Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/15/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) Inks MoU With American Chemistry Council (ACC) To Become Accrediting Body In Pakistan
May 15, 2018 | UrduPoint News
By Umer Jamshaid
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of global Responsible Care Programme 'RC 14001' within Pakistan. -
EPA Science Plan Skirted Usual Process, Raising Finalization, Legal Doubts
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Trump EPA's controversial plan requiring use of publicly available research to justify rules appears to have been developed by political appointees without following the agency's usual action development process (ADP) for crafting important rules, leaving career staff and program offices out of the loop but raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them. -
House Floats $100 Million Cut To EPA In FY19 Targeting Regulatory Programs
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
House lawmakers are floating draft legislation to cut EPA's budget from its current $8.058 billion funding by $100 million down to $7.958 billion, a modest cut compared to prior GOP efforts to slash the agency's funding that primarily targets EPA's science and rulemaking accounts for reductions while boosting state grants and Superfund spending. -
Pruitt Adds New EPA Office to Further Efficiency Effort
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
EPA head Scott Pruitt’s efficiency push throughout the agency will get its own office, the administrator announced May 14. -
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC Guide Could Give EPA Alternative To Partial Methylene Chloride Ban
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) recent guidance calling for product labels to warn of acute inhalation hazards of paint strippers containing methylene chloride could give EPA an alternative to calls for a first-time ban on some uses of the substance, such as industry calls to promote risk management options. -
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Demand Release of 'Nightmare' Toxicology Study
May 15, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Congressional Democrats yesterday expressed outrage that the Department of Health and Human Services still hasn't published a toxicology study that a White House official earlier this year described as a "potential public relations nightmare." -
Senators Question DOD Plan To Ignore States' PFAS Cleanup Standards
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Two Democratic senators are raising concerns that the Defense Department (DOD) may be preparing to revise its policy so that it would not have to comply with some state cleanup requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a move that the senators urge DOD to avoid. -
Industry Coalition Forms to Lobby For EPA Safer Labels Program
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making cleaners, automobile products, and other consumer chemicals are launching a coalition June 1 to support a threatened EPA labeling program that recognizes safer chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, W/C May 14
May 14, 2018 | Platts
...Polyethylene stocks in the US and Canada saw significant gains for the second consecutive month in April, as production outpaced total sales by almost 401.6 million lb, preliminary data released late last week by the American Chemistry Council showed. -
Oil Companies Clash with Trump over NAFTA Changes
May 13, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The oil and gas industry’s love affair with President Donald Trump is in trouble. -
Appalachian Boom: Potholes, Landslides and Shattered Peace
May 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Mike Lee
A decade ago, Mobley was like any of the tiny communities spread across rural Wetzel County, marked by a half-dozen mailboxes clustered at the main crossroads and a smattering of houses and trailers around them. -
U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Just Quadrupled -- It's Good For The Economy & National Security
May 14, 2018 | Forbes
By Chuck DeVore
Last year Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned natural gas company, provided some 40 percent of Europe’s gas needs. Gazprom produced 16.6 trillion cubic feet of gas. -
Cybersecurity Office to Work With Energy Industry to Protect Grid
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A cybersecurity office in the Energy Department that formally opened May 14 will work with the electric, oil and natural gas sectors to develop emergency response plans and prevent cyberattacks, the department official overseeing it said. -
Doe Unveils "Game-Changing" Plan to Foil Grid Hackers
May 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy yesterday unveiled a five-year plan for guarding the U.S. power grid from hackers, calling the issue "a top national priority." -
House Panel Refutes Trump, Proposes $12M for Chemical Board
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bruce Rolfsen
The Trump administration’s proposal to disband the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is once again running into opposition from Congress. -
(ACC Mentioned) As Updates Are Made to Railroad Tank Cars, Is It Time to Update Industry Rules as Well?
May 15, 2018 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By David Jacobs
Industries that use railroads to ship flammable liquids are replacing or retrofitting their rail cars to meet more stringent design standards first issued in 2015. -
House Funding Bill Would Boost Water Infrastructure Projects
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern and Amena H. Saiyid
A $35.2 billion House funding bill would provide additional resources for water infrastructure projects while cutting EPA funding by about $100 million. -
Speeding EPA Air Quality Reviews May Mean Less Input From Public
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan, Amena H. Saiyid and David Schultz
The EPA’s latest push to meet legal deadlines to review its air pollution requirements could sideline public participation—even as Administrator Scott Pruitt argues the science underlying the agency’s work should be more transparent. -
Air Pollution Tied to High Blood Pressure for Children
May 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Luis Sanchez
Babies exposed to more air pollution are more likely to face elevated blood pressure, according to a study published Monday in the American Heart Association's journal Hypertension. -
Final EPA Staff Documents Reiterate Call to Retain SO2 NAAQS
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA staff has released final versions of risk and policy assessment documents to support its review of sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reiterating earlier recommendations to leave the standards unchanged ahead of a looming deadline later this month for the agency to propose whether to revise the NAAQS. -
Commerce Secretary: Some NOAA Climate Research Questionable
May 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said yesterday that some climate research at NOAA had been reviewed "less" than favorably by other scientists.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
May 15, 2018 | UrduPoint News
By Umer Jamshaid
Pakistan Chemical Manufacturers Association (PCMA) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to manage certification of global Responsible Care Programme 'RC 14001' within Pakistan.
The MoU was signed by Chairman Zubair F Tufail and Secretary General of PCMA, Iqbal Kidwai Whereas, on behalf of the ACC, Debra Phillips, Vice President of its Sustainability and Market Outreach Division signed the MoU.
Secretary General of PCMA, giving details of the MoU informed here that Responsible Care was the global chemical industry's joint programme for safety of environment and human health, through which the participating national and regional trade associations had agreed to conform to the International Council of Chemical Associations' (ICCA) Responsible Care Fundamental Features and established timelines for implementation.
He told that PCMA joined the global Responsible Care community in 2017 and since its recognition by ICCA's Responsible Care Leadership Group, PCMA had been engaged in developing the set elements of its Responsible Care programme, including a certification model.
He said the current MoU is a major breakthrough in this regard, which has provided the PCMA with an opportunity to work in collaboration with ACC for one complete year to initiate an approved RC14001 accreditation process in pakistan through the nation's apex accreditation body,PakistanNational Accreditation Council (PNAC).
Kidwai said the MoU had knitted the PCMA and ACC into an agreement for expanding RC 14001 certification opportunities for PCMA within the country,whereas this sort of accreditations earlier were being processed in USA.
He said this arrangement will not only improve performance of the local chemical industry in implementation of the Responsible Care Programme, but will also enhance their knowledge on RC14001 through a supporting RC14001 infrastructure to be created in Pakistan to provide the availability of accreditation services, auditor resources and training opportunities, he added.
It could be noted that PCMA is striving hard to help country's chemical producers achieve the goal defined by the UN's Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM), which is meant to ensure that by the year 2020, the Chemicals are used and produced by minimizing the significant adverse effect on human health and environment.The ICCA had expressed deep satisfaction over efforts of PCMA for introducing the safety measures in Pakistan in line with ICCA's Charter.
https://www.urdupoint.com/en/pakistan/pakistan-chemical-manufacturers-association-344721.html
-
EPA Science Plan Skirted Usual Process, Raising Finalization, Legal Doubts
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Trump EPA's controversial plan requiring use of publicly available research to justify rules appears to have been developed by political appointees without following the agency's usual action development process (ADP) for crafting important rules, leaving career staff and program offices out of the loop but raising doubts about how it will be finalized without them.
Sources tell Inside EPA that the science transparency rule is categorized as a “tier 3” measure, the lowest of three tiers in EPA's ADP, and therefore received the least scrutiny in the intra-agency review process before rules or actions are made public.
But the sources say that the measure appears to have all the hallmarks of a tier 1 rule that requires significant intra-agency review from career staff and others, usually in a special work group. But without their involvement, it is uncertain how the agency will be able to review and respond to the thousands of comments the agency is likely to receive on the draft rule.
The tier 3 status “means it gets the lowest amount of attention in terms of review and management attention. Tier 1 and 2 have to go through a formal workgroup process,” one agency source says. “You can slip a tier 3 out without getting the sign off of all the offices.”
A second source says that one of the reasons the rule needs a regular staff work group is that each action's work group is charged with reviewing and determining how to address issues raised in public comments.
“It's very unclear” how the rule will move forward, the second source says, “because none of the career staff was involved in its writing.”
The source adds that by not following the usual ADP, the rule may also face legal vulnerabilities. “To be defensible, actions need to go through all of the steps to provide the judge” that defense, the source adds.
EPA spokespeople did not respond to a request for comment by press time.
EPA's proposed rule, signed by Administrator Scott Pruitt April 24, generally bars the use of studies that do not disclose underlying data but also provides broad authority for the administrator to waive the requirement.
The measure cleared formal White House review, a process that usually take weeks or months, in less than four days, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
Critics charge it is intended largely to block the use of long-standing confidential medical studies that the agency has relied on when setting strict air quality and other health-based standards, though the chemical and pesticide industries also fear it could block the use of confidential business information.
Many observers have warned the measure faces significant legal hurdles, including vague or undefined terminology, statutory mandates likely at odds with the rule and potential violations of administrative law.
The proposal was published in the Federal Register April 30 for a 30-day public comment period, though environmentalists and states have urged the agency to withdraw the proposed rule to consult with the National Academy of Sciences or, in the alternative, to extend the comment period by as much as 150 days to allow for such NAS consultation.
Action Development Process
Both agency sources say that the proposed rule appears to have skirted criteria in internal agency guidance that clearly places the measure outside of the tier 3 category.
The criteria are spelled out in a guidance document, “Guidance for EPA Staff on Developing Quality Actions,” that was last updated in March 2011.
The document describes the ADP as “a method for producing quality actions. It serves as a comprehensive framework to ensure the use of quality information to support our actions and an open process. It also makes certain that scientific, economic, and policy issues are adequately addressed at the appropriate stages in action development. It provides opportunities for senior management to get involved early and to provide guidance and direction to staff at key points in the process.”
The document also explains the criteria for determining an action's tiering. The document describes tier 1 rules as “Administrator’s Priority Actions” which “include top actions that demand the ongoing involvement of the Administrator’s office and extensive cross-Agency involvement on the part of the [assistant administrators (AAs)/regional administrators (RAs)].”
A chart in the ADP adds that staff should deem an action tier 1 if “science issue(s) are precedent setting and controversial; it is economically significant per E.O. 12866 (i.e., > $100 million). It should be placed in Tier 1 unless the program office can justify placement in Tier 2; economics issue(s) are precedent setting and controversial.”
The chart also lists factors to review when considering placing an action in tier 1 status, among them “potential for major or precedent-setting implementation issues; potential for major cross-Agency, cross-media, or inter-agency controversy; ... highly controversial in terms of external interest; ongoing, formal involvement of the Agency’s highest level of management (Administrator, Deputy Administrator) is necessary or desired; presents a significant opportunity for the Agency to advance the Administrator’s priorities.”
By contrast, tier 3 actions are called “Lead Office Delegation.” The guidance describes such actions as “those for which there is little or no need for cross-Agency participation. A workgroup may not be needed. For the most part, lead offices have the flexibility to design their own processes. While there are few system requirements, the lead AA/RA is responsible for cross-Agency staff linkages and external stakeholder involvement to produce a quality action.”
The guidance chart adds that actions should be considered tier 3 if “it generally involves the routine use and application of science; use of science is new, but minor and not controversial; use of economics is well known and accepted; it generally involves the routine use and application of economics; use of economics is new, but minor and not controversial.”
The second agency source explains that EPA has a regulatory steering committee that manages the ADP process. Generally, those authoring the action get to suggest its tiering, though the first source says that the ultimate decision is made by EPA's policy office.
Essentially, the second source says, the title of the individual signing off on the action signifies its tiering. “If the administrator signs, it's tier 1. If an AA or office director signs, it's tier 2.”
Pointing to Pruitt's closed-press April 24 signing ceremony for the science transparency proposed rule, the source adds, “This is clearly tier 1.”
“Tier 3 is really low. With something of [the science transparency rule's] nature, it's laughable,” the second source says. It probably will be asked to be uptiered.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-science-plan-skirted-usual-process-raising-finalization-legal-doubts
-
House Floats $100 Million Cut To EPA In FY19 Targeting Regulatory Programs
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
House lawmakers are floating draft legislation to cut EPA's budget from its current $8.058 billion funding by $100 million down to $7.958 billion, a modest cut compared to prior GOP efforts to slash the agency's funding that primarily targets EPA's science and rulemaking accounts for reductions while boosting state grants and Superfund spending.
The funding bill released late May 14 also includes several controversial policy riders, including a measure to repeal the Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule that the Trump administration is in the process of undoing.
The House Appropriations Committee's panel on interior and environment agencies released its FY19 bill ahead of a markup slated to begin May 15. The overall $7.958 billion funding figures excludes an extra $340 million directed to water infrastructure revolving loans and Superfund cleanups, which the bill allocates separately from the main EPA budget even though they are still administered by the agency.
“Within this total, EPA’s regulatory programs are reduced by $228 million below the current level. The legislation supports the President’s proposal to reshape the Agency’s workforce by providing resources requested to offer buyouts and voluntary separation agreements to employees,” the release says.
While it would represent a cut to EPA's overall funding, the House bill is a rejection of President Donald Trump's FY19 budget request of $6.1 billion that sought far steeper cuts, following Congress' decision to hold the agency's budget level in its FY18 omnibus deal.
The White House's request includes major cuts to state grants that the House bill instead leaves untouched or raises compared to the omnibus levels.
Specifically, the subcommittee is proposing to cut the Environmental Programs and Management account that funds most EPA regulatory activity from $2.643 billion down to $2.473 billion, and the science and technology account that supports research activities down from $713.8 million to $651.1 million.
But the rest of EPA's programs would see either steady funding or a boost, signaling increased GOP support for programs like the water infrastructure state revolving funds (SRFs) and Superfund.
The Superfund account in particular would see an increase, from $1.091 billion to $1.127 billion, and with an additional $40 million for site cleanups on top of that figure, allocated in the bill's supplemental funding section.
Similarly, the core SRFs are held steady from FY18 levels, at $1.393 billion for the clean water SRF and $863 million for the drinking water SRF, but with an extra $150 million allocated to each via supplemental funding.
However, that supplement is smaller than the corresponding “extra” funds added to the FY18 omnibus through a bipartisan budget deal that boosted discretionary spending caps -- which totaled $703 million for the SRFs and $63 million for Superfund. Thus, both programs will see a de facto decrease from the current levels, though their “core” funding remains the same.
Categorical grants to states, which support many state environment programs, are slated for a relatively minor cut, falling from $1.076 billion to $1.066 billion. That figure is still far above what the White House requested; the Environmental Council of the States, which represents many state environmental commissioners, estimated the cut to categorical grants in Trump's request at 44 percent and said such reductions would threaten the Trump EPA's goal of bolstering states' role in environmental policy under its “cooperative federalism” agenda.
Policy Riders
The bill also includes a series of policy riders that either maintain existing limits on EPA's rulemaking activities, roll back Obama-era policies or block current GOP-backed items from court challenge.
However, few of those provisions that are not already on the books are likely to garner the 60 votes in the Senate needed to overcome a filibuster.
One prominent rider would repeal the Obama-era CWA jurisdiction rule -- avoiding the need for the agency's ongoing process of delaying its implementation and later repealing the policy.
Another would require EPA to treat biomass as a carbon-neutral fuel source, cementing agency administrator Scott Pruitt's finding on the subject on April 26.
A third rider would bar any judicial review of California's Bay-Delta water management plan, which environmentalists have charged illegally bypasses endangered species protections.
And the bill maintains a series of long-standing riders including the bar on EPA redefining the types of waste categorized as “fill material” under the CWA permit program, regulating lead in ammunition or fishing tackle, or requiring farmers to report greenhouse gas emissions from their manure management.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/house-floats-100-million-cut-epa-fy19-targeting-regulatory-programs
-
Pruitt Adds New EPA Office to Further Efficiency Effort
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
EPA head Scott Pruitt’s efficiency push throughout the agency will get its own office, the administrator announced May 14.
“That which is measured improves,” Pruitt said, announcing the formation of the Office of Continuous Improvement during an event at Environmental Protection Agency headquarters. Pruitt’s approach aims to eliminate waste of time and resources.
Henry Darwin, the EPA’s chief of operations and assistant deputy administrator, has been leading the push. The new office will report to him and will be housed under the EPA’s policy shop.
Darwin told reporters the EPA already has begun implementing the “lean management” approach, which strives to eliminate waste of time and resources to maximize the value organizations get out of their operations, across program and regional offices. For example, he said, the agency is using the process to speed the permitting process for its air pollution and stormwater programs, underground oil and gas wells, and new chemicals.
Pruitt’s critics, however, have opposed his use of the approach, arguing the administrator and his team will use it to undercut the agency rather than make its operations more efficient.
Staffing From WithinThe Office of Continuous Improvement has about five full-time employees with a budget of less than $1 million dollars, Darwin said. The goal is to bump the office up to between 10 and 15 staffers, and Darwin said he wants career EPA employees to fill those positions.
The office will aim to implement lean management in 80 percent of the EPA by Sept. 30, 2020, according to the agency.
Serena McIlwain, a performance improvement officer who has worked at the EPA since 2014, will lead the office.
McIlwain previously served as the assistant regional administrator for region 9, which serves California, Arizona, Nevada, and Hawaii. Before that, she worked at the Department of Energy from 2009 to 2014, the latter two years as the chief operating officer of the fossil energy office.
She told reporters she has been working with Darwin for seven months to set the office up.
So far, that work has mostly been outlining specific goals for each part of the agency consistent with priorities laid out by Pruitt in the EPA’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2018-2022, McIlwain said.
“This is a process that we do together. It’s not just Henry. It’s not just Serena,” she added. “It’s the whole agency coming together and brainstorming.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pruitt-adds-new-epa-office-to-further-efficiency-effort
-
(ACC Mentioned) CPSC Guide Could Give EPA Alternative To Partial Methylene Chloride Ban
May 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) recent guidance calling for product labels to warn of acute inhalation hazards of paint strippers containing methylene chloride could give EPA an alternative to calls for a first-time ban on some uses of the substance, such as industry calls to promote risk management options.
“They're not bound to go back and adopt the proposed regulatory text” that called for banning the use of the methylene chloride in paint strippers, says one industry source.
Whatever EPA chooses to do, it would set a precedent as the final rule will mark the agency's first use of authority contained in the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that allows the agency to ban uses of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market when the law was first enacted in 1976.
Under pressure from environmentalists and families of those killed from exposure to the substance, EPA announced last week that it will take final “action” on an Obama-era proposal to ban methylene chloride, but did not explicitly say it will finalize a ban.
Industry and other sources say CPSC's recent guidance places a major emphasis on labeling to alert consumers to risks of the substance, which EPA could rely on to finalize some of its proposed alternatives to a ban, including restrictions such as requiring a respiratory protection program that includes personal protective equipment and other measures.
The March 21 supplemental guidance is for labeling of paint strippers containing methylene chloride to warn of acute inhalation risks of the substance as well as the chronic hazards included in a 1987 policy statement. “[T]he Commission believes that updating CPSC's 1987 Statement would provide more immediate guidance and clarity to industry and consumers regarding the acute hazards associated with using [methylene chloride]-containing paint strippers while those products remain on the market,” CPSC says.
CPSC also notes that EPA has yet to finalize its January 2017 proposed ban on most uses of methylene chloride in paint and coating removal, and acknowledges that “By updating the 1987 Statement, we do not suggest that labeling will address all hazards EPA identified in its proposed rulemaking."
The updated guidance responds to a July 2016, petition to account for methylene chloride's acute inhalation hazard in warning labels from the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA), which has opposed EPA's January 2017 proposed ban on use of the substance in paint strippers as unnecessary, in part because of other agencies' protections.
The guidance calling for warnings of acute exposures to methylene chloride could provide fodder for EPA to weaken the Obama-era proposed ban on most uses of methylyene chloride in paint stripping, as the Trump administration is facing pressure to finalize the ban from environmentalists and victims families, while weighing industry calls to address the substance's risks with regulation short of a ban.
EPA in a May 10 statement, announced plans to finalize the Obama-era proposed rule, despite the Trump administration's shelving of the proposal last year. The agency categorized the rulemaking as a “long-term action” on the Unified Agenda of federal rules after receiving critical comments from the chemical sector.
The apparent reversal came days after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's May 8 meeting with families of men killed from inhalation exposure while using paint stripping products containing methylene chloride.
Two days after the meeting EPA said that it would not revisit the Obama-era risk assessments that supported proposed ban, and said staff plans to soon send a final rule for White House Office of Management and Budget review.
But both environmentalists and industry have cautioned that the Trump administration's announcement it will finalize the novel Obama-era rule proposed under section 6(a) of the TSCA does not guarantee that the Trump administration will follow through with the ban as the previous administration proposed.
'Alternative Way'
The industry source tells Inside EPA that although the proposed rule would ban most uses of methylene chloride in paint strippers, EPA could vary the final rule to account for industry comments that were critical of the proposed version and its underlying risk assessments. EPA could also consider variations to the ban floated in the proposed rule.
“They can go back and look through the comments, and if they come up with an alternative way to achieve the statutory objective, they can do that,” the industry source says. The source cautioned that any final rule must be “logical outgrowth” of the proposed version.
Additionally, the source suggested that EPA's final rule could face legal challenge and that Congress' passage of a revised TSCA in 2016 -- between the 2014 risk assessment supporting the rule and the 2017 proposal -- could create a vulnerability for the rule in litigation.
The source says the June 2016 TSCA allows EPA to rely on the prior risk assessments, but only to the extent those reviews adhere to the new law's scientific requirements, including for use of best available scientific information. “There's a lot of question about whether those earlier risk assessments meet the standards” of the revised TSCA.
EPA's January 2017 proposed ban on certain uses of methylene chloride is one of several rules where the Obama EPA proposed relying on TSCA section 6(a) authority, rarely used since a federal court struck down EPA's attempt to ban most uses of asbestos in 1991.
The court ruling prompted critics of TSCA to seek reform of the statute, eventually enacted in June 2016.
Other proposed restrictions target use of N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), a common substitute for methylene chloride in paint strippers, as well as use of trichloroethylene (TCE) as a vapor degreaser -- though the Trump administration has delayed action on those items as well.
The Trump administration's delay of the proposed ban follows critical industry comments lodged on the proposal last year, citing flaws in the underlying assessments and suggesting that restrictions short of a ban are sufficient to reduce risks, especially given regulations of other agencies, including CPSC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
CPSC's updated guidance recommends strong language warning of methylene chloride risks, such as “INHALATION OF VAPOR VERY HARMFUL VAPOR CAN KILL YOU IN ENCLOSED AREAS.” But the CPSC policy statement also backs Obama EPA assertions that labels may be insufficient to prevent consumer exposures.
“Currently, there are few suitable alternatives to [methylene chloride], and protective measures, such as moving products outdoors to apply the stripper can be inconvenient,” CPSC says. “Providing warning information does not prevent consumer exposure to hazards, but instead, relies upon persuading consumers to alter their behavior in some way to avoid the hazard.”
Proposed Ban
In the January 2017 proposed ban, EPA said “that warning labels and instructions alone could not significantly mitigate the unreasonable risks presented by methylene chloride in paint and coating removal.”
While studies have shown warning labels are effective to some degree, EPA continued “the extent of the effectiveness has varied considerably across studies and some of the perceived effectiveness may not reflect real-world situations.”
In the proposed rule, EPA considered variations on its proposed approach of a ban, including restrictions such as requiring a respiratory protection program that includes personal protective equipment and other measures, but the agency said that such a program would be costly and unlikely to protect all workers.
Nonetheless, at the behest of a Small Business Advisory Panel that reviewed the proposed rule, EPA requested public input on workplace experience with respiratory protection programs and air monitoring for methylene chloride. EPA also sought comment on whether it would be cheaper to switch to safer chemicals than conduct a respiratory protection program. Additionally, EPA noted that the alternative approach would not address risks from consumer use, and said that it lacks authority to require consumers to change use practices or wear personal protective equipment.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) argued in May 2017 comments on the proposed rule that EPA's proposed ban failed to consider best available scientific and economic information and suggested restrictions short of a ban.
“Risk management measures applied in response to a TSCA risk evaluation should be based on consideration of a comprehensive set of factors,” ACC said. “These measures should not be based on a cursory evaluation of the effectiveness of any one risk management measure alone, but rather an evaluation of a robust set of options, including labeling, personnel training, personal protective equipment, and other useful combinations of risk management.”
HSIA, which petitioned CPSC to bolster warning labeling to account for methylene chloride's acute inhalation risk, argued in 2017 comments to EPA that methylene chloride uses are already well controlled by existing rules of OSHA and CPSC.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/cpsc-guide-could-give-epa-alternative-partial-methylene-chloride-ban
-
(ACC Mentioned) Dems Demand Release of 'Nightmare' Toxicology Study
May 15, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
Congressional Democrats yesterday expressed outrage that the Department of Health and Human Services still hasn't published a toxicology study that a White House official earlier this year described as a "potential public relations nightmare."
The lawmakers are demanding that the study be released immediately and that an oversight hearing be held.
The study of four types of stain- and water-resistant chemicals is being conducted by HHS's Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, or ATSDR.
An unnamed member of the White House's intergovernmental affairs team warned that the draft toxicology profile of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, "has some very, very low 'Minimal Risk Level' (MRL) numbers," the lowest of which is 12 parts per trillion in drinking water — over 80 percent below the current maximum safe level EPA has advised for two types of PFAS.
"The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these new numbers is going to be huge," the official predicted in a note that was sent to EPA on Jan. 30 by Jim Herz, the associate director for natural resources, energy and science at the White House's Office of Management and Budget. "The impact to EPA and [the Department of Defense] is going to be extremely painful."
Nearly five months later, ATSDR still has not released that toxicology profile, which the unnamed official said "they are getting ready to publish" in the Federal Register.
That revelation, found by Politico in emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, has set off a firestorm on Capitol Hill and in the public health advocacy community.
"Outrageous," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said in a tweet. "The White House and @EPAScottPruitt are failing to protect public health. Victims of PFOA and PFOS contamination, and their families, deserve answers. This report should be released immediately."
New Hampshire Democratic Sens. Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan also called on the Trump administration to publish the draft assessment.
Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, who hails from the Granite State as well, urged the Oversight and Government Reform Committee to hold a hearing on the potentially delayed report.
Ken Cook, the president of the Environmental Working Group, said in a news release that "only [EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt and the Trump administration would consider reducing drinking water contamination for the American people to be a 'nightmare.'"
The agency currently has no drinking water standards for PFAS, which have been used since the 1940s to make products like Teflon and which is in what the Pentagon has used as firefighting foam for decades.
But in May 2016, the agency issued health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), two types of PFAS that U.S. manufacturers had voluntarily phased out the prior year.
"Studies indicate that exposure to PFOA and PFOS over certain levels may result in adverse health effects," EPA said in a Federal Register notice announcing the advisories.
The adverse effects include testicular and kidney cancer; liver tissue damage; weakened immune systems and increased cholesterol; and developmental problems like low birth weight, accelerated puberty and skeletal variations, the notice said.
The ATSDR toxicology profile, according to the unnamed White House official, finds such effects even at levels below the 70-parts-per-trillion level EPA has currently deemed safe for drinking water. That's the equivalent of 70 droplets of water in a full Olympic-sized swimming pool.
PFAS has long been politically toxic for the Trump administration.
Gillibrand and North Carolina Republican Sens. Richard Burr and Thom Tillis opposed Michael Dourson, President Trump's ill-fated pick to lead the EPA chemicals program, because of his past work downplaying the risk of PFAS for industry clients. The lawmakers represent communities that have been heavily impacted by PFAS pollution from plastic makers and military bases.
Shortly after Dourson withdrew from Senate consideration, EPA announced a two-day national meeting on PFAS in Washington, D.C. It is scheduled to begin a week from today (Greenwire, March 20).
ATSDR and EPA both declined to comment on Hill reaction to news of the politically sensitive report.
Instead, ATSDR said it "is preparing to release the draft PFAS Toxicological Profile." Right now, however, the agency is "working with the EPA, DoD and other federal partners to provide consistent and proper interpretation of the role of MRLs, and how they should be used and interpreted," ATSDR's press office said in a statement.
EPA, meanwhile, confirmed that it was working closely with ATSDR on the PFAS report.
"The Agency has provided input, at ATSDR's request, at multiple stages throughout the process of developing minimal risk levels for PFAS," a spokeswoman said in an email.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents PFAS manufacturers, also avoided commenting on the congressional blowback, which is for now contained to Democratic lawmakers.
"We look forward to reviewing the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's draft toxicological profile and providing comments to the agency when it is officially released," ACC spokesman Jonathan Corley said in a statement. "Any assessment should use the best available science and weight of the evidence approach."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/15/stories/1060081697
-
Senators Question DOD Plan To Ignore States' PFAS Cleanup Standards
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Two Democratic senators are raising concerns that the Defense Department (DOD) may be preparing to revise its policy so that it would not have to comply with some state cleanup requirements for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a move that the senators urge DOD to avoid.
“It has come to our attention that the Department may be considering changing its policy on compliance with individual state drinking and surface water standards for some contaminants, including PFAS,” Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Gary Peters (D-MI) say in a May 10 letter to Defense Secretary James Mattis.
“We would have great concern if in fact the Department or any of the individual branches were considering this action,” they say.
“Communities in Michigan are not at fault for the release of these harmful contaminants, and it is imperative that the Department do whatever is necessary to address the public health and environmental risks associated with exposure to these chemicals,” the senators add.
It was not clear what prompted the letter at this time but state officials are already challenging an Air Force decision to avoid compliance with a 2017 Michigan law that requires federal and other governmental entities to provide an alternative water supply for sources that were contaminated by substances originating on state or federal property if the Michigan health department has issued a public health advisory.
Air Force officials have said they will not comply with the state law because it is discriminatory, applying only to federal and state government entities.
Such disputes underscore the wide-ranging challenges state and other regulators, as well as liable parties like DOD face as they struggle to address widespread contamination from chemicals in the PFAS class in the absence of federal standards.
While EPA has issued health advisories for the two most ubiquitous PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) -- the agency has not issued binding enforceable cleanup standards, known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
In the absence of a federal standard, states have adopted a wide range of standards for the substances. Michigan, for example, has codified EPA's advisory levels of 70 parts per trillion, while New Jersey has adopted levels as strict as 14 parts per trillion for PFOA.
Although DOD is urging EPA and other policymakers to set an MCL to provide a consistent national standard that would preempt state measures, the agency is indicating that it is unlikely to do so anytime soon and not before EPA's May 22-23 PFAS National Leadership Summit in Washington, D.C., with other federal agencies and state officials to work on challenges and issues related to PFAS contamination.
ATSDR Study
Part of the reason for that may be that federal officials are divided over the substances' risks. As Inside EPA first reported, EPA and DOD recently asked the White House to help block release of a federal health agency's draft analysis that suggested risk estimates as much as ten times more conservative than EPA's.
One factor driving the dispute over the substances' risk levels may be that EPA is so far unwilling to consider immunotoxicity risks from exposure to the substances while the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which authored the draft assessment, was.
But Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Maggie Hassan (D-NH) are protesting the Trump administration's efforts to bottle up ATSDR's draft analysis of the human health risks of four PFAS chemicals.
“The Trump administration must release this report immediately and hold accountable all who were involved in hiding it from the public,” Shaheen said in a May 14 statement. “This is an egregious example of politics interfering with the public’s right to know.”
Hassan called on EPA Administrator Scott “Pruitt and other Trump Administration officials who have actively withheld such vital information to put the public health and safety of our people ahead of their own political interests,” in her May 14 statement.
Such disputes, however, underscore the difficulty DOD faces as it works to estimate the cost of remediating widespread contamination stemming from its use of firefighting foam containing PFAS chemicals.
In their letter to Mattis, Stabenow and Peters highlighted the “growing number of active and decommissioned military installations across Michigan uncovering alarmingly high levels of PFAS, including Wurtsmith, Camp Grayling, KI Sawyer, Selfridge, Alpena Combat Readiness Training Center, Escanaba Defense Fuel Supply Point, Battle Creek, Grand Ledge, and Kincheloe.”
The senators also voice their concern over “the pace at which the Department is proceeding to address contamination across Michigan,” the senators write. They ask Mattis to describe DOD's “near- and long-term plans to address these public health and environmental problems in Michigan. In addition, we would also ask that you provide additional clarity on whether the Department is considering changing its policy on compliance with state drinking and surface water standards for PFOA and PFOS.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/senators-question-dod-plan-ignore-states-pfas-cleanup-standards
-
Industry Coalition Forms to Lobby For EPA Safer Labels Program
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Companies making cleaners, automobile products, and other consumer chemicals are launching a coalition June 1 to support a threatened EPA labeling program that recognizes safer chemicals.
Benjamin E. Dunham, a senior policy adviser at Holland & Knight LLP, announced the new coalition at an EPA meeting discussing the labeling program, called “Safer Choice,” which has been slated for cuts under recent budget proposals.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Choice program allows companies with products proven to meet stringent health and environmental safety criteria to bear an agency-approved label.
Stephen J. Caldeira, president and CEO of the Household and Commercial Products Association, said Safer Choice is a rare example of a government program supported by industry and not-for-profit organizations.
“We are going to fight tooth and nail to keep it,” he said.
Jennifer McPartland, a senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, made similar comments at EPA’s May 14 meeting.
“This program has support from the private sector and not-for-profit sector and that is exceptional,” McPartland said.
EDF’s support, however, depends on the program continuing to have rigorous reviews of the products seeking certification, she said.
Green AppealCompanies that volunteer for Safer Choice pay several thousands of dollars to independent third-parties who determine whether every ingredient in the product—and the container in which it is packaged—meet the program’s criteria. The labels can increase their appeal to consumers seeking environmentally friendly products.
Companies that already make products certified by independent third parties as meeting such criteria include the Clorox Co., Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., and the Whirlpool Corp.
Dunham told Bloomberg Environment May 14 he was not authorized to reveal the coalition’s initial members. The lobbying group emerged from an effort spearheaded by the Household & Commercial Products Association, he said.
Coalition’s GoalsThe coalition’s first goal is to ensure Safer Choice continues to receive federal funding, Dunham said.
The president’s budget requests for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 proposed to eliminate Safer Choice, although the final 2018 budget allowed the program to continue its work with reduced funds and staff.
The second goal is to improve the program, Dunham said.
The coalition’s existing and new members will decide what specific actions they want the law firm to undertake, such as ad campaigns to educate consumers, which in turn will determine the monthly fees to join, he said.
Owen Caine, an executive vice president with the Household and Commercial Products Association, told Bloomberg Environment the association hopes Holland & Knight’s management of the coalition will help assure all parties that the effort to support Safer Choice is a widespread industry goal, not the sole aim of one particular trade association.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/industry-coalition-forms-to-lobby-for-epa-safer-labels-program-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, W/C May 14
May 14, 2018 | Platts
US AROMATICS: US spot toluene prices rose 14 cents last week to close Friday at 299 cents/gal in an extremely tight market. Sources pointed to reduced extraction as a driver behind the tightness, as reformate spot prices were near just a 2-cent premium to the blend value, which was last estimated at near 255 cents/gal. Toluene's blend value was last estimated at near 258 cents/gal. The benzene-toluene spread narrowed to just 3 cents, putting hydrodealkylation margins deep in the red at near negative $188/mt. TDP and MSTDP margins were also negative at near minus $95 and minus $24.50/mt, respectively. In xylenes, mixed xylene prices also gained on the back of tight supply. Prompt spot MX prices rose 13 cents on the week to close Friday at 294 cents/gal FOB USG. Demand from paraxylene was muted amid supply constraints which pushed paraxylene values sharply higher. Sources said an unplanned compressor outage by a major paraxylene producer pushed pricing higher and spot values were assessed at $985/mt FOB USG. The prompt-spot PX-MX spread was roughly $30 lower on the week as mixed xylene prices rose, finishing Friday at near $88/mt, according to S&P Global Platts data.
US PVC: US export polyvinyl chloride prices could inch up from $805-$815/mt FAS Houston this week as global market participants await June offers from a major Taiwanese producer, often seen as a bellwether for pricing direction. Market sources said they expected those offers to be anywhere from flat to as much as $20 higher than May settlements, reflecting higher crude prices, which in turn lead to higher naphtha prices, the main ethylene feedstock outside of North America. However, US spot ethylene prices ended last week at 11.75-12.25 cents/lb FD USG, the lowest level since Platts began publishing spot pricing in 2004, reflecting a supply glut amid high cracker operating rates while derivative plant rates lag behind. A strong contingent of US market players is pushing for PVC pricing under $800/mt FAS Houston given weak demand, particularly in key global markets such as West Africa and the Middle East. However, last week a producer was heard to have fixed small cargoes at $830/mt FAS Houston for late May, testing higher pricing leading into June price negotiations. Global demand for caustic soda remained strong despite the continued reduction of rates at Norsk Hydro's Brazilian alumina refinery in Alunorte, the world's largest, and uncertainty over sanctions on Russia's Rusal, a major buyer of US caustic soda. Olin CEO John Fischer noted that while there was the possibility that 600,000 mt/year would no longer be shipped to Alunorte or Rusal, if the US maintains those sanctions, that was a small quantity in a global market of 80 million mt.
US PE: US polyethylene export participants are keeping a close eye on oil prices, noted improving availability for some grades was being partially offset by rising oil prices that could potentially increase global pricing floors. Polyethylene stocks in the US and Canada saw significant gains for the second consecutive month in April, as production outpaced total sales by almost 401.6 million lb, preliminary data released late last week by the American Chemistry Council showed. That comes on top of a 421 million lb gain in March. Despite rising inventories in the US, sources on the sidelines of the NPE show in Orlando, Florida, said last week that US producers seemed hesitant to cut prices further, as there were expectations among some that pricing in naphtha-dependent regions like Asia and Latin America -- key destinations for US resin -- could face upward pressure. In the domestic market, sentiment about May pricing was mixed, with some sources saying that decreases were warranted given higher producer inventories, while others noted that stability in spot pricing and continued good demand could result in a rollover for at least one more month. Domestic pricing was stable in both March and April despite announcements by producers looking to raise contracts by 3 cents/lb. Producers were again seeking a 3-cent/lb increase in May, with one producer -- Dow Chemical -- also having announced an additional 4-cent/lb increase for June, according to a letter obtained by Platts.US PP: There were growing expectations that US polypropylene contracts would move higher in May, likely through a combination of higher monomer prices and margin expansions, sources said this week on the sidelines of the NPE show in Orlando. Multiple sources suggested a total gain of 4-5 cents/lb could be digested by the market, though some producers would likely seek more -- particularly if strong propylene demand pushes monomer contracts to the higher end of market expectations. Expectations for May propylene contract settlements have been talked at up 2-4 cents/lb by market participants. A significant portion of PP contracts in North America remain on monomer-plus formulas. Domestic demand was said to be good, and with producers running at low rates in recent months, there was little spot product in the market, sources said. Spot export polypropylene remained virtually non-existent this week, with one trader source suggesting it could be well into the third quarter before US producers would be in a position to offer competitive resin for sale outside North America.
LATIN POLYMERS: Buyers in key South American markets enter the week still looking for lower prices on spot import polyethylene cargoes, although recent gains in crude pricing and the related pressure on Asian and Middle East PE prices has started to dampen that optimism, sources have said. Buyers in Brazil can expect to pay between Real 100-300/mt (around $28-$83/mt) more for Braskem PE and around Real 300/mt more for Braskem PP after the local producer implemented a price hike in the domestic market due to recent currency devaluations and firming global prices, a company analyst said.https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/americas-petrochemicals-outlook-wc-may-14-10420506
-
Oil Companies Clash with Trump over NAFTA Changes
May 13, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
The oil and gas industry’s love affair with President Donald Trump is in trouble.
After more than a year of fawning praise for everything from tax cuts to the opening up of offshore drilling, oil and gas lobbyists are in open combat with the White House over the administration’s push to recast the North American Free Trade Agreement and commerce at-large from the globalist, free-trade model that has long benefited oil companies in Houston and around the globe.
“There’s a growing sense of frustration that the administration is not being more reasonable,” said Josh Zive, an attorney with the Washington law firm Bracewell, whose clients include oil and gas companies. “It’s old school populist talking points, and in doing so [Trump] lost the business community and virtually everybody else with them.”
While the White House has signaled it plans to keep the United States in NAFTA, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is looking to remove from NAFTA a protection that allow companies that have lost business or assets at the hands of a foreign government to challenge those decisions with independent arbitrators. The Trump administration argues that provision usurps U.S. authority and acts as free insurance against political change abroad, encouraging multinational companies to move manufacturing plants outside the United States.
At a time when U.S. companies are investing heavily in Mexican oil and gas fields and building pipelines there, executives fear without those protections they could see their contracts rewritten or even their assets seized as populist, anti-American wave sweeps Mexico , led by Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the frontrunner to win Mexico’s presidential election in July.
The potential for governments to seize the assets of foreign oil companies operating in their fields is a constant threat, as happened in Venezuela in the mid-2000s. In that case, oil companies including Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips sued the government through an international arbitration court run by the World Bank, but that court has no means to enforce its decisions leaving companies a long and trying road to recover their losses. ConocoPhillips, after recently winning a $2 billion arbitration award, has moved to take control of Caribbean assets of Venezuela’s national oil company.
Last week, the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers wrote a joint letter to Trump and his Cabinet, arguing that doing away with what is known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement would “threaten our economy and endanger the prospects for NAFTA 2.0 to be approved in Congress.” Republicans, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Woodlands, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the Senate majority whip, have lined up in protest.
“It seems like Lighthizer doesn’t understand the vote count here in Congress,” said Rep. Will Hurd, R-San Antonio, whose district includes the vast oil and gas fields of West Texas. “He’s doing things that are not increasing the number of votes but decreasing them.”
But time is running out. The administration hopes to have a new NAFTA signed before the Mexican election in July to avoid negotiating with Obrador. And so far Trump appears unconvinced by the industry’s arguments, rebuffing oil executives, including Exxon CEO Darren Woods and Anadarko Petroleum CEO Al Walker at a White House meeting in March.
From the administration’s point of view, they are fixing a system that has done little to protect American workers against the outsourcing that has run rampant in recent decades. Even as experts attribute the vast majority of job losses in U.S manufacturing to advances in technology and automation, Trump is making the case to American workers that its through bad trade deals they’ve been left behind.
NAFTA’s arbitration provision “is probably the biggest item that everybody agrees is a problem, whether it’s the Tea Party or the unions,” said Bob Cash, director of the Texas Fair Trade Coalition, a nonprofit representing labor interests. “A company can challenge environmental laws and worker protections passed by a nation and upheld by their supreme courts. It essentially gives multinational corporations veto rights over democratically decided laws.”
As NAFTA negotiations move toward their climax, the stakes are high for the U.S. oil and gas industry, which in February exported 126 billion cubic feet of natural gas to Mexico — more than three times what they moved a decade ago. And refineries along the Gulf Coast are designed to handle Mexico’s heavy crude oil, which make up 7 percent of U.S. oil imports.
That relationship was expected to only grow in the years ahead, following Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s move to open up the nation’s oil and gas field to foreign investment after a decades-long monopoly by Mexico’s national oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex. Politicians talked about North America becoming the world’s new Middle East, with shale and oil sands reserves underlying Mexico, Canada and the United States ready to be tapped by new drilling technology.
But between Trump’s protectionism and Obrador’s criticism that Mexico is giving away too much to the United States, foreign policy specialists are increasingly concerned that relations between the two countries could break down. If Trump does remove the dispute mechanism from NAFTA, some experts fear U.S. companies would be put at a disadvantage in trying to win work in Mexico, forced to raise their bids to cover political risk.
That is something the Chinese-state owned companies they are competing against would not have to worry about, because they enjoy far greater protection by their government
“If our companies become hesitant, the Chinese aren’t going to be so hesitant,” said Earl Anthony Wayne, the former U.S. ambassador to Mexico and Argentina, now a fellow at the Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. “It’s the Americans and other who have to count all their dollars and have to make a profit and the Chinese who are just trying to get access to the resources and don’t have to make the same calculations.” With Trump seemingly dead set on remaking NAFTA in his world view, lobbyists are working to increase opposition in Congress.
Whether they have the votes to send a NAFTA without the arbitration provision, known by its acronym ISDS, back to the White House remains to be seen, but in March, more than 100 Republican House members and senators signed a letter to the White House stating their concerns.
“It’s our responsibility here in the House to influence them to make the right decision,” said Hurd, the West Texas congressman, “and let them know they might not have the votes if things like ISDS are not included.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Oil-companies-clash-with-Trump-over-NAFTA-changes-12907114.php?t=c6e8c2fa4c
-
Appalachian Boom: Potholes, Landslides and Shattered Peace
May 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Mike Lee
A decade ago, Mobley was like any of the tiny communities spread across rural Wetzel County, marked by a half-dozen mailboxes clustered at the main crossroads and a smattering of houses and trailers around them.
As in so many other communities in the rocky hills where West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania come together over the intersection of the Marcellus and Utica shale formations, the area around Mobley turned out to be rich with shale gas. The first wells were drilled nearly a decade ago, and the three states now pump more natural gas than Texas.
That production surge has been followed with a build-out of pipelines and other infrastructure. Trucks have taken over the narrow two-lane roads as production companies and pipelines have moved in.
Faced with an unprecedented workload, the local, state and federal agencies that oversee pipeline construction in the region are already struggling to keep up. Critics say the regulators in charge of policing pipelines' environmental and public safety aspects are understaffed and unfocused.
Some residents are already frustrated by what they see as state laws that are slanted to favor the gas industry, and they are worried about the current wave of pipeline work.
Wetzel County is home to dozens of shale gas wells, and in Mobley, the homes have been emptied and demolished to make way for a facility that strips byproducts and impurities out of natural gas to prepare it for the national pipeline network.
Lee Martin, who lives nearby on 104 acres with her husband, Chuck, said her young grandchildren used to have free rein of the fields near the house. Now, heavy trucks rumble up the rural driveway throughout the day en route to a well pad up the hill from the house; she keeps the kids inside or under close watch.
The Martins had limited input on the placement of a well pad on their property thanks to the severance more than 100 years ago of the plot's mineral rights, which they said are now owned by a lawyer in town. The installation also includes a 1,025-foot run of pipeline that required clearing a 50-foot-wide swath through their back woods.
The next phase of development is coming soon, and the pipeline cut across the Martins' farm could be a harbinger of things to come.
"I bought this farm for the privacy," Lee said. "I knew that when I retired I wanted to be able to walk in my woods and ride my horses." But the arrival of trucks heralded a loss of control of the property. "When they came in here, I knew that my dream place was shattered."
Two major pipelines, the Ohio Valley Connector and the Mountain Valley pipelines, both have their "milepost zero" just up the road from Mobley. They're among at least 11 pipelines worth about $25 billion that will carry gas from the Marcellus and Utica shales to market. Each of those projects will require a network of connectors, compressor stations, gathering lines and other equipment that will add to the natural gas industry's impact.
Two of the first projects to start construction — the Rover pipeline in West Virginia and Ohio and the Mariner East 2 pipeline in Pennsylvania — have been cited numerous times for sloppy construction that has frustrated those living nearby who have dealt with spills, landslides and polluted groundwater. At one point last summer, state and federal authorities had blocked construction of the pipelines in all three states.'Heartbreaking'
State environmental agencies only have partial oversight of long-haul pipelines. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, signs off on the routes for interstate natural gas pipelines, with input from state utility commissions. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's pipeline safety division writes their construction standards.
The state agencies, though, are in charge of stormwater runoff permits and permits for crossing water bodies and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. In theory, that gives the states authority to manage a lot of the surface impacts of a pipeline project.
The reality has been different.
In November 2016, months before construction began on the Rover pipeline, a consortium of environmental groups in West Virginia wrote a letter to the state Department of Environmental Protection saying the Rover pipeline's plan to prevent runoff and protect streams and rivers was inadequate.
By the end of April 2017, the environmentalists' concerns had been proved accurate. The pipeline right of way didn't have enough erosion controls as it snaked over West Virginia's steep hills, and the DEP's inspectors found mud running off multiple construction sites, where it collected in puddles or flowed into creeks.
The DEP shut down construction in June. While the environmental groups applauded the order, they would've preferred to have avoided the environmental damage.
"It's heartbreaking to see this coming," said Angie Rosser, executive director of the West Virginia Rivers Coalition, one of the environmental groups.
Around the same time in Pennsylvania, environmental groups including the Clean Air Council and Sierra Club made similar complaints about the Mariner East 2 pipeline to the state's Environmental Hearing Board.
In June, four months after the groups complained, a contractor for the Mariner project was boring a hole for the pipeline outside Exeter, Pa. The bore apparently came too close to the springs that feed residential water wells in the area, and residents began reporting strange colors and odors in their water.
The Environmental Hearing Board ordered the pipeline construction stopped.
That was about a month after an incident that led to a shutdown on the Rover pipeline. A contractor was boring a tunnel for the project under the Tuscarawas River and spilled 2 million gallons of drilling mud into a marsh. The Ohio EPA fined the company $400,000, and FERC shut down construction of the line.
The construction has stopped and started a couple of times on both projects since then, due to various other construction problems. Most recently, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission paused work on a section of the Mariner East 2 pipeline after a series of sinkholes, some of them 15 to 20 feet deep, appeared near the construction zone (Energywire, March 8).
Both the Rover and Mariner East 2 projects are controlled by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, the same company that sparked months of protests with its Dakota Access pipeline out of the Bakken Shale oil field in North Dakota.
Energy Transfer has sought to downplay the problems on Rover and Mariner and has pushed back against the state agencies. In an emailed statement, Energy Transfer spokeswoman Lisa Dillinger said both projects have been reviewed by more than 15 state and federal agencies.
"The permitting on Rover and Mariner East 2 has been thorough, spanning multiple years for each project," she wrote, adding that both pipelines are nearing completion.
But environmentalists point out that the construction accidents can cause real harm. The drilling mud spilled in the Tuscarawas River contained diesel fuel, said Robin Blakeman, project coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition. The runoff from improper construction on hillsides can impact fish, mussels and birds that depend on the valley's creeks and streams.
And the size of the long-distance pipelines puts them in a different category, environmentalists argue. The Mariner East 2 will stretch east to west across Pennsylvania, crossing 800 streams and requiring earth moving on 3,000 acres, according to court documents.Short on people and cash
Years of budget cuts, some of them politically motivated, have left the state agencies underfunded and understaffed. The agencies say it's hard to break down the number of permit reviewers and construction inspectors, since those jobs are scattered in different divisions in each agency. Environmentalists worry, though, that the states aren't increasing their budgets and staff to handle the number and scale of the work in progress.
Ohio's EPA has seen its budget grow by about 3 percent over the last five years, to a budgeted amount of $181 million in the current fiscal year. But that's down from more than $200 million in 2009. The agency has 13 staffers in its water office, eight in its air pollution office and 11 in its emergency response office whose duties can include pipeline oversight, agency spokesman James Lee said in an interview.
In West Virginia, the number of environmental inspectors has risen to 107 this year from 90 in 2014 at the state DEP, while the number of staffers handling permits has risen to 65 from 63.5 in the same time.
But as with Ohio, they handle all types of environmental cases, not just pipelines, a spokesman for the agency said.
In Pennsylvania, the state Department of Environmental Protection has had a steady number of staffers to review pipeline permits, between 100 and 105 over the last few years, a spokesman said.
But overall, Pennsylvania has seen its environmental enforcement budget cut by about 40 percent since 2003, despite the boom in shale drilling and pipeline construction, said John Quigley, a former director of the DEP. "The agency doesn't have enough people to do its job," he said.
In addition to the trouble reviewing plans for pipelines, the state agencies have trouble inspecting construction while it's going on. West Virginia and Ohio don't have policies setting out how frequently a pipeline project is inspected, although spokesmen for both states' environmental agencies say it's unlikely that a project will be built without getting a visit from the state.
In Pennsylvania, the DEP doesn't have a centralized tracking system for complaints. Instead, they're logged at one of four regional offices, which makes it difficult for state workers to monitor a project's overall impact.
The cuts at the state agencies have a compounding effect because federal regulators at FERC and PHMSA tend to rely on states for on-the-ground oversight.
For instance, FERC didn't shut down construction of the Rover line until after the Ohio EPA had taken action against the project. And the federal agency told Rover's managers it would work with the state agency on ways to control the environmental impact of the line before allowing construction to restart.
Unlike the state agencies, FERC is funded by fees that it collects from the industries it oversees, so its budget should keep pace with the workload. Still, the commission's gas pipeline staff has stayed roughly level for the last five years, at about 260 employees, despite the growth in construction.
FERC frequently requires companies to follow site-specific environmental plans, but it typically leaves inspections to third-party contractors hired by the pipelines themselves, said Tamara Young-Allen, a commission spokeswoman. FERC's staff members do their own inspections periodically.
It's a similar story when it comes to construction standards. PHMSA writes the rules for pipeline construction but has only 208 field inspectors to cover the whole country.
The number of construction inspections more than doubled from 2011 to 2016, the last year for which data are available on the agency website. But PHMSA's inspectors still spend most of their time monitoring and investigating the 2.7 million miles of existing pipelines under federal jurisdiction — they only spend 9 percent of their time on new construction projects, according tothe agency's website.
There are no rules dictating exactly how often PHMSA inspects a given stretch of pipeline during construction or after, and no base requirement for any inspections at all during construction, according to the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, the trade group for long-distance pipeline operators.
In practice, PHMSA relies on third-party contractors just as FERC does to handle most construction inspections, said C.J. Osman, INGAA's director of pipeline safety.
Osman stressed that safety is paramount for pipeline operators, especially at a time when the public is increasingly tuned in to pipeline construction. "Given the scrutiny that we're under, it's even more important for pipeline operators to use safe and responsible construction," he said.
Lynda Farrell, president of the Pennsylvania-based Pipeline Safety Coalition, was skeptical of the industry's ability to police itself. Her organization has been monitoring pipeline construction since 2008, when Williams Cos. Inc. expanded part of its Transco pipeline in southeast Pennsylvania.
She's not optimistic that the oversight will improve as more pipelines are built in the region.
"We found then that the operators have a very good sense of how to work a system that they created," Farrell said. "I don't think DEP, FERC, the regulatory system, in any way shape or form is capable of monitoring the speed at which, and the numbers at which, pipelines are proposed to go into the ground."
Lessons learned
The state agencies say they're trying to improve their processes as they prepare for the rush of new construction, and they're using some of the experience they gained in the Mariner East 2 and Rover cases.
The Pennsylvania DEP levied a $12.6 million fine against the Mariner East 2 pipeline in February. When Energy Transfer opted to change its construction methods in West Whiteland Township, Pa., near the site of the sinkholes, the DEP announced a series of public hearings and a monthlong comment period to gather public input.
And the Pennsylvania DEP has also planned to require on-site inspection of any horizontal boring for the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline, which is under construction along the eastern spine of the Allegheny Mountains, Patrick McDonnell, the department's director, said at a conference in September.
In Ohio, the state EPA's experience with Rover has informed its approach to permitting other pipeline projects, with additional conditions placed up front when the state holds more cards, according to agency Director Craig Butler.
Speaking shortly after DTE Energy Co. and Enbridge Inc.'s Nexus pipeline received its Ohio water quality certification, Butler said, "We learned a great deal" about permitting a major project from the problems with Rover.
Nexus has developed detailed and site-specific contingency plans, Butler said, including crossings of sensitive wetlands, infrastructure, streams or impoundments. "Where they're required to have [detailed] contingency plans, Rover had very generic contingency plans."'Haves and have-nots'
In West Virginia, the Wetzel County Chamber of Commerce has no real sway over the laws and property agreements shaping local opinion, but it does have decisions to make about how to spend money that's come into the county as a result of gas development. The chamber's flummoxed at how to address the real estate spike that has hit the city, especially for rental housing.
In New Martinsville, the county seat, Don Riggenbach owns a carpet story and leads the Chamber of Commerce.
"To me, it's a property of the haves and have-nots," he explained about local support for natural gas production in the chamber's small office space. "If you have property, you get paid for the inconvenience. His neighbor is not, that's the have-not."
The county commissioners field complaints about the condition of local roads, many of which have taken a beating with the barrage of heavy truck traffic that comes with constructing wells and laying pipelines.
"Potholes, landslides, that's a constant thing to deal with," said Larry Lemon, one of the commissioners.
Lemon said he had heard the gas companies put up a bond with the state for road repair, but the money hasn't been made available. "As I understand it, the state is hesitant to ask the gas companies to pay for it," he said of the backlog of road repairs.
The school district is a major beneficiary of the gas and pipeline companies' success; a deluge of tax revenue tied to property values has flooded the school system with money. The county has upgraded security at all its schools, offers free food for all students and implemented a "one-to-one" program that gives each student in every grade access to a tablet or laptop for school use.
"I know you're going to have some negative impacts, but as far as the financial situation goes, the impact [of shale production] on Wetzel County schools is unprecedented," said Jeff Lancaster, the system's treasurer.
School Superintendent Ed Toman gives the gas companies credit for working with the county on traffic safety problems on the many small, backcountry roads that can often barely accommodate two large vehicles passing. "They work with us on the bus routes, don't run their trucks as much during those hours," he said. And at the schools, staff retention and hiring are up.
Both Lancaster's and Toman's families are touched by gas development: Both have sons who have trained as welders to get in on the boom in pipeline work.
"You don't hear us talking very negatively about it," Toman said of the gas rush. "We've been able to offer more services to our students than we ever could have without the boom in Wetzel County."
But out by Mobley, Chuck Martin, the Wetzel County landowner who with his wife, Lee, has watched as gas production equipment and a pipeline have been built by their home, said some locals are ready to move away out of frustration.
"Wherever they're putting these pipelines at, they just go ahead and do whatever they do, basically, and they don't care about the people there," he said.
"Part of what West Virginia is, my word and handshake is as good as a signed document. But these men who they send out here to get things down promised you the world, but if it isn't in writing, you ain't getting it," Chuck Martin said.
"The city's making money, so they're going to praise it. And I think it's good that they're making money," he added.
"But for the people who are enduring it, the people who have to put up with the hassles, the aggravation, they're not being compensated."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081689
-
U.S. Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Just Quadrupled -- It's Good For The Economy & National Security
May 14, 2018 | Forbes
By Chuck DeVore
Last year Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned natural gas company, provided some 40 percent of Europe’s gas needs. Gazprom produced 16.6 trillion cubic feet of gas.
By comparison, America produced almost 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2017 and, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is on track to produce 43 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by 2050.
This rising surge of natural gas production in the U.S. is a good thing for our economy, our energy independence, and the national security of our European allies looking to rely less on Russian production.
In the past decade, pipeline and storage infrastructure acted to limit U.S. natural gas production, as supply outstripped demand in some regions, keeping prices low. But, infrastructure has gradually improved and the advent of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals have significantly enhanced the market for U.S. natural gas producers.
There were no LNG export terminals in the U.S. prior to 2016. In fact, America’s first LNG export terminal, Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana, was originally built as an LNG import terminal in 2008 when experts thought the U.S. was facing a severe national gas shortage. Fracking changed all that, with the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub declining 70 percent in inflation adjusted terms from 2008 to 2017.Chuck DeVore , CONTRIBUTOR Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
Last year Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned natural gas company, provided some 40 percent of Europe’s gas needs. Gazprom produced 16.6 trillion cubic feet of gas.
By comparison, America produced almost 27 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2017 and, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is on track to produce 43 trillion cubic feet of natural gas by 2050.
EIA ANNUAL ENERGY OUTLOOK 2018
U.S. Natural Gas Production (2000-2050)
This rising surge of natural gas production in the U.S. is a good thing for our economy, our energy independence, and the national security of our European allies looking to rely less on Russian production.
In the past decade, pipeline and storage infrastructure acted to limit U.S. natural gas production, as supply outstripped demand in some regions, keeping prices low. But, infrastructure has gradually improved and the advent of liquefied natural gas (LNG) export terminals have significantly enhanced the market for U.S. natural gas producers.
There were no LNG export terminals in the U.S. prior to 2016. In fact, America’s first LNG export terminal, Cheniere Energy’s Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana, was originally built as an LNG import terminal in 2008 when experts thought the U.S. was facing a severe national gas shortage. Fracking changed all that, with the price of natural gas at the Henry Hub declining 70 percent in inflation adjusted terms from 2008 to 2017.Recommended by ForbesTRENDING ON FACEBOOKFarewell Toys R Us, We Will Miss YouMOST POPULARThe Toughest Jobs To Fill In 2017MOST POPULARThe Top 10 Richest Billionaires 2018Texas Produces Five Times The Wind Power As California At Almost Half The Price...U.S. LNG Exporters Reshaping Global Natural Gas MarketsMitsubishi Heavy IndustriesVoice:Global Demand for Energy Is Soaring. These Are The Key Sources Meeting The NeedCalifornia's Wrecking The Western Electric Grid - Now 755 Mostly Native American...How Fracking Saved California Politicians From ThemselvesMOST POPULARThe 10 Most Dangerous U.S. CitiesTRENDING ON FACEBOOKFarewell Toys R Us, We Will Miss YouMOST POPULARThe Toughest Jobs To Fill In 2017MOST POPULARThe Top 10 Richest Billionaires 2018Texas Produces Five Times The Wind Power As California At Almost Half The Price...U.S. LNG Exporters Reshaping Global Natural Gas MarketsCalifornia's Wrecking The Western Electric Grid - Now 755 Mostly Native American...How Fracking Saved California Politicians From ThemselvesMOST POPULARThe 10 Most Dangerous U.S. CitiesTRENDING ON FACEBOOKFarewell Toys R Us, We Will Miss YouMOST POPULARThe Toughest Jobs To Fill In 2017MOST POPULARThe Top 10 Richest Billionaires 2018
Less than 10 years after fearing America would need dozens of LNG import terminals to meet its energy needs, America instead became a net natural gas exporter in 2017, with exports quadrupling from 0.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day in 2016 to 1.94 billion cubic feet per day. Of U.S. LNG exports last year, 53 percent went to Mexico, South Korea and China, with the largest share, 20 percent, being received by Mexico.
Now U.S. LNG exports are set to quintuple by 2019 from 2017 levels to 9.6 billion cubic feet per day or 3.5 trillion cubic feet per year with the U.S. on track to become the world’s third-largest natural gas exporter by 2020, behind only Australia and Qatar. By comparison, 9.6 billion cubic feet is about one-third of what the U.S. uses to generate electricity on an average day and about equal to residential gas use for heating.
The value of U.S. LNG exports will be almost $5 billion this year, likely more than doubling to $12 billion in 2019, or about 2 percent of 2017’s trade deficit of $566 billion.
A growing share of American LNG exports are expected to go to Europe as EU member states look to diversify from their growing dependence on Russian gas. NATO members Poland and Lithuania in particular have built LNG import terminals to offset their reliance on Russian fuel amidst ongoing unease over Russia’s return to territorially expansionist policies.
By making Europe less vulnerable to Russian energy extortion, European policymakers can more confidently confront Russian attempts to destabilize nations on their periphery that used to be part of the old Soviet Union, such as the Baltic States, or bound to the Soviet Union during the Cold War as Warsaw Pact nations, such as Poland.
As U.S. natural gas production continues to expand, and with it, exports, there are two key related domestic considerations: growing demand for natural gas to generate electricity, and demand for natural gas as feedstock for chemical and fertilizer production.
In 2018, natural gas is expected to generate 34 percent of U.S. electricity, up from 30 percent in 2012. Coal is projected to provide 29 percent of domestic electricity production this year, down from 37 percent six years earlier. Renewables will kick in 17 percent of U.S. power production, with the plurality of that power coming from hydroelectric dams.
However, ongoing coal generating station retirements will likely boost natural gas’ importance in reliably powering the grid when wind and solar aren’t generating. And, since fuel costs constitute about 40 percent of the cost of generating electricity with natural gas, any price increase in natural gas will quickly be transferred to the consumer.
Further, as some states, such as California, continue to push coal off the grid while promoting wind and solar power, keeping natural gas prices stable becomes crucial in keeping electric prices affordable. It is instructive to note that as natural gas prices dipped 70 percent in real terms from 2008 to 2017, California’s inflation adjusted electricity prices rose by 13 percent as the state invested heavily in wind, solar, and natural gas generating stations. Should natural gas prices rise significantly, California utilities and regulators will have little choice but to pass significant costs onto California residents and businesses.
In states that have maintained a robust coal generating capacity, however, consumers benefit from a more diverse fuel mix, with utilities using more coal when natural gas prices are high.
As a matter of national policy, investment in new, cleaner and more efficient coal generating stations should not be discouraged as domestic use of coal for electric power serves to keep electricity affordable while encouraging more LNG exports to our trading partners and allies, a win-win for our economy and national security.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/05/14/u-s-liquefied-natural-gas-exports-just-quadrupled-its-good-for-the-economy-national-security/2/#6dbb91e9656a
-
Cybersecurity Office to Work With Energy Industry to Protect Grid
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A cybersecurity office in the Energy Department that formally opened May 14 will work with the electric, oil and natural gas sectors to develop emergency response plans and prevent cyberattacks, the department official overseeing it said.
“The point is really to heighten the awareness of emerging threats, focusing on the energy security component,” Bruce Walker, the acting assistant secretary for the Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response Office, told Bloomberg Environment in an interview.
The office’s new website includes a report on the agency’s goals for cybersecurity over the next five years aiming to reduce the risk of energy disruptions due to cyberattacks.
The office will mainly work with the Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council and the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector Coordinating Council, which are liaison groups between the federal government agencies, including the Energy Department and Department of Homeland Security, and the electric and oil and gas industries, Walker said. The Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council’s leadership includes Tom Fanning, CEO of Southern Co., as of May 2018, and leadership of the Oil and Natural Gas Subsector Coordinating Council includes Devon Energy and Kinder Morgan, as of May 2017.
The cyber office, originally announced in February, is made up of two divisions from the department’s Office of Electricity: the Infrastructure Security and Energy Restoration division focuses on emergency response work, and the Cybersecurity for Energy Delivery Systems division works on research and development.
The assistant secretary of the new office hasn’t been nominated. The White House didn’t respond to a query about the timing of the nomination.
Cybersecurity Grid RedesignOne of the biggest actions the office has undertaken so far is a $25 million funding announcement made in April which will look at redesigning cybersecurity solutions at energy companies.
The use of computers allows potential for cyber attacks. The funding is for non-software alternatives for use in case of an incident on the electric grid—"to take a look back at how we operated the systems prior to things like the internet and capitalize on that experience,” Walker said.
Funding applications are due June 18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cybersecurity-office-to-work-with-energy-industry-to-protect-grid
-
Doe Unveils "Game-Changing" Plan to Foil Grid Hackers
May 15, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The Department of Energy yesterday unveiled a five-year plan for guarding the U.S. power grid from hackers, calling the issue "a top national priority."
The 52-page document lays out in detail the role of the new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER), which is tasked with helping utilities parry a range of threats to their systems while supporting research into defensive technologies.
"As nation-states and criminals increasingly target energy networks, the federal government must help reduce cyber risks that could trigger a large-scale or prolonged energy disruption," said Bruce Walker, DOE's assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability, in a March letter published yesterday.
Walker said the plan provides a "critical foundation" for future work at CESER, including a continued emphasis on voluntary cooperation with the private companies that own and operate the bulk of the nation's critical infrastructure.
"The Plan outlines a gamechanging strategy for DOE, informed by the energy industry's highest-priority needs, which can continue to be built upon by CESER leadership," Walked said.
President Trump has not yet announced a nominee to lead DOE's new cybersecurity branch. Trump set aside nearly $100 million for CESER in his 2019 budget request, and the office is expected to be the hub for DOE's role as the "sector specific agency" for the electricity sector.
The plan offers a dire assessment of the current state of U.S. cyber readiness: "resources are limited, and cyber threats continue to outpace our best defenses."
From that starting point, DOE spells out three goals for "disruptive" changes to the status quo:Boosting cyber preparedness in the energy sector by improving information sharing and curbing risks to the supply chain for grid software and equipment.Coordinating the response to a large-scale cyber incident through exercises and training.Funding research and development at U.S. national labs to head off cyberattacks or mitigate their potential impact.
None of those points is altogether new. For years, DOE has supported cyber data exchanges like the Cybersecurity Risk Information Sharing Program, which has placed digital eyes and ears at 26 major U.S. utilities. DOE has organized or supported dozens of grid security exercises since the mid-2000s, and the agency's network of labs has plugged tens of millions of dollars into cybersecurity R&D.
But the new multi-year program plan for energy sector cybersecurity makes clear that DOE is set to double down on these initiatives, citing growing risks posed by today's interconnected world.
"Unlike attacks on business IT systems, cyber attacks on energy control systems have the potential to disrupt power or fuel supplies, damage highly specialized equipment, and threaten human health and safety," the plan notes, later warning of a "dramatic increase" in targeted probes of such networks.
In the event such intrusions succeed in shutting off the lights, the plan calls for the federal government to gear up for a quick response in coordination with private utilities.
In the case of a presidentially declared grid emergency, Energy Secretary Rick Perry can step in to make operational decisions on the U.S. bulk power network, an authority granted by part of the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.
The plan notes that DOE is working with the private sector for "smooth coordination" of that authority during an incident. The department is also pushing to reach a 2020 memorandum of understanding with other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, over precise roles and responsibilities during a cyber incident.
On the research front, DOE reported that an "energy delivery systems testing and analysis laboratory" is in the works, offering a testing ground to model the impacts of newly unearthed malware.
DOE's endgame would see a "resilient" energy grid that can withstand a major cyber incident with critical functions intact, the agency said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081701
-
House Panel Refutes Trump, Proposes $12M for Chemical Board
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bruce Rolfsen
The Trump administration’s proposal to disband the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is once again running into opposition from Congress.
The House Appropriations Committee’s proposed spending bill, released May 14, calls for allocating the board $12 million for fiscal year 2019, a $1 million boost over its current funding level.
The board investigates industrial accidents involving chemical processing, such as refinery explosions and fires, and releases reports recommending changes to prevent similar incidents. The board doesn’t have enforcement powers.
In its fiscal 2019 spending proposal, the Trump administration said the board’s investigations have too often caused friction with other federal agencies and its recommendations have improperly called for new regulations of private industry.
The fiscal 2019 request stated that while the board “is making progress” improving how the agency functions, the White House “continues to recommend eliminating the Agency.” The administration made a similar request in 2017, but Congress overruled it.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-panel-refutes-trump-proposes-12m-for-chemical-board
-
May 15, 2018 | Greater Baton Rouge Business Report
By David Jacobs
Industries that use railroads to ship flammable liquids are replacing or retrofitting their rail cars to meet more stringent design standards first issued in 2015. While the new cars will be more expensive, shippers say they’re fine with that if the changes will improve safety.
But the changes in the industry are also bringing some underlying tensions to light. While they might be OK with updating their rail cars, many shippers are frustrated with the railroad companies that move those cars. Many industrial rail customers have only one option, which some say leads to high prices and shoddy service.
“When you have no leverage, and they just refuse to negotiate, you’re basically held captive,” says Greg Bowser, president of the Louisiana Chemical Association. “They basically say, ‘This is it. Take it or leave it. We’re the only one servicing you.’”
For example, LCA members in the New Orleans area have had railroads “taking four or five days just to get a rail car across the river,” he says.
Bowser says shifting to more expensive rail cars is “somewhat of a burden” but doable. But as shippers are spending more on the cars, they’d like to have competitive shipping rates and more assurance of being able to get their products to market in a timely fashion. And they don’t want the railroad industry to dictate the rules that everyone has to follow.
DE FACTO REGULATION
New federal guidelines for tank cars were in response to high-profile accidents, such as a 2013 derailment in Quebec that ignited 1.5 million gallons of oil and killed 47 people.
Oil producers and chemical manufacturers that ship by rail generally own or lease the rail cars they use, and when new standards are established for the cars, shippers pay for the transition. The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates more than 90,000 tank cars will need to be retrofitted or replaced at a cost of some $520 million.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers supported the changes, which included greater puncture and fire resistance, says Rob Benedict, the trade association’s director of transportation and infrastructure. But AFPM argues any effort to improve rail safety should start with the “root causes” of derailments, such as human error, mechanical failures and track issues.
So why do new rules focus on tank car design and not the root causes? The answer may lie with the Association of American Railroads industry group and its Tank Car Committee, which Benedict describes as functioning much like a regulatory body.
The Tank Car Committee is not a government agency, but it advises DOT on railroad safety standards. Most of its members are drawn from railroad companies, which critics say gives the committee an incentive to focus on measures that would cost shippers, not railroads.
And while the federal government sets minimum standards for rail cars, the Tank Car Committee, on behalf of railroad companies that own the rails, can set “interchange standards” that go beyond federal requirements. Interchange standards do not go through the federal rulemaking process that includes a cost/benefit analysis.
The tank car design standards for flammable liquids eventually were hashed out in a way that shippers, railroads and the federal government could live with. Shippers had concerns about how quickly they were asked to make the transition, but Congress stepped in to extend the timeline.
The first major deadline for cars that carry crude oil passed in January with little fanfare, says Tyler Gray, general counsel for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association. The Louisiana oil and gas industry has access to an extensive pipeline infrastructure and doesn’t rely heavily on rail, notes Gifford Briggs, president of the Louisiana Oil and Gas Association.
But the broader question about the limits of AAR’s power isn’t going away. The chemical industry is now dealing with new federal standards for TIH (toxic inhalation hazards) rail shipments. The industry is fine with the standards, says Jeffrey Sloan, who directs regulatory and technical affairs for the American Chemistry Council. But he says AAR has unilaterally imposed a 2023 deadline to replace all of the TIH cars, at a potential cost of “hundreds of millions of dollars.”
In 2016, shippers petitioned the Department of Transportation to firmly establish itself, and not the AAR, as the final authority on rail transport. Shippers also are asking for more representation on the Tank Car Committee.
DOT has not yet responded to that petition, although the agency is looking at the TIH tank car phase-out timeline.
“Tank car standards need to be set by DOT, because they have the broad authority to look holistically at rail safety,” Sloan says. “They need to make the determinations of where the biggest safety improvements can be made.”
SPURRING COMPETITION
The American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the Louisiana Chemical Association are members of the Rail Customer Coalition, which defends the interests of shippers now that consolidation has left the freight rail industry with only seven major companies. The coalition seeks to “modernize” the federal Surface Transportation Board charged with resolving railroad rate and service disputes.
The coalition wants the STB to change the rules for “competitive switching,” so shippers served by only one railroad can get competing bids and have their loads switched to another carrier at a nearby interchange. Technically, competitive switching is already allowed, but shippers have to prove a railroad has used its market power unfairly, and no shipper has been able to clear that bar, Sloan says.
“It’s like trying to prove an antitrust case,” he says. “The burden of proof is so high, it’s not realistic for a shipper to take on.”
The coalition also wants STB to reform its rate reviews. Shippers served by a single railroad can challenge the railroad’s rate as unreasonable, but the process is costly, burdensome and essentially unworkable, Sloan says.
The STB has acknowledged reform is needed, he says, but is currently down to only two members who are reluctant to make major changes until the board is at least mostly staffed. STB is authorized to have five members who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
With the domestic chemical manufacturing industry now growing after years of decline, more chemicals are being shipped by rail. Now is the time, shippers say, for reform.
Efforts to interview railroad advocates were unsuccessful. Carmack Blackmon, who represents the Louisiana Railroad Association, was called for comment for this story. He said a railroad representative would contact this writer to offer input, but that didn’t happen.
Jeffrey DeGraff, a spokesman for Union Pacific Railroad, was contacted by email more than a month before this story was written. He initially said he would help provide sources for the story, but he never got back in touch and did not respond to subsequent emails.
C. Doniele Carlson with The Kansas City Southern Railway Company deferred to the AAR for comment. The AAR did not make anyone available for an interview, despite repeated requests, although Jessica Kahanek emailed the following statement on behalf of the railroad association:
“Tank cars are typically shipper supplied, but as the transportation provider, the freight rail industry strongly supported the Department of Transportation’s 2015 rule and advocated for stronger tank car standards for years.”
https://www.businessreport.com/business/updates-made-railroad-tank-cars-time-update-industry-rules-well
-
House Funding Bill Would Boost Water Infrastructure Projects
May 15, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern and Amena H. Saiyid
A $35.2 billion House funding bill would provide additional resources for water infrastructure projects while cutting EPA funding by about $100 million.
The legislation, released May 14, would provide the Environmental Protection Agency with $7.96 billion in fiscal year 2019, slightly below the fiscal 2018 enacted level of $8.06 billion. That is a more modest cut than the roughly 25 percent reduction the Trump administration sought in its February budget request.
State revolving funds for wastewater and drinking water programs would receive $2.6 billion—which would be $250 million more than they received the prior fiscal year—to repair and upgrade crumbling pipes, plants, and treatment systems.
The reduction in EPA’s overall funding would come from cuts to the agency’s regulatory programs, which would receive $228 million less than they received in fiscal 2018, according to the committee. The draft bill, scheduled for a May 15 subcommittee vote, also would include resources to support the Trump administration’s request to offer buyouts and voluntary separation agreements to federal agency employees.
Policy provisions in the House bill include language to rescind an Obama-era regulation that defines which waters and wetlands fall under Clean Water Act protections. This language—which is also included in the spending measure for the Army Corps of Engineers—was introduced despite the fact that the Trump administration plans to rewrite the regulation.
If the House language were to become law, it would put an end to all litigation related to the 2015 water jurisdiction rule.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/house-funding-bill-would-boost-water-infrastructure-projects
-
Speeding EPA Air Quality Reviews May Mean Less Input From Public
May 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan, Amena H. Saiyid and David Schultz
The EPA’s latest push to meet legal deadlines to review its air pollution requirements could sideline public participation—even as Administrator Scott Pruitt argues the science underlying the agency’s work should be more transparent.
Pruitt is pushing his agency to quickly wrap up its standard-setting process for ozone and airborne particles. In a May 10 memo Pruitt said the EPA needs to meet a legal deadline for the next ozone air quality review in 2020. That will determine whether states will need to impose new pollution controls on industries and vehicles in order to meet tighter air quality standards.
The new deadlines are “extremely aggressive,” Chris Frey, the former head of the EPA’s primary air pollution advisory board, said. “I think it’s utter nonsense.”
Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University, told Bloomberg Environment that the only way he can envision the EPA accomplishing this is if it significantly curtails the public’s ability to participate in this process.
Fewer Reports, Fewer CommentsAs part of that memo, Pruitt said the EPA will combine three lengthy analyses of scientific data and policy options it has historically prepared as part of that review into a single document. The agency and its science advisers had previously sought public input at each step in that process.
“This administration uses the word transparency a lot,” Frey said, “but if you take that seriously, you have to take enough time to give public notice and take time to let people develop and review the materials.”
But others see it differently. Cutting down the number of comment periods is not likely to hinder the EPA’s ability to collect the input it needs, Jeff Holmstead, a partner at the law firm Bracewell in Washington who supports Pruitt’s efforts, told Bloomberg Environment.
“You don’t need to give that many opportunities,” he said. “You can get the same input and the same answers,” said Holmstead, who ran the EPA’s air office during President George W. Bush’s administration.
The EPA’s press office would not respond on the record to these criticisms. But Pruitt said in a statement that his memo was meant to break the trend of his agency missing deadlines for setting these air pollution standards.
The ‘Rigamarole’The EPA is required to review the air quality standards for six common pollutants—including ozone and airborne particles—every five years and, if necessary, revise them to protect public health and the environment. However, the agency routinely misses those deadlines, often drawing lawsuits from environmental groups asking the courts to force the EPA to take action.
Steve Milloy, the Potomac, Md.-based founder of JunkScience.com, told Bloomberg Environment the EPA should be able to meet its 2020 deadline for the ozone review.
“If we’re out of the business of just going through this rigmarole of publishing thousand-page documents, I think that we can stay on track,” he said.
Pruitt’s memo speeding up the air pollution standards reviews—combined with a proposal that would block the EPA from using research where the underlying data is not publicly available—will undermine the role of science at the agency, Paul Billings, national senior vice president of advocacy at the American Lung Association in Washington, said.
“You start to see how this all fits together,” Billings told Bloomberg Environment. “You stack the review panel, you exclude the best science, and you shortcut the process.”
Science TransparencyThe proposed rule (RIN:2080-AA14) would block the agency from using scientific studies that rely on unpublished data, such as patients’ private health information, when issuing regulations.
If this transparency rule goes into effect before the 2020 deadline to review the current ozone standards, there may be lots of important studies on how air pollution affects human health that the EPA must disregard, Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado State University School of Public Health, and former chairman of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, told Bloomberg Environment.
However, Pruitt has said there are ways to anonymize data from human studies that would allow the agency to use that information without violating the privacy rights of the studies’ subjects.
“If [scientists] provide the data and methodology to the agency and the findings, it will be used,” Pruitt said at an April 26 congressional hearing.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/speeding-epa-air-quality-reviews-may-mean-less-input-from-public
-
Air Pollution Tied to High Blood Pressure for Children
May 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Luis Sanchez
Babies exposed to more air pollution are more likely to face elevated blood pressure, according to a study published Monday in the American Heart Association's journal Hypertension.
The study found that air pollution is associated with higher risk of high blood pressure in adults and children.
Air pollution exposure during pregnancy can also lead to higher risk of high blood pressure for babies, the study found.
"What we found was that air pollution exposure during the third trimester, in particular, was associated with higher blood pressure in children," study author Dr. Noel Mueller — of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health — told CBS News.
The study found that high blood pressure tied to air pollution lasts beyond childhood.
"We know that blood pressure tracks through life. Children who have elevated blood pressure in childhood have a higher probability of having hypertension later in life and cardiovascular diseases," Mueller told CBS.
According to Mueller, mothers may want to take precautions against pollution during the third trimester, like exercising indoors if they live in places with high air pollution.
The study followed nearly 1,300 mothers and their children who had follow-up visits between ages three and nine.
http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/387686-air-pollution-tied-to-high-blood-pressure-for-children
-
Final EPA Staff Documents Reiterate Call to Retain SO2 NAAQS
May 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA staff has released final versions of risk and policy assessment documents to support its review of sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), reiterating earlier recommendations to leave the standards unchanged ahead of a looming deadline later this month for the agency to propose whether to revise the NAAQS.
Under a court-mandated schedule, EPA must propose a new SO2 NAAQS rule by May 25, and a final rule by Jan. 18. In its final risk and exposure assessment (REA) and policy assessment (PA) documents dated May 9 and released ahead of their scheduled publication in the Federal Register May 15, EPA again finds that risks from SO2 are largely unchanged and that Administrator Scott Pruitt should consider retaining existing standards.
The Obama EPA in 2010 set the current primary, or public health-based, standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) using a novel one-hour averaging time in order to guard against short-lived but intense spikes in pollution. The 2010 rule also revoked earlier annual and 24-hour limits that had been in effect since 1971.
The agency in 2012 also left unchanged the secondary, or welfare-based NAAQS, at 50 ppb averaged over three hours, the level in place since 1971.
While the REA evaluates the risk to human health of SO2 exposure, the PA document evaluates options for the administrator to consider when setting the NAAQS. As in earlier draft versions, EPA staff in the PA recommends no change in the primary NAAQS.
EPA staff says, “consideration should be given to retaining the current standard of 75 ppb SO2, as the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour concentrations averaged across three years, without revision. Accordingly, and in light of this conclusion that it is appropriate to consider the current standard to be adequate, we have not identified any potential alternative standards for consideration in this review.”
Industry groups such as the American Petroleum Institute have recommended that EPA also consider weakening the SO2 NAAQS, but EPA staff has declined to do so, instead suggesting retaining the existing standards.
Notably, Pruitt in his May 9 memo reforming the NAAQS review process says the agency should evaluate standards both weaker and more stringent than existing standards, raising questions over whether EPA's proposal will adhere to the PA and review process undertaken so far on this issue.
Pruitt further says that EPA should consider consolidating into one step the current steps of the process, which include an integrated review plan, integrated science assessment to synthesize the latest science on a pollutant, the REA and PA. This would accelerate NAAQS reviews, Pruitt claims, in order to help EPA meet its Clean Air Act duty to issue NAAQS review rules every five years.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/final-epa-staff-documents-reiterate-call-retain-so2-naaqs
-
Commerce Secretary: Some NOAA Climate Research Questionable
May 15, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said yesterday that some climate research at NOAA had been reviewed "less" than favorably by other scientists.
Ross has generally been vague about his views on climate change, saying that he was "not a scientist" when asked about the issue. NOAA, which conducts the bulk of the nation's climate research, is under the purview of the Commerce Department.
"I'm not going to get into the climate debate," he said yesterday when asked about his views on climate change during an event at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
"The Commerce Department's NOAA has issued various reports that reflect the thinking of their scientists, and those reports in general have been reviewed, sometimes favorably, sometimes less so by other people in that field, so I think I'll just let that record speak for itself."
Some politicians, including House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), have accused NOAA researchers of fraud, but Democrats and the agency have vehemently denied those allegations. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), the ranking member of that committee, has accused Smith of fueling a "hype-driven, fact-lacking controversy" and harassing climate scientists (E&E News PM, Nov. 23, 2015).
NOAA currently lacks a permanent leader. AccuWeather Inc. CEO Barry Myers was nominated to serve as NOAA's leader last year, but he hasn't yet received a vote in the full Senate.
During his confirmation hearing, Ross pledged not to interfere with the agency's scientific findings, and NOAA has continued to publish many climate-related findings during his tenure.
"Barring some national security concern, I see no valid reason to keep peer reviewed research from the public," Ross wrote in response to Democrats who questioned his commitment to protecting climate research at NOAA. He added, "To be clear, by peer review I mean scientific review and not a political filter."
While there is no indication that political appointees at NOAA have interfered with climate science findings, the administration has repeatedly targeted NOAA's climate research for cuts in its budget proposals. The House recently proposed a 13 percent cut for NOAA in fiscal 2019, but that is likely to change during the budget negotiation process.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/05/15/stories/1060081677
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested