Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 6/26/2018

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Supply Chains and Protectionism
Jun 25, 2018 | Sage Business Researcher
By Matt Mossman

When President Trump announced new tariffs in March 2018 aimed at punishing China for intellectual property theft and China retaliated with its own tariffs, including ones targeting U.S. aircraft, Boeing was caught in the crossfire.
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges OMB to Embrace EPA Cost-Benefit ANPR
Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

Roughly 100 business groups have signed a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) formally calling for EPA to “reexamine its statutory interpretations” in order to allow for greater consideration of “cost benefit balancing.”
(ACC Mentioned) More Details on Manafort’s 'Hapsburg Group'
Jun 25, 2018 | Politico Influence
By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne LeVine

...A new coalition to promote the natural gas industry launched today.
(ACC Mentioned) Regional Environmental Chief Visits Cape Cod
Jun 25, 2018 | Cape Cod Times
By Doug Fraser

Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations for the Massachusetts Audubon Society, is happy with at least one thing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has done: the appointment in January of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn as the agency’s regional administrator for New England.
Science Panel Abolished 3 Subcommittees in Closed-Door Vote
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

An EPA advisory panel quietly voted last month to shut down three committees that provided outside expertise on ecological effects, environmental engineering and environmental economics.

LCSA News

Chemical Companies Get Flexibility in Data Submissions
Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency will give chemical manufacturers flexibility in providing the agency with toxicity, exposure, or other information, which may cut costs for industry and reduce its use of laboratory animals.
New Chemical Reviews, Regulations Said to Impede Commerce
Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

New chemicals aren’t getting to the market and limits are being placed on using those that do because of the EPA’s reviews and regulations, two chemical industry officials said June 25.
EPA Floats Stricter Lead Dust Standards But Avoids Re-Defining 'Paint'
Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds

EPA is seeking to strengthen its 2001 lead paint dust hazard standards that trigger abatement and protective measures in homes and facilities undergoing renovation and repair but the agency is declining, for now, environmentalists calls for a new definition of “lead paint” that informs federal efforts to reduce exposure to lead in paint.
US EPA Finalises Mercury Reporting Rule
Jun 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA has issued a final reporting rule to support the development of a national mercury inventory. The move is in keeping with requirements imposed by 2016's amendments to TSCA.

Chemical Management News

Chemical Majors Turn to High Court to Save Obama Coolant Limits
Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

Honeywell International Inc. and Chemours Co., along with a major environmental group, are taking one last stab at defending Obama-era limits on potent greenhouse gas refrigerants—this time with the nation’s highest court.
EPA Tightens Lead Dust Standards to Protect Kids
Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA opted for stricter limits for lead dust on floors and windowsills but declined to adjust its definition of lead-based paint, saying it lacks enough information.
Echa Overview of Guidance and Tools for Downstream Users Available
Jun 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Echa has produced the latest edition of its factsheet that provides an overview of guidance and tools for downstream users of chemicals.

Energy News

NSR Reforms Expected To Exempt Plants From Imminent CPP Replacement
Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

EPA's proposed rule seeking to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is slated for submission to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) this week, will include tailored reforms to the agency's new source review (NSR) program that will allow power plants making efficiency upgrades solely to comply with the CPP to be exempt from NSR.
$83 Billion West Virginia Petrochemical Deal with China on Skids Due to Trade War, Corruption Probe
Jun 26, 2018 | DeSmog Blog
By Steve Horn

Last November, China and West Virginia signed an $83.7 billion dollar, 20-year agreement to build a massive petrochemical hub in the state but that deal may be on hiatus in the midst of a de facto trade war spurred by President Donald Trump and a corruption investigation unfolding in the Mountain State.
Future of Big Oil Increasingly Shaped by Fate of Global Gas
Jun 25, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Kevin Crowley and Kelly Gilblom

Big Oil’s fortunes are becoming tied more closely to natural gas than ever before.
Work Progressing on Two Gulf Coast LNG Export Projects
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut

The proposed Calcasieu Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in Louisiana has secured a draft environmental impact statement from FERC, and sponsors of a Corpus Christi export terminal in South Texas have asked for permission to begin commissioning operations for its first LNG train.
Total CEO: Tariffs Will Blunt U.S. LNG Advantage
Jun 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Ben Lefebvre

President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports would boost the cost of new energy projects and blunt the U.S. advantage in exporting cheap natural gas, Total S.A. Chief Executive Patrick Pouyanné said today.
Energy Industry-Led Coalition Aiming to Kick Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Chain
Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

An industry-led consortium, initially led by Cheniere Energy Inc., Chevron Corp., Equinor ASA, ExxonMobil Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co., plans to advance methane science to better combat global emissions from the natural gas value chain from production to end-use.
Energy, Water Funding Bill Sails Through Senate
Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Dean Scott

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill June 25 that would provide more than $43 billion to the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies for the coming fiscal year.

Chemical Security News

Changes on tap at U.S. Chemical Safety Board
Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jeff Johnson

Following a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB).
‘Considerable Vulnerability’ in Gas Pipelines: Energy’s Rick Perry
Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says that as the U.S. becomes more reliant on natural gas—currently the No. 1 source for electricity—the security of pipelines delivering the gas is more important than ever.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Derailed Oil Train Spills 230,000 Gallons of Tar Sands in Flooded Iowa River
Jun 26, 2018 | DeSmog Blog
By Justin Mikulka

On June 22, a train carrying Canadian crude oil derailed in northwestern Iowa, releasing an estimated 230,000 gallons of oil into a flooded river. As a result of the derailment, over 30 rail tank cars ended up in the water, with 14 cars confirmed to have leaked oil.

Environment News

New Science and Technology Uncover Opportunities to Speed up Environmental Progress
Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Steven Hamburg

Both science and environmentalism are changing – driven more and more by more collaboration and rapidly improving technology.
SAB Details Uncertain Path For Reviewing Trump Approach To Carbon 'Cost'
Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is laying out an uncertain timeline for reviewing the Trump administration's decision to slash the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric -- a measure of the costs of carbon emissions and thus the benefits of reducing them -- as well as other changes to the assumed benefits of EPA's rules.
EPA Air Chief Seeks ‘Course Correction’ on Park Visibility Rule
Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA wants to take a “fundamental look” at the regional haze rule designed to protect visibility in national parks and wilderness areas from air pollution that is mainly from power plants, the agency’s top air official said June 25.
Federal Judge Dismisses Cities’ Suit Against Oil Companies Over Costs of Climate Change
Jun 25, 2018 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz

A federal judge on Monday threw out a closely watched lawsuit brought by two California cities against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with climate change.
EPA Begins Review Of 2015 Ozone NAAQS But Is Expected To Retain Limit
Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Anthony Lacey

EPA is formally launching the Clean Air Act-mandated review of the Obama administration's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) with two “calls for information” on ozone science, a process that sources say is expected to conclude with the agency deciding to retain the 70 ppb standard.
EPA to Consider Changes to Smog Standard
Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is kicking off the process of reviewing the nation’s ground-level ozone pollution standard, a project likely to take years.
EPA Faces Challenge Reviewing Ozone, Fine Particulate Standards
Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid

Reviewing national air quality standards for ozone and airborne particles at the same time without adequate staff poses a challenge for the EPA, the agency’s top air official said June 25.
Global Climate Goals ‘Less and Less Possible’ to Meet, IEA Chief Says
Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill

It is becoming “less and less possible” for countries to reach their climate targets and prevent global warming from exceeding dangerous levels without major political or technological breakthroughs, the director of the International Energy Agency said June 25.
Draft Plan Drops 'Climate' from Strategic Mission
Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Christa Marshall

The acting head of NOAA floated the idea of removing "climate" from the agency's mission at a meeting last week, according to a science advocacy group.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Supply Chains and Protectionism

Jun 25, 2018 | Sage Business Researcher

By Matt Mossman

When President Trump announced new tariffs in March 2018 aimed at punishing China for intellectual property theft and China retaliated with its own tariffs, including ones targeting U.S. aircraft, Boeing was caught in the crossfire. The airplane maker’s share price plunged 5.2 percent on March 22, the third time since the start of the year that the prospect of a trade war had sunk Boeing stock by 5 percent or more in a single day.
The falloff wasn’t solely attributable to fears about the prospect of canceled orders. Investors were also acutely aware that Boeing’s planes include millions of parts, more than half of them sourced from upwards of 5,400 outside suppliers worldwide. This intricate network of contracts and processes was designed to thrive in a world of open borders and low tariffs, not one of trade conflicts.
But after that March selloff, Boeing’s share price rebounded – partly because investors suspect the company’s global supply chain is not as fragile as they had first feared – before dipping again in mid-June as the United States and China announced new tariffs against each other.4 For the year, Boeing shares were up 20 percent as of June 18, compared with a 3.7 percent gain in the same period for the Standard & Poor’s 500 and a drop of almost 1 percent for the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
Boeing’s stock price yo-yo is just one example of how the far-flung and highly integrated global supply chains that multinational companies have built are now facing their first real test from protectionist politics. Experience suggests they will be able to survive increased tariffs for now, although the degree of resilience may vary by product, geographic location or economic sector, and long-term decision making could be altered. “In the short run it’s going to be very hard for them to change their supply chains, but ultimately there will be an effect,” says University of Wisconsin economics professor Charles Engel.
Open borders, easy logistics and the principle of comparative advantage – the idea that instead of trying to produce everything they need, countries should focus on goods they can make more cheaply than most and then trade with each other – led multinationals to expand their supply chains worldwide in recent decades. The process accelerated after global trade negotiations in 1986 in Punta Del Este, Uruguay. What is now known as the Uruguay Round led to a broad commitment by 123 countries to open borders and lower tariffs and to creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994 to settle trade disputes.
Once all these moves were implemented, the average tariff rate applied to imports by the WTO’s 164 members plunged by 15 percent, to a rate just below 9 percent, where it has remained since, according to the World Trade Organization Statistics Database and World Tariff Profiles.
Multinationals responded to these governmental commitments to lower trade barriers by picking the cheapest places for specific functions, or sometimes ones where operations could be done fastest. In textiles, for example, supply chains developed in Asia to produce at the lowest cost, and in Western countries to produce at top speed to handle trendy items expected to sell for just a few months before seasons and fashions change. The impact on global trade was substantial; its total value rose from $5 trillion in 1996 to $19 trillion in 2013, according to WTO data.
Once companies had found new spots to locate or to contract with suppliers, they next sought to boost productivity, and for manufacturing sectors in countries that participated, the results were clear. A study by World Bank economists found that a 10 percent increase in participation in global supply chains led to an average productivity gain of 1.7 percent.
The World Bank’s economists focused exclusively on manufacturing for their study, and defined participation in a global supply chain as using imported materials to make something destined for export. But global supply chains can also include services, such as when a company uses call centers in one country to handle customer service in another. Supply chains can also be flexible, with raw materials or partially finished goods such as auto parts coming from multiple suppliers worldwide. The decision to source them from various suppliers could be made according to which supplier has the lowest cost of production, for example, or the fastest shipping time.
In recent years, the political currents on trade have been flowing in the opposite direction. The so-called Doha Round of talks, aimed at further lowering trade barriers, foundered over disputes about agricultural subsidies. Growing voter discontent over jobs lost because of trade liberalization helped propel Trump into the White House, and he has lived up to his protectionist campaign rhetoric. Since taking office in 2017, he has pulled the United States out of an emerging trans-Pacific trade deal, demanded that Canada and Mexico renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from the European Union, Mexico and Canada and threatened to impose additional tariffs on Chinese-made products. The targets of these U.S. tariffs have retaliated in kind, or promised to do so.
The dispute isolated Trump from the other six heads of state attending the Group of 7 summit of developed nations on June 8–9 in Charlevoix, Quebec, with the U.S. president ultimately disowning an agreement to sign a communique in which leaders agreed that all trade deals should be complementary to multilateral commitments to free and fair trade.
Even before this backlash against free trade, the pace of geographical expansion of supply chains had slowed, as companies have finished the process of globalizing their processes or begun to consider priorities other than cost cutting. Participation in global supply chains has been flat since 2011, and in some situations has declined, according to World Bank data.13 The numbers show the link between trade, productivity and global supply chains: World trade grew at an annual average of 7 percent from 1994 to 2008, then slowed to 3 percent from 2012 to 2016. Annual productivity growth was 2 percent in the same period, before the 2007–2009 financial crisis, and 1 percent after it.
Before the onset of today’s protectionism, the main risk of going global was complexity. Car makers, for example, decided to save on warehousing costs through just-in-time inventory management, in which parts are delivered precisely when needed. Ordering them from another country therefore required knowing what to expect in moving goods across borders. General Motors’Detroit/Hamtramck Assembly Plant, for example, would order one of more than 162 combinations of seats from a supplier just across the Detroit River in Windsor, Canada, and expect them to show up five hours later, when they needed to be installed.
This suddenly became almost impossible in the days and weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, because heightened security at border crossings led to traffic jams miles long. The plant would have had to shut down temporarily were it not for customs officers and the privately owned Detroit-Windsor Truck Ferry working together with Cadillac to get its Canadian supplier’s trucks across the river in time, according to a letter of thanks sent by the plant manager to U.S. Customs.
Supply-chain managers can adjust more readily to changing costs, in part because there are multiple factors built into the final price of the product.
The variables that ultimately determine costs come in three categories, says Steven Bowen, chairman and CEO of Maine Pointe, a global supply-chains and operations consultancy based in Boston: procurement, or buying the raw materials and semi-finished goods required; operations, which means labor and productivity factors; and, finally, logistics – shipping and storage. For most types of global supply chains, each of these categories hold opportunities to lower costs and offset the increased tax bills that could come from protectionist moves.
Currency exchange rates are an example of a common and manageable variable, according to research from the University of Wisconsin’s Engel. His scholarship has shown that when foreign currencies rise against the U.S. dollar, multinationals have shifted the burden of higher costs to their suppliers in foreign countries, and that those suppliers have tended to absorb the loss rather than quitting the larger company’s supply chain.
At the operations stage, rising labor costs often lead to supply-chain changes. For textiles producers, this is easy: “Just pack the sewing machines into a shipping container and move to the next place,” says Shay Scott, a University of Tennessee business professor and the managing director of its Global Supply Chain Institute. For capital-intensive and technologically complex processes, this is harder to do and therefore less common. “Companies like Samsung have built multibillion-dollar wafer fabrication plants in Asia,” Scott says. “Those aren’t moving.”
Supply chains can also be adjusted without moving operations, largely by pursuing productivity gains. In China in 2016, the price of apparel destined for the U.S. market fell by as much as 4.9 percent despite wages rising 6.3 percent.
Supply chains can also be flexible in how they convert raw materials to finished goods. U.S. retailers in 2017 responded to protectionism by boosting geographical diversity in their purchasing patterns: Imports came from 150 countries during the year. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index, which measures market concentration, fell from 0.17 in 2010 to 0.15 in 2017, indicating a greater diversity in supply.
Supplier diversity is also useful in other economic sectors even if there is far less competition, such as in steel, a capital-intensive and complex manufacturing process. “There aren’t a lot of U.S. firms that could ramp up production and meet the demand,” economist Engel says. “For certain types you just have to buy it on the world market.” That is what appears to have happened in April, when Chinese steel exports to the United States rose despite the Trump administration’s application of a 25 percent import duty as of March 23. The president also announced a 10 percent duty on imported aluminum, but imports of that metal from China also rose in April.
But having a handful of overseas suppliers in different countries gives a company the option to adjust its mix to at least lower its tariff burden. “You want a few different buying options balanced across domestic and international suppliers,” Bowen, the Maine Pointe CEO, says.
Steel could be an exception to the expectations of supply-chain resilience if protectionism is here to stay. According to Joseph Galimberti, president of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, producers have regional supply chains that would not be able to absorb higher costs. “We would have a hard time anticipating where domestic supply could increase fast enough to meet demand,” he says.Room for Price Increases
Passing along the costs to consumers is easier for companies that know their competitors are in the same situation, and that makes their supply chains more resilient for now. Car makers are a good example. “They are thinking about prices relative to their competitors, and there is a widespread expectation that everyone will do the same thing,” Engel says. Economists say consumers can handle that, at least for now: “The economy is strong and nearing full employment,” says Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a pro-trade think tank in Washington. “Wages are likely to rise, so there’s room to pass some costs to consumers.”
When the steel and aluminum tariffs were announced on March 1, the Beer Institute, a U.S. trade association, suggested it would amount to a $347.7 million cost increase for aluminum cans, making it a tax on beer drinkers. But total amount looks different at the consumer’s level. Cans cost about 10 cents to make, according The New York Times, so the average six-pack would rise in price by a maximum of 6 cents – an unlikely disincentive for beer drinkers.
The same logic applies to Boeing, according to the securities analysts of investment banking firm J.P. Morgan. According to an investor note, aluminum can account for up to 70 percent of the weight of a plane, and materials account for about 30 percent of the cost of building it. Based on those figures, a 10 percent tariff would boost the cost of planes by less than 2 percent.
At the third stage of supply-chain cost cutting, logistics, companies can lower costs with the right mix of transportation modes, Bowen says. In the United States there is a shortage of truck drivers, for example, which was estimated at 50,000 people at the end of 2017. Trucks accounted for 71 percent of freight delivery in the United States as measured by weight, and driver salaries and benefits are rising to fill the gap. Companies should use other modes of transport where possible, Bowen says. “If you can find a way to ship by container, and then switch to rail, you can protect yourself from the driver shortage and lower your costs by using the roads just for local delivery,” he says.
As companies respond to supply-chain cost variables in procurement, operations and logistics, economists and supply-chain specialists debate the long-term question: Can global supply chains stay resilient if protectionism is here to stay, or even develop further and trigger more growth and productivity gains? “Some people think supply chains have reached a natural limit, but it’s more likely they’ve reached a political limit,” Hufbauer says. The result could be more supply-chain decisions based on risk mitigation than on cost cutting or productivity gains.
For now, politics could certainly keep companies from investing in supply-chain reforms, because these are decisions with impacts measured in decades. “Why would a business invest tens or hundreds of millions of dollars into creating supply chain links in another country if there is a possibility it will have to pay tariffs on goods crossing the border with that country in a year or two?” wrote Mike Wilder, a vice president at Livingston International, a customs brokerage and trade-consulting firm.
Another conclusion is that because companies invest based on a decades-long outlook, they are not likely to change their plans unless convinced that the current wave of protectionism will last beyond the current leadership pushing it. “Companies have long capital cycles. They’re not thinking about investing $10 billion based on what’s going to happen in the next few years,” says Emily Sanchez, director of economics and data analytics for the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group. “They’re looking much farther down the line.”NAFTA Sunset Clause?
In its current negotiations with Canada and Mexico to revise NAFTA, the U.S. government is seeking a stipulation that could extend that sense of uncertainty and embed protectionism after the Trump administration: a clause that would allow each country to opt out every five years. If certainty about NAFTA’s future is capped at five years, multinationals could decide to site North American operations in the United States just to be sure they won’t lose access to that market, Wilder wrote, accepting higher costs and less competition in the process. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he told U.S. Vice President Mike Pence that he would not agree to the opt-out clause and cancelled a meeting with U.S. officials to discuss the NAFTA renegotiation.
With location-based cost cutting more difficult for companies for multiple reasons, supply-chain executives could instead focus on other concerns. “Companies are starting to realize that having a very long global supply chain comes with more risks, and protectionism may be an extra shove back to a regional approach,” Scott, the Tennessee professor, says. But Bowen says there is still room to cut costs at the logistics stage. James Bovenzi, a General Motors supply-chain executive, said at an automotive logistics conference in 2016 that GM is looking for new ideas in that area: “We spend as much on logistics as we do developing cars and trucks,” he said.
Scott thinks data organization and analysis is the next big evolution for supply chains. In a white paper on the topic, he and his colleagues recently cited IBMsurvey results on digitizing supply chains. The survey found that 87 percent of supply-chain executives said it is difficult to anticipate problems and that 80 percent of the data generated by those supply chains are not organized into databases for analysis. Boeing in late 2017 said it had multiple divisions using their own unique tracking systems, rather than a harmonized system that can gather up data for faster and better decision making. It announced an overhaul of its supply chain, in part to improve how data are used to track supplies, spot problems, evaluate suppliers and determine what types of work should be outsourced.
While companies are looking to such solutions to safeguard their supply chains against present-day threats and improve them by using new tools, what is clear at this point is that these systems still work and can be adjusted for market variables and political risks such as protectionism. As Boeing’s share price recovery demonstrates, it appears that markets are gaining confidence in the companies, their global networks of suppliers and factories and their ability to adjust on the fly.
“It’s a far reach to think there are going to be massive shifts in consumer pricing because of protectionism,” Bowen says. “Just in some pockets here and there.”
http://businessresearcher.sagepub.com/sbr-1946-106997-2893762/20180625/supply-chains-and-protectionism

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Urges OMB to Embrace EPA Cost-Benefit ANPR

Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

Roughly 100 business groups have signed a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) formally calling for EPA to “reexamine its statutory interpretations” in order to allow for greater consideration of “cost benefit balancing.”
The request underscores a long-running industry effort to get OMB to support the measure -- having previously pressed the White House office to devote resources to the effort and broadly playing down legal obstacles to consideration of costs in future rules.
The June 21 letter to OMB regulatory review office chief Neomi Rao, follows EPA's release June 13 of its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) to discuss ways to remedy alleged “inconsistency” and “lack of transparency” in how the agency conducts cost-benefit review of its rules.
That notice formally launches a 30-day comment period on the issue.
“We believe the time has come for EPA to reexamine its statutory interpretations, and unless prohibited by statute, implement its regulatory statutes through cost-benefit balancing. Agencies must prepare cost-benefit analyses to support their most significant regulations, and to the extent permitted by law, not regulate unless the benefits justify the costs and the selected regulatory option maximizes net benefits to society."
The letter adds that it is critical that parties impacted by regulations, “in particular small and medium sized businesses” have a “seat at the table when agencies write them.”
The letter also endorses general principles including “reliance on balanced peer review and scientific advisory panels when evaluating rules,” “transparency” and “promoting accountability” to make the regulatory process more fair.
And the groups argue that such principles “strengthen certainty in the marketplace. These principles also help ensure that an administration of either party does not abuse its authority by issuing poorly-considered rules or gutting necessary protections.”
Just a few of the groups signing the letter include the American Chemistry Council, American Forest & Paper Association, Edison Electric Institute, the Institute of Makers of Explosives, the National Mining Association, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the Plastics Pipe Institute, the Truck Trailer Manufacturer Association, the Vinyl Institute and several state Chambers of Commerce.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/industry-urges-omb-embrace-epa-cost-benefit-anpr

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) More Details on Manafort’s 'Hapsburg Group'

Jun 25, 2018 | Politico Influence

By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne LeVine

MORE DETAILS ON MANAFORT’S 'HAPSBURG GROUP': We reported earlier this month that a document released as part of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shed new light on the former European politicians Paul Manafort considered recruiting as part of the “Hapsburg group.” Mueller has accused Manafort of violating foreign lobbying law by orchestrating the group’s lobbying efforts in the U.S. without registering as a foreign agent. The document, a 2012 memo written by former journalist Alan Friedman and addressed to Manafort, identified eight politicians that Friedman and Alfred Gusenbauer, a former Austrian chancellor, proposed recruiting to lobby.
Only one of those politicians responded to requests for comment from POLITICO at the time. But we heard from another one, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, a former Polish president, late last week. He said he’d never heard of the Hapsburg group. Kwaśniewski said he met Manafort for the first time on Oct. 23, 2012, “during the international conference in Berlin, so the attached documents from September 2012 are completely unclear to me,” he wrote in an email, referring to the memo in which Friedman proposed recruiting him. Kwaśniewski said he traveled to the U.S. a few months later. On Feb. 1, 2013, he “had a series of meetings in Congress, Senate and State Department about Ukraine, but I cannot find my notes from these meetings and after so many years I do not recall who I was meeting with,” he wrote.
— In a follow-up email, Kwaśniewski wrote that he didn’t recall who had arranged those meetings, but that it wasn’t Manafort. “I have never worked for Mr. Manafort,” he wrote. “I was acting as a Former President of Poland, engaged in the Ukrainian matters since 1991. … The main subject of the meetings was the situation in Ukraine and the relations between Ukraine and the West.”
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. It’s not easy keeping up with the intrigue on K Street. Help us out by sharing a tip or two: mlevine@politico.comand tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow us on Twitter: @theodoricmeyerand @marianne_levine.
POLITICO will be reporting from inside the World Gas Conference June 25-29. Sign up now for our pop-up conference newsletter to receive on-the-ground insights and information every afternoon from POLITICO Pro Energy Editor Matt Daily.
HAGIN’S FORMER BUSINESS PARTNER HAS A WHITE HOUSE IN: When Joe Hagin, one of President Donald Trump’s top aides, planned the president’s first foreign trip last year, Steve Atkiss went to Saudi Arabia, too. Atkiss, one of Hagin’s former partners at the Command Group, a security and intelligence firm, served as the White House’s volunteer logistics lead. “Hagin’s partnership with Atkiss since joining the Trump White House has drawn attention in the tight-knit community of presidential trip planners,” POLITICO’s Josh Meyer and Andrew Restuccia report. “Last month, some complained when Hagin’s former business partner was tapped for an even more high-profile and sensitive assignment than planning the Saudi trip — working as his on-site deputy in orchestrating the historic nuclear summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.”
— “It’s common for the White House to farm out the intensive planning known as ‘advance’ work to outsiders, who like Atkiss often work as volunteers. … But by tapping Atkiss, 41, for such sensitive and influential positions, Hagin may be helping him gain an edge in drumming up business for Command by affording him easy access to foreign governments and private individuals who could help the firm win future security and consulting contracts, current and former U.S. officials told POLITICO.” Full story.
COMPANIES WINNING TARIFF WAIVERS DON’T HAVE LOBBYISTS: The Commerce Department announced last week that seven companies received exclusions from the Trump administration’s steel and aluminum tariffs: Schick Manufacturing Inc., Nachi America Inc., Hankev International, Zapp Precision Wire, U.S. Leakless Inc., Woodings Industrial Corporationand PolyVision Corporation. None of the companies retain lobbyists, according to disclosure filings. That’s not unusual. “This is an administrative or a regulatory process, so some companies will do it themselves, some companies would hire a lawyer to help them fill out the paperwork,” said Paul Nathanson, a spokesman for the Coalition of American Metal Manufacturers and Users. But he predicted that “you’ll likely see an uptick in lobbying activity if you see many exclusion requests rejected by the Commerce Department.”
NATURAL GAS COALITION LAUNCHES: A new coalition to promote the natural gas industry launched today. The members of the so-called GlobalNatural Gas Coalition include the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; American Petroleum Institute; the American Gas Association; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Global Energy Institute; the American Chemistry Council; the National Association of Manufacturers; and the Laborers’ International Union of North America. In an interview with PI, Don Santa, chief executive of INGAA, said the coalition’s main objective is to be “a unified voice in term of the benefits of natural gas” both domestically and internationally. Today’s launch coincides with the World Gas Conference this week.
THINK TANK OF THE ‘RADICAL CENTER’ SEARCHES FOR IDENTITY IN TRUMP’S WASHINGTON: Rachel Cohen has a detailed piece in Washingtonian examining the travails of the think tank New America. “Founded at the height of the Nasdaq boom, New America was meant to be an antidote to other Washington think tanks — a young, nimble provocateur that would dispense with convention and birth fresh ideas. Nearly two decades later, the organization, which now employs more than 250 people, is casting about for relevance in a hyper-partisan era, according to interviews with more than three dozen current and former staffers, many of whom wanted anonymity for fear of retribution in the tight-knit DC policymaking community. In a way, it’s a symbol of an entire Washington industry — policymaking — that’s under pressure to fund itself without making ideological or ethical sacrifices.” Full story.
IF YOU MISSED IT THIS WEEKEND: “Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, discussed hiring a friend of a lobbyist family that owned a condominium he was renting for $50 a night, newly released emails suggest,” The New York Times’ Lisa Friedman and Hiroko Tabuchi report. The potential hire “was discussed in emails between Mr. Pruitt’s chief of staff, Ryan Jackson, and [J. Steven] Hart, who was chairman of the Washington lobbying firm Williams & Jensen and whose wife, Vicki Hart, rented the condo to Mr. Pruitt. Other subjects discussed during and after Mr. Pruitt rented Ms. Hart’s condo included refrigerant chemicals, which was raised on behalf ofCoca-Cola, and the Paris Agreement — the global climate pact to address climate change — discussed on behalf of the global bank HSBC.”
— “The emails also show that Mr. Hart suggested other potential hires to the E.P.A., including one person who he emphasized was a Republican and an African-American, on behalf of an executive of the philanthropic arm of the pork giant Smithfield Foods.” Full story.
WHERE YOU WANT TO WORK: The Washington Post is out with its latest ranking of the best workplaces in Washington. Among the law and lobbying firms on the list: WilmerHale, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld Kelley Drye & Warren and Alston & Bird. Among the trade groups: the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the National Recreation and Park Association (which does sound like a nice place to work), the American Health Care Association and the American Gas Association. The AARP also made the list.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2018/06/25/more-details-on-manaforts-hapsburg-group-263615

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Regional Environmental Chief Visits Cape Cod

Jun 25, 2018 | Cape Cod Times

By Doug Fraser

Jack Clarke, director of public policy and government relations for the Massachusetts Audubon Society, is happy with at least one thing Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has done: the appointment in January of Alexandra Dapolito Dunn as the agency’s regional administrator for New England.
“From the environmental community point of view we couldn’t have done any better than with her appointment,” said Clarke.
“I think we won the lottery,” said Bradley Campbell, the president of the Conservation Law Foundation when asked about Dunn at a meeting last week with the Times.
Dunn is an environmental attorney with roots in Massachusetts. With two decades of experience in environmental law, she has served as counsel to the American Chemistry Council, dean of Environmental Law Programs at Pace University, and chairwoman of the American Bar Association’s environment, energy and resources section. She most recently served as executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, and Campbell credited her with remaking the organization into a “constructive, nonpartisan voice addressing the most significant environmental issues facing our states and our nation.”
But Dunn took over as the regional representative of what is widely considered to be one of the most anti-environment and anti-EPA administrations in decades, led by Pruitt’s anti-science, anti-climate change rhetoric, and an agenda that includes threats of dismantling the agency through personnel cuts and attempts at rolling back Obama-era regulations.
“The question is, how will she work with her boss and the New England states that have high standards on air, land and water quality?” Clarke said.
Dunn sat down with the Times editorial board last week to give her perspective on how the agency will help the Cape and Islands, and New England deal with some of the most fundamental problems we’ve faced in generations: climate change, wastewater and superfund cleanups, and emerging contaminants that endanger our water supplies. But first, she addressed the political question by saying the nine regional administrators, including her, were chosen for their deep connections to the states they work with; their job is to help states attack the problems they see as their top priorities.
“Much of our work is not politically motivated, but is motivated by the actual environmental problems we are facing,” Dunn said. “Those priorities have not changed.”
She broached the idea of cooperative federalism, an idea championed by Pruitt as a collaborative approach emphasizing transparency and public participation.
“I think that what is a little bit different about how this administration is approaching it is that the conversation is being led by the states as opposed to what you had under the prior administration where it was very heavily federally led,” Dunn said.
Dunn pointed out that Massachusetts is committed to meeting carbon dioxide reductions laid out by the Obama administration in the 2015 Clean Power Act, despite President Donald Trump’s executive order last year undermining it. At that signing, Pruitt referenced the EPA’s core mission as “protecting public health while also being pro-energy independence.”
But there’s a separation between the political machinations of policy making in Washington and the day-to-day work in the regional offices, Dunn said.
“We are listening to the states,” she said, stressing that not every region puts climate change at the top of its list or experiences it as directly as do the coastal states.
New England states are dominated by ocean and river coastlines, both experiencing flooding through an increase in extreme rain events and the combination of sea rise and changes in storm intensity and frequency. If states request help, the EPA will respond, Dunn said.
“That’s the conversation that needs to happen when we’re asked to help,” she said. “We need to build, fund, resilient infrastructure for our communities.”
Layoffs at the EPA and projected budget cuts in other regions have not affected New England, she said. Her office has retained its scientific staff and is the only region hiring more scientists due to retirements of career personnel, she said.
“None of their expertise has left the agency,” she said.
Dunn said she doesn’t see the morale issues reported among EPA staffers working under an administration reportedly hostile to their mission.
“People were almost fearful that their project or work would be changed, reprioritized or not valued, or that there would be a sign, a turn in direction,” Dunn said. “I can say, almost to a one, that none of our projects have changed significantly because they are very ground level work.”
Dunn said Pruitt’s priorities include Superfund site cleanups and regulating emerging contaminants like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. They are a group of man-made chemicals used by a number of industries globally since the 1940s, which have been found locally in drinking water supplies, particularly in Hyannis, and around Joint Base Cape Cod and the Barnstable County Fire Rescue Training Academy, linked to the use of firefighting foam. Testing indicates the chemicals may have reproductive and developmental effects, and cause tumors.
But Pruitt has a checkered history in dealing with emerging contaminants and Superfund sites. Last year, he created a Superfund Task Force that was criticized for having no criteria for admission, for not keeping minutes, and was perceived as producing an industry-friendly report. But he also took action on a couple of cleanups that had languished and meted out stricter measures than the agency had recommended.
Joint Base Cape Cod and New Bedford Harbor are on the priority list but not on the expedited cleanup list.
Earlier this year, Politico reported that Pruitt and his EPA staff responded to a White House request and helped block publication of a Health and Human Services report showing that PFAS contaminants were toxic at much lower levels than what the EPA had estimated. Reporters were also barred from an EPA meeting on emerging contaminants last month in Washington.
But Dunn said the EPA is listening. EPA New England is hosting a PFAS community engagement forum in Exeter, New Hampshire, that started Monday and continues Tuesday.
“We wanted to create a place where the community could be heard and give input into a national management plan,” Dunn said.
The meeting is open to the press and anyone who wants to give comments to the agency. The goal of the management plan will be to evaluate PFAS as a hazardous substance, set a limit on contaminant levels and make it regulatory, and develop toxicity levels for groundwater.
Responding to criticisms that a Pruitt-led EPA would be lax on enforcement, Dunn said EPA New England’s enforcement office continues regardless of the change in administration. She said her regional office is unique in combining enforcement with compliance assistance and pollution prevention to get at the root cause of violations. Education, she said, could insure greater compliance than penalties.
“The water runs through people’s souls here,” Dunn said of the Bay State. “We are finding ways to look at improving water quality so that the economy stays strong whether it is fishing, or tourism or outdoor activities.”
http://www.capecodtimes.com/news/20180625/regional-environmental-chief-visits-cape-cod

Return to headline | Return to top
Science Panel Abolished 3 Subcommittees in Closed-Door Vote

Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

An EPA advisory panel quietly voted last month to shut down three committees that provided outside expertise on ecological effects, environmental engineering and environmental economics.
That step — unanimously approved by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) and disclosed only late last week — was a routine management trim driven by the fact that the three panels had little work in recent years, according to the board's acting staff director and several members.
But in the charged environment surrounding EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's attempts to recast the makeup of the SAB and other advisory committees, news of the decision quickly generated skepticism from his critics.
"This is just another episode that illustrates how this administration continues to sideline science in the federal government," said Yogin Kothari, senior Washington representative for the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of several groups suing to overturn Pruitt's membership standards for advisory committees.
Tom Brennan, acting head of the SAB staff office, said in a statement today that board members "unanimously recognized that keeping these three committees does not offset the effort" of forming and managing them. As is broadly true throughout EPA's network of advisory panels, he said, the members of those three committees were deemed "special government employees" subject to federal ethics rules and laws "regardless of actively working on a project."
Disbanding the three will benefit both potential members and EPA "as it reduces unnecessary burdens regarding ethics requirements and the hiring process," Brennan said in a memo to SAB members before the May 31 vote.
Any new work related to economics, engineering and ecologically focused projects could be handled through the creation of "ad hoc" panels, he added.
The SAB, statutorily created to provide advice to EPA on a variety of scientific issues, approved Brennan's recommendation in the closed-door session reserved for handling administrative matters held before its public meeting on May 31 and June 1.
The board made that decision public last week in the course of posting records from the two-day meeting on its website. News of the decision was apparently first reported by the Earther.com website.
The now-abolished panels, technically known as standing committees, were created to provide expertise in specialized subject areas. But their workload depends on what EPA asks them to do.
While the SAB's overall workload appears to have dropped in the last year, the falloff for these three committees predated the Trump administration, according to interviews and data provided by Brennan.
In an interview, William Schlesinger, who had headed what was officially known as "the committee on ecological processes and effects," said it had not met since he assumed the chairmanship in 2015.
"My underlying philosophy is that it's too bad that the SAB does not have a committee with ecology in its title," Schlesinger, president emeritus of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in upstate New York, said in a phone interview.
"On the other hand, if it hasn't met and doesn't have any pressing business — well, there you have it."
The full SAB currently has 44 members; the standing committees, however, may include other participants. Following last month's vote, four standing committees remain, tasked with addressing agricultural science, chemical assessment, drinking water and radiation issues.
In email exchanges with E&E News over the weekend, several board members described the decision to abolish the three committees as noncontroversial.
"This was a routine administrative matter," said Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University. "There is no implication for the broader mission of the SAB."
It "is more effective and cost-effective for the SAB to assemble specialized committees for specific projects," said John Graham, dean of Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs. "I do not recall a single member registering opposition to the decision."
Under the membership policy imposed by Pruitt last fall, the SAB has seen considerable turnover, because the agency chief ended a tradition of naming rookie members to a second consecutive three-year term and because active EPA grant recipients are now barred from serving.
"Under normal circumstances, I would probably say [the decision to disband the three committees is] not the end of the world," said Chris Zarba, who headed the SAB staff office before retiring in February. But in the event that ad hoc panels are created, Zarba said, Pruitt will get to pick their members.
Zarba is now allied with Pruitt foes. Many EPA employees now view the agency's advisory committees "as having a strong bias," he wrote in a recent court filing on behalf of plaintiffs in one of the three lawsuits challenging the new membership standards.
Agency staff "are seeking less advisory committee input on the science that supports the agency's policies, decisions and regulations," Zarba said. As a result, he added, "the quantity and quality of EPA's scientific and regulatory decisions will suffer."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/25/stories/1060086383

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Chemical Companies Get Flexibility in Data Submissions

Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The Environmental Protection Agency will give chemical manufacturers flexibility in providing the agency with toxicity, exposure, or other information, which may cut costs for industry and reduce its use of laboratory animals.
Chemical manufacturers should soon start seeing the new approach in modified language the agency will use in documents that accompany new chemical approvals, said Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention at the agency.

The scientific community is rapidly evolving new computer, cellular, genetic, and other tests that predict or determine how a chemical interacts with living organisms or ways it could expose people and the environment, she said during a webinar on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
To encourage companies to start using these new types of tests, the EPA will ask chemical manufacturers to provide health, ecological, or other information for new chemicals, Beck said. The agency will no longer automatically ask or require new chemical manufacturers to conduct specific tests in which the companies expose laboratory animals to their chemicals, she said.
“We will suggest types of data that are helpful, not specific tests,” Beck said during the webinar, which was organized by the Bergeson & Campbell P.C. law firm and hosted by Bloomberg Next.
Change Part of Broader Goal
Depending on the decision it makes about a new chemical, the EPA may require or ask a manufacturer to conduct additional tests. The agency would use the information to determine if a new application, production method, or manufacturing volume of the chemical would pose an unreasonable risk.
Under the original and amended TSCA, the EPA has allowed new chemicals to enter commerce with restrictions pending. For example, a company might be allowed to make and sell up to 10,000 pounds of a new chemical, but would be required to give the agency toxicity data if it wanted to sell more of that same chemical or use it in a way that differs from its original intent.
A central goal of the agency’s new approach is to encourage discussion of data needs and ways to satisfy them before companies launch any new animal tests, she said.
Reducing the number of animals used for chemical tests can reduce testing costs and increase the number of chemicals that can be screened for potential health effects.
The 2016 TSCA amendments required the EPA to develop a strategy to refine, reduce, and replace animals’ use in chemical tests.
The agency issued that strategy June 22, and the approach the agency will be announcing is part of that, Beck said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-companies-get-flexibility-in-data-submissions-1

Return to headline | Return to top
New Chemical Reviews, Regulations Said to Impede Commerce

Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

New chemicals aren’t getting to the market and limits are being placed on using those that do because of the EPA’s reviews and regulations, two chemical industry officials said June 25.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s reviews of new chemicals are creating scenarios in which “less hazardous new chemicals are more highly regulated than more hazardous existing chemicals,” said Misty L. Bogle, global product stewardship manager, Vertellus Specialties LLC, a specialty chemicals manufacturer.
For example, the EPA may regulate a new chemical that is a slight variation of a similar one already in commerce, she said.
The result can be that the new chemical’s release into the environment or workers exposures to it are restricted, yet the version of the compound that’s long been on the market does not have any restrictions, said Bogle, whose company makes ingredients for toothpaste, deodorants, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, detergents, plastics, adhesives, inks, tires, and other products.
That creates an uneven regulatory playing field, she said during a webinar on the Toxic Substances Control Act.
‘Doesn’t Seem Logical’
A new chemical manufacturer also may find its chemical regulated even though the agency concludes the company’s planned production and use of the chemical would be safe, Bogle said.
The agency may regulate the chemical because a “reasonably foreseen” production method or use of the same chemical may pose an unreasonable risk. The 2016 TSCA amendments require the EPA to consider reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical as the agency decides whether the compound may pose an unreasonable risk.
“That doesn’t seem logical because our use does not pose risk,” Bogle said.
Patrick MacRoy, deputy director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center, told Bloomberg Environment it’s logical that amended TSCA required the agency to restrict a new chemical’s use even if the way the original manufacturer wants to use the compound is safe.
Once a new chemical is listed on an official inventory of compounds that are or have been in U.S. commerce, any chemical manufacturer can use that molecule however it wants—unless the chemical’s uses are restricted, he said.
More Regulation
The growing number of rules that are accompanying new chemicals is causing marketplace problems, said Michael Gould, environmental, health, and safety committee chairman with RadTech North America.
The EPA has been regulating about 90 percent of the new chemicals it has reviewed since TSCA was amended two years ago, said Gould, during a webinar organized by Bergeson & Campbell PC and hosted by Bloomberg Next.
By contrast, about 90 percent of new chemicals reached the market without regulations prior to TSCA being amended in 2016, he said.
Most companies will avoid purchasing any new chemical that is regulated, said Gould, whose trade association represents materials manufacturers that use ultraviolet light and electron beams to make coatings and other products that use less energy and solvents than traditional manufacturing processes use.
The record-keeping, supply chain communication, and other requirements that are part of the EPA’s new chemical regulations scare off businesses, he said.
Rubber Stamp?
Most new chemicals got through without regulations before TSCA was overhauled, because the EPA’s program was not protecting public health, MacRoy told Bloomberg Environment after the webinar.
EPA’s new chemicals program largely rubber stamped industry requests to make new chemicals, he said.
Before market entry is the most logical time for the agency to take action to prevent chemicals of concern from being mishandled or to restrict uses of chemicals that could cause concern, MacRoy said.
Congress revised TSCA to require the agency to make its oversight of new chemicals more robust to prevent problems, he said.
Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention at the EPA, said the agency is working to streamline and make other changes that will help its new chemicals program be more predictable and efficient.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-chemical-reviews-regulations-said-to-impede-commerce-1

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Floats Stricter Lead Dust Standards But Avoids Re-Defining 'Paint'

Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dave Reynolds

EPA is seeking to strengthen its 2001 lead paint dust hazard standards that trigger abatement and protective measures in homes and facilities undergoing renovation and repair but the agency is declining, for now, environmentalists calls for a new definition of “lead paint” that informs federal efforts to reduce exposure to lead in paint.
“Lead-contaminated dust from chipped and peeling lead-based paint is one of the most common causes of elevated blood lead levels in children,” EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt says in a June 22 statement. “Strengthening the standards for lead in dust is an important component of EPA’s strategy to curtail childhood lead exposure."
In a prepublication version of the proposed rule issued late June 22, EPA says it plans to strengthen its dust-lead hazard standards from 40 micrograms of lead per square foot (ug/ft2) and 250 µg/ft2 for floors and window sills, respectively, to 10 µg/ft2 and 100 µg/ft2.
The standard is used to determine when renovators and contractors in residential buildings must conduct abatement and take protective steps to limit exposures to children, workers and others, while the definition helps inspectors and risk assessors determine where lead-based paint is located in housing and informs risk reduction efforts.
While environmentalists were not available for comment, they had welcomed earlier reports that suggested the agency was likely to propose a new standard even as they acknowledged the likelihood that the agency was unlikely to revise the definition of lead-based paint. One environmentalist has argued that strengthening EPA's definition of lead-based paint is "an essential part of the" rule, in part to ensure that EPA and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are using the same definition.
EPA issued the proposed rule after a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit late last year ruled in A Community Voice, et al. v EPA that the agency had unreasonably delayed updating the standards under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and ordered officials to act quickly.
The requirement stems from Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires EPA to identify hazards from lead-based paint, as well as paint-contaminated dust and soil that would result in adverse effects.
The standards also inform risk reduction efforts under TSCA Title IV, which allows states flexibility to develop accreditation and certification programs and work practice standards for lead-related inspection, risk assessment, renovation, and abatement that are at least as protective as existing Federal standards.
The lead dust hazard standards apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, such as day care centers and kindergarten facilities. Before 1978, lead-based paint was commonly used, and lead dust can result when the old paint is disturbed during renovation and repair.
The agency first issued a standard in a 2001 rule but did not update it despite new science showing significantly greater risks than when the measure was originally issued.
That prompted an August 2009 petition from environmental and public health groups that requested the changes to the lead dust hazard standards for floors and window sills that EPA is now proposing. Petitioners also urged the agency to tighten the definition of lead-based paint from 1 microgram per square centimeter (ug/cm2) and 0.5 percent by weight to 0.06 percent by weight with corresponding reduction in units of ug/cm2, according to the proposed rule.
EPA's proposed update to the lead dust hazard standards is one of a series of steps the Trump administration is planning as part of Pruitt's “war on lead.” The administration is expected to soon release an updated inter-agency strategy on reducing children's exposures to lead that will consider numerous pathways of exposure.
New Data
In the proposal, “Review of the Dust-Lead Hazard Standards and the Definition of Lead-Based Paint,” EPA says that new evidence suggests that risks of adverse health effects to children exist at lower levels of exposure than was known when the agency crafted its 2001 standards.
“New data have become available since the 2001 final rule that indicates that health risks exist at lower [blood lead levels] than previously recognized,” EPA says, noting that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now says there is no safe blood lead level for children.
EPA also notes that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 2012 concluded that sufficient evidence exists of adverse health effects in children and adults at blood-lead levels below 10 micrograms per deciLiter, the level of a prior CDC standard for lead in blood that informed EPA's 2001 lead-dust hazard rule.
But EPA declines environmentalists' 2009 calls to amend its definition of lead-based paint, a standard that EPA says supports an array of efforts to reduce risks from lead exposure, including helping risk assessors determine where lead-based paint hazards are present and so where mitigation efforts may be warranted.
Arguing that “significant data gaps” exist and new approaches would be needed to address those gaps, EPA says it “lacks sufficient information to conclude that the current definition requires revision or to support any specific proposed changed to the definition of” lead-based paint.
While arguing that additional analysis is needed to determine whether a change to the definition is appropriate, EPA says that it is coordinating with HUD to evaluate data and possible approaches.
Additionally, EPA argues that there are limits to the utility of the definition of lead-based paint, noting that the definition should not be used to identify paint that poses a risk of lead exposure because risks are dependent on numerous factors. EPA also says it needs more data on how capabilities of current lead-based paint testing technology would be affected by a revision.
In seeking comment on the proposed rule, EPA suggests several possible alternative approaches. For example, EPA requests comment on the proposed stricter standards, possibly leaving the 2001 lead dust hazard standards in place, or merely tightening the standard for floors and not for dust on window sills.
EPA also has proposed allowing states two years to incorporate any final changes into their regulatory programs, and asks that the public provide input on that time frame.
EPA will accept comment on the proposal for 45 days after it appears in the Federal Register.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-floats-stricter-lead-dust-standards-avoids-re-defining-paint

Return to headline | Return to top
US EPA Finalises Mercury Reporting Rule

Jun 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

The US EPA has issued a final reporting rule to support the development of a national mercury inventory. The move is in keeping with requirements imposed by 2016's amendments to TSCA.
The Lautenberg Act instructs the agency to publish such an inventory with data on the substance's supply, use and trade every three years. This will be used to inform policy decisions and to help comply with reporting requirements under the international Minamata Convention on Mercury.
The proposed rule covers manufacturers and importers of mercury or mercury-containing products, as well as those who use the substance in a manufacturing process.
Consistent with the rule, issued last October, the 2020 inventory will cover activities taking place this year. Electronic data submissions are due by 1 July 2019.
Subsequent triennial reports will likewise cover the 12-month period preceding the year in which reporting is required.Exemptions
The reporting obligations will not apply to those dealing only with mercury-containing waste or with mercury as an impurity. Also exempted are those "engaged in activities involving mercury not with with the purpose of obtaining an immediate or eventual commercial advantage"; and those who only import a product that contains a mercury-added component.
There are also certain exemptions for those already reporting mercury use under the TSCA section 8 chemical data reporting (CDR) rule, or the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (Imerc) Mercury-added Products Database. The latter is an online system managed by the Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (Newmoa), which provides national data on mercury used in products.
During the stakeholder consultation process, there was some concern that differences in the Imerc reporting schedule would prevent the US from realising "an accurate national mercury inventory".
But in the final rule, the EPA says it has been directed to avoid duplicative reporting, and it finds not requiring overlapping reporting to be a "feasible approach".
"To the extent that data elements may not align per differences in reporting years and frequency, the agency does not view such discrepancies to be prohibitive of its ability to carry out statutory obligations," it adds.
However, the EPA rejected a suggestion that it should not require reporting for uses of mercury regulated by other federal agencies, such as drugs or animal vaccines.
It also declined to adopt a de minimis threshold below which reporting is not required.
The agency says it plans to publish the first mercury inventory, supported by this finalised rule, by 1 April 2020, and every three years thereafter.
The initial inventory, published in March last year, consisted of readily available, previously published data.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68018/us-epa-finalises-mercury-reporting-rule

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Chemical Majors Turn to High Court to Save Obama Coolant Limits

Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

Honeywell International Inc. and Chemours Co., along with a major environmental group, are taking one last stab at defending Obama-era limits on potent greenhouse gas refrigerants—this time with the nation’s highest court.
The two major U.S. chemical companies and the Natural Resources Defense Council filed separate petitions June 25 asking the U.S. Supreme Court to salvage Environmental Protection Agency regulations banning certain hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
The chemicals are often used as refrigerants in chillers and freezers that can be thousands of times more potent greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide. Chemours and Honeywell make alternatives to HFCs that have dramatically less climate impact.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. EPA struck down large parts of the rules (RIN:2060–AS18) in August 2017. That move created policy uncertainty for the chemical and refrigeration companies, raising questions about how the EPA would be able to implement a global deal phasing down HFCs that the industry broadly supports.
The Trump administration, however, has remained largely silent on whether it intends to move forward with HFC limits or send the 2016 global deal to the Senate for ratification.
In recent weeks, the global HFC agreement has picked up the backing of more than a dozen Senate Republicans and three major conservative taxpayer groups.
Risking Investment
Honeywell and Chemours said upending the Obama-era limits on the chemicals risks more than $1 billion of investments they have made.
The D.C. Circuit decision “perversely rewards the companies who did nothing by keeping the U.S. market open to their products no matter how unsafe, and all but eliminates the industry’s incentive to invest in new innovative and safe chemicals going forward,” their petition said.
The Trump administration initially defended the HFC limits in court, but it has since declined to take further legal action. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt signed guidanceApril 13 saying the agency will rewrite the regulations and will not implement them in their current form in the meantime.
The Natural Resources Defense Council also intends to soon bring suit against the EPA for failing to implement portions of the HFC rules that the D.C. Circuit let stand, David Doniger, senior strategic director for the group’s climate and energy program, wrote June 25.
The Supreme Court will next meet in conference in the fall to determine whether to take the case.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-majors-turn-to-high-court-to-save-obama-coolant-limits

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Tightens Lead Dust Standards to Protect Kids

Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA opted for stricter limits for lead dust on floors and windowsills but declined to adjust its definition of lead-based paint, saying it lacks enough information.
The standards would apply to most pre-1978 housing and child-occupied facilities, such as day-care centers and kindergarten facilities, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lead is a neurotoxin that negatively affects learning, cognition, behavior, and growth at sufficient doses of exposure.
Children’s health advocates have long pressed for stricter lead standards, citing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidance that suggests any amount of lead exposure is harmful. Construction industry representatives have pointed out the costs of remediating old housing and urged EPA to use sound science in its approach to lead.
Dropped but Not to Zero
The EPA is proposing to lower its acceptable lead-in-dust standards to 10 micrograms per square foot on floors, down from the current standard of 40, and 100 micrograms on windowsills, down from 250.
“It is an important step forward for children’s health that EPA has proposed a standard which will lower the amounts of lead in dust and windowsills, which they did in response to a lawsuit by Earthjustice,” Tracey Woodruff, director of the University of California’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, told Bloomberg Environment.
Best Science?
Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention at EPA, said June 25 a proposed new definition of how much lead needs to be in paint to be called “lead-based paint” and new cleanup standards for lead-paint dust will soon be published in the Federal Register. The proposal will be open for public comment for 45 days.
The EPA released the proposed rule late June 22 after it was sued for unreasonable delays in updating those standards, Beck said during a webinar on the Toxic Substances Control Act. The standards the administration is proposing will be more protective and will reflect the best available science on the human health effects from lead exposures, she said.
But Woodruff, a scientist and former EPA official, takes issue with that view of the science. “There is no safe level of lead exposure to children, so while progress has been made, there is still more to do.”
“Hopefully we can learn from the tragic lesson of allowing lead to be put into paint in the first place, that we need to make sure that chemicals and metals do not pose a risk to children’s health before they are widely used and children exposed,” she added.
Definition Used to Target Inspections
The agency said information was inadequate to propose a revision to the federal definition of lead-based paint. The government defines lead-based paint as any “paint, surface coating that contains lead equal to or exceeding 1 milligram per square centimeter or 0.5 percent by weight.”
The definition is woven through other EPA requirements and can be used, for example, to help inspectors target properties where lead-based paint may be a concern, the agency said.
The proposed rule will impact remodeling, painting, and construction firms that work in older buildings.
The EPA issued its new, proposed dust standards following a Dec. 27, 2017, ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court said the agency had taken too long to act on a 2009 administrative petition from environmental and health groups that wanted the EPA to further restrict lead paint limitations.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-tightens-lead-dust-standards-to-protect-kids-1

Return to headline | Return to top
Echa Overview of Guidance and Tools for Downstream Users Available

Jun 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch

Echa has produced the latest edition of its factsheet that provides an overview of guidance and tools for downstream users of chemicals.
The material is available in 23 EU languages and can be found in the Communication in the Supply Chain section of the agency's website.
Quality information is critical for all actors along the supply chain, from companies manufacturing and importing chemicals which need to assess their safety, to users wanting to ensure safe handling, the agency says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68003/echa-overview-of-guidance-and-tools-for-downstream-users-available

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

NSR Reforms Expected To Exempt Plants From Imminent CPP Replacement

Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

EPA's proposed rule seeking to replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is slated for submission to the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) this week, will include tailored reforms to the agency's new source review (NSR) program that will allow power plants making efficiency upgrades solely to comply with the CPP to be exempt from NSR.
One source closely following the replacement rule's development says it is likely to include several options, with all focused on inside-the-fenceline efficiency improvements and “will be accompanied by some further NSR reforms” that are intended to allow upgrades to improve efficiency at the plant to waive any NSR obligation plants may otherwise face.
An EPA spokeswoman says the agency “has no information to share at this time” about the status or contents of the rule.
The inclusion of NSR reforms marks a win for labor and industry groups who lobbied administration officials for it in comments on EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) that preceded the looming proposal, as well as in comments on an earlier proposal to repeal the CPP, which limited power sector greenhouse gas emissions.
Sources also say EPA will not move to finalize the repeal at least until the agency finishes its replacement rule, which is seen as a way to provide more legal cover and certainty to regulated facilities.
The replacement rule will limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants but much more narrowly than the Obama administration's version.
The replacement rule, to be issued under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act, is expected to define the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) as efficiency improvements that can be made at an existing fossil fuel-fired power plant. That is a far narrower BSER the Obama administration used, which defined it as the entire electricity system, an approach that allowed for consideration of renewable generation when setting states' GHG targets.
The proposed replacement rule is expected to include a range of options for how states implement the rule on plants within their borders.
In general it is expected to give far more discretion to states than the Obama version.
It is unclear whether the rule will undergo a name change or retain the CPP moniker.
NSR generally requires facilities that make “major modifications” that can increase emissions to install state-of-the-art pollution controls, which can be an expensive undertaking that has resulted in decades of legal wrangling.
Trump EPA air chief Bill Wehrum has long been a champion of easing NSR requirements, and the changes to the power plant obligations in the context of the CPP is just one of the reforms he is hoping to see through.
EPA is also seeking other NSR reforms through memos and guidance, and could also issue further rulemakings, though those are likely to be more piecemeal rather than sweeping efforts that Wehrum has championed in the past when he worked at EPA during the George W. Bush administration.
But because the CPP replacement is expected to only require efficiency upgrades, any NSR waiver for such improvements could open the door to exempting many plants from any additional requirements under the rule that could require installation of traditional pollution controls to limit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Labor, Industry Support
Utility-specific NSR reforms enjoy broad support among labor and industry groups.
Labor groups met with OMB officials almost exactly one year ago to ask that NSR reform be part of any rule to replace the CPP even though EPA at the time had not decided whether it would even issue a replacement.
Representatives of the United Mine Workers of America, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Union for Jobs & Environmental Progress, the ALF-CIO, the Boilermakers, the Utility Workers of America, and the Sheet Metal Air, Rail & Transportation Union met with EPA and OMB officials to argue that NSR reform is key to major efficiency improvements. One source at the meeting said administration officials appeared receptive to the idea and took many notes.
A Florida public power association also called for a similar approach including an outsize Department of Energy role in both a CPP replacement and NSR reform in comments on regulatory reform submitted later last summer.
When EPA issued its advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in December, it included a discussion of using a CPP replacement to justify changes to the NSR program to avoid plant efficiency improvements triggering requirements for non-GHG emission controls.
But the National Association of Clean Air Agencies argued against NSR changes as part of a CPP replacement in February comments, saying that facilities should not be allowed to undertake projects that significantly increase non-GHG emissions without being subject to NSR.
New Source Rule
When the proposal does go to OMB for interagency review, it is expected to be accompanied by a proposed replacement rule for new fossil fuel fired power plants under section 111(b) of the air law.
That is expected to drop an Obama-era mandate that new coal plants install carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology, and instead allow coal plants to be built with ultra supercritical technology that allows conventional pulverized coal to be used, whereas CCS requires coal to be gasified first.
But the contents of the proposed rule for new power plants under section 111(b) are “tightly held,” according to the source, who says the replacement rule is considered likely to drop the CCS requirement and theoretically allow a highly efficient conventional coal plant to be built, were any developers planning one.
The source adds the rules are expected to move forward concurrently, perhaps because EPA by law must regulate new sources under the new source performance standards section 111 of the Clean Air Act before it can regulate existing facilities.
As for finalizing the proposed repeal of the Obama administration's CPP, “I don't think they intend to do much with that. . . . I was told not to expect any rapid action so it doesn't sound like repeal is going to happen” any time soon if at all.
Even though repealing the CPP has been a priority of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who initially opposed doing any sort of replacement because the climate denying agency head stressed he had only promised President Donald Trump a CPP repeal. However, he has backtracked from that position.
A second source who is closely following the rule says Pruitt was “dead set against a replacement. He did not want to be the EPA administrator regulating carbon dioxide from a coal plant. But industry was unanimous in explaining why it was so important.” Also EPA staff and many in the White House pushed hard for a replacement so “Pruitt signed off on it. He is not enthusiastic about it. . . . Pruitt capitulated.”
The source adds that “the dye was cast” for a replacement when EPA extended the comment period on the proposed repeal, and agrees with the first source that the agency will not act on the repeal until it finalizes the replacement.
The source says the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which has stayed litigation over the Obama CPP for more than a year and a half, is unlikely to act on that case at all once EPA issues a proposed replacement.
This source does not expect “any surprises” in the replacement proposal. “For anybody who has been involved in this issue for a long time now, [they are aware that EPA has] made clear they believe that BSER is only implementable by the source, either through operational changes or physical changes at the source to reduce the [GHG] emissions rate. And no one believes that CCS is adequately demonstrated technology” at new plants.
The source adds that the efficiency improvement achievable at each plant is highly variable, so expects EPA to identify BSER as efficiency improvements and then give states discretion to determine specifics. The source also expects the proposal to allow states to decide whether to do this plant-by-plant or at a higher level depending on resources.
EPA is hoping to finalize the replacement rule by the end of the year, though this source finds that deadline ambitious and says a more realistic time line is the first quarter of 2019.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nsr-reforms-expected-exempt-plants-imminent-cpp-replacement

Return to headline | Return to top
$83 Billion West Virginia Petrochemical Deal with China on Skids Due to Trade War, Corruption Probe

Jun 26, 2018 | DeSmog Blog

By Steve Horn

Last November, China and West Virginia signed an $83.7 billion dollar, 20-year agreement to build a massive petrochemical hub in the state but that deal may be on hiatus in the midst of a de facto trade war spurred by President Donald Trump and a corruption investigation unfolding in the Mountain State.
The deal would be worth more than the total gross domestic product of West Virginia, which was $76.8 billion in 2017. China's sizable investment would create a sprawling petrochemical center in West Virginia, focused on storing and refining natural gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in the Marcellus Shale. Full details are sealed in a yet-to-be-released Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was inked during a trade mission attended by Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping last fall in Beijing, China.
While the Chinese side has cited the billions in trade tariffs imposed by Trump as the impetus for at least temporarily stepping away from the deal, in West Virginia an ongoing state- and federal-level official corruption investigation involving individuals who were part of the MOU signing has also slowed progress. Some of those individuals were named in a February investigation DeSmog published on the petrochemical hub.
In total, China had pledged to invest $250 billion in the U.S. market at the November summit. Several fossil fuel industry executives attended the Chinese trade mission, including the CEOs of liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporting companies Cheniere, Delfin, and Texas LNG.Thrasher Investigation Opens Can of Worms in West Virginia
The first domino to fall in the investigation surrounding the MOU was Woody Thrasher, West Virginia's Secretary of Commerce. As the main regulator and promoter of business in the state, Thrasher was tasked by Governor Jim Justice with oversight of the China-West Virginia deal. (Thrasher is a former Democrat with a business background who converted to a Republican at an August 2017 Trump rally.)
However, Thrasher was forced to resign on June 14 at the governor's request for reported mishandling and misreporting of money for a state flood recovery program.
But these incriminating details only came to light as a result of a broader investigation by Justice's office, when it discovered what it considered ethically dubious activities, centering around self-dealing, related to the MOU, according to the publication MetroNews.
As previously reported by DeSmog, Thrasher and his family business, The Thrasher Group, stood to gain economically from the MOU, and representatives from the company have attended business and industry meetings on creating a petrochemical hub in West Virginia and along the Ohio River Valley. Chad Riley, CEO of The Thrasher Group, spoke at the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction Conference held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 18-19.
The Thrasher Group provides architectural, engineering, and construction services for oil and gas field and pipeline projects. Woody Thrasher never divested from the company when he became Secretary of Commerce and maintained a 70 percent ownership stake. Public Money, Private Interests
At the heart of the ongoing probe is a corporation named the Appalachia Development Group, which led the petrochemical hub's concept and initial marketing phase. The company is owned by the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research, and Innovation Center (MATRIC) and has a technical assistance partnership with the West Virginia University (WVU) Innovation Corporation and the WVU Energy Institute.
The partnership registered its website on November 10, one day after West Virginia signed the MOUwith the state-owned China Energy Investment Corp., as first reported by DeSmog.
Justice, as part of the ongoing investigation into Thrasher, says he learned that one person who has been representing the state in the hub's creation also stood to profit from the deal: MATRIC CEO Steven Hedrick. Hedrick, as first reported by DeSmog in February, is also one of the principals of Appalachia Development Group.
As reported by ProPublica and The Charleston Gazette-Mail, Justice told reporter Ken Ward, “People that were there in China maybe representing their own special interests, we didn’t think was right.”
Ward reported that West Virginia paid $23,000 for Hedrick's travel and participation on the delegation to China, in which he acted as an official representative of the state. But Hedrick refused to sign a contract solidifying his official state role, which Ward explained was “an agreement to abide by the state ethics law’s prohibition on using public office for private gain.” Hedrick has since repaid this money, as demanded by the state.
Ward further reported that “Hedrick asked China Energy officials to specifically target some of their investment toward his company’s natural gas storage hub” and that during the trip “Hedrick stayed behind an extra day and pitched his project to China Energy after others from the state had left.”  WVU Energy Professor Brian Anderson Still Afloat
The Appalachia Development Group has taken down its website, but an archived version shows that Hedrick was listed as CEO, while West Virginia University (WVU) professor and director of the WVU Energy Institute Brian Anderson was listed as Chief Technical Lead. The incorporation status for the company, too, is still listed as active on the West Virginia Department of State's website. Anderson confirmed to DeSmog via email that the Development Group still exists and that it “has switched webhosting providers and the site is being transferred.”
As an outspoken advocate of creating the fracking-fueld petrochemical hub, Anderson did not go on the China trade mission. But just a few days after it, he participated in a press conference promoting the MOU alongside Justice and Thrasher.
And it was Anderson who first said at the June industry conference in Pittsburgh — where he and the CEO of China Energy Corp. were expected to announce an update on projects triggered by the MOU — that the entire premise of the deal has been put in jeopardy.
After making those remarks, Anderson soon walked back the gravity of them in an interview on the radio program “Talkline,” broadcasted by MetroNews.
“It’s certainly not a roadblock. Right now it’s a bit of a speed bump. If it lasts too long it could certainly be a hurdle,” Anderson explained. “It has not slowed the development. The development teams are still pursuing the project. However, the timing of the leadership of China Energy and that coinciding with the trade war was going on was just not something the leadership of China Energy was going to do.”
Anderson also told DeSmog that the MOU and the hub itself are “separate projects and not at all interdependent.”  Federal Investigation
At a June 15 press conference, Governor Justice's legal counsel Brian Abraham said that the investigation has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice. He also said that Governor Justice's investigation into the China deal came first and the flood recovery program probe was merely an offshoot of the broader China MOU investigation.
“Investigators including former U.S. Attorney Mike Carey looked at six months of data and 10,000 emails,” MetroNews reported of the press conference. “Abraham said the findings contributed to this week’s forced departure of Commerce Secretary Woody Thrasher, as well as to the earlier departure of Deputy Commerce Secretary Josh Jarrell.”
Carey, the West Virginia Governor's legal counsel, and the West Virginia Secretary of Commerce did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Jarrell stepped down from the West Virignia Department of Commerce in May, according to his LinkedIn page, and now works at the firm Steptoe & Johnson. According to the Appalachia Development Group's archived website and as previously reported by DeSmog, the corporation's attorney Kathy Beckett also works at Steptoe & Johnson. Jarrell recently spoke in place of Thrasher, who was scheduled to speak before his resignation, at the petrochemical industry conference in Pittsburgh.
Beckett and Jarrell did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Anderson maintained to DeSmog that the investigation centers around what was known as the Department of Commerce’s West Virginia Executive Loan Program (EXCEL WV), and not the Appalachia Development Group or the MOU. That short-lived program launched by Thrasher in late 2017 was run out of the Department of Commerce's Development Office. (The website is now defunct, but DeSmog obtained a cached version of it and the application for the program is still online). EXCEL WVtook in company executives on “loan” for their time and expertise in the area of state business development.
“The concept is to team retired executives with loaned executives,” Thrasher said to the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce in August 2017. “We don't like to call them retired execs, so we are calling them second career executives that will mentor these loaned executives.”
Among those participating in the EXCEL Program was Clay Riley, the VP of Business Development at The Thrasher Group. So too was Bob Steptoe, whose family serves as the namesake of the Steptoe &Johnson firm. Riley appeared in two promotional videos for EXCEL which are up, but unlisted, on YouTube.
Kris Hopkins, Executive Director of the West Virginia Development Office during the launch of EXCEL, left the office in May for a new job at a private equity firm in North Carolina, according to his LinkedIn profile. On his LinkedIn page, he lists the signing of the MOU as one of his top achievements while serving as executive director of that office.
Anderson said that both Governor Justice's office and the DOJ are looking into the “possibility that [the West Virginia Commerce Department] may have inadvertently allowed for the lines to be blurred between the public and private sector.”
And though Anderson remains unscathed so far in the corruption investigation, Beckett credited him as being part of the team “behind each headline, meeting, legislation, [and] report” related to the Appalachian Storage Hub in a May 2017 blog post. Anderson, a state employee by virtue of his professorship at WVU, a public university, confirmed that he too was interviewed as part of Governor Justice's investigation.
“I was happy to be interviewed by the Governor’s team to help provide information regarding the China Energy MOU development and development” of the Appalachian Hub, said Anderson. “My involvement in both projects is through my appointment at WVU as Director of the Energy Institute supporting the University’s Land-Grant mission in Economic Development.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/06/25/west-virginia-petrochemical-hub-china-trade-war-corruption-thrasher

Return to headline | Return to top
Future of Big Oil Increasingly Shaped by Fate of Global Gas

Jun 25, 2018 | Bloomberg

By Kevin Crowley and Kelly Gilblom

Big Oil’s fortunes are becoming tied more closely to natural gas than ever before.
Majors including Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc have boosted their proportion of gas output in recent years, helping them trim Exxon Mobil Corp.’s lead as the world’s most valuable oil company. Meanwhile Chevron Corp. added two giant Australian liquefied natural gas projects and Exxon is punching back with two major projects of its own, in Papua New Guinea and Mozambique.
Natural gas, seen as a clean bridge from coal to renewables, offers the best long-term demand growth among fossil fuels, particularly in its easy-to-transport liquefied form. At the same time, gas exploration comes with high upfront costs and long payback periods. How the majors handle those issues will become key drivers for success moving forward.
“We see the market growing rapidly, with gas demand growing faster than overall energy demand,” said Steve Hill, executive vice president for gas trading at Shell, the world’s biggest LNG producer. “We don’t see renewables as being a threat to gas.”
Industry heavyweights and officials from LNG trading nations -- including Qatar, Japan, South Korea and Australia -- will discuss global gas dynamics at the World Gas Conference in Washington D.C. starting Tuesday. The meeting is in the U.S. for the first time in 30 years, reflecting America’s shale-prodded gas clout.
Emerging Gap
Gas emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal. That means it’s often seen as both a cleaner-burning alternative and a complement to wind and solar since it can produce electricity when the weather doesn’t cooperate. While the global LNG market is likely to be well supplied until 2022, demand will grow by 4 percent to 7 percent annually from 2023 on, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.Growth Path
“In the fossil fuel area, it’s the one clear growth part of the business,” said Brian Youngberg, an analyst at Edward Jones & Co., based in St. Louis, Missouri.
With that growth, there’s a “potential shortage” looming in the mid-2020s that can only be overcome by decisions on new export projects over the next two years, BNEF said in a March report.
hell’s purchase of BG Group for more than $50 billion in 2016, around the time when oil and gas prices bottomed, was primarily a purchase of gas assets. Shell’s LNG capability is now twice as big as its nearest competitor, according to Edward Jones. It may have helped boost the Anglo-Dutch company’s market value, which is now about $53 billion less than Exxon, compared with about $150 billion before the deal.
Gas Boom
BP is also undergoing a gas expansion. By 2020, the British major expects to produce about 60 percent gas and 40 percent oil, a reversal from 2014 when it was the opposite. Last year, six of BP’s seven major projects brought on stream were gas, Chief Financial Officer Brian Gilvary said in an interview.
Chevron shares have returned 40 percentage points more than Exxon over the past three years, mostly because Chevron’s giant Gorgon and Wheatstone LNG facilities in Australia came on stream, moving from a period of building and overspending to cash generation.
“Those assets were being risked quite heavily by the financial markets,” said Tom Ellacott, senior researcher at Wood Mackenzie Ltd. “Now they’re sunk costs and a lot of that risk has been unwound. They’re massive cash generators for the company.”
Also see: LNG’s dormant mega-projects roused by surging Asia demand
Exxon is not standing still. Big Oil’s worst performer over the last five years has made LNG a core part of its strategy to rebuild its upstream portfolio of assets, which is suffering from production declines.
The major sources of new LNG exports are likely to be from the U.S., Qatar, Mozambique and Papua New Guinea, BNEF said. Exxon has substantial gas operations in all of these countries, and the latter two are part of the company’s five key global projects for the next decade.
Changing Mix
Exxon is less worried about competition and more about having the lowest cost assets that will survive the price-swings that affect the market over time, Chief Executive Officer Darren Woods said in an interview last month.
Exxon currently produces about 55 percent oil and 45 percent gas. Woods doesn’t expect that to “dramatically shift” but it may change slightly as major projects come on stream.Challenged Model
With the growth of renewable energy and the success of independents in shale oil production, Big Oil’s business model is being challenged. The major producers’ weighting in global equity indices is now at a 50-year low, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said in a March report.
As such, LNG, with its high up-front costs, huge technical difficulty, and good growth rates, has become something of a safe place for the industry.
“The returns tend to be lower but once they’re on stream, the cash margins are generally very high,” said Wood Mackenzie’s Ellacott. “It’s increasingly becoming the domain of the majors.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-24/future-of-big-oil-increasingly-shaped-by-the-fate-of-global-gas

Return to headline | Return to top
Work Progressing on Two Gulf Coast LNG Export Projects

Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Charlie Passut

The proposed Calcasieu Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) export project in Louisiana has secured a draft environmental impact statement from FERC, and sponsors of a Corpus Christi export terminal in South Texas have asked for permission to begin commissioning operations for its first LNG train.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said that while the Calcasieu Pass project would create adverse environmental impacts, most would be temporary or short-term and the remainder "would be reduced to less than significant levels" if the project's backers adhere to a list of mitigation measures.
Meanwhile, Cheniere Energy Inc. filed a request with FERC earlier this month for authorization to introduce fuel gas to commission Train 1 at its Corpus Christi Liquefaction (CCL) Project in South Texas.
In a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) issued Friday, FERC said Calcasieu Pass, a project proposed by Venture Global Calcasieu Pass LLC (VGCP) and TransCameron Pipeline LLC, would impact the environment. But Commission staff added that a list of 118 recommendations, if adopted by the project's backers, "would appropriately and reasonably reduce the environmental impacts resulting from construction and operation of the project.
"Therefore, we are recommending that our mitigation measures be attached as conditions to any authorization issued by the Commission." FERC will accept public comments on the DEIS until August 13.
The Calcasieu Pass Project, which would be built on a 930-acre site in Cameron Parish, LA, calls for construction of liquefaction facilities with a design production capacity of 12 million metric tons/year (mmty) of LNG. It also includes two 200,000 cubic meter LNG storage tanks; two LNG berthing docks, designed to handle carriers of 120,000-210,000 cubic meter cargo capacity; and a 1,500-foot by 3,000-foot turning basin adjacent to the Calcasieu River Ship Channel. All would be built and operated by VGCP, a subsidiary of Venture Global LNG [CP15-550].
The project also calls for constructing 23.4 miles of 42-inch diameter pipeline to bring feed gas to the terminal site. The pipeline, which would have interconnections with ANR Pipeline Co., Texas Eastern Transmission LP and Bridgeline Holdings LP --and associated infrastructure would be built and operated by TransCameron [CP15-551].
VGCP and TransCameron filed a joint application for FERC authorization of Calcasieu Pass in September 2015. The project is tentatively scheduled to begin operations in 2022.
Last month, VGCP secured a 20-year sales and purchase agreement (SPA) with BP plc for 2 mmty of LNG on a free-on-board basis. VGCP also has 20-year SPAs with Shell NA LNG LLC (2 mmty), a Royal Dutch Shell plc subsidiary; Italy's Edison SpA (1 mmty); and Portugal's Galp (1 mmty).
CCL’s Train 1
In a June 7 filing, CCL asked FERC for permission to introduce fuel gas to commission Train 1. It requested the Commission make a decision on the authorization by Friday (June 29) [CP12-507].
Last month, Cheniere made a final investment decision (FID) to build a third train at the CCL Project. It also issued a notice to proceed to engineering, procurement and contractor firm Bechtel Oil, Gas and Chemicals Inc. to ramp up construction of the facility.
Each train of the CCL Project is expected to have a nominal production capacity of about 4.5 mmty. The first two trains are scheduled to begin service in 2019; an LNG train takes about four years to build. The move to expand the Corpus Christi facility is the country's first natural gas export-related FID in three years.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114830-work-progressing-on-two-gulf-coast-lng-export-projects

Return to headline | Return to top
Total CEO: Tariffs Will Blunt U.S. LNG Advantage

Jun 25, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard

By Ben Lefebvre

President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports would boost the cost of new energy projects and blunt the U.S. advantage in exporting cheap natural gas, Total S.A. Chief Executive Patrick Pouyanné said today.
“You have an advantage, but you’ll minimize the advantage,” Pouyanné said at a press conference, referring to the tariffs’ effect on the U.S. LNG business’ ability to compete internationally.
“It’s not good for our plans, it’s not good for the U.S. industry,” continued Pouyanné, whose company is a partner in the Cameron LNG project in Louisiana and has invested in Tellurian, a company that plans to build an LNG export plant in the same state.
Pouyanné, who is in town for the World Gas Conference, told POLITICO after the press conference that he talked to White House officials about his concerns.
WHAT'S NEXT: Pouyanné and other energy CEOs and government ministers will meet at the World Gas Conference in Washington D.C. this week.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy Industry-Led Coalition Aiming to Kick Methane Emissions from Natural Gas Chain

Jun 25, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

An industry-led consortium, initially led by Cheniere Energy Inc., Chevron Corp., Equinor ASA, ExxonMobil Corp. and Pioneer Natural Resources Co., plans to advance methane science to better combat global emissions from the natural gas value chain from production to end-use.
The Collaboratory for Advancing Methane Science (CAMS) would pursue scientific studies that focus on methane emissions detection, measurement and quantification, with the goal of finding opportunities for reduction.
“As a leading energy company, we are committed to continually reducing methane emissions,” said XTO Energy’s Sara Ortwein, who is president of the ExxonMobil onshore subsidiary. “The right partnerships are critical for success, and participating in CAMS will expand industry learning on solutions that can make a difference.”
XTO has reduced methane emissions from its operations by an estimated 9% since 2016, Ortwein said Monday at the week-long World Gas Conference (WGC), which kicked off in Washington, DC.
Of XTO’s reductions, about 4%, or more than 7,200 metric tons of methane, was achieved through a voluntary program and other operational improvements, she said. Across ExxonMobil operations, the reduction equates to a 2% reduction.
To date, XTO has phased out around two-thirds of existing high-bleed pneumatic devices across its U.S. operations. Low-emission design technologies are also being deployed in new developments, such as in the Permian Basin in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. For example, in April, XTO launched a pilot program at its James Ranch facility in New Mexico to evaluate technologies to reduce emissions.
GTI, aka the Gas Technology Institute, is serving as program administrator for CAMS. Plans are to expand participation beyond the initial industry participants that work across the natural gas value chain. Through scientific studies, CAMS would bring together a diverse group of experts from industry, academia, and federal/state agencies “to deliver factual data that can be used to inform regulations and policy development.”
GTI would manage the overall program, including individual research projects. CAMS members, with input from an independent scientific advisory board, would prioritize and fund research. CAMS is to focus on effectively communicating findings to program stakeholders and the general public. Results are to be independently published by the research project team in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
“This is an important collaboration between industry, academia, government, and researchers,” said Equinor’s Amol Phadke, vice president, safety and sustainability for U.S. and Mexico operations. “It is a great opportunity to work together in understanding emissions across the value chain, giving us a more complete picture of how we can continue to reduce methane from our operations.”
Cheniere’s Chris Smith, senior vice president for policy, government and public affairs, said, “The use of natural gas is already reducing carbon dioxide and traditional air pollutants in the United States and around the world, but further reduction of methane emissions greater amplifies the positive impact of natural gas.”
Cheniere, through the Sabine Pass operations in Louisiana, became the first liquefied natural gas exporter in the Lower 48.
“Supporting peer-reviewed science is an important first step as we look for ways to encourage the reduction of methane emissions throughout the domestic natural gas value chain,” Smith said.
The research would complement recent methane emissions studies sponsored by government agencies and academia, and build on their lessons. New tools and technologies to better detect leaks and characterize emissions are to be evaluated, with practical solutions identified.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114836-energy-industry-led-coalition-aiming-to-kick-methane-emissions-from-natural-gas-chain

Return to headline | Return to top
Energy, Water Funding Bill Sails Through Senate

Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By David Schultz and Dean Scott

The Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill June 25 that would provide more than $43 billion to the Energy Department, the Army Corps of Engineers, and other agencies for the coming fiscal year.
This money was part of a larger spending package that would provide numerous federal agencies with their annual budgets and would keep these agencies running beyond the end of this fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Despite some last-minute wrangling over amendments, the bill passed out of the chamber on a 86-5 vote. The huge margin reflected a bipartisan agreement to keep the bill free from “poison pill” measures that involve hot-button topics and often sink large pieces of legislation.
What’s In the Bill?
The Senate’s package includes significant budget increases for both the Army Corps and the Bureau of Reclamation over what the White House requested. It also includes extraneous measures, known as riders, that would provide more money for projects in the Colorado River basin and change hydroelectric policy at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The House already passed its own version of this funding package earlier this month, with spending levels similar to the Senate’s. The two chambers will have to reconcile their differences before sending it to the White House for signature, but the difference would be moot if congressional leaders opt for a larger omnibus funding package instead.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, told Bloomberg Environment that the chamber’s leaders have already spoken to him about who should sit on a conference committee that will be tasked with ironing out the differences between the House and Senate bills.
Based on remarks from Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, whoever sits on this committee will likely have their hands full.
The House is “taking up partisan bills that are filled with poison pill riders and cannot and will not pass the Senate and they know that,” he said on the Senate floor, just moments before the funding packaged passed.
Waters Amendment Repeal Blocked
The agreement on keeping out contentious amendments from the Senate bill was almost broken at the last minute when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) forced the chamber to vote on an amendment that would have repealed an Obama-era rule defining which waters are covered by Clean Water Act requirements.
Had Lee’s amendment succeeded, Democrats would likely have dropped their support for the funding bill, H.R. 5895, denying it the 60 votes needed to pass out of the Senate.
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who has been shepherding the spending package through the Senate, urged his colleagues to vote against Lee’s amendment. He said he opposed the waters of the U.S. rule, but wanted to avoid scuttling this legislation and passing all of the federal spending bills all at once at the last minute, which has been Congress’ typical way of operating in recent years.
“We do not want an omnibus [spending package],” Alexander, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee’s energy and water panel, said on the Senate floor before the June 21 vote on Lee’s measure. “And that’s what we’ll get if we allow amendments like this.”
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) added that “there’s probably nothing that causes people to go put on their partisan jerseys more than [the waters rule],” but said on the floor June 25 that, overall, the Senate has “avoided controversial issues that have too often torpedoed our work in prior years.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/energy-water-funding-bill-sails-through-senate

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Changes on tap at U.S. Chemical Safety Board

Jun 25, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

By Jeff Johnson

Following a briefing in late June, Vanessa Allen Sutherland formally ended her three-year stint as chair of the U.S. Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). She described her term on the board as a “fix-it” role for the small independent government agency, which investigates chemically related industrial accidents.
She refused to say where she was headed professionally or exactly why she cut short her five-year board term. She stressed a need for more time for her family, particularly her elementary-school-age daughter.
Sutherland took over board leadership in 2015 following a period when CSB was under attackby members of Congress and federal oversight agencies, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Inspector General. U.S. President Barack Obama had called for the resignation of the board’s then-leader, who Sutherland replaced.
CSB stakeholders hoped that Sutherland’s arrival would calm the turbulence and let the agency refocus on what it does best—investigations that go beyond identifying degraded pipes or broken valves to reveal the deeper causes of incidents, such as a plant culture of ignoring safety alerts. As she departs, however, trouble may again be brewing.
Prior to Sutherland becoming chair, complaints reported to Congress by unnamed CSB staff alleged mismanagement and internal disruption. Criticism also centered on delayed accident investigation reports. When Sutherland arrived in 2015, six reports were incomplete, one of which stretched back six years.
In her first year, Sutherland emphasized clearing out these reports and declined to begin new investigations. CSB began new investigations again in 2016.
Now, as Sutherland departs, nine accident reports are in process, three more than when she arrived. One of these occurred in 2014, before she took over the board. That accident at a DuPont site involved a chemical process mix-up in which methyl mercaptan was accidentally released, killing four workers. The incident led the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) in 2015 to label DuPont a severe violator of workplace safety regulations, a consequence that increased enforcement scrutiny and fines. However, CSB has yet to finalize its interim accident report.
Sutherland claims that the nine outstanding reports are nearly complete—further along, she said, than were the six when she arrived. She added that an agency such as CSB will always have accident investigations in process.
Sutherland also embarked on a program more broadly to streamline investigations and issue more timely reports. Those changes are in flux and details will be announced in July, according to Kristen Kulinowski, the board member taking over as interim executive authority following Sutherland’s departure.
“I am comfortable in being able to step down at this time,” Sutherland said at the June briefing. CSB is in a place where new leadership can easily take the next step to make the board more efficient, innovative, and successful, she said. Sutherland underscored her success in rebuilding CSB infrastructure, reforming management, and hiring skilled staff.
Both Kulinowski and Sutherland underscored the difficulty of running a small federal agency with merely 32 staff and an $11 million budget. Hiring and retaining staff, long-term budgeting, and strategic planning have been extremely difficult for the board, which has never had sufficient funds to meet its investigative requirements under law. Some federal reports have found the universe of accidents that qualify for CSB investigation can reach 150 or more a year, far beyond the half-dozen CSB has resources to investigate.
Those preexisting challenges have been exacerbated under President Donald J. Trump, who has proposed eliminating CSB in the past two federal budget cycles. In both cases, Congress stepped in to fund the agency and keep it alive, but the uncertainty has made things such as staff recruitment more difficult for the agency, Sutherland and Kulinowski said. Additionally, the White House must nominate a new chair and other board members, and Trump is unlikely to do so. Of the three remaining board members, Manuel (Manny) Ehrlich and Rick Engler’s terms end in December 2019 and Kulinowski’s term ends in August 2020, just months before the next presidential election. By statute, CSB should have five board members.
The board also appears to be facing a revolt among some staff over hiring and fears CSB is changing its mission. In interviews and in an anonymous memo, prepared by “six senior CSB investigators,” a litany of complaints has been lodged against board management. The critics warn of loss of quality of accident investigations and reports, degrading working conditions, mismanagement, and waste.
In the anonymous memo, the senior investigators note that since Sutherland arrived three years ago, the number of accident investigators has declined through attrition and resignations from 20 to 12 with no new hires. Meanwhile, they continue, CSB hired five management specialists and human relations experts. The investigators also see a general trend toward briefer investigations and reports. They cite a growing focus by management on the immediate and direct cause of an accident, such as a broken pipe or gauge, rather than a detailed root cause review that uncovers the overall conditions that led to an accident.
Such deeper investigations and reports have been CSB’s bread and butter. Many CSB investigations and reviews have revealed industrywide poor practices, long-ignored company conditions, and regulatory shortcomings that led to an accident. Frequently, CSB investigators found that the conditions that triggered deadly accidents had been discovered but not addressed by companies years before an accident occurred. Investigators have also identified significant gaps in industry regulations. Companies or regulators are unlikely to point fingers at themselves, but uncovering such information lays the groundwork for safety improvements, according to several former and current CSB investigators.
In the memo and interviews, investigators say they believe expert peer and stakeholder review of draft reports will be curbed or eliminated. Having drafts reviewed by companies, unions, and other stakeholders familiar with the facility is essential for report accuracy, investigators say. They are also concerned that a possible shift to contracting report writing to outside professionals will reduce accuracy.
The staff also say tension between staff and management has been exacerbated by top managers recently brought in from other federal agencies. Those managers have devalued their work and have little experience in industrial accident investigations, staff say.
Kulinowski and Sutherland countered those allegations at the briefing, saying that hiring and replacing lost staff is their top priority. A “human capital report” to be released next month will show new job descriptions and a blueprint to bring the agency back to full staffing, Kulinowski said.
She added that she was unaware of staff complaints regarding top management. “I always have an open door,” she said, “and will listen to any staff complaint and take it from there.”
Kulinowski and Sutherland also stressed that the focus on root-cause investigations will continue but with a greater emphasis on timeliness and transparency. Kulinowski noted that for reports to be relevant, timeliness must be improved and that demand has often come from staff as well as companies, Congress, labor unions, and others.
CSB is the only body worldwide dedicated solely to investigate large chemically related industrial accidents and publishing their causes. Other organizations examine industrial accidents, but they are regulators or companies searching for causes. Regulators issue fines based on findings; companies may correct problems but do not reveal causes. Neither is likely to reveal their own flaws.
CSB, in contrast, issues no fines or regulations and is independent from regulators and companies. This independence has been a source of strength for the agency but also a source of problems that stretch back to its birth as part of the Clean Air Act, which former president George H. W. Bush signed into law in 1990. Neither Bush nor Bill Clinton funded CSB until 1998, following a series of New Jersey industrial accidents. The accidents were investigated by EPA and OSHA, but their reviews were slow and inadequate, said community and union members and some in Congress, leading Clinton to provide $3 million for CSB’s first year.
Since then, CSB’s history has seesawed between criticism and threats of elimination—with support frequently coming only following an accident with severe consequences for a plant, its workers, and the surrounding community.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Changes-tap-US-Chemical-Safety/96/web/2018/06

Return to headline | Return to top
‘Considerable Vulnerability’ in Gas Pipelines: Energy’s Rick Perry

Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Rebecca Kern

Energy Secretary Rick Perry says that as the U.S. becomes more reliant on natural gas—currently the No. 1 source for electricity—the security of pipelines delivering the gas is more important than ever.
“I think there is a considerable vulnerability to our pipelines, particularly as we use more gas,” Perry said during June 25 press roundtable ahead of World Gas Conference in Washington. “If we’re going to use more gas, doesn’t it make sense to make sure that these pipelines are protected as they can be?”
Two members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently recommended that the security of pipelines be placed under the Energy Department. The Homeland Security Department’s Transportation Security Administration currently has responsibility.
Congress would have to make the change, and chances are slim it will tackle this issue this year, especially ahead of midterm elections.
“I’m a big believer that whatever Congress decides is what direction I’m going to take,” Perry said. “I’m not picking on TSA and their ability.”
No successful cyberattacks have occurred on gas or oil pipelines that shut them down, tens of thousands of cyberintrusions happen on a daily basis, Bruce Walker, the head of the Energy Department’s Office of Electricity, previously told Congress.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/considerable-vulnerability-in-gas-pipelines-energys-rick-perry

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Derailed Oil Train Spills 230,000 Gallons of Tar Sands in Flooded Iowa River

Jun 26, 2018 | DeSmog Blog

By Justin Mikulka

On June 22, a train carrying Canadian crude oil derailed in northwestern Iowa, releasing an estimated 230,000 gallons of oil into a flooded river. As a result of the derailment, over 30 rail tank cars ended up in the water, with 14 cars confirmed to have leaked oil.
To put the size of this spill in perspective, an Enbridge pipeline that leaked in Michigan in July 2010 released roughly 1,000,000 gallons of tar sands oil into the Kalamazoo River. Cleanup for this spill, one of the largest inland oil spills on record, took years and more than $1 billion.
Like the Kalamazoo River spill, the train that derailed in Iowa was carrying tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada.
This crash, near Doon, Iowa, also is the first one involving the new, safer DOT-117R tank cars that promised to make oil safer to transport by rail. The accident reveals that these tank cars are not foolproof, considering the nearly quarter million gallons of oil released from them into an Iowa river. Oil Trains Likely to Spill Into Rivers and Lakes
The reality of rail transport is that train tracks generally follow rivers across North America. As a result, many oil train derailments also mean oil spills into rivers and other bodies of water.
The 2015 report “Runaway Risks” by the environmental nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity found that “within just a quarter-mile of existing and planned oil-train routes there are 3,600 stream miles and 73,468 square miles of lakes, reservoirs and wetlands, including iconic waterbodies such as the Puget Sound, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and the Columbia, Hudson and Mississippi rivers.”
Scientists found that after the deadly 2013 oil train disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, Canada, the resulting oil spill into the Chaudière River had notable impacts on the health of fish and other river life. A year after the disaster, one local fishing guide said, “People still fish the lake but the river is pretty dead.”
Less than six months after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, another oil train derailed in Aliceville, Alabama, resulting in a large oil spill into wetlands, with some critics saying the spill cleanup wasn't properly handled.
A similar story happened to the north in Gogama, Ontario, where two oil trains derailed within a month in March 2015 and resulted in two major spills into the Makami River.
Shortly after the second derailment Canadian National (CN), the rail company that operated both of the trains that ultimately derailed, stated that “there is no evidence so far that either the water or air quality near the site have been affected.”
However, CN would not allow anyone from the public to visit the derailment sites. Meanwhile, the Canadian government put CN in charge of all subsequent environmental testing to determine the level of contamination in the river and nearby lake.
A year after the accident, CN spokesman Jim Feeny said that test results showed that everything was fine. “The results show that the lake is clean,” Feeny told the CBC. “The river water is clean.”
Gogama’s Fire Chief Mike Benson was initially pleased with the response from CN but later changed his tune. It was over a year after the accidents that Benson learned that CN was in charge of the environmental testing — and he wasn’t pleased.
“I can't believe our government tells the fox to test the chickens,” he said.
Meanwhile, the spokesman for rail company BNSF, which operated the train that just derailed in Iowa, said that “ongoing monitoring is occurring for any potential conditions that could impact workers and the community and, so far, have found no levels of concern.”
In addition, since 2014 West Virginia, Virginia, Illinois, and Oregon have all experienced oil train derailments which ended up with burning and leaking oil tank cars either spilling oil in a river or not far from rivers. Last July another train derailed and spilled in Plainfield, Illinois, but based on reports, none of the 45,000 gallons of released oil made it to the nearby river.More Trains + Weak Regulations = More Spills
The oil-by-rail industry has had a good stretch without any serious accidents since Mosier, Oregon in June 2016. However, the main reason for the drop in oil train accidents is the major decrease in the total volume of oil being moved by rail in North America during that time.
As we’ve reported on DeSmog, that trend is starting to reverse as Canadian oil-by-rail approaches record volumes, with U.S. volumes also increasing. Given the lack of pipeline capacity in the prolific Permian Basin in Texas, the oil shale boom there is expected to push more volatile oil onto the rails to get it to refineries and ports.
Despite the lessons learned from the string of accidents during the last oil train surge, there have not been significant regulatory changes to address the known dangers.
Just weeks before the Iowa accident, Senator Charles Schumer (NY-D) once again called for establishing standards to reduce the volatility of oil moved by rail in order to avoid fires. This was an area that oil-by-rail regulations updated in 2015 failed to address.
Another top safety measure for oil trains was the requirement of modern electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, to help trains stop sooner and over shorter distances. While this was passed in 2015 and scheduled to take effect in 2021, it has since been repealed. After this regulation was announced, the CEO of BNSF told an energy conference that “this rule will have to be changed in the future.”
The rule requiring modern safety brakes for oil trains was repealed in 2017.
While those are the top two risks in moving crude oil by rail — reducing oil volatility and improving braking systems — and neither have been addressed, there are many other known safety improvements that the oil and rail industries have failed to adopt. And now we know the newer “safer” tank cars also provide no concrete safety benefits over the older, thinner tank cars when a train crashes.
In addition, oil trains are still not required to have oil spill response plans, despite these trains being responsible for some of the largest land-based oil spills in North America in modern history.
Unfortunately, nearly five years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster, which claimed 47 lives, little has been done to improve the safety of moving volatile oil by rail on this continent. As the oil industry once again turns to rail to transport its products, the real risks of this practice are likely to become apparent once again.
The spill in Iowa is just another example of the known risks of moving oil by rail and is likely to require a major environmental cleanup.
However, among the major risks is another fiery oil train accident in a populated area. As National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Christopher A. Hart noted in 2016, that remains a very tangible threat to communities along oil-by-rail routes.
“We've been lucky thus far that derailments involving flammable liquids in America have not yet occurred in a populated area,” Hart announced at a press conference on January 13, 2016. “But an American version of Lac-Mégantic could happen at any time. Instead of happening out in the middle of a wheat field, it could happen in the middle of a big city.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/06/25/oil-train-derailment-doon-iowa-bnsf-230000-gallons-oil-flooded-river

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

New Science and Technology Uncover Opportunities to Speed up Environmental Progress

Jun 25, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Steven Hamburg

Both science and environmentalism are changing – driven more and more by more collaboration and rapidly improving technology.
These developments offer tremendous opportunities, as they can reveal urgent threats much more clearly – as well as the paths to address them.
Shifting scientific research in another direction
Scientific study has traditionally happened largely on the side – disconnected from the needs of society – with laboratory groups working in competition with other groups.
A lot of great insights emerged from this model, but it far too often it took years or decades to reach fruition. The problems humanity is facing today will not wait. We need a new approach.
That’s why EDF is turning this process sideways, sticking to the norms of good science while doing the work quicker, with more direct benefits.
Blending old and new approaches leads to new insights
EDF still advocates deploying good scientific methods, but we have found it possible to link projects more closely and require faster results. Scientists are motivated to do good research and make a difference – we have explicitly harnessed these dual desires.
Competition is still integral, but so is sharing results, early and often, so others can benefit more rapidly.
By reducing the time required to get results published and integrated into other studies, new insights get into the hands of people who can – and will – make changes to improve our environment and health.
Policy experts communicate with the scientists as they draw their conclusions, so they understand the data and its implications even before the research is published.
This allows the work to be effectively integrated into policy development as soon as it is publicly available – a key element of this new model.
Applying the new model to a major environmental challenge
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas and the main ingredient in natural gas. We, nor anyone else, knew how much gas was being leaked from the U.S. oil and gas supply chain, the scope or where the leaks were coming from.
Nor did we have the science to provide substantive recommendations to the industry and policymakers.
So we embarked on coordinating an unprecedented, six-year, $20 million research program that produced 36 peer-reviewed studies. They not only defined how much methane was coming out of the natural gas supply chain, but where and how it varied by geography.
Researchers used a wide range of techniques and methodologies, measuring emissions on the ground and from the air.
The work involved more than 200 researchers and participation of 50 companies, who provided site access, technical knowledge and financial support to some of the researchers. The scientific papers that resulted included more than 140 coauthors from over 40 institutions.
A synthesis of this effort was published this month in the journal Science. The results show that emissions from the U.S. oil and gas industry are 60 percent higher than the Environmental Protection Agency estimate.
These emissions effectively double the 20-year climate impact of using natural gas as an energy source. Reducing these emissions is a crucial challenge, if natural gas is to compete with other fossil fuels on the basis of being a cleaner fuel.
Part of a new era of environmental progress
This work is a great example of the Fourth Wave of environmental innovation. It’s a new era that embraces emerging technology and cross-cutting scientific collaboration with broader sets of stakeholders to give people the power and scale required to solve serious environmental challenges.
Based on the effectiveness of this collaborative approach, we’re using it to measure and map methane emissions globally by launching a series of studies around the world.
This effort will have synergies with our recently announced program to launch a satellite designed to map methane emissions.
The results of our methane research so far are clear, and so are the solutions. We need to match scientific innovation with technological innovation, to collect more data faster and cheaper. Together, they can help us understand the problem, as well as solve it.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/06/25/new-science-and-technology-uncover-opportunities-speed-environmental-progress

Return to headline | Return to top
SAB Details Uncertain Path For Reviewing Trump Approach To Carbon 'Cost'

Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Doug Obey

EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) is laying out an uncertain timeline for reviewing the Trump administration's decision to slash the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric -- a measure of the costs of carbon emissions and thus the benefits of reducing them -- as well as other changes to the assumed benefits of EPA's rules.
In a set of June 21 documents, SAB told the agency it may take up the issue during a review of its cost-benefit regulation that SAB still has not committed to conduct.
But the timing of when SAB takes up the SCC and other related issues could be crucial, with numerous EPA proposals to roll back Obama-era regulations on greenhouse gases and other air emissions already pending, and given inevitable litigation over these proposals once they go final.
The clarification on the SCC review is included in a broader set of notifications to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in which the SAB formally restates its plans to review the science related to much of the administrator's agenda rolling back Obama-era climate rules, including upcoming proposals to roll back vehicle GHGs regulations, repeal limits on glider kits, and scuttle GHG limits for new and modified power plants.
And it adds some new context on SAB's decision to examine several analytical methodologies that apply across multiple GHG regulations, even if SAB has not necessarily decided to review all aspects of related rules.
SAB says in a formal notification of its plans to review several items on EPA fall 2017 regulatory agenda that while it “does not wish” to provide advice on specific upcoming changes to EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP), several aspects of the underlying Regulatory Impact Analysis for repealing the CPP are “appropriate for advisory activity by the Board.”
SAB in its notification then cites its decision, first discussed at its May 31 meeting, to take up several crosscuting methdological issues related to Trump administration RIAs for several rules -- including EPA's CPP repeal.
These include the Trump administration's decisions to calculate the SCC using domestic rather than global climate damages as well as with a 7 percent discount rate for estimating the present-day value of future benefits, with the changes largely scuttling estimated benefits of climate rules.
The SAB letter to Pruitt also indicates that these issues “may be appropriately considered” as part of a possible SAB review of EPA regulations on increasing “consistency, reliability and transparency” of agency rules.
This language suggests that SAB is not likely to proceed quickly on the issue, given that SAB has indicated -- both during the May 31 meeting and in the formal notice to EPA -- that it does not believe there is enough information to recommend SAB review of the cost benefit rule at this time.
'Part Of The Controversy'
How or whether SAB reviews the issue is significant, coming as it does before the administration prepares to propose substantive replacements to much of the Obama administration's climate policy agenda, measures that will almost certainly be litigated.
A June 2018 article in the Environmental Law Reporter by Elizabeth Canning, for example, notes that the pending repeal of the CPP will trigger substantial litigation. The article also notes that “monetization of carbon emissions and GHG reductions will likely be part of the controversy.”
The article further notes that the Trump administration's 97 percent decrease in the SCC -- along with a less than zero monetization of GHG reduction benefits, “raises legal questions about the arbitrary nature of such calculations.”
Even before the Trump administration unveiled its approaches to the SCC, a National Academy of Sciences report also largely backed the SCC as developed by the Obama administration, raising the possibility that an SAB review of the issue could differ little from such conclusions -- or not enough from those conclusions to avoid calling the Trump administration methodologies into question.
SAB in a related notification to SAB also formally outlines, and reiterates, its plans to review several items included in EPA's spring 2017 regulatory agenda, including a plan to revisit EPA GHG standards for new and modified emissions sources, EPA rollback of rules on new and modified oil and gas facilities, and the repeal of EPA's CPP.
SAB in both letters to EPA also rebukes the agency for its slow pace in providing information to SAB's workgroups related to EPA's regulatory plans.
“In reviewing the Spring 2017 and Fall 2017 Regulatory Agendas, there were several cases where key information about the planned action, its supporting science and peer review were provided only after specific Work Group requests,” the board notes at one point.
“The SAB finds that the written responses to fact-finding questions were not comprehensive and participation in the fact-finding teleconference was limited. EPA should provide such information in the initial descriptions provided to the Work Group.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-details-uncertain-path-reviewing-trump-approach-carbon-cost

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Air Chief Seeks ‘Course Correction’ on Park Visibility Rule

Jun 25, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

The EPA wants to take a “fundamental look” at the regional haze rule designed to protect visibility in national parks and wilderness areas from air pollution that is mainly from power plants, the agency’s top air official said June 25.
“I personally do think we do need to do course correction,” Bill Wehrum, the Environmental Protection Agency’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, told participants at the Air & Waste Management Association’s annual meeting in Hartford, Conn.
Wehrum justified the EPA’s decision to revisit the regional haze rule, saying the program as a whole was first adopted in 1998 under the Clinton administration.
“That was 20 years ago,” Wehrum said, adding that “we have learned a lot since then.”
The regional haze rule set standards to improve visibility in 156 national parks and wilderness areas—such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, the Great Smoky Mountains, and Shenandoah. It requires sources of pollution such as power plants and factories using fossil fuel to install the best available retrofit technology to control those emissions.
Specifically, the rule is designed to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter that can cause light to scatter and make the sky hazy. These pollutants also are associated with reducing air quality and contributing to public health problems, including respiratory illness.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-air-chief-seeks-course-correction-on-park-visibility-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
Federal Judge Dismisses Cities’ Suit Against Oil Companies Over Costs of Climate Change

Jun 25, 2018 | The New York Times

By John Schwartz

A federal judge on Monday threw out a closely watched lawsuit brought by two California cities against fossil fuel companies over the costs of dealing with climate change. The decision is a stinging defeat for the plaintiffs, San Francisco and Oakland, and raises warning flags for other local governments around the United States that have filed similar suits, including New York City.
The judge, William Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco, acknowledged the science of global warming and the great risks to the planet, as did the oil and gas companies being sued. But in his ruling, Judge Alsup said the courts were not the proper place to deal with such global issues, and he rejected the legal theory put forth by the cities.
“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” Judge Alsup wrote in a 16-page opinion.
The cities wanted the defendants — including BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell — to help pay for projects like protecting coastlines from flooding.
But Judge Alsup said the issues would more properly be handled by the other two branches of government. “The court will stay its hand in favor of solutions by the legislative and executive branches,” he wrote.
A business group that has been highly critical of the lawsuits, the National Association of Manufacturers, expressed satisfaction with the dismissal of the case. “From the moment these baseless lawsuits were filed, we have argued that the courtroom was not the proper venue to address this global challenge,” said the group’s chief executive, Jay Timmons.
Judge Alsup said that climate change was an issue of global importance but that the companies were not solely at fault. “Our industrial revolution and the development of our modern world has literally been fueled by oil and coal,” he wrote. “Without those fuels, virtually all of our monumental progress would have been impossible.”
In light of that, he asked: “Would it really be fair to now ignore our own responsibility in the use of fossil fuels and place the blame for global warming on those who supplied what we demanded? Is it really fair, in light of those benefits, to say that the sale of fossil fuels was unreasonable?”
A Chevron executive sounded a similar note in response to the decision. “Reliable, affordable energy is not a public nuisance but a public necessity,” said R. Hewitt Pate, vice president and general counsel for Chevron.
The cities had relied on the area of public nuisance under state common law, which allows courts to hold parties responsible for actions that interfere with the use of property.
Earlier attempts use nuisance claims in lawsuits about climate change have been heard under federal law in cases such as American Electric Power v. Connecticut, but none have succeeded. In a unanimous 2011 decision, the Supreme Court said that the Clean Air Act displaced the federal common law of nuisance, leaving enforcement and regulation to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The cases brought by San Francisco, Oakland and other cities and counties have attempted to use the nuisance doctrine at the state level, working from the theory that state common law has not been similarly displaced. The fossil fuel companies have tried to move the cases to the federal courts under federal law.
Judge Alsup, in previous stages of the litigation, suggested that the federal courts could still hear such cases. He kept the suits filed by San Francisco and Oakland before him, and ordered an unusual “tutorial” on climate change to familiarize himself with the scientific issues.
But in a different courtroom in the same building, Judge Vince Chhabria — also of Federal District Court in San Francisco — sent similar cases involving San Mateo and Marin Counties and the City of Imperial Beach to state court. That litigation is pending.
Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, said that in deciding the courts were an improper venue for the case, Judge Alsup “focused on the need to balance the benefits of energy production against the harms of climate change, a balancing act carried out not only by the U.S. government but also by governments all around the world.” He said it was too early to tell whether the decision would persuade other judges hearing similar cases around the country.
John Coté, a spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney, said the city was considering its options. “This is obviously not the ruling we wanted, but this doesn’t mean the case is over,” he said. “We’re reviewing the order and will decide on our next steps shortly.”
Mr. Coté added that the city agreed with Judge Alsup on one important point. “We’re pleased that the court recognized that the science of global warming is no longer in dispute,” he said. “Our litigation forced a public court proceeding on climate science, and now these companies can no longer deny it is real and valid. Our belief remains that these companies are liable for the harm they’ve caused.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/climate/climate-change-lawsuit-san-francisco-oakland.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Begins Review Of 2015 Ozone NAAQS But Is Expected To Retain Limit

Jun 25, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Anthony Lacey

EPA is formally launching the Clean Air Act-mandated review of the Obama administration's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) of 70 parts per billion (ppb) with two “calls for information” on ozone science, a process that sources say is expected to conclude with the agency deciding to retain the 70 ppb standard.
The agency is slated to publish the two notices in the June 26 Federal Register; one seeks any relevant information to assist the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) in reviewing potential health, welfare, social, economic and other effects from various strategies for attaining and maintaining the NAAQS, while the second launches the NAAQS review itself and seeks scientific and policy-relevant data on ozone pollution.
The call for information could boost critics of strict NAAQS who have argued that the agency should take costs into consideration when reviewing the standards -- even though Supreme Court precedent says EPA can only set the risk-based standards based on a review of ozone's impacts on public health and the environment.
The notice asks for submissions various impacts of NAAQS, including mandates for stationary and mobile sources; the effects on Clean Air Act new source review and prevention of significant deterioration permitting requirements; and potential economic and other effects of areas being placed out of attainment with the standard, including impacts on overall economic growth and employment, public health and welfare, and energy production.
“[T]hese topics may include information which is not relevant to the standard-setting process, but they provide important policy context for the public, co-regulators, and the EPA,” says the notice.
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to review its six NAAQS for criteria pollutants including -- ozone and particulate matter -- every five years to determine if they are protective with an adequate margin of safety.
The Obama administration in October 2015 strengthened the limit down from the prior 2008 standard of 75 ppb.
The agency often misses the five-year review cycle, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently issued a memo overhauling the review process, with a goal of finalizing the ozone review by October 2020.
Pruitt has previously criticized the Obama EPA's decision to tighten the standard, warning it will place more areas of the country out of attainment with the limit. This will require those areas to craft strict plans for reducing ozone from industrial sources, which critics say requires affected companies to buy expensive pollution control technology. Nonattainment status can therefore drive businesses away from such areas, critics say.
Review's Outcome
But sources told Inside EPA last week that at the end of the review, Pruitt is expected to retain the 70 ppb as a defense against any calls to make it even stricter. “Despite all the speculation that 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.
Still, environmentalists who even under the Obama administration argued for a standard stricter than 70 ppb are likely to use the calls for information to argue that scientific data justify a more-stringent NAAQS.
The call for information on ozone data asks for submissions on “significant new” ozone research and policy-relevant issues for consideration in the review of the NAAQS.
The data will inform EPA's development of an integrated review plan that will summarize the agency's plan for the NAAQS review, followed by an integrated science assessment that sums up newly available ozone data since the last review, and finally a policy assessment outlining options for the NAAQS review. The latter document is where EPA staff would float any potential suggested changes to the standard.
Pruitt is pursuing a rule barring consideration of “secret” science -- data on pollution impacts that includes confidential information. Environmentalists have feared that this could bar some relevant data from the ozone NAAQS review.
But observers tell Inside EPA that some of the most influential air pollution studies relevant to those reviews rely on publicly available data.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-begins-review-2015-ozone-naaqs-expected-retain-limit

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA to Consider Changes to Smog Standard

Jun 25, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Timothy Cama

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is kicking off the process of reviewing the nation’s ground-level ozone pollution standard, a project likely to take years.
In a notice due for publication in the Federal Register Tuesday, the EPA says it’s taking comments from the public to prepare to initial documents for the review to lay out the plan for the review process and the scientific literature on ozone, a component of smog.
The review will take place under new standards that President Trump set in an April memo. He instructed the EPA, when setting new air quality rules, to consider factors like “adverse public health or other effects that may result from implementation” of the rules and the extent to which areas have background levels of the pollutants that aren’t caused by human activity.
Both factors have long been pushed by industry in an attempt to get more lenient air pollution standards written.
Inhaling ozone is linked to respiratory ailments like asthma attacks. Since ozone can be created from pollutants caused by burning fossil fuels, states with areas that exceed the federal standard often look to reduce fossil fuel use, an often expensive proposition.
The EPA last set a new ozone standard in 2015, declaring that 70 parts per billion is the acceptable level for ambient air.
EPA head Scott Pruitt, who sued to stop the 2015 rule when he was Oklahoma’s attorney general, tried last year to delay implementation of that standard, but backtracked. He is still considering seeking changes to the standard.
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must reevaluate the ozone standard every five years to examine new scientific findings or other changes.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/394031-epa-to-consider-changes-to-smog-standard

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Faces Challenge Reviewing Ozone, Fine Particulate Standards

Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Amena H. Saiyid

Reviewing national air quality standards for ozone and airborne particles at the same time without adequate staff poses a challenge for the EPA, the agency’s top air official said June 25.
“It will be a challenge, but the answer is yes, we can do it,” William Wehrum, the Environmental Protection Agency’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, said in response to a question at the annual meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association in Hartford, Conn.
Wehrum acknowledged the process would require the EPA to think differently about how it reviews the national standards for both pollutants without sacrificing the rigor of the review process.
Both ground-level ozone and fine particulates, which are associated with respiratory illnesses, are formed by the combustion of fossil fuels in stationary or mobile engines, or power plants.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, in a May 9 memo, directed the agency to complete the reviews for ozone and airborne particles by December 2020. A review of national standards is required every five years under the Clean Air Act.
“These are all efforts underway and if implemented have potential for real and lasting change in how this country’s environmental laws are implemented,” Janet McCabe, a senior law fellow at the Environmental Law and Policy Center in Indianapolis who served as acting head of the EPA’s air office during the Obama administration, said at the conference.
Fine Particles Review
The EPA already has started its review of the standard for fine particles, last set in 2012, but it has only started the review process for the ozone standard in response to Pruitt’s memo. The agency said in a notice to be published in the Federal Register June 26 that it is beginning to review updated science as part of its evaluation of the ozone standards, which were last set in 2015.
The agency has yet to issue a rule to guide states as they implement the tightened 2015 national ozone standard of 70 parts per billion, although earlier this year it said 56 regions don’t meet the standards.
The EPA already is under a court-ordered mandate to develop plans for five states upwind of New York and Connecticut to limit ozone-forming pollution as part of those states’ efforts to meet the standards set in 2008.
Connecticut and New York sued the EPA in January seeking a court order requiring the agency to implement plans to limit ozone emissions from power plants and other sources of smog-forming pollutants in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Wehrum provided few details how the agency plans to respond to the court-ordered mandate.
“We are working on it,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-faces-challenge-reviewing-ozone-fine-particulate-standards

Return to headline | Return to top
Global Climate Goals ‘Less and Less Possible’ to Meet, IEA Chief Says

Jun 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Bobby Magill

It is becoming “less and less possible” for countries to reach their climate targets and prevent global warming from exceeding dangerous levels without major political or technological breakthroughs, the director of the International Energy Agency said June 25.
“I am really not very very hopeful that we will be able to reach our targets,” Fatih Birol, executive director of the IEA, said at the Brookings Institution in Washington.
Global carbon dioxide emissions would have to peak in the 2020s to meet global climate targets—something he said is unlikely because emissions are not falling fast enough in developed countries while the developing world is building too many coal-fired power plants.
Up to 200 gigawatts of coal-fired electricity generating capacity are currently planned in Asia, Birol said.
Scientists consider global warming as dangerous if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Capping global warming to 2 degrees was the goal of the Paris Agreement, a pact that 195 countries signed.
Major advancements in electricity storage and carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies would need to appear soon in order for Birol to have greater hope in the globe meeting the targets, he said.
Electricity storage technology, such as large batteries, is seen as a way to integrate wind and solar power onto the electric power grid more effectively. Carbon capture, utilization, and storage technology would allow carbon dioxide emissions to be captured from coal-fired power plants and stored underground without reaching the atmosphere. But both technologies are not yet in wide use globally.
Upheavals in the Energy System
As the window closes for global carbon emissions to peak to prevent climate change from becoming widely catastrophic, the globe is undergoing four major “upheavals” that are transforming the world’s energy system, Birol said.
Those include China’s embrace of renewable energy, the declining cost of wind and solar power, and the U.S. becoming the “undisputed leader” of global oil and gas production growth. The globe’s energy system is also becoming largely electrified as developing countries expand their electric grids to reach people who have never had electric power and people worldwide embrace digital devices and electric vehicles, he said.
China’s push to embrace electricity generated by wind, solar, and natural gas as a way to cut the country’s notorious air pollution has made it a global leader in adopting renewable energy and electric cars, Birol said.
That focus is rippling across the globe, he said. Costs of wind and solar power are falling quickly, leading to renewables becoming cost-competitive with traditional sources of energy such as coal and natural gas.
But the feverish growth in U.S. natural gas production has implications for both carbon emissions and geopolitics, he said.
Outlook for U.S. Gas
U.S. natural gas production has been steadily rising since 2005 because of advancements in fracking technology.
Europe can look to the U.S. for natural gas imports as it seeks to diversify its sources of gas so it won’t have to count on Russia for the bulk of its natural gas supply, Birol said.
“Even if the Europeans don’t import one molecule of American gas,” it gives countries there a better hand in price negotiations with Russia, he said.
Natural gas has a bright future, but it could lose its competitive advantage if prices rise and if solutions to methane leaks from the U.S. natural gas distribution system are not soon found, Birol said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/global-climate-goals-less-and-less-possible-to-meet-iea-chief-says

Return to headline | Return to top
Draft Plan Drops 'Climate' from Strategic Mission

Jun 25, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Christa Marshall

The acting head of NOAA floated the idea of removing "climate" from the agency's mission at a meeting last week, according to a science advocacy group.
The Union of Concerned Scientists revealed a presentation delivered by Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet showing NOAA's partial mission divided into "past" and "present" sections. Under the plan, "To understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts" was transferred to the "past" column.
The "present" mission had revised language of "To observe, understand and predict atmospheric and ocean conditions," with the word "climate" removed. Considering NOAA's role in tracking climate data through everything from satellites to ocean monitors, the development sparked outrage among environmental advocates.
"Axing its focus on climate change and resource conservation is foolhardy," said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS. "Understanding the changing climate is becoming more critical by the day, as the effects of global warming mount, and it's essential to protecting our economy and security, as the work of NOAA has shown time and again."
The presentation, delivered at a Commerce Department "Vision Setting" Summit, also floats word changes in NOAA's vision.
"Resilient ecosystems, communities and economies" and "Healthy ecosystems, communities and economies that are resilient in the face of change" were altered to "A safe, secure and growing economy empowered through accurate, reliable and timely environmental information."
Yet, NOAA, which is housed in the Commerce Department, said the text was just a "simplified draft for discussion."
Gallaudet said the presentation was not reviewed by the office of the secretary prior to the meeting and was intended to share new ways NOAA could augment the Department of Commerce strategic plan.
"It was not intended to exclude NOAA's important climate and conservation efforts, which are essential for protecting lives and the environment. Nor should this presentation be considered a final, vetted proposal," Gallaudet said in a statement.
He added that NOAA supports the mission of understanding and predicting changes in climate, weather, oceans and coasts. That language remains on the agency's website as a stated mission.
"We are also fully aware of the congressional mandates and will continue to adhere to them," Gallaudet said.
Still, climate scientists are expressing concern that the wording signals plans to diminish climate research at the agency. President Trump proposed cutting NOAA's budget for fiscal 2019 by about $1 billion (Climatewire, Feb. 13).
"In most circumstances, one might be able to dismiss this as the sort of wording revision in a mission statement that is common as agencies fine-tune and update their assessment of priorities. However, given the anti-science fervor of this administration and, in particular, their assault on the science of climate change, I'm unwilling to give them the benefit of the doubt," said Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University.
Gallaudet was confirmed by the Senate to be the second in command at NOAA. He took on the role of acting head after Trump's nominee for administrator — AccuWeather Inc. chief Barry Myers — did not receive a vote in the Senate.
Earlier this month, Gallaudet delivered a message to an international symposium that studying climate change was critical for protection of the oceans (Greenwire, June 4).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/25/stories/1060086381

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested