Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/18/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sparkling Pool Water May Hold Disease-Causing Parasites
May 18, 2018 | New York Times
By Roni Caryn Rabin
There isn’t really a chemical that makes water turn a darker color when someone urinates in a pool, but two new reports on the health risks of pools, hot tubs and water playgrounds might make you wish there were. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Again Finds Formaldehyde Poses Leukemia Risks But Stalls Study
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
After years of additional study and scientific review, EPA has again found that formaldehyde poses leukemia and other cancer risks, though Democratic senators say the draft finding has prompted Trump EPA appointees to block release of the assessment... -
(ACC Mentioned) Glyphosate Study Defender Tapped to Lead Cancer Agency - UPDATE
May 17, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
The World Health Organization's leadership has tapped to lead its embattled cancer bureau a Brazilian researcher who has vigorously defended its controversial study of the herbicide glyphosate. -
Absent Federal Policy, Governments File Tort Suits for Environmental Harms
May 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
From fossil fuels that cause climate change, to lead paint and a host of toxic chemicals, state, county and city governments are increasingly turning to common law nuisance claims to recover cleanup and other funds from manufacturers... -
Pentagon’s Use of Paint Stripper Unclear as EPA Moves to Curb Toxic
May 18, 2018 |
By Pat Rizzuto and Sam Pearson
A White House office is working with the Defense Department and the EPA to decide how the military and its contractors could continue to use a paint stripper the agency now plans to restrict, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Congress. -
Summer Natural Gas Shortage Possible in California, Regulator Says
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Reduced natural gas storage at Aliso Canyon in Southern California may lead to supply disruptions this summer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff said May 17. -
ACP Working to Identify Work Stoppage Areas After Court Vacates Key Permit
May 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Work continued along the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s (ACP) 600-mile route after a federal appeals court late Tuesday agreed with environmental groups challenging the project and vacated a key permit in an order that could halt construction in certain areas indefinitely. -
Mexican Pipeline Boom to Sate Growing Thirst for Natural Gas
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
Mexico’s appetite for energy is driving a growing demand for natural gas and an even bigger push for pipelines linked to Texas to move it. -
U.S. LNG Export Growth Could Expose Domestic Market to Higher Prices, Global Risk
May 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
The United States is poised to become one of the largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the next 20 years, sending out as much as 19 Bcf/d by some estimates, thanks to robust production in a post-shale era. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Undo Obama-Era Chemical Disaster Rules
May 18, 2018 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took steps on Thursday to roll back and delay Obama-era rules aimed at improving safety at chemical plants, which had come in response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas that killed 15 people. -
EPA Proposes to Scrap Most Obama-Era Revisions to RMP Program
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Trump administration is proposing to scrap most requirements of the Obama-era final rule updating EPA's facility accident prevention program, rescinding numerous new safety requirements in response to industry and state petitions, and arguing that EPA failed to adequately coordinate... -
Chemical, Oil Companies to Save Millions From Safety Program Rollback (1)
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
DowDupont Inc., Chevron Corp., and other companies that own high-risk chemical facilities stand to benefit from relaxed safety provisions despite the concerns of first responders and communities close to these plants. -
Hazmat Transport Regulator May Check Liquefied Natural Gas Safety
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Companies that handle liquefied natural gas in bulk and transport it via railroad tank cars could become newly regulated under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. -
The Solution for Rural Infrastructure
May 17, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Doug Lamalfa (R-Calif.)
This week is National Infrastructure Week, but don’t expect to see any parades or celebrations of America’s infrastructure system this year. -
Panel Votes to Slash Noaa Climate Programs, Scrap Gun Rule
May 17, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
The House Appropriations Committee today approved a spending bill that would cut NOAA's budget by more than $750 million next year, including a 38 percent reduction for climate change programs. -
Climate Caucus Adds 5 Members
May 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
The bipartisan House caucus dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming has added five new members, bringing its total to 78 members.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Sparkling Pool Water May Hold Disease-Causing Parasites
May 18, 2018 | New York Times
By Roni Caryn Rabin
There isn’t really a chemical that makes water turn a darker color when someone urinates in a pool, but two new reports on the health risks of pools, hot tubs and water playgrounds might make you wish there were.
One report by the Water Quality and Health Council asked 3,000 adults about their swimming habits for its yearly Healthy Pools report. Among the questions was whether they had urinated in a pool as an adult; some 27 percent of adults — more than one in four — said they had.
“And we think that’s probably underreported,” said Chris Wiant, chairman of the Water Quality and Health Council, which is funded by the American Chemistry Council to survey swimmers’ behaviors.
Parasites and bacteria can spread diseases in recreational water facilities, even when the water has been treated with chemicals. From 2000 to 2014, some 500 outbreaks occurred in 46 states and Puerto Rico, causing 27,219 cases of illness and eight deaths, according to a separate report released Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. One-third of the outbreaks occurred in hotel pools or hot tubs.
Most of the illnesses were caused by a parasite called cryptosporidium (crypto for short), which is tough enough to survive chlorine for seven days and causes diarrhea; the bacteria Pseudomonas, which causes swimmer’s ear and hot tub rash; and Legionella, which can cause Legionnaires’ disease and is the deadliest of the three, linked to at least six of the deaths during the 15-year period.
Crypto was responsible for more than half of the outbreaks and the vast majority of the illnesses, however.
“Swallowing just a mouthful of water with crypto in it can make otherwise healthy kids and adults sick for weeks with watery diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting,” said Michele Hlavsa, chief of the C.D.C.’s Healthy Swimming Program.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/well/live/swimming-pools-bacteria-parasites-diarrhea-hot-tubs.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Again Finds Formaldehyde Poses Leukemia Risks But Stalls Study
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
After years of additional study and scientific review, EPA has again found that formaldehyde poses leukemia and other cancer risks, though Democratic senators say the draft finding has prompted Trump EPA appointees to block release of the assessment and they are urging Administrator Scott Pruitt to quickly release it.
Pointing to Pruitt's “back to basics” agenda for EPA, Sens. Tom Carper (DE), Ed Markey (MA) and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) say in a May 17 letter to Pruitt that in their opinion, “assessing chemicals for their effects on human health is a basic part of EPA's mission to protect human health” and urge the administrator to “ensure there are no further efforts to delay or block the publication of this assessment that has serious implications for public health.”
The senators say they have learned that the latest draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde was completed “during the fall of 2017,” but has yet to proceed through the regular intra-agency review process normally undertaken before the document is released for inter-agency review, public comment, and peer review.
They argue that “EPA by now should have published the assessment for public comment,” but that it has not because “multiple political appointees within EPA have expressed reluctance to move the assessment through the agency review process, have repeatedly set up briefings on the assessment only to later cancel them, and/or have insisted that IRIS first set up briefings for industry stakeholders before completing agency review.”
The senators name Pruitt's chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, air office chief Bill Wehrum and toxics office appointee Nancy Beck, as among those delaying the formaldehyde assessment's public release.
The news marks the second time in a week that the agency is facing reports that it sought to delay conservative chemical assessments. Inside EPA first reported May 11 that Trump administration officials' concerns
are blocking release of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s toxicological profile of four PFAS chemicals that included risk estimates stricter than EPA's for two of the chemicals.
The senators say they believe the administration is delaying the draft formaldehyde assessment because it found the substance to be “carcinogenic, presenting evidence for nasopharyngeal cancer and leukemia, among other risks to human health.”
Such a finding, while controversial, is not surprising -- EPA's last publicly available draft IRIS assessment, issued in 2010, also linked formaldehyde exposure to leukemia and nasopharyngeal risks.
But EPA never finalized the draft assessment after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) strongly criticized its conservative risk estimates that would likely have driven a host of new regulatory requirements.
In addition, the NAS panel strongly faulted IRIS' methodology in crafting its draft assessment, warning of a pattern of problems in how the agency creates assessments for its IRIS database that have forced the program into years of reforms and continuing criticisms from industry and GOP critics.
But later NAS reports balanced the critique provided in the formaldehyde review. A 2014 NAS review concurred with the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) 2012 monograph that formaldehyde exposure could cause myeloid leukemia, while also waving aside some of industry and other critics' longtime arguments that formaldehyde exposure is unlikely to lead to systemic cancers like leukemia.
And NAS' 2014 and 2018 reviews of the IRIS program have largely praised the agency's efforts to implement the recommended reforms.
Industry Concerns
While industry officials acknowledge that formaldehyde exposure can cause nasopharyngeal risk, they say that type of cancer is much rarer and of less concern to the public than leukemia.
As a result, they have raised doubts about the agencies' conclusions and have also funded multiple studies trying to find a biological process by which formaldehyde causes leukemia.
They also sought to reanalyze a key 2010 study -- by University of California-Berkeley professor Luoping Zhang and colleagues that EPA, the National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer -- have all relied upon in their conclusions that formaldehyde exposure can cause leukemia.
The Zhang study compared blood samples of Chinese workers exposed to formaldehyde with other unexposed Chinese factory workers, and concluded that chromosomal abnormalities in the exposed workers' cells were indicative of leukemia.
But last year, for example, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) touted new findings and a new award for a 2015 study it funded that re-analyzes raw data underlying the Zhang study. Authored by Ramboll Environ consultant Kenneth Mundt and colleagues, ACC's study points to flaws in the Zhang study's methods that the authors say should lead EPA and other agencies to alter their conclusions.
ACC in a press release about the studies argued that the reanalysis' findings “are important because they call into question the validity of all these recent formaldehyde assessments. The original paper failed to meet its own data quality standards and the scientific standard of reproducibility. Relying on it consequently led to unsubstantiated regulatory decisions and unwarranted outcomes.”
ACC's findings also appear to have translated into industry advocacy. According to the senators' letter, ACC and Exxon Mobil “have been pressuring EPA not to release the assessment for public comment as drafted. ACC, ExxonMobil and other industry actors are said by the individuals we have communicated with to particularly object to findings related to leukemia,” the senators write.
“Unfortunately, it appears that the agency may be succumbing to pressure from industry ... This is exceptionally disturbing, and lends further credence to the belief, already widely held, that EPA has been captured by industry,” they say.
Such advocacy is likely responsible for delaying an assessment that was completed last fall. For example, Tina Bahadori, director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, told the agency's Science Advisory Board at its last meeting, in August 2017, that the IRIS program is working to soon release a new draft assessment of formaldehyde.
And last February, agency research officials sought to include formaldehyde as a topic of discussion at the next chartered SAB meeting, now scheduled for May 31 in Washington, D.C. Internal emails released to the Union of Concerned Scientists in response to a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that the acting head of SAB's staff office, Tom Brennan, sought to schedule a meeting with Beck, Brittany Bolen, the acting policy office associate administrator, and Richard Yamada, the deputy research office chief, to discuss the agenda for the next meeting of the chartered SAB.
In a Feb. 13 email, Brennan tells Beck, Bolen and Yamada that Jackson asked them to meet to discuss “potential topics” for the upcoming Spring SAB meeting. “We have a couple of potential items we can discuss including the war on lead, PFAS, crossagency activities and formaldehyde.”
But the agenda for the SAB's May meeting -- the first since Pruitt took the helm at EPA -- includes the federal lead strategy and “EPA approaches on perfluoroalkyl substances.”
Formaldehyde is not mentioned, though Bahadori and IRIS chief Kris Thayer are slated to present an IRIS “update.” EPA has already contracted with NAS to review the next draft formaldehyde assessment, the senators' letter notes, but it cannot do so until the assessment completes a series of internal, inter-agency and public reviews.
But one environmentalist says it is clear that the draft assessment is being held back at EPA. It “has been stuck in [EPA] for so long it will take laxatives to get it out,” says a source with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-again-finds-formaldehyde-poses-leukemia-risks-stalls-study
-
(ACC Mentioned) Glyphosate Study Defender Tapped to Lead Cancer Agency - UPDATE
May 17, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
This article was updated at 4:02 p.m. EDT.
The World Health Organization's leadership has tapped to lead its embattled cancer bureau a Brazilian researcher who has vigorously defended its controversial study of the herbicide glyphosate.
Elisabete Weiderpass will begin running the International Agency for Research on Cancer on Jan. 1. But her election is already prompting mixed reactions from the chemical industry.
Set to become IARC's first female director, she was chosen from a pool of 33 candidates by the WHO director general and representatives of the agency's 26 participating states.
Weiderpass will take over from Christopher Wild, who has led the Lyon, France-based bureau for two five-year terms — the longest tenure allowed under IARC rules.
"I am delighted to have been selected as the next Director for the Agency, and I look forward to bringing my expertise to IARC and contributing to the important work of the Agency," she said in a statement.
A naturalized Swedish and Finnish citizen, Weiderpass leads both the Department of Research at the Cancer Registry of Norway and the Genetic Epidemiology Group at the Folkhälsan Research Center in Finland.
She is also an epidemiology professor at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden and the Arctic University of Norway, and has taught the subject in Brazil, China, Iran and Kuwait.
Chemical industry opponents immediately criticized Weiderpass as "the ultimate IARC insider." In a background email to E&E News, one consultant raised concerns about her marriage to the former head of the monograph program at IARC that performs meta-analyses of chemicals and her defense of the glyphosate monograph.
IARC found in March 2015 that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen," a break from previous reviews of the weedkilling chemical. That conclusion prompted immediate backlash from the chemical industry and has led to thousands of lawsuits against Monsanto Co., which uses glyphosate in its popular Roundup herbicide.
Later in 2015, Weiderpass co-authored a commentary for the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives that dismissed industry's complaints about the process that led to the glyphosate determination.
"We have looked carefully at the recent charges of flaws and bias in the hazard evaluations by IARC Working Groups, and we have concluded that the recent criticisms are unfair and unconstructive," she and her co-authors wrote.
Then last year, Weiderpass helped draft an opinion piece in the peer-reviewed Journal of Epidemology and Community Health defending the IARC glyphosate review. The piece was prompted by, and critical of, the European Food Safety Authority's finding that "there was no unequivocal evidence for a clear and strong association of [the cancer non-Hodgkin lymphoma] with glyphosate."
Publicly, however, the chemical industry is striking a more conciliatory tone about Weiderpass' election.
"We are cautiously optimistic that despite Dr. Weiderpass previously expressing confidence for the IARC process, she will be remain impartial and ensure moving forward, accuracy, transparency and scientific integrity remain at the forefront," said a statement from the Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, which is a project of the American Chemistry Council and other industry groups.
"The potential for Dr. Weiderpass to lead successfully hinges upon her ability and her resolve to steer the IARC Monographs Program off of the corrupt, destructive path on which it has long traveled," CAPHR added. "We urge Dr. Weiderpass to not allow 'business as usual' to continue at IARC."
The industry campaign group is advocating for IARC reforms that would, for example, give industry greater influence over the evaluation process.
The reforms are supported by House Republicans, some of whom have even threatened to withdraw financial support for IARC, an agency the U.S. helped found in 1965 (E&E Daily, Feb. 7).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/17/stories/1060081999
-
Absent Federal Policy, Governments File Tort Suits for Environmental Harms
May 17, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
From fossil fuels that cause climate change, to lead paint and a host of toxic chemicals, state, county and city governments are increasingly turning to common law nuisance claims to recover cleanup and other funds from manufacturers, a growing sign that federal policy may be inadequate – or at least insufficiently funded – to address these harms.
But the suits are drawing strong push back from industry groups, with support from several Republican attorneys general (AGs). The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) in November launched the Manufacturers Accountability Project (MAP) to fight such suits, warning that if successful, manufacturers of legal products face jeopardy.
“We're seeing this alarming trend of suits broadly, and we're concerned if the trend continues it can harm manufacturers of all sectors and sizes,” Lindsey de la Torre, executive director of MAP, tells Inside EPA.
She says that while oil producers and other “energy manufacturers” are the target of the recent climate cases, she also cites litigation against paint manufacturers in California, where “the courts are creating an unprecedented super tort that could be used against anyone that makes and sells a lawful product. Today it is paint. Tomorrow it could be any type of lawful product.”
While many of the suits still face years of litigation, including likely reviews by the Supreme Court, some efforts are already bearing fruit. For example, Minnesota officials in March announced an $850 million settlement with 3M to treat water contaminated by the company's production of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), chemicals widely used in firefighting foam, non-stick cookware and other products.
Manufacturers of the chemicals, as well as industrial users of products containing the substances, are facing similar suits in several other states, including Michigan, Colorado and Massachusetts.
In a similar vein, several local governments in California recently won a judgment in state court against three paint companies requiring them to pay more than $1 billion to remove lead paint from all private homes built before 1951 in 10 counties – even though some of the companies were not in existence when the homes were painted.
The companies are now appealing the decision to the state Supreme Court.
None of the other newer nuisance suits have reached an outcome, while more are being filed.
A host of counties and cities across the country – all controlled by Democrats – are filing climate nuisance suits against fossil fuel extracting companies seeking damages for impacts from climate change such as rising seas.
The most recent of these, filed by King County, WA, May 9, mirrors prior suits from coastal communities in California and New York City alleging the defendants ignored warnings about the harms of greenhouse gas emissions and must pay for climate adaptation measures to address rising sea levels and other harms.
The city of Boulder, CO, filed a similar suit in April seeking to address inland harms from droughts, wildfires, heat waves and flash floods.
While the climate suits have so far been filed by Democrats, litigation seeking to address other issues had drawn bipartisan support. For example, Ohio AG Mike DeWine (R), who is running for governor in November, recently joined dozens of other state and local governments pursuing damages against Monsanto, the sole manufacturer of polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), and its successors to address a series of common law claims, including nuisance, trespass and others. The state contends high PCB levels have impaired more than 100 significant Ohio waterbodies.
Ohio and seven other states – Oregon, Hawaii, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island – are also backing Washington's bid to keep its PCB suit in state court, suggesting those states may all file their own cases.
MTBE Ruling
The cases all suggest a lack of, or inadequate, regulatory policy by federal officials.
For example, EPA has yet to adopt enforceable cleanup standards for PFAS, and the Trump administration is working to roll back every climate policy the Obama administration sought to advance.
While federal policymakers have banned use and/or production of both PCBs and lead paint, those efforts appear to have been inadequate so far to cover the vast cleanup costs state and municipal governments appear to face to address their past use and contamination.
One attorney who follows these types of cases says the impetus for the recent flurry of nuisance suits may be a 2015 ruling by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in State of New Hampshire v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, et al., that held manufacturers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) liable for $236 million.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the industry appeal, ending a suit that was first filed in 2003, shortly before Congress sought – but failed – to exempt manufacturers from such product liability disputes.
The attorney says the success of the MTBE case “showed a way to [recover damages] under state law.” As such, a key for the climate claims to be successful is for plaintiffs to keep them in state court to avoid preemption defenses.
“Because if they get into federal court, then they have the same problem with preemption” that killed an earlier wave of climate nuisance cases filed by impacted communities including Kivalina, AK; Houston, TX; and Northeastern states.
However, even if the cases remain in state courts, this source is skeptical that many governments will be successful in their climate cases because they are seeking to address a global issue “that is too big for a court.”
The ultimate danger of these types of cases to manufacturers will largely depend on how narrow of a line courts require from action to injury. “If claims are truly limited . . . then very few companies have much to worry about. But if it gets looser,” then there is cause for concern.
The source cites one pending groundwater cases where the issue is whether a chemical manufacturer provided faulty instructions that led the user to accidentally release it – a potentially dangerous precedent if successful because products are routinely put on the market with faulty instructions, the source says.
“I think I am very sympathetic to what NAM is saying,” the source says, while noting that in the current political environment, litigation is unlikely to lead to a national climate policy and instead is more of a “side show” where “a lot of lawyers bill a lot of hours.”
Finally, the source says one outcome of these types of cases could be mixed rulings, and it remains unclear what if anything that would mean. “We have a tolerance in the United States for different courts reaching different conclusions on the same question. The law in Texas can be different from the law in California. But on something like this, where you are talking about a worldwide phenomenon, there is less tolerance for that sort of thing.”
Industry Warnings
But the lawyer's assessment does little to satisfy the industry officials and their GOP supporters.
Even before MAP's 2017 creation, NAM and other groups sought to head off the lead paint suit, California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al.
“If this Court allows the trial court's ruling to stand, governments in California could sue private companies for making or selling products based solely on the fact that the product had foreseeable risk of harm. If that harm ultimately manifests itself, the governments would effectively have no burdens of proof. . . . The version of public nuisance articulated in this case would strip away traditional product liability elements and defenses,” they said in a 2015 amicus brief.
More than a dozen Republican AGs are making similar arguments to head off the climate nuisance cases. They filed an April 20 amicus brief in California v. BP, urging the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that if it were allowed to proceed it would open the door to a “limitless” list of potential defendants being targeted merely for supporting fossil fuels.
At an April 26 MAP event, three of the Republican AGs on the brief made the case that federal courts are not the venue to address inadequacies in the federal regulatory system, and charged the suits would likely provide significant profits to the plaintiffs' attorneys.
Courts are “no place to determine national environmental policy” and “public nuisance is not a theory judges should employ,” said Oklahoma AG Mike Hunter.
But in response to reporters' questions, the AGs hedged on whether the climate suits could be halted by putting a federal GHG policy in place. South Carolina AG Alan Wilson said that if there is to be such a policy, “it should come out through a public debate in a transparent form through people's elected representatives and it shouldn't come out through policy edicts from judges.”
And MAP's de la Torre adds that the group is not seeking specific legislative or regulatory fixes to address potential statutory gaps as a way to halt the nuisance suits and is also not seeking liability relief. Instead, she says, “We agree with the courts who have found that the executive and legislative branches, not the courts, are the proper channels to address this issue. We welcome meaningful efforts to address environmental concerns but litigation is not an appropriate tool for accomplishing that objective.”
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/absent-federal-policy-governments-file-tort-suits-environmental-harms
-
Pentagon’s Use of Paint Stripper Unclear as EPA Moves to Curb Toxic
May 18, 2018 |
By Pat Rizzuto and Sam Pearson
A White House office is working with the Defense Department and the EPA to decide how the military and its contractors could continue to use a paint stripper the agency now plans to restrict, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told Congress.
Military units and their contractors use methylene chloride strippers to remove paint and other coatings from metal and plastic components of airplanes, wheeled vehicles, ships, buildings, and other property.
EPA proposed a rule on the chemical in 2017 and said there is no substitute for some of these military applications. The original proposal would have allowed continued use for 10 years of methylene chloride for “mission-critical” uses, including those on planes and ships.
Container Size Matters
The EPA recently forwarded to the White House Office of Management and Budget a rule prohibiting consumer and commercial paint stripping uses of methylene chloride, Pruitt told an Senate Appropriations panel May 16.
Some questions about the Defense Department and its contractors’ uses need to be clarified, Pruitt said during a hearing on the agency’s fiscal year 2019 budget.
Issues to resolve before the agency can complete the rule include the size of the containers in which companies can package and ship the paint stripper to military units and their contractors, Pruitt said.
The EPA’s intent, however, is to finalize the rule once it clears White House review, which entails consultations with other agencies, Pruitt said at the hearing.
The White House’s regulatory review office website does not indicate it has received the proposal.
Defense Carve Out
On Jan. 19, 2017, in the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA proposed a rule that would have banned methylene chloride in consumer products and most types of paint and coating removers sold to commercial renovators and other firms.
The proposal also would have required that strippers containing methylene chloride be distributed in 55-gallon containers.
The sole exception was for “formulations specifically manufactured for the Department of Defense, which may be distributed in containers with volumes no less than 5 gallons.”
The EPA’s proposed rule came after some consumers and commercial remodelers died using the volatile chemical when they were working in poorly ventilated spaces without respiratory protection, the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in March 21 guidance requiring stricter warning labels.
Methylene chloride can irritate the lungs and impair breathing, it said.
The Trump administration initially put the proposed methylene chloride rule on hold.
But after meeting with the families of individuals who had died following their use of methylene chloride, Pruitt announced May 10 that the agency would proceed with some restrictions.
Protecting Workers
During the May 16 hearing Pruitt did not detail the restrictions the EPA’s revised rule will impose on methylene chloride’s consumer and commercial uses. But exposure to the solvent needs to be controlled, he said.
“This is a matter that we needed to act on, in my view, sooner than what we did,” Pruitt told the Senate panel’s ranking member Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.).
“I appreciate you and others bringing that to my attention, and the meeting that I had with those families helped cement the process that we’re taking,” Pruitt said.
Jordan Barab—who worked at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration from 2009 to 2017 and now consults on worker safety issues—said he supports a ban to protect workers such as individuals who refinish bathtubs.
OSHA’s methylene chloride standard requires employers to inform staff about the risks of working with the chemical, and to provide appropriate respiratory protection when in poorly ventilated areas such as bathrooms, Barab told Bloomberg Environment.
But Barab and David Michaels, the agency’s director from 2009 to 2017, told Bloomberg Environment those requirements don’t seem to be enough.
An OSHA standard “has very little impact,” said Michaels—who is now a professor of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University—because the agency can’t enforce the standard in the environments where workers are at greatest risk.
OSHA has tried to publicize the hazards of methylene chloride use, but it can do little else, Barab said.
“OSHA doesn’t have the authority to ban chemicals,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pentagons-use-of-paint-stripper-unclear-as-epa-moves-to-curb-toxic
-
Summer Natural Gas Shortage Possible in California, Regulator Says
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Reduced natural gas storage at Aliso Canyon in Southern California may lead to supply disruptions this summer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff said May 17.
Distribution-level pipeline outages in the region may affect the amount of gas supplied to power plants and can hamper movement of gas to storage, FERC staff said at a meeting in Washington presenting its summer Energy Market and Reliability Assessment.
“I am deeply troubled by California policy makers’ refusal to support Aliso Canyon as a reliable storage facility to deal with critical backup storage,” FERC Commissioner Robert Powelson said at the agency’s meeting in Washington. “I’m very troubled and concerned about electric reliability in the California marketplace.”
The biggest gas leak in U.S. history occurred in October 2015 and lasted through February 2016 at a Sempra Energy natural gas storage field in the Aliso Canyon field near Los Angeles, forcing the evacuation of thousands of people from their homes.
The state government instituted rules reducing the rate for natural gas injection and withdrawal at Aliso Canyon. Those rules may complicate pipeline operations, FERC says.
Furthermore, low snowpack in California will reduce amount of hydropower generation available in summer.
Likelihood of Emergency
The combination of the reduction in hydro generation and natural gas supply limitation will lead to a 50 percent chance of at least one “stage 2" emergency for at least an hour, which would lead to curtailment of power, FERC staff said.
California ISO, the independent system operator of the state’s grid, said the last time it declared a stage 2 emergency was in 2007. A stage 2 emergency requires CAISO to seek additional power plants to go online to meet the electricity demand.
Additionally, FERC says this could be a record summer for gas demand for electric generation. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects gas production will climb to near record highs.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/summer-natural-gas-shortage-possible-in-california-regulator-says?context=landing-heroes
-
ACP Working to Identify Work Stoppage Areas After Court Vacates Key Permit
May 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Work continued along the Atlantic Coast Pipeline’s (ACP) 600-mile route after a federal appeals court late Tuesday agreed with environmental groups challenging the project and vacated a key permit in an order that could halt construction in certain areas indefinitely.
As part of a broader consolidated case brought by the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Virginia Wilderness Committee, the petitioners argued that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) incidental take permit failed to set clear limits for affected species. Issued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the permit is required for activities that could result in the take of, or a negative impact to, threatened wildlife.
“We conclude, for the reasons to be more fully explained in a forthcoming opinion, that the limits set by the agency are so indeterminate that they undermine the incidental take statement’s enforcement and monitoring function under the Endangered Species Act,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit said in its order vacating the permit.
ACP spokesperson Jen Kostyniuk said the decision only impacts construction activities directly covered by the permit in “certain defined areas along the route,” adding that construction would move forward as scheduled. The project backers continue to aim for a 2019 in-service date.
“We will fully comply as required while we continue to construct the project,” Kostyniuk said. “Although we disagree with the outcome of the court’s decision, and are evaluating our options, we are committed to working with the [FWS] to address the concerns raised by the court’s order.”
ClearView Energy Partners LLC noted that FERC and other agencies rely on incidental take findings during National Environmental Policy Act reviews to determine if mitigation efforts outlined in project permits comply with the ESA.
The Sierra Club applauded the court for recognizing that the FWS, “like other agencies involved in permitting the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, failed to impose meaningful limits or adequately scrutinize the project.”
The environmental groups claimed that all construction must be halted without the incidental take permit. ACP has already received several notices to proceed with construction and work is ongoing. Kostyniuk said the company as of Wednesday afternoon had not yet stopped any construction work, adding that it must first determine the areas where it has to do that. The company is currently working to identify where its actions would have an impact on the species at issue.
“Our next steps will be to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who we expect will revise the incidental take statement to provide limits that are more specific,” Kostyniuk said.
An FWS spokesman told NGI that the agency is reviewing the court’s decision and determining its next steps.
While ACP does not know when the revised incidental take permit will be prepared, Kostyniuk said the company has “conducted extensive survey work” for all the affected species over the last four years, adding that there is “a robust record on which to resolve this matter in an expedited manner.”
ClearView analysts said it appeared obvious last week during oral arguments that the incidental take permit was possibly in jeopardy as the FWS legal team during oral arguments seemed to fail at persuading judges of its validity. While the petitioners fought to suspend construction, ClearView said the exact mechanism to do so wasn’t made clear. The firm said late Tuesday that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would likely order construction suspended in the specified areas while the FWS amends the incidental take permit.
Late Wednesday, FERC instructed ACP to file documents that specifically identify by milepost the habitat areas of the affected species that will be avoided and to confirm the company’s commitment to avoid construction in these areas.
The court also did not say when it would issue a full opinion. The case includes another challenge to a right-of-way for the project issued by the National Park Service, which has not yet been addressed.
ACP, backed by Dominion Energy Inc., Duke Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas and Southern Company Gas, would originate in West Virginia, traversing Virginia and North Carolina to move 1.5 Bcf/d to the Southeast.
The project, like other Appalachian infrastructure, has been controversial. It was approved by FERC in October in a rare split decision. Echoing concerns that ACP serves essentially the same purpose as the Mountain Valley Pipeline (MVP), Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur argued that the two pipelines should be merged given their potential environmental impacts.
ACP is also not the only project to have hit a snag recently in federal court. Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit halted construction of the Atlantic Sunrise pipeline project for three days to consider an emergency stay filed by a coalition of environmental groups that were challenging that project’s FERC certificate. That ordered was eventually lifted.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision to vacate ACP’s permit came the same day the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected FERC’s motion to suspend a petition for review of the certificate order authorizing MVP and cleared the case brought by a coalition of environmental groups to move forward.
FERC had filed a motion to postpone the challenge until it could decide on rehearing requests filed by the groups. The DC Circuit denied that motion and ordered the Commission to file the certified index for the case, or administrative record, within 30 days.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114419-acp-working-to-identify-work-stoppage-areas-after-court-vacates-key-permit
-
Mexican Pipeline Boom to Sate Growing Thirst for Natural Gas
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Pickrell
Mexico’s appetite for energy is driving a growing demand for natural gas and an even bigger push for pipelines linked to Texas to move it.
The resulting expansion of Mexico’s gas pipeline network means it not only will meet its demand through imports of U.S. natural gas—taking advantage of the shale boom north of the border—but it also expects to initially have more pipeline capacity than it can use.
“We are building a lot of capacity—we have more rooms than kids in the house—and we will have to figure out how to deal with this problem,” said David Madero, the director of Mexico’s National Center for National Gas Control, or Cenagas, speaking at the International Society of Mexican Energy on May 17.
“We have to make sure that we pace the future infrastructure to the growing needs of the country, and so we have done a lot to pace capacity in the coming years,” he said.
Five-Year PlanMexico is planning a major expansion of these pipelines, according to a five-year plan published by Cenagas in March. The plans reflect changes that resulted from a 2013 amendment to Mexico’s constitution that has opened up the oil, gas, and power markets to international investment.
The Cenagas plans include seven pipelines that were originally announced in 2017 and would connect to lines that bring natural gas from Texas’ and Oklahoma’s shale-rich production areas across the border.
For example, the San Isidro-Samalayuca line—which can accommodate a flow of 1.22 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d)—connects Chihuahua to the Comanche Trail pipeline at the U.S. border. Third-party pipeline developers plan bypasses in Juarez and Reynosa to further strengthen the links to Texas gas supplies.
The pipelines reflect Mexico’s growing reliance on natural gas as its population grows, and it moves away from fuel oil-generation. It also comes at a time when domestic production is shrinking.
Mexico currently consumes about 7.1 bcf/d, but this amount is expected to grow to 9.2 bcf/d by 2022. Its domestic production is projected to shrink from 1.6 bcf/d in 2018 to 1.1 bcf/d by 2022.
Booming U.S. ProductionAt the same time, shale production in the southern U.S. is booming and is in search of new markets for the gas glut, according to Trey Greaney, who heads commercial optimization for interstate pipelines for OneOK, an Oklahoma-based natural gas liquids company.
“We anticipate a lot of growth in Permian gas production, looking for a market,” Greaney said, speaking to the ISME audience. “The main purpose of our line to West Texas has been to address the need for supply into Mexico.”
Other lines will pipe gas from the border far into the heart of Mexico. For example, the 497-mile Sur de Texas-Tuxpan line will carry 2.6 bcf/d, which will connect to the planned 176-mile Tuxpan-Tula line with 886 mcf/d, which will then link to the 261-mile Tula-Villa de Reyes line. The pipelines are being built by private pipeline companies, such as TransCanada and Howard Energy Partners, which will then contract out rights to the natural gas capacity.
Mexico expects to increase the amount of natural gas it imports from the U.S. from its current 5.5 bcf/d to 8.1 bcf/d by 2022.
The relatively low price of U.S. natural gas should enable Mexico to become more competitive, with lower manufacturing and electricity generation costs, as it increasingly replaces the more expensive liquefied natural gas, or LNG, that it imports with the piped U.S. natural gas.
“Abundant and affordable natural gas supplies are allowing Mexico to realize the full fruits of a liberalized market,” said Brian McCann-Hermis, in charge of natural gas supply and marketing for ConocoPhillips, speaking at the ISME event.
Landowners Have a SayTo build new lines in Mexico, companies must complete environmental and community impact assessments showing they can mitigate negative impacts and get local support. Private property owners must must agree to provide right-of-way access, a challenge which has led to delays in the construction of some of the lines.
“The right-of-way issues are important and have become extremely difficult—the way we dealt with right-of-way agreements in 2011 has changed dramatically since that time,” said Octavio Berron, the chief marketing officer for Fermaca, a Mexican natural gas pipeline company, speaking at the ISME event.
“Landowners have become aware that they have something that is valuable and they have become more educated and sophisticated. There are also people who are not very ethical and take advantage of opportunities.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/mexican-pipeline-boom-to-sate-growing-thirst-for-natural-gas
-
U.S. LNG Export Growth Could Expose Domestic Market to Higher Prices, Global Risk
May 17, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Leticia Gonzales
The United States is poised to become one of the largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) in the next 20 years, sending out as much as 19 Bcf/d by some estimates, thanks to robust production in a post-shale era.
However, such explosive growth could put upward pressure on domestic prices and expose the previously isolated North American market to global market dynamics in the years to come, according to the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Unconventional gas production, which began in earnest about a decade ago, has fundamentally altered the U.S. market, providing LNG exporters a significant competitive advantage as prices have declined significantly and have become much cheaper than oil on a per MMBtu basis, stated the CFTC report, which was issued Wednesday.
Domestic production by the end of 2017 had increased to 78 Bcf/d from 52 Bcf/d, a 34% increase from 2007. The seven U.S. unconventional producing regions contribute the bulk of current Lower 48 supply, with the Marcellus and Utica shales accounting for about one-third of onshore total dry production. Unconventional gas is projected to account for 42 Bcf/d in new supply by 2035, which is 33% of global supply growth, the report noted.
With production on the rise, prices have fallen, creating a competitive advantage for U.S. companies to export LNG to global buyers. “This business can be thought of as an arbitrage between low domestic prices and high global prices, although it is not an inexpensive opportunity to exploit,” the commission said.
Indeed, LNG developers like Tellurian Inc. are thinking outside the box when it comes to financing new projects. The Houston-based company is seeking investors for Driftwood Holdings LLC, formed to own and operate the network of gas production, LNG trading and infrastructure, which includes the proposed 27.6 million metric tons/year Driftwood LNG export facility.
Tellurian wants to raise $24 billion for Driftwood Holdings. Equity interests in Driftwood Holdings were expected to be offered at a cost of $1,500/metric ton in exchange for LNG at cost. CEO Meg Gentle indicated earlier this month that there are “more than 20 companies conducting detailed analysis in our data room for Driftwood Holdings, and we expect to be able to identify our partners soon.”
Still, the price advantage of natural gas over oil -- especially with oil now at around $70/bbl -- continues to be a leading enabler of LNG exports, the commission said. The share of European import contracts indexed to oil has decreased from more than 90% to less than 40% in 10 years, and newer contracts are much more likely to be indexed to natural gas. The same trend holds to a lesser degree in Asia, the CFTC noted.
However, the change toward gas-indexed pricing for LNG “may put pressure on U.S. LNG exports, because U.S. natural gas has less of a pricing advantage against other natural gas supplies than it does against oil,” the commission said. By its very nature, estimating the impact of LNG exports on domestic prices is difficult. Some analysts argue there will be no significant price change, while others estimate an impact of 5-10%, according to the report.
The biggest variable in determining the magnitude of the potential impact is the production response from domestic producers. Over time, U.S. production has become more efficient; “if this trend continues, LNG exports will have a lower impact on domestic prices,” the commission said.
Given the magnitude of U.S. exports, however, there is also the potential that domestic natural gas markets could become subject to global supply/demand dynamics with the potential for increased volatility.
While potential domestic price impact estimates vary, what is clear is that any price impact is likely to be seen in markets located near LNG export terminals and particularly on the Gulf Coast. A key reason for lower impact in market areas is that significant unconventional production is close to these areas, whereas conventional gas production is concentrated in the Gulf Coast region, the commission said.
Meanwhile, the LNG market is evolving to shorter contract durations and more spot transactions. In 2016, 29 countries (including re-exporters) exported spot volumes to 35 end-markets. This compares to six spot exporters and eight spot importers in 2000, the report said.
In addition, a lack of domestic production or pipeline imports in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, aka JKT, has pushed these countries and others to rely on the spot market to cope with any sudden changes in demand like Japan’s Fukushima nuclear crisis in 2011. These and a host of other factors have driven a substantial increase in spot transactions that are likely to grow even more as global demand increases, the report noted.
“Overall, the shift toward shorter contracts is likely to be driven more by demand than supply. However, it may benefit U.S. LNG exports to certain markets, depending on geographic accessibility,” the commission said.
With the rise in spot transactions, the CFTC said there will likely be an increased need for derivatives markets for hedging. As gas-indexed contracts become more prevalent, and as U.S. exports increase, it is likely that trading in U.S. derivatives markets will increase as a result, especially by overseas traders.
Currently, natural gas is one of the major derivatives markets under CFTC regulation. CFTC-regulated exchanges list about 180 futures and options contracts with open interest. The reference natural gas futures contract trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange (Henry Hub) and has open interest of around 1.5 million contracts, with trading in the average range of 200,000-500,000 lots per day and a peak of more than one million lots on Jan. 12, according to the CFTC report.
Besides the reference contract, natural gas futures include financial, basis and spread contracts. These contracts together have an open interest of 18 million contracts, second only to the three-month Eurodollar as of the end of 2017.
Estimates Vary On Export Potential
There is currently 10 Bcf/d of liquefaction capacity either in operation or under construction in the United States, with both Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy (DOE) having approved another 14 Bcf/d. In total, the DOE has approved export licenses for 52.9 Bcf/d, “although it is highly unlikely that this level of investment will actually occur,” the commission said.
A baseline scenario from the Energy Information Administration projects 14 Bcf/d of U.S. LNG exports in the next 20 years, with most of that growth coming in the next three to four years. BP plc, which, through its Alaska unit recently signed a long-term gas sales agreement with Alaska Gasline Development Corp. for the Alaska LNG Project, has taken a much more bullish stance, estimating that by 2035, the United States will export 19 Bcf/d. Last year’s BP Energy Outlook forecast global LNG trade would grow seven times faster than pipeline gas trade, and by 2035, BP expects LNG to account for around half of all globally traded gas.
Meanwhile, the United States will have to compete with growing exports from other countries. Leading global gas producer Qatar recently announced plans to increase LNG production by 30% by 2024, ending a moratorium that has been in place since 2005, the commission said. In addition, changes in global LNG market practices may influence U.S. exports, as could developments in the natural gas production sector. “The net result of these uncertainties is that the realized exports of LNG from the U.S. could vary widely from the estimates,” the commission said.
And while ample supply and low gas prices are at the heart of LNG export development, shipping has also seen significant developments and improvements in efficiency. Between 2012 and 2016, charter rates for advanced LNG ships have declined from more than $150,000/day to $33,500/day, the CFTC said.
Meanwhile, the global fleet of LNG tankers has expanded rapidly, with 31 new tankers added in 2016, bringing the total fleet to 478 vessels, double the number just 10 years ago.
The regasification sector has also seen improvements in efficiency with the expanding use of Floating Storage and Regasification Units. These units are cheaper and faster to build than land-based regasification units and can be re-deployed to other areas if needed. “All of these factors have helped increase global LNG trade, and this trend is likely to continue,” the commission said.
Global natural gas demand is forecast to grow at 1.6% per annum (PA) and is the only hydrocarbon with a growing share of global energy supply, according to the report. Much of this growth is fueled by economic growth in countries with insufficient energy resources and related pipeline and storage infrastructure.
“Many Asian markets rely solely on LNG for their natural gas needs. In China, growth in gas consumption (5.4% PA, 36 Bcf/day by 2035) is expected to outstrip domestic production, such that the share of imported gas in total consumption is expected to rise to nearly 40% by 2035, up from 30% in 2015,” the commission said.
Meanwhile, the push for cleaner energy and energy security concerns are also key drivers for global demand growth. One industry analysis forecasts that “global LNG trade will double over the next two decades, after increasing fourfold over the past 20 years,” the commission said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114422-us-lng-export-growth-could-expose-domestic-market-to-higher-prices-global-risk
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Undo Obama-Era Chemical Disaster Rules
May 18, 2018 | Reuters
By Valerie Volcovici
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took steps on Thursday to roll back and delay Obama-era rules aimed at improving safety at chemical plants, which had come in response to a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas that killed 15 people.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt introduced a proposal to rescind the measures, saying it would save the industry tens of millions of dollars a year and “better address potential security risks.”
“The rule proposes to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens, address the concerns of stakeholders and emergency responders on the ground, and save Americans roughly $88 million a year,” Pruitt said in a statement.
The proposal would also delay some of the compliance dates of the Obama-era amendments and cancel certain provisions that address accident prevention.
It was the latest in a string of Trump administration proposals aimed at rolling back environmental regulations put in place by former Democratic President Barack Obama, which industry groups have said added to their regulatory burdens.
In January 2017, before Republican President Donald Trump took office, the EPA introduced several changes to companies’ risk management plans they submit to the agency, including requiring more analysis of safety technology, third-party audits and incident investigation analyses and stricter emergency preparedness requirements.
Last February, the EPA received a petition from a coalition of chemical and energy industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council and American Petroleum Institute, to delay and reconsider the Obama-era amendments.
The explosion at the West Texas fertilizer plant killed 15 people, including 12 firefighters. Scores of others were injured and more than 500 homes were damaged in the blast, with total damaged estimated at more than $100 million.
The source of the explosion was ammonium nitrate stored in a wooden container at the plant, investigators said.
The EPA press release announcing the proposed changes to the Obama administration amendments, included a statement from the National Association of Chemical Distributors.
“The Obama Administration would have imposed significant new costs on industry without identifying or quantifying the safety benefits to be achieved through new requirements,” the lobby group’s president, Eric Byer, said.
The United Steelworkers union said in a statement on Thursday it strongly opposed the proposed rollbacks.
“USW members work in dangerous facilities that house huge quantities of hazardous chemicals. We are strongly opposed to this deregulation that endangers workers and their communities,” the group said.
The proposed rule will be open to public comment for 60 days and a public hearing on the rule is scheduled for June 14.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-chemicals/epa-moves-to-undo-obama-era-chemical-disaster-rules-idUSKCN1II31N
-
EPA Proposes to Scrap Most Obama-Era Revisions to RMP Program
May 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
The Trump administration is proposing to scrap most requirements of the Obama-era final rule updating EPA's facility accident prevention program, rescinding numerous new safety requirements in response to industry and state petitions, and arguing that EPA failed to adequately coordinate with other agencies in issuing the costly changes.
But the proposal is likely to draw significant opposition from environmentalists and citizen groups, which have long criticized the planned rollback for limiting community protections.
In a pre-publication version of a proposed rule signed May 17, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposes to rescind much of EPA's January 2017 final rule updating the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention rule, arguing that the agency failed to adequately coordinate with other agencies, including the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as required under the Clean Air Act.
“EPA is proposing to rescind amendments relating to safer technology and alternatives analyses, third-party audits, incident investigations, information availability, and several other minor regulatory changes,” the rule says.
While the proposal seeks to rescind much of the regulation, it largely retains but modifies the rule's requirements for facilities to coordinate with emergency responders.
“EPA is also proposing to modify amendments relating to local emergency coordination and emergency exercises, and to change the compliance dates for these provisions,” the rule says.
EPA will seek comment on the proposed revision rule for 60 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The agency has also scheduled a public hearing on the proposed revision rule for June 14 in Washington, D.C.
Shortly before the Obama administration left office in 2017, EPA issued a final rule updating RMP with new requirements. The rule was issued in response to the former president's August 2013 executive order on improving industrial facility safety after a 2013 explosion at a fertilizer facility in West, TX, killed 15 people, including first responders.
The rule imposed new requirements for certain facilities to conduct independent audits and analyze safer alternatives, and included provisions aimed at streamlining disclosure of facility data, and improved coordination between facilities and first responders.
But the Trump administration in June delayed the effective date of the rule by nearly two years -- until Feb. 19, 2019, saying it needed the time to reconsider and potentially reverse some of the changes.
The delay followed petitions from industry and roughly a dozen Republican-led states that argued that the revisions were unnecessary and that the disclosure provisions could worsen terror threats.
In the proposal, EPA floats changes that would rescind the rule's new auditing, hazard analysis and information sharing requirements while largely retaining but modifying the rule's requirements for facilities to coordinate with emergency responders.
Costs And Benefits
In an analysis of the proposed revision rule's costs and benefits, EPA acknowledges that rescinding certain safety requirements would reduce benefits of the Obama-era rule, but counters that rescinding the rule's requirements aimed at streamlining release of facility data to the public would have the added benefit of reducing security risks.
Additionally, EPA estimates that the revision rule would save between $87.9 million and $88.4 million annually in industry compliance costs.
Environmentalists will almost certainly criticize the proposed rule, much as they did after Hurricane Harvey when they charged that the administration's decision to delay the rule had prevented communities from being alerted to possible releases from damaged facilities.
Similarly, they have challenged the delay rule, arguing it is unlawful and dangerous.
During March 16 oral argument in the case, Air Alliance Houston, et al., v. EPA and E. Scott Pruitt, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit seemed to agree that EPA has general statutory authority to amend the compliance dates of past rules. But they questioned whether the Trump administration had justified extending all targets for the policy until 2019 or later.
Environmentalists have also listed more than two dozen industrial accidents that have occurred since the Trump administration delayed the Obama-era final rule strengthening the agency's facility accident prevention program, highlighting their legal charges that the Trump administration's delay is harmful and should be vacated.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-scrap-most-obama-era-revisions-rmp-program
-
Chemical, Oil Companies to Save Millions From Safety Program Rollback (1)
May 17, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
DowDupont Inc., Chevron Corp., and other companies that own high-risk chemical facilities stand to benefit from relaxed safety provisions despite the concerns of first responders and communities close to these plants.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule (RIN:2050-AG95) May 17 that would change security provisions under updates to the agency’s risk management program. The changes will save companies $88 million per year.
Industry officials were on hand May 17 while EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt—a critic of the regulation as Oklahoma attorney general—signed a proposed rule making changes to the risk management program.
“Accident prevention is a top priority at EPA, and this proposed rule will ensure proper emergency planning and continue the trend of fewer significant accidents involving chemicals,” Pruitt said in a statement May 17.
The risk management program, established under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, requires companies that handle large volumes of risky substances to report information to the EPA and local communities. The plans are intended to help first responders anticipate—and safeguard personnel during—chemical fires or other accidents without providing too much information to anyone who may target the plants. The Obama administration tried to tighten the standards following high-profile 2013 fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas.
Pruitt’s changes to the rule include removing a requirement that companies analyze if they can run their facility using safer chemical processes, modifying how compliance audits are conducted, and reducing the amount of information plants have to share with the public.
The changes would also cut a mandate that plants conduct root cause investigations to determine what went wrong after chemicals are released or almost released.
Too Duplicative?In making the changes, the EPA adopted industry organizations’ arguments that these changes duplicated an existing Occupational Safety and Health Administration process safety management program. That program regulates facility operations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
Pruitt’s plan would simplify compliance for facilities without harming safety, Robert Helminiak, managing director of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, which represents specialty chemical companies, told Bloomberg Environment May 17.
“I am hopeful, as I review the rule, that it will promote greater safety,” Helminiak said.
Advocates of the Obama administration’s approach were disappointed.
“The agency is just setting aside all of the analysis and all of the data that its own scientists had put together back when they were working on this rule,” Yogin Kothari, senior Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment May 17.
Gaps in Chemical SafetyThe EPA in January 2017 issued updates to the risk management regulations (RIN:2050-AG82) after working with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies to study gaps in chemical safety at facilities.
The regulations came after 12 firefighters were killed entering the burning West, Texas, plant after it exploded. But the EPA was concerned about lower-profile mishaps throughout the U.S., too.
The Trump administration subsequently delayed the regulation from taking effect until February 2019. The delay was challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has yet to rule in the case, Air Alliance Houston v. EPA.
After the proposal is published, it will be subject to a 60-day public comment period with a public hearing scheduled for June 18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-oil-companies-to-save-millions-from-safety-program-rollback-1
-
Hazmat Transport Regulator May Check Liquefied Natural Gas Safety
May 18, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Companies that handle liquefied natural gas in bulk and transport it via railroad tank cars could become newly regulated under the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The federal agency oversees the transportation of hazardous materials, including liquefied natural gas. It’s working to identify potential safety issues with transporting liquefied natural gas via railroads, highways, and pipelines as demand for the fuel increases.
This research also could lead to regulations for assessing and closing aging liquefied natural gas transportation facilities, its representatives said May 17 at the agency’s hazardous materials transportation research and development forum in Washington.
The U.S. market for liquefied natural gas has shifted mainly from importing to exporting the fuel, Bill Stuckey, emergency coordinator for the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, said at the forum. U.S. companies that transport liquefied natural gas are repurposing existing infrastructure, which was mostly built in the 1970s.
The agency is considering how and when to “sunset,” or plan to close, older liquefied natural gas facilities, according to Stuckey. Some companies want to build new pipelines specifically for liquefied natural gas, which also would fall under the agency’s regulatory responsibilities, he said.
Transportation by RailHazardous material regulations currently don’t allow the bulk transportation of liquefied natural gas in rail tank cars. The agency is aiming to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to address that in September (RIN:2137-AF40).
The Association of American Railroads is pushing the agency to move quickly if it does issue regulations, advocating for its mode of transportation before highway transport becomes the norm. The association represents companies including BNSF Railway Co. and CSX Transportation Inc. Neither company immediately responded to a Bloomberg Environment requests for comment.
The agency is considering regulating liquefied natural gas transported by rail as a result of a January 2017 request from the Association of American Railroads. The association asked the agency to authorize the practice because shippers trust railroads as a safe transportation method, and railroads often need to transport liquefied natural gas for use as locomotive fuel.
The agency also issued an order to Sabine Pass Liquefaction LLC in Houston after a release of liquefied natural gas at its facility in Cameron Parish, La. The company agreed in April to remove one affected tank from service while an independent investigator assesses the root cause of the release. Cheniere Energy, of which Sabine Pass is a subsidiary, didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
Upward TrendThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration expects to see more petitions from industry asking for liquefied natural gas regulations, Drue Pearce, its deputy administrator, told Bloomberg Environment. The agency is putting a priority on research into best practices for handling liquefied natural gas.
“We need research to understand how many people are going to use [liquefied natural gas] in trucks as a fuel,” Stuckey said. “We’re pretty sure that’s all market-driven. It’s based on the price of oil right now.”
The agency says it needs a baseline risk assessment to investigate the factors currently driving the demand for liquefied natural gas. It also wants to understand industry’s short-term needs for regulation and transportation infrastructure.
Pearce, who moved to Washington from Holland & Hart LLP in Anchorage, Alaska, said at the forum that Alaskans have been able to ship liquefied natural gas from there to Tokyo for more than four decades without incident.
“Alaskans have never been afraid, if you will, of [liquefied natural gas],” she said.
But environmental groups, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, are concerned about the risks of transporting the gas.
“This condensed fuel is dangerous and can explode or cause pool fires that are impossible put out, particularly when it’s being transported,” Emily Jeffers, an Oakland, Calif.-based attorney for the center, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
The center is calling for the agency to create new safety regulations before any new projects are approved, but that has failed, Jeffers said.
“At a time when the industry is looking for new ways to use cheap, fracked natural gas, we need strong federal regulations and regulators,” she said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/hazmat-transport-regulator-may-check-liquefied-natural-gas-safety
-
The Solution for Rural Infrastructure
May 17, 2018 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Rep. Doug Lamalfa (R-Calif.)
This week is National Infrastructure Week, but don’t expect to see any parades or celebrations of America’s infrastructure system this year. The truth is, we’re lagging far behind where we should be, and we must do something about it. Rural America faces many unique infrastructure challenges. Dilapidated roads, crumbling bridges and battered levees and dams litter the country from coast to coast, and Northern California is no exception.
According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the United States “infrastructure gap,” which refers to the amount of money required to meet our nation’s infrastructure needs, is estimated to be above $2 trillion. This gap is even more exaggerated in rural areas, like Northern California, where funding is much more difficult to come by.
Urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco will always be able to find additional funding from a variety of sources. In Modoc or Siskiyou County, where 50,000 people live in an area the size of Massachusetts, it’s not enough to simply pump more money into the system. We also need to stretch every dollar as far as possible.
California has some of the strictest environmental regulations in the country – far stricter than federal laws, in fact. While I’ve questioned the necessity for many of these laws, that’s a conversation for another day. In order to receive authorization to proceed with a project, counties must jump through numerous, duplicative regulatory hoops from multiple agencies on both the federal and state level. That makes no sense.
Let’s put it this way – if California requires you to run at least 70 yards, and the federal government requires you to run at least 50 yards, wouldn’t it make the most sense to run just the 70 yards and call it a day? Under our current process, we’re running 120 yards, wasting time and money with no benefit to the environment.
Smaller, rural counties don’t have the financial flexibility to navigate the maze of federal bureaucracies and red tape. Local agencies have also proven to be far more efficient with these projects, saving both time and money compared to federal estimates.
Take the example of the Feather River West Levee Project in my district. The original total cost was estimated to be $689 million – $255 million from the federal government and $434 million from the state. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowed our local agency, the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, to complete the project mostly on their own, and the savings were massive. The project is set to be completed six years ahead of schedule for a total cost of only $376 million – nearly half the price. Despite the local government taking on a higher percentage of the total cost, they still saved $107 million, while the federal government saved $206 million. These results speak for themselves.
There are solutions we can and should pursue. In 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which passed the House and Senate with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, gave states more authority to conduct their own environmental reviews for highway and transit projects. The president’s own infrastructure proposal seeks to broaden this same authority for all infrastructure projects. Not only would this significantly speed up the permitting process, but it entrusts states to make decisions that are in their own best interests.
Earlier this year, the president also published a Memorandum of Understanding that would implement what’s called the “One Federal Decision” policy. This means instead of requiring each relevant agency to publish their own statements and reviews, it would identify one lead agency to coordinate the project and consolidate these steps. It’s about time. This is a common sense initiative that gives our rural counties a map for the labyrinth of federal regulations.
These are basic, bipartisan reforms that we need to make in order to truly modernize America’s infrastructure. For rural communities across America, streamlining this overcomplicated permitting process can stretch our dollars further, and it can help bring our infrastructure up to date in a timely manner that meets the expectations of the people.
LaMalfa represents California’s 1st District and is a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/388148-the-solution-for-rural-infrastructure
-
Panel Votes to Slash Noaa Climate Programs, Scrap Gun Rule
May 17, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Rob Hotakainen
This story was updated.
The House Appropriations Committee today approved a spending bill that would cut NOAA's budget by more than $750 million next year, including a 38 percent reduction for climate change programs.
Lawmakers included the cuts in a broader $62.5 billion Commerce, Justice and Science fiscal 2019 bill that passed this afternoon on a vote of 32-19.
Overriding objections from several Democrats, the panel also kept intact a controversial rider that would reverse an Obama-era rule aimed at reining in multiple sales of semi-automatic rifles.
Specifically, it would prevent the Justice Department from spending funds to enforce the rule, which requires gun dealers in four border states — California, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico — to report "the sale of multiple rifles or shotguns to the same person."
Overall, the spending bill would mark an increase of $2.9 billion above the 2018 level, funding everything from the Commerce and Justice departments to science-related agencies such as NOAA, the National Science Foundation and NASA.
NOAA, part of the Commerce Department, would get $5.2 billion. That would include funding to continue its Joint Polar Satellite System weather satellite program and the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite program, both aimed at improving forecasting.
But Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, said the spending plan for the agency included "unacceptable deficiencies."
"NOAA climate research is slashed by $59.4 million, or 38 percent, which includes the complete elimination of the climate cooperative research program. ... We need programs like this," she said.
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) called the climate change cuts a "notable shortcoming." He offered an amendment that would have given NOAA another $60 million for climate programs, but he withdrew the amendment before it was voted on.
Republican Rep. John Culberson of Texas, the chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, noted that a manager's amendment included $10 million for NASA to study greenhouse gases.
The gun rider drew strong opposition from a handful of Democrats, including Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, who argued that preserving the rule would save lives by keeping more guns away from criminals.
"We simply cannot bury our heads in the sand while more and more assault-style weapons move across the U.S.-Mexico border," she said.
The debate revived an issue that has divided Congress for years. President Obama threatened a veto over the gun rule in 2013 when Republicans attached similar language to strike it down. The rule drew opposition from the National Rifle Association, while the Obama administration argued that it would help stop gunrunning to Mexican drug gangs.
Wasserman Schultz offered an amendment to remove the rider, but it was defeated on a voice vote.
Culberson defended the rider, saying such a rule should only be authorized by Congress, not the executive branch.
NASA would get $21.5 billion under the bill, $810 million above the 2018 level. It would provide more funding for space exploration, science programs, and robotic and human exploration of the moon, among other things.
Culberson said the bill would make the U.S. space program "the best on Earth."
But Republicans said their top priority in approving the bill was to bolster law enforcement.
Toward that end, the bill would add 100 new immigration judges to help deal with a caseload backlog, and U.S. attorneys would get an extra $113 million to assist in prosecutions.
www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/17/stories/1060082007
-
May 18, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Arianna Skibell
The bipartisan House caucus dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming has added five new members, bringing its total to 78 members.
Reps. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.), Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) and Ron Kind (D-Wis.) have joined the Climate Solutions Caucus, nicknamed the Noah's Ark group, which traditionally adds Democrats and Republicans in pairs. With a number of retiring members, the group is replenishing its numbers.
MacArthur noted that his district includes the Jersey Shore, Barnegat Bay, the Pine Barrens and the Delaware River, areas vulnerable to sea-level rise.
"Climate change and other environmental issues directly impact our area and our South Jersey economy. I am proud to join the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus to find practical solutions to the environmental challenges we face," he said in a statement.
Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.), who co-founded the group with Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), said the rise in caucus numbers is a sign that House members from both sides of the aisle are ready to "put politics aside" and find solutions for the impacts of climate change, like rising sea levels.
"We have a responsibility to our constituents and future generations to present a united front to combat anti-climate policies and to have a productive, fact-based dialogue about market-oriented solutions, investments and innovations that could mitigate the effects of climate change and make our nation more resilient," he said in a statement.
While many see the caucus as a sign that bipartisan action is possible, others accuse the group of merely providing cover for vulnerable Republicans. Paulsen, Roskam and MacArthur all face potentially difficult races.
Roskam, however, referenced the traditional conservation talking point of acting as a "steward" to the environment.
"Being a good steward of our planet bears great significance," Roskam said in a statement. "It is incumbent upon each and every one of us to understand the impacts and challenges that come from a changing climate. The Climate Solutions Caucus is a bipartisan venue to enact common sense solutions."
While the group has yet to introduce climate-related legislation as a united front, sources say a carbon tax bill this summer is not off the table.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/18/stories/1060082055
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested