Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/1/2018
-
ENRD Report Highlights Trump Administration Priorities
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Justice Department's (DOJ) environment division is highlighting its efforts to implement the Trump administration's priorities, including its support for regulatory reform by advising EPA and other agencies on high-priority rulemakings... -
Former Boehner Aide Picked to Lead Oil and Gas Lobby: Reports
May 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan R. Wilson
Mike Sommers, a former aide to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), could soon be jumping from the financial services world to the oil and gas industry after reportedly being selected to lead the American Petroleum Institute (API). -
(ACC Mentioned) Silicone Regulations Evolve Globally
Apr 30, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Kyle Brown
Though regulatory measures worldwide continue to pose obstacles for the silicone industry, there are a few bright spots on the horizon, according to Alexandra Rinehart, regulatory engineer at Shin-Etsu Silicones of America Inc. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Ban 2 Sunscreen Chemicals in Hawaii Advances to Floor Vote
Apr 30, 2018 | Honolulu Star Advertiser
By Nina Wu
Hawaii is poised to become the first state in the nation to pass a law banning the sales of over-the-counter sunscreens containing chemicals believed to harm coral reefs if Hawaii legislators vote to pass it on Tuesday. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Overwhelming Our Environment
May 1, 2018 | The Garden Island
The mid-April flood deposited plenty of debris on Kauai’s beaches. There have already been concentrated, communitywide efforts to clean up the mess, progress has been made, and work will continue in places like Lydgate Park... -
Bans on Plastic Straws Are Growing. But Is the Travel Industry Doing Enough?
May 1, 2018 | New York Times
By Adam H. Graham
The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization. -
Trump Administration Seeks to Expand Offshore Drilling, Relax Regulations
Apr 30, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
With a looming production decline in the Gulf of Mexico, the Trump administration is moving quickly to reduce regulations and open up leasing across U.S. waters to attract more oil and gas companies. -
Next for a Rewrite: Obama-Era Methane Limits for Oil and Gas Wells
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is poised to rewrite another Obama-era climate regulation: It's weighing changes to first-time limits on methane from new oil and gas wells. -
Supreme Court Rejects Constitution's Appeal of New York Permit Decision
Apr 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The Supreme Court today declined to hear the Constitution Pipeline Co.'s challenge of New York state's refusal to issue a water certification for its pipeline project to carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York. -
Marathon to Buy Andeavor in $23.3 Billion Oil-Refining Deal
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Laura Blewitt
Marathon Petroleum Corp. agreed to buy rival oil refiner Andeavor for $23.3 billion in a deal that would create the largest independent fuel maker in the U.S. -
Security May Eclipse First Responders as Safety Changes Advance
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The security of high-risk chemical facilities may take precedence over the safety of first responders as the Trump administration finishes updates to an EPA security program. -
RMP Rule Unlikely to Grant Industry Call to Scrap Obama EPA Revisions
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's looming proposed rule reconsidering an Obama-era policy strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program -- which cleared White House review April 27 -- is unlikely to grant industry groups' call to scrap the changes entirely... -
‘Cyber Blindspot’ Threatens Energy Companies Spending Too Little
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
What's the cost of securing the nation's energy from a cyber attack? -
Southern California Regulator Puts Off Decision on Toxic Acid Ban
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McAfee
The use of modified hydrofluoric acid at Southern California refineries won't be phased out, but a regional regulator will instead look at ways to reduce risks of the hazardous chemical. -
Flames Shot out of Grinder Before Wisconsin Plant Explosion
Apr 30, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Todd Richmond
A corn grinder began belching flames shortly before a deadly explosion tore through a southern Wisconsin mill last year, federal safety inspectors said Monday. -
NJ Transit May Request Extension for Positive Train Control
Apr 30, 2018 | Observer
By Christian Hetrick
New Jersey Transit is at risk of missing a federal deadline to install a mandatory safety system on its tracks and may ask for a two-year extension to complete the work, the head of the agency told state lawmakers on Monday. -
EPA Leans on States over Permits to Avoid 'Sue-And-Settle' Litigation
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Administrator Scott Pruitt may have barred EPA from settling environmentalists' so-called “sue-and-settle” suits that seek to enforce statutory deadlines but the agency is also leaning on states to revise permits as a way to avoid such suits... -
Your Air Isn't Getting as Clean as the EPA Said It Is
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
Your air isn't getting as clean as the government has been telling you, according a report published April 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. -
Commentary: Scott Pruitt and the Problem of Environmental Distrust
Apr 30, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By John Copeland Nagle
Embattled Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt wants to prevent his agency from using “secret science” to justify environmental regulation. A worthy goal, his critics say, but they don’t trust him or the way he wants to achieve it.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
ENRD Report Highlights Trump Administration Priorities
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Justice Department's (DOJ) environment division is highlighting its efforts to implement the Trump administration's priorities, including its support for regulatory reform by advising EPA and other agencies on high-priority rulemakings, defending deregulatory actions in court and easing a path for construction of new infrastructure.
“The Trump Administration is undertaking an ambitious agenda of regulatory reform, and the Division supports this effort by advising client agencies on high-priority rulemakings and ensuring the effective defense of regulatory actions in court,” Acting Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Wood says in an introduction to the Environment and Natural Resources Division's (ENRD) fiscal year 2017 accomplishments report.
Wood highlights “[n]oteable examples” of cases challenging agency regulations promulgated under previous administrations that are under review pursuant to President Donald Trump's executive orders, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule. “Our aim at ENRD is to avoid unnecessary litigation, support the integrity of the administrative process, and conserve the resources of the courts, the agencies, and other litigants, while also defending the rightful prerogative of the new Administration to review the costs and benefits of regulations and to chart a new direction where appropriate,” he says.
Additionally, the division is “working to support the Attorney General’s recent policies that further the Administration’s broader reform goals,” such as the June 2017 memorandum from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that restricts settlement payments from going to third parties who were neither victims nor parties to the lawsuit.
“While the memorandum does permit the use of third party payments in very limited circumstances to directly remedy environmental harm, those instances will not be routine. We agree with the Attorney General that any settlement funds should go first to victims and then to the American people, not to third party interests,” Wood says.
Despite Wood's reiteration of Sessions' policy, he nevertheless touts the Obama DOJ's landmark settlement with Volkswagen over its installation of emissions control defeat devices, which some conservatives had urged the Trump administration to reopen in part because it required such third-party payments.
In the area of enforcement, the report says ENRD secured $1.57 billion in civil penalties in FY17, the second best year over the past 20 years, though much of that penalty amount came from the Obama administration's Clean Air Act defeat device case against Volkswagen.
Consistent with historical trends, the results flow from relatively fewer civil enforcement complaints than in prior years, the report says, noting that in 1997 the division filed approximately 300 civil enforcement cases compared to 130 in 2014 and 95 in 2017. The cases filed in recent years “involve many more, and far more complicated, violations of law than was typical in cases filed 20 years ago,” the report says, adding that many of the recent cases also address multiple facilities, an approach seen less often in prior decades.
In the area of supporting regulatory review efforts, the report cites numerous cases where ENRD has secured continuances and abeyances of litigation to allow the Trump administration time to review existing regulations subject to ongoing litigation. These include challenges to the Clean Power Plan, the 2015 revised ozone national ambient air quality standards, the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) hydraulic fracturing rule, and BLM's waste prevention rule.
“Attorney General Sessions also has directed DOJ to 'develop a centralized understanding of the extent, nature, and impact of the Department’s regulatory activity,'” the report says. To address this, ENRD is undertaking a comprehensive internal review of its operations and has sought comment on various actions undertaken by department components, the report explains. “ENRD has reviewed a wide range of Division guidance documents, directives, regulations, memoranda and other documents to determine whether they impose any binding requirements on any person or entity outside the federal government.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/enrd-report-highlights-trump-administration-priorities
-
Former Boehner Aide Picked to Lead Oil and Gas Lobby: Reports
May 1, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Megan R. Wilson
Mike Sommers, a former aide to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), could soon be jumping from the financial services world to the oil and gas industry after reportedly being selected to lead the American Petroleum Institute (API).
Sommers, who is now the CEO of the American Investment Council, a group representing the private equity industry, is in line to replace long-time API president and CEO Jack Gerard, according to multiple reports. The decision will be final once it's approved by API's board of directors.
“The successor to Jack Gerard will be announced at the appropriate time once the committee has completed its work," Eric Wohlschlegel said in a statement to The Hill, identical to one sent to both Bloomberg and Axios.
Sommers did not respond to an email asking for confirmation.
Gerard will officially step down at the end of August.
The role leading API is one of the most prominent and prestigious in Washington's advocacy industry.
In 2016, Sommers received a total compensation of about $1.5 million at the American Investment Council, an organization with $7 million in revenue. By contrast, Gerard earned nearly $6.8 million that same year.
API, which represents a large swath of the oil and gas industry, takes in $229.7 million in revenue, making it a powerhouse. Last year, it spent about $7.5 million on lobbying, making it one of the top 50 spenders on advocacy in Washington.
Before heading to K Street, Sommers spent nearly his entire 20-year career in Boehner's office, starting as an intern and eventually rising to be the Ohio lawmaker’s chief of staff. Sommers also had a one-year stint in the George W. Bush White House in 2005.
His new employer, the American Investment Council, played a key role during tax reform, fighting to preserve the “carried interest” tax break, a provision that lawmakers of both parties have railed against. It enables some private equity and hedge fund executives to pocket profits at the lower capital gains rate.
Sommers talked about his transition to lobbying in an interview with The Hill in 2016.
“It’s sure different than working on Capitol Hill, but I’m finding that a lot of the skills you learn working on Capitol Hill translate very nicely,” he said.
— Updated at 7:46 p.m.
http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/385582-former-boehner-aide-picked-to-lead-oil-and-gas-lobby
-
(ACC Mentioned) Silicone Regulations Evolve Globally
Apr 30, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Kyle Brown
Though regulatory measures worldwide continue to pose obstacles for the silicone industry, there are a few bright spots on the horizon, according to Alexandra Rinehart, regulatory engineer at Shin-Etsu Silicones of America Inc.
Rinehart presented an update on global regulations for silicones through the Silicones Environmental, Health and Safety Center at the International Silicone Conference, held April 10-11 in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio.
The SEHSC, an American Chemistry Council group, is meant to promote the safe use of silicones through product stewardship and environmental health and safety research, she said.
"Simply put, we want to give regulators the best peer-reviewed science available to make appropriate regulatory decisions on our materials," Rinehart said.
The group is made up of North American silicone producers and importers including Dow Corning Corp., Elkem Silicones, Evonik A.G., Milliken & Co., Momentive Performance Materials Holdings Inc., Shin-Etsu and Wacker Chemie A.G.
As a group, SEHSC advocates that countries conduct their own assessment of octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), using risk-based weight-of-evidence approaches. Risk-based methodology uses previous analysis to prioritize assessment based on risk. A weight-of-evidence approach takes into account a wider range of evidence, as opposed to a strength-of-evidence approach, which uses evidence with a narrower focus.
The group also advocates risk-based determinations for state chemical assessments, and for state recognition of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as the primary authoritative regulatory entity for chemical assessment in the U.S., Rinehart said.
U.S. regulations
In the U.S. on the federal level, the SEHSC completed a consent agreement in September 2017 in conjunction with the EPA to generate real-world monitoring data for D4 environmental exposure to water following discharge from waste water treatment facilities, Rinehart said.
"Actual environmental concentrations measured in samples collected during the program will facilitate EPA's environmental risk assessment for D4," she said.
Monitoring was conducted at municipal and industrial waste water treatment facilities with discharges to surface waters, and an independent, peer-reviewed environmental risk evaluation of the data concluded that environmental exposure to D4 poses no unreasonable risk and no regulatory restrictions are needed, she said.
"EPA has indicated that it will use this robust data set to conduct its environmental risk assessment of D4," she said. "This real-world data will help ensure the agency will rely on more accurate exposure data rather than simply modeling for D4."
By state, Washington originally had listed D4 for alleged endocrine factors, but it was delisted due to weight of evidence, Rinehart said.
"It was a very big win for the silicone advocacy in conjunction with ACC efforts," she said.
In Oregon and Vermont, D4 is listed as "persistent, biocumulative and toxic"—or PBT— because of applying criteria without consideration of exposure, she said. Similarly, Maine has D4 and decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) both listed as PBT, because of lack of consideration of exposure. Dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) was delisted because of no rulings by an authoritative body. In Minnesota, D5 and D6 are listed as PBT because of inclusion on hazard-based lists.
Rinehart said regulatory determinations made in the U.S. under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (now the Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act), which gives EPA the authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements and restrictions relating to chemical substances, should be used preferentially by U.S. states for chemical of concern lists.
Global breakdown
In Europe, activity has been busy as of late, she said. There is a restriction of D4, D5 and D6 in personal care products, not to be formulated, placed on the market or used directly in wash-off products after January 2020. The restriction applies to products with a concentration of D4, D5 or D6 in an excess of 0.1 percent.
The Stockholm Convention is an international environmental treaty that aims to eliminate or restrict the production of persistent organic pollutants, and the European Union did nominate D4 as a POP in 2017, but it was not approved, Rinehart said.
"We also believe that D4 will be nominated again as a POP in 2018, and we will continue to monitor and advocate against this," she said. "The silicone industry position is such that a risk-based weight-of-evidence assessment of D4 with appropriate considerations for environmental exposure illustrates that D4 is not a POP and does not warrant any regulatory restrictions."
The European Chemicals Agency announced public consultation on substances of very high concern including D4, D5 and D6, Rinehart said. As of March 2018, EU members have proposed all three chemicals as SVHCs. If that proposal is supported by EU member states, a final SVHC decision could be made as early as June 2018.
The EU also proposed additional restrictions of D4, D5 and D6 in leave-on personal care products and other consumer and professional uses, such as dry-cleaning, waxes and polishes, washing and cleaning products. The SEHSC's position is that the additional restrictions are premature and unjustified, and current regulations should be fully implemented before new ones are issued, she said.
As a "ray of sunshine and hope," Australian activity is "actually going very well," she said. Using risk-based assessment of siloxanes, Australia concluded the direct risk to aquatic life from exposure to the chemicals at expected surface water concentrations are not likely to be significant. Australia has not proposed any regulatory restrictions on these materials.
In Japan, D4 was assigned to the chemical substance control list in the monitoring chemicals category because certain ecotoxicity data was not available. The category refers to existing chemicals that are confirmed to be consistent and biocumulative, and requires manufacturers and importers to complete reporting on usage amounts and other information as well as potential pollution prevention guidelines, Rinehart said.
D5 will continue to be managed under the CSCL under the general chemical category, and D6 was included in the monitoring chemicals category. The effective date for the categorization is expected to be sometime in April. Monitoring studies to measure the concentrations of D4, D5 and D6 in Tokyo Bay continue under the silicones industry voluntary product stewardship program.
In China, the Ministry of Ecology and Environment removed D4 from the draft list of prioritized chemicals, and the D4 risk assessment will begin sometime in April. The risk-based assessment will be conducted by three parties: the global silicones industry, the Chinese silicones industry and the Chinese government, she said.
If regulations regarding D4, D5 and D6 proceed for downstream products like silicone rubber, "there could be some pretty serious repercussions," Rinehart said. "There could be product restrictions in the EU, and that would be gradual concentrations where you would not want more than a certain amount, probably more than 0.1 percent in your formulations. Or it could be as problematic as a complete restriction on these products.
"D4 and D5 are very key, critical components to silicone polymers, so that could be a real problem. Which is why we're working so closely with the regulators to combat that."
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180430/NEWS/180509999/silicone-regulations-evolve-globally
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill to Ban 2 Sunscreen Chemicals in Hawaii Advances to Floor Vote
Apr 30, 2018 | Honolulu Star Advertiser
By Nina Wu
Hawaii is poised to become the first state in the nation to pass a law banning the sales of over-the-counter sunscreens containing chemicals believed to harm coral reefs if Hawaii legislators vote to pass it on Tuesday.
Senate Bill 2571, introduced by Sen. Mike Gabbard, prohibits the sale and distribution of over-the-counter sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate. The bill passed out of conference committee on Friday and is headed to floor votes by both the House and Senate on Tuesday. If it passes, it goes to Gov. David Ige for his signature.
“This is a huge win for our state,” said Gabbard in a Facebook post on Friday, “for our near shore, our coral reefs, oceans, and marine life. I’m happy we’re taking this step to protect our environment and our people.”
Gabbard composed and performed a song specifically about the bill, accompanied by harmonica, that he sang at an International Year of the Reef rally on Thursday at the Capitol rotunda.
The bill is supported by the Friends of Hanauma Bay, Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii and a number of other nonprofit environmental groups, as well as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Craig Downs, executive director of the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, which tested Hanauma Bay last year to measure the levels of oxybenzone in waters there, also testified in favor of the bill. It is opposed by the Hawaii Medical Association, Hawaii Food Industry Association, American Chemistry Council and Personal Care Products Council, as well as Bayer, which manufactures Coppertone sunscreens.
Two amendments were made to the final version of the bill. The date that the proposed law would go into effect was pushed from July 1, 2019 back to Jan. 1, 2021. In addition, sunscreens that fall under the category of cosmetics intended for use on the face are not included.Hawaii is poised to become the first state in the nation to pass a law banning the sales of over-the-counter sunscreens containing chemicals believed to harm coral reefs if Hawaii legislators vote to pass it on Tuesday.
Senate Bill 2571, introduced by Sen. Mike Gabbard, prohibits the sale and distribution of over-the-counter sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate. The bill passed out of conference committee on Friday and is headed to floor votes by both the House and Senate on Tuesday. If it passes, it goes to Gov. David Ige for his signature.
“This is a huge win for our state,” said Gabbard in a Facebook post on Friday, “for our near shore, our coral reefs, oceans, and marine life. I’m happy we’re taking this step to protect our environment and our people.”
Gabbard composed and performed a song specifically about the bill, accompanied by harmonica, that he sang at an International Year of the Reef rally on Thursday at the Capitol rotunda.
The bill is supported by the Friends of Hanauma Bay, Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii and a number of other nonprofit environmental groups, as well as the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Craig Downs, executive director of the Haereticus Environmental Laboratory in Virginia, which tested Hanauma Bay last year to measure the levels of oxybenzone in waters there, also testified in favor of the bill. It is opposed by the Hawaii Medical Association, Hawaii Food Industry Association, American Chemistry Council and Personal Care Products Council, as well as Bayer, which manufactures Coppertone sunscreens.
Two amendments were made to the final version of the bill. The date that the proposed law would go into effect was pushed from July 1, 2019 back to Jan. 1, 2021. In addition, sunscreens that fall under the category of cosmetics intended for use on the face are not included.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/04/30/breaking-news/bill-to-ban-2-sunscreen-chemicals-in-hawaii-advances-to-floor-vote/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Overwhelming Our Environment
May 1, 2018 | The Garden Island
The mid-April flood deposited plenty of debris on Kauai’s beaches. There have already been concentrated, communitywide efforts to clean up the mess, progress has been made, and work will continue in places like Lydgate Park, where driftwood and other waste fills the ponds and lines the shorelines. More than 50 people were at Pine Trees clearing the debris that has accumulated in recent weeks.
But, what we also know, there was long plenty of trash in the ocean before this happened. Surfrider, which organizes beach cleanups, will testify that plastic is the leading source of waste because it lasts pretty much forever and floats. So much is made of plastic, contains plastic, that the amount of plastic is overwhelming.
One recent report spelled it out for us and the results are a bit staggering, though perhaps not surprising.
Australian scientists Denise Hardesty and Chris Wilcox estimate, using trash collected on U.S. coastlines during cleanups over five years, that there are nearly 7.5 million plastic straws lying around America’s shorelines, according to the Associated Press. They figure that means 437 million to 8.3 billion plastic straws are on the entire world’s coastlines.
Sounds like a lot, right? It is, but not compared to this: University of Georgia environmental engineering professor Jenna Jambeck calculates that nearly 9 million tons end up in the world’s oceans and coastlines each year, as of 2010, according to her 2015 study in the journal Science.
That’s just in and near oceans. Each year more than 35 million tons of plastic pollution are produced around Earth and about a quarter of that ends up around the water, the AP reported.
Just go for a walk along the Ke Ala Hele Makalae and look to the shoreline. You’ll likely see untold types of plastic trash. While volunteers do their best to retrieve it, they can’t be everywhere at once. That’s where people can make a difference, one piece of plastic at a time.
“For every pound of tuna we’re taking out of the ocean, we’re putting two pounds of plastic in the ocean,” says ocean scientist Sherry Lippiatt, California regional coordinator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine debris program.
Sadly, marine life pays the price for man’s carelessness.
Seabirds and fish ingest it. Green sea turtles get caught up in it. It’s deadly to them.
Following in the footsteps of several U.S. cities such as Seattle and Miami Beach, British Prime Minister Theresa May in April called on the nations of the British commonwealth to consider banning plastic straws, coffee stirrers and plastic swabs with cotton on the end.
McDonald’s will test paper straws in some U.K. locations next month and keep all straws behind the counter, so customers have to ask for them.
The issue of straws and marine animals got more heated after a 2015 viral video showing rescuers removing a straw from a sea turtle’s nose in graphic and bloody detail.
But a ban may be a bit of a straw man in the discussions about plastics pollution. Straws make up about 4 percent of the plastic trash by piece, but far less by weight.
Straws on average weigh so little — about one sixty-seventh of an ounce or .42 grams — that all those billions of straws add up to only about 2,000 tons of the nearly 9 million tons of plastic waste that yearly hits the waters.
According to the AP report, scientists say that unless you are disabled or a small child, plastic straws are generally unnecessary and a ban is start and good symbol.
The problem is, like much of the plastic waste, you use these items for a few minutes and they basically stick around in the environment forever. Much like those Styrofoam cups we use for coffee, plastic straws are built to last.
Marcus Eriksen, an environmental scientist who co-founded the advocacy group 5 Gyres, says working on bans of straws and plastic bags would bring noticeable change. He calls plastic bags, cups and straws that break down in smaller but still harmful pieces the “smog of microplastics.”
“Our cities are horizontal smokestacks pumping out this smog into the seas,” Eriksen says. “One goal for advocacy organizations is to make that single-use culture taboo, the same way smoking in public is taboo.”
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, said people can reduce waste by not taking straws, but “in many cases these plastics provide sanitary conditions for food, beverages and personal care.”
We can decrease the amount of plastics in the ocean without bans. It can be done by making smarter, more responsible personal decisions each and every day. We have a long way to go, but raising awareness and asking people to do their part is a first step. It only seems hopeless when we choose not to pick up that one piece of plastic.
http://www.thegardenisland.com/2018/05/01/opinion/plastics-overwhelming-our-environment/
-
Bans on Plastic Straws Are Growing. But Is the Travel Industry Doing Enough?
May 1, 2018 | New York Times
By Adam H. Graham
The United States goes through over 500 million plastic straws every day, according to Eco-Cycle, a United States-based nonprofit recycling organization. They get used for only a few minutes, but potentially last for hundreds of years in the ocean, and are among the top 10 pollutants collected during beach cleanups. Plastic straws kill marine life and choke reefs and beaches, never decomposing completely, but instead breaking into bits of microplastics, which eventually enter the food chain. And so the straw — ubiquitous in most restaurants, bars, cruise ships and luxury resorts — has become a prime example of how tourism can have a deeply negative effect on the environment.
Global momentum has built in recent months to ban plastic straws and replace them with biodegradable ones, in part thanks to numerous social media campaigns using hashtags like #StrawsSuck and #TheLastStraw. In February, Queen Elizabeth II issued a rare royal decree banning plastic straws and bottles from all royal estates (and their cafes and gift shops) and pledged to reduce using other single-use plastics at all royal functions.
In Britain, the Queen’s announcement was just the beginning. Several British corporations — including Waitrose, London City Airport, McDonalds UK and Costa Coffee — banned plastic straws. And in mid-April, Prime Minister Theresa May announced a Britain-wide ban on the sale of plastic straws, stirrers and cotton swabs, and called on the 52 Commonwealth nations to implement similar measures.
Elsewhere, cruise companies like P & O, Cunard and Royal Caribbean have announced limits on plastic straws, bottles and packaging aboard its ships, while Carnival will stop placing straws in glasses automatically, but won’t outright ban them. Airlines have been sluggish to enact change, but, Fiji Airways and Thai Airways both pledged to significantly reduce single-use plastic onboard their fleets in 2018, while Ryanair aims to be “plastic free” by 2023.
Many independent hotels have had plastic bans in effect for years, but big chains are only recently catching up. Anantara Hotels will remove straws from its properties by the end of 2018. So will Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, which, in April, announced a ban on plastic straws from all 110 of their properties. India-based Taj Hotels will phase out straws from in-room dining at all 98 of their hotels, while AccorHotels will prohibit plastic straws in its 83 North and Central American properties by July.
Marriott, the world’s largest hotel company, is making the most substantial changes across several of their hotel brands, including a straw ban at all 60 British properties; Marriott’s 11 upmarket Edition Hotels will eliminate single-use plastics by 2019, a move made in collaboration with Lonely Whale, an environmental organization. Marriott will also phase out mini-plastic shampoo bottles from 1,500 of its North American hotels, including the brands Courtyard, Fairfield and Residence Inns, to be replaced by wall-mounted dispensers; Marriott’s changes are projected to eliminate 10.4 million plastic bottles, accounting for 113,000 pounds of plastic waste per year.
Spirit companies have joined the fight, stating that there’s no place for plastics in cocktails. Bacardi launched its No Straw campaign in 2016, estimated to eliminate one million straws a year. This year Diageo and Pernod Ricard, owners of Absolut, Baileys and Smirnoff brands, banned straws and stirrers from global affiliates, functions and ads.
While this all adds up to progress for conservationists, the big question is why is so much of the travel sector resistant to change? Many big luxury hotel brands, airlines and cruise ship companies — notorious for their oceanic waste and high carbon footprints — remain slow to curb unnecessary single-use plastics like bottles, slipper wrappers and plastic swabs that end up in the very oceans and beaches their guests travel across the world to experience.
“It’s surprising that the travel industry doesn’t show more leadership in terms of sustainable practices,” said Clark Mitchell, a former editor at Travel & Leisure and now a director at The Band Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to biodiversity conservation. “People go on a cruise to see beautiful islands, clear waters and gorgeous beaches. These companies have a direct stake in keeping these places pristine. And yet single-use plastic, like straws, are literally everywhere a traveler looks, in the drinks being sold, in the water and on the beach.”EDITORS’ PICKSWhere Facebook Rumors Fuel Thirst for RevengePruitt’s History: Fancy Homes, Lobbyists and a Shell CompanyA Memorial Unlike Anything the U.S. Has Ever Seen
Sonu Shivdasani, the chief executive of Soneva Resorts, a small luxury hotel chain emphasizing sustainability that banned single-use plastics in 2008, echoed that sentiment. “Hotels serve the richest 30 percent of the world’s population, and in doing so, consume far too many natural resources that weigh negatively, impacting the other 70 percent of society. We, as an industry, continue to consume far more than our fair share of resources.”
For luxury travelers, another question lingers: Why do high-end resorts have single-use plastic in their rooms in the first place? “Travelers spending over $400 a night on a hotel room shouldn’t be drinking from a cheap plastic bottle,” Mr. Mitchell said. “Plastic is not luxury.”
While travel corporations and private entities are in the nascent stages of making these changes, governments are slowly coming around. The European Union is rumored to follow Britain’s lead, while Australia also has a plastic ban in the works. In January, Taiwan announced the strictest regulation yet: a blanket ban forbidding all single-use plastic bags, straws and cups. In the United States, both Hawaii and California have pending straw ban legislation, while Seattle — the birthplace of the Starbucks disposable, to-go coffee culture — passed a measure banning plastic straws and utensils that goes into effect in July.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/travel/straw-bans-hotels-resorts.html
-
Trump Administration Seeks to Expand Offshore Drilling, Relax Regulations
Apr 30, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
With a looming production decline in the Gulf of Mexico, the Trump administration is moving quickly to reduce regulations and open up leasing across U.S. waters to attract more oil and gas companies.
Last week the agency that oversees offshore drilling announced plans to roll back Obama-era drilling regulations put in place following the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in 2010.
"Attitude and regulation matter in a big way. If a company has a choice where it deploys its capitol, the price of the commodity matters but that's the same everywhere with some small marginal differentials," Scott Angelle, who leads the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, said in a recent interview. "It is clear that one of the differences between this administration and the previous administration was they were interested in driving people out of the Gulf of Mexico."
But if Trump hopes to boost U.S. offshore oil and gas production, he has work cut out for him. Last year oil production from the Gulf of Mexico averaged 1.6 million barrels per day, an all-time record. But with investment down significantly since crude prices fell in 2014, analysts are projecting production to begin declining in 2022.
“There’s still a fear prices will go down again,” said Imran Khan, a senior manager at the research firm Wood Mackenzie. “Once the decline starts to kick in, unless we start sanctioning some more projects we’re looking at least three to four years of decline if not more.”
The hope within the oil and gas sector is that Trump will not only loosen regulations, but vastly expand the waters available to explore. All U.S. waters, with exception of the Gulf of Mexico, are virtually off limits for drilling. But Trump has plans to change that, with a lease sale scheduled for next year for the Beaufort Sea off the northern coast of Alaska.
At the same time the administration is weighing whether to open exploration in the Atlantic Ocean, off the coasts of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, despite objection from governors there that industry will foul their coastlines and hurt lucrative tourism.
“At some point [the Gulf] would be expecting to see declining production,” said Erik Milito, director of upstream at the American Petroleum Institute, the industry trade and lobbying group. “There’s only so much you can do when you’re isolated. From a policy standpoint, we’re hoping for expanded opportunities.”
Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is concentrated in its eastern sections and the industry is hoping to extend exploration to the central and western Gulf. Buthe potential for expanded drilling under reduced safeguards for drilling is drawing opposition from environmentalists worried that another Deepwater Horizon is looming.
That effects of the explosion, which caused more than 4 million barrels of crude to spill into the Gulf, is still being felt today, said Cyn Sarthou, executive director of the environmental watchdog Gulf Restoration Network.
Tar balls still show up on beaches after storms. Large stretches of coral beds off the coast of Texas were killed and still haven’t come back. And scientists have documented an increased death rate in a population of dolphins on the Louisiana coast that Sarthou believes is connected to the spill.
“As long as we don’t have regulations that require safety for workers and the environment ahead of profit, the possibility continues of another BP disaster,” she said. “We’re moving into deeper and deeper water with greater and greater risk.”
The U.S. Gulf faces increasing competition from offshore fields in Brazil and Mexico, where oil is found in shallower waters and easier to access. But the Gulf remains a draw for large oil and gas companies.
With so many platforms, pipelines and other equipment already in place, projects there don’t have the large costs of developing offshore fields in in other countries, Khan said. And with more than a century of drilling history, geologists are well tuned to the vagaries of the ocean bottom in the Gulf of Mexico.
But each year companies go into deeper and deeper water, accessing fields with greater degrees of underground pressure, increasing the risk of an accident. For the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, that will mean deciding whether oil companies can produce oil without putting workers and the environment at risk.
“You’re poking a straw into very high pressure,” Khan said, “so you’re going to need the equipment able to contain it.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Trump-administration-seeks-to-expand-offshore-12873305.php?t=89cb0ea187
-
Next for a Rewrite: Obama-Era Methane Limits for Oil and Gas Wells
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is poised to rewrite another Obama-era climate regulation: It's weighing changes to first-time limits on methane from new oil and gas wells.
The White House budget office on April 27 began reviewing a proposal from the Environmental Protection Agency that would adjust a 2016 rule setting limits on methane emissions—a greenhouse gas 28 times more potent that carbon dioxide over a hundred-year interval—from new oil and gas drilling operations.
The agency started formally reconsidering the Obama-era rule last April, as directed by President Donald Trump's March 28, 2017, energy executive order.
Long-Standing Concerns
Oil and gas industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, which represents Chevron Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp., and Devon Energy Corp. among others, have long raised concerns with the 2016 rule. They have urged Trump administration officials to quickly make changes to a number of the regulation's requirements. The industry has had to comply with the Obama-era rule while the EPA works to rewrite it.
Companies have an incentive to capture leaking natural gas emissions if the costs of gathering lines support it. Industry has long-supported voluntary approaches to capturing methane.
Last July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia slapped down the EPA's attempt to pause the regulation, leading to environmentalists’ first significant legal victory over the Trump EPA.
That court loss also prompted the EPA to set aside plans to delay the rule by an additional two years. The agency opted instead to issue small amendments to the rule in March addressing several technical issues raised by industry.
Industry Requests
The pending proposal will mark the Trump EPA's first attempt to tackle the substance of industry's concerns with the rule.
Industry groups are hoping the EPA will offer changes to the rule's program that requires companies to monitor and control emissions from leaking equipment, Lee Fuller, vice president of government relations with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, told Bloomberg Environment.
It's important that the monitoring program have flexibility to change when technology changes, Fuller said. Oil and gas companies also are looking for a mechanism that allows state monitoring programs—such as those in Colorado and Pennsylvania—to be credited toward meeting the EPA limits, he added.
Fundamental Approach
The oil and gas industry also has argued the Obama rule fundamentally takes the wrong approach. Groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, among others, have long pushed for a rule that predominantly regulates volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and captures methane emissions as a co-benefit.
VOCs, also emitted from oil and gas operations, are precursors to ground-level ozone and tiny particles in air—pollutants that can harm people who breathe them in.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, during an April 26 House Energy and Commerce environment subcommittee hearing, said the agency is considering proposals “to regulate methane going forward as part of the VOC approach.”
But it's unclear whether the proposal pending White House review will address this issue—or whether the EPA will consider that policy switch as part of a separate action.
The EPA could address the more technical issues, including changes to the monitoring program, as part of the pending proposal and then deal with the larger policy issue separately, Fuller said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081589&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081589&jd=133081589
-
Supreme Court Rejects Constitution's Appeal of New York Permit Decision
Apr 30, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The Supreme Court today declined to hear the Constitution Pipeline Co.'s challenge of New York state's refusal to issue a water certification for its pipeline project to carry natural gas from Pennsylvania to New York.
That leaves in place an August 2017 ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that found the state was within its rights to deny the company's application for a Clean Water Act certification.
Backers of the proposed 125-mile pipeline include Duke Energy, WGL Holdings Inc., Williams Cos Inc. and Cabot Oil & Gas Corp.
FERC approved the pipeline project in 2014 and again in 2016, but those approvals were contingent upon other approvals, including the state water quality certification. Constitution has also asked FERC to overturn the state's decision.
WHAT'S NEXT: FERC will consider Constitution's petition to overturn New York state's denial of the water quality certification.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Marathon to Buy Andeavor in $23.3 Billion Oil-Refining Deal
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Laura Blewitt
Marathon Petroleum Corp. agreed to buy rival oil refiner Andeavor for $23.3 billion in a deal that would create the largest independent fuel maker in the U.S.
The offer, payable in either cash or shares, values Andeavor at about $152.27 a share, the companies said in a statement April 30. That's about a 24 percent premium the April 27 closing price.
“Why wouldn't you do this deal?” Greg Goff, chief executive of Andeavor, said on a conference call April 30. “The time is right now, because for this industry, the wind is behind our backs.”
Marathon is focused in the Midwest and Gulf Coast, while Andeavor's refineries and pipelines are in western states. They are among the biggest beneficiaries of the shale boom, with access to abundant supplies at a discount to global prices. The combination would overtake Valero Energy Corp. as the biggest in U.S.-based oil refining capacity, generating about 16 percent of the nation's total, according to Bloomberg calculations.
“Wow!,” wrote Matthew Blair, director of refining research at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Denver, in a report that called Andeavor a “big winner” in a deal that is “extremely positive.”
As for Marathon, big synergies will be key, Blair said, adding that regulatory problems should be minimal, “given the disparate geographical markets of each company.”
“This transaction combines two strong, complementary companies to create a leading U.S. refining, marketing, and midstream company, building a platform that is well positioned for long-term growth and shareholder value creation,” Marathon Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Gary Heminger said in an April 30 statement.
He expects annual cost and operating synergies of about $1 billion within the first three years. Given projected cash-flow generation, Marathon's board also approved share buybacks of $5 billion. Goff will become executive vice chairman of the combined company.
The boards of both companies unanimously approved the deal, which is expected to close in the second half of this year, subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.
Marathon Petroleum, based in Findlay, Ohio, is the third-largest U.S. refiner by market capitalization, valued at about $38.6 billion, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Last year the company sold 5.8 billion gallons of fuel through its Speedway convenience store chain.
Andeavor Assets
Andeavor, based in San Antonio, Texas, formerly known as Tesoro Corp., is the fourth-largest, worth $18.7 billion. Phillips 66 is the largest U.S. independent refiner, valued at $51.9 billion. Andeavor's assets also include 5,300 miles of pipelines and 40 marine, rail and storage terminals.
Last week, Andeavor announced two joint ventures to move crude oil from West Texas to the coast that are poised to begin operations in late 2019. Marathon's Galveston Bay refinery, which currently sources about 200,000 barrels a day of light domestic oil, could benefit from the pipeline connectivity, Heminger said in a conference call April 30.
One is a pipeline project majority owned by Phillips 66 to carry as many as 700,000 barrels per day of crude from the Permian Basin to the Corpus Christi, Sweeny, and Freeport area. The second is a stake in a new marine terminal under development by Buckeye Partners LP that would connect with the pipeline Andeavor and Phillips 66 are planning to build.
Marathon's natural gas processing capacity will also increase by about 20 percent under the deal, to more than 10 billion cubic feet per day.
The combined entity will be positioned to capitalize from upcoming coking expansion projects that will produce low-sulfur diesel that complies with the upcoming International Maritime Organization rule to reduce pollution from ships. Andeavor's port assets in California, coupled with Marathon's on the Gulf Coast, will give the combined company access to sell fuel to bunker markets.
“Ports are the lifeblood to refining out in those markets,” Heminger said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081602&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081602&jd=133081602
-
Security May Eclipse First Responders as Safety Changes Advance
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The security of high-risk chemical facilities may take precedence over the safety of first responders as the Trump administration finishes updates to an EPA security program.
The administration is working to balance helping first responders prepare for emergencies with not disclosing too much information to potential attackers. The revisions are expected to favor industry and soon will be unveiled by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The White House regulatory review office put its stamp April 27 on an EPA proposal (RIN:2050-AG95) to replace the Obama administration's risk management plan, records show.
Such plans are intended to help first responders anticipate—and safeguard personnel during—chemical fires or other accidents at facilities while not providing too much information to potential attackers who may target the plants.
The White House's review precedes its release for public comment and EPA's finalization of the changes.
Under the Obama administration, the EPA issued a regulation (RIN:2050-AG82) in January 2017, after working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies to study gaps in chemical facility safety.
Under the Trump administration, the EPA delayed the regulation from taking effect until February 2019.
Security vs. Community Preparedness?
Industry groups have raised questions about the Obama plans requirement of companies to disclose sensitive information that could be used by attackers.
But environmentalists have long-argued that industry is employing security arguments in a bid to limit information that would help inform the public about the risks posed by plants to neighboring communities.
The agency sent the revisions to the White House for reviews just days before community organizations and 11 states argued before a federal appeals court in Air Alliance Houston v. EPA that the agency had exceeded its authority in delaying the Obama-era rules.
A ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit could come later this spring.
The EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment from Bloomberg Environment April 30.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081591&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081591&jd=133081591
-
RMP Rule Unlikely to Grant Industry Call to Scrap Obama EPA Revisions
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA's looming proposed rule reconsidering an Obama-era policy strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program -- which cleared White House review April 27 -- is unlikely to grant industry groups' call to scrap the changes entirely and instead moderate some of the January 2017 updates, an industry source says.
“There are a variety of reasons to think this proposal will not get rid of the full 2017 rule lock, stock and barrel,” the source says. “The question is will they completely get rid of the [Obama-era] changes or just moderate them.”
The previous administration's updates to the Risk Management Plan (RMP) program brought new requirements, such as streamlined disclosure of facility data and for third-party audits of facility safety plans, among other measures.
But the Trump administration in June delayed the effective date of the Obama-era final update rule nearly two years, until Feb. 19, 2019, saying it needed the time to reconsider and potentially reverse some of the changes. The delay followed petitions from industry and some Republican-led states that argued that the revisions were unnecessary and that the disclosure provisions could worsen terror threats.
The Trump administration on March 12 sent for mandatory White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) pre-publication review its proposed reconsideration of the 2017 RMP updates. OMB completed its review on April 27, taking just roughly half of the standard 90-day review period.
During the review OMB held meetings with chemical and other industry sectors' representatives who are urging EPA to essentially rescind the Obama-era rule, and environmental, labor and community groups who say that the rule is necessary to prevent facility accidents that continue to occur.
The industry source says critics of the updates used their meetings with EPA and OMB to largely reiterate long-standing arguments that the auditing and hazard analysis requirements are costly and unnecessary, and that the disclosure provision would worsen terror threats. Industry groups also have opposed independence requirements for third-party auditors as limiting the number of available auditors.
But environmental, labor and public interest groups urged OMB to preserve and quickly implement the Obama-era rule. During an April 10 meeting with the administration, they cited an April 3 report issued by groups including Earthjustice, the BlueGreen Alliance and the Union of Concerned Scientists, listing more than two dozen industrial accidents that have occurred since the agency delayed the rule in response to an industry petition to allow time for revision.
EPA's January 2017 RMP update rule responded to former President Barack Obama's August 2013 executive order on improving facility safety, issued after an explosion at fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders. The rule brought new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data.
Meanwhile, EPA is defending Pruitt's June delay of the update rule against environmentalists and Democratic-led states' lawsuit claiming that delaying the rule is unlawful and dangerous.
During March 16 oral argument in the case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seemed to agree that EPA has general statutory authority to amend the compliance dates of past rules. But they questioned whether the Trump administration had justified extending all targets for the policy until 2019 or later.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/rmp-rule-unlikely-grant-industry-call-scrap-obama-epa-revisions
-
‘Cyber Blindspot’ Threatens Energy Companies Spending Too Little
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
What's the cost of securing the nation's energy from a cyber attack?
Amid rising threats, including a recent attack on several U.S. power and natural gas suppliers, energy companies are now spending less than 0.2 percent of their revenue on cybersecurity, at least a third less than financial institutions, according to Precision Analytics LLC and the CAP Group LLC, security consultants that work within the industry.
Meanwhile, Symantec Corp. says it's tracking at least 140 groups of hackers actively targeting the energy industry, up from 87 in 2015. And Symantec is just one of several security firms working with the industry.
“It's scary,” said Brian Walker, a former head of Marathon Oil Corp.’s global IT and now an independent consultant. Executives making funding decisions “aren't necessarily millennials who intuitively understand” how cyberthreats reach seemingly disconnected units, he said.
“It's guys my age that are the problem,” according to Walker, who said he's in his early 50s. “We've been 30-years trained in a world that doesn't work this way anymore.”
Earlier this month, at least seven pipeline operators from Energy Transfer Partners LP to TransCanada Corp. said their third-party electronic communications systems were shut down, with five confirming the service disruptions were caused by hacking.
Though the attack didn't disrupt supply, it served to underscore an ongoing vulnerability to electronic sabotage. It showed how even a minor attack can jump between systems with ripple effects, forcing utilities to warn of billing delays and making it more difficult for analysts and traders to predict a key government report on gas stockpiles.
‘Real Challenge’
This “cyber blindspot is a real challenge,” Walker said. “Our fear is that we will play an ostrich and put our head in the sand until something blows up and people get killed or until the lights go out for a month.”
The threat isn't new, but it is escalating.
In 2012, Saudi Aramco production was locked down during the disk-wiping Shamoon incursion, and the company was hit again by the same group in November 2016, said Bill Wright, director of government affairs and policy counsel for Symantec in Washington. In 2015 and 2016, Ukraine was hit with blackouts by state sponsored groups, a blow to the economy as well the healthy and safety of its citizens.
Tracking Dragonfly
In the U.S., Symantec has been following another group, nicknamed Dragonfly, that's been around since at least 2011. Last year, the group became “a lot more aggressive,” with the goal of soliciting information on how energy companies work and figuring out how to maintain stealth access on their systems, according to Wright.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security issued a joint technical analysis about a month ago, tying Dragonfly to the Russian government and describing its ability to conduct sabotage, Wright said.
The low levels of spending by the industry comes as it rushed to adapt new ways to produce more product at a lower cost amid and following a historic, three-year rout in oil prices.
Over the last few years, the industry has been quickly adding electronic sensors and other monitoring capabilities to track data from 900,000 oil and gas wells, and 300,000 miles of pipelines. Complex computer algorithms at every level of the industry are constantly adjusting the flows of everything from oil and natural gas to electrical power, with automatic valves in place that can shut down flow at a moment's notice in the case of an accident with no human action needed.
And all of it is hackable, according to Walker and other experts.
‘Wide Open’
“This equipment is fairly wide open from a security perspective,” said Matthew Stegall, director of IT assessments at Precision in Las Vegas who performs such assessments for Deloitte & Touche LLP and KPMG LLP. “Companies are starting to more and more look at this. But they are still very much in the infancy stage.”
Many of these operations run on separate networks, offering an “air gap” that energy companies often cite as a shield against wider ranging intrusions. But that's also created a false sense of protection, according to Gent Welsh, commander of the 194th Wing of the Washington Air National Guard who's long been involved in developing cybersecurity capabilities.
Making the leap from attacking corporate systems to those involving operations “is not hard at all” for experienced hackers, Welsh said.
Operational Assets
Companies are aware of the need protect raw data, but they're often less sophisticated about the need to protect recently computerized systems for operational assets, according to Stegall. “When you get to a discussion on locking down the operations issues, they kind of look like deer caught in the headlight,” he said.
Based on analysis developed over 15 years, energy companies that earn $1 billion in revenue a year generally spend about $1 million for cybersecurity, Precision found. In comparison, companies within the financial industrial with $1 billion in revenue could spend as much as $3 million. according to the data. Financial services and retailers have been in the limelight for data breaches.
Walker, who works directly with energy executives, said he's found it surprising how many believe the Defense Department or Homeland Security is defending them. They can't, Walker said, because the government lacks the capability, expertise and, importantly, the legal standing to defend civilian assets before they're attacked.
Limited Access
At the same time, companies have avoided allowing real-time access to anyone outside their own organization, “much less to the government,” Walker said.
“Our adversaries well know that the soft underbelly of the United States is our critical infrastructure and key resource sectors, from power, to water, to transportation,” said Welsh, who has testified in front of Congress on multiple occasions. “What our adversaries are really doing is relentlessly probing for weakness than can be exploited down the road for political, economical, and military gain.”
“I dread the day where we can attribute the first loss of human life in this country directly or indirectly to a cyberattack,” he said.
It's not just a theory: Welsh had a team prove this vulnerability.
30-Minute Break-in
In 2014, the Snohomish County Public Utility teamed up with National Guard cyber operators to test its defense. They were given two weeks. After the meeting adjourned, it took less than 30 minutes to break into a drinking water treatment facility using a phishing email.
The approach to cybersecurity also is affected by the normal siloing of departments within individual companies, the experts said. At many companies, IT security will typically fall under the purview of the chief information officer while operations security staff report to a different boss, Walker said. The result: a communications gap.
It's not that the companies don't care about security. But the threat is growing exponentially, and companies of all types have has a hard time keeping up.
For instance, there's been a “dramatic rise” in so called supply-chain attacks where a software update itself has been compromised before it's even introduced into a company system, Walker said.
Earlier this year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proposed mandatory reliability standards and reporting requirements for supply chain risks, including counterfeits to the insertion of malicious software.
In September, U.S. Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-Wash.) introduced a bill in Congress to create National Guard Cyber Support Teams in every state and territory.
“Whether or not the industry can self regulate, I do have my doubts,” Stegall said. “But they don't know what they don't know.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081604&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081604&jd=133081604
-
Southern California Regulator Puts Off Decision on Toxic Acid Ban
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McAfee
The use of modified hydrofluoric acid at Southern California refineries won't be phased out, but a regional regulator will instead look at ways to reduce risks of the hazardous chemical.
The South Coast Air Quality Management District began developing a proposed regulation, Rule 1410, in April 2017, spurred by community concerns about a February 2015 explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance that injured two workers. The explosion resulted in a 40-ton piece of debris landing within five feet of a vessel containing modified hydrofluoric acid. Federal investigators declared it a “near miss” catastrophic accident.
The acid is used at Torrance Refining Co., which ExxonMobil sold to PBF Energy Co. in 2016, and at Valero Energy Corp.'s Wilmington Refinery.
The companies use the acid in their alkylation units—one of the conversion processes at petroleum refineries—to produce high-octane gasoline, according to a United Steelworkers report. Other California refineries use less risky sulfuric acid or don't have alkylation units.
Agency staff initially recommended a ban on modified hydrofluoric acid, which would have been phased out for between four and eight years. The committee instead tabled the ban and focused on mitigating risks.
“If released during a refinery accident, [modified hydrofluoric acid] could pose a serious health threat to the community,” said Clark E. Parker Sr., chairman of the air quality district's Refinery Committee, said at a meeting April 28. “We are directing staff to identify potential further mitigations to benefit public health and safety.”
Company Touts Safety
The chemical can form a dense, ground-hugging toxic and potentially lethal cloud, the air district has reported. Other exposure hazards include severe skin and deep tissue burns, harm to bone structure, damage to the respiratory system, and severe eye irritation.
PBF Energy says that, despite “misinformation about the issue,” The acid is “safe” and “the latest, most advanced, commercially proven alkylation catalyst available in the world today.”
“Plus, we follow recognized industry practices that support the safe, reliable operation of our alkylation unit,” Gesuina Paras, a PBF spokesperson, told Bloomberg Environment in an April 26 email. “Bearing this out, our alkylation unit and Valero's have been operating in the District for a combined 100 years without any [hydrofluoric acid] or [modified hydrofluoric acid] offsite release from either refinery.”
Paras added that the company remains “committed to further enhancing safety systems” on its alkylation unit.
Regulator's Actions
“I think we're going to need more information,” South Coast Air Quality Management District Chairman William A. Burke, who participated as an ad hoc member, said during the meeting. “If either side thinks they have it wrapped up, I think they're way off base.”
The agency's staff proposed enhanced safety practices and increased monitoring. Burke said those plans were all but guaranteed.
The committee directed agency staff to develop a multi-tiered proposal for reducing the risk of accidental releases at the facilities in Wilmington and Torrance. The proposal will include a potential plan that would be the equivalent of a fail-safe operation.
Agency staff said it would take about 90 days to study the issue and develop the proposed rule.
Cost of Phaseout
Labor groups representing refinery workers said the cost of transitioning from modified hydrofluoric acid to sulfuric acid could cause the owners of the refineries to close or relocate. That could cost jobs and raise local gas prices, according to those who opposed a phaseout.
Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, a group of South Bay residents and business owners concerned about modified hydrofluoric acid that formed after the 2015 explosion, said the refineries aren't in danger of closure if the acid is banned.
“It will cost them money a lot of money but it will save potentially a lot of lives,” Steve Goldsmith of the alliance told Bloomberg Environment. “With the new tax laws and amortization of costs, the amount to convert falls well within their typical annual profit.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081599&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081599&jd=133081599
-
Flames Shot out of Grinder Before Wisconsin Plant Explosion
Apr 30, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Todd Richmond
A corn grinder began belching flames shortly before a deadly explosion tore through a southern Wisconsin mill last year, federal safety inspectors said Monday.
The May 31 blast at the Didion Milling Co. plant in Cambria killed five workers, injured 14 others and reduced the facility to rubble. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration said in November that an accumulation of highly combustible grain dust probably caused the explosion.
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is investigating the explosion as well with an eye toward improving safety measures for industries dealing with dust. Board investigators interviewed 10 of the survivors and released a report of their accounts during a news conference Monday in Madison.
According to the compilation, mill workers said they started smelling smoke about 15 to 30 minutes before the blast. Employees were inspecting the corn grinder as a possible source of the smoke when an air filter flew off the device, resulting in corn dust filling the air. Three-to-four foot flames began shooting from the air intake line.
A superintendent who isn’t named in the report yelled for everyone to clear the room. He was about to sound an evacuation when the explosion occurred, the report said. A second explosion knocked him to the ground.
“You know, the building, as I was running, I was looking behind me and the whole building was just, there were fireballs and stuff,” the superintendent told investigators. “It just kept exploding. Just sounded like thunder, like constant thunder. And I saw concrete and stuff blast. I just, I thought I was the only one that made it. I thought the whole place was done, you know.”
The report notes that a dust cloud that catches fire within a confined space will expand until the enclosure bursts, releasing a pressure wave capable of damaging buildings and causing severe injuries.
A 2006 CSB study on dust fires identified 281 incidents between 1980 and 2005 that killed 119 workers and injured 718 others. Since 2006 the board has conducted five investigations into dust-related incidents that have killed 27 people and injured 61 others, including the Didion blast.
Monday’s report didn’t offer any conclusions about the cause of the explosion. Board investigators plan to use computer modeling to identify the amount of dust in the mill and are still examining the grinder as well as interviewing plant workers, the report said.
The CSB doesn’t issue sanctions, instead focusing on how to improve industry safety.
OSHA, however, has cited Didion for 19 safety violations related to the explosion and proposed nearly $2 million in fines. Didion is contesting the citations before an administrative law judge in Washington, D.C.
Didion issued a statement Monday saying company officials were reviewing the CSB’s report and have been cooperating with the board to determine the explosion’s cause. Board Investigator Mary Beth Mulcahy, however, told reporters at the news conference that workers told investigators on Sunday evening that the company warned them not to speak with the CSB about the blast.
Didion spokeswoman Aisha Bachlani said in an email that the company has encouraged all employees to cooperate with CSB and any other agencies investigating the explosion. She added that the company as organized multiple CSB interviews with employees and given investigators regular access to the site.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/flames-shot-out-of-grinder-before-wisconsin-plant-explosion/2018/04/30/0c7a594a-4cae-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html?utm_term=.1a374dd405ba
-
NJ Transit May Request Extension for Positive Train Control
Apr 30, 2018 | Observer
By Christian Hetrick
New Jersey Transit is at risk of missing a federal deadline to install a mandatory safety system on its tracks and may ask for a two-year extension to complete the work, the head of the agency told state lawmakers on Monday.
The railroad must install Positive Train Control—a system designed to prevent collisions and high-speed derailments—by Dec. 31 or potentially face hefty federal fines. During a hearing before the Assembly Budget Committee, NJ Transit Executive Director Kevin Corbett said the agency is behind in its work and may ask the federal government for permission to finish the job by the end of 2020.
“We are making that evaluation, but if we are going to go that way, we will have to move fairly quick on that,” Corbett told reporters after the hearing.
NJ Transit can win a deadline extension if it meets certain requirements. But in a letter sent to Corbett last week, the Federal Railroad Administration said NJ Transit may not meet the criteria to qualify for an alternative schedule. Among the requirements is the complete installation of the hardware required for its PTC system, and NJ Transit had only 11 percent of the hardware in place as of the end of last year, according to the agency’s fourth-quarter progress report.
Corbett told lawmakers on Monday that the contractor for the PTC project has ramped up its work and is now operating two equipment installation facilities with multiple work shifts. NJ Transit has also began PTC field testing on a six-mile stretch of the Morris & Essex Line between Morristown and Denville, Corbett said.
“We have sternly warned our contractor that they must deliver a system that meets federal safety requirements,” Corbett said.
The initial deadline to install PTC was the end of 2015, but Congress extended the deadline to the end of this year.
The National Transportation Safety Board said the absence of a speed control system contributed to the fatal train crash in Hoboken that killed one person and injured 108 in September 2016.
http://observer.com/2018/04/nj-transit-positive-train-control-extension/
-
EPA Leans on States over Permits to Avoid 'Sue-And-Settle' Litigation
Apr 30, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Administrator Scott Pruitt may have barred EPA from settling environmentalists' so-called “sue-and-settle” suits that seek to enforce statutory deadlines but the agency is also leaning on states to revise permits as a way to avoid such suits, including in some already-pending litigation, says an environmentalist attorney familiar with the practice.
As part of the new strategy, EPA is pushing states to revise Clean Air Act Title V permits that are subject to litigation, after EPA failed to meet the 60-day statutory deadline to respond to a petition to object to a permit, as a way for the agency to avoid both litigating and settling, the attorney says.
EPA did not respond to questions seeking comment. But the environmentalist attorney says that after Pruitt last fall signed a directive barring settlement of such suits, the agency started getting “bizarrely creative to get cases resolved without” litigation or settling or taking action on a petition.
For example, the agency would “lean on a state” to revise a permit and then claim a petition over the original permit was moot, the source says.
For example, in Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) v. Pruitt, pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the agency was able to stay litigation challenging its failure to respond to a petition objecting to a Maryland state permit for the Morgantown Generating Station after the state issued a new permit.
“In light of the new permit issued by Maryland, the parties anticipate that the essential substantive claim in this matter has been addressed, but any claim by Plaintiffs for costs and attorneys fees has not been resolved,” the Justice Department wrote in a Jan. 16 motion to stay the case.
The judge granted the motion the next day and it remains on hold until May 2, when a status report is due.
And in Sierra Club v. EPA, a suit over EPA's failure to respond to environmentalists' objection to a permit for the Tennessee Valley Authority's Gallatin Fossil Plant, EPA after months of litigation Feb. 9 rejected as moot environmentalists' underlying petition after the state issued a new permit.
The agency said in its rejection notice that the litigation claims have been superseded because a 2017 revised permit included substantial changes, significant enough to “render the Petitioners' 2016 claims regarding the monitoring provisions for opacity and [particular matter] . . . moot.”
The denial also cites legal decisions from 2017, 2013 and 2011 establishing criteria for evaluating potentially moot claims to say that, “Where a superseding proposed permit, with a new rationale, has been put before the EPA, to the extent that the changes relate to the specific objection(s) raised in the petition, the petition is moot.”
This case is now centered on attorneys' fees and costs with a June 19 deadline for EPA to reply to Sierra Club's Feb. 19 motion for $33,000 in fees and costs, which was preceded by a Feb. 13 notice of proposed settlement on the fee issue.
Pruitt's Directive
The environmentalist attorney says this practice never happened in the Obama administration but began in the Trump administration even before Pruitt's Oct. 16 directive banning “sue-and-settle."
Pruitt said he signed the policy to prevent “sweetheart deals” that environmentalists had won from the Obama administration, though such settlements have been defended by environmentalists and some industry attorneys as a flexible way to ensure EPA completes its non-discretionary duties.
Pruitt's directive ordered EPA to halt the practice of settling such suits and laid out a series of steps that had to be taken before the agency could agree to any kind of settlement -- steps that industry sources warned were prohibitive, such as broad consultative requirements. The industry critics also warned that the order could “paralyze” the agency. These sources also cautioned that the directive would likely result in more litigation, require greater resources and risk stricter deadlines set by courts than what the agency could negotiate.
In the wake of the directive, the agency suffered a series of losses where courts imposed steep deadlines to respond. For example, a federal court in Connecticut set a tight deadline for EPA to respond to Connecticut's petition for direct regulations of ozone from a Pennsylvania power plant that the state blames for its ozone problems. EPA met the deadline, denying the petition and prompting a new suit over the denial.
And the D.C. district court in Community In-Power and Development Association, Inc., et al. v. Pruitt ruled March 31to give EPA three and a half years -- 18 months more than what the plaintiffs had offered but less than the seven years the agency had sought -- to issue nine mandatory and long-overdue hazardous air pollutant rules. The parties are now fighting about attorneys' fees.
Such losses may have prompted EPA to seek to settle some cases after all. For example, the agency is in settlement talks with the Sierra Club in a suit over the agency's failure to assess the air quality impacts of the renewable fuel standard, a mandatory duty required by Congress.
These types of decisions are prompting industry attorneys to continue to criticize the sue-and-settle bar. For example, John Cruden, who ran the Justice Department (DOJ) environment division under the Obama administration and now is in private practice, told Inside EPA in an interview earlier this year that, “Settling cases is a positive event, lowering transaction costs, speeding up environmental compliance, and gaining results that all the parties can accept. At DOJ while I was there we had a straightforward standard, that is, 'is the result better than what we would have expected to achieve in a court decision?' And, we often found in rulemaking cases that when we did not settle, the court decisions were worse."
A former Bush EPA official says it is unclear whether EPA will stick with its bar on settling cases, and says a few more court losses might show the situation to be untenable. “Frankly, I think it would be better if there were some offramps all the way around,” the source says.
Additionally, a retired EPA Office of General Counsel attorney says the adverse court decisions EPA has received in a handful of cases so far over which it refused to settle deadline suits “is exactly what we thought would happen. That EPA would stop having productive settlement discussions and have very hard deadlines from courts.”
The environmentalist attorney says after the directive was signed, groups that brought deadline suits against EPA have witnessed an acceleration of an unwillingness to discuss settling, and have also experienced situations where EPA has “walked away from stuff that we thought was a good-faith negotiated settlement and then insisted on litigating it out. . . . I'm skeptical now” of even entering settlement discussions “based on my experiences of discussing settlements with EPA. . . . This isn't even strategic for them. It's ideological..”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-leans-states-over-permits-avoid-sue-and-settle-litigation
-
Your Air Isn't Getting as Clean as the EPA Said It Is
May 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Efstathiou Jr.
Your air isn't getting as clean as the government has been telling you, according a report published April 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
After decades of gains in cutting U.S. air pollution, progress unexpectedly stalled in 2011. After that, levels of nitrogen oxides in the air declined by 1.7 percent annually through 2015, according to the report, a sharp contrast to previously published Environmental Protection Agency data that estimated the decrease at 5.3 percent a year
The difference was uncovered when scientists compared EPA estimates, which rely on surface measurements and industry reports, with satellite data. Researchers attributed the discrepancy to emissions from sources including boilers and off-road vehicles, which had slipped under the radar as regulators focused on curbing pollution from power plants and cars.
“Our air is still a lot cleaner than it was in the ’80s and ’90's, but we're now seeing this slowdown,” said Helen Worden, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and co-author of the report. “This is the first report that noticed the discrepancy,”
Ozone pollution, formed in a chemical reaction between certain pollutants and sunlight, can lead to chest pain, lung damage, and even premature death, according to the American Lung Association. The findings in the April 30 report show that many cities will find it harder to meet standards for ground-level ozone even as cars, trucks, and power plants get cleaner.
Clean Air Act
The U.S. took aim at vehicle and power plant emissions in the Clean Air Act of 1970. Catalytic converters for cars and smokestack scrubbers at power plants led to significant cuts in ozone precursors from those sources. But smaller sources like boilers and off-road vehicles weren't targeted, and their emissions now have a relatively larger impact on overall pollution control measures, Worden said.
“To some extent, this is a product of our own success,” said Worden. “The relative contribution of those sources is now more important because cars and power plants have gotten better.”
The report was funded mainly by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Colorado Boulder, and the National Science Foundation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=133081598&vname=dennotallissues&fn=133081598&jd=133081598
-
Commentary: Scott Pruitt and the Problem of Environmental Distrust
Apr 30, 2018 | Chicago Tribune
By John Copeland Nagle
Embattled Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt wants to prevent his agency from using “secret science” to justify environmental regulation. A worthy goal, his critics say, but they don’t trust him or the way he wants to achieve it. Which is ironic, for Pruitt’s plan isn’t really about science. It’s about trust.
In environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Congress has instructed the EPA to develop regulations that prevent a variety of harms to public health and the natural environment. It is then up to the EPA to determine, for example, how much of a particular pollutant can be released into the environment without causing harm. That is not always easy to know. We know that breathing air containing lots of lead will kill us while breathing air with exceedingly tiny amounts won’t hurt us at all. But exactly how many micrograms of lead are safe?
It is the EPA’s responsibility to review the scientific evidence and then make such judgments. Not surprisingly, partisans tend to see the scientific evidence from their own perspective. Industry believes more pollution is tolerable; public health advocates insist that we suffer from lower levels.
Pruitt, like many supporters of President Donald Trump, doesn’t trust many of the scientific conclusions reached by his predecessors at the EPA. His new proposal is intended to “help ensure that EPA is pursuing its mission of protecting public health and the environment in a manner that the public can trust and understand.”
Pruitt’s critics see a different motivation. They believe that his real goal is to gut environmental regulation. If that is true, then the entire project should be scrapped. And Pruitt’s ongoing ethics scandals involving his relationships with industry officials lend support to their view.
But the critics miss the point. Whatever Pruitt’s personal policy preferences, the agency he heads has a legal obligation to develop regulations based on the best science, and the courts will be quick to correct the EPA if it does something else. Pruitt’s claim isn’t that the EPA should pursue a different goal. Rather, he is responding to the widespread perception that the EPA’s scientific conclusions cannot be trusted.
Widespread, that is, among Trump supporters. They point to the fact that even before Trump’s candidacy, only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republicans. They worry that the scientists who advise the EPA are the same scientists who depend on EPA grants for their research. At the same time, supporters of more stringent environmental regulations distrust scientific studies funded by regulated businesses, as attested by the cottage industry of books bearing titles such as “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.”
Trust is essential to holding society together, but increasingly we only trust people like us. We make our judgments about what is true based on our affinity with those who say it. As President Barack Obama warned in his farewell speech, we “retreat into our own bubbles, whether in our neighborhoods or on college campuses, or places of worship, or especially our social media feeds, surrounded by people who look like us and share the same political outlook and never challenge our assumptions. ... (W)e become so secure in our bubbles that we start accepting only information, whether it’s true or not, that fits our opinions, instead of basing our opinions on the evidence that is out there.”
There is no single answer to solving our crisis of trust. And Pruitt’s proposals face legitimate concerns about how to reconcile the competing demands of transparency and privacy. The biggest mistake, though, would be to pretend that the selective distrust of environmental science will simply disappear. Our trust problem will persist far longer than Scott Pruitt’s tenure at the EPA.
John Copeland Nagle is a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-epa-scott-pruitt-distrust-dismantle-environment-regulations-secret-science-0501-story.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested