Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/25/2018
-
Hearing on Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas
Jun 26, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 1:00 PM. -
Hearing on Department of Energy Nominations
Jun 26, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Location: 336 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing on Infrastructure Permitting Reform
Jun 27, 2018 | Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee
Location: 106 Dirksen / 2:30 PM. -
Markup of Pending Legislation
Jun 27, 2018 | House Natural Resources Committee
Location: 1324 Longworth / 10:15 AM. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commodity Resins Move in Different Directions in May
Jun 22, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Polypropylene in May continued in its role as the problem child of the North American resin market. -
(ACC Mentioned) We Need to Change the Way We Debate Substantive Issues
Jun 25, 2018 | State Journal
By Brooks McCabe
Dustin White recently penned an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette Mail titled “Petrochemical complex not good for West Virginia.” -
Texas Supreme Court Discards Local Plastic Bag Ban (2)
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
Laredo, Texas, can’t ban plastic shopping bags, the state’s highest court ruled June 22, in a decision that could overturn similar laws in about a dozen cities across Texas. -
Senators to Grill 4 Nominees on Trump Overhaul Plans
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
A Senate panel this week is expected to grill President Trump's picks for four top positions at the Department of Energy, including inspector general and head of the renewable energy office. -
Congress Starts Digging for Details on Trump's Reorg Plan
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Michael Doyle
The Trump administration's ambitious plan to reshuffle the federal government will face congressional skeptics, agnostics and maybe even some early allies this week at the plan's first Capitol Hill cross-check. -
(ACC Mentioned) As Asbestos Toll Mounts, Trump’s EPA Ignores It
Jun 22, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Two years ago, President Obama signed a successful bipartisan effort to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). -
EPA Aims to Balance Chemical Trade Secrets, Public Right-to-Know
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released a policy and a draft guidance to balance statutory requirements that it safeguard chemical companies’ trade secrets with increasing public access to information about their products. -
EPA Chemical Fees Need to Consider Shared Costs, Companies Say
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
Smaller chemical companies will be likely to unite alongside larger firms, sharing costs in order to pay for new fees the EPA proposed for evaluating their products, but they say they need more time to make those arrangements. -
EPA Issues an Array of New TSCA Policies
Jun 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
On the second anniversary of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has issued a series of new policies, including a new mercury reporting rule and a plan to limit animal testing, part of the agency's ongoing effort to implement a new regulatory regime for chemicals under the revised law. -
(ACC Mentioned) Companies That Make or Add Mercury to Products Must Report Use (1) - UPDATED
Jun 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Battery, pharmaceutical, industrial switch, and other manufacturers are among the types of companies required to report their use of mercury to the EPA under a final rule the agency released June 22. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Study Urges Stricter PFOA Safety Levels
Jun 22, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The U.S. government released a long-awaited study June 20 on the safety of fluorinated chemicals that recommends much stricter safe exposure levels for the public. -
Seattle Plastic Straw Ban to Take Effect Next Month
Jun 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
A ban on plastic straws that has been in the works for a decade will take full effect in Seattle beginning next month. -
Army Corps Approves Gas Project on Alaska's Back Burner
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday completed its final supplemental environmental impact statement for an in-state Alaska natural gas pipeline project that has been sidelined recently by the state in favor of a multibillion-dollar LNG export venture. -
Committee Set to Approve Oil and Gas Bills
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
The House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday will vote on a trio of onshore energy bills aimed at expediting the oil and gas permitting process. -
Perry to Meet with Russia Energy Minister Next Week
Jun 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon and Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry is slated to meet next Tuesday with Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, just days after Russia joined with OPEC to raise oil exports, according to two sources familiar with the matter. -
CNX Sees Stacked Pay Well Pads as Appalachia’s Next 'Basin Disruptor'
Jun 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The super-sized well pads targeting multiple horizons that CNX Resources Corp. plans to increasingly develop in the coming years will “disrupt” the Appalachian Basin, a company executive said this month at an industry conference in Pittsburgh. -
Court Deals $600 Million Blow to EQT’s Mountain Valley Gas Line
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
A federal appeals court’s decision to stay a key permit for an EQT Midstream Partners LP natural gas pipeline could delay the project by a year and cost the developer more than it earned in 2017. -
U.S. Shale Companies Motor Ahead Despite OPEC
Jun 24, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Rebecca Elliott and Christopher M. Matthews
U.S. shale companies, which profited by continuing to pump oil as the rest of the world cut its production, are again poised to benefit as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries boosts its output. -
USGS Releases Eagle Ford Estimates
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A major Texas energy play holds vast potential resources of both oil and gas, a new government analysis shows. -
Exxon Mobil Subsidiary Fights for Right to Ship Crude to Maine
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
The Portland Pipe Line Corp. made its case before a federal judge in Maine that a coastal city’s ordinance banning crude oil shipments violates its right to engage in interstate commerce. -
Exxon Mobil Subsidiary Fights for Right to Ship Crude to Maine
|
-
Looming Cybersecurity Battle: Who Protects U.S. Pipelines?
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
America’s appetite for natural gas has reignited a long-standing debate over which federal body should oversee the security of natural gas and oil pipelines. -
3M, DuPont Can’t Quash Cancer, Monitoring Claims
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M, DuPont, Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Plastics failed to shake claims that chemicals used to make stain-resistant fabric at a factory in New York state caused residents to develop cancer and thyroid disease. -
Panel Sets First Permitting Hearing Since Key CEQ Nomination
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
The Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee this week will look at ways of streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects. -
Crude Oil Spills into Iowa River After Freight Train Derailment
Jun 24, 2018 | Fox News
By Robert Gearty
A train derailment has spilled 230,000 gallons of crude oil into an Iowa river, resulting in a disaster declaration from the governor and a massive clean-up operation. -
EPA Expected to Retain Obama Ozone NAAQS Following Imminent Review
Jun 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is expected to retain the Obama-era ozone air standard following an accelerated review of the standard that it plans to formally launch soon with a “call for information,” sources say, with modeling showing most areas attaining the limit by 2023... -
EPA Advises FERC on Measuring Greenhouse Gases
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
EPA sent some surprising advice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week about tools the independent regulator could use to consider greenhouse gas emissions as part of pipeline reviews. -
A Leading Climate Agency May Lose Its Climate Focus
Jun 25, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
The Trump administration appears to be planning to shift the mission of one of the most important federal science agencies that works on climate change — away from climate change.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on Shifting Geopolitics of Oil and Gas
Jun 26, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Witnesses: Daniel Yergin, vice chairman, IHS Markit Ltd.; Harold Hamm, CEO, Continental Resources Inc.; and Dennis Arriola, chief strategy officer, Sempra Energy.
-
Hearing on Department of Energy Nominations
Jun 26, 2018 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Witnesses: Teri Donaldson, Christopher Fall, Karen Evans and Daniel Simmons.
-
Hearing on Infrastructure Permitting Reform
Jun 27, 2018 | Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee
Witnesses: Angela Colamaria, acting executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council; Alex Herrgott, associate director for infrastructure at the Council on Environmental Quality; Joseph Johnson, executive director of federal regulatory process review and analysis at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress; Sean McGarvey, president of North America's Building Trades Unions; Mary Landrieu, senior policy adviser at Van Ness Feldman LLP; and Jolene Thompson, executive vice president of member services and external affairs at American Municipal Power Inc.
-
Jun 27, 2018 | House Natural Resources Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commodity Resins Move in Different Directions in May
Jun 22, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Polypropylene in May continued in its role as the problem child of the North American resin market.
Prices for that material surged an average of 7 cents per pound in May, with regional PET bottle resin prices also ticking up an average of 2 cents. By comparison, prices for solid polystyrene resin declined an average of 4 cents for the month and linear low density polyethylene prices declined 3 cents.
Prices for high and low density PE and for suspension PVC were flat, according to buyers and market sources contacted by Plastics News.
Regional PP resin prices had dropped a total of 7 cents the prior two months, declining by 6 cents in March and by a penny in April. May's 7-cent upward upheaval included 5 cents of matching price increases for polymer-grade propylene feedstock and 2 cents in profit margin improvement that was won by PP makers, according to Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.
The market had started the year with a 9-cent hike in January and a 6-cent dip in February, meaning total price volatility for PP in the first five months of 2018 has been an eye-popping 29 cents.
Two ongoing supply situations could be tightening up North American PP supplies for June. In the first, Total Petrochemicals has declared force majeure on impact copolymer PP resins made at its plant in La Porte, Texas.
A spokeswoman with Total in Houston confirmed the force majeure in an email to Plastics News. She added that "an allocation program is being implemented." Total has more than 2 billion pounds of annual production capacity in La Porte.
The company blamed "a series of unplanned and external events that have impacted [Total's] production levels," adding that the allocation was set to begin June 11. It's unclear how much impact the Total outage will have on regional PP supplies.
In the second outage event, sources said Braskem America has had some minor production issues at its PP site in Marcus Hook, Pa. Sources who talked to Plastics News were split on whether that situation will have much impact.
North American PP sales through April were up just over 2 percent vs. the same period in 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. A domestic sales increase of 2.3 percent was dampened somewhat by a reduction of almost 6 percent for sales into the export market.
The 2-cent PET hike for May came after prices for that material were flat in April. Prices had declined by a penny in March after nine consecutive months of increases totaling 13 cents per pound.
PET market analyst Mark Kallman of RTI said that the May increase was the result of shortened supplies from the paraxylene and purified terephthalic acid feedstock stream as well as "seasonal PET demand in an overall tight market."
Demand for PET is increasing as warmer weather drives demand for bottled water and carbonated soft drinks, two of the material's major end markets.
Solid PS prices in the region fell an average of 4 cents per pound in May after being flat in April and rising 4 cents in March. Prices for benzene feedstock were also down in both April and May, but the May PS decline "reflects general loosening in the supply chain rather than anything such as a one-to-one movement with benzene," according to Phil Karig, managing director of the Mathelin Bay Associates consulting firm in St. Louis.
North American PS sales slumped 5.5 percent in the first four months of 2018. A domestic sales loss of 6 percent was softened somewhat by an increase of more than 12 percent in export sales.
The LLDPE 3-cent decline came after prices had been flat the previous two months since climbing 4 cents in February. Sources said that increased imports of finished LLDPE bags may have had a short-term impact on domestic resin demand, driving prices down as a result.
U.S./Canadian PE sales were mostly positive through April, as the impact of new production capacity throughout North America began to be seen. Regional sales of HDPE surged up 7.5 percent, with LLDPE sales soaring almost 12 percent. But sales of LDPE have struggled, slipping almost 2 percent.
For HDPE, domestic sales growth of almost 7 percent was augmented by export growth of almost 10 percent. Domestic HDPE sales growth in that period was boosted by a gain of almost 18 percent for sales into pipe and conduit, including a gain of almost 26 percent in water pipe.
In LLDPE, exports boomed more than 45 percent in the four-month period, boosting domestic sales that grew almost 3 percent. Domestic LLDPE sales into injection molding grew more than 8 percent in the three-month period.
LDPE's 1 percent domestic sales drop in early 2018 was worsened by a plunge of 3 percent in export sales. In spite of the overall sales drop, sales of LDPE into extrusion coating outside of paperboard jumped more than 13 percent for the four months.
Regional suspension PVC prices were flat in May after moving down an average of 2 cents in April. That drop had followed a combined gain of 5 cents per pound in February and March.
U.S./Canadian PVC sales grew 6 percent through April, with export growth of more than 14 percent adding to an increase of more than 2 percent in domestic sales. Three-month PVC sales into its flagship rigid pipe and tubing end market were up more than 3 percent.
At the macro-feedstock level, U.S. prices for West Texas Intermediate crude oil were near $67 per barrel at the start of May but they had declined to $66 by the end of the month for a drop of around 1.5 percent. U.S. natural gas prices began May at $2.83 per million British thermal units, but they had jumped to $2.96 by the end of the month for an improvement of almost 5 percent.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180622/NEWS/180629958/commodity-resins-move-in-different-directions-in-may
-
(ACC Mentioned) We Need to Change the Way We Debate Substantive Issues
Jun 25, 2018 | State Journal
By Brooks McCabe
Dustin White recently penned an op-ed in the Charleston Gazette Mail titled “Petrochemical complex not good for West Virginia.” He was writing about an important topic which needs to be fully vetted. The form of his comments is an excellent example of how our society has begun to look at substantive issues from an attack mode perspective rather than trying to convince and create closure with a win-win outcome. The op-ed was heavy on volatile rhetoric and accusatory assertions, but light on substance and offering of sustainable paths forward. Unfortunately, this is representative of how we have begun to address complex social and economic problems facing our state and nation. We have defaulted to inflammatory language designed to divide rather than coalesce opinion around solutions to the important topics of the day. Perhaps there is a better way to approach significant problems facing West Virginia.
Mr. White is a rising star in the environmental community, and his word matters. His family has been in West Virginia for generations and he has successfully challenged several important issues facing the state. He is led by his heart and by what he believes is right for communities he knows so well. He has been working diligently to make West Virginia a better place to live. He is project coordinator with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and has access to its resources, so he is in a position to make a difference. Mr. White, in many ways, is an embodiment of all that is good about West Virginia’s youth that have decided to stay and work for a better future.
His op-ed as written tends toward the shocking and offensive. The topic was the proposed Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub. It was referred to as a massive petrochemical complex, which is correct, and intimated to be the new “Cancer Alley,” which is incorrect. The majority of the op-ed dealt with “a select group of individuals seeking to make themselves rich at the cost of our health and economic well-being.” The individuals accosted included Secretary of Commerce Woody Thrasher (major owner of Thrasher Group), WVU’s Energy Institute Director Brian Anderson (principal in Appalachian Development Group LLC), and two opinion piece authors in support of the storage hub, Howard Swint (commercial property broker) and Brooks McCabe (land and mineral owner). The congressional delegation was criticized for their campaign contributions from oil, gas, and petrochemical companies and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was specifically targeted for a campaign donation from the American Chemical Council. “So, people who appear set to line their own pockets are waging a P.R. campaign to promote a mega-petrochemical complex as a shiny, fabulous game-changer for our state. But this is just the same old, deadly game: We sacrifice our water and land and health to a fossil fuel industry.” These individuals were referred to as hucksters and “opportunistic profiteers looking to get rich off another round of suffering for ordinary West Virginians.”
These massive assumptions and negative connotations can be characterized as creating the imagery of an enemy who in reality is hardworking West Virginian’s trying to make a positive difference in the state. Albeit, there are many, Mr. White included, who think the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub is not the path to be taken. However, West Virginia is at a tipping point in its future development. The old ways of industry are no longer acceptable or appropriate. The present is very different from 70 or a 100 years ago. The Storage and Trading Hub offers the prospect of a brighter future, but only if it is done right. It is up to the Dustin Whites in the state to help assure that the project is conceived, implemented and managed correctly. Attacking those of opposing views as hucksters and opportunistic profiteers does little to engender thoughtful discussion and serious negotiations. When everyone is angry and using inflammatory language rather than trying to understand the logic of the proposal and the science and analytics behind it, getting past all the noise becomes difficult.
We are talking about the future of West Virginia and that future needs to be very different from the past. This is something that can be agreed upon. The importance of protecting and improving the environment is another point of agreement. Building upon our strengths also needs to be part of our foundational propositions. The challenge is to find ways to have substantive discussions on difficult issues where individuals can agree to disagree, but all the while driving to an outcome that makes West Virginia a better place to live and work. If we can change the nature and tenor of how we debate issues that would be a good start. Mr. White’s op-ed is not the problem, but it is emblematic of what we are becoming if civility and compassion are not returned to their rightful place in the discussion about our state’s future. Perhaps there is a better way.
https://www.wvnews.com/statejournal/opinion/we-need-to-change-the-way-we-debate-substantive-issues/article_aaf0be93-50ee-5b83-86b1-57f280f91058.html
-
Texas Supreme Court Discards Local Plastic Bag Ban (2)
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
Laredo, Texas, can’t ban plastic shopping bags, the state’s highest court ruled June 22, in a decision that could overturn similar laws in about a dozen cities across Texas.
Supreme Court of Texas Chief Justice Nathan Hecht delivered the opinion that cities in the state can’t pass their own laws banning merchants from issuing customers “single use” plastic and paper bags.The court ruled that the ban in Laredo, a southern Texas city on the Mexican border, conflicted with the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, which says local governments can’t pass legislation restricting the sale or use of a container or package for solid waste management purposes if the state doesn’t already.
Austin, Galveston, and Brownsville are among about a dozen Texas cities with similar local bans in place.“The City Law Department is reviewing this decision to determine how it might impact Austin’s regulations,” a spokesperson for Austin said in an emailed statement. “The City’s single-use bag ordinance has been in place since 2012 and has served as a model for engaging stakeholders to develop effective local legislation.”
‘Appalled by the Decision’Under Laredo’s ban, businesses could be fined up to $2,000 if they provided plastic bags with a purchase.
“My organization is appalled by the decision of the Texas Supreme Court,” Joanie Steinhaus, Gulf program director of Turtle Island Restoration Network, which had backed the bag ban in court, told Bloomberg Environment. “Cities in Texas will no longer have the ability to decide what is best for their communities regarding single-use plastic bags.”
The lawsuit began in March 2015 after the Laredo Merchants Association argued the ban violated Texas solid waste disposal laws. A trial court backed Laredo’s law initially, but a divided appeals court reversed that decision. The association, its attorney, and the Texas Chamber of Commerce could not be reached for comment.
Bag Ban Not a Trash Issue: CityThe debate itself stems from a nonbinding advising opinion, issued by the state’s then-Attorney General Greg Abbott in 2014, which said local plastic bag bans are allowed as long as they don’t target solid waste management. Laredo had unsuccessfully argued that its bag ban was not a solid waste issue because it dealt with single use bags before they were trash.
“Single use plastic bags have contributed to flooding, mosquitoes, costly clean up from local governments, and disruption of sensitive ecosystems and wildlife,” Laredo Mayor Pete Saenz said in a June 22 statement. “Laredo’s ordinance helped reduce clean up and repair costs to our storm water, sewage and water utilities systems. It also beautified our city and helped wildlife with it.”
With the path to plastic bag bans now blocked in city governments, bag ban advocates may have to turn to voluntary community initiatives or the Legislature.“I don’t hold out high hope with our state and the government in Texas right now, but it’s something we would pursue,” Steinhaus said. “We’ll look at the concurring opinion and we as Turtle Island Restoration Network and our partnership with Surfrider Foundation, the Galveston chapter, will continue our local bring the bag campaign.”
The case is Laredo v. Laredo Merchs. Ass’n, Tex., No. 16-0748, 6/22/18.
(Updates with additional reporting throughout.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/texas-supreme-court-discards-local-plastic-bag-ban-2
-
Senators to Grill 4 Nominees on Trump Overhaul Plans
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Christa Marshall
A Senate panel this week is expected to grill President Trump's picks for four top positions at the Department of Energy, including inspector general and head of the renewable energy office.
The nominees are likely to face questions about Trump's proposed reorganization of federal agencies and his budget requests, which have proposed eliminating or slashing funding for many DOE programs. Last week, Trump recommended merging DOE's applied offices into one "innovation office."
Scheduled to testify before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee are Daniel Simmons, Trump's pick for assistant secretary of energy efficiency and renewable energy; Christopher Fall, the choice for director of the Office of Science; Karen Evans, the nominee for assistant secretary of cybersecurity, energy security and emergency response; and Teri Donaldson, the inspector general pick.
Simmons has been directing the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for more than a year. He is principal deputy assistant secretary for EERE.
Simmons has helped oversee several changes to DOE's solar office, including a move away from its "SunShot Initiative" branding and a new focus on early stage research (Greenwire, April 2).
"In the long term, the primary challenge facing solar is not cost, but reliability," he said at a congressional hearing last year. "Solar has dramatically grown over the past decade, but adding large amounts of solar to the grid presents grid reliability challenges."
Simmons also is likely to face questions about the status of EERE's efficiency standards program, after rules for many products missed congressionally set deadlines.
The department has floated overhauls in the program's structure, including the idea of making it more of a market-based initiative (Greenwire, March 27).
If confirmed, Fall would work closely with DOE Undersecretary for Science Paul Dabbar and play a major role in guiding the national laboratories and programs on computing and fusion energy. He is the acting head of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a DOE branch supporting promising technologies considered high-risk investments.
The administration is weighing whether to continue participation in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, a multinational fusion project that has faced cost overruns.
It is also pushing development of an "exascale" computing system that would be much faster than existing technology and could improve energy and climate modeling.
At this year's ARPA-E summit, Fall vowed to "take the gloves off" and streamline operations (E&E News PM, March 13).
Like Fall and Simmons, Donaldson already works for the federal government. She would head to DOE from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where she became general counsel in September. Her legal work during the past three decades included positions as general counsel for Florida's Department of Environmental Protection and partner at the law firm DLA Piper in Houston.
Evans, meanwhile, is being tapped to lead a new DOE office designed to address emerging threats to the grid, including cyberattacks.
"This new office best positions the department to address the emerging threats of tomorrow," Energy Secretary Rick Perry said in February about the office's creation.
Evans is the director of the U.S. Cyber Challenge, a public-private partnership dedicated to reducing shortages in today's cyber workforce. She previously served as the DOE chief information officer and administrator for e-government and information technology during the George W. Bush administration.
The committee is likely to press Evans about a leaked DOE memo that recently warned of cybersecurity threats because of growing reliance on natural gas (Energywire, June 13).
Trump has worked during the past year to fill the majority of DOE jobs requiring Senate confirmation, although he lagged behind previous administrations in getting people in place. DOE positions still without a nominee include ARPA-E director, general counsel and head of the Office of Nuclear Energy.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060086295
-
Congress Starts Digging for Details on Trump's Reorg Plan
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Michael Doyle
The Trump administration's ambitious plan to reshuffle the federal government will face congressional skeptics, agnostics and maybe even some early allies this week at the plan's first Capitol Hill cross-check.
For the administration, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing will provide a chance to start winning over some of the members whose votes they'll eventually need. For lawmakers, the hearing will be an opportunity to dig for the many crucial hidden details (E&E Daily, June 22).
"We are sincere that the serious debate begins now," said Margaret Weichert, the Office of Management and Budget's deputy director for management.
Unveiled last Thursday, the reorganization plan spans some 132 pages with color pictures but lacks specific information on costs, cost savings, job reductions, future timelines or legislative language.
And though OMB Director Mick Mulvaney's team spent many months crafting the multifaceted plan, working through an estimated 106,000 public comments, the presidential energy that can be essential in overcoming inevitable political obstacles seems to be lacking, as well.
"Would the media like to hear Mick Mulvaney's report, or would you find it extraordinarily boring and therefore not fit for camera?" President Trump said at a Cabinet meeting last Thursday. "I don't know."
Underscoring the president's apparent disinterest in bureaucratic restructuring, he spoke about 4,400 words on assorted hot topics during the public portion of the Cabinet meeting but never discussed the reorganization plan.
Lawmakers, so far, have voiced a combination of alarm, support and lots of curiosity about the plan, which OMB officials deliberately kept tightly wrapped until its official presentation by Mulvaney at the Cabinet meeting (Greenwire, June 21).
"The executive branch organizational framework released by the administration ... will provide valuable guidance to our committee as we continue working to create a more efficient, effective, and accountable government," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the House Osversight panel, said in a statement, adding that members will "evaluate" the plan.
The plan would bulk up the Interior Department, among other changes. Interior would take over part of the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program, and the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries would merge within Interior.
Interior officials frequently cite FWS and NOAA Fisheries overlap, such as with their joint responsibility for reviewing the impacts of a proposed dam on endangered species. While FWS might determine the dam should release extra water to benefit an inland fish species, NOAA Fisheries might want water stored to aid an anadromous (oceangoing) fish.
"By merging agencies that handle similar, if not the same, functions we would be able to greatly improve services to the American people and better protect the land and wildlife under our care," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said.
The administration's plan does not specify what would become of the approximately 4,200 employees and contractors currently working for NOAA Fisheries. Speaking broadly, Weichert acknowledged that the overall reorganization "may dislocate some jobs," but did not elaborate.
The plan would also merge the Energy Department's applied energy offices on renewables, nuclear and fossil energy into one "Office of Energy Innovation." The White House also wants to create a new "Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy."
Resurrecting an old idea that has always died, the plan would sell the transmission assets owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority and three power marketing administrations — the Southwestern Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration and Bonneville Power Administration (E&E News PM, June 21).
And the plan would consolidate portions of Interior's Central Hazardous Materials Fund and the Agriculture Department's Hazardous Materials Management program into EPA's Superfund program.
"Trust in government is at historic lows because the American people and businesses think a government system designed in the middle of the 20th century hasn't kept up with its mission, service or stewardship responsibilities in the 21st century," Weichert said.
Some shifts could theoretically happen immediately without congressional approval, OMB officials believe, with Weichert predicting that "certainly by the end of the summer" some specific moves may be made essentially at Trump's say-so. This has happened before.
In 1970, for instance, President Nixon transferred much of Interior's Bureau of Commercial Fisheries to the Commerce Department and renamed the office NOAA Fisheries. Nixon also established the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration by executive order within Commerce.
Congress has tried but never gotten around to passing a NOAA "organic act" that could establish stronger roots for the agency and its component parts.
Congress, though, could restrain White House moves through the power of the purse. Still other changes require affirmative congressional approval.
The chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), pronounced himself "pleased" with the reorganization plan.
"I pledge to do everything I can to support this effort to make the government more efficient and effective for the 21st century," Johnson said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060086293
-
(ACC Mentioned) As Asbestos Toll Mounts, Trump’s EPA Ignores It
Jun 22, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Derrick Z. Jackson
Two years ago, President Obama signed a successful bipartisan effort to update the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA). It was called the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act, named for the late New Jersey senator who had long championed it. The new act was intended to give the federal government more power to regulate dangerous chemicals that the chemical industry had previously been able to shield under the cloak of confidential business information and a misplaced priority on minimizing costs to businesses over public health. Obama said those hurdles made it “virtually impossible” for the Environmental Protection Agency “to actually see if those chemicals were harming anybody.”
Today, it seems that the mission of the EPA under the Trump administration is to make it impossible to determine the harmful effects of any chemicals in the United States. Hundreds of pages of new documents recently released by the EPA detail the administration’s plans to scale back safety evaluations for the top 10 chemicals identified in 2016 by the Obama EPA as known or suspected carcinogens or suspected threats to fetal and reproductive development.
These are chemicals that surround us in our daily lives, used in refrigeration, plastics, roofing materials, pesticides, paint strippers, deodorants, cosmetics, anti-freeze, solvents, electronics, arts and crafts materials, home cleaning products, dry cleaning, adhesives, sealants and degreasers. The EPA, whose mission to protect the public has been hijacked by chemical industry sycophants President Trump and agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, is lowering the bar for approving toxic chemicals to the point of essentially having no standards.
Relaxing the government’s scrutiny on such toxics essentially guts the Lautenberg Act.Far-reaching implications
The EPA regulates about 80,000 different chemicals, but the Washington Post has reported that over the last four decades, the EPA required testing for only 200. The Obama administration said only five chemicals had been banned out of the 62,000 chemicals in existence in 1976. The bureaucratic system “was so burdensome that our country hasn’t even been able to uphold a ban on asbestos—a known carcinogen that kills as many as 10,000 Americans every year,” Obama said when signing the Lautenberg Act. “I think a lot of Americans would be shocked by all that.”
With this latest move, Americans have reason to be shocked again, particularly since asbestos is one of the 10 chemicals that was supposed to be studied. It is so ubiquitous in older building insulation and fireproofing that a 2015 report commissioned by Senators Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California found that 7 out of 10 reporting local school agencies had asbestos in buildings.
But Pruitt and Nancy Beck, his deputy for chemical safety and a former executive at the American Chemistry Council, have no intention of studying children’s exposure in such settings. As part of the agency’s unprecedented sweeping away of science, the EPA says, “legacy uses, associated disposals, and legacy disposals will be excluded,” from risk evaluations. For good measure, the Pruitt EPA said the exclusions include “asbestos-containing materials that remain in older buildings.”
Translated, that means the federal government will no longer study exposure to asbestos from, insulation, fireproofing and flooring already in people’s homes, cars, workplaces—and schools. Nor will they consider disposal sites. Not only is this an insult to children, the exclusions represent a conscious denial of how the risk of asbestos exposures still plague low income Americans who often live in poorly maintained apartments and are more likely to live near toxic waste disposal areas to make matters worse.
The case of asbestos
Like many chemicals, asbestos originally was touted as a miracle mineral for its heat resistance and strength. In the middle of the last century, the asbestos industry knew its product was hazardous, but engaged in decades of cover-ups. Internal science on their hazards was censored and companies refused to give risk warnings to their own workers or to the installers at the companies that bought their products.
In the late 1950s, Owens-Illinois Glass in Toledo, famously continued to call one of its asbestos insulation products “non-toxic” despite an industry-funded study that concluded that it caused fatal asbestosis. The lead researcher for that study, Arthur Vorwald, concluded, “It is better to discover it now in animals rather than later in industrial workers.”
When it was discovered en masse in Americans, the industry faced a barrage of lawsuits from victims, triggering asbestos trust payouts of $17.5 billion, covering 3.3 million claims between 1988 and 2010. More than 100 asbestos-related companies plunged into bankruptcy, including the nation’s biggest manufacturer.
In a 1994 commentary in the Harvard Business Review, Bill Sells, a former executive at America’s largest asbestos manufacturer, Johns-Manville, wrote that, for more than 30 years, he had witnessed, “one of the most colossal corporate blunders of the twentieth century . . .In my opinion, the blunder that cost thousands of lives and destroyed an industry was a management blunder, and the blunder was denial.”
According to Sells, the link between asbestos and disease had been known since the early 1900s, and the first indications of a connection between asbestos and lung cancer appeared in the 1930s. But, as he put it: “Manville managers at every level were unwilling or unable to believe in the long-term consequences of these known hazards. They denied, or at least failed to acknowledge, the depth and persistence of management accountability.”
The asbestos industry’s denial is part of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ corporate Disinformation Playbook—an online review of classic strategies companies use to undermine science. The playbook features a case involving Georgia-Pacific, the company better known for paper towels, toilet tissue and homebuilding products. It was hit with a blizzard of lawsuits in the 2000s for diseases that developed from exposure to a joint compound the company manufactured with asbestos from 1965 to 1977.
In a cynical effort to discredit claimants, the company paid $6 million to 18 scientists to produce scientific “findings” of asbestos safety and planted false articles in the legitimate scientific literature, while hiding the “data” from plaintiffs as privileged corporate information. A New York state appellate court ordered the company turn over its documents in 2013. After paying out $2.8 billion in settlements since 2000, with 64,000 claims to go, Georgia-Pacific, now owned by Koch Industries, last year filed for bankruptcy for its joint compound subsidiary–40 years after it stopped using asbestos.
A deadly legacy continues
Asbestos is so toxic it has now been banned in 55 countries, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG). Despite that, the mineral is very much with us today in the United States. In the 1970s, the EPA banned many uses, such as the sprayed and crumbly forms of the mineral in fireproofing, and pipe, boiler and hot water tank insulation. In 1989, as health concerns grew, the EPA (under the Republican administration of George H.W. Bush), began a phase-out of most other uses. But the asbestos lobby successfully avoided the phase-out when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 1991 that the EPA did not adequately compare the toxicity of products that might replace asbestos.
With a straight face, the president of the Asbestos Information Association/North America, Robert Pigg, victoriously said, “We have known for many years that asbestos can be safely and securely bound in today’s products, as long as carefully controlled manufacturing and installation processes are employed. We are glad to see the court agrees that the evidence supports this view.”
But because of the Fifth Circuit ruling, asbestos continues to be used to this day in the United States in a wide array of commercial and consumer products, including automotive brake components, cement pipe, sheets and shingles, roofing, vinyl floor tile and even some clothing. That continued exposure is clearly coming at a human cost, with new research indicating a much higher toll than previously thought.
For several years, it was thought that exposure to it killed between 12,000 to 15,000 Americans a year, according to the EWG. The most prominent categories of fatalities are mesothelioma, asbestosis and lung cancer. But new research published last month in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health dramatically increased the estimated death toll globally and in the United States.
A team of scientists from Singapore, Japan, Guam and Australia found that asbestos actually kills about 255,000 people around the world, instead of the up to 112,000 previously estimated by the World Health Organization. In the US, the new estimate of annual asbestos-related deaths jumped to 39,275. The new estimates were so alarming that lead researcher Jukka Takala, who is also president of the International Commission on Occupational Health, said, “It’s time for the United States to take action and recognize the need for a ban. There is no safe level of exposure.”
In a minor recognition of the hazards of asbestos, Pruitt did recently announce that the EPA proposes to require manufacturers to apply to the agency for manufacturing, importing or processing asbestos for “a significant new use.” But with a long track record of asbestos deaths and widespread bans in nations around the world, potential new uses pale next to the need to get legacy asbestos out of our homes, workplaces, and machinery.
Former Assistant Surgeon General Richard Lemen, who is science advisory board co-chair for the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, said the new estimate of 39,275 annual US deaths from asbestos-related diseases (which exceeds either gun deaths or vehicle fatalities) “confirms that the mortality rate of asbestos exposures is indeed of epidemic proportions.”
The deadly epidemic is sure to continue, with the EPA’s decision to give asbestos a free pass. In 2015, the Center for Public Integrity reported on a “third wave” of asbestos disease. The first wave, the center said, was miners, millers and manufacturing workers. The second wave was insulators, ship builders and other installers.
The new wave, according to the Asbestos Disease Society of Australia, is spreading far beyond specialized crafts to affect “all of society,” through demolition, cable installation, home remodeling, car repairs and attending schools where officials do not realize that crumbling old asbestos in older buildings is releasing fibers into the air. The society says, “This elevated risk will remain until all asbestos-containing materials have been removed from the built environment.”
With such elevated risks still being discovered, with findings that make asbestos an even more dangerous chemical land mine waiting to explode into the lungs of Americans who live and work in older buildings, this is no time for the EPA to lower its guard. When Frank Lautenberg was alive, he said, “America’s system for regulating industrial chemicals is broken. Parents are afraid because hundreds of untested chemicals are found in their children’s bodies. EPA does not have the tools to act on dangerous chemicals, and the chemical industry has asked for stronger laws so that their customers are assured their products are safe.”
Asbestos is but one example of how the Trump administration is trying to break the system, by destroying the Lautenberg Act. It would rather assure the chemical industry that its products are safe from scrutiny, rather than certify they are safe for humans. Unless the administration is stopped, it is on a path to commit—to borrow from Bill Sells—one of the most colossal public health blunders of the 21st century.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/as-asbestos-toll-mounts-trumps-epa-ignores-it
-
EPA Aims to Balance Chemical Trade Secrets, Public Right-to-Know
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released a policy and a draft guidance to balance statutory requirements that it safeguard chemical companies’ trade secrets with increasing public access to information about their products.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s policy and guidance released June 22 address situations in which a company has provided the EPA with details about a specific chemical it makes or uses, but asks the agency to withhold the chemical’s specific identity from the public.
Typically, a chemical manufacturer, importer, or processor notifies the agency that releasing specifics about the chemical it makes, imports, or uses would reveal trade secrets, confidential commercial details, or financial information.
For example, suppose a company has spent thousands of dollars researching and developing a new chemical or a new application for a chemical. That company typically wants to protect its investment from competitors and wouldn’t want the specific atoms in the molecule, their arrangement, shape, or other details—all of which can be part of the chemical’s name—to be made public.
The EPA’s policy and guidance were among several documents, including a final mercury reporting rule, that it released June 22 to mark the second year since Congress overhauled the Toxic Substances Control Act. The law requires the EPA to oversee new chemicals before they can be made or sold in the U.S., and it requires the agency to review chemicals already in commerce.
Balancing RightsWhile the 2016 TSCA amendments recognized that companies need to protect their confidential business information, the amendments said the public has a right to know about the chemicals they could be exposed to and could harm individuals, groups, or the environment.
In an effort to accomplish both goals, the EPA released a policy describing a numerical code it will place on certain types of chemical information documents it receives.
If, for example, a chemical manufacturer learned that its workers got a skin rash if they touched a chemical, the manufacturer would be required to let the EPA know about the problem.
The EPA then would be required to make the allergic reaction information public. But if the EPA agreed the chemical’s identity needed to be kept confidential to protect the manufacturer’s proprietary information, the agency would use the numerical code—not the chemical’s name—to identify the compound.
If a second company used the same chemical and discovered it caused a different side-effect—say it injured workers eyes—that company also would be required to report that information to the EPA.
The health effects information that the EPA had from the two companies would be marked with the same basic numerical code. That code would let the public know the two separate pieces of information applied to the same chemical.
More Details PublicThat’s a change for the agency from the original TSCA, in which the public would have no way of knowing the two documents, and the health information they included, referred to the same chemical.
In another change under the TSCA amendments, confidentiality claims phase out after 10 years, unless rejustified. The numerical code allows diverse information about the same chemical to be compiled and eventually both the chemical’s identity and data that the EPA gathered about the compound could be public.
The EPA’s policy describes the procedures it will use and the information it will review to determine whether and when chemical documents should be labeled with a numerical code.
It also describes situations in which the EPA could withhold certain details in a document. For example, if one company submitted information that included a chemical’s name claimed confidential by another company, the EPA could withhold that chemical’s name.
The TSCA amendments require the agency to annually publish a list of its numerical codes that are protecting the specific identities of chemicals. The EPA will publish its first list in November.
Generic Chemical NamesThe EPA also released draft guidance June 22 informing chemical manufacturers, lawyers, and consultants how they can keep a chemical’s specific identity confidential while providing the public generic information about the substance.
A specific chemical name—like a recipe—provides so much information that someone else can re-create the chemical or “dish.”
By contrast, a generic name provides general information, such as the ingredients used, but without enough detail to know what the chemical looks like or how it’s made.
Comments on the draft guidance will be due 60 days after the EPA publishes it in the Federal Register.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-aims-to-balance-chemical-trade-secrets-public-right-to-know
-
EPA Chemical Fees Need to Consider Shared Costs, Companies Say
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam McQuillan
Smaller chemical companies will be likely to unite alongside larger firms, sharing costs in order to pay for new fees the EPA proposed for evaluating their products, but they say they need more time to make those arrangements.
Under an Environmental Protection Agency proposal for the fees companies must pay when their chemicals are evaluated, most businesses would need to pay between $1.35 million and $2.6 million to have their products assessed under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act.
Smaller companies would have to pay $270,000 for those evaluations, which cover chemicals that are already on the market. However, chemical companies said the EPA’s proposal should give consortia—companies that have banded together—the freedom to decide how those fees should be allocated to their members.
“Previously under TSCA, the only times consortia were formed were for testing programs going through the EPA, and then every now again you’d have groups form to do product specific advocacy and testing,” Jim Cooper, senior petrochemical adviser for the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, told Bloomberg Environment.
Consortia operate similar to trade associations, but generally with smaller membership and a more narrow focus on collaborative chemical policy and advocacy. To handle costs more efficiently, multiple players including manufacturers and processors can divvy up evaluation fees, paying as members of a consortium.
There are a few different ways the groups can decide who pays what. Companies can split costs equally, members can disclose their market shares to a third party to charge them based off confidential sales numbers, or sometimes a larger company will pay the majority of the cost.
More Time Needed
The EPA hasn’t changed the annual sale threshold for what defines a small business since 1988. Under the recent proposal the new threshold would change from $40 million to $91 million in annual sales, something trade associations have for years called for. That means more companies will be classified small businesses, which could affect how consortia allocate fees among members.
The EPA said in its proposal that it intends to give consortia the freedom to decide their own fee allocation, but it is “requesting consortia assign comparatively lower fees for small businesses than for large businesses in the consortia.”
Under the proposal, companies would have 60 days to pay for evaluation, which the chemical industry said isn’t enough time.
“Getting a check cut in two months can be difficult. Getting a check cut for your share of $1.3 million is probably going to be really hard,” Kathleen Roberts, vice president of B & C Consortia Management, LLC, told Bloomberg Environment. “The reality is that businesses just don’t work that fast.”
The cost of evaluation goes beyond the EPA’s fee. Forming a consortium to efficiently pay for the fee demands its own cost, time, and resources.
“A lot of people underestimate [consortia formation]. They think, ‘Oh jeez, a couple phone calls and you’re done.’ It isn’t quite that easy,” Cooper said. “You have to identify market players, and once you identify the manufacturers and importers, you have to figure out should processors be involved in this? It takes a lot of back and forth, a lot of leg work to figure out who all the players are.”
Big Breaks for Small Companies
If cost allocation between the groups can’t be agreed upon by the EPA’s deadline, the agency said it would reduce small businesses’ fee by 80 percent in what the agency called its default rule. The rest of the cost would be split between remaining larger companies.
The Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association, which represents both small and large companies, supported the EPA’s proposal to reduce the fees for smaller firms, according to its comments.
“Suggesting that the larger entity would give their smaller competitor a ‘break’ in relation to fee allocations seems wildly speculative at best,” the association said. “Therefore, the ‘default rule’ outlined by EPA in which the Agency will determine the fees for each consortium member if no agreement can be reached amongst the participants should be utilized.”
While many groups favored giving smaller companies a break on the proposed fees, they preferred that they decide how those costs be divided up rather than the EPA’s proposed 80 percent reduction. They also said that setting up consortia and dividing those costs, itself, takes time and money.
“Although EPA is saying we want consortia to pay us these fees, people need to recognize that if they join a consortia in addition to the share of those fees they likely will be cutting a check on behalf of its members to EPA,” Roberts said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-chemical-fees-need-to-consider-shared-costs-companies-say
-
EPA Issues an Array of New TSCA Policies
Jun 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
On the second anniversary of the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA has issued a series of new policies, including a new mercury reporting rule and a plan to limit animal testing, part of the agency's ongoing effort to implement a new regulatory regime for chemicals under the revised law.
“At this two-year milestone, I am proud to say that the Agency is delivering results and meeting the statutory responsibilities and deadlines of the new law,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a June 22 statement. “These actions will boost transparency and increase public confidence in chemical safety."
The newly released documents include a strategy for reducing use of animals in chemicals testing and a final rulerequiring reporting on manufacture and use of mercury to support a future inventory and potentially reductions in future use.
EPA has also issued a series of guidance documents on managing confidential business information (CBI) under the revised TSCA, including one on creating generic names for substances with specific chemical identities claimed as CBI and allowing for disclosure of CBI to states, health professionals and emergency responders in certain circumstances.
Additionally, EPA issued a policy for assigning unique identifiers to chemicals for which the agency approves a request for CBI protection and for consistently applying that identifier to all data submitted on the chemical.
“An identifier will be applied to a substance, whose identity is protected as CBI, as well as to other related information or submissions concerning the same substance,” EPA says in the statement. “This will allow the public to connect information related to the same substance, even while the specific identity is protected as confidential.”
The release of the mercury reporting rule and four other policies on the two-year anniversary of TSCA are among a series of milestones that the Trump administration has met for implementation of the new law, though the agency has faced significant pushback in the drafting of these and other policies.
For example, early this month, EPA received competing calls from environmentalists and animal rights groups who are at odds over how quickly officials can end or limit animal testing.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have argued that EPA's implementation of the revised TSCA is vastly increasing animal testing, while environmental groups content that PETA's analysis is flawed and that many non-animal test methods have not yet been adequately verified to justify their use in regulatory purposes.
EPA is also defending a series of lawsuits challenging three final rules issued last year creating a framework for implementing the revised law. Environmentalists allege that the Trump administration inappropriately narrowed Obama-era proposed versions to limit the scope of chemical uses it will consider in future assessments, among other concerns.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-issues-array-new-tsca-policies
-
(ACC Mentioned) Companies That Make or Add Mercury to Products Must Report Use (1) - UPDATED
Jun 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Battery, pharmaceutical, industrial switch, and other manufacturers are among the types of companies required to report their use of mercury to the EPA under a final rule the agency released June 22.
The rule (RIN:2070-AK22) requires any manufacturer or importer of mercury—along with companies that use the metallic element to make and sell products such as dental fillings, fluorescent lights, flame sensors, and vaccine preservatives—to report the volume they make, import, or use to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The agency will compile that information to create an inventory of mercury in commerce. The EPA also will evaluate the data to determine if further regulatory controls to reduce the use of mercury are warranted.
Risky BusinessMethylmercury persists in the environment, builds up in the food chain, and can damage the brain and nervous system, among other health effects.
Congress required the EPA to develop the mercury inventory as part of the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
The inventory also is one of the ways the U.S. is complying with its obligations under the U.N.'s Minamata Convention on Mercury, which aims to reduce human activities that release mercury into the environment.
Companies must submit their mercury use reports to the EPA beginning July 1, 2019, and every three years thereafter, according to the final rule.
ExemptionsThe regulation also described industrial sectors and companies that are exempt from reporting.
Waste management companies, for example, would not have to report the amount of mercury-containing waste they handle unless they recover or store it for later use.
Professionals who use mercury, such as dentists, would be exempted from the rule’s scope if they only use a filling for patients, the EPA explained in a clarification of the proposed rule, which is largely consistent with the final rule.
Dentists or dental supply providers, however, would have to report their use of mercury if they imported dental filling supplies containing mercury, the agency said in its clarification.
Similarly a pharmaceutical company that adds Thimerosol—a mercury-based preservative to prevent bacterial growth—into vaccines would report its use of mercury, the EPA’s final rule said.
AutomakersBut companies that sell the final medication or vaccine would not have to report the mercury, the agency said.
The agency used the discretion it said TSCA provides to exempt some other types of companies from reporting.
Automobiles, for example, could contain a switch or other component that contains mercury. The automobile manufacturer, however, may not know that the component it purchased contains the compound.
In such a case the manufacturer “has not intentionally added mercury to the car,” and therefore does not have to report it, the agency said.
Companies that already provide mercury information to the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse also would be partly exempted from some of the EPA’s requirements.
Toxics Amendments Turn 2EPA’s release of its final mercury rule was among several deadlines the agency met on June 22, which marked the agency’s second year implementing the amended chemicals law.
The agency also released guidance and policies addressing confidential business information. In addition, the EPA recently issued risk analysis plans for 10 chemicals and other guidance so companies, states, and other interested parties can better understand how it will evaluate the health and environmental risks of chemicals.
“Porcelain is the customary gift for a second anniversary, but EPA deserves a medal,” Martha E. Marrapese, a chemicals attorney in the Washington office of Wiley Rein LLP, told Bloomberg Environment.
The American Chemistry Council, a trade group, said: “On the second anniversary of the historic passage of the Lautenberg Act amending TSCA, we commend EPA for its ongoing commitment to meeting important deadlines required under the law—illustrated once again today in its release of critical guidance and policy on confidential business information” and a strategy for moving away from chemical testing on animals.
(Updated with additional information on vaccine uses, reporting requirements, and toxics law deadlines.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/companies-that-make-or-add-mercury-to-products-must-report-use-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Study Urges Stricter PFOA Safety Levels
Jun 22, 2018 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The U.S. government released a long-awaited study June 20 on the safety of fluorinated chemicals that recommends much stricter safe exposure levels for the public.
The study, from a unit of the Centers for Disease Control, recommends safety standards for the non-stick chemicals that are up to 10 times lower than previously recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to environmental groups who have analyzed the detailed 852-page report.
One of the chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, had been used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, and the class of chemicals has been used in firefighting foams and in the lining of food packaging, among other applications. Various studies have found it widely in drinking water systems.
The chemicals were the subject of an Environmental Protection Agency forum in Washington in late May that drew headlines for excluding some reporters and members of the public.
At that forum, a speaker from the American Chemistry Council urged using the best available science to determine safety standards and urged restrictions on imports of legacy versions of the chemicals in a broad class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The Washington-based Environmental Working Group noted that states like New Jersey and Michigan have been moving to set much tougher PFAS standards than the current EPA safe levels, and predicted that absent federal leadership, it "will largely fall to state and local governments to step in."
"This study confirms that the EPA's guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water woefully underestimate risks to human health," said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser at EWG.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180622/NEWS/180629966/us-study-urges-stricter-pfoa-safety-levels
-
Seattle Plastic Straw Ban to Take Effect Next Month
Jun 23, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Avery Anapol
A ban on plastic straws that has been in the works for a decade will take full effect in Seattle beginning next month.
The measure, which bars the use of single-use plastic products like straws and utensils, was originally passed in 2008. But for the past 10 years, exemptions have been made for certain products where there was not yet a viable alternative.
Now that paper straws and decomposable utensils have become more widely available, the exemptions will expire on June 30, according to The Seattle Times.
More than 200 restaurants and businesses in Seattle voluntarily adopted the full ban last year, the Times reported.
Seattle environmental activists say the ban, which goes into effect July 1, is expected to keep millions of plastic straws out of the city’s waste stream each month.
Seattle’s ban is one of several similar measures being adopted by cities, businesses and even entire countries worldwide. The anti-plastic movement has gained traction over concerns about ocean pollution and harm to marine life.
British Prime Minister Theresa May announced earlier this year that the country would institute a nationwide ban on the products, making it the first nation to do so.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/393773-seattle-plastic-straw-ban-to-take-effect-next-month
-
Army Corps Approves Gas Project on Alaska's Back Burner
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
The Army Corps of Engineers on Friday completed its final supplemental environmental impact statement for an in-state Alaska natural gas pipeline project that has been sidelined recently by the state in favor of a multibillion-dollar LNG export venture.
The Army Corps report covers the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline project, proposed by the state Legislature in 2010 to deliver natural gas to Alaska's major cities and businesses.
At the time, Alaska envisioned building a natural gas conditioning facility at the state's Prudhoe Bay oil field, a 733-mile-long pipeline down the center of the state, and a smaller lateral line to ship gas to Fairbanks.
As planning progressed on the Alaska-only natural gas project, however, the state became increasingly involved in a separate plan to export its 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves to Asian customers. That venture, known as the Alaska LNG project, would also make fuel available to state customers (Energywire, Sept. 10, 2014).
Both the proposed in-state and export natural gas projects are being handled by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC), a state-owned corporation.
In 2014, the Alaska Legislature gave AGDC the green light to partner with Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Alaska and ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc. on preliminary engineering and design work for the Alaska LNG project.
But two years later, the oil giants backed away from the venture due to low gas prices and a glut of LNG supply on the world market. Since then, AGDC has been pushing forward on its own with the $43 billion project.
Last year, the state filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to build the export project, which would include a North Slope gas treatment plant, an 800-mile natural gas pipeline, and a liquefaction plant and LNG export terminal along Alaska's southern shores.
The state has also entered into a nonbinding joint development agreement with three Chinese companies under which the firms would help fund Alaska's LNG venture in return for part of the pipeline's gas capacity (Energywire, Nov. 22, 2017).
Despite the state's current emphasis on the export project, AGDC continued to seek Army Corps approval for the earlier in-state gas line plan "to have an assured pipeline alternative to provide gas to Alaskan communities," the state corporation said in a press release.
Due to the similarity between the two pipeline projects, the state has been able to use environmental data gathered for the in-state project to answer questions raised by federal regulators about the LNG export project.
"AGDC is advancing two North Slope gas pipeline projects on parallel paths, but only one will be built," AGDC Senior Vice President Frank Richards stated. "We have avoided duplication of work efforts, and both projects have benefited from data sharing."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086233
-
Committee Set to Approve Oil and Gas Bills
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Jennifer Yachnin
The House Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday will vote on a trio of onshore energy bills aimed at expediting the oil and gas permitting process.
The committee had been slated to address the legislation last week but delayed discussion of the proposals due to a vote on the House floor (Greenwire, June 20).
Among the measures likely to draw the most debate is Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney's (R) H.R. 6087, the "Removing Barriers to Energy Independence Act."
The proposal would institute fees for administrative protests to oil and gas lease sales, as well as permits to drill and right-of-way applications.
Cheney has contended the energy industry is "severely burdened" by "frivolous" administrative challenges, and her bill would set a minimum filing fee of $150 for a 10-page protest, as well as a $5 charge for each additional page (E&E Daily, June 18).
During a hearing on the proposal earlier this month, Interior Deputy Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Katharine MacGregor similarly testified that her agency has seen an increase in administration protests, with challenges to 88 percent of all lease sales in fiscal 2017.
"The uptick in protests seems aimed at disrupting the lease sale, which is not the intent of the protest period," MacGregor said (E&E Daily, June 7).
Lawmakers will also vote on Utah Rep. John Curtis' (R) H.R. 6088, the "Streamlining Permitting Efficiencies in Energy Development (SPEED) Act."
The committee began consideration on Curtis' bill last week and approved a technical amendment from the lawmaker. The legislation would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to ease the way for projects with a small environmental footprint.
The panel will also vote on New Mexico Republican Rep. Steve Pearce's H.R. 6107, the "Ending Duplicative Permitting Act."
The proposal would allow energy producers to skip Bureau of Land Management permits if they are extracting resources on non-federal surface lands when less than 50 percent of the subsurface minerals are not federally owned.
Other bills on the Natural Resources Committee markup agenda include:H.R. 5291, from Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.), the "Offshore Wind Jobs and Opportunity Act," would establish an offshore wind career training grant program.H.R. 5859, from Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), the "Education and Energy Act," would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to dedicate a portion of mineral and geothermal lease revenue to elementary and secondary education, as well as public higher education.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060086273
-
Perry to Meet with Russia Energy Minister Next Week
Jun 22, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon and Ben Lefebvre
Energy Secretary Rick Perry is slated to meet next Tuesday with Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, just days after Russia joined with OPEC to raise oil exports, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
State Department spokesman Vince Campos confirmed the meeting, saying, "State is in regular contact with DOE on international energy matters.“
Details on what the two would discuss at the meeting were not disclosed. But Russia has been moving closer to OPEC in recent years, and joined the cartel's effort to curb oil sales that pushed crude prices to 3-1/2 year highs last month. OPEC and Russia's Novak announced on Friday they would lift oil their exports cap by 1 million barrels per day in the second half of the year.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the meeting earlier today.
Perry is scheduled to deliver a keynote address at the World Gas Conference in Washington the same day. The meeting with Novak is likely to draw scrutiny, as President Donald Trump‘s administration has come under fire for its ties to Russia, and the White House may be close to finalizing plans for a July meetingbetween Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The surge of U.S. oil and gas exports in recent years has made the country a rival of Russia’s in the global energy markets. Perry has touted U.S. LNG shipments to Europe, which would compete against the planned Nord Stream II gas pipeline, while U.S. crude oil exports are also eating into Russia‘s market share in Asia.
WHAT'S NEXT: Perry will deliver the keynote at the World Gas Conference
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy
-
CNX Sees Stacked Pay Well Pads as Appalachia’s Next 'Basin Disruptor'
Jun 22, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The super-sized well pads targeting multiple horizons that CNX Resources Corp. plans to increasingly develop in the coming years will “disrupt” the Appalachian Basin, a company executive said this month at an industry conference in Pittsburgh.
In recent years, the company has been focused on buildingits Utica Shale program in Ohio and Pennsylvania, while the Marcellus Shale has anchored sales volumes. But lately, CNX management has been talking about the “stacked pay factory” it envisions for the future. In particular, CNX has discussed how well pads that target both the Marcellus and Utica, or even the Upper Devonian shales and the Point Pleasant formation in places like southwest Pennsylvania, may redefine field economics and its priorities.
While many operators have been promoting Appalachia’s stacked pay potential for years, few have ramped into full development and consistently drilled pads with multiple wells targeting the basin’s various unconventional resource plays.
Calling it “key to the southwest Pennsylvania strategy and economics,” COO Tim Dugan told a crowd at Hart Energy’s Dug East Conference and Exhibition that among the benefits of stacked pay development is the ability to blend wet and dry gas to reduce processing costs and enhance returns.
“The dry volumes from the Utica, blended with the damp Marcellus, allows us to avoid uneconomic processing of the damp Marcellus gas,” Dugan said. “One Utica well will blend down three to four Marcellus wells, and it’s all within the same gathering system, much more economic than separate wet and dry systems.”
The company is applying completion design and spacing lessons from its Utica program in Monroe County, OH, and other results from newer wells in Pennsylvania as it continues to delineate the deep, dry Utica core in the southwest part of the state.
“The blending strategy in southwest Pennsylvania, we’re just starting into that,” Dugan said. “As we finish up 2018 and move into 2019, the blending strategy is a critical component of the stacked pays in southwest Pennsylvania. And so we’ll [work] on some existing pads, and we’ve got other pads we’re building specifically for stacked pay development.”
Dugan said the stacked pay pads, which could ultimately house up to 24 wells, “will become a larger and larger part of our development plan moving forward.”
Capital spending is also likely to decrease over time, as assets like pads, production equipment and water infrastructure are reused. He said the company might get three to four years of optimal use out of those assets if it were developing the Marcellus alone, versus the eight or nine years it might get by targeting multiple formations.
“The big upside there is what it does to economics for those damp Marcellus wells,” Dugan said. “If we’re just drilling damp Marcellus, that 1150, 1170 [Btu] gas has to get to a wet gas outlet, we have to pay the processing fees, which really hampers the economics of the wet Marcellus; it really drops them down in our inventory priority list.” By blending the wet and dry gas, CNX reduces the heat content, allowing it to meet pipeline specifications.
“Being able to blend increases the rate of return on those wells and allows us to get to them sooner.”
However, the blending strategy doesn’t help CNX avoid the natural gas liquids constraints in the basin, he said. CNX has worked around those issues with a flexible marketing portfolio as one of the basin’s larger operators. It has more than one million net acres considered prospective for the Marcellus and Utica.
Late last year, the company acquired full ownership of its midstream master limited partnership, which operates more than 200 miles of pipeline in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Having greater control of those assets, has better allowed the company to move ahead with its stacked pay plans and the blending strategy that makes them more attractive, Dugan said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114818-cnx-sees-stacked-pay-well-pads-as-appalachias-next-basin-disruptor
-
Court Deals $600 Million Blow to EQT’s Mountain Valley Gas Line
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard
A federal appeals court’s decision to stay a key permit for an EQT Midstream Partners LP natural gas pipeline could delay the project by a year and cost the developer more than it earned in 2017.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on June 21 granted environmental groups’ request for a stay of a federal permit that would allow EQT to build portions of Mountain Valley—a conduit designed to carry gas from the prolific Marcellus Shale play to southeastern markets—across waterways. The move could cost EQT and its partners at least $600 million, the developer said earlier this month.
The order deals “a critical blow” to Mountain Valley, Katie Bays, an analyst at Height Capital Markets in Washington, said in a note to clients June 22. If the D.C. Circuit sides with the Fourth Circuit, the project’s startup could be bumped back to mid-2019 from the current 2018 estimate, Bays said.
EQT is “disappointed” with the decision, which creates a “temporary setback” for roughly 160 miles of the pipeline route in West Virginia, spokeswoman Natalie Cox said in an emailed statement. The company is still targeting a late 2018 in-service date “while options are evaluated for this portion of the route,” Cox said.
Construction on portions of the 303-mile line will likely be ordered to stop by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the lead agency in charge of permitting state-crossing gas pipelines, in response to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion, ClearView Energy Partners LLC said in an emailed note to clients.
“This may set the project’s delivery back by as much as a year, potentially longer,” the Washington-based research firm said.
Mountain Valley is a joint venture of EQT Midstream, NextEra Energy Inc., Consolidated Edison Inc., WGL Holdings Inc. and RGC Resources Inc.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/court-deals-600-million-blow-to-eqts-mountain-valley-gas-line
-
U.S. Shale Companies Motor Ahead Despite OPEC
Jun 24, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Rebecca Elliott and Christopher M. Matthews
U.S. shale companies, which profited by continuing to pump oil as the rest of the world cut its production, are again poised to benefit as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries boosts its output.
OPEC’s decision last week to increase production modestly is seen as an attempt to keep prices elevated without creating a spike. The move eased concerns among the member countries about tightening supply and the potential for a price spike, but it also lifted the stock prices of U.S. oil producers, which have learned to survive at whichever price OPEC pursues.
“We’re not running our business based on what OPEC does regarding supply,” said Doug Lawler, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy Corp. , a pioneer of shale drilling. “We just have to respond accordingly and focus on the technology and the innovation that helps us be efficient regardless of the price.”
U.S. production has grown at a record-setting pace this year, hitting 10.9 million barrels a day this month after oil prices exceeded $70 a barrel for the first time since 2014. That makes the U.S. the world’s No. 2 oil producer behind Russia, but ahead of Saudi Arabia.
OPEC members, plus Russia, came to an agreement two years ago to cut production to shrink excess supply and prop up prices. At the meeting last week in Vienna, OPEC ministers cobbled together a deal to reverse course and boost oil output by an effective 600,000 barrels a day to head off a possible run to $100-a-barrel oil. Russia said over the weekend that it would support OPEC’s efforts.
Now U.S. shale companies are again in position to benefit from OPEC’s market-balancing actions.Speaking at the meeting in Vienna, Scott Sheffield, chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources Co. , said the company has a shared interest with OPEC in preventing overheated prices. High prices generate a short burst of profits but can undermine economic growth and tamp down demand.
Mr. Sheffield said: “$100 is not going to help OPEC. It’s not going to help us in the Permian.” His company is one of the top drillers in the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico.
OPEC’s new barrels also come at an opportune time for shale companies, which are facing production-threatening infrastructure constraints in the Permian, the country’s most active drilling region. Analysts say Permian producers might have to scale back drillinguntil new pipelines come online in 2019.
U.S. shale companies now have some breathing room, said R.T. Dukes, a director at the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.
“It leads to a little bit lower price this year, but a little bit higher price next year because you have less spare capacity, less potential for OPEC to raise production,” he said. “That’ll be great timing for them as they’ll be ramping up getting ready for those pipeline expansions to come online in the second half of the year.”
OPEC’s decision wasn’t without drama, as Saudi Arabia pushed other member nations to agree to an increase after a contentious week of meetings. Members such as Iran, Venezuela and Libya approved the deal but have a limited ability to produce more oil themselves because of geopolitical concerns and production constraints.
The relationship between U.S. producers and OPEC hasn’t always been so symbiotic.
Initially blindsided by the advent of fracking technology and U.S. production increases, OPEC allowed oil prices to nose-dive from more than $100 a barrel in 2014 to less than $30 a barrel two years later, an apparent attempt to force shale drillers out of business.
Hopes that falling prices would kill shale producers proved hollow. U.S. drilling dropped significantly, but oil production hasn’t fallen below eight million barrels a day since November 2013, even as oil prices fell roughly 75% from 2014 to 2016. U.S. production had averaged about 5.5 million barrels a day from 2000 to 2012.
“It may be the case that oil policy now in Russia and Saudi Arabia is run by single individuals, but there is no oil policy in the U.S. It’s a market,” said Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup. “And there are 1,000 cockroach companies, and you can’t stamp them out and you can’t bankrupt them. They keep coming back.”
The tug of war over the global oil market left scars on both sides. Nearly 200,000 oil workers lost their jobs in the U.S., and OPEC eventually was forced to cut production. But U.S. producers used the downturn to become more efficient and have continued their production gains.
“The U.S. has broken OPEC’s ability to totally control the market,” said Ben “Bud” Brigham, who has made hundreds of millions of dollars as an oilman in shale plays in North Dakota and Texas. “We’re their most significant competitor in terms of production.”
Shale drillers and OPEC have reached something of a detente recently. U.S. antitrust laws prevent companies here from coordinating production, but shale producers have met with OPEC several times in the past two years. The meetings have helped the group better understand the technological and financial drivers behind shale’s production surge, analysts and executives say.
“Their hope for this to be a short-lived phenomenon is gradually fading,” Mr. Morse said.
—Benoit Faucon contributed to this article.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/opecs-increased-output-helps-u-s-shale-companies-1529838001?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=3
-
USGS Releases Eagle Ford Estimates
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
A major Texas energy play holds vast potential resources of both oil and gas, a new government analysis shows.
South Texas' Eagle Ford Shale could hold 66 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, 8.5 billion barrels of oil and 1.9 billion barrels of natural gas liquids, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated.
"Usually, formations produce primarily oil or gas, but the Eagle Ford is rich in both," said USGS scientist Kate Whidden, lead author for the assessment.
The formation is the second-largest oil play behind the Midland Basin in Texas and the second-largest gas play aside from the Haynesville-Bossier Shale spanning Texas and Louisiana, according to a comparison of five USGS assessments of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources across the United States.
"Texas is so well-known for its history of oil and gas production that it's almost synonymous with petroleum," USGS Director Jim Reilly said in a statement. "Texas continues to remain in the forefront of our Nation's energy supply chain with remarkable increases in production and reserves due to the revolutionary unconventional techniques used to release previously unrecoverable resources."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/25/stories/1060086231
-
Exxon Mobil Subsidiary Fights for Right to Ship Crude to Maine
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
The Portland Pipe Line Corp. made its case before a federal judge in Maine that a coastal city’s ordinance banning crude oil shipments violates its right to engage in interstate commerce.
The trial, which wrapped up June 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, centers on whether Portland Pipe Line, owned by Imperial Oil Ltd., a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corp., can send crude oil from Canada to South Portland, Maine, through an existing pipeline.
The question has become a flashpoint in the national argument about Canadian tar sands oil. National interests, from advocates for the oil industry to national environmental groups that oppose use of tar sands oil, such as environmentalist Bill McKibben’s 350.org, have weighed in since the company’s plan for the pipeline became public in 2013.
Existing Tank Farm
For 76 years, the pipeline carried foreign oil that was offloaded to a 3.5-million-barrel tank farm in South Portland and carried it 236 miles to a refinery in Montreal. But using the pipe that way no longer makes economic sense, the company has said. Portland Pipe Line wants to ship crude from the oil fields of western Canada to South Portland, where it can be put on ships bound for other U.S. cities.
Portland Harbor is very deep and wide so it’s especially suited to handle large oil tankers, according to Portland Pipe Line. The city’s waterfront is a “critical interstate and international hub for the transportation of petroleum,” the company said in its complaint.
South Portland, expressing concerns about air pollution from the handling of crude oil, passed the ordinance in 2014. It essentially bans Canadian crude oil shipments from the port. The ordinance’s purpose was to prohibit “within the City the bulk loading of crude oil onto marine tank vessels.”
Portland Pipe Line then filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2015 for the right to use the pipeline to carry Canadian crude.
In the complaint it said the ordinance violated provisions of the U.S. and Maine constitutions, and federal and state statutes, and that it also “discriminates against Canadian interests.”
In December 2017, U.S. District Judge John Woodcock dismissed all but one of the company’s nine arguments, ruling that the town’s Clear Skies ordinance violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Environmentalists Hopeful
How and when Woodcock will rule is unknown, but the Conservation Law Foundation, which has been advising the city, was feeling optimistic, Sean Mahoney, executive vice president of the group, told Bloomberg Environment June 21.
The city has argued since the trial began June 18 that its ordinance wasn’t aimed specifically at Portland Pipe Line and its ability to do commerce, but was drafted in an effort to protect the health and safety of the city generally, Mahoney said.
The South Portland ordinance “is a model for other cities to take control of the health and safety of its own citizens,” rather than rely on state and federal rules, which may be weaker, Mahoney said. “It’s a pretty dangerous proposition for big companies, where on the local level your big dollars don’t get you as much as they would in a state capitol or in the swamp of Washington, D.C.”
Neither the company, its lawyers nor the American Petroleum Institute, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the company, responded to Bloomberg Environment requests for comment June 21.
Catherine R. Connors and a team from Pierce Atwood LLP of Portland, Maine, are representing Portland Pipe Line Corp.
Sally J. Daggett and Mark A. Bower of Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry of Portland, Maine, and Jesse Harlan Alderman of Foley Hoag LLP of Boston are representing the city of South Portland.
The case is Portland Pipeline Corp. v. South Portland, D. Me., No. 15-cv-00054-JAW, 6/22/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-mobil-subsidiary-fights-for-right-to-ship-crude-to-maine
-
Exxon Mobil Subsidiary Fights for Right to Ship Crude to Maine
|
-
Looming Cybersecurity Battle: Who Protects U.S. Pipelines?
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
America’s appetite for natural gas has reignited a long-standing debate over which federal body should oversee the security of natural gas and oil pipelines.
With the U.S. increasingly reliant on natural gas for power, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants the Energy Department to take over control of pipeline security from the Transportation Security Administration, an agency under the Department of Homeland Security.
While that realignment would take an act of Congress, two FERC members argue the Energy Department is better positioned to impose mandatory cybersecurity requirements on pipelines and ensure they’re enforced, replacing the TSA’s voluntary guidelines.
“A pipeline outage, which may be connected to eight or nine generators, poses far more significant consequences today than it did in the past,” Neil Chatterjee, a Republican FERC commissioner, told Bloomberg Environment. Democratic FERC Commissioner Richard Glick also backs a bigger role for the Energy Department.
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre declined to specify which agency should handle pipeline cybersecurity, but said: “There should be no aspect of our nation’s critical energy infrastructure that is left unprotected in a cyber-sense, by whatever means we need to do that.”
McIntyre would support FERC moving toward cybersecurity actions related to pipelines “at some appropriate point in time, we’re just not there now,” he told reporters June 21.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry suggested his agency take a lead role in coordinating with other federal agencies on pipeline cybersecurity in a March letter responding to a congressional inquiry. The Energy Department didn’t respond to requests for additional comment.
To confuse matters further, the Transportation Department also has a role in pipeline safety, through its Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA).
Potential for Outages
Natural gas now supplies 32 percent of the U.S.'s electricity, up from 18 percent in 2002, according to the Energy Information Administration.
That greater dependence increases concerns about a cyberattack that could turn off natural gas pipeline flows remotely to several power plants at once, potentially causing large power outages. Those kind of one-hit outages weren’t as easy to envision in the past, when more power plants were individually sourced by on-site coal or nuclear power.
The Trump administration is considering invoking a 1950’s-era national security law as a pathway to stem coal and nuclear plant closures. Among the administration’s arguments for keeping these plants open is a need to protect grid security—although critics question the contention that on-site power sources are necessarily more secure than pipelines.
To date, Homeland Security is unaware of any confirmed or validated cyber intrusions that penetrated a pipeline industrial control system and led to a physical impact, a department official who spoke on condition of anonymity told Bloomberg Environment. But the department said cyber intrusions have occurred against the corporate networks of pipeline companies.
Chatterjee and Glick wrote in two recent editorials that pipeline security should move to the Energy Department, which has authority over energy sector security.
Congressional Action Unlikely
Congress isn’t likely to act, especially during a midterm election cycle with a shrinking legislative calendar.
“Congress views pipelines as part of the transportation system,” Brigham McCown, chairman of the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure, a nonprofit advocacy group focused on infrastructure safety, told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s not energy as DOE would define it for jurisdictional purposes.”
McCown served as the head of PHMSA—a separate agency in the Transportation Department that oversees aspects of pipeline safety—under President George W. Bush.
The American Gas Association says the voluntary TSA security guidelines—last updated in March—are working well. The trade organization represents 200 energy companies that deliver natural gas, including members such as Exelon Corp., Dominion Energy, and Southern Co.
No Mandatory Standards
TSA has six budgeted personnel positions to oversee the cybersecurity and physical security of more than 2.7 million miles of natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquid pipelines in the country. It declined to say whether all six positions are currently filled.
That compares to more than 300 employees in charge of pipeline safety at PHMSA. And while TSA has the authority to enforce mandatory standards, it instead relies on voluntary ones developed with industry.
“In partnership voluntary mode, the guidelines serve as a springboard for where you should start and then you go up from there,” Kimberly Denbow, the American Gas Association’s senior director of security, operations, and engineering services, told Bloomberg Environment.
Regulations, on the other hand, “tend to be a glass ceiling and you’re not motivated to go beyond regulations, but with guidelines you’re motivated to do the most for your company,” Denbow said.
Regulations vs. Voluntary Measures
The guidelines were developed by industry along with federal and state governments, Denbow said.
The TSA physically inspects the top 100 critical pipeline facilities, based on pipelines with the greatest throughput of oil and natural gas, as mandated by Congress. Since 2008, when the inspections began, TSA has conducted more than 400 inspections of these facilities.
Unlike the U.S., the rest of the world is moving toward regulations for pipeline security, James Lewis, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic & International Studies who tracks security and technology issues, told Bloomberg Environment.
“In all of these voluntary measures, we don’t know if they’re working. If they are working, I don’t think people need to fear being held to some standard,” Lewis said.
Even the North American Electric Reliability Corp., the nonprofit organization in charge of developing reliability and cybersecurity standards for the U.S. electric grid, suggested in a report last fall that “gas industry regulators should be engaged to establish cybersecurity standards that match those of the NERC reliability standards.”
Act of Congress
Congress is considering four bipartisan cybersecurity bills. One in particular—H.R. 5175—wouldn’t change the authority to the Energy Department, but it would direct the department to work closely with states, federal, and industry groups on better cybersecurity coordination.
“These bills, especially H.R. 5175, the Pipeline and LNG Facility Cybersecurity Preparedness Act, are a step in the right direction to strengthen DOE’s capabilities to respond to and protect against physical and cybersecurity threats,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee energy subcommittee, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Association of Oil Pipe Lines, representing large oil pipeline companies, and the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, representing gas pipeline companies, opposed moving pipeline security from TSA to the Energy Department.
Instead, they want a memorandum of understanding between the Energy Department and other federal agencies spelling out responsibilities.
Dearth of Data
Because reporting is voluntary, a large gap exists in public data on how many cyberattacks or attempted attacks occur on U.S. pipelines.
The DHS’ National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Reporting Center has experienced an uptick in the number of requests for assistance in hunting and responding to cyber incidents in recent years. In fiscal year 2017, it received five requests for assistance related to actual or possible cyber incidents in oil or gas pipelines, and in just the first half of fiscal 2018 alone it has received seven requests for assistance, a DHS official told Bloomberg Environment.
The Government Accountability Office is studying currently TSA’s oversight of pipelines and plans to make recommendations on which federal agency should lead mandatory pipeline security standards. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sought the report, which is expected this fall.
‘How Am I Doing?’
A 2017 report from the Poneman Institute, which researches information security, found that 61 percent of 377 individuals responsible for operations technology at companies believe their organizations have difficulty mitigating cyber risks across the oil and gas value chain. Also, 48 percent of respondents said they are in compliance with security standards and guidelines in the oil and gas industry.
Data on cybersecurity attacks on pipelines is a big gap in the industry today, Eitan Goldstein, senior director of strategic initiatives at Tenable Inc., a cybersecurity solutions vendor, told Bloomberg Environment.
“The data is critical because organizations need to be able to say, ‘How am I doing over time?’ ‘How am I doing relative to my peers?’” he said. “Right now they are having trouble measuring how they are doing.”
But the cybersecurity of oil and gas pipelines has been an increasing priority for companies looking for solutions the last two years, he said.
“It’s top of mind,” Goldstein said. “I think it’s an issue going all the way up to the C-suite today.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/looming-cybersecurity-battle-who-protects-us-pipelines
-
3M, DuPont Can’t Quash Cancer, Monitoring Claims
Jun 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M, DuPont, Honeywell and Saint-Gobain Plastics failed to shake claims that chemicals used to make stain-resistant fabric at a factory in New York state caused residents to develop cancer and thyroid disease.
The rulings are the latest in a run of decisions allowing claims to proceed alleging injuries from perfluorooctanoic acid contamination in the Village of Hoosick Falls.
The plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that it’s “reasonably probable” their injuries were caused by PFOA manufactured by 3M and DuPont and used by Saint-Gobain and Honeywell at the site, the court said.
The plaintiffs’ claims of failure to provide warnings against 3M and DuPont, and negligent discharge claims against Saint-Gobain and Honeywell may proceed, the court said.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation for personal injury and property damage as well as medical monitoring.
Judge Lawrence E. Kahn issued the rulings.
Chaffin Luhana LLP, Berezofsky Law Group, LLC, Williams Cuker Berezofsky LLC, and Faraci, Lang Law Firm represent the plaintiffs.
Dechert LLP, Quinn, Emanuel Law Firm, and Hinckley, Allen Law Firm represent Saint-Gobain. Arnold & Porter, and Allen & Desnoyers LLP represent Honeywell International Inc. Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP represents DuPont. Mayer Brown LLP represents 3M.The cases are Wickenden v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2018 BL 220091, N.D.N.Y., No. 17-cv-1056, 6/21/18; Andrick v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 2018 BL 220088, N.D.N.Y., No. 17-CV-1058, 6/21/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/3m-dupont-cant-quash-cancer-monitoring-claims
-
Panel Sets First Permitting Hearing Since Key CEQ Nomination
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
The Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee this week will look at ways of streamlining the permitting process for large infrastructure projects.
While permit streamlining is a perennial topic for Congress, the hearing comes after at least two significant developments that are likely to breathe fresh air into the discussion.
First, President Trump last week nominated Mary Neumayr as chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (Greenwire, June 12).
The council, which oversees permitting regulations under the National Environmental Policy Act, has lacked a permanent director.
Trump's original pick, Kathleen Hartnett White, withdrew her name from consideration after it became clear she would not pass the Senate.
Second, at least a dozen federal agencies signed an April memorandum of understanding to expedite the permitting process (Greenwire, April 9).
One federal agency will take the lead on permitting under the MOU, issuing a single environmental impact statement for the entire federal government.
The lead agency will be able to set timetables for other agencies, with the goal of getting the entire process down to two years.
Still, the president has yet to appoint a permanent director for the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council, an interagency body created by the 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act.
Angela Colamaria, who currently serves as the body's acting executive director, is slated to testify at the hearing.
Also present will be Alex Herrgott, a former staffer for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who has worked closely with Democrats in the past and had a hand in several pieces of infrastructure legislation.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060086257
-
Crude Oil Spills into Iowa River After Freight Train Derailment
Jun 24, 2018 | Fox News
By Robert Gearty
A train derailment has spilled 230,000 gallons of crude oil into an Iowa river, resulting in a disaster declaration from the governor and a massive clean-up operation.
The oil spilled into the swollen Little Rock River in Lyon County when 32 oil tanker cars derailed Friday. The train's operator BNSF said 14 of the derailed cars had leaked oil, the Lyon County Daily News reported.
Crews spent Saturday containing the spill and building a temporary road to move equipment to the crash site to make it easier to remove the piled-up train cars and advance the cleanup, the Sioux City Journal reported.
“They’re working diligently to get that done,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said after meeting local authorities involved in the clean-up.
She issued a disaster proclamation Saturday for Lyon and three other counties in response to rain-fueled flooding and the train derailment, the paper reported.
Her proclamation placed the blame for the derailment on the flooding, the Associated Press reported. The Little Rock River rose rapidly after heavy rain Wednesday and Thursday.
Nearly half the spill — an estimated 100,000 gallons — had been contained with booms near the derailment site and an additional boom placed about 5 miles downstream, BNSF spokesman Andy Williams said. Skimmers and vacuum trucks were being used to remove the oil. Crews will then use equipment to separate the oil from the water.
"In addition to focusing on the environmental recovery, ongoing monitoring is occurring for any potential conditions that could impact workers and the community and so far have found no levels of concern," Williams said.
The train was carrying tar sands oil from Alberta to Stroud, Okla., for ConocoPhillips. ConocoPhillips spokesman Daren Beaudo said each tanker can hold more than 25,000 gallons of oil.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/24/crude-oil-spills-into-iowa-river-after-freight-train-derailment.html
-
EPA Expected to Retain Obama Ozone NAAQS Following Imminent Review
Jun 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA is expected to retain the Obama-era ozone air standard following an accelerated review of the standard that it plans to formally launch soon with a “call for information,” sources say, with modeling showing most areas attaining the limit by 2023 and the agency in legal filings hinting it will not reconsider and weaken the existing air quality limit.
The sources say that speeding up the next Clean Air Act-mandated review of the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) is likely a defensive move against expected calls from environmentalists and potentially members of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) to tighten the limit. It would also help the agency avoid guaranteed litigation from environmentalists -- who argued during the Obama administration for a standard stricter than 70 ppb -- over any weakening of the limit.
“What I hear on the ozone standard is, despite all the speculation that [EPA Administrator Scott] Pruitt want[ed] to go to 75 [ppb], and all of the environmentalist cries and litigation to go to 65 [ppb], the likely outcome of all of this in 2020 is to reaffirm the existing standard at 70,” says one source tracking the issue.
EPA could also cite new modeling that shows nearly every area of the country will attain the 2015 standard by 2023 to justify retaining the standard, arguing that most of the country is already on the track to compliance.
Pruitt has set an ambitious Oct. 1, 2020, deadline to finalize the statutory review of the 70 ppb standard. The air law requires EPA to review its six criteria pollutant NAAQS every five years, but the process is highly technical and the agency routinely misses the deadline. Pruitt and agency air chief William Wehrum have floated steps to shorten the NAAQS review process, such as reducing some scientific advisory input and accepting data that is “close enough” to justify a review rather than “perfect,” as Wehrum recently said.
Environmentalists and other EPA critics have warned the changes could reduce input from CASAC, an independent group that assesses science on NAAQS pollutant and advises the agency on setting standards.
EPA plans to launch the review of the 2015 ozone standard with publication in the Federal Register of its call for information, which will seek details on ozone scientific information that has been completed since the prior review, as well as information on new research under way that could be completed in time to inform the standard.
It will also seek nominations for EPA's CASAC ozone review panel, which would likely be subject to Pruitt's prohibition on scientists who receive agency grants or other funding from serving on formal advisory committees.
The source tracking the issue says the Register notice is imminent and will be Pruitt's “first attempt to bring into reality” efforts to speed NAAQS reviews, which by law must be based on the latest science and be set at a level that is requisite to protect public health within an adequate margin of safety, without consideration of costs.
However, Pruitt in a May 9 memo launched his plan to shorten the review process, including an explicit reference to Clean Air Act language that allows for consideration of economic impacts, despite a 2001 Supreme Court ruling holding the opposite -- prompting questions about the legality of his new approach. NAAQS reviews will also include “policy-relevant context . . . on issues like background pollution and potential adverse health, welfare, economic, energy and social effects from strategies to attain and maintain the NAAQS,” the memo says.
NAAQS Reconsideration
Pruitt after taking office launched a reconsideration of the 2015 decision to tighten the standard from 75 ppb down to 70 ppb and has criticized the 70 ppb limit as unnecessarily stringent.
But Wehrum is said to favor folding any change to the NAAQS into the review due in 2020, rather than a highly complicated and lengthy reconsideration process -- which would also face a legal challenge.
The source tracking the issue notes that EPA is poised to tell the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by Aug. 1 whether it will pursue a formal reconsideration or not. The agency is widely expected to say it is opting against reconsideration because it has concluded the accelerated approach to the NAAQS review is “less burdensome” and faster than reconsidering. That outcome is in part because it means the agency will not have to review all of the science and legal arguments that supported the 2015 standard.
The pending filing is in consolidated D.C. Circuit litigation over the merits of the 70 ppb limit, and if the agency decides against reconsideration it is possible that challenge could resume. Should the court then rule in favor of the Obama EPA's 2015 decision, it would give Pruitt solid legal ground to retain the limit in 2020.
The source says EPA's apparent decision to no longer seek to weaken the 2015 limit -- despite the fact that Pruitt was part of the litigation over it when he was Oklahoma attorney general and said it unfairly penalized states -- may instead indicate he has been persuaded to adopt a defensive approach to maintain the limit in the next review. “Reaffirming it would be important to prevent it from dropping further,” the source notes.
Another source agrees that retaining the 70 ppb limit by dropping the reconsideration would “set the mark” for the new review. “Now, the question would be, do they go lower? Because of course CASAC [in the 2015 review] had recommended a range that topped out at 70. So the real question going forward is, how will the memorandum from the EPA about setting NAAQS affect the analysis in that next review. Will they try to shoehorn considerations of cost and keep it at 70 rather than taking it lower?”
This source notes that when EPA first announced the reconsideration, the expectation was that the 70 ppb limit would be revised upward because of levels of background ozone -- naturally occurring ozone that states cannot regulate or reduce, and that some critics of the 70 ppb said would make meeting that limit impossible in some areas.
CASAC's Input
In addition, the source acknowledges that the accelerated review of the 2015 standard may be a defensive move on EPA's part, but warns “this is going to depend on what CASAC says."
Other sources note that much more could be known when EPA seats its new CASAC, with a decision on membership due by the end of September. The current roster for the seven-member CASAC includes several current members eligible for second terms as well as a host of new nominees.
However, a coal industry source questions why “this group” of deregulatory EPA officials would seek to tighten the ozone NAAQS, regardless of whatever CASAC might recommend on the NAAQS.
A second industry source says, “The notion of changing the standard again is a very challenging notion . . . I would be surprised if they get stricter, based on the data.” But the source also notes that a final successful outcome of the accelerated review will have to be lawful, rather than EPA “just getting it done” in a shorter time frame.
A public health advocate agrees that the accelerated review might raise some problems, particularly because EPA is seeking to have it completed with only one CASAC review, rather than the normal process that involves two reviews, and is expected to seek to have CASAC process the policy and integrated science documents concurrently.
While there will be a different CASAC composition in place for the ozone review, the source notes that the committee in general “tends to be pretty picky about the science and how it is interpreted.”
As to stringency, this source says, “I can't predict where they are going to come out. But nobody would expect at this point a lot of movement to tighten because we haven't implemented the 70 [ppb standard] yet.”
Ozone Modeling
Any EPA bid to retain the 70 ppb limit could also get a boost from new modeling by the Midwest Ozone Group (MOG) that finds only one upwind East coast area, Harford, MD, would be in nonattainment in 2023, at 71.1 ppb, and that if contributions of foreign emissions are subtracted, then the area would meet the standard.
MOG conducted the modeling to inform a separate “good neighbor” rule deadline on ozone transport this year. It assessed a portion of the Northeast and uses a smaller 4-kilometer grid than EPA's standard 12-kilometer approach in order to measure only land areas rather than land/water areas, according to MOG's Dave Flannery.
The group has already submitted some of this information to EPA, but has most recently compiled a technical support document that MOG will share with the agency and hope it agrees with the findings, Flannery says. The material has already been made available to states including those that have to submit “good neighbor” state implementation plans (SIPs) to comply with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule later this year.
Flannery tells Inside EPA June 22 that he believes the new modeling's findings also apply to other areas required to submit such good neighbor SIPs, including three non-attainment areas in Texas and one near Sheboygan, WI.
Also, modeling that EPA released last fall found that only areas in California would exceed the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 ppb by 2023. But those results were found to be overly optimistic by Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states that belong to the Ozone Transport Commission and are most impacted by downwind pollution.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-expected-retain-obama-ozone-naaqs-following-imminent-review
-
EPA Advises FERC on Measuring Greenhouse Gases
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
EPA sent some surprising advice to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission this week about tools the independent regulator could use to consider greenhouse gas emissions as part of pipeline reviews.
FERC launched a notice of inquiry about its natural gas pipeline certificate policy in April and is taking comments from members of the public on a series of questions about factors it considers when reviewing pipeline applications.
One of those categories is the evaluation of environmental impacts of proposed pipeline projects, which has been a controversial issue at FERC in recent months and divided its commissioners.
The most notable feature of the comments from EPA, which were filed by the director of the Office of Federal Activities, Robert Tomiak, yesterday, is the suggestion of several tools FERC could use in evaluating upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions from new pipelines.
"In situations where FERC decides to conduct analysis of [greenhouse gas] emissions of proposed projects, EPA recommends a number of available tools that can be used," the letter says.
The tools include EPA's greenhouse gas inventory and the greenhouse gas reporting program for quantifying upstream emissions, a formula for determining downstream emissions, as well as the social cost of carbon as a method for monetizing impacts from greenhouse gas emissions.
The filing comes as the Republican majority at FERC has argued there is too much uncertainty about the impacts of a specific project to calculate upstream and downstream emissions and moved to limit the amount of climate analysis done in pipeline reviews (Energywire, June 5).
"The EPA letter doesn't necessarily contradict that, but does provide a number of tools that the Commission can use to do that," said Avi Zevin, a staff attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity. "What EPA chose to focus on is notable to me."
Democratic Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick have argued that FERC should include broad climate impacts in its environmental reviews, and LaFleur has even started doing her own DIY emissions number crunching in dissents on commission orders (Energywire, June 20).
Specifically on the social cost of carbon, the FERC majority has argued that the tool isn't meant for projects. But EPA said in the letter that "[social cost of carbon] estimates may be used for project analysis when FERC determines that a monetary assessment of the impacts associated with the estimated net change in GHG emissions provides useful information in its environmental review of public interest determination."
EPA's recommendations are unusual only because the agency and the Trump administration as a whole have moved to undo climate regulations and lessen the importance of climate change in policymaking.
"Expert agencies like EPA providing expert information ... to a sister agency is in the normal course, not notable," Zevin said.
Comments are continuing to pour into the docket, which is open until July 25, from companies, think tanks, trade groups and individuals.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/22/stories/1060086219
-
A Leading Climate Agency May Lose Its Climate Focus
Jun 25, 2018 | New York Times
By John Schwartz
The Trump administration appears to be planning to shift the mission of one of the most important federal science agencies that works on climate change — away from climate change.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the Department of Commerce, operates a constellation of earth-observing satellites. Because of its work on climate science data collection and analysis, it has become one of the most important American agencies for making sense of the warming planet. But that focus may shift, according to a slide presentation at a Department of Commerce meeting by Tim Gallaudet, the acting head of the agency.
In the presentation, which included descriptions of the past and present missions for the agency, the past mission listed three items, starting with “to understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts.” In contrast, for the present mission, the word “climate” was gone, and the first line was replaced with “to observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions.”
The presentation also included a new emphasis: “To protect lives and property, empower the economy, and support homeland and national security.”
NOAA’s sprawling mission includes the National Weather Service and management of the nation’s fisheries. Its use of satellites and scientific research to understand climate change has been an enormous part of its work in forecasting the cycles of phenomena such as El Niño and tracking hurricanes, as well as forecasting the coastal effects of rising seas.
While the past mission for the agency was focused on resiliency, including “healthy ecosystems, communities and economies that are resilient in the face of change,” the present mission, according the presentation, replaced that with a focus on “a safe, secure and growing economy empowered through accurate, reliable and timely environmental information.”
The presentation by Dr. Gallaudet, an oceanographer and retired Navy rear admiral, was part of a Department of Commerce “Vision Setting Summit.” While it is common for agencies to shift priorities under a new administration, sweeping changes to the core mission of an agency are unusual.
It is unclear whether a large shift in the federal science agency’s direction could be accomplished without extensive action by Congress. The agency’s current structure and mission are defined by 127 congressional mandates, and Congress passes the agency’s budget. Changing the agency’s focus would require an extensive rule-making process — a process that has proved troublesome to the Trump administration.
Andrew A. Rosenberg, a former NOAA scientist and senior executive who now serves as director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists and who has seen the presentation material, issued a statement responding to the NOAA presentation that called the move “a shocking change in the mission of one of the nation’s premier scientific agencies.” The decision, he said, is “misguided and harmful to our country.”
“Understanding the changing climate is becoming more critical by the day, as the effects of global warming mount,” he added.
Climate research already protects the economy, Mr. Rosenberg said. “NOAA is continuously working to improve forecasts of extreme events, which are intensifying in a warming world. As we know from last year’s wildfires and hurricanes, these kind of forecasts are critical for protecting American lives and infrastructure.”
When asked for comment, Dr. Gallaudet said in a statement that the presentation was “a simplified draft for discussion.”
“It was not intended to create change in NOAA mission or policy from what it was before,” he said. “Any interpretation to the contrary is simply inaccurate.”
Another NOAA scientist said that he doubted the statements would lead to broad change. “This is really not a big change in the core mission,” said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to comment. “It’s all in how you interpret the slides. Climate won’t be highlighted but it will remain a fundamental part of the NOAA mission.”
Kevin Trenberth, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that the presentation “does raise alarm bells.” In an email, he asked, “Where is climate?”
“Instead of protecting and preserving ecosystems, it is one of exploitation,” he added. “The latter is especially offensive and shortsighted.”
The agency’s work on climate change has come under heated attack from Republican lawmakers in recent years. Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas who is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, accused the Obama administration and federal researchers of manipulating global warming research to pursue, as he put it during a hearing in 2015, the administration’s “suspect climate agenda.”
In particular, Mr. Smith launched an investigation of the agency over a research paper that suggested that a supposed “hiatus” in the planet’s warming trend over a nearly 20-year period was the product of inaccurate data, and that the supposed pause in warming would all but disappear if better methodology were applied. The supposed hiatus has served as a frequent argument for those who deny the overwhelming scientific evidence for planetary warming. The research was later validated, and global warming has continued: 17 of the 18 warmest years in the scientific record have occurred since 2001.
Dr. Trenbeth said that trying to eliminate climate from NOAA’s mission was in line with previous congressional attacks on the agency. However, he said, there’s no getting away from the centrality of understanding climate change to the agency’s mission. “The fact is that improving weather and seasonal forecasts is now a climate problem: it inherently involves interactions among the atmosphere and ocean and land.”
“The omission of anything related to climate, which includes El Niño, is extremely negligent,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/24/climate/noaa-climate-mission.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested