
Saudi Sipchem Mulls First U.S. Petrochemicals Investment
Jan 30, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Abbas Al Lawati and Yousef Gamal El-Din
Saudi Arabia’s Sipchem is considering investing in petrochemical production in the U.S. based on shale gas in what would be the company’s first foreign venture, as it faces higher costs and a shortage of feedstock at home in Saudi Arabia. -
Wash. Governor Rejects Oil Train Terminal
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) rejected plans to build the biggest oil terminal of its kind along the Columbia River yesterday, citing the "unacceptable" danger of an explosion. -
EPA Chief Pruitt Says Environment Should Not Mean "Prohibition" of Oil and Gas, Other Industries
Jan 30, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told senators Tuesday his agency would not seek environmental protections at the expense of the oil and gas and other industries. -
Pruitt Says Ozone Focus on Implementation, Not Underlying Standard
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers today that he has focused more on issues with implementing the 2015 ozone rule rather than the decision to lower the limit. -
Pruitt: 'Once in, Always In' Rule Change Was Policy Decision
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said this morning that last week's decision to end Clinton-era "once in, always in" Clean Air Act requirements was not made by the agency's air experts. -
Carper to Pruitt: 'I Want Real Answers'
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today faced off with Democrats at a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill. -
Pruitt Considering Opening EPA Offices in All 50 State Capitals
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today said he is considering locating EPA employees in every state capital, a move that could shake up EPA’s current system of 10 regional offices. -
Ewire: New Jersey Moves to Re-Join GHG Trading Market
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) power sector cap-and-trade program is restoring a prior member state, after New Jersey's new Democratic governor ordered state officials to begin formal talks to rejoin the market, which currently includes nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. -
Trump Can't Drop Climate from His Speech. Here's Why
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
At least three of President Trump's State of the Union guests can blame global warming for their invitations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Jan 30, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
Total Quality Logistics, America’s 2nd largest freight brokerage firm, announced today that it has received certification as a Responsible Care Partner in the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care Partnership Program. Responsible Care is the chemical industry’s world-class environmental, health, safety and security performance initiative. To receive full acceptance into the Responsible Care Partnership Program, companies must first receive certification from an independent, third-party auditor, verifying that they have established a management system that complies with the ACC’s Responsible Care requirements.
By earning its certification, TQL joins an elite group of approximately 100 companies in the United States that are part of the Responsible Care Partnership program.
“TQL is very honored to become certified as a Responsible Care Partner company,” said Kerry Byrne, TQL President. “This certification helps demonstrate TQL’s ongoing commitment to providing top notch services to our customers and being the freight brokerage firm that does it right. We look forward to working with the American Chemistry Council and other Responsible Care companies on initiatives that could benefit the entire industry.”
https://www.ajot.com/news/tql-earns-certification-for-american-chemistry-councils-responsible-care-partnership-program
-
Company Plans to Offer Filters to Some North Carolinians
Jan 30, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
The company that makes a chemical that's been found in private wells near its North Carolina plant wants to install water filter systems at homes served by those wells.
The Fayetteville Observer reports state records show Chemours wants to put carbon treatment systems in the wells. A state official recommended not implementing the plan or telling residents about it until it receives state approval.
The compound GenX is made at Chermours' plant in Bladen County. State environmental officials have been investigating since GenX was found in the Cape Fear River in 2016.
Chemours has since agreed to stop discharging it into the river, but it has been found in more than 250 private wells near the plant. Chemours has been providing bottled water to homes with elevated levels of GenX.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/01/30/us/ap-us-chemical-river.html
-
National Company That Released Chemical Wants Filters in Nearby Wells
Jan 30, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
The company that makes a chemical that has been found in private wells near its North Carolina plant wants to install water filter systems at homes served by those wells.
State records show Chemours wants to put carbon treatment systems in the wells, The Fayetteville Observer reported.
The compound GenX is used in nonstick cookware and other products and is made at Chermours’ plant in Bladen County. State environmental officials have been investigating since GenX was found in the Cape Fear River in 2016. Chemours has since agreed to stop discharging it into the river, but it has been found in more than 250 private wells near the plant. Chemours has been providing bottled water to homes with elevated levels of GenX.
GenX has been linked to several forms of cancer in animal studies, but it is not known if the effect is the same in humans.
A letter from Department of Environmental Quality’s Division of Waste Management Director Michael E. Scott on Jan. 19 did not say how many homes would be involved in Chemours’ plans to install the filters.
The company had said it wanted to start the work Jan. 22, but Scott’s letter said the department would not be able to review the plan and make a decision by that date.
Scott recommended not implementing the plan or telling residents about it until it receives state approval.
He recommended that the company start with a pilot program at four homes for at least three months while continuing to provide bottled water.
State officials plan to discuss the carbon filter idea at a meeting at Bladen Community College on Thursday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/company-plans-to-offer-filters-to-some-north-carolinians/2018/01/30/1cd79a10-05d6-11e8-aa61-f3391373867e_story.html?utm_term=.da143358997e
-
Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. Chief, Assailed Trump in a 2016 Interview
Jan 30, 2018 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
A year before President Trump named Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency, where Mr. Pruitt quickly became a presidential favorite by gutting pollution rules and slashing staff, the former Oklahoma attorney general assailed Mr. Trump on a talk radio show, saying he would be “abusive to the Constitution.”
In February 2016, speaking on the Pat Campbell Show, a news show broadcast out of Tulsa, Mr. Pruitt was asked if he was a Trump supporter. Mr. Pruitt responded, “No. No, He’s the very ... and you say that Pat but do you know what’s interesting? I believe that Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama — and that’s saying a lot.”
“I really believe he would use a blunt instrument. This president at least tries to nuance his unlawfulness,” Mr. Pruitt said. “Donald Trump has said many, many times they want ... I’ll do this I’ll do that. And those things that he’s mentioned cannot be done. I think executive orders with Donald Trump would be a very blunt instrument with respect to the Constitution.”
The broadcast of one of Mr. Trump’s top lieutenants came to light as Mr. Pruitt testified Tuesday morning before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. As part of the testimony, Democratic senators were expected to ask Mr. Pruitt about the interview. Officials on Mr. Pruitt’s staff and in the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
It was not yet apparent how Mr. Trump, who prizes loyalty in his inner circle, reacted to the airing of the broadcast.
In his leadership at the E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt has often won praise from Mr. Trump as a key executor of the President’s aggressive to roll back regulations on business and industry. Mr. Pruitt was among the most influential voices in urging Mr. Trump to withdraw the country from the landmark Paris climate change agreement, making the United States only nation in the world not party to the accord.
In a sign of the high regard in which the President holds his E.P.A. chief, Mr. Trump has tasked Mr. Pruitt, rather than his Secretary of State, Rex W. Tillerson, with crafting the legal tactics to implement that withdrawal.
Mr. Pruitt’s 2016 remarks appear sharply at odds with his tenure at the E.P.A. Last year, Mr. Trump released multiple executive orders aimed at undoing environmental regulations on air, water and planet-warming pollution. Mr. Pruitt responded swiftly, drafting a list of legal proposals to undo those rules.
However, on the 2016 radio show, Mr. Pruitt said, “This, if Donald Trump is the nominee and eventually the president, he would take, I think unapologetic steps, to use executive power to confront Congress in a way that is truly unconstitutional.”
In an opening statement provided to senators on Tuesday, Mr. Pruitt stressed his commitment to process, rule of law and the Constitution. “E.P.A. will seek to improve its processes and reinvigorate the rule of law as it administers environmental regulations as Congress intended, and to refocus the agency on its core statutory obligations. I am a firm believer that federal agencies exist to administer laws passed by Congress, as intended.”
Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming, the chairman of the Environment panel, praised Mr. Pruitt’s legal actions at the agency. “During the last administration, E.P.A. administrators created broad and legally questionable new regulations that undermined the American people’s faith in the agency. These regulations have done great damage to the livelihoods of our nation’s hardest working citizens.”
Of Mr. Pruitt, Senator Barrasso said, “He has balanced the need to prioritize environmental protection with the desires of Americans to have thriving and economically sustainable communities. His leadership of E.P.A. is vastly different than that of his last two predecessors. Under the Obama administration, the agency had lost its way.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/30/climate/pruitt-trump-epa.html
-
Jan 30, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a 2016 interview that “Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama,” according to an audio recording released Tuesday by an advocacy group, prompting questions as he faced the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for the first time since taking office.
The radio interview with”The Pat Campbell Show” in Tulsa took place on Feb. 4, 2016, at a time when Pruitt — then Oklahoma’s attorney general — was serving as a policy adviser to GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush. Asked whether he supported Trump as a presidential candidate, Pruitt replied, “No.”
“I believe that Donald Trump in the White House would be more abusive to the Constitution than Barack Obama — and that’s saying a lot,” he said. He later added, “I really believe he would use a blunt instrument. This president at least tries to nuance his unlawfulness.”
Pruitt also agreed with Campbell’s description of Trump as “dangerous” and “a bully.”
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Tuesday pressed Pruitt on the newly released comments, which were posted on the website of the watchdog group Documented. The group describes itself as an organization that investigates “how corporations manipulate public policy that harms our environment, communities and democracy.”
Asked he recalled the statements, Pruitt said, “I don’t, senator. And I don’t echo that today at all.”
“I bet not,” Whitehouse responded.
Pruitt came to know the president personally after Trump defeated Democrat Hillary Clinton nine months later. He met with him at New York’s Trump Tower during the transition and has repeatedly praised Trump since, citing his commitment to bolstering the U.S. economy and his willingness to take decisive action to roll back what both men see as the legal overreaches of the Obama administration.
Pruitt is hardly the only ally to have criticized candidate Trump during the 2016 campaign. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) bashed Trump’s rhetoric and lack of experience but has emerged as one of his most reliable voices in Congress.
Tuesday’s hearing was Pruitt’s first visit to testify before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee since he was confirmed nearly a year ago. The hearing marked only the second appearance before a congressional oversight panel Pruitt has made as the head of EPA.
Even another top agency nominee, former coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler, worked as a volunteer consultant for the campaign of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and took online swipes at Trump. In his six-point critique on Facebook in March 2016, Wheeler laid out a skepticism of Trump’s character, business acumen and viability as a candidate that many elected GOP officials and “establishment” Republicans shared at the time. But that criticism ultimately did not deter Wheeler from being nominated for a top agency post.
Watch Pruitt’s live testimony on Capitol Hill here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/01/30/scott-pruitt-once-said-trump-would-be-more-abusive-to-the-constitution-than-barack-obama-and-thats-saying-a-lot/?utm_term=.77e0c687750c
-
Production of Industrial Toxics Up in 2016 — EPA
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Industrial production of toxic chemicals tracked by U.S. EPA grew 2 percent during the final year of the Obama administration, the agency announced today.
But 87 percent of the 27.8 billion pounds of waste created by all the facilities that report to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory was not released because of waste management practices like recycling, said the agency's 2016 TRI National Analysis. It covered releases to air, land and water from more than 21,000 facilities.
Releases into the air and water fell 11 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Land releases, however, were up 11 percent, primarily due to increased disposal of lead from the metal mining sector.
The fall in toxic air pollution is part of a long-term trend. Since 2006, there has been a 58 percent drop in air releases.
"Reasons for these reductions in nationwide air releases include a shift from coal to other fuel sources (e.g. natural gas) at electric utilities, the installation of control technologies (e.g. scrubbers), and the implementation of national and state-level environmental regulation," the agency said.
Environmentalists fear those clean air gains could now be at risk. Since taking office last January, the Trump administration has aggressively rolled back many EPA rules limiting harmful emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants.
Administration defenders, for their part, have pointed to lower emissions as evidence of technological innovation and the need for less regulation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072389
-
(ACC Mentioned) On Eve of NAS Review, ACC Questions IRIS' Future Due to Lack of Reforms
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
As the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) prepares to review EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a top American Chemistry Council (ACC) official is critiquing the chemical assessment program for not adopting prior NAS advice on reforming IRIS, though the official stops short of taking a position on whether IRIS should continue.
"If nothing changes in the IRIS assessment program, I don't see the value of doing that," Mike Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at ACC, said in an exclusive Jan. 24 interview with Inside EPA. "The ongoing discussion" about the program, including the NAS review slated to take place Feb. 1-2 "provides an opportunity for Congress and EPA to consider the ongoing role of IRIS," he said.
But Walls said that ACC, whose staff have long criticized IRIS assessments and the program itself, has "not taken a position" on whether the IRIS program should be ended. Instead, Walls pointed to ACC's priority: fully funding and implementing Congress' 2016 update of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
"We've been clear that a priority for this administration has to be to provide appropriate resources for the TSCA amendments. The proposed budget has done exactly that," Walls said. "We certainly focused our attention in the appropriations process in ensuring that EPA has the funding that's required to carry out its statutory mandates."
IRIS, a program that agency leaders created in the 1980s to ensure various agency programs and regions were using consistent, quality risk numbers in their decision-making does not have a direct statutory mandate. Instead, the risk values that it generates are used by EPA risk managers to make decisions and carry out other statutory mandates.
Walls adds, "I think it's up to EPA management to determine whether other existing programs are returning value that they ought to have."
IRIS watchers inside and outside the agency are preparing for potential major changes to the IRIS program under the Trump administration, based in large part on fiscal year 2018 budget documents from the executive and Congress. Early fiscal year 2018 budget memos proposed eliminating IRIS, but the final budget proposal retained the program although in smaller form.
Report language attached to the pending FY18 bills in the House and Senate, propose de-funding IRIS entirely or consolidating EPA's risk resources in the nascent TSCA program. Both proposals have led to outcry from environmentalists, who argue that moving IRIS from EPA's research office to the toxics office could further politicize the program, which was placed in the research office to distance it from such concerns.
Sources inside and outside the agency raise concerns that if IRIS is subsumed in the TSCA program, IRIS' traditional EPA clients -- the air, water and Superfund offices -- will be left without a source of risk values, particularly as the Trump EPA's final implementing rules for the new TSCA program propose generally not considering legacy uses of chemicals in evaluations.
Asked about this concern, Walls told Inside EPA that he "can't comment on the degree to which other [EPA program] offices use IRIS values. If they are using outdated information, that hasn't been shown to conform with best available science, what are they getting?"
IRIS Assessments
Walls said that his and ACC's members companies' concerns remain with the quality of IRIS assessments. He argued that the program has yet to "really implement the NAS recommendations from the 2011 and 2014 [reports]," referring to prior advice on how to reform and improve IRIS.
For example, in 2011 NAS suggested, among other recommendations, that EPA make assessments more rigorous by standardizing its "approach to using weight-of-evidence guidelines" and more transparent by printing standardized evidence tables in the assessments.
NAS' 2014 report generally praised EPA for its efforts to implement the recommendations, and encouraged EPA to continue its efforts to adopt a systematic review process, which the committee viewed as central to both increasing the quality of the analyses and its transparency. The report also encouraged EPA to complete its then-pending IRIS assessment handbook and to include uncertainty analyses and risk ranges in the IRIS assessments.
"And you know, just in the draft assessments that came out in 2017, the draft assessments for [ethyl tert-butyl ether (ETBE)] and tert-butanol . . . neither those drafts nor the final benzo(a)pyrene assessment [released] in January 2017 deal with how to address the essential question of weight of evidence of the data," Walls said.
The assessments Walls references are the last released under IRIS, though EPA is slated to publish in the Jan. 31 Federal Register its draft IRIS assessment plan for uranium.
The ETBE and tert-butanol assessments are the only IRIS values formally released since the transition to the Trump EPA, which followed shortly after the appointment of new staff leaders for IRIS: Tina Bahadori as director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment and Kris Thayer as director of IRIS. Thayer, who Bahadori recruited from the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, specializes in systematic review.
Asked if EPA's lack of a political nominee leading the research office could be part of the reason for its lack of output in the past year, Walls replied, "The process for filling positions is what it is. I have no knowledge that the lack of folks in those positions is slowing things down. This is not a new problem -- we've seen it since at least 2011."
But Walls also said that just releasing more assessments does not address his concerns. Instead, he said, "Stakeholder engagement is key to any future for the IRIS program. That starts with the [chemical] nomination process. How they engage in [the chemical] prioritization and nomination process."
Further, Walls said that EPA's handbook guiding how IRIS assessments are conducted needs to be updated and released in draft form for public comment, the systematic review process should be documented and "stakeholder feedback ought to be sought" upon it. Walls also wants IRIS to address stakeholder comments in their documents.
Systematic Review
Thayer and Bahadori have given a series of presentations since August, describing their efforts to train IRIS staff in systematic review approaches, apply these to ongoing assessments, and also train staff elsewhere in the agency on the methods. Five IRIS staff have been embedded in the toxics office to assist them with systematic review approaches, Bahadori said in a presentation before EPA's Science Advisory Board last fall.
Thayer and IRIS staff presented a number of the new systematic review tools in multiple presentations at the annual Society for Risk Analysis meeting last December, and also highlighted the expansion of the Health and Environmental Research Online (HERO) database, which contains summaries of all studies referenced in IRIS assessments to the toxics office.
Asked whether he had concerns that the IRIS staff are training toxics office staff, Walls said, "I have no direct knowledge of that. It's interesting to me that one of the things that we've called for in the IRIS program is the systematic review process should be documented and the subject of public comment. If [EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)] is adopting [IRIS' systematic review process, it] should be the subject of public comment. Early in OPPT's guide on risk evaluation there was some mention of systematic review; it would be important to make that available. I don't have an opinion on IRIS folks providing training on it."
-
#Glyphosate: Hysteria Wins Out Yet Again Over Science and Rationality
Jan 30, 2018 | EU Reporter
By Colin Stevens
Angela Merkel’s inability to form a government since last September’s elections, however, has once again put the European agricultural industry in jeopardy. Caretaker Agricultural Minister Christian Schmidt’s (CSU) unilateral decision to swing the EU vote in favour of glyphosate’s re-approval surprised and infuriated the Social Democrats (SPD), with whom Merkel is trying to form a ‘grand coalition’. This “massive breach of trust”damaged the foundations of the current caretaker government and weighed heavily on coalition talks.
It’s not just in Europe that glyphosate divides governments: the very same molecule is responsible for a string lawsuits and counter-lawsuits in California that have attracted national attention and have prompted 11 American states to go toe-to-toe with Sacramento.
It’s hard to believe that the panic and vitriol exhibited over the last few years could derive from a single organization’s study. Yet glyphosate’s most vehement opponents on both sides of the Atlantic point to a sole document to justify their strong opinions: a 2015 report by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifying the herbicidal agent as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. This determination made the IARC an outsider in the international scientific community, as every other major organisation, from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate is linked to cancer in humans.
Senior EU officials, including Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis, were perplexed by the public’s rejection of international consensus and single-minded focus on the IARC findings. This fixation became more troubling as multiple reports called into question the IARC’s objectivity and adherence to standard scientific protocol. In June 2017, Reuters revealed that influential scientist Aaron Blair had known about unpublished data indicating no link between glyphosate and cancer when he chaired a weeklong IARC meeting on the issue, but did not disclose this research. Blair himself admits that knowledge of this research might have altered IARC’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic.
A second Reuters report further illuminated how IARC handpicked research and significantly edited the chapter alleging that “sufficient evidence” existed that glyphosate caused cancer in animals. This determination was a critical finding, without which the IARC would not have classed glyphosate as a Group 2a substance, “probably carcinogenic to humans”. IARC systematically and obscurely removed data which showed no link between glyphosate and cancer in animals. In contrast to other agencies such as EFSA, which makes working documents available online, the IARC reveals little about its drafting process and advised its glyphosate panel to avoid discussing their work and not to keep drafts following the report’s publication.
The IARC’s dubious report not only threatened glyphosate’s relicensing in the EU but provoked serious repercussions in the U.S. as well. The IARC’s Group 2a classification required California to include glyphosate on the list of chemicals “known to the state to cause cancer”, triggering swift and severe consequences. California’s Proposition 65 means that starting in July 2018, any product containing glyphosate will have to carrya “clear and reasonable” warning of its alleged carcinogenicity. Since California’s economy would rank sixth in the world, it is more cost-effective for businesses to include these warnings on all products, not just those intended for California.
Because subjecting glyphosate to Proposition 65 restrictions will significantly hinder the agriculture and industry of any state or country trading with California, eleven states have declared their support for an ongoing legal battle to stop the warnings requirement from taking effect. The lawsuit’s broad array of plaintiffs— the U.S Chamber of Commerce, 11 Attorneys General, the national wheat and corn growers’ associations, several state agriculture and business associations, herbicide manufacturers, and others —underscores the widespread concern provoked by glyphosate’s listing as a carcinogen.
Proposition 65’s shortcomings affect far more than just glyphosate. Its warnings are anything but clear and reasonable; the wording “known to cause cancer” implies certainty, while this judgment is often based on sweeping assumptions. This phrasing alarms customers and causes them to overestimate the risks involved. The warning’s vehemence may even raise First Amendment issues, as businesses are forced to make subjective, misleading statements. Worst of all, the vague warnings do serious harm to industries, yet fail to give consumers any useful information, such as an idea of the actual levels of risk to which the consumer might be exposed. In one absurd example, French fries, targeted under Proposition 65 for a chemical produced when they are cooked, only pose a potential danger to people eating an impossible 182 pounds of fries a day.
Frightened by intimidating warnings and unable to accurately gauge their level of risk, consumers may actually select more dangerous products as substitutes. For instance, consumers panicking over trace amounts of mercury in fish or lead in root vegetables may choose less healthy foods. Low-income people alarmed by warning labels on canned food may be discouraged from one of the few sources of fruits and vegetables they can afford. Banning glyphosate would force farmers to use other, less environmentally-friendly forms of weeding.
Provoking these kinds of consequences with few discernible benefits, or for short-term political gain as in Germany and California, is irresponsible policymaking. Protecting consumers is a laudable goal, but, as Commissioner Andriukaitis noted, must follow a common-sense approach rooted in science, not an emotional one intended to spawn fear.
https://www.eureporter.co/environment/2018/01/30/glyphosate-hysteria-wins-out-yet-again-over-science-and-rationality/
-
ExxonMobil Plans to Triple Permian Output by 2025, Spend $50B in U.S. Over Next Five Years
Jan 30, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
ExxonMobil Corp. on Tuesday announced it would triple Permian Basin production to more than 600,000 boe/d by 2025, with tight oil output from the Delaware and Midland sub-basins alone increasing five-fold.
The announcement followed a blog posting on Monday by CEO Darren Woods, who credited the recent U.S. tax reform as key to boosting domestic investments by more than $50 billion over the next five years. The $50 billion investment includes $20 billion-plus earmarked last year to expand Gulf Coast petrochemical projects.
Citing the U.S. corporate tax reform legislation enacted in late 2017, Woods said there now is “an environment for increased future capital investments,” which are to include more than $2 billion for transportation infrastructure to support the Permian operations.
Several companies have announced plans to invest “here at home,” Woods said, “partly as a result of tax reform, which among other things reduced one of the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world. These positive developments will mean more jobs and economic expansion across the United States in a myriad of industries.
“And it will complement the substantial capital spending in the United States that ExxonMobil has teed up in the coming years.”
Increasing output from the Permian holdings, a massive acreage position spread across West Texas and southeastern New Mexico, is to be driven by reduced drilling costs, technology improvements and “expanded acreage,” said management.
ExxonMobil today is one of the most active operators in the ancient basin, where it has drilled more than 5,000 horizontal wells to date.
To boost its growth, the Permian horizontal rig count is now set to increase “a further 65% over the next several years,” said management. Since early 2014 the Irving, TX-based producer has doubled footage drilled/day on horizontal wells and reduced per-foot drilling costs by about 70%.
“Our geographic and competitive advantages in the Permian position the company for strong growth and long-term value creation,” said XTO Energy Inc. President Sara Ortwein, who runs ExxonMobil’s onshore-focused subsidiary. “We can deliver profitable production at a range of prices, and we have logistics and technology advantages over our competitors.”
A $6.6 billion acquisition last year from the Bass family helped ExxonMobil add an estimated 3.4 billion boe.
“With this production growth, we are well positioned to maximize value as increased supply moves from the Permian to our Gulf Coast refineries and chemical facilities where higher-demand, higher-value products will be manufactured,” Ortwein said.
More Permian production is expected to prove valuable for ExxonMobil supply and feedstocks to Texas downstream and chemical operations in Baytown, Beaumont and Mont Belvieu, and to Baton Rouge, LA.
A recently acquired crude oil terminal in Wink, TX, is to handle Delaware resource near the Texas-New Mexico border, which would be transported to Gulf Coast refineries and marine export terminals.
Plans now are underway to expand the Wink infrastructure to move more production south from ExxonMobil and third parties from the Permian’s Delaware, Midland and Central Basin Platform.
“Those investments, expected to exceed $2 billion, will support short-term construction jobs and long-term positions,” management said.
ExxonMobil previously announced it would build and expand Gulf Coast manufacturing assets as part of its $20 billion Growing the Gulf initiative.
Gulf Coast projects planned by ExxonMobil include an ethane steam cracker at the integrated Baytown facility, which would provide ethylene feedstock for two new polyethylene units at the nearby Mont Belvieu facility. A new production unit at the polyethylene plant in Beaumont is set to increase capacity by 65%, while expansions at Baytown and Beaumont refineries are set to add more than 300,000 b/d of light crude processing capacity.
ExxonMobil and Saudi partner Saudi Basic Industries Corp. last year also agreed to develop a world-class ethane steam cracker on the Texas Gulf Coast near Corpus Christi, a facility that if given final approval would be able to produce 1.8 million metric tons/year of ethylene.
“The recent changes to the U.S. corporate tax rate coupled with smarter regulation create an environment for future capital investments and will further enhance ExxonMobil’s competitiveness around the world,” Woods said. “We’re actively evaluating the impact of the lower tax rate on the economics of several other projects currently in the planning stages to further expand our facilities along the Gulf Coast.” It’s “good to see sound policy laying the groundwork for America’s future economic success.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113208-exxonmobil-plans-to-triple-permian-output-by-2025-spend-50b-in-us-over-next-five-years
-
Fight Between Kids and Regulators Heads to Colo. High Court
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Colorado's highest court will hear a high-stakes case that could change the way oil and gas development is regulated in the state.
The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday agreed to take up a case pitting a team of children and teens against the state's oil and gas regulators. At issue is whether the overseers' longtime approach to balancing the benefits and harms of drilling violates the Colorado Constitution.
An appeals court last year ruled that the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission must first ensure public health and safety before weighing the merits of oil and gas production (Energywire, March 24, 2017).
That approach would drastically change how development occurs in Colorado, where regulators operate with a core assumption that producing oil and gas is in the public interest. State attorneys say that assumption was established by the Legislature when it tasked the COGCC with overseeing development.
Seven youth plaintiffs from the group Earth Guardians took issue with the system in a 2013 petition that asked the commission to halt permitting until "it is proven that drilling can be conducted without adversely impacting human health and safety and without harming the environment and wildlife." The agency said no, and the legal battle began.
The decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals, which sent shock waves through the industry and regulatory community, reordered the priorities.
"[T]he Act indicates that fostering balanced, nonwasteful development is in the public interest when that development is completed subject to the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, including protection of the environment and wildlife resources," the decision said.
In other words, the court found that the state should not balance drilling's economic benefits and public health harms; instead, the state should protect public health first and then balance other positive and negative impacts.
The state Supreme Court will weigh whether the appeals court was correct in finding that the COGCC for years had misinterpreted that balancing test. The state's opening brief is due in March.Heated debate
The state Supreme Court proceedings are likely to add to existing tension between the COGCC and environmentalists, who say the commission has been too lax in permitting new wells and pipelines close to homes in the areas outside Denver. The commission's meetings, including one yesterday, have been packed with speakers for months, and many have said the state's decision to appeal the case shows it's biased in favor of the energy industry.
"We demand you drop your appeal of the [appeals court] decision," Micah Parkin, executive director of 350 Colorado, said at yesterday's meeting.
The commission did not respond to a request for comment on the court's decision to hear the case. Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R), who requested the review, celebrated the news.
"We appreciate the Court's decision to hear this appeal, and provide the necessary legal clarity on this important issue that has the potential to affect numerous state agencies," she said in a statement. "We look forward to having the opportunity to present this case to the Court."
Backers of the youth plaintiffs previewed the heated debate to come.
"The climate crisis and other oil and gas dangers exist because government agencies have illegally used balancing tests and discounting to put oil and gas development above the safety of our children," Our Children's Trust Executive Director Julia Olson said in a statement. "The General Assembly was wise to require the Oil and Gas Commission to prioritize public health and safety. We hope the Colorado Supreme Court will affirm the well-reasoned decision of the Court of Appeals so that the safety of young people and future generations of Coloradans will always come first over the profits of oil and gas interests."
Our Children's Trust, which is representing the Colorado teens, is behind a collection of cases in other jurisdictions pushing for further actions to address climate change, including a high-profile case in federal court in Oregon (E&E News PM, Dec. 11, 2017). Plaintiff Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, 17, is involved in both the Colorado and Oregon cases.
Industry groups, meanwhile, used the opportunity to tout drillers' commitment to safety.
"Colorado's natural gas and oil industry remains committed to working with all stakeholders to ensure that we can deliver the energy that runs Colorado, and our country, with the highest standards and practices of safety possible," Colorado Petroleum Council Executive Director Tracee Bentley said in a statement. The council is a division of the American Petroleum Institute, a party to the case.
Angie Binder, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Association, another litigant, noted in an email that the COGCC already sufficiently considers public health, welfare and safety. The youth plaintiffs, she said, are seeking veto power over the permitting process.
"Martinez proponents know this and wish only to cripple permit issuance by requiring third party validation regarding permit impacts on far reaching issues such as global climate change," she wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072303
-
EPA Revises Hydraulic Fracturing Webpage
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
U.S. EPA has revised its page about hydraulic fracturing and oil and gas production.
The changes went live Friday morning, and the biggest difference is that it's now titled "Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas Development." The page authored during the Obama administration was titled: "Natural Gas Extraction — Hydraulic Fracturing."
Asked about the changes, an EPA spokesperson forwarded a statement that "the term 'unconventional oil and natural gas' more accurately reflects the information on the webpage. The term 'hydraulic fracturing' refers to a discrete process associated with an unconventional oil and natural gas well."
But there are other changes throughout the page.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is a booster of oil and gas, and he's taken a personal interest in what's on the agency website. But the problems with production cited by the Obama administration remain listed on the new webpage. Those include water contamination from spills, leaks from poor well construction and air pollution, including the release of greenhouse gases.
[+] This screenshot shows how EPA's website on hydraulic fracturing appeared before recent changes. web.archive.org
Also, a box offering a way to report environmental violations remains at the top of the page.
But there are a few signs of a more favorable attitude toward drilling. In promoting EPA's role in protecting public health and the environment, the new page adds text about "the economic prosperity from unconventional oil and natural gas extraction."
The old page focused more on the benefits of natural gas, which President Obama celebrated in his 2011 energy blueprint. The new page adds more mention of the benefits of oil. Obama's energy blueprint also touted the benefits of increased domestic production of oil, while also stressing that the country should reduce its dependence on the liquid fuel.
The new page also has fewer references to "hydraulic fracturing" that use the term to describe the whole oil and gas production process. That use of the term is more common among environmental groups and other critics of production. The oil and gas industry and its supporters tend to refer to "fracking" as simply one part of the extended development process.
The page still has references to a controversial, yearslong study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. It includes the study's conclusion: "Hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances."
Industry groups preferred the preliminary finding in a draft study saying that fracturing did not cause "widespread, systemic" problems with drinking water. But those words don't appear on the new page (Energywire, Dec. 13, 2016).
The Trump administration's changes to federal agencies have been closely tracked by environmental and good-government groups because of administration appointees' close relationship to industry and rejection of mainstream climate science.
A study released earlier this month showed that thousands of webpages with climate change information have been removed or buried at agencies including EPA, the Interior and Energy departments, and elsewhere across the government (Climatewire, Jan. 10).
The study from the watchdog group Environmental Data & Governance Initiative tracked a year of editing of government websites and has found a drastic overhaul of public information on climate change during the Trump administration. Information that has been removed or buried includes research such as climate mitigation strategies for cities and states, a student's guide to climate change, and the benefits of renewable energy.
Files obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund and recently released outline that Pruitt made specific requests about sites involving the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan (Greenwire, Jan. 29). The files list webpages related to climate change that EPA removed or modified last April. EDF found that more than 700 webpages and 1,200 files, such as PDFs, were removed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072331
-
When Pollution Threatens the Health of the Baby on the Way
Jan 30, 2018 | U.S. News and World Report
By Michael O. Schroeder
Expectant mothers as well as women trying to get pregnant, and their partners, already have a lot to think about.
Experts recommend doing everything possible to be in optimal health, from exercising to eating right, as well taking a folic acid supplement to reduce the risk for birth defects like spina bifida. But one widespread threat to the health of the child that research is still sorting out – and which is far more difficult to control – is pollution.
“We recognize that the conditions in which women live are very important in terms of the outcomes of their health and the newborn baby’s health,” says Dr. Paul Jarris, chief medical officer for the March of Dimes, a nonprofit focused on improving the health of mothers and babies, including reducing preterm birth rates and infant mortality. “Pollution is a very ubiquitous thing, and there are things that both individuals can do – such as eliminating smoking or secondary air smoke – and there are things that we as society must do to limit the general air pollution that people are exposed to.”
The impact of pollution on the health of people directly exposed to it has been widely studied. Air pollution – like particulate matter, or extremely small particles and droplets, found in smoke – is blamed for everything from exacerbating asthma and other breathing and lung problems to raising cardiovascular risk. Now researchers are trying to get a better handle on how exposure to pollution during pregnancy – and in some cases, immediately before a woman becomes pregnant – can impact the health of the child.
Janet Currie, a health economist and director of the Center for Health and Wellbeing at Princeton University, has been looking closely at how exposure to pollution during pregnancy might affect infant health. One big polluter: Idling cars are a problem particularly for people who live around toll plazas, where bottlenecks of running vehicles spew pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxides. Past research Currie led on traffic congestion and infant health found the introduction of electronic toll collection using E-ZPass in New Jersey and Pennsylvania – which allowed cars to whiz through, rather than having to stop to pay a toll – was associated with a 40 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions and an 11 percent decrease in nitrous oxide emissions. “That had a positive effect on infant health,” she says. Namely, the incidence of babies being born at a low birth weight declined by 12 percent among mothers who lived within 2 kilometers (or about 1 1/4 miles) of a toll plaza. Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy can increase the risk of premature birth and a baby being born at a low birth weight, the March of Dimes notes on its website. The organization notes that "premature birth is birth that happens too soon, before 37 weeks of pregnancy. Low birth weight is when a baby is born weighing less than 5 pounds, 8 ounces.”
Low birth weight has been shown to raise the risk for issues ranging from infant mortality to asthma, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to lower marks in school. And a study published in The Journal of Pediatrics in December found a link between a woman's exposure to a higher level of particulate matter – particularly in the month before and after conception – and a modest increase in the risk of having a baby with birth defects like cleft palate; "the potential impact on a population basis is noteworthy because all pregnant women have some degree of exposure" to particulate matter, the researchers noted .
Another recent study, which Currie led, evaluated the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking – a method used to extract natural gas and oil that involves forcing water and chemicals into shale rock to fracture it – on infant health. With fracking, “because it’s a new industry … you can use that to try and identify the effects of being close to the pollution source. So I see it very much as being part of a program of research trying to look at the effects of pollution on infant health,” Currie says. The study was published in the journal Science Advances in December.
She and fellow researchers found there was an increase of about 25 percent in the incidence of low birth weight babies born to mothers living within one kilometer (about 0.6 miles) of fracking sites in Pennsylvania compared to mothers who live more than 3 kilometers (or more than about 2 miles) from a fracking site. “We found that living really close to one of these fracking sites had a significant and quite large negative effect,” she says. According to researchers' estimates, about 29,000 infants in the U.S. were born to mothers living within one kilometer of an active fracking site within a year's time (between July 2012 and 2013).
Researchers also found a decline in average birth weight of children, extending to women who lived from one to three kilometers from the fracking site. “We found evidence for negative health effects of in utero exposure to fracking sites within 3 km of a mother’s residence, with the largest health impacts seen for in utero exposure within 1 km of fracking sites,” the researchers note. No effects were found for people living farther than three kilometers away.
Among the study’s limitations is that it didn’t examine the mechanism, or what caused the negative health effects on infants. “The pathway of exposure was not a subject of our study and is not known with certainty,” the researchers noted. “The results of our study are consistent with the possibility that very local air pollution, perhaps from the multiple diesel generators used at well sites, from chemicals used in fracking, or even from truck traffic to and from sites, could be a potential key source of exposure.”
Industry officials contested the study’s findings. “This report highlights a legitimate health issue across America that has nothing to do with natural gas and oil operations,” the American Petroleum Institute, a trade association representing the oil and gas industry, said in a statement. “It fails to consider important factors like family history, parental health, lifestyle habits, and other environmental factors and ignores the body of scientific research that has gone into child mortality and birth weight.”
Pollution Outside – and Inside – the Home
Health experts say it’s not just outdoor air pollution that’s of concern, either; indoor air pollution, ranging from carbon monoxide to radon, poses a threat, as well.
As researchers continue to try to better grasp how pollution might affect infant health, there are some things expectant moms and dads can do at home:Avoid not only smoking but secondhand and even what’s called thirdhand smoke: “That could include even having the smoke on people’s clothing, if they don’t smoke in front of a pregnant woman,” Jarris points out.If you’re concerned about high levels of outdoor pollution, keep the home sealed. If it’s hot outside, running air conditioning, rather than opening windows, may help – though it’s not foolproof, particularly in homes that aren’t so airtight.Use a carbon monoxide detector in your home, and make sure it’s always in good, working order. “Carbon monoxide is particularly toxic during pregnancy and to newborns,” Jarris notes.Have the home tested for lead, radon, mold and asbestos, he says. Call your local health department if you’re not sure where to start; and if you have any health concerns about pollution, tell your doctor. Among the threats, “Lead is a neurotoxin. So particularly for infants before birth and after birth when the brain is dramatically developing, that lead can be toxic to the development of the brain,” Jarris notes. "It can result in severe developmental delays … lowering the IQ and it can also result in lower ability to learn in the school [and] behavioral problems.”
When it comes to protecting infant health, the would-be father’s exposure to pollution should be considered, too. “It’s not just Mom’s preconception environment but Dad’s as well,” which should be taken into account, says Kaylon Bruner-Tran, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
It’s clear that where parents live – and work – matters when it comes to how pollution exposure leading up to or during pregnancy may affect an infant’s health, adds Kevin Osteen, professor of obstetrics and gynecology and director of the Women’s Reproductive Health Center at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.
“You live where you live,” Jarris says – and many don’t have the financial wherewithal to simply move away from a major polluter. “One of the things that determines how much people get exposed to pollution is definitely their income,” Currie notes. Such limitations that make it more difficult to avoid or minimize pollution exposure is all the more reason, health experts say, the issue can’t be tackled solely by making individual changes but must be addressed on a societal level.
https://health.usnews.com/health-care/patient-advice/articles/2018-01-30/when-pollution-threatens-the-health-of-the-baby-on-the-way
-
Rover Developer Defends Methods in Response to FERC Stop-Work Order
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
The developer of the Rover natural gas pipeline project in Ohio has come out swinging against federal regulators who ordered a stop-work order last week.
The company argues that drilling fluid losses experienced during construction of a tricky river crossing are routine and that any changes to the project would cause more environmental damage or rob the natural gas market of badly needed fuel.
"Rover Pipeline LLC is frustrated by the inaccurate central premise underlying the letter received from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission," company officials said Sunday in response to an order issued last week to stop hydraulic directional drilling, or HDD, work under the Tuscarawas River.
FERC had directed Rover, a subsidiary of Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, to cease drilling operations at the site while it reconsidered the geologic conditions and construction approach that had led to a loss of about 200,000 gallons of drilling mud down a borehole. Such losses occur when drilling fluid escapes into geologic formations instead of flowing back through the intended pathway. The drilling mud can make its way back to the surface in what is known as an "inadvertent return," contaminating waterways and other environments (Energywire, Jan. 24).
The river crossing is the second of two parallel pipelines that Rover is laying as part of a $4.2 billion, 713-mile project to carry shale gas from the Marcellus region to delivery points in Ohio, Michigan and Canada. Last spring, the company experienced a similar loss of drilling mud during work on the first river crossing. That incident led to 2 million gallons of the substance seeping up into a high-quality wetland nearby. Remediation of that spill is ongoing, and FERC is investigating a possible criminal violation of the company's permit terms.
In its response to FERC's stop-work order, Rover took issue with the commission's characterization of the new loss of drilling mud as an urgent issue, and accused the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency of playing politics with the situation.
"Both the Commission and Rover fully expected the loss of drilling fluids during the HDD on Rover," the company said in the letter, describing a series of responses mapped out in advance in the case of partial or complete fluid losses.
"Most relevant here, the responses set forth in the plans when returns are lost do not call upon Rover to halt the drill and stop construction," the company said. "If this was and is the expectation here or on any pipeline, then no crossing methodology ... can proceed." Rover added that FERC's HDD drilling consultant for the project said that even a well-designed use of the technology should anticipate drilling losses of around 20 percent.
Chris Sonneborn, Energy Transfer Partners' senior vice president of engineering, then took aim at the Ohio EPA, which pushed FERC to stop drilling work while the situation is reassessed. The state agency has made numerous complaints about the company's operations in Ohio both in its tunneling work and in managing issues like stormwater runoff and damage to landowners' property along the route.
"Throughout this process, Ohio EPA has actively sought to stop Rover's progress by spreading false information and innuendo and seeking to compel [FERC Office of Energy Projects] staff to halt construction" while allowing another pipeline company and a state agency to proceed with crossings of the same river, Sonneborn said.
"These are not the actions of an agency truly seeking to protect the environment," he added.Other approaches won't work
After stating its case to be allowed to proceed with the current plans, Rover responded to information requests from FERC about options to use a different river-crossing approach, to reroute the pipeline to a location where there might be different underlying rock formations, or to skip the second river crossing entirely.
None of those options is promising, Rover concluded. Altering the drilling plan would increase the project's environmental footprint without offering significantly better tunneling prospects, it said, while skipping the second tunnel and routing all shipments for the second pipeline through the already-constructed river crossing would unduly restrict natural gas deliveries.
"As the recent prolonged cold period in [the] Northeast showed, the nation is relying more and more on natural gas to feed electric generation," the company said. "As that continues, the country will need more and more interstate natural gas pipeline capacity to meet this ever-increasing demand.
"Simply put, Rover is fully compliant with the FERC approved Plans. And it remains Rover's intent to cooperate as fully as possible with the Commission in order to complete this process and bring these badly needed gas supply [sic] to market."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072291
-
Saudi Sipchem Mulls First U.S. Petrochemicals Investment
Jan 30, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Abbas Al Lawati and Yousef Gamal El-Din
Saudi Arabia’s Sipchem is considering investing in petrochemical production in the U.S. based on shale gas in what would be the company’s first foreign venture, as it faces higher costs and a shortage of feedstock at home in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi International Petrochemical Co., may seek a U.S. partner in its effort to tap into the booming shale industry, Chief Executive Officer Ahmad Al Ohali said in a Bloomberg television interview. Sipchem would initially use cash to pay for the project instead of borrowing money, he said.
“Our really big potential is more into the basics in the United States based on shale gas, and we are looking into this area,” Al Ohali said. “It’s not going to be easy because we don’t know the business landscape in the U.S., but definitely we are targeting hopefully to do something this year.”
The surge in U.S. shale oil and gas output in recent years has slashed America’s reliance on imported energy, threatening the market share of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the group’s biggest member, Saudi Arabia. OPEC’s Saudi-led drive to squeeze rival producers by opening the taps on supply led prices to plummet from more than $115 a barrel in 2014. The effort failed to stop shale drillers. While OPEC and allied producers changed course and began cutting supply last year, prices haven’t risen much past $70.‘Limited’ Growth
Sipchem is seeking international opportunities amid “very limited” growth prospects in the kingdom due to a lack of feedstock for basic products, Al Ohali said. The Saudi government’s increase in feedstock prices two years ago was “a wakeup call for our industry,” he said.
The company, which has a market value of 6.9 billion riyals ($1.84 billion), reported a fourth quarter profit of 164.4 million riyals on revenue of 1.28 billion riyals, beating estimates. Its shares have gained 7.3 percent this month, compared with a 4.9 percent rise in the Tadawul benchmark All Share Index, and were little changed at 18.72 riyals in Riyadh at 11:55 a.m. local time.
Sipchem should benefit from a shortage of methanol in China, he said. “That’s going to make some imbalance in supply and demand globally despite the new capacity that came in the United States.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-30/saudi-sipchem-mulls-u-s-shale-venture-in-first-foreign-foray
-
Wash. Governor Rejects Oil Train Terminal
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) rejected plans to build the biggest oil terminal of its kind along the Columbia River yesterday, citing the "unacceptable" danger of an explosion.
The proposed facility, a joint venture between the refiner Andeavor and fuel logistics firm Savage Cos., would have unloaded 360,000 barrels of crude oil from rail tank cars onto barges each day at the Port of Vancouver in southwest Washington state.
"I am seriously concerned by the risk that a potential fire or explosion at the facility may pose to workers and the community," Inslee said in a letter announcing his decision.
A series of oil train derailments and explosions dating back to a deadly crash in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in July 2013 brought heightened scrutiny on the Andeavor/Savage proposal and others like it (Energywire, March 20, 2015).
The governor also cited oil spill and earthquake hazards, noting that "seismic conditions at the site present an unacceptable and potentially catastrophic risk to the public."
Environmentalist and tribal groups swiftly hailed Inslee's decision, pointing to years of protests and thousands of public comments against the project. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune called it a "historic victory" on the path to opposing all new fossil fuel projects in Washington state.
Matt Krogh, director for the green group Stand.earth's extreme oil campaign, said the decision marked a "tipping point" pairing public awareness with political action. "State and local leaders are willing to take a stand with people who are opposing these projects," he said.
Andeavor and Savage, pitching the oil train terminal together under their Vancouver Energy USA subsidiary, touted its potential economic benefits while pledging to exceed federal safety standards for oil trains serving the facility. The companies agreed to spruce up the tank car fleet with sturdier, newer-model cars and promised to ship unrefined crude only to U.S. companies as a condition of their lease, among other steps.No 'rubber stamp'
State, local and tribal leaders soured on the project as its review process played out in recent years.
Jaime Pinkham, executive director of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, welcomed Inslee's decision to reject the terminal, noting that the Yakama Nation and Umatilla Tribe "vigorously asserted the interests of the Columbia River and those who depend on it" throughout the past five years. "Today's denial is based on real risks to our communities and the Columbia River," said Pinkham, whose group helps manage fisheries for four tribal nations in the region.
Last November, a panel of state energy regulators concluded that those risks outweighed the potential benefits of the project and urged Inslee to deny Vancouver Energy USA's application (Greenwire, Nov. 29, 2017).
Andeavor, formerly Tesoro Corp., and Savage have until the end of February to appeal the governor's decision. Authorities at the Port of Vancouver voted earlier this month to terminate Vancouver Energy USA's lease by March 31 if they could not come up with the necessary regulatory approvals for the oil train terminal, which would have provided a new outlet for light crude from North Dakota's shale oil fields.
Port CEO Julianna Marler said in a statement that she was not surprised by the governor's move, based on the unanimous recommendation of the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. "We appreciate the Governor's recognition of our important role in regional trade and we will continue to fulfill that role," she said.
A spokeswoman for the port noted that the site is in ongoing discussions with other potential lessees for Terminal 5, where the oil train terminal would have been located.
"Most people think of these as rubber-stamp projects. They think they will inevitably be built," said Krogh of Stand.earth. "All these wins on the West Coast over the last three years have shown that this is no longer true."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072325
-
EPA Chief Pruitt Says Environment Should Not Mean "Prohibition" of Oil and Gas, Other Industries
Jan 30, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told senators Tuesday his agency would not seek environmental protections at the expense of the oil and gas and other industries.
"I think one of the greatest challenges we have as a country on environmental issues is the attitude environmental protection is prohibition. I don't believe that," he said. "I believe we have been blessed as a country with tremendous natural resources that we can use to feed the world and power the world."
During his appearance before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Pruitt clashed with Democratic senators who criticized the administration's year long campaign to roll back environmental regulations.
Sen. Tom Carper, D-Delaware, questioned whether Pruitt planned to undo the EPA's finding greenhouse gas emissions pose a risk to public health, which in effect requires the agency to regulate those emissions.
"There is no decision or determination on that," Pruitt said.
Later in the hearing, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., quipped, "I get the impression they don't like you."
"At least one," Pruitt replied.
But the former Oklahoma attorney general found like minds in Senate Republicans. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, chairman of the environment committee, said Pruitt had likely done more to aid the economy and increase jobs than "any other EPA administrator in history."
"The prior administration wanted to put coal out of business," he said. "The EPA under Administrator Pruitt's leadership is on the right track."
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/EPA-chief-Pruitt-says-environment-should-not-mean-12536515.php
-
Pruitt Says Ozone Focus on Implementation, Not Underlying Standard
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told lawmakers today that he has focused more on issues with implementing the 2015 ozone rule rather than the decision to lower the limit.
Pruitt noted at a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing that there has been great debate over the Obama administration rule that lowered the ozone standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb. But, he added, “that’s not been our focus.”
Instead, he said, EPA has put its resources into various implementation issues. That includes finishing attainment designations, which Pruitt said could be wrapped up by April. He said EPA is also working on “exceptional events,” natural occurrences of high ozone levels, and ozone that floats into the U.S. from abroad, especially China.
A lawsuit over the 2015 ozone rule has been on hold since last year. EPA said earlier this month that it may still revise the rule.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Pruitt: 'Once in, Always In' Rule Change Was Policy Decision
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said this morning that last week's decision to end Clinton-era "once in, always in" Clean Air Act requirements was not made by the agency's air experts.
"That was a decision that was made outside of the program office of air. It was a policy office decision," Pruitt told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The comment came in response to a question from Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the committee, about whether the agency conducted an analysis of the potential health effects of the policy change.
"I find it incredible that EPA did this seemingly without knowing or caring about potential health effects of its action," Carper said.
The "once in always in," codified in now revoked 1995 policy guidance, was designed to prevent major emitters like power plants and factories from getting out of tough requirements to limit their toxic air emissions. It required that any emitter that qualified as a "major" source of hazardous air pollutants would permanently be subject to that tougher standard to comply with MACT rules, even if its emissions dropped low enough to be considered an "area" source subject to fewer or no requirements.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Carper to Pruitt: 'I Want Real Answers'
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today faced off with Democrats at a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill.
Pruitt testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this morning, his first time before the panel since his confirmation hearing in January 2017. Ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.) pressed the EPA chief to meet more often with lawmakers in a public forum.
"You can do better, and it's important that you do," Carper said, noting Pruitt's predecessors in the Obama administration had come before the committee several times.
Carper criticized Pruitt for several actions he has taken at EPA — delaying environmental rules, removing science advisers and taking down climate science webpages. The senator also said Pruitt had been "repeatedly misrepresenting the truth about President Obama's record."
"Stop doing it," Carper said, adding that Pruitt should spare senators platitudes at today's hearing. "I want real answers," said the Delaware senator.
Pruitt defended how he has run the agency over the past year, emphasizing his focus on the rule of law, process and federalism, with EPA partnering with states.
"I don't believe environmental protection is putting up fences," Pruitt said in his opening statement, in which he also asked for senators' help on his "war on lead" to eradicate the toxin from drinking water.
Pruitt won praise from Republicans for his work in reversing EPA rules. Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said, "The administration's deregulatory approach is working."
Barrasso heralded job growth under the Trump administration as Pruitt has addressed the agency's regulations.
"Administrator Pruitt, the reward for good work is often more work, and I don't need to tell you that we've got a lot of work left to do," Barrasso said.
Pruitt was pressed repeatedly for short answers from Democrats on several issues. In turn, the EPA administrator tried to offer longer responses, often leading to interruptions and cross-talk.
Carper asked Pruitt whether the agency had conducted a health analysis or studied which facilities would emit more pollution related to the EPA chief's move to end the "once in always in" Clinton-era policy that targeted industrial air pollution.
"These are not yes-or-no answers. I have to explain what we did with that decision," Pruitt said.
Carper also asked Pruitt whether he would ax the agency's endangerment finding concluding that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were harmful to human health and welfare by contributing to climate change. That finding has been the basis of the agency's climate rules.
"For as long as you are administrator, do you commit not to take any steps to repeal or replace the so-called endangerment finding?" Carper asked. "Yes or no, do you plan to take any steps to repeal or replace the endangerment finding, yes or no?"
"There is no decision or determination on that," Pruitt said.
Other Democrats looked to poke holes in Pruitt's tenure so far at EPA.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) noted the Trump administration has proposed to cut funding for an agency lead reduction program. In addition, Pruitt has moved toward revising a rule intended to limit the amount of lead and copper in drinking water.
"This does not sound like a war on lead," Duckworth said.
That exchange prompted a quip from Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a Pruitt ally.
"I get the impression they don't like you," Inhofe said, eliciting laughs from the audience.
Other issues raised today didn't touch on EPA directly. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) brought up a 2016 interview Pruitt, then Oklahoma attorney general, gave to a local radio station. Pruitt made several disparaging remarks about then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying he would be "more abusive to" the Constitution than President Obama (see related story).
"Do you recall saying that?" Whitehouse said.
"I don't, senator. I don't echo that today at all," Pruitt said.
Senators also asked about issues important to their constituents. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) asked the EPA chief for a timeline on the agency's rewrite of the Waters of the U.S. rule, which has sparked a backlash from farming groups.
"We are providing regulatory certainty because we are taking steps to provide a substitute for WOTUS," Pruitt said.
Pruitt said he expects EPA will propose a substitute rule in April or May this year.
Both Sens. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) asked Pruitt about EPA's move to end agency funding for the Bay Journal, a newspaper that focuses on the Chesapeake Bay.
Pruitt said that decision is under review.
"The decision should not have been made the way it was, so it is already under reconsideration," Pruitt told Cardin.
Van Hollen cited reporting by E&E News that found the involvement of Trump political appointees in ending the EPA grant for the newspaper (Greenwire, Jan. 4). The Maryland senator said Pruitt should keep politics out of such funding decisions.
"We should have never gotten to this point where EPA is making politically driven decisions on contracts," Van Hollen said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072395
-
Pruitt Considering Opening EPA Offices in All 50 State Capitals
Jan 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today said he is considering locating EPA employees in every state capital, a move that could shake up EPA’s current system of 10 regional offices.
“One of the things that we ought to engage in as far as a collaborative discussion is whether to locate operational units in each of the state capitals across this country to ensure there’s a focus on issues that are specific to that state. Superfund, air issues, water issues, the rest,” Pruitt told Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) at a Senate Environment and Public Works hearing.
Pruitt did not specify whether the 50 state capital offices would completely or partially replace EPA’s existing regional offices. And he cautioned that EPA has only “just begun this discussion internally” but said he is interested in talking with Congress “about what makes sense.”
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Ewire: New Jersey Moves to Re-Join GHG Trading Market
Jan 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) power sector cap-and-trade program is restoring a prior member state, after New Jersey's new Democratic governor ordered state officials to begin formal talks to rejoin the market, which currently includes nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.
The move, reported by Bloomberg, has been long expected since Gov. Phil Murphy (D) won a decisive victory in November's election. The decision would reverse the 2011 withdrawal by former Gov. Chris Christie (R).
“New Jersey has not been a partner to our neighbor states in advancing the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” Murphy said in a statement, adding that the Garden State has lost out on $279 million in revenue from GHG credit auctions since Christie withdrew from the program.
A founding member of RGGI, the Garden State has existing statutory authority to participate in that market, so Murphy's move does not need new action by the state's legislature. Nevertheless, lawmakers are advancing a bill that would essentially require the state to participate in the carbon trading program, forcing a future governor to ask the legislature for approval before pulling out.
New Jersey's action comes as Virginia officials are crafting a regulation to “link” with RGGI by 2020, a move that would significantly expand the market and create the first GHG cap-and-trade program in the South.
However, another Democratic governor in the Mid-Atlantic, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf, is not as keen on RGGI.
He told reporters last week that he does not “remember” a 2014 pledge to join the market, even though that promise was explicitly included on his campaign website.
Environmentalists have criticized Wolf's lack of any action to fulfill his RGGI pledge, as well as his refusal to join an alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris climate agreement in the face of President Donald Trump's rejection of the landmark global pact.
“He doesn’t seem to have taken a very strong public stance on climate change, which most people think is an existential threat to our very survival,” Joe Minott, head of the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council, told StateImpact Pennsylvania.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-new-jersey-moves-re-join-ghg-trading-market
-
Trump Can't Drop Climate from His Speech. Here's Why
Jan 30, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Adam Aton
At least three of President Trump's State of the Union guests can blame global warming for their invitations.
But don't expect Trump to mention climate change tonight, even though hurricanes and wildfires dominated his first year in office.
The administration hopes to set this year's agenda by emphasizing infrastructure and trade, and Trump will likely tout his agencies' moves to cut regulations and boost fossil fuel production. To some, all those topics add up to a climate policy for an administration that's determined to eschew one.
"There's probably too much focus on having politicians say the magic words of 'climate change,'" said Josiah Neeley, energy policy director at the free-market R Street Institute. "The policies are going to have the effects they'll have regardless of what Trump, or anyone else, believes about greenhouse gases."
The real value of tonight's address, historians say, is for Trump to frame his agenda directly to voters — a ritual that has become unique as the media landscape has grown more fractured and partisan.
A major part of that pageantry since 1982 has been the presidents' guests, invited to humanize policy and exemplify American values. This year, Trump invited three people who rescued others during last year's natural disasters, which scientists are getting more confident about linking to climate change.
Jon Bridgers is a founder of the Cajun Navy, a volunteer force that helped people trapped by Hurricane Harvey. David Dahlberg, a firefighter from Southern California, saved 62 people from wildfires in July. And Ashlee Leppert, a Coast Guard aviation electronics technician, airlifted dozens of hurricane victims to safety.
Scientists and policymakers have pointed to climate change's role in fueling all those disasters. Higher sea levels and warmer air strengthen storms; longer droughts and higher temperatures make conditions ripe for fires.
Glossing over climate change while honoring people who grappled with it — that's a tidy encapsulation of this administration's paradoxes, said Mary Stuckey, an expert in presidential rhetoric and a professor at Pennsylvania State University.
"Donald Trump is going to have these recent examples of American heroes, which is kinda Reaganesque, but the underlying connection between these people is ... hello, climate change," she said. "None of these people would have a cause to display their innate heroism if it weren't for climate change — which we're not talking about."
That's typical of his style, she said. It's open-ended enough for people to read into it what they want.
Trump either dodges climate questions or answers them with falsehoods (Climatewire, Jan. 29). But his climate legacy is already taking shape around the contours of other issues.
His biggest trade move has been to slap tariffs on imported solar equipment, and any moves he previews tonight promise to needle countries still bitter over his decision to quit the Paris climate agreement.
The biggest infrastructure needs are in places still recovering from last year's natural disasters, and greens worry that his infrastructure initiative could loosen environmental protections in the name of building quickly.
Energy dominance has become a theme across agencies, which have begun rolling back the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and opening up new areas for oil and gas drilling. Those areas include the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, where warming is happening twice as fast as in most other places.
Political observers expect Trump to frame those moves as simply boosting jobs. And if he does make environmental overtures, he'll phrase them so his base can say he doesn't mean it, said Wayne Fields, a historian of presidential rhetoric and a professor at Washington University in St. Louis.
Historically, leaders of both parties have found ways to couch climate change within their own agendas since its first mention during President Clinton's 1998 State of the Union.
"Last year's heat waves, floods and storms are but a hint of what future generations may endure if we do not act now," Clinton said during his 1999 address, one year after saying climate policies could coexist with economic growth.
President Obama mentioned climate change in each State of the Union speech except in 2011, when he still urged historic investments in "clean energy" funded by ending oil company tax benefits.
(President Nixon made the first State of the Union mention of "clean energy" in 1972.)
President George W. Bush waited until his 2007 State of the Union to say his goal of reducing foreign oil demand could also "help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
The next year, Bush, who had opposed the Kyoto Protocol, outlined his wish for something that now sounds like the Paris climate accord: a worldwide agreement coupled with an "international clean technology fund" that would lower emissions in developing countries as well as rich ones.
"This agreement will be effective only if it includes commitments by every major economy and gives none a free ride," he said.
Those addresses, like every State of the Union, offer a historical record of what people considered important at the time, said Vanessa Beasley, a historian of presidential rhetoric and a professor at Vanderbilt University. They also validate whom the president seeks to represent — who "counts" as part of the union.
"Historians have used them [to examine] what were people worried about," she said. "This is literally one for the history books ... particularly viewed 20 years from now, 50 years from now, that's a significant omission if you're worried about climate change."
Trump's first address to a joint session of Congress last year got high marks because his conventional delivery was a "novelty act," said David Greenberg, a professor at Rutgers University. "I wonder whether he can play that card again," he said.
Part of the State of the Union's purpose is to shore up a president's credibility, but Trump has already undercut himself, Fields said.
People don't know how much to trust his prepared remarks, but they know to trust the sentiments behind his tweets, he said.
"What he says during the formal speech, [people can dismiss as] 'Oh, that's them talking. But the tweets, that's our boy,'" he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/01/30/stories/1060072337
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested