Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 4/27/18

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Cal Dooley, ACC's Longtime President, Retiring
Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

Cal Dooley, who led the American Chemistry Council (ACC) during congressional debate reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), will retire at the end of 2018 the group announced April 26, creating an opening atop one of the largest chemical industry trade associations in Washington, DC.
(ACC Mentioned) Agilyx and Ineos Styrolution Sign MOU to Advance Circularity of Polystyrene
Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry

Agilyx Corp. (Tigard, OR) and Ineos Styrolution (Frankfurt, Germany) have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for deploying Agilyx’s de-polymerization technology at or near an Ineos Styrolution facility in North America.
Five Takeaways from Pruitt's Big Testimony
Apr 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama

Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), faced a barrage of tough questions from lawmakers Thursday as he testified in front of two House committees.
Scott Pruitt Admits Little Culpability in EPA Controversies, Mostly Blames Aides and Staff
Apr 26, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

Scott Pruitt gave little ground Thursday as he testified before two House panels about controversial spending and management decisions he has made while at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency, blaming aides for exorbitant spending and saying career officials signed off on other controversial decisions.

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Science Policy to 'Change Agency Culture' on Data
Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA's proposed rule on science transparency says it is designed to "change agency culture" regarding data access to allow increased analysis of the science underpinning agency action.
Pallone Slams Pruitt on Staff Retaliation and Stalled Chemical Ban
Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, offered up sharp questions for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt regarding reports that he retaliated against staffers who questioned his spending, as well as the agency's inaction on banning a high-profile chemical.

Chemical Management News

Dow Hazmat Appeal Bounced By California's Top Court
Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers and Joyce E. Cutler

Dow Chemical Co.'s arguments that it shouldn't be held accountable for toxic substances dumped in Modesto, Calif., sewer drains were turned aside by the California Supreme Court April 25.
Lead in Water at Childcare Facilities: Preliminary Results from EDF's Pilot
Apr 26, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Lindsay McCormick

When choosing a childcare facility, parents weigh numerous factors – like cost, distance to their home, comfort with the staff – with the goal of providing safe care to their child.
California Distributor Ordered to Pay $1.6m for Metals in Jewellery
Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller

A Los Angeles jewellery distributor has been ordered to pay $1.6m for selling jewellery, including children's items, that contained lead and cadmium in violation of California law.
EU Member States Back CMR Restrictions in Clothing, Textiles
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch

EU member states have approved a European Commission proposal to restrict the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in clothing, textiles and footwear.
Cefic Publishes REACH 2018 FAQs
Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, has produced a page of frequently asked questions, concerning the final REACH registration deadline and how the EU chemical industry is preparing for it.

Energy News

Inviting Disaster: Ignoring the Lessons Learned from Deepwater Horizon
Apr 26, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By David Price

Eight years ago this month, the Gulf was devastated by the worst oil spill in American history.
Court Denies FERC Jurisdiction Over Municipal Natural Gas Reseller
Apr 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley

A federal court has vacated an order in which FERC asserted that it had jurisdiction over municipalities transporting or selling natural gas for resale and consumption in other states, siding instead with the City of Clarksville, TN.
'Mexico First' Campaign Could End Welcome for U.S. Oil Giants
Apr 26, 2018 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss

As President Trump moves to recast trade and border relations with Mexico, American oil companies are worried that the prospective winner of Mexico’s presidential election will play his own nationalist card.
Shale-Based Complex Relying on U.S. Shale Gas Takes Shape in China
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay

Zhejiang Satellite Petrochemical is moving along with plans to build a giant petrochemical complex fed by U.S. shale-gas-derived ethane in eastern China.
Colorado Oil and Gas Auctions Target of Environmental Lawsuit
Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski

Federal approvals of 53 lease sales for oil and gas exploration in western Colorado violated the law by failing to include site-specific environmental analyses, environmental groups alleged in a lawsuit filed April 26.
Amid Trump's E15 Support, Ethanol Sector Seeks To Raise California Limit
Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Curt Barry

The ethanol industry is seeking further discussions with California Air Resources Board (CARB) officials about raising the state's current 10 percent limit on ethanol in gasoline (E10) to 15 percent (E15) as a way to help the state achieve its proposed 2030 low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) goals, as well as its longer-term greenhouse gas targets.

Chemical Security News

Husky Wisconsin Refinery Area Being Evacuated After Blast
Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Robert Tuttle and Sheela Tobben

An evacuation has been ordered around Husky Energy Inc.’s refinery in Superior, Wis., after an explosion early April 26 that left multiple people injured, according to the police department.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Union Pacific Reports PTC Progress
Apr 26, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures
By Kyra Senese

Union Pacific (UP) has shared recent strides it has made toward the required implementation of positive train control (PTC) as federal deadlines loom ahead.

Environment News

Pruitt and His Air Chief Diverge on Industrial Expansion Permits
Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu

The EPA is looking at a “comprehensive rule” to address air permits for facilities that plan to expand or upgrade their operations, Administrator Scott Pruitt said April 26.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Cal Dooley, ACC's Longtime President, Retiring

Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

Cal Dooley, who led the American Chemistry Council (ACC) during congressional debate reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), will retire at the end of 2018 the group announced April 26, creating an opening atop one of the largest chemical industry trade associations in Washington, DC.
The former Democratic congressman has led ACC since 2008. During his tenure, the domestic industry has grown significantly due in large part to significant increases in natural gas production which provides key feedstocks.
Dooley, who represented districts in California during his 14 years in Congress, led the group during Congress' debate over TSCA, a policy priority that the industry hopes will help avoid a patchwork of state standards, provide federal approvals to many chemicals and limit consumer de-selection.
In a statement, ACC touted Dooley's leadership in developing and shepherding the bipartisan TSCA reform bill through Congress in 2016, as well as his efforts to grow ACC's membership, particularly among smaller companies.
“Today the United States is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest in chemical and plastic manufacturing thanks to abundant domestic shale gas development and sound policy approaches,” Dooley says in ACC's statement. “I am extremely proud of what ACC has accomplished over the past ten years, especially the passage of bipartisan chemical regulatory reform legislation,” the statement says.
But the TSCA legislation may not have gone far enough for the industry in preempting state and local requirements. ACC and other industry groups have launched a coalition to push back on what they see as a groundswell of state and local labeling mandates for products containing certain chemicals.
And Dooley at the chemical industry's last major conference, GlobalChem in Washington, D.C. last February, indicated he does not expect Congress to act soon on its legislation seeking minimum federal criteria for local rules' chemical evaluations and provide a waiver for small exposures. "We're pretty optimistic we're going to be seeing some progress on that in this Congress. It'll be difficult to see it pass I think with the political environment, but we're really committed to trying to build broad support in Congress to set the stage for future action on this," he said.
Since the TSCA statute's June 2016 enactment, ACC has focused on overseeing EPA's implementation. A former ACC official, Nancy Beck, is currently the top political appointee implementing the statute.
While some major implementing rules have been completed, they are facing legal challenges. And one critical rule on industry fees to supplement the new TSCA program -- similar to industry funding to support EPA's pesticides program -- remains incomplete.
The agency also faces a series of other deadlines, such as to complete its first risk evaluations under the program by 2019.
Dooley in his GlobalChem remarks expressed confidence in the Trump EPA's efforts to implement the statute by its many deadlines, even as he bemoaned the political polarization that has seized Congress. Dooley said he was “pleased to see this administration moving forward in a judicious and deliberative and a balanced fashion” with TSCA implementation.
But Dooley called the polarization in politics since TSCA's passage “distressing. Because we see some of those very credible and constructive constituencies within the NGO community that unfortunately also become a little more polarized than they would’ve been in the past. We wouldn't have been able to get TSCA reform moved forward through congress without the strong relationship and engagement we had with EDF and a few of the other NGOs.”
Dooley added that one effect has been “a little reinterpretation of some of the provisions of TSCA by some of those groups. … From an ACC perspective, we pride ourselves on a very intellectually consistent, scientific-based approach. I assure you we are not deviating in any way from what we committed to when we worked with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/cal-dooley-accs-longtime-president-retiring

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Agilyx and Ineos Styrolution Sign MOU to Advance Circularity of Polystyrene

Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics Today

By Clare Goldsberry

Agilyx Corp. (Tigard, OR) and Ineos Styrolution (Frankfurt, Germany) have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for deploying Agilyx’s de-polymerization technology at or near an Ineos Styrolution facility in North America. The aim is to convert post-consumer polystyrene waste into styrene monomer that can be used to re-manufacture new polystyrene products.
The cooperation objectives defined in the MOU between Agilyx and Ineos are the natural next step to setting up a chemical recycling infrastructure and establishing a circular economy for polystyrene.
Agilyx, an environmental solutions company that extracts value from waste plastic streams, opened its first commercial waste polystyrene-to-styrene oil chemical recycling plant on April 19, 2018. At a ribbon-cutting on April 24, speakers representing Agilyx strategic partners included local government representatives from Tigard City Council and Washington County, and individuals representing the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and American Styrenics LLC.
Mike Levy, Senior Director of ACC’s Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, noted, “Agilyx is an innovator in finding new ways to capture and convert used plastics into valuable products. Delivery of a polystyrene-to-styrene oil/monomer solution is a major step toward greater sustainability and circularity.”
Jon Timbers, Senior Manager for Sustainability and Innovation at American Styrenics, congratulated Agilyx on “taking the linear process of plastics and bending the line to close it into a loop—the new circular plastics economy,” said a joint release from Agilyx and Ineos.
The plant is the first commercial-scale closed-loop chemical recycling process for polystyrene in the world. It will recycle up to 10 tons per day of previously unrecoverable polystyrene waste and produce high-quality styrene oil that will be processed by styrene manufacturers Ineos and American Styrenics to manufacture consumer goods, said Agilyx.
The process involves “breaking the chemical bonds in the polystyrene, hence the term ‘chemical recycling’ as opposed to ‘mechanical recycling,’” Agilyx confirmed to PlasticsToday.
Ineos Styrolution is committed to driving the advancement of the de-polymerization technology. Together with several research institutions, the company is working on a technical feasibility study and is aiming at the development of a holistic recycling concept in collaboration with waste management companies.
Both companies are committed to driving the chemical recycling technology forward, which is based on the de-polymerization of post-consumer polystyrene waste. This technology aims at achieving virgin, high-quality polystyrene ultimately suitable for both food-contact and medical applications.
“We are very excited to expand our partnership with Ineos Styrolution focused on creating a true circular pathway for polystyrene using our existing chemical recycling platform,” said Joe Vaillancourt, CEO of Agilyx. “This collaboration not only looks to support deployment of a new chemical recycling application, but it also helps create a new, innovative supply chain that bridges both the plastics and waste management industries. This combination creates a new circular economy reality for polystyrene.”
Alexander Gluck, President, Americas Ineos Styrolution, commented, “We are excited to advance our partnership with Agliyx to the next level and further demonstrate our commitment to chemical recycling and the circular economy of polystyrene. Jointly exploring site options for scaling the new technology will help with accelerating our development program that we announced back in October of 2017.
"We are eager to lay down the foundation for polystyrene to be recovered and recycled and build the eco-system around chemical recycling,” Gluck added. “This will help us continue to enjoy the great benefits of polystyrene delivering substantial contributions [to] advances in healthcare and food preservation.”
https://www.plasticstoday.com/recycling/agilyx-and-ineos-styrolution-sign-mou-advance-circularity-polystyrene/192844261158662/page/0/1

Return to headline | Return to top
Five Takeaways from Pruitt's Big Testimony

Apr 26, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama

Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), faced a barrage of tough questions from lawmakers Thursday as he testified in front of two House committees.
Pruitt, who has been embroiled in controversy for weeks, fought back aggressively against his critics and dismissed the negative headlines about his tenure as “fiction.”
Here are five takeaways from his big day on Capitol Hill.
He escaped disaster
Pruitt testified for nearly six hours, a grueling task for any Cabinet member, and seemed to mostly escape unscathed.
The hearings lacked fireworks, even as Democrats took turns excoriating the EPA chief and, in some cases, calling for him to resign.
Pruitt came prepared to answer questions about his spending and other ethics controversies. He tackled reports of his costs head-on in his opening statement, blaming the media for taking attention away from his regulatory work.
“Facts are facts and fiction is fiction. A lie doesn't just become the truth because it’s on the front page of a newspaper,” Pruitt said in both of his opening statements.
The former Oklahoma Attorney General appeared to have an answer prepared for every question thrown at him ranging, from his use of a privacy booth, to his spending on his round the clock security team to raises approved for EPA staffers.
Pruitt didn’t once raise his voice or appear to be frazzled by the round of at times rapid-fire questions thrown at him.
But by the final panel, lawmakers appeared to run out of steam, at times referring, and yielding, to answers Pruitt gave at the day’s earlier hearing.
His strategy was don't apologize and blame others
If any lawmakers were expecting apologies or contrition from Pruitt, they didn’t get it.
Pruitt shifted blame for the controversies at the EPA to other people, including for his use of first-class travel, his unauthorized staff raises, his construction of a privacy booth to staffers and his use of a 24/7 security detail.
Speaking in the afternoon to lawmakers on the House Appropriations committee subpanel, Pruitt said he decided to change from flying coach to first-class due to threats against his life.
Pruitt cited two examples written in a leaked memo from the deputy inspector general as to why his around-the-clock security team was necessary. Two members of his security team sat directly behind him in the hearing room during the testimony, one wearing an earpiece.
The administrator suggested that he no longer flies first-class, calling news surrounding it “a distraction.” He said he made a change.
On the agency’s approval to provide substantial pay raises to two EPA staffers who had moved from Oklahoma with Pruitt — one who Pruitt described at the earlier hearing as a “close friend” — the chief said he was not aware of the type or amount of the raises. He admitted, however, that he was aware of the raises, contradicting what he’d previously said in an interview to Fox News.
Pruitt said after media reports surfaced, he directed his chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, to stop the raises. Jackson has previously taken responsibility for the pay increases. The EPA released a document during Pruitt’s hearings that showed the administrator had transferred authority to Jackson in March 2017 to hire employees under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Pruitt also asserted that he was not aware of the nearly $43,000 cost of a privacy booth installed in his office last year. He said he had mentioned to staff not being able to take a phone call securely, but did not sign-off on the booth and blamed “career staffers” for being involved “from the beginning to the end.”
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) last week found that the privacy booth's construction yielded a number of violations.
Pruitt pledged to ensure that the EPA avoids further missteps.
“My objective to speak with you today is to provide confidence, and recognize faults where they have occurred and make sure they don't happen in the future,” he said.
Republicans are concerned, but criticism was muted
It wasn’t all a walk in the park for Pruitt when it came to questioning from Republican lawmakers. While many focused their questions on policy decisions, others offered up harsh criticism over proposed EPA budget cuts that would gut or severely diminish a number of key programs in their states.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) opened the Appropriations Committee hearing by sharply criticizing Pruitt’s proposal to cut around 25 percent from the EPA’s budget.
“While some reductions may be in order, cuts of this magnitude put important programs at risk,” the chairman of the subcommittee said, pointing to eliminations or cuts the Trump administration is proposing to state grants, programs to clean up major waterways and grants to clean up diesel pollution.
For those lawmakers who did venture to question Pruitt about the controversies, they focused on his spending.
Rep. Ryan Costello (R-Pa.) expressed concerns over the costs of Pruitt’s security detail.
“When folks read about trips to Disneyland, professional basketball games, the Rose Bowl, and the additional security detail related to that, that doesn’t sit well with a lot of people,” Costello said.
Costello, who is leaving Congress after this year, said he thought the EPA chief lacked “good judgment.”
“I believe you’ve not demonstrated the requisite degree of good judgment required of an appointed executive branch official on some of these spending items.”
Rep. Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) asked Pruitt to promise that he would take seriously whistleblower concerns.
“Assure me and employees of EPA that all whistleblower complaints will be taken seriously at EPA,” Harper asked Pruitt.
Pruitt responded: “This is not one of those situations, but absolutely that is something I can commit to you and will commit to you.”
Pruitt has plenty of allies in Congress
Numerous Republicans rushed to Pruitt’s defense, not just applauding him for his work at the EPA, but portraying him as the victim.
Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) called the Democrats’ rhetoric “a classic display of innuendo and McCarthyism that unfortunately ... I think works against civility and respect.”
“I’m hoping we would be able to stay on policy as much as we could, but some, I see, just can’t resist the limelight, the opportunity to grandstand,” he added.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) said it was another case of “Washington politics.”
“Republicans do it when it’s a Democratic president, Democrats do it when it’s a Republican president,” he said.
Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) apologized to Pruitt.
“I apologize for the abrasiveness of some of my colleagues who would rather tarnish your character than really try to delve into the issues facing this great nation.”
Some of his statements could come back to haunt him
Pruitt made a number of statements that contrasted with his past statements and those of others.
For example, Pruitt testified that he knew about controversial raises given to two close aides, but said he didn’t know the amount nor that his chief of staff bypassed White House procedures to approve them.
Pruitt previously told Fox News’s Ed Henry during a combative interview that he didn’t know about the raises and that it was all done by a member of his staff without his knowledge.
In another instance, defending his security detail, Pruitt quoted the text of a letter that he said was an official “threat assessment” from the IG’s office. And he stayed by his claims, despite questioning from Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) about whether the letter did come directly from EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins.
Elkins’s office has since disputed that, saying the letter Pruitt used was instead from Patrick Sullivan, the assistant inspector general for investigations. The office also said the letter was leaked without authorization.
Pruitt also said he did not sign off on the $43,000 soundproof booth installed in his office, nor did he know its cost.
“Career individuals at the agency took that process through and signed off on it all the way through,” Pruitt told Rep. Tony Cardenas (R-Calif.). “I was not involved in the approval of the $43,000, and if I’d known about it, congressman, I would have refused it.”
The White House Office of Management and Budget and the EPA’s IG are both looking into the booth purchase.
“If something happens in my office, especially to the degree of $43,000, I know about it before, during and after,” Cardenas said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/385105-five-takeaways-from-pruitts-day-of-testimony

Return to headline | Return to top
Scott Pruitt Admits Little Culpability in EPA Controversies, Mostly Blames Aides and Staff

Apr 26, 2018 | The Washington Post

By Brady Dennis and Juliet Eilperin

Scott Pruitt gave little ground Thursday as he testified before two House panels about controversial spending and management decisions he has made while at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency, blaming aides for exorbitant spending and saying career officials signed off on other controversial decisions.
Bolstered by Republican lawmakers, who praised his push to unravel Obama-era regulations and cut the agency’s workforce, Pruitt suggested that the censure he’s faced in recent months stems largely from opponents who want to stall President Trump’s environmental policies.
“Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing so because they want to derail the president’s agenda. I’m not going to let that happen,” Pruitt told members of the House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee during the morning. “A lie doesn’t become true just because it appears on the front page of the newspaper.”
Whether Pruitt’s composed performance will be enough to preserve his job remains unclear, but there were few signs Thursday that House Republicans were ready to abandon him. Few GOP lawmakers — among them, Rep. Ryan Costello (Ill.), who is retiring, and Rep. Leonard Lance (N.J.), who is locked in a tough reelection fight — criticized Pruitt during more than five hours of questioning.
Three White House officials said Pruitt’s testimony — while “not good,” in the words of one — did not deliver a knockout blow to his tenure. The EPA chief has little support among senior aides there, and the president has voiced more concern as allegations and investigations involving Pruitt have accelerated. Multiple probes are underway by the agency’s inspector general, as well as by the House Oversight Committee, the Government Accountability Office and the White House itself.
Trump did not watch much of the administrator’s testimony live, one official with direct knowledge of his schedule said, but will likely view segments later along with media coverage.
Democratic lawmakers pushed Pruitt hard on several fronts, prompting him to concede that he had known in advance of an aide’s pay hike, that he had not sought an ethics ruling on his rental of a condo from a lobbyist and that a costly soundproof phone boothinstalled in his office did not constitute the kind of secure communications facility commonly used by federal officials for classified discussions.
“I’m not afraid to admit that it has been a learning process,” he said.
Pruitt repeatedly faulted staff for spending decisions that have drawn intense heat and denied that he had reassigned or demoted anyone who questioned those expenditures. Several people — including Pruitt’s former deputy chief of staff for operations, Kevin Chmielewski — have charged that they faced retaliation after challenging plans to spend taxpayer funds on first-class travel, office upgrades and other perks for him.
The EPA chief insisted there was “no truth” to such reports, adding, “I’m not aware of that ever happening.”
He also said he had no idea that his request to install a secure phone line in his office would lead to the customized phone booth costing $43,000. “I was not aware of the approval of the $43,000,” Pruitt said at one point, “and if I had known about it, congressman, I would not have approved it.”
Midafternoon, Pruitt moved over to a House Appropriations subcommittee and was again pressed on how that phone booth came about. The decision to install it “should not have been made,” he said.
Referring more broadly to management and spending missteps at the agency, Pruitt told the panel, “If there are processes that have not been followed internally . . . I commit to make those changes prospectively.”
He addressed questions about his first-class travel by saying that, even with ongoing security concerns, he had returned this year to flying coach. “I recently made changes to that because I felt like, from an optics and perception standpoint, it was creating a distraction,” he said.
He said he was aware of the move to give agency senior counsel Sarah Greenwalt a raise but did not push for it. She and another staffer received significant raises this spring over the objections of officials in the White House Personnel Office. “I was aware of one of those individuals” receiving a raise, Pruitt told Costello.
Greenwalt got a 52 percent increase last month, while Millan Hupp, director of scheduling and advance, got a 33 percent boost. The Washington Post first reported last week that Greenwalt had emailed a colleague in EPA’s human resources department that the raises had been “discussed” with the administrator in advance. Each woman had worked for Pruitt in Oklahoma before coming to Washington.
Earlier, when Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) asked Pruitt if he had authorized chief of staff Ryan Jackson to sign the raises, Pruitt had replied, “I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware of the [Personnel Office] process not being respected.” He said he had delegated authority to Jackson to review and approve such personnel actions — a move that was documented by a March 2017 memo the agency released Thursday.
Jackson reversed both raises on April 5, according to EPA documents.
While Costello and Lance bore in on his spending on security and travel, other Republicans lauded his aggressive actions to roll back regulations, most prominently the Obama administration’s signature effort to cut carbon emissions from power plants.
“The greatest sin you’ve committed, if any, is you’ve actually done what President Trump ran on, won on and what he’s commissioned you to do,” Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) told Pruitt during the first hearing.
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) mounted a defense on Pruitt’s behalf. “You’re not the first person to be the victim, for lack of a better term, of Washington politics,” the lawmaker told him. Referring to the fact that the administrator frequently traveled in first class during his first year at EPA, Barton inquired, “Is it illegal to fly first class?”
Pruitt said that those tickets had been approved by the agency’ travel and security offices, prompting Barton to reply, “But it’s not illegal. It may look bad, but it’s not illegal.”
Rep. David B. McKinley (R-WVa.) described the myriad allegations Pruitt faces as “a classic display of innuendo and McCarthyism,” adding that he was disappointed his colleagues across the aisle couldn’t restrict their questions to ones about policy. “Some just can’t resist the limelight, the opportunity to grandstand,” he accused.
The EPA’s press office issued a news release shortly before the second hearing, with quotes from Pruitt’s congressional supporters, including Cramer’s comment: “I never cease to be impressed by the level of detail you know.”
But Democrats were unsparing in their criticism. Tonko, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee’s top Democrat, delivered a fusillade as Pruitt looked on impassively. After ticking off several allegations about the administrator’s personal financial dealings and professional decisions, the lawmaker said, “In almost all cases, the more we have learned, the worse they get.”
He concluded by telling Pruitt, “You have failed as a steward of American taxpayer dollars and of the environment.”
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the Energy and Commerce’s top Democrat, was even harsher. “You are unfit to hold public office, and you are undeserving of the public trust,” he told Pruitt.
Pallone pressed Pruitt on whether he had retaliated against employees who questioned some of his spending decisions. “Has it always been your practice to fire people who disagree with you?” he asked.
Pruitt rebutted the charge. “I don’t ever recall a conversation to that end,” he said.
The administrator did retreat some during an exchange with Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.). Previously, EPA officials had likened the privacy phone booth to a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that Pruitt needed for secure conversations with the White House and other officials. A recent GAO report did not assess the booth’s security merits but said Pruitt violated federal spending laws by spending more than $5,000 upgrading his office without advance notice to Congress.
The phone booth “is actually not a SCIF,” Pruitt said, even as he rejected the GAO’s conclusion. He acknowledged that he has only used the booth sparingly. “It’s for confidential communications, and it’s rare,” he added.
At times, he professed to be unfamiliar with some of the technology his aides had installed in his office.
“What is a biometric lock?” Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) asked.
“I don’t know,” the administrator replied. “I just put a code in.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/26/scott-pruitt-braces-for-tough-questions-at-double-hearings-on-capitol-hill/?utm_term=.1dca715c7794

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Science Policy to 'Change Agency Culture' on Data

Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA's proposed rule on science transparency says it is designed to "change agency culture" regarding data access to allow increased analysis of the science underpinning agency action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66379/us-epa-science-policy-to-change-agency-culture-on-data

Return to headline | Return to top
Pallone Slams Pruitt on Staff Retaliation and Stalled Chemical Ban

Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), ranking Democrat on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, offered up sharp questions for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt regarding reports that he retaliated against staffers who questioned his spending, as well as the agency's inaction on banning a high-profile chemical.
“Has it always been your practice to fire people who disagree with you?” Pallone said, referencing reports that at least six EPA career and political staffers who questioned Pruitt's decisions were fired, demoted or reassigned.
He added: “Six staffers is a pattern. I think you need to start taking responsibility. You say you're going to start taking responsibility, but you don't.”
Pallone then shifted to an Obama-era proposal to ban the chemical methylene chloride, which is used in paint strippers but has been linked to serious health risks and even deaths.
The proposal has stalled under the Trump EPA, which has made it a “long-term action” in its regulatory agenda.
“Your deregulatory agenda costs lives,” Pallone said. “You have the power to finalize the ban, and you haven't done it.” Citing families who have lost children to the chemical, Pallone said: “Do you have anything to say to these families?”
Pruitt responded that the proposal remains pending and that EPA has not made a final decision regarding it.
“You obviously have nothing to say to these families,” Pallone retorted, charging that Pruitt's implementation of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act makes a “mockery” of the EPA and suggests bipartisan efforts to revise the Toxic Substances Control Act were “in vain.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/pallone-slams-pruitt-staff-retaliation-and-stalled-chemical-ban

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Dow Hazmat Appeal Bounced By California's Top Court

Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven M. Sellers and Joyce E. Cutler

Dow Chemical Co.'s arguments that it shouldn't be held accountable for toxic substances dumped in Modesto, Calif., sewer drains were turned aside by the California Supreme Court April 25.
The order in the hazardous waste litigation—which has spawned three appeals over 14 years—means the case will likely return to the trial court for more proceedings on Dow's liability for pollution caused by disposals of dry cleaning chemicals.
The ruling left in place an intermediate appeals court decision that plaintiffs need not show a direct link between Dow and the disposals, only that it is more likely than not that its product instructions were a “substantial factor in causing the pollution.”
Dow, dry cleaning manufacturers, and other defendants may be liable if they took “affirmative steps” to facilitate perchloroethylene (PCE) disposals, such as by instructing product users to dispose of wastes improperly, the court of appeals said in January.
A Dow spokesman told Bloomberg Law April 25 the company was “prepared to carry on defending the case.”
“The only issue fully litigated and decided so far is that Dow is not and will not be liable for punitive damages,” the spokesman said in an email.
The lawsuit dates to 1998 when the city and the sewer district sued various dry cleaners and dry cleaning equipment and solvent manufacturers over the contamination.
Miller Axline & Sawyer; Bien & Summers LP; Davidovitz & Bennett; and Brown & Winters represented Modesto and its affiliated agencies.
King & Spalding represented Dow.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132869150&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132869150&jd=132869150

Return to headline | Return to top
Lead in Water at Childcare Facilities: Preliminary Results from EDF's Pilot

Apr 26, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Lindsay McCormick

When choosing a childcare facility, parents weigh numerous factors – like cost, distance to their home, comfort with the staff – with the goal of providing safe care to their child. Unfortunately, it’s not always easy to know if the facility where the childcare program is located itself may present health risks – like lead in the drinking water.
The vast majority of schools and childcare facilities are not required to test their drinking water for lead under federal requirements. While much of the attention has been on schools, we find that childcare is relatively overlooked, even though water is the most significant source of lead for formula fed infants. In earlier blogs, we talked about stateand local testing requirements and levels in hot water.
To explore lead in drinking water at childcare facilities further, EDF conducted a pilot project to investigate new approaches for lead in water testing and remediation in childcare settings. Our pilot utilized and expanded on EPA’s 3Ts for Reducing Lead in Drinking Water.
We will be releasing a report that will detail our full process, results, and recommendations for addressing lead in water in childcare settings. In the meantime, we wanted to share our preliminary takeaways and recommendations below as well as a fact sheet on our project.
Our preliminary takeaways:
While the majority of samples had lead levels below 1 ppb, most childcare facilities had at least one fixture requiring remediation based on our 3.8 parts per billion (ppb) action level.
Cleaning the aerator at the end of the faucet is important, but if not done properly may increase lead levels.
Flushing fixtures such as faucets, hose bibs and drinking fountains for just 5 seconds reduced lead levels. Flushing for 30 seconds was more effective.
Replacing fixtures is effective when initial lead levels are high. However, it did not always eliminate lead most likely because even new brass fixtures can have up to 0.25% lead content and leach up to 5 ppb under NSF’s current standards.
Portable lead meters tended to underestimate lead compared to laboratory results.
Our preliminary recommendations:
Require testing for lead in childcare facilities.
Set an action level of 5 ppb or below to investigate and remediate, including aerator cleaning with vinegar, flushing (at least five seconds), and fixture replacement.
Replace lead service lines in childcare facilities when found.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/04/26/lead-water-childcare-facilities-preliminary-results-edfs-pilot/

Return to headline | Return to top
California Distributor Ordered to Pay $1.6m for Metals in Jewellery

Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Julie Miller

A Los Angeles jewellery distributor has been ordered to pay $1.6m for selling jewellery, including children's items, that contained lead and cadmium in violation of California law.
A default judgement was entered on 12 April after company representatives failed to respond to a lawsuit brought by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Attorney General's Office.
Luxy Accessory Inc was one of several jewellery distributors sued by the AG's office in 2012 following a DTSC investigation that found violations of California’s metal-containing jewellery law. The company was assessed $145,000 in civil penalties in 2014 for selling lead-tainted jewellery and making false representations about its merchandise.
Subsequent inspections revealed that the company continued to sell the lead-containing jewellery. In 2017, the agency confiscated more than 110 styles of jewellery found to contain "excessive" lead and cadmium levels. Some packages were falsely labelled "lead free."
The $1.6m judgement stems from those investigations.
DTSC Director Barbara Lee said the ruling "sends a clear message that this deceptive, unsafe activity will not be tolerated, and violators will face severe consequences."
California's metal-containing jewellery law, as amended in 2012, specifies allowable materials and limits the levels of lead and cadmium allowed in jewellery. It sets lower thresholds for children's items.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66269/california-distributor-ordered-to-pay-16m-for-metals-in-jewellery

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Member States Back CMR Restrictions in Clothing, Textiles

Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch

EU member states have approved a European Commission proposal to restrict the use of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances in clothing, textiles and footwear.
Voted through at the REACH Committee meeting today, the text brings new limits to 33 CMRs. The new law will apply 24 months after publication in the EU Official Journal but first will be scrutinised by the European Parliament and Council.
In 2015, the Commission published a preliminary list of 286 CMRs it proposed to restrict.
The draft annex to the Regulation includes exemptions. The restrictions, it says, will not apply to:
clothing, related accessories or footwear, or parts of clothing, related accessories or footwear, made exclusively of natural leather, fur or hide;
non-textile fasteners and decorative attachments;
second-hand clothing, related accessories, textiles other than clothing or footwear;
clothing, related accessories, textiles other than clothing or footwear used as medical devices; and
'disposable textiles' – those designed to be used only once or for a limited time and are not intended for subsequent use for the same or a similar purpose.
CMRs may be present in materials from the production process, the Commission says, or because they are added intentionally to give specific properties, such as to prevent shrinkage or make fabric crease-resistant.
Consumers can be exposed to these chemicals through skin contact, inhalation or unintentional ingestion of dust released from textile fibres. Small children are also at risk due to a possible oral exposure, the EU executive adds.
Last month, eight European trade associations said the draft proposal is "sensible" and "pragmatic", but they had concerns that it covered complex products, containing parts that are "effectively never in contact with the skin or cannot be considered as strictly textile materials".
Ahead of the REACH Committee meeting, meanwhile, NGOs said the restriction should cover all CMRs that are category 1A and 1B substances with a harmonised classification; not just the "40 plus substances" for which the Commission "was able to find evidence of use in the textiles sector".
And consumer organisations Beuc and Anec have said that the proposal should be amended to ensure better protection of small children; regular updates to the list of restricted substances and applicable concentration limits; and disposable textiles are within scope.

The EPA chief made the comment during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that mainly focused on Pruitt's spending and ethics issues. His emphasis on an air permit rulemaking appears to depart from earlier statements by his air chief who said the agency would be relying on non-binding guidance.
Pruitt didn't elaborate on when or how the Environmental Protection Agency would move forward with a rule on the permitting program, known as New Source Review. The program governs what pollution controls are required when power plants, industrial boilers, and other pollution sources make operational modifications that go beyond routine maintenance.
Changing Tune
His assertion that a rule was planned diverges from earlier statements of his air chief, William Wehrum, who recently told Bloomberg Environment that the agency would rely on guidance to address what are called “preconstruction permits.”
“We can provide clear guidance through guidance,” Wehrum said in an April 13 interview with Bloomberg Environment. “Our strategy is to tell people sooner rather than later how we think the program should be implemented.”
The EPA under Pruitt has changed how facilities tally upgrade-related emissions that trigger new pollution controls under the program.
Costly Controls, Expanded Plants
The permit program requires factories and power plants to install costly new air pollution controls when they expand or make modifications that increase their emissions. Industry groups sought changes that in many cases would exclude them from having to add the controls.
So far, the EPA has made the changes in three non-binding guidance documents released in December, March, and April.
Although relying on guidance can effect changes quickly, another administration can easily reverse them.
Environmental critics have said that making policy through guidance circumvents the public notice and comments process that's required in rulemaking.

If, as Pruitt indicated, the agency does pursue a rulemaking, it could run into obstacles set by legal precedents that reversed some of Wehrum's rulemaking efforts when he served as acting air chief during the George W. Bush administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revoked most of the changes made during those rulemaking efforts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66376/eu-member-states-back-cmr-restrictions-in-clothing-textiles

Return to headline | Return to top
Cefic Publishes REACH 2018 FAQs

Apr 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch

The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, has produced a page of frequently asked questions, concerning the final REACH registration deadline and how the EU chemical industry is preparing for it.
By 31 May, dossiers for all substances produced or imported in the EU between 1 and 100 tonnes a year must be submitted to Echa if companies wish to continue selling or using them.
The chemicals industry association says some people may wonder whether companies will be ready by the deadline and what will happen next.
It has provided answers to the following questions:
is the May deadline the end of the REACH journey?
are all EU chemicals manufacturers ready for the deadline? Are all substances registered?
does the chemical industry advocate the extension of the deadline?
is the industry preparing any guidance on what to do for last-minute registrations or in case the substances/mixtures are no longer available on the market after the deadline?
does Brexit have any impact on the implementation of REACH?
https://chemicalwatch.com/66358/cefic-publishes-reach-2018-faqs

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Inviting Disaster: Ignoring the Lessons Learned from Deepwater Horizon

Apr 26, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog

By David Price

Eight years ago this month, the Gulf was devastated by the worst oil spill in American history. Following an explosion that killed 11 crew members, the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank to the bottom of the ocean, causing 210 million gallons of oil to spill across 1,200 square miles of the Gulf for more than 12 weeks. To date, the disaster at Deepwater Horizon is estimated to have cost the Gulf coastal economy up to $22.7 billion in lost tourism dollars. Nearly 50,000 people involved in cleanup efforts have been exposed to chemicals that severely damage lung tissue and can result in other adverse health impacts.
Since the spill, the federal government has taken a number of steps to prevent future disasters through the creation of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to monitor drilling activities and to implement commonsense regulations to improve safety on offshore oil rigs. However, by every indication, the Trump administration is hoping to quietly undo the progress we’ve made and has announced plans to expand drilling to nearly every coast in America, further lining the pockets of the oil and gas industry at the expense of our coastal communities.
In January, along with Reps. Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.) and Charlie Crist(D-Fla.), I introduced the Safe COAST Act to codify two safety regulations put in place after Deepwater Horizon that have since become a target of the Trump administration. These rules, enforced by BSEE, required pressure limits and safety equipment be inspected by third-party independent auditors and certified by BSEE. In December, the Trump administration quietly announced its plans to alter or eliminate these rules in an attempt to minimize the regulatory burden on the oil and gas industry and help meet President Trump’s goal of “energy dominance.”
A month later, Trump’s Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, released a draft five-year proposal to open up more than 90 percent of America’s coasts to offshore oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic, Arctic, Pacific, and the Gulf of Mexico, with drilling allowed a mere three miles of the U.S. shoreline in certain locations. Opposition to this announcement was swift and overwhelming. Hundreds of municipalities, coastal business leaders, commercial fishing communities, and environmental advocates condemned the administration’s announcement, highlighting the threats to coastal communities, businesses, and the environment. However, Secretary Zinke has since only granted a reprieve to Florida Gov. Rick Scott, an embarrassingly obvious political move designed to assist him in his run for the U.S. Senate.
The Trump administration has argued that regulations on drilling activity are overly burdensome and that elimination of certain rules would save the energy industry more than $200 million dollars over ten years. However, a disaster on the scale of Deepwater Horizon costs Americans trillions of dollars in cleanup and lost revenue, and the Gulf of Mexico is expected to produce more oil than ever this year. Additionally, in 2016 alone, more than 400 incidents of human error or hurricane damage were reported on offshore rigs. With extreme weather and hurricanes becoming more frequent, the risks presented by expanded oil drilling with fewer regulations are made even worse.
The Deepwater Horizon disaster could have been prevented. The bipartisan presidential commission appointed to study the disaster concluded that management of risk by oil producers “place in doubt the safety culture of the entire industry.” Reports like these led to the creation of BSEE, as well as the subsequent measures designed to prevent a future spill. Is the Trump administration prepared to ignore years of lessons-learned and countless Americans who have voiced opposition simply to boost the profits of corporate oil? Are they willing to assume responsibility for another environmental catastrophe that could endanger lives and destroy America’s coastal communities?
One thing is for sure: the rolling back of regulations mixed with the expansion of drilling sites is a recipe for disaster, the blame for which the Trump administration will certainly own. I urge my colleagues to join me in acting to codify these regulations and condemning the decision to expand offshore drilling. Congress must assert itself if we are to avoid disaster.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/384994-inviting-disaster-ignoring-the-lessons-learned-from

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Denies FERC Jurisdiction Over Municipal Natural Gas Reseller

Apr 27, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By David Bradley

A federal court has vacated an order in which FERC asserted that it had jurisdiction over municipalities transporting or selling natural gas for resale and consumption in other states, siding instead with the City of Clarksville, TN.
The decision centered on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's reading of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction over interstate gas transportation and resale as defined by the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Under Section 7(c) of the Act, companies must obtain certificates of public convenience and necessity from FERC before "undertak[ing] the construction or extension" of facilities to transport natural gas in interstate commerce.
Significantly, the Act defines natural gas companies as a "person engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of such gas for resale." A "person," as defined by the Act, "includes an individual or corporation." And, the court said, "the Act specifies that a corporation 'shall not include municipalities,' which are defined as 'cit[ies], count[ies], or other political subdivision[s] or agenc[ies] of a state.’” The case is City of Clarksville v. FERC, No.16-1244.
Clarksville had argued that "the Commission's exercise of jurisdiction is contrary to the plain language of the Natural Gas Act and contrary to longstanding FERC precedent."
The city owns and operates a natural gas distribution system that serves customers in Montgomery, Cheatham and Robertson counties, the U.S. Army base at Fort Campbell, which straddles the Tennessee-Kentucky border, and, through the Kentucky Service Line pipeline, 16 commercial customers in Christian County, KY.
In June 2013, Clarksville filed an application at FERC requesting a Section 7(c) service area determination covering its services to Fort Campbell and the Kentucky Service Line, and asked for a waiver of reporting, accounting and other regulatory requirements primarily applicable to FERC-jurisdictional gas companies [CP13-508].
FERC granted those requests in February 2014. However, based on a service agreement Clarksville had with the City of Guthrie, KY, FERC told Clarksville it would be required to obtain a different certificate if it meant to transport gas in interstate commerce in the same manner as an interstate pipeline would under section 311 of the Natural Gas Policy Act.
Clarksville subsequently sought a rehearing of FERC's determinations regarding its agreement with Guthrie, basing its argument on prior FERC orders.
The Commission denied the request, noting that its prior interpretation of the municipal exemption was "overly expansive, at least to the extent it would allow municipal gas utilities to avoid NGA jurisdiction over the transportation and sale of gas for consumption in other states, because such an interpretation would create a regulatory gap."
In a 16-page opinion handed down Tuesday, the court vacated FERC's order granting service area determinations and the order denying rehearing.
"We see no reason to deviate from the clear and unambiguous language of the statute...," the court concluded.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114168-court-denies-ferc-jurisdiction-over-municipal-natural-gas-reseller

Return to headline | Return to top
'Mexico First' Campaign Could End Welcome for U.S. Oil Giants

Apr 26, 2018 | The New York Times

By Clifford Krauss

As President Trump moves to recast trade and border relations with Mexico, American oil companies are worried that the prospective winner of Mexico’s presidential election will play his own nationalist card.
The leading candidate, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, wants to reverse policies that have tied a knot between Mexico and the United States in recent years in energy production and consumption. And he has promised to make sure that oil never falls “back into the hands of foreigners.”
In addition to threatening refinery profits in the United States, his proposals could slow oil production in Texas and impede deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico by international oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron. They would also jeopardize the United States’ energy trade surplus with Mexico, which reached roughly $15 billion last year.
Mr. López Obrador a former mayor of Mexico City with leftist leanings, has a comfortable lead in the polls ahead of the July 1 vote. He has moderated his tone since losing the presidential race six years ago, but he has proposed a sweeping reorientation of the nation’s energy policy with an emphasis on independence from the United States.
He has pledged to end oil exports, nearly all of which go to the United States, by 2022, and to instead spend $6 billion on building two refineries that would process crude for domestic consumption. That would sharply reduce American exports of gasoline to Mexico.
Mr. López Obrador and his top energy adviser, Rocío Nahle, a former legislator who is in line to become energy minister, have called for a freeze on future deepwater drilling auctions and a review of contracts with international oil companies.
“We cannot irresponsibly deliver our oil reserves to the transnational companies,” Ms. Nahle, who was trained as a chemical engineer, wrote on Twitter this month, summing up her message to a gathering of oil workers in the Mexican oil town of Poza Rica. “This July 1, this town will end the looting of Mexico.”
Ms. Nahle has said she wants the government to slash the price of electricity and gasoline, and to reduce Mexico’s dependence on natural-gas imports from the United States by investing more in hydroelectric power. Any reduction in sales to the No. 1 foreign customer for gas from the United States would increase a glut that has depressed prices in America over the last four years.
Such positions hark back to the 1930s, when Mexico nationalized its oil industry. Under the current government, a constitutional change enacted in 2014 let foreign companies invest in exploration, drilling, pipelines and even gas stations, and to team up on projects with the state oil company, Petróleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. The move allowed companies like Exxon Mobil to invest billions of dollars to develop vast fields offshore.
Mr. López Obrador’s nationalistic policies are resonating in Mexico as the Trump administration vows to curtail Mexican immigration into the United States and threatens to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The election outlook has caused concern among American oil executives.
“Mexico is very critical as an energy partner of the United States, so a retreat from current policies would be a tragedy for both countries,” said Scott D. Sheffield, chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources, a major Texas oil and gas producer. “It’s going to hurt Mexico long term and the United States long term.”
Mr. Sheffield and other Texas oil executives are particularly worried that Mexico could slow its importing of American gas.
In recent years, Mexico has replaced coal and diesel with cleaner American natural gas to produce about 30 percent of the nation’s electricity. The shale-drilling revolution north of the Rio Grande has yielded an abundance of cheap natural gas for American and Mexican consumers, and Mexico announced a five-year plan in 2015 to increase imports.
About 20 pipelines carry 4.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mexico, and more are being built or planned.
The gas sales to Mexico are an important source of revenue for American oil and pipeline companies, and they relieve a bulge of gas that is bubbling up with oil from the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico, the nation’s most prolific shale field. California is switching from natural gas to renewable energy sources, while a shortage of pipelines and export terminals for liquefied natural gas means that if sales to Mexico dwindle, there will be excess gas with nowhere to go.
That gas will have to be flared, or oil drilling and production will need to decrease, a choice between increasing climate-warming carbon-dioxide emissions or decreasing profits.
American refineries also face problems. Before the boom in shale oil production, refineries along the Gulf of Mexico were designed to process heavy oil grades from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Imports from Canada continue to increase, but they are limited by scarce pipeline capacity. Production in Venezuela is plummeting, and an expected ratcheting up of sanctions by the Trump administration could further hamper imports.
That makes Mexico, which accounts for about 8 percent of American crude-oil imports, an even more critical source. American refineries can process lighter grades of oil but much less efficiently, or they can undertake expensive overhauls of their equipment. Either way, profits would slump.
Mexico, for its part, has been importing higher-quality transportation fuels from the United States, in an effort to clean up its cities’ air. Last year, Mexico bought more than one million barrels of American petroleum products a day, providing $23 billion in revenue to American energy companies.
Ms. Nahle, Mr. López Obrador’s energy adviser, has said Mexico’s own refineries can be retooled to handle a changeover from American gasoline and diesel.
Mexican oil officials, expecting at least a slowdown of their policies, are holding offshore auctions as fast as they can to lure investment before President Enrique Peña Nieto, who is barred by law from seeking a second term, leaves office in December. More than 100 development contracts have already been awarded. The nation’s oil production remains in decline, but officials hope they can reverse the trend as international companies begin to produce large amounts of oil in the Gulf of Mexico over the next two years.
Independent energy analysts have viewed Mexico’s moves as a model for economic development, and some worry about a reversal. “To make a U-turn from the current reforms would be detrimental to the Mexican economy,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.
Some oil executives and energy experts say they are not overly worried that the new contracts will be overturned. They note that Mr. López Obrador will almost certainly not have the congressional support to entirely rescind the constitutional energy change. Campaign oratory could give way to the realities of governing, especially when the oil industry offers financing for more social services. The government has earned signing bonuses of $525 million from investors so far this year as a result of its efforts.
“Mexico needs this change more than anybody else,” said Ali Moshiri, who retired last year as Chevron’s top executive in Latin America and is forming his own oil company to seek international opportunities. “Pemex has been a disaster, so they have to continue with the reform, though they could slow things down.”
If necessary, international companies could focus less on Mexico and more on other Latin American countries, like Brazil, which also has huge offshore potential, or Colombia, which has significant potential for shale drilling. Both countries also have elections this year in which major candidates have expressed either opposition to giving foreign companies control over natural resources or environmental concerns about developing fossil fuels at all.
“That creates a lot of uncertainties for energy policy,” said Lisa Viscidi, an energy expert at the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington think tank. “Around Latin America, there are serious contenders who want to make big changes in the oil sector and want to reverse previous reforms. López Obrador particularly represents a lot of direct threats.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/business/energy-environment/mexico-election-oil-companies-usa.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Shale-Based Complex Relying on U.S. Shale Gas Takes Shape in China

Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jean-François Tremblay

Zhejiang Satellite Petrochemical is moving along with plans to build a giant petrochemical complex fed by U.S. shale-gas-derived ethane in eastern China. The complex, scheduled to start up in late 2020, will feature two ethylene crackers with a combined production capacity of 2.5 million metric tons per year.
Satellite earlier this month licensed production technology from CB&I to use in the project. CB&I, a Texas-based energy services firm, will provide process design as well as process licenses for what will become China’s first crackers exclusively fed by ethane, according to CB&I.
In March, Satellite and the U.S. firm Energy Transfer Partners agreed to form a joint venture to build a gas export terminal on the U.S. Gulf Coast for the loading of shale gas onto special ships called very large ethane carriers.
Listed on the Shenzhen stock exchange, Satellite is one of the few privately owned Chinese companies active in petrochemicals, a sector otherwise dominated by state-owned firms like Sinopec or PetroChina. Satellite’s core products are acrylic-based chemicals like glacial acrylic acid and superabsorbent polymers.
Satellite will build the new complex in Lianyungang, an industrial city in the coastal province of Jiangsu where chemical plants from many companies already operate.
The rise of the shale gas industry in the U.S. is having an increasingly significant impact on the Chinese petrochemical industry, which traditionally has used naphtha and methanol—some of which is derived from coal—as feedstocks. Late last year, Ineos agreed to supply U.S. ethane to a petrochemical plant being built in Taixing, Jiangsu, by the Chinese firm SP Chemicals. Ineos is building what it calls the world’s largest ethane carrier to fulfill its contract with SP.
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/Shale-based-complex-relying-US/96/i18

Return to headline | Return to top
Colorado Oil and Gas Auctions Target of Environmental Lawsuit

Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alan Kovski

Federal approvals of 53 lease sales for oil and gas exploration in western Colorado violated the law by failing to include site-specific environmental analyses, environmental groups alleged in a lawsuit filed April 26.
The lease auctions—in December 2016 and December 2017—bridge the Obama and Trump administrations, but both used the same strategy for expediting the procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act.
Each used “determinations of NEPA adequacy” that relied on 2015 environmental impact statements for the resource management plans of the regions including the lease sales.
Wilderness Workshop as lead plaintiff—joined by the Sierra Club and two other environmental activist groups—alleged in the lawsuit that the lease auctions by the Bureau of Land Management should have been allowed only after environmental analyses of the specific lease sites.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
The groups said those analyses should have included consideration of greenhouse gas impacts and climate change as part of analyses of environmental and human health impacts. The groups also expressed much concern about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The groups sought preliminary and permanent injunctions to overturn the determinations of NEPA adequacy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132869156&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132869156&jd=132869156

Return to headline | Return to top
Amid Trump's E15 Support, Ethanol Sector Seeks To Raise California Limit

Apr 26, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Curt Barry

The ethanol industry is seeking further discussions with California Air Resources Board (CARB) officials about raising the state's current 10 percent limit on ethanol in gasoline (E10) to 15 percent (E15) as a way to help the state achieve its proposed 2030 low-carbon fuel standard (LCFS) goals, as well as its longer-term greenhouse gas targets.
“We have had initial conversations with [CARB] staff regarding regulatory changes that may be necessary to allow expanded use of commercial-ready low-carbon liquid fuel solutions, like higher ethanol blends (15% ethanol or more), and we look forward to more expansive and regular dialog on these issues,” states a March 28 letter to California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) and CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols from Bob Dinneen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA), the leading national ethanol trade group.
By increasing the use of “low-carbon liquid fuels, California will not only accelerate its own GHG emission reduction efforts, but it will also add to the menu of decarbonizing options that other states might consider adopting based on California’s example,” Dinneen adds.
The advocacy suggests a shift in the sector's view of the LCFS, which it had long criticized for discriminating against out-of-state ethanol producers.
It also comes as President Donald Trump has endorsed the idea of a waiver allowing year-round sales of E15, which is currently restricted during the summer due to concerns that it increases ozone pollution. Critics of such a waiver, including oil industry officials, have said it would be impractical in part because California and a few other states do not allow ethanol blends above E10.
An E15 waiver is one of several policy options Trump officials are weighing in response to oil sector calls to “reform” the renewable fuel standard (RFS), though Republican lawmakers have yet to develop any consensus fixes.
Among those options is a national high-octane standard -- which could theoretically help the ethanol industry because it is currently the cheapest option to boost octane, though synthetic additives exist as well. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called such a standard a “tremendous idea.”
Refiners have said they could accept a high-octane standard coupled with a “sunset” of the RFS, but ethanol industry officials have been cool to such a deal, arguing that an octane standard would not necessarily increase their market share above current RFS blending requirements.
Backers of this idea add that it could also significantly improve vehicle fuel efficiency, given that automakers could develop turbo-charged engines that are specifically designed for high-octane fuel.
In response to the RFA letter, a CARB spokesman says board officials are “monitoring federal action and working with industry on providing clarity on the type of testing/data needed” to review the implications for raising the ethanol limit. “We will continue to work with folks on potential options.”
But the spokesman declined to say whether board staff has any plans to propose raising California's ethanol limit.
Engine makers and consumer groups have raised concerns that raising the ethanol limit could cause operational problems with numerous types of engines used in a variety of vehicles.
In addition, environmentalists generally oppose allowing more corn-based ethanol in gasoline, arguing that it has significantly higher lifecycle GHG emissions compared with alternative fuels. They also cite fears of increased ozone levels.
“We couldn’t support increasing the 10 percent limit unless [CARB’s] analysis showed that it would not increase summertime ozone formation,” says one environmentalist. “As for ethanol’s role in the LCFS generally, I think most environmental advocates continue to hope that corn-based ethanol will be replaced over time by more sustainable fuels like electricity, hydrogen, renewable diesel and renewable methane.”
'Significant Shift'
A source close to the issue says RFA's letter to CARB reflects a “significant shift” in the ethanol industry's position on the California LCFS, which for years has been highly critical and has included several major lawsuits against the board that have delayed and weakened compliance requirements.
While the sector has viewed the program as doing little to help ethanol producers outside of California, it now considers the LCFS as highly valuable, in part due to “ethanol’s significant role in helping the LCFS meet its targets, and keeping it so successful,” the source says.
CARB is scheduled to consider a sweeping set of amendments to the LCFS at its April 27 meeting. These include easing shorter-term requirements by delaying when fuel suppliers must achieve a 10 percent cut in the carbon intensity (CI) of gasoline and diesel compared with a 2010 baseline -- from 2020 to 2022. The amendments would also tighten a draft 2030 compliance requirement to a 20 percent CI reduction, which is more stringent than a draft plan floated last year that would have set an 18 percent threshold.
While CARB is scheduled to first consider the proposed amendments April 27, there will be "continued stakeholder engagement and 15-day formal comment periods for any changes" the board directs staff to make at the meeting. The board will then vote on the regulatory amendments at a second hearing scheduled for Sept. 27-28.
RFA's letter cites data showing that ethanol is responsible for reducing GHG emissions by 14.5 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent, “or 45 percent of the total reductions achieved under the LCFS to date.” Now that CARB is proposing to tighten requirements through 2030, “we want to express our support for actions that can help facilitate achievement of future LCFS goals by accelerating and maximizing the decarbonization of remaining liquid transportation fuels.”
Ramping up the ethanol content in gasoline is warranted in part because California's transition to zero-emission vehicles is “still decades away,” Dinneen writes. “We believe that biofuels like ethanol can help further decarbonize the use of the remaining passenger cars and light-duty trucks still using internal combustion engines as the state continues to increase adoption of zero emission vehicles.”
Specifically, using fuels containing “higher levels of high-octane ethanol” in the state’s growing fleet of hybrid vehicles “could cut GHG emissions of those automobiles by 50% or more.”
RFA officials “seek your help in convening discussions that bring together biofuel producers, automakers, and [CARB] staff to identify options for decarbonizing the remaining liquid transportation fuel used in the state,” the letter adds.
'Short-Term' GHG Cuts
An ethanol industry source says that while CARB “remains primarily focused on enabling growth in electric vehicles, there does seem to be a growing recognition that certain regulatory steps could be taken to further reduce the carbon intensity of liquid fuels in the short term,” including allowing more ethanol to be blended with gasoline.
“There appears to be more openness at [CARB] to taking a serious look at E15 because it could be a complementary tool to help generate more LCFS credits in the near term,” the source says.
In addition, while there are “more obstacles and barriers” to moving toward high-octane fuel blends for use in optimized engines as a “longer-term opportunity for deeper decarbonization and petroleum displacement,” CARB “has also expressed some openness to discussions with the autos and other stakeholders about potential pathways toward high octane fuels in the longer term,” the source says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/amid-trumps-e15-support-ethanol-sector-seeks-raise-california-limit

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Husky Wisconsin Refinery Area Being Evacuated After Blast

Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Robert Tuttle and Sheela Tobben

An evacuation has been ordered around Husky Energy Inc.’s refinery in Superior, Wis., after an explosion early April 26 that left multiple people injured, according to the police department.
Douglas County Emergency Management asked residents two miles to the north, three miles to the east and west of the plant and 10 miles to the south to evacuate, the police department said on Twitter. The fire reignited after being extinguished earlier, the police said earlier.
The source of the 10 a.m. local time blast is thought to be a “smaller tank” at the 38,000-barrel-a-day refinery, Steve Panger, fire chief for the Superior Fire Department, said in an email. The tank explosion is believed to have involved crude or asphalt, he said. At least five people were transported away from the site after they were injured. There were no fatalities, he said.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board is sending a team to investigate the refinery blast, the agency said in an emailed statement.
Husky agreed to buy the Superior refinery from Calumet Specialty Products Partners LP for $435 million last August. The plant was undergoing maintenance at the time of the blast, with Husky planning to increase the refinery's capacity to process heavy crude, the company said in a conference call April 26.
Heavy Western Canadian Select's discount to West Texas Intermediate futures widened 30 cents to $17.40 a barrel at 10:13 a.m. Calgary time, data compiled by Bloomberg show. Husky's shares fell as much as 6.9 percent, and were 5 percent lower as of 2:41 p.m. in Toronto.
There were about 20 victims, the fire department's assistant battalion chief Howard Huber said by phone. All workers have been accounted for and those injured from the fire are being treated on site or at a hospital, Husky said in a statement. A nearby oil terminal owned by Enbridge Inc. wasn't affected by the incident, spokesman Michael Barnes said in an email.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132869145&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132869145&jd=132869145

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Union Pacific Reports PTC Progress

Apr 26, 2018 | Railway Track & Structures

By Kyra Senese

Union Pacific (UP) has shared recent strides it has made toward the required implementation of positive train control (PTC) as federal deadlines loom ahead.
The company anticipates it will meet all of the required deadlines to install PTC throughout its network. UP said it will continue to implement, test and refine the technologies used on its the system in 2019 and 2020.
UP's PTC footprint is the largest of all North American railroads and covers more than 17,000 route miles, officials said.
The Class 1 also said it is in regular contact with Federal Railroad Administration officials regarding its PTC implementation.
One of the most challenging aspects of PTC implementation is ensuring system interoperability among all U.S. rail lines and locomotives, UP said.
"Given the various readiness levels of North American freight and passenger railroads, it is important that all railroads continue working together to maintain the health, safety, resiliency, and fluidity of the rail network as PTC is implemented," UP said in a statement.
The railroad's first quarter 2018 accomplishments included the preparation of eight additional track segments for PTC operations, bringing the total number of track segments to 176, or 97 percent complete.
UP said these track segments are equipped with wayside devices, such as signals, switches and radios, and also have defined GPS coordinates that identify thousands of precise locations for PTC coordination throughout the system.
The railroad has also educated more than 3,300 additional employees on PTC operations during the first quarter of 2018, bringing the total number of employees trained to about 22,690, or 88 percent of employees.
PTC operation training materials are tailored to address various employee roles, including engineer, conductor, dispatcher, maintenance of way/engineering, mechanical, signal, telecom and information technologies, UP said.
The Class 1 also said it has increased the number of installed PTC route miles by nearly 900, bringing the total number of route miles in PTC operations to 10,899, or 64 percent.
http://www.rtands.com/index.php/freight/class-1/union-pacific-reports-ptc-progress.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

Pruitt and His Air Chief Diverge on Industrial Expansion Permits

Apr 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Jennifer Lu

The EPA is looking at a “comprehensive rule” to address air permits for facilities that plan to expand or upgrade their operations, Administrator Scott Pruitt said April 26.
The EPA chief made the comment during a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing that mainly focused on Pruitt's spending and ethics issues. His emphasis on an air permit rulemaking appears to depart from earlier statements by his air chief who said the agency would be relying on non-binding guidance.
Pruitt didn't elaborate on when or how the Environmental Protection Agency would move forward with a rule on the permitting program, known as New Source Review. The program governs what pollution controls are required when power plants, industrial boilers, and other pollution sources make operational modifications that go beyond routine maintenance.
Changing Tune
His assertion that a rule was planned diverges from earlier statements of his air chief, William Wehrum, who recently told Bloomberg Environment that the agency would rely on guidance to address what are called “preconstruction permits.”
“We can provide clear guidance through guidance,” Wehrum said in an April 13 interview with Bloomberg Environment. “Our strategy is to tell people sooner rather than later how we think the program should be implemented.”
The EPA under Pruitt has changed how facilities tally upgrade-related emissions that trigger new pollution controls under the program.
Costly Controls, Expanded Plants
The permit program requires factories and power plants to install costly new air pollution controls when they expand or make modifications that increase their emissions. Industry groups sought changes that in many cases would exclude them from having to add the controls.
So far, the EPA has made the changes in three non-binding guidance documents released in December, March, and April.
Although relying on guidance can effect changes quickly, another administration can easily reverse them.
Environmental critics have said that making policy through guidance circumvents the public notice and comments process that's required in rulemaking.

If, as Pruitt indicated, the agency does pursue a rulemaking, it could run into obstacles set by legal precedents that reversed some of Wehrum's rulemaking efforts when he served as acting air chief during the George W. Bush administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revoked most of the changes made during those rulemaking efforts.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132869144&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132869144&jd=132869144

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested