Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 6/29/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) June Price Jumps for North American PP and PET
Jun 28, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American PP sales through May were up almost 2 percent vs. the same period in 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council...p -
Environmentalists Seek to Preserve Challenge to Pruitt's Advisers' Policy
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists, former EPA advisers and some states are seeking to preserve a legal challenge to Administrator Scott Pruitt's policy barring scientists and other experts who receive EPA grants from advising the agency, arguing they are being harmed by the policy... -
Powelson to Leave FERC Mid-August
Jun 29, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC Commissioner Rob Powelson, one of the most vocal critics of the Trump administration’s efforts to rescue coal and nuclear power plants, plans to resign from the agency this summer, his office announced today. -
(ACC Mentioned) She Sells Soda by the Seashore — But Maybe Not With a Plastic Straw
Jun 29, 2018 | Pew Charitable Trusts
By Elaine S. Povich
Hard on the heels of banning plastic bags, states and cities are being pressed by environmentalists to eliminate another consumer convenience — plastic straws. -
Stricter Standards Eyed on Water Filters Removing Fluorochemicals
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
A Michigan-based organization that has certified in-home water filters to remove two types of fluorochemicals is debating stricter thresholds for treatment and perhaps including the entire family of chemicals in the screening. -
Environmentalists Fault Stringency of EPA Wood Products Air Toxics Rule
Jun 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA's proposal to maintain existing controls on air toxics for the wood products surface coating sector, charging it is too weak and calling on the agency to revise its risk assessment and impose additional pollution controls... -
EPA's Proposed Asbestos Removal Method Prompts Criticism
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
A labor safety group and North Carolina are questioning EPA's proposed approval of an alternative method for removal of asbestos-containing cement (A/C) pipe, which they say may be impractical to achieve and violate Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards. -
Eurometaux, Echa Agree REACH Data Cooperation Framework
Jun 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa, Eurometaux and the European non-ferrous metals association have agreed on a framework to identify shortcomings in REACH and CLP information for metal compounds and inorganic substances by the end of 2020. -
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Greg Abbott Calls on Trump to Reconsider Steel Tariffs
Jun 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday implored President Donald Trump to reconsider tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing such measures will slow the growth of the Texas economy and potentially jeopardize oil and gas developments amid a surge in U.S. energy production. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ethane Storage Hub May Boost WV Chemical Sector
Jun 29, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Max Garland
A key project consistently linked to West Virginia’s China Energy deal is being pitched as the backbone of a petrochemical — and economic — revival in the Mountain State. -
U.S. Push to Rev Up Pipelines Seen Inviting More Legal Strife
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard and Stephen Cunningham
Streamlining U.S. approvals for natural gas pipelines may actually lengthen the time needed to finish them by opening new opportunities for legal challenges. -
Big Challenges for Environmental Analysis of Alaska Oil Leasing
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A federal team has begun pulling together the studies that will play a central role in determining what oil exploration drilling, if any, is done on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. -
Enbridge Oil Pipeline Expansion Clears Hurdle in Minnesota
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
Enbridge Inc.’s planned $7 billion replacement and expansion of a major pipeline linking Canada’s oil fields to refineries in the U.S. won approval from regulators in Minnesota, clearing the way for the project to move ahead. -
LNG Project Development Catching ‘Second Wave’ in U.S., Around the World
Jun 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade is rippling toward the second wave of investment, as more countries open their doors to industrial expansion and consumer needs, some of the top gas executives said Wednesday. -
The Texas Well that Started a Revolution
Jun 29, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold
Twenty years ago this month, a well was drilled here that changed the world. -
Agency Should Review Size of Petroleum Reserve — GAO
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Department of Energy should periodically re-examine the size of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal watchdog said today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Committee Approves Bill That Will Assess TWIC Program
Jun 28, 2018 | Land Line Magazine
By Tyson Fisher
The future of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) remains in limbo as the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved a bill that will require an assessment of the effectiveness of the program... -
Roberts Seen as Next High Court Swing Vote on Suits over EPA Authority
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Supreme Court watchers expect Chief Justice John Roberts to become the closest thing to a swing vote following the expected replacement of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy with a more-conservative jurist, a move that might narrow deference to EPA's interpretations of laws... -
Maine Seeks to Exit Ozone-Limiting Compact of Eastern States
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Maine wants to free its cars, trucks, and businesses from having to meet tougher ozone pollution limits that many Eastern states have been complying with as a region since 1990. -
Amid New Push, Carbon Tax Plan Faces Steep Hurdles from All Sides
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A newly launched effort by energy companies and a bipartisan group of former officials to advance a carbon tax faces steep hurdles on all sides, with environmentalists fearing they would have to make significant concessions for a plan that may not adequately cut greenhouse gases... -
Kennedy’s Retirement Could Clear Path for Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks
Jun 29, 2018 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy from the Supreme Court could significantly reshape environmental law in the decades ahead and potentially make it easier for the Trump administration to roll back Obama-era climate change policies in the coming years, -
No Easy Task for EPA to Redo Air Pollution Standards for Boilers
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Revising how steel mills, power plants, or refineries reduce hazardous air pollutants from their heavy duty boilers may prove challenging for the EPA, industry analysts said. -
Progressives Eye Leadership Changes, Stronger Climate Action
Jun 29, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Bowlin
In the days since New York Rep. Joe Crowley's primary loss, rumbles of leadership change for House Democrats have intensified. -
Top GOP Lawmaker Not Persuaded by Green Groups’ Promises That They Aren’t Foreign Agents
Jun 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A top House Republican says he isn’t convinced that two leading green groups aren’t in cahoots with China and Japan to influence United States environmental policy, despite their ardent denial. -
Oregon Eyes Linking Toxic Air Pollution Permits to Health Risks
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Oregon regulators plan to enact new rules in November that tie air emission permits to the potential health risks of toxic pollutants contained in those emissions.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) June Price Jumps for North American PP and PET
Jun 28, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
...North American PP sales through May were up almost 2 percent vs. the same period in 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. A domestic sales...
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180628/NEWS/180629898/june-price-jumps-for-north-american-pp-and-pet
-
Environmentalists Seek to Preserve Challenge to Pruitt's Advisers' Policy
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmentalists, former EPA advisers and some states are seeking to preserve a legal challenge to Administrator Scott Pruitt's policy barring scientists and other experts who receive EPA grants from advising the agency, arguing they are being harmed by the policy that conflicts with federal ethics rules.
In a recent response to EPA's motion to dismiss the case, Physicians for Social Responsibility, et al., v. Scott Pruitt, environmentalists and former agency advisers argue that the policy has denied them professional opportunities and harms the public by undermining advisory panels' effort to adequately inform federal environmental rules.
“Many highly qualified academic scientists have been dismissed from EPA scientific advisory committees, solely because they work on EPA-funded research,” the plaintiffs say in a June 20 filing. “Their dismissal and ongoing disqualification seriously damages EPA’s ability to recruit the most qualified scientists and compromises the ability of the scientific advisory committees to provide scientific and technical advice to the agency."
The plaintiffs -- backed by nine states, including California, New York, Iowa, and Maryland that filed a June 27 amicus brief also opposing EPA's motion to dismiss -- contend that the directive also conflicts with federal ethics requirements, including the Office of Government Ethics' (OGE) conflict of interest regulations.
“Under these regulations, earning income under a government research grant in no way disqualifies a scientist from serving on an advisory committee; at most, it requires recusal in the rare instance the advisory committee is conducting a review of or addressing an issue pertaining to the member’s research grant,” the plaintiffs say.
“Because OGE’s conflict of interest rules are required by law to apply uniformly across the entire executive branch, EPA lacks authority to adopt a conflicting requirement,” the filing adds.
The lawsuit is one of several challenging Pruitt's controversial policy barring scientists and other experts who receive agency grants from continuing to advise the agency. Release of the Oct. 31 policy accompanied changes to the membership of three of EPA's best known advisory committees, and resulted in some members leaving committees or giving up grants.
Other plaintiffs have filed similar suits in federal courts in Massachusetts and New York.
EPA in a March 9 motion to dismiss claimed “highly discretionary” authority to set policies on panel membership, and said plaintiffs lack standing because the alleged harms cannot be redressed and the suit is not ripe for review.
In faulting plaintiffs' standing, EPA argued environmentalists and former advisers failed to adequately show they suffered injury. Although the agency acknowledged that the Trump EPA removed one former Science Advisory Board panelist, the agency argued that plaintiff also lacks standing because of failure to establish redressability.
In a Dec. 21 complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, plaintiffs charge that Pruitt's directive is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and violates OGE rules and implementing statutes that impose uniform federal ethics requirements on government employees, including agency advisers who are considered special government employees.
The suit adds that Pruitt's directive violates the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as well as environmental statutes governing creation of advisory committees, saying they generally require "fair balance" in panel memberships.
'Inefficient Regulatory Standards'
In the response to EPA's motion to dismiss, plaintiffs defend their standing, arguing that the directive deprives them of professional opportunities, and that EPA's dismissal and disqualification of top scientists undermines the panels' ability to adequately inform agency policies.
The state amicus parties argue in their brief that undermining advisory panels' input on EPA policies harms states that cooperate with federal regulators on environmental oversight.
“EPA’s failure to apply quality science to its regulatory agenda subjects Amici States, and regulated entities within Amici States’ borders, to ineffective and/or inefficient regulatory standards,” the states argue.
Plaintiffs and their state backers also argue that federal ethics rules already provide a framework for addressing potential conflicts of interest, and that EPA lacks authority to issue a directive that conflicts with those rules.
And they say the directive also conflicts with the long-standing agency view that scientists' conducting of grant-funded research adds to their credentials rather than serving to disqualify potential advisers.
Plaintiffs also argue that EPA's motion to dismiss mischaracterizes their claims as faulting EPA's discretion to make specific appointments, rather than challenging an “across-the-board requirement barring scientists serving on EPA’s
scientific advisory committees from working on EPA-funded research."
Plaintiffs say their claims are judiciable for a variety of reasons, including that agency actions are generally reviewable unless they pertain to matters committed to agency discretion by law, a narrow exception that has never applied to an agency’s violation of good government laws that Congress enacted to constrain agency discretion.
“In sum, the Court should reject EPA’s claim of 'complete discretion' to conclude that scientists in full compliance with federal ethics laws lack integrity and remove them from independent advisory boards,” plaintiffs say. “Upholding EPA’s position would not only create confusion and inconsistency around ethical standards in the federal government, but compromise the independence and effectiveness of scientific advisory bodies.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-seek-preserve-challenge-pruitts-advisers-policy
-
Powelson to Leave FERC Mid-August
Jun 29, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
FERC Commissioner Rob Powelson, one of the most vocal critics of the Trump administration’s efforts to rescue coal and nuclear power plants, plans to resign from the agency this summer, his office announced today.
Powelson, a former Pennsylvania regulator who has been a steadfast advocate for natural gas infrastructure, is leaving FERC to become the CEO of the National Association of Water Companies in mid-August. His departure could also leave FERC’s leadership deadlocked on its natural gas infrastructure decisions and leave PJM and states without their strongest advocate on the commission.
“I thank my colleagues for their steadfast commitment to FERC’s mission, members of the public who help inform our decisions, and the staff at FERC for their dedication and support throughout my time at the Commission, especially the members of my office,” Powelson said in a statement. “It has been the honor of a lifetime to serve our great nation as a FERC Commissioner.”
Leaving in August means that Powelson will have served on the commission for just one year of a term that was scheduled to run through mid-2020. It also gives President Donald Trump an opportunity to replace Powelson with a regulator who is friendlier to its pro-coal policies.
WHAT'S NEXT: The White House will have to nominate a new commissioner who can be confirmed by the Senate to return FERC to full strength.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
(ACC Mentioned) She Sells Soda by the Seashore — But Maybe Not With a Plastic Straw
Jun 29, 2018 | Pew Charitable Trusts
By Elaine S. Povich
Hard on the heels of banning plastic bags, states and cities are being pressed by environmentalists to eliminate another consumer convenience — plastic straws. But objections from the plastics industry, restaurants and disability advocates have derailed or delayed some proposed straw bans.
And experts say cutting down on single-use plastic may be more about changing habits than changing laws.
Three states — California, Hawaii and New York — have considered plastic straw legislation in 2018. Hawaii’s died, and the other two are still pending.
Seattle, Miami Beach, Oakland and more than a dozen other cities, about half of them in California, have either banned plastic straws altogether or required customers who want a straw to ask for it. New York City is also considering a ban.
The bans are not frivolous, as plastic has been found in fish, in the bellies of seabirds and in fresh drinking water as well. A viral video of scientists removing a straw from a sea turtle’s nostril has inflamed passions too. But at least one expert in the field of “marine plastic” suggests plastic-straw bans may not make much of a dent in the problem.
Straws are an easy target for environmental change, though, because they’re considered nonessential. Kara Lavender Law, a research professor of oceanography at the Sea Education Association in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, said there’s plenty of evidence that throwaway plastics are getting into the ocean, as cleanup efforts find lots of straws, bottles, bags and food wrappers.
The world’s largest accumulation of trash, dubbed the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” is now more than 600,000 square miles, according to a study in the journal Nature.
“Bans on straws are perceived as sort of low-hanging fruit, unnecessary items,” Law said. “Whether a ban is the right way to approach it is arguable. I’m not sure it’s the way we are going to solve the problem, but it’s an indication of the public will and the political will.”
Law and several others wrote a 2017 research paper on plastics for the journal Science Advances, estimating that since the 1960s when consumer plastics started being widely used, approximately 6,300 million metric tons of plastic waste has been generated worldwide. Only 9 percent of that has been recycled, 12 percent incinerated, and the rest of it dumped in landfills or directly into the environment.
Banished From Paradise?
Hawaii seemed like a logical target for plastic-straw bans this year. The state depends on beaches and tourism and touts its pristine coasts, hardly a place where anyone would want to see discarded straws scattered about.
A bill to ban distribution and sale of plastic straws was introduced in January by state Sen. Mike Gabbard, a Democrat, and the legislation sailed through the Agriculture and Environment Committee, which he chairs. It failed to clear the Judiciary and Ways and Means committees, where it was cross-referred.
Objections came from the Hawaii Food Industry Association, the Hawaii Restaurant Association, the Retail Merchants Association and the American Chemistry Council, all of which presented testimony in hearings about the bill.
“We all need to get better at reducing waste and educating the general public in proper disposal of trash, but this bill is not the solution,” the restaurant group’s statement read. “The alternate for plastic straws whether it’s paper or reusable is really not that available. Is the next step banning all disposable utensils?”
Environmental groups such as StrawFree, a Southern California group that is pushing reusable straws made from bamboo, say yes. They note that reusable water bottles are becoming a popular alternative to plastic and suggest that reusable utensils could become popular as well.
The American Chemistry Council also opposes plastic-straw bans and recently suggested that an “opt-in” plan, under which diners must ask for a straw, is a better solution.
“Recycling, source reduction, recovery, and conservation are all tools to help reduce litter/disposal,” senior director Tim Shestek said in an email. “In this particular instance, we think an ‘on demand’ approach makes the most sense.”
Private companies are getting into the act, too. Bon Appetit, a chain of a thousand eateries, recently announced it would ban plastic straws. But McDonald's stockholders voted down a proposal backed by the consumer watchdog group SumOfUs calling for the company to make efforts to “develop and implement substitutes for plastic straws.”
Millions of Straws Served
McDonald’s uses 95 million straws a day in the United States, according to the watchdog group. In opposing the proposal, McDonald’s said it continues to look for “sustainable alternatives for plastic straws globally.” In fact, it is phasing in paper straws in the United Kingdom after the U.K. banned plastic straws.
But McDonald’s urged a “no” vote in the United States, saying in a statement that the proposal was “unnecessary, redundant as to the Company’s current practices and initiatives, and has the potential for a diversion of resources with no corresponding benefit to the Company, our customers and our shareholders.”
Gabbard, the sponsor of the Hawaii plastic-straw ban, said he intends to bring the bill up again in 2019. He thinks strong environmental support may help build more momentum this time. “Opt-in could be considered as a compromise, but my goal at this point would be to go for the ban,” he said. “Although we may have the opt-in as a last resort.”
The New York City plastic-straw ban bill, introduced by Democratic Councilman Rafael Espinal of Brooklyn, had its first hearing last month, picking up support from Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration. In an op-ed for the New York Daily News, Espinal and colleagues noted that at least 65 restaurants in the city have signed on to a campaign to do away with plastic straws.
“As New Yorkers, we see the impact of our fast-paced lifestyle in the plastic waste that litters the avenues and subway tracks that crisscross our great city, making its way into waterways and the bellies of turtles, fish and birds in our local seascape,” Espinal wrote. “Plastic straws are a great place to begin turning that trend around.”
Many disability advocates oppose straw bans, noting that alternatives such as paper straws and reusable straws may not work as well for disabled people.
Jessica Denise Grono, of Phoenixville, Pennsylvania, who has cerebral palsy and who blogs as “CP Mommy,” said in an email interview that without a straw, “I’d be forced to have someone pour a drink in my mouth. Only half would go in. A straw gives me a less messy and independent way to drink.” She said she’s not opposed to the opt-in proposals.
California Compromise
In California, the opt-in already has become the fallback position for advocates of a statewide plastic-straw ban. Unlike some of the city ordinances, the bill in the Legislature would provide for straws only on request in sit-down restaurants. It would not apply to takeout-only restaurants, meaning those eateries could continue to hand out straws to all customers.
The bill passed the Assembly in May and was headed for the Senate. It follows in the wake of California banning plastic retail bags in 2014, which was upheld by statewide referendum in 2016.
“I’m not trying to get rid of plastic straws,” insisted Majority Leader Ian Calderon, a Democrat and sponsor of the bill who said he grew up surfing in the Pacific and saw plastic debris there every day.
“I want to help us be a little more responsible with single-use plastics. I want to raise awareness to make sure people are aware of the detrimental effects on our environment.”
But Assemblyman Matthew Harper, a Republican from Orange County, said Calderon’s bill is a smokescreen to eventually “have an outright ban of plastic straws.” He objects to the bill on the grounds that it’s another way for government to try to control behavior.
“I’m for folks being good stewards of the environment, but that doesn’t mean the government has to tell you how to do everything every day,” Harper said in an interview. “It’s ideologically fashionable to be opposed to anything that’s plastic. I represent a coastal district that includes Laguna Beach. I’d like to see more enforcement of litter laws.”
He said those who want to ban plastic straws may have a tough sell with his constituents. “To make that argument to someone in San Bernardino trying to enjoy a chocolate malt — that’s very hard to do without a straw.”
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/06/29/she-sells-soda-by-the-seashore-but-maybe-not-with-a-plastic-straw
-
Stricter Standards Eyed on Water Filters Removing Fluorochemicals
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily C. Dooley
A Michigan-based organization that has certified in-home water filters to remove two types of fluorochemicals is debating stricter thresholds for treatment and perhaps including the entire family of chemicals in the screening.
Derek DeLand, NSF International’s manager of environmental health programs, said June 27 that the organization was discussing changes to its certification protocol in light of a newly released analysis that showed the risk from the two chemicals could be higher than thought.
Ann Arbor-based NSF International has tested and certified 40 models of water filtration systems from five companies that remove perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) down to 70 parts per trillion in accordance with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency health advisory. The companies include Amway Corp., Aquasana Inc., and Culligan Water Technologies Inc.
But an analysis released June 20 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said exposure to PFOA and PFOS can pose a health risk at concentrations 7 to 10 times lower than the EPA advisory level.
“Do we need to add other chemicals to it?” DeLand said during the National Environmental Health Association annual conference in Anaheim, Calif. “Do we need to lower the number? The discussions are ongoing.”
Wide Range of ItemsThere are more than a dozen fluorochemicals, which are human-created and have been used in a wide range of items, including firefighting foam, food packaging, stain-resistant fabrics, nonstick pans, and cleaning products.
They do not break down in water and can accumulate in the body. Exposure can cause developmental problems in children and lead to thyroid conditions, hypertension and other ill health effects.
To get certified, products have to reduce PFOS and PFOA to 70 parts per trillion and filters are tested over the warranty.
Using the EPA number as a threshold and not screening for other related fluorochemicals could confuse consumers, said Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director for the Environmental Defense Fund.
“NSF has a long history of not waiting for EPA to come out with a number,” he said. ‘When CDC comes out with a lower number, why wait for EPA, which has been behind the ball?”
Neltner said NSF International should do more.
“If I’m a consumer, I’m going to expect it’s meeting the lowest levels,” he told Bloomberg Environment.
Attempts to reach manufacturers were not successful.
The EPA on June 27 announced it would hold community meetings over the summer in Colorado, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania to discuss fluorochemicals.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/stricter-standards-eyed-on-water-filters-removing-fluorochemicals
-
Environmentalists Fault Stringency of EPA Wood Products Air Toxics Rule
Jun 29, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA's proposal to maintain existing controls on air toxics for the wood products surface coating sector, charging it is too weak and calling on the agency to revise its risk assessment and impose additional pollution controls to avoid disproportionate health impacts to low-income and minority communities.
A leading wood industry group, by contrast, is praising EPA for its finding that the sector poses no additional health risks and that substantive new controls are not required.
The proposal stems from a risk-and-technology review (RTR) of EPA's existing national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) air toxics standard for wood products, required eight years after the agency issues the original rule.
If EPA finds “residual” risks to public health, or new, cost-effective control technology is available, or both, it can tighten the standards. EPA's existing rule for the sector dates from 2003.
In June 15 comments on EPA's May 16 proposed RTR, Earthjustice on behalf of Sierra Club says, “EPA’s proposal does not do nearly enough to control toxic pollution.”
“EPA’s standards are not protective enough for public health in part because EPA’s emission inventory underestimates emissions. As a result, its risk assessment underestimates risk. EPA also ignores technological developments that can reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions,” Earthjustice says. The agency must revise its health risk assessment and institute tougher controls, the group says.
Further, “Those who are most exposed and most vulnerable to wood building products facilities’ pollution are people of color, particularly African-American communities, and lower income people, creating a serious environmental and social injustice. For example, although the U.S. is only 12% black, the people who face the highest additional cancer threats due to the pollution from this source category are 75% African American. This is entirely unacceptable.” EPA says that some 46 facilities are subject to the proposed rule.
Earthjustice lists a series of specific faults with the proposal, including that EPA unlawfully excluded some air emissions data and some HAPs from consideration; understates formaldehyde's harmful effects; discounts health damage caused by exposure to lead below the level of the lead national ambient air quality standard; fails to model exposure of the most vulnerable individuals, hence underestimating risk; and fails to address disproportionate impacts on environmental justice communities.
Meanwhile, in comments on the proposed RTR for the separate NESHAP, the American Wood Council (AWC) says, “Overall, we believe that EPA has reached the correct conclusion that risks from the source category are acceptable, no additional emissions reductions are necessary to provide an ample margin of safety, and that there have been no advances in practices, processes, or controls."
However, the group objects to EPA's removal of exemptions for pollution emitted during periods of plant startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM). EPA is removing SSM exemptions from its rules in line with rulings by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit finding them unlawful.
We “do not agree that EPA is required to remove the SSM exemption and revise the rule to indicate that the current emission standards apply at all times, although we do acknowledge that the proposed change does not result in significant compliance burden to affected sources,” AWC says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-fault-stringency-epa-wood-products-air-toxics-rule
-
EPA's Proposed Asbestos Removal Method Prompts Criticism
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
A labor safety group and North Carolina are questioning EPA's proposed approval of an alternative method for removal of asbestos-containing cement (A/C) pipe, which they say may be impractical to achieve and violate Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standards.
In comments submitted to EPA on its April 25 proposed approval of the alternative method as compliant with EPA air toxics regulations, the Laborers' Health and Safety Fund of North America (LHSFNA) warns that the new method might not square with OSHA rules on asbestos.
The group describes itself as “a labor-management non-profit affiliated with the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) which focuses on improving health and safety for members of the union and their signatory contractors.”
EPA is proposing to approve the alternative work practice (AWP) developed by Trenchless Consulting, LLC, in July 2017, known as the “Close Tolerance Pipe Slurrification” (CTPS), for the removal and replacement of A/C pipes. The agency finds the method acceptable under its national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) rule governing asbestos emissions into the air.
But LHSFNA in its June 14 comments notes that while the method appears compatible with the NESHAP, OSHA shares jurisdiction for asbestos removal and has its own numerical standard of 0.1 fiber per cubic centimeter (cc). Industry's claims that the alternative method also meets this limit are unsupported, the group says.
The group says, “there has been no published data to validate these claims. Contractors using this AWP will need to know not only whether they are complying with the NESHAP but also with the OSHA standard.”
Further, “LHSFNA believes that prior to proceeding with approval of this AWP, the EPA should commission air sampling of exposures to asbestos using this new AWP to determine actual exposure levels for workers when using this work practice. If workers are exposed to significant levels of asbestos (even though there may be no visible dust), additional work practices and precautions should be required to further reduce exposure levels.”
The group warns that “compliance with a no visible dust standard should not be automatically construed as a safe work practice and may, in fact, be in violation of the OSHA standard.”
Meanwhile, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services in June 18 comments raises a host of questions and issues requiring clarification over the proposed alternative method that EPA announced in the April 25 Federal Register.
For example, North Carolina asks how contractors using the new alternative method will ensure compliance with the NESHAP's conditions on handling of “regulated asbestos-containing material” (RACM).
The state says, “EPA is addressing asbestos cement pipe that has been in place for decades and a lot of this pipe has already been subjected to being crumbled, pulverized or reduced to powder while left in place. How will the NESHAP requirements be met for existing asbestos cement pipe that is already a RACM and are there provisions to ensure that existing RACM is removed before using an alternative method for removing the remaining non-RACM asbestos cement pipe?”
It asks, “If EPA allows the alternative removal method to remove asbestos cement pipe, what chemicals will be used to create an asbestos slurry that causes the slurry to reharden after 48-56 hours? Will these chemicals be safe for the environment and the various flora or fauna species that live in the surrounding area? Has EPA conducted testing on the chemicals being used and the long-term impact on the environment?”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epas-proposed-asbestos-removal-method-prompts-criticism
-
Eurometaux, Echa Agree REACH Data Cooperation Framework
Jun 29, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa, Eurometaux and the European non-ferrous metals association have agreed on a framework to identify shortcomings in REACH and CLP information for metal compounds and inorganic substances by the end of 2020.
The Metals and Inorganics Sectorial approach (MISA), a two-year voluntary agreement, will also address outstanding technical and scientific issues that the sector faces.
The MISA general rolling action plan comprises a gradual and planned improvement of the compliance, quality and understanding of the metals/inorganics REACH registration dossiers.
There is an abundance of data on metals and metal compounds and many have been under "substantial" regulatory scrutiny, a joint press release says. However, there is also a large group for which data needs improvement. A provisional analysis on the available data on about 700 registered metal compounds shows some data gaps and extensive use of adaptations.
And, the press release adds, a large percentage of REACH registration dossiers for metals and inorganic substances have never been updated.
The MISA will also seek resolutions for outstanding technical and methodological issues – including those under the CLP Regulation – that will make hazard, risk assessment and risk management of metals and inorganics more relevant.
"By addressing issues such as environmental classification and the use of read across, we can work towards updated registration dossiers and additional data generation," Guy Thiran, director general of Eurometaux, said.
Eurometaux is the second European industry association committing to improve its implementation of REACH. Earlier this month, Echa and the European Chemical Industry Council (Cefic) signed a joint statement agreeing to work together on the effective implementation of REACH.
Agency head Bjorn Hansen, said the metals sector’s "proactive" approach "shows the willingness to cooperate with Echa to increase efficiencies in implementing REACH for the good of the EU citizen and the single EU market."
MISA focus
Echa, Eurometaux and participating consortia will work on ten priority areas. The following six have been deemed high priority:
· assess and improve effects endpoints in dossiers. Guidance is due by mid-2018, workshops planned in Q4 2018 and Q1 2019, with dossier update expected by the end of next year;
· exposure assessment and risk characterisation supported by work on robustness of methods used for the workplace (modelling data, MEASE 2 software) and consumers (EUSES, guidance). Guidance is expected by Q2 2019 and a dossier update by end of Q3 next year;
· substances that are of unknown or variable composition, complex reaction products or biological materials (UVCBs). A workshop should take place around end of 2018, with guidance to follow by end of Q1 2019 and dossier updates in Q3 of that year;
· risk management anticipation/ environmental classification and fate modelling. A workshop is planned for Q1 next year, to be followed by guidance in Q3 and a dossier update the next quarter;
· risk management anticipation: potential SVHCs as minor constituents or impurities in materials for recycling and refining. The workshop is expected in Q4 2019 with dossier updates likely in Q2 2020 ;and
· supply chain, uses and exposure/emissions knowledge. Timings will be decided at the start of next year.
Echa and Eurometax say that while MISA encourages a priority-based continuous improvement of chemicals management "it is not a substitute for the compliance with legal REACH obligations and for related regulatory action".
The agency and member states "may continue or initiate regulatory actions when necessary", they add, but the MISA "should normally reduce or prevent" the need for such regulatory action.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68162/eurometaux-echa-agree-reach-data-cooperation-framework
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gov. Greg Abbott Calls on Trump to Reconsider Steel Tariffs
Jun 28, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
Gov. Greg Abbott on Thursday implored President Donald Trump to reconsider tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, arguing such measures will slow the growth of the Texas economy and potentially jeopardize oil and gas developments amid a surge in U.S. energy production.
In a carefully worded letter, Abbott said that the state’s oil and gas industry relies on specialty steel imports for wells, pipelines and other projects that have supported the boom in the prolific Permian Basin and other West Texas shale fields. He said the tariffs could deter further investments in the oil patch, which is only just recovering from a three-year bust.
“If the new tariffs continue to drive up the cost of oil and gas production,” he wrote, “ America’s quest for global energy dominance could be significantly hindered.”
The letter marked a rare division between Trump and Abbott, who for months have remained closely aligned on almost all policy matters even as other Republican leaders seek to distance themselves from an unpredictable administration. Trade is a particularly difficult issue for Abbott and other red state official in a pivotal election year, one that requires them to finesse the divide between the free-trading business community that has long financed Republican campaigns from the populist, America-firsters that have seized control of the party under Trump.
Mark Jones, a political scientist at Houston's Rice University, said Abbott’s move demonstrates the risk he sees in jeopardizing the state’s spectacular economic growth that began under his predecessor Rick Perry, especially considering that he will likely win re-election against Democratic challenger Lupe Valdez come fall. Texas exports more products than any other state, and the main targets of Trump’s tariffs — Canada, China, Mexico and the European Union — accounted for about two-thirds $265 billion in goods that Texas companies sold in foreign markets in 2017.
“He wants to continue the economic miracle,” Jones said. “It’s not much fun to be governor in a recessionary environment.”
Valdez in a statement said she agreed that the tariffs will undermine the Texas economy and advocated for fair trade policies. She criticized Abbott for what she considered a delayed response to Trump’s “erratic and punitive policymaking.”
“It took Abbott months to speak up against this wrongheaded approach and defend the interests of Texas workers,” she said.
Trump in March imposed a 25 percent import tax on steel and a 10 percent import tax on aluminum on most countries, including China, and extended them in June to Mexico, Canada and the European Union. He has further unsettled Texas businesses and the state economy by threatening to scrap the North American Free Trade Agreement, which would throw up barriers to the state’s biggest export markets, Mexico and Canada.
Trump’s moves on trade ignited the ire of energy, manufacturing and other businesses interests that rely on overseas suppliers, some of which manufacture types of steel that are not produced domestically. His letter to Trump was met with widespread praise by Texas business advocates.
State oil and gas interests have worried not only about rising costs of metals, but also the impact that retaliatory measures by China and other trading partners could have on some of the largest and fastest growing markets for U.S. crude, natural gas and petrochemicals. They were quick to offer support for Abbott’s stance, following months of pressure on the governor to come out in opposition to the tariffs.
In his letter to Trump, Abbott noted that Texas alone has 225,000 jobs in oil and gas exploration, production and services, nearly twice the nation’s 140,000 jobs in steel and aluminum production. He added that the effects of the tariffs will be especially acute in Texas, which imported more than $8.3 billion in steel and aluminum last year, the most of any state.
Karr Ingham, an economist for the Texas Alliance of Energy Producers, expects that the tariff regime will cost the U.S. between one and 1.5 oil and gas jobs for every steel or aluminum job they save.
“There is no doubt that it will cost jobs,” Ingham said. “Why is it patriotic to save an American steel job if it costs one or more oil and gas jobs elsewhere in America?”
Oil and gas producers have been among the most prominent voices in the tariff dispute, arguing that the extra cost of imported steel will force them to delay projects and slash jobs just as oil prices rebound. The U.S. benchmark for crude oil prices hit $73 a barrel this week for the first time since 2014.
Texas Independent Producers & Royalty Owners Association, a trade group, anticipates that the tariffs will have an outsized effect on smaller oil and gas producers without the financial cushion of larger companies. The organization projects that the measures will increase the cost of drilling by at least $100,000 per well.
We’ve been very vocal about the negative implications of these tariffs,” said Ed Longanecker, the group’s president. “Even though crude prices are higher, we are not in the position to offset that additional cost.”
The U.S. petrochemical industry, centered mainly along the Gulf Coast, has also come out in opposition to the tariffs, arguing the added cost could delay the so-called “second wave” of projects slated to come online in coming years following nearly a decade of breakneck expansion. The American Chemistry Council, a national trade group, projects that steel and aluminum tariffs would affect more than $3.2 billion of U.S. chemicals exports.
Borusan Mannesmann Pipe US, a steel pipe manufacturer in Baytown, saw business surge amid the rush to build new pipelines and chemicals facilities throughout the state. It employees about 300 workers, up from about 100 two years ago.
But the company, which imports steel pipe from its parent in Turkey, has already faced higher costs as a result of the tariffs. It had a shipment en route when Trump imposed the measures, adding more than $3 million to the cost of the shipment when it arrived in the United States.
Joel Johnson, the U.S. company’s CEO, anticipates his annual shipment costs could increase by as much as $35 million if the tariffs remain in place. Earlier this month, he and his employees sent postcards to Trump, Abbott and other high-level officials requesting a two-year exemption.
If granted, he said, his company will invest $75 million in a second Baytown facility that would allow it to cease imports from Turkey. He lauded Abbott’s letter Thursday, saying he hopes it makes a difference.
“We can’t bear the cost of importing the pipe,” he said. “It has already impacted us.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Gov-Greg-Abbott-calls-on-Trump-to-reconsider-13035775.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ethane Storage Hub May Boost WV Chemical Sector
Jun 29, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Max Garland
A key project consistently linked to West Virginia’s China Energy deal is being pitched as the backbone of a petrochemical — and economic — revival in the Mountain State.
West Virginia’s congressional delegation is partnering with industry groups pushing for what could be an epicenter for the underground storage of natural gas liquids and chemical intermediates: the Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub.
This hub, proponents say, would provide a steady and reliable feedstock for businesses that use chemicals in their production process, making Appalachia a much more attractive venue for these businesses to locate to.
Today, those companies tend to be drawn toward the vast array of storage options in the Gulf Coast, which the proposed hub is often compared to.
The American Chemistry Council is among the groups lauding the potential development, saying it could generate billions of dollars in investment in Appalachia’s petrochemical sphere and create tens of thousands of jobs in the region.
The hub’s presence in the news cycle has picked up in recent weeks, as more questions — economic, ethical and environmental among them — have been raised with its connection to the proposed, but now maybe a bit shaky, historic, $80 billion-plus China Energy investment.
The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub remains an idea, for now, but one of the project’s leaders says progress is being made day by day.
“Our will to win is as strong as its ever been,” said Steve Hedrick, CEO of Appalachia Development Group, which was formed to lead the development of the hub. “We have a high sense of urgency to move forward.”
Feeding an industry
There wouldn’t be much discussion of a hub without the discovery of the Marcellus and Utica shales, concentrated in northern West Virginia and neighboring states, and the subsequent rush in the past decade to extract their natural gas.
“Gas is a part of it, no doubt about it,” said Kevin DiGregorio, executive director of the South Charleston-based Chemical Alliance Zone, on why officials are eyeing West Virginia for hub development. “Historically, the chemical industry follows cheap and abundant raw materials. What prompted the chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley was we had wet gas, ethane, chemicals and even oil.”
Without a storage hub in the region, natural gas liquids derived from the shales will continue to be transported elsewhere, as Appalachia sees only a small percentage of the resources’ full value, proponents argue.
The hub would be a regional hotspot where the resources are transported to, stored and then withdrawn to be transformed into a slew of vital, everyday products, or at least kept on hand to provide to outside markets that need it.
“It means a steady, certain supply of gas,” said John Deskins, director of West Virginia University’s Bureau of Business and Economic Research, of the hub’s purpose. “You don’t have to rely on immediate drilling or pumping gas straight out of the ground. If there were some type of event that occurred that disrupted the pumping of gas for the short term, that hub means no worries, right? You have that reserve pool.”
When investors know how much gas is available, a much better case can be made for a company that relies on those liquids to locate in the region, Deskins said.
Development officials envision the hub to contain underground gas storage facilities, industrial plants converting natural gas into products like plastics and fuel, and facilities that rely on natural gas for power. This vision paints something similar to the storage hub development on the Gulf Coast, concentrated near Houston.
The Gulf Coast has experienced a boom in the petrochemical industry, with shale gas production growth driving further investment there from ExxonMobil and foreign firms for refining and chemical manufacturing projects.
“I think [the Gulf Coast has] a great platform from which to work,” Hedrick said. “The geology here is different, but the premise of the integration of supply chain activities with the chemical manufacturing industry is not just in the Gulf Coast — it’s everywhere the chemical industry exists.”
But the Gulf Coast has earned the reputation of a global petrochemical hub — Appalachia is still in its theoretical phase on that front. DiGregorio doubts the hub will drive West Virginia to surpass the Gulf Coast, even “in the most idealistic, optimistic situation.”
“In Texas, the petrochemical industry is just huge — it far surpasses what we have,” he said.
Hedrick said the Appalachian Storage Hub wouldn’t necessarily be a competitor to the Gulf Coast. Instead, he said, it would be a complimentary resource to the U.S. energy economy overall.
Hedrick noted Hurricane Harvey’s temporary crippling of Texas refineries and chemical producers. A strong hub elsewhere in the country would help keep manufacturers on track in the event of a disruption at another hub.Potential locations
Where the Appalachian hub will be centered — if it were to become reality — remains to be seen. There are possibilities in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all three of which are interacting under an agreement that calls for tri-state cooperation to make the deal a reality.
A study from the West Virginia University Energy Institute, funded by various industry groups, identified three areas in particular that could suitably house the Appalachian Storage Hub, all located at least partly in West Virginia.
The study said these areas contained “top-rated geologic intervals/reservoirs and exhibit varying degrees of stacked potential” — stacked meaning flexible in terms of storage, easier to acquire property rights and more.
The prospective areas the study cited are: the Northern Prospect, which contains the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia and adjacent portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania; the Central Prospect, which includes portions of Ohio, Pennsylvania and north central West Virginia; and the Southern Prospect, which is situated in the Kanawha Valley.
The Kanawha Valley “comprises the most storage opportunities of any prospect evaluated,” the study said.
“The number, variety and stacking of storage opportunities in the Southern Prospect shows its potential to support a thriving petrochemical industry,” it said.
Hedrick wouldn’t say specifically what area has the best chance at landing the hub.
“Where exactly [the hub] will happen is predicated a bit on geology and geographic locations because of the petrochemicals,” Hedrick said. “I can say West Virginia’s geology uniquely supports our strategy, but to be fair, so does Pennsylvania’s and Ohio’s.”
Appalachia being the target of a petrochemical hub has raised concerns from environmental advocates. Dustin White, project coordinator for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, noted the secrecy of the China Energy deal linked to the hub and how a petrochemical boom in the Gulf Coast transformed part of it into “Cancer Alley” in a Gazette Opinion column earlier this month.
“So, people who appear set to line their own pockets are waging a PR campaign to promote a mega-petrochemical complex as a shiny, fabulous game-changer for our state,” White said. “But it is just the same old, deadly game: We sacrifice our water and land and health to a fossil fuel industry.”
Hedrick said he anticipates that hub-related developments “will be the most environmentally sound investments anywhere in the world by the chemical industry.”
“As a native son of Appalachia, I would demand that ourselves, because this is my home, as it is others’,” Hedrick said.Hub’s next steps
The footprint of the hub and the extent of its environmental effects remain to be seen, since the first shovel load of dirt has yet to be turned for the hub.
Financing, for one, is an obvious priority, Hedrick said.
The hub has picked up on that front of late. In January, the Appalachia Development Group received approval for the first of two application phases for a $1.9 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan. It is standing by for approval on the second application phase.
Appalachia Development Group, which is leading the effort, wants to secure an additional $1.4 billion through other means, it said in a January news release. This financing will go toward developing the infrastructure for the hub, the release said.
The hub is expected to cost billions of dollars — a bill China Energy’s more than $80 billion commitment to West Virginia could certainly help with.
Brian Abraham, general counsel for Gov. Jim Justice, told the Gazette-Mail earlier this month — after Hedrick had been interviewed for this report — that Hedrick pitched his private company’s hub project to China Energy officials while being a part of the state’s trade delegation.
“That’s a question best to ask of the state,” Hedrick said of China Energy’s potential investment. “I would offer that many entities around the world are interested in locating to areas with natural gas liquids.”
DiGregorio said if China Energy “stays in the game” — company officials canceled a trip related to the deal due to President Donald Trump’s continued trade friction with China — it would be “a big boom” for the entire hub.
The hub could still happen if China Energy bounces, DiGregorio said, but perhaps at a smaller scale than what some hub optimists are currently envisioning. Any hub would buoy the state’s chemical industry and the people involved in it, he said.
For a time, chemical manufacturing was a lynchpin of the Kanawha Valley economy, but employment has declined sharply over time as the industry’s power players have reduced their presence in the area.
Even in 1995, the manufacturing of chemicals and allied products employed 15,630 people in the state, according WorkForce West Virginia data. At the end of 2017, the chemical manufacturing industry employed 8,797 West Virginians, the data says.
Deskins said the hub could become an economic backbone for the state, but added that the state still needs to further diversify its economy in areas like tourism and other types of manufacturing.
Also, the state has issues of human capital, Deskins said — he has noted in the past that West Virginia’s declining population, a high percentage of elderly people and generally poor health are key concerns for economic growth.
But Hedrick, unsurprisingly, remains bullish.
“I would anticipate that the chemical industry will make a comeback or continue to grow in Appalachia, based on the Trading Hub acting as a catalyst for that very activity,” he said.
https://www.wvgazettemail.com/dailymailwv/daily_mail_features/ethane-storage-hub-may-boost-wv-chemical-sector-daily-mail/article_362ba876-9e3c-5f02-bde6-9b84b6ca544a.html
-
U.S. Push to Rev Up Pipelines Seen Inviting More Legal Strife
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Adams-Heard and Stephen Cunningham
Streamlining U.S. approvals for natural gas pipelines may actually lengthen the time needed to finish them by opening new opportunities for legal challenges.
That is the surprising concern of industry insiders urging caution on the part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the wake of Trump Administration support for regulatory rollbacks to speed up energy development.
The commission is now revisiting how it approves pipeline projects, looking at everything from how to decide on market need to the role environmental impacts should play. It’s a process that holds both promise and peril for the industry, which has generally had a good relationship with the commission.
The worry: “If there are shortcuts, there are vulnerabilities,” warned Joe Fagan, a partner in the Washington office of Day Pitney LLP, who represents companies petitioning FERC as it considers new approval rules.
Now FERC and the companies they oversee often find themselves on the same side, defending federal approvals against groups like the Sierra Club and Bold Alliance that target those decisions in court.
Court RulingEnvironmental foes have already seen some success. An appeals court ruled last year, for instance, that FERC failed to adequately consider the emissions impacts of the 517-mile Sabal Trail pipeline from Alabama to Florida. That pushed the decision back to the commission, which had to provide a new environmental analysis.
The most fertile ground for lawsuits: “The environmental review and whether the commission has taken a hard look at both upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions,” said Monique Watson, a lawyer at Steptoe & Johnson LLP in Washington. “The more information that’s in the record, the more opportunity for appeal.”
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre hasn’t yet tipped his hand on the approval review. But when he announced the review six months ago, during his inaugural commission meeting in the chairman’s seat, he pledged it would not affect pending projects.
The review comes as Permian Basin drillers in West Texas are seeing a shortage of both interstate gas pipelines, which FERC regulates, and intrastate conduits, which it doesn’t oversee. FERC last looked at its pipeline policy almost two decades ago, before the onset of the shale boom that upended the gas market.
Irrespective of what the commission decides, the real battleground for pipelines may be shifting to the states, with New York blocking pipelines and others including New Jersey delaying permits, said Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Brandon Barnes.
At both the state and federal levels, pipeline companies ultimately want to know what to expect before they pour millions—or billions—of dollars into installing new pipes, said ClearView Energy Partners Managing Director Christi Tezak.
“Whatever you do, do it,” she said. “But let’s have certainty. Don’t keep changing your mind.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/us-push-to-rev-up-pipelines-seen-inviting-more-legal-strife
-
Big Challenges for Environmental Analysis of Alaska Oil Leasing
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A federal team has begun pulling together the studies that will play a central role in determining what oil exploration drilling, if any, is done on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Flaws in the studies of calving caribou, denning polar bears, other wildlife, plants, water resources, permafrost, and native interests could open the way for court challenges delaying the work, adding to the pressure on the team developing the environmental impact statement.
It is possible legal fights over the EIS could last long enough for a new occupant of the White House to be given authority to kill the exploration plan.
At least two exploration lease sales are required in the 1.5 million acres potentially opened for drilling by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (Pub. L. No. 115-97), signed into law Dec. 22, 2017.
The EIS may take a year to complete, on the tentative schedule of the Bureau of Land Management. More environmental impact analyses are expected to follow—for proposed seismic surveys and applications for permits to drill—before any drill bit enters the permafrost, assuming any ever does.
Bureau of Land Management specialists are working on the complex task with a contractor and other government branches, state officials, and tribal governments.
Specialists for each natural resource are combing through the available information on the wildlife, plants, water, soil, and other features of the Arctic region, as well as any useful details from public comments it received during the scoping period that ended June 19.
“We’re just starting to compile that information,” Nicole Hayes, BLM project coordinator for the EIS, told Bloomberg Environment.
Review and More Reviews
The tentative schedule is to publish a draft of the impact statement in the fall or winter and a final EIS in the spring or summer of 2019, Hayes said.
It is very likely that an application for a permit to drill will require its own EIS, according to the BLM. A seismic survey going beyond a single lease also can be expected to require its own an environmental analysis.
The BLM is being assisted by Environmental Management and Planning Solutions Inc., a Boulder, Colo.-based contractor with experience on environmental projects.
Hayes said she isn’t sure at this stage whether any field research might be needed to plug any gaps in the available information.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires an EIS for any federal program or permit expected to have a substantial impact on the environment.
Some seismic surveying was done in ANWR in the 1980s, and one exploration well was drilled, its findings confidential, leaving the BLM without much oil exploration experience in the area to draw upon. The agency may make much use of lessons learned from oil development on the North Slope of Alaska west of ANWR on state lands and farther west in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, Hayes said.
Information Gaps Cited
Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director of the Wilderness League, a conservation group, told Bloomberg Environment she considers the BLM project timeline unreasonable.
“There are many scientific information gaps which we don’t think the administration can address in the time frame,” Whittington-Evans said.
An EIS should cover all steps of development, up to and including eventual reclamation to restore the land after the development work is completed, Whittington-Evans said. The EIS must look at the region’s animals and plants to determine what is there and to take into account their life cycles and ecology and to factor climate change into the review, she said.
A complication is that there has been little or no restoration work in the North Slope oil producing areas, which means a lack of instructive experience on that point.
Indigenous People, Caribou, Bears
The BLM will have to deal with more than just NEPA, Whittington-Evans said. She noted such complications as international treaties on polar bears, migratory birds, and caribou.
“Potential impacts to subsistence is a really important one,” Hayes said.
Subsistence hunting and whaling and access for recreation are important to the Inupiat who live on the coastal plain at Kaktovik, Hayes said. Potential impacts on the presence of whales off the coast could require consideration if some of the larger equipment is expected to move by barge along the coast rather than by ice roads overland.
Hunting is the main issue for the Gwich’in, a tribal group that lives in the Alaskan interior south of the Brooks Range of mountains. A portion of the Porcupine caribou herd that feeds and calves on the plain also migrates through Gwich’in territory, and the native group expresses fears about activities that could alter the caribou behavior.
The BLM intends to post all unique public comments received during the scoping period. Those should be posted within a few weeks, a BLM public affairs staffer said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/big-challenges-for-environmental-analysis-of-alaska-oil-leasing
-
Enbridge Oil Pipeline Expansion Clears Hurdle in Minnesota
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Orland
Enbridge Inc.’s planned $7 billion replacement and expansion of a major pipeline linking Canada’s oil fields to refineries in the U.S. won approval from regulators in Minnesota, clearing the way for the project to move ahead.
Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission approved a certificate of need for the Line 3 project in a 5-0 vote on June 28.
“How would I feel if I woke up in five years and found out that line had leaked? It’s just too great a cost,” PUC Chairwoman Nancy Lange said in her opening remarks during the meeting, in a reference to the old line.
Canada’s oil industry has pinned its hopes on the Line 3 expansion and two other major projects as it seeks to alleviate the pipeline bottlenecks that have weighed on prices for its crude. The 1,000-mile (1,609-kilometer) Line 3 project would help carry about 370,000 more barrels of heavy and light crude a day from Hardisty, Alberta, to a storage hub in Superior, Wisc.
“Projects like this help us make sure we’re getting product to market, which is good for Canada,” Enbridge CEO Al Monaco said in response to reporters’ questions at the World Gas Conference in Washington while the hearing was ongoing.
Two Other ProjectsThe other two projects Canada’s oil industry is closely watching are the Trans Mountain expansion, which the Canadian government agreed to buy from Kinder Morgan Inc. in May, and TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL.
Trans Mountain still faces a legal challenge, but the government’s ownership has been seen as increasing its likelihood of helping overcome pushback from British Columbia and other opponents. TransCanada has yet to make a final, formal decision on whether it will build Keystone XL.
Enbridge had already started construction in Canada and Wisconsin while it awaited approval for the Minnesota section. That portion of the line was cast into doubt in April after a Minnesota judge recommended that the state’s public utilities commission grant the project a certificate of need, but asked that the new line follow the conduit’s existing route rather than the company’s preferred path.
Replacing the pipeline along the current route would require Enbridge to shut it down for nine to 12 months and consult with two Minnesota Ojibwe bands that generally haven’t supported the project.
—With assistance from Rachel Adams-Heard.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/enbridge-oil-pipeline-expansion-clears-hurdle-in-minnesota
-
LNG Project Development Catching ‘Second Wave’ in U.S., Around the World
Jun 28, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
The global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade is rippling toward the second wave of investment, as more countries open their doors to industrial expansion and consumer needs, some of the top gas executives said Wednesday.
During a morning panel at the World Gas Conference (WGC) in Washington, DC, Baker Botts LLP’s Steven Miles, who heads the Houston-based LNG practice, moderated a high powered panel of executives who discussed the opportunities and the challenges ahead for North American projects and those overseas.
Miles was joined by ExxonMobil Corp.’s Jim Muschalik, president of LNG market development, Tellurian Inc. CEO Meg Gentle; Shell Energy’s Steve Hill, executive vice president, and Mitsubishi Corp.’s Jun Nishizawa, COO of the energy resources division for the Americas, Europe and the Middle East. Also on the panel were Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Andrew Walker, vice president for strategy and communication, and Jason Bordoff, founding director of the Center for Global Energy Policy at the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs.
“When the previous WGC was held in 2015 in Paris three years ago, “the industry was at the end of a building cycle,” Miles said. The “first wave” of final investment decisions (FID) had been made for U.S. LNG export projects and facilities were moving toward completion in Australia.
A “bit of a rough patch” then came from the slump in oil prices in late 2014 that continued until 2016. While global gas supplies continued to increase, while there were few FIDs.
No LNG projects were sanctioned in North America last year. This year to date, only Cheniere Energy Inc. has issued an FID for its third train at the or its planned Corpus Christi export terminal in South Texas.
The slowdown isn’t only in the United States. Two global LNG projects were sanctioned two years ago, but only Coral FLNG in Mozambique this year received an FID by ExxonMobil and Eni SpA. Coral is in the same region as an export project underway by Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
Today, however, “there are branches...greenshoots,” for LNG development, Miles said. Cheniere last year ramped up exports from the Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana, while Dominion Energy Inc.’s Cove Point terminal in Maryland recently began shipping gas to overseas markets.
Optimism is steadily rising, and it’s based on clear evidence, said the experts. The global LNG trade last year climbed to 38.2 Bcf/d last year, nearly 10% higher than in 2016 and the largest annual increase on record, according to the International Group of Liquefied Natural Gas Importers.
A sign that domestic exports are going strong is that U.S. gas exports in 2017 topped 1.94 Bcf/d versus 0.5 Bcf/d in 2016. All of the shipments originated from the Sabine Pass terminal, , with shipments reached 25 countries. Cove Point will be on the board in this year's statistics, and more projects are expected to soon be sanctioned.
Because gas trading has been regional for so long, Miles asked the panel if the LNG industry was ready to claim “good times or is it just wishful thinking?”
Muschalik, who is based in Houston, said he’s been “picking up on two things -- a lot of optimism and excitement about the gas business and specifically, the LNG business, and for good reason.
“When you look at the demand for gas in the next 25 years, there’s an increase of 25%, and that’s probably somewhat conservative. When you put LNG in that mix, it’s going to be expected to double over that horizon.”
His “personal eye as to what’s going on here, to feel good about, is that energy growth in the global economy is enabling a lot of folks to improve their quality of life” and access affordable energy that is abundant and “cleaner” than coal because it has lower emissions.
“There’s a really good story there” and “a lot to feel good about,” the ExxonMobil executive said.
There remains some uncertainty about the LNG supply picture overall, though.
“One thing as we meet with buyers to find out what’s on their minds, it’s certainly stability,” to have supply sources to meet their needs, he said.
With the dearth in FIDs for LNG projects in the last few years, the current period of excess gas supply could dry up quickly, leading “right back into scarcity and facing challenges,” he said.
Tellurian’s Gentle has a lot of irons in the fire through her management of Driftwood Holdings LLC, which was formed to own and operate a network of onshore gas production, LNG trading and infrastructure, including the proposed 27.6 million metric ton/year Driftwood LNG export facility for Louisiana.
Tellurian now is lining up partners to help with financing for a slate of Lower 48 projects, including a pipeline that would carry associated gas from the Permian Basin and another from the Haynesville Shale, each to feed local markets and future gas exports.
“It’s clear that the expansion of the LNG market is an incredible opportunity ahead of us,” Gentle told the audience. LNG trade by itself grew year/year in 2017 by around 11%, and growth should be about the same this year, she said.
Tellurian’s management team sees “tremendous opportunities” from growing U.S. production, both dry gas and associated gas from oil drilling to keep export trade well lubricated.
She echoed Muschalik in noting that infrastructure needs to continue to be built to provide enough capacity for the continued surge in output.
“We know the United States can support another 100 million metric tons of capacity,” Gentle said. “We need to build that infrastructure,” particularly in the Permian, to not only transport associated gas but ensure there is continued oil drilling in the basin.
Hill, who worked for BG plc in its LNG business before Shell bought the company, said the enthusiasm for LNG is “real,” evidenced through the thousands of participants at this year’s WGC.
“It’s not just theoretical long-term growth,” Hill said. “We are actually seeing things in the market…and demand growth continues to exceed expectations.” For example, China is hungry for LNG, driven in part by its decision to add more gas-fired capacity and phase out coal. China’s gas consumption last year increased by 15% from 2016, while imports grew by 28%. The country’s import dependence grew to 39% last year from zero in 2005.
A growing thirst for gas also is evident from growing LNG trading in India and in Europe, Hill said, noting that one of Central Europe’s leading utilities, Polish Oil & Gas Co., on Tuesday agreed to buy gas exports over 20 years from two separate proposed projects to be sited in Louisiana and Texas.
“I also see widening opportunities in transportation,” Hill said. “There’s a lot of opportunity going on.”
The Shell executive, like his peers, also sees challenges. “One is that we spend a tremendous amount of time telling each other how great gas is but not nearly as much time telling the rest of the world,” Hill said. With gas as the “backbone of the energy transition,” the industry has to do a better job in selling its positive attributes to the public.
The other concern,” he said, is that “we have made this industry too complicated and everything too hard” in regards to pricing gas. I think the industry has done a really good job of providing customers with different pricing solutions...” Now there is a “plethora of different pricing constructs in the industry.”
One type of customer “wants to buy the LNG at the LNG price,” Hill said. “It’s so hard to know what that is.” Long-term contracts “have a clear role to play in the industry, but they also have a dominant effect on growth of the industry” and can actually stifle investment.
In the earlier days of the LNG trading, Hill noted that there had to be long-term contracts because there was no spot market. The spot market for LNG since has evolved.
“We still hear that you have to have long-term contracts,” Hill said. “I’m not convinced that we still live in a world where there’s any more risk for LNG than for any other kind of commodity,” including for oil or coal.
The long-term contract business model “somewhat constrains the growth of industry,” and he’s unsure it’s as necessary today as it was years ago.
Mitsubishi’s Nishizawa forecast the United States, Canada and Russia would become the top LNG suppliers in the world, joining LNG leader Qatar. Mozambique also should become a major supplier.
Russia may not be on everyone’s LNG leaderboard, but the country has massive stores of gas, he said. “Can Russia become a major supplier? This is a question everybody wonders...But my answer is, yes, she can,” Nishizawa said.
Russia’s state-owned Gazprom and Rosneft were taking direct aim to supply the United States through LNG imports before the unconventional gas explosion. Russia has gained a foothold in China with a plan to build a massive gas pipeline. It also sends gas to Europe. Meanwhile the country’s Sakhalin gas and the recently completed Yamal LNG export project in the Arctic likely will become major contributors to global markets.
The Mitsubishi executive has “no doubt” that the United States long will reign as a leading exporter. But whether the United States can keep up the production pace may be in question. “Some data shows a lot of gas,” he said, “but it is also true that most of the sweet spot gas has been drilled and produced.
“As time goes by, in 10 years’ time it will be OK, but we don’t really know how long the gas supplies stay...That’s a big question.”
Canadian LNG projects may be languishing, but the country still is destined to “become a major LNG supplier in the future, especially Western Canada,” Nishizawa said. “The reason is very simple. It has a huge amount of gas,” with an estimated one-fourth of North American supply in the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin.
In addition, gas produced and shipped from Canada can be “competitive and strong” against other LNG supplies, the Mitsubishi executive said.
Canadian pipeline costs through the mountains are high and the country faces barriers in dealing with aboriginal issues. “But we believe using a prudent approach, these can be resolved and Canada can fly.”
Cheniere has two Texas LNG projects beyond the Sabine Pass facility in the works, Freeport LNG and Corpus Christi LNG.
There are cycles for supply, but “we go through cycles and we learn from those cycles and take and apply what we learned to the next cycles,” Walker said. “Everyone worried about the wave” of initial projects, but the management team has learned a thing or two as it staked out a market.
“We’re now in the second wave,” he said, with LNG supply between 2016 and 2020 sharply rising. “And we’re learning increasingly about flexibility in putting more volumes in and increasingly about the marketplace. And as the marketplace diversifies and fragments, the challenge is to take a large part of the supply and intermediate those into a diverse market, which has its own requirements” and a market made up of traditional buyers, new buyers, creditworthy buyers, and less creditworthy buyers.
“This is a challenge for industry to take it into the next cycle,” Walker said. Cheniere sees momentum continuing for long-term contracts too.
Bordoff, who worked for the Obama administration from 2010-2012 before founding the Columbia think tank, said the LNG market is becoming more commoditized. He told the audience that an interesting trend is the emergence of portfolio buyers and trading houses, which are playing a bigger role in LNG buying and selling. That provides liquidity and scale, and provides responsiveness to the spot market, he said.
Ensuring an LNG project remains cost competitive is key, because gas projects increasingly will be competing against more renewable resources, said the panel
“We’re in a different world, where oil and gas assessment prices are going up in time, while wind and solar costs are coming down,” Hill said. “Companies are making investments for 25 or 40 years for a project’s life. It’s crucial that you have the most competitive project, but with the lowest emissions as well,” because down the road that project may be competing with a wind or solar facility.
ExxonMobil’s LNG executive team has a view that all U.S. LNG projects will need to be able to compete for primary markets, “so it’s with great care that everyone needs to enter the space with a narrow risk profile, a competitive structure in place.”
(NGI is an exhibitor during the week-long WGC, and is hosting Booth 1208, featuring its newsletters, data and maps. Be sure to check out our latest service, Mexico Gas Price Index, as well as an on-site TV screen streaming live World Cup soccer action. Enter to win an autographed and framed Lionel Messi jersey.)
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114878-lng-project-development-catching-second-wave-in-us-around-the-world
-
The Texas Well that Started a Revolution
Jun 29, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Russell Gold
Twenty years ago this month, a well was drilled here that changed the world.
Nothing at the time suggested the unassuming well in this rural town north of Fort Worth would hobble OPEC, the powerful oil cartel that had governed prices of the world’s most important commodity for more than a generation. Or that it would help turn the U.S. into a global energy exporter, or shuffle the geopolitical deck.
But it did all of that—and more. The well used hydraulic fracturing to crack the incredibly tight shale rocks below. It fired the first shot in the fracking revolution—a blast soon felt in Riyadh, Tehran and Moscow.
“I had no idea it would cause so much change. I was just trying to keep my job,” said Nick Steinsberger on a recent visit to the well pad. He was the engineer who obtained permission to try a new approach to completing the well that had been drilling a mile and a half deep into a thick grey wedge of rock known as the Barnett Shale.
Mr. Steinsberger, now 54, called the experiment “my slick-water frack.” It was the first commercially successful use of sand, water and chemicals, pumped into the shale under high pressure, to break open the rock and unleash the natural gas trapped inside. It was the beginning of modern fracking.
“It was a good well, cost $600,000 or $700,000,” Mr. Steinsberger said, walking over the pad to the chain-link fence that surrounds the well. A sign identifies it as the S. H Griffin Estate 4.
Today, most wells drilled in the U.S. use some variation of Mr. Steinsberger’s fracking technique. It has unleashed an unimaginable wealth of natural gas, gas liquids and crude oil, turning the U.S. from an energy pauper into a muscular exporter. It also started an often acrimonious environmental debate about the potential impacts and trade offs of fracking.
“It is one of the most extraordinarily important, disruptive, technologically driven changes in the history of energy,” said Ed Morse, global head of commodity research at Citigroup. “It was revolutionary for the U.S. economy and it was revolutionary geopolitically.”
Mr. Steinsberger’s modest experiment demonstrated that the oil and gas industry had the tools to fracture the rocks where fossil fuels were slowly baked over the millennia. A huge trove of natural gas was accessible at an economical cost.
It was such a novel idea that it spread slowly at first, as doubters couldn’t believe that anyone could successfully tap the source rocks. After a few years, more companies began to copy the wells drilled by Mr. Steinsberger’s employer,Mitchell Energy , the firm founded by the late George P. Mitchell.
Mitchell.
It started in the Barnett Shale. Then other gas-bearing shales were discovered. The Marcellus Shale in Appalachia turned out to be larger and more fecund than the Barnett.
In 2008, more than a decade after Mr. Steinsberger’s well, the industry made another quantum leap: Not only could fracking liberate small natural gas molecules from rocks, it also worked on the longer hydrocarbon chains that make up crude oil. Companies such as EOG Resources Inc. began to drill and frack shales bearing crude oil and natural gas liquids in North Dakota and Texas. The technique has since spread to other countries such as Argentina.
The proliferation of oil and gas production transformed the U.S. energy landscape. A looming dearth of natural gas had led companies to build import terminals. Now there is so much gas the U.S. exports the fuel around the world.
The low-cost fuel has become the leading source of power generation in the U.S. Its rise has reshaped electricity markets , leading to the closure of more than 200 coal plants, as well as a number of nuclear plants. The Trump Administration’s current proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear plants is an indirect result of fracking.
The impact on oil markets might be, if anything, more significant. U.S. oil production had fallen persistently for years, dropping below five million barrels a day. And then: fracking. This year, it hit a new all-time high, reaching 10.9 million barrels a day in June. It is now the world’s largest producer of crude and other valuable petroleum liquids, ahead of Russia and Saudi Arabia.
The surge has weakened the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Facing a growing supply of oil from the U.S., the group stumbled and fought over what to do. It unsuccessfully tried to crush frackers by ramping up production in 2014 to drive down the price of oil, before making its peace with them. Last week, the cartel’s members coordinated with Russia to produce more barrels to prevent oil prices from rising further. Shale output was outside of their control.
The U.S. emerged as a newly confident energy powerhouse. It was no longer fearful that an embargo could maim its economy. This attitude was reflected in a more aggressive foreign policy, as shown by its willingness to take a tough negotiating posture with Iran.
“The fracking boom was the biggest energy story around the world. But it was also the biggest geopolitical story and the biggest environmental story,” said Michael Webber, deputy director of the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
The proliferation of natural gas, displacing coal, helped the U.S. lower its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 13.4% in the last decade, while growing its gross domestic product, according to BP PLC’s Statistical Review of World Energy.
While fracking has produced environment benefits at a global scale, it has created local problems. Dust, noise, truck traffic and emissions from diesel engines turned rural regions into industrial zones during periods of peak development.
The headlong rush to drill and frack meant that the industry raced out in front of state regulators. Concerns arose about fracking’s impact on water and the impact of methane gases leakage on the climate. Eventually, federal and state regulators responded with increasingly sophisticated rules. And the industry adopted some voluntary measures as well.
Fracking has split the environmental movement. Some environmentalists opposed fracking entirely; others recognized its potential benefits and have worked to minimize its negative impacts.
Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, praised natural gas for helping clean up local air pollution, lower greenhouse gas emissions and reduce electricity costs. “The abundance of natural gas has helped, but it is important to work to make it as clean as it can be,” he said.
Meanwhile, fracking continues to evolve. Supersized fracks have become commonplace.
Fracking uses grains of sand to prop open the newly formed cracks to allow gas or oil to flow out. While Mr. Steinsberger’s well required 229,000 pounds of sand, a large contemporary well might require 30 million pounds of sand. The amount of water needed has increased as well.
The S. H. Griffin well has continued to produce gas for two decades. Over the years, more than 2.6 billion cubic feet have flowed out, worth some $8 million at today’s prices. A new well with a supersized frack can produce as much in a day as the original could in two months.
The proliferation of large wells has kept gas below $4 per million British thermal units since December 2016, after topping $10 in 2008. Mr. Steinsberger, who still oversees eight to ten fracks a year, doesn’t see that changing for a long time.
“One day, there might be lasers shooting at the rock” thousands of feet underfoot, he said. “I can’t predict that. But I can tell you natural gas prices will be low for the rest of our lives.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-texas-well-that-started-a-revolution-1530270010?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Agency Should Review Size of Petroleum Reserve — GAO
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
The Department of Energy should periodically re-examine the size of its Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a federal watchdog said today.
In a new report, the Government Accountability Office said a DOE review in 2016 did not determine an optimal size for the reserve, which held 665 million barrels of crude oil as of March.
The SPR, made up of four underground caverns in Texas and Louisiana, was created after the oil shortage in the 1970s and is intended to limit the effects of oil supply disruptions.
The SPR is a regular focus of controversy, with recent efforts by both the Trump administration and Congress to sell portions of it and use the proceeds to counteract the government's budget deficit. In February, for example, Congress sold off 100 million barrels, which one analyst said was the largest nonemergency sale to date (E&E Daily, Feb. 9).
GAO found that a DOE long-term strategic review of the SPR in 2016 was limited, and while it examined the benefits of several potential sizes for the reserve, it did not settle on an optimal volume.
"In particular, DOE did not fully consider recent and expected future changes in market conditions, such as the implications of falling net imports, or the role that increased levels of private reserves (reserves held by private companies for their own purposes) may play in responding to supply disruptions," the watchdog wrote.
GAO made several recommendations to Energy Secretary Rick Perry. It advised him to supplement the 2016 review with more analysis of the SPR size, do periodic reviews and share them with Congress, and "consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets as it conducts its study."
The report was initially requested by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is an important energy security asset, which is why the committee has prioritized its modernization," said Energy Subcommittee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and ranking member Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) in a joint statement.
"We will give GAO's recommendations careful consideration as the committee considers legislative options to address the concerns raised by this report," they said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/06/28/stories/1060087279
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senate Committee Approves Bill That Will Assess TWIC Program
Jun 28, 2018 | Land Line Magazine
By Tyson Fisher
The future of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) remains in limbo as the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation approved a bill that will require an assessment of the effectiveness of the program before moving forward with required biometric readers. For truckers, it is still business as usual.
“Truckers just need to know that nothing has changed with the TWIC program and that if they needed a TWIC before this bill which has not been signed into law yet they still need a TWIC today,” said Doug Morris, director of security operations for the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association.
Port employees, longshoremen, mariners, truckers and others who require unescorted access to secure areas of ports are required to carry a TWIC card.
On Wednesday, June 27, the Senate committee approved SB3094, a bipartisan bill sponsored by Sens. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, and Gary Peters, D-Mich. The bill restricts the Coast Guard from implementing any rule requiring the use of biometric transportation security cards until an assessment of the program is submitted to Congress.
Titled the “Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018,” the bill will delay a final rule published in the Federal Register by the Coast Guard in August 2016. In that final rule, the Coast Guard would require biometrics such as a fingerprint be included in confirming a TWIC card holder’s identity.
SB3094 also prohibits any proposal or issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking for any revision to such rule unless it is to extend the effective date. In addition, it prohibits any other rule that would require the use of biometric readers for transportation security cards.
On June 22, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking that will delay the TWIC reader requirement by three years for certain facilities. Those include facilities:
· That handle certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do not transfer these cargoes to or from a vessel.
· That receive vessels carrying certain dangerous cargoes in bulk, but do not, during that vessel-to-facility interface, transfer these bulk cargoes to or from those vessels.
All other facilities, including those with vessels carrying more than 1,000 passengers and those that handle certain dangerous cargoes in bulk and transfer it to or from a vessel, will still be required to meet the Aug. 23 deadline this year.
If approved, facilities that fall under the June 22 proposed rulemaking will have until Aug. 23, 2021, while the Coast Guard assesses the program. In total, only 122 of the 525 facilities would qualify for the delay, while the remaining 403 facilities will implement the readers by Aug. 23 of this year.
Comments for the proposed rulemaking for the delay at certain facilities are being accepted through July 23. That proposed rulemaking can be found by clicking here.
On June 6, the House Homeland Security Committee approved the House version of the bill, HR5729. A coalition of 11 industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, sent a letter to the committee leadership in support of the bill introduced by Rep. John Katko, R-N.Y.
“In August 2016, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) issued the TWIC reader rule,” the letter said. “Unfortunately, the final rule greatly expanded the scope of areas subject to the TWIC reader requirement beyond what was originally proposed. It is projected the final rule would roughly double the number of facilities subject to the TWIC reader requirements compared to the proposed rule, creating confusion among regulated facilities and increasing compliance costs without any proven corresponding security benefit.”
http://www.landlinemag.com/story.aspx?storyid=72565#.WzXuk9IzZm8
-
Roberts Seen as Next High Court Swing Vote on Suits over EPA Authority
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Supreme Court watchers expect Chief Justice John Roberts to become the closest thing to a swing vote following the expected replacement of retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy with a more-conservative jurist, a move that might narrow deference to EPA's interpretations of laws and spur bids for the court to reconsider major environmental rulings.
While attorneys from across the political spectrum expect industry and conservative groups to use a rightward shift on the court as a reason to relitigate past losses on federal greenhouse gas (GHG) limits and other subjects, they see those efforts as an uphill fight thanks to Roberts' history of reluctance to overturn long-standing precedent.
And it is unclear the extent to which the chief justice might back efforts to limit deference to agencies, because although he has yet to sign on to calls from his colleagues to reconsider or reject the landmark deference standard known as Chevron, he has also signaled support for reconsidering other deference tests that the court has created.
“It's likely that the limits of how far to the right the court wants to go is now going to be defined by Justice Roberts rather than Kennedy,” says a Sierra Club attorney.
Kennedy, who announced June 27 that he will step down effective July 31, was known as the least conservative of the high court's five GOP-nominated justices; among other examples, he sided with the four liberals in 2008's Massachusetts v. EPA to give EPA authority to regulate GHGs through the Clean Air Act, and his sole concurrence in the 4-4-1 2006 case Rapanos, et ux., et al., v. United States, et al., formed the basis for an Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule that industry and the GOP attacked as illegally broad.
By contrast, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have been seen as more doctrinaire conservatives on environmental issues while Roberts has a reputation as a cautious but still right-wing justice who tries to avoid broad decisions when possible -- a trait that observers say positions him to be the court's newest limiting factor.
“As of this term, the Roberts court has overturned precedent at a much lower rate than other courts before it, so I don't know that he would jump at the chance to start overturning cases. But ultimately that will be determined by what cases come before them,” says an attorney at the free-market Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).
The PLF attorney and others say that despite pressure from some conservative and industry groups to overturn Massachusetts and scrap EPA's authority over GHGs, Roberts seems unlikely to take that step.
Even though he wrote a forceful dissent in the 2008 case, Roberts has since declined to sign on to other minority opinions that call for overturning Massachusetts, most recently in the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
“I don't see Roberts being willing to overturn Massachusetts v. EPA at this point,” says Foley Hoag attorney Seth Jaffe, who writes at the Law & Environment blog.
Nonetheless, Jaffe and others say the fact of Kennedy's departure is likely to be enough of a reason for industry and conservative legal groups to try to tee up GHG rules, as well as other contentious issues like judicial deference to EPA or citizen groups' standing to sue over environmental harms, even if the outcome is uncertain.
While Kennedy was still on the court, Jaffe says, groups that oppose the Massachusetts precedent were discouraged from trying to change it because “they were told they'd get crushed. Now, they're not as likely to get crushed. . . . The probability has certainly gone up as of today, so it's not impossible that they'd try.”
And Kennedy's departure makes it more likely that the court will uphold the narrow CWA jurisdiction rule EPA is crafting that rejects his Rapanos test -- although the author of the competing standard from that case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is also no longer around to defend his own preferred reading of the law.
“You're kind of writing a rule in a bit of a vacuum now, for what the Supreme Court would uphold. . . . You can assume that a narrower test will be what stands up at the Supreme Court going forward, but it's hard to predict what that will be,” Ben Machlis, an attorney with the industry-focused firm Dorsey & Whitney LLP, told Inside EPA.
Agency Deference
Roberts has still signaled an openness to narrowing major precedents in environmental and administrative law, including the landmark Chevron deference test. This is already encouraging groups that have long sought to cut back on agencies' advantages in court -- especially since the other three remaining conservatives have variously joined calls to reconsider or scrap the deference standard entirely.
“Maybe it's going too far to say Roberts thinks the whole doctrine is illegitimate, but that sure seems like where it's going” based on the court's direction as a whole, Machlis said.
Roberts has been a proponent of the "major questions doctrine" on Chevron that says courts should not apply the deference standard on especially significant legal or political issues, instead of allowing those subjects to be decided based on a more lenient standard -- such as in the 2015 King v. Burwell decision where he applied that doctrine to the Affordable Care Act's "individual mandate" for health insurance coverage.
That decision, among others, has served as a signal that Roberts is more inclined to narrow Chevron or carve out exceptions than to strike it down altogether, sources say.
However, while Roberts has not himself written an opinion where he attacks Chevron directly, in the final round of Supreme Court orders for the 2017-18 term, released June 27, he signed on to a statement authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch -- who was an outspoken critic of the doctrine as an appellate judge -- that called for new limits on another deference precedent, known as Skidmore, which gives agencies deference when they interpret the meaning of their own rules.
The statement on the denial of review in the case E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., et al., v. Bobbi-Jo Smiley, et al., says the high court should take up the question of when -- if ever -- judges should defer to an agency's regulatory interpretation that it expresses for the first time in a rulemaking, which Gorsuch says has divided lower courts. "Respectfully, I believe this circuit split and these questions warrant this Court’s attention. If not in this case then, hopefully, soon," he writes.
Standing Tests
Even if Roberts is unwilling to overturn the court's past precedents, the attorneys say that compared with Kennedy the chief justice has shown more openness to narrowing past decisions on plaintiffs' standing that set out tests for when citizen groups have been harmed by pollution or a regulatory violation -- which in turn would limit environmentalists' ability to sue over environmental harms.
“The interesting thing with standing is that I don't think Kennedy had a particularly broad articulation of standing, but it was definitely more pragmatic and broader than I think the remaining conservative members of the court would tend to find,” Machlis said.
He continued that a narrower standing test could limit when groups can sue over violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), since “theoretically NEPA is only a procedural harm, because it is only a procedural statute.”
On the test for more concrete environmental harms, Machlis said, a post-Kennedy court might narrow the current standard where environmental groups can sue if they show they have members who “use” the affected area by hiking, fishing, boating or otherwise recreating there.
“I could see the court reexamining whether or not the types of use and recreation that are in those are sufficient anymore.”
Speaking to Inside EPA on June 29, Earthjustice vice president for litigation Patrice Simms voiced concern over that prospect, saying that a narrowing of standing “could happen in critical ways that would undermine people's ability to hold government accountable.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/roberts-seen-next-high-court-swing-vote-suits-over-epa-authority
-
Maine Seeks to Exit Ozone-Limiting Compact of Eastern States
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Maine wants to free its cars, trucks, and businesses from having to meet tougher ozone pollution limits that many Eastern states have been complying with as a region since 1990.
The federal Clean Air Act dictates that states must limit ozone—a byproduct of industrial emissions that is harmful to lungs. Eastern states from Virginia to Maine work on meeting the ozone standard together under a compact called the Ozone Transport Region.
But the administration of Gov. Paul LePage (R) believes the tougher requirements under the compact are an unnecessary burden on Maine businesses. For the second time in four years, it plans to ask the federal Environmental Protection Agency to remove them in much of the state, according to a June 27 draft petition to the EPA.
LePage is prevented by term limits from seeking election to a third term in 2018, leaving the seat open in November.
Makes the GradeThe state has met the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone every year since 2007, so it no longer needs to be included as part of the Ozone Transport Region, the June 27 draft petition of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection says.
The department will hold a public hearing July 30 and seek public comment through Aug. 10 before sending the petition to the federal EPA.
Freeing Maine businesses, including new facilities, from the requirements under the compact “will bring greater regulatory certainty to facilities, which will allow them to make decisions, allocate resources more efficiently, and undertake improvements to realize greater economic and environmental benefits,” the draft says.
Ozone “controls for existing facilities in Maine will not be relaxed” if the state is removed from the Ozone Transport Region, the draft says. This will “ensure that air quality in Maine does not degrade,” the draft says.
Wood and paper processing is a major industry in Maine, with $626 million in sales in 2016, according to the Maine Forest Products Council. The council hadn’t had a chance to review the ozone petition and declined to comment, Patrick Strauch, executive director, told Bloomberg Environment June 28.
Environmental Groups OpposeThe Natural Resources Council of Maine, an environmental group, opposes any rollback of air pollution rules and will protest the petition, Dylan Voorhees, a director at the group, told Bloomberg Environment June 28.
“Maine continues to have air quality challenges” and has one of the highest rates of asthma in the nation, Voorhees said.
The state tried in 2014 to petition EPA on the ozone issue and failed. The EPA was in the process of tightening the ozone standard at the time.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/maine-seeks-to-exit-ozone-limiting-compact-of-eastern-states
-
Amid New Push, Carbon Tax Plan Faces Steep Hurdles from All Sides
Jun 28, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
A newly launched effort by energy companies and a bipartisan group of former officials to advance a carbon tax faces steep hurdles on all sides, with environmentalists fearing they would have to make significant concessions for a plan that may not adequately cut greenhouse gases while Republicans continue to oppose imposition of any new tax.
Renewed attention on a carbon tax comes after the creation of a new bipartisan political action committee (PAC), known as Americans for Carbon Dividends, that will lobby on behalf of a carbon tax plan developed by a group of former top GOP administration officials known as the Climate Leadership Council (CLC). The PAC is co-chaired by former Sens. Trent Lott (R-MS) and John Breaux (D-LA) and is backed by a range of former officials.
CLC's plan would impose a $40-per-ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions that rises “gradually,” while returning proceeds to Americans to help offset higher energy costs. Importantly, the plan would also give energy companies liability protection from a growing number of lawsuits seeking damages for their role in causing climate change.
It would also preempt “many” Obama-era climate rules, including EPA's Clean Power Plan utility greenhouse gas rule that the Trump EPA is trying to rescind.
But environmentalists fear a scenario in which they agree to support such a policy, including the preemption and liability concessions to industry, but the tax fails to spur a sufficient level of GHG cuts.
“We know that you need a serious price to make this palatable to the environmental community,” says Kevin Kennedy of the World Resources Institute (WRI) in an interview with Inside EPA. “That's a real concern, that you need to give up a lot in order to get something that's not sufficient.”
WRI's Kennedy says CLC's plan is “still a relatively high-level package in terms of the level of detail. Some things they are outlining will be hard for the environmental side to give up on. The fact that [environmental groups] are not immediately jumping on board is not surprising.”
Even so, he said CLC “raised the bar” by proposing an initial $40 tax, which is a “very substantial start.”
Echoing many qualms expressed by environmentalists, Harold Hedelman, a volunteer with the group Citizens' Climate Lobby (CCL), tells Inside EPA that “a crappy carbon tax would really be a bummer, after all these years of working for it.”
CCL is pushing a competing carbon tax proposal that is similar in some ways -- particularly in that it would return the revenue to Americans in monthly dividend checks. However, he says CLC's plan is far weaker in that it would automatically increase the tax rate “gradually” -- the group has not detailed the rate of increase -- while CCL's proposal would increase the tax rate by $10 annually, reaching over $100 per ton within a decade, a level that would drive major GHG cuts.
Hedelman floated an admittedly “cynical” theory based on the fact that CLC's plan is backed by many oil and gas majors, and that companies such as ExxonMobil and Shell are reportedly weighing financial support to the PAC pushing for the proposal. Currently, a nuclear-heavy utility as well as wind and solar groups are the leading financial supporters.
Under this theory, a $40 carbon tax that essentially “doesn't go up” -- or does so very slowly -- would “knock coal out of the picture and create huge markets for their gas reserves. . . . That's not the solution, that's part of the solution.”
Even so, he praises CLC for offering broader support for the notion of carbon pricing, given that he believes any major climate legislation would require significant bipartisan support.
'Punishment Of A Tax'
In a similar vein, there remains scant evidence that GOP lawmakers -- even those that acknowledge man-made climate change is a problem -- are ready to jump on board with a carbon tax, even an industry-backed plan such as CLC's.
“I am trying to find a research way to find value for the carbon,” said Senate environment committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY), during a June 27 event hosted by the Carbon Capture Coalition in which he touted his legislation to encourage research into carbon capture technology and ease permitting for CO2 pipelines.
He added: “I would rather have the incentives . . . rather than the punishment of tax.”
In addition, Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who is perhaps one of the most high-profile GOP members of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus, tells Axios that he does not support the council's carbon tax proposal.
“I think there are some other ideas we can do, other than a carbon tax, that reduce emissions and create greater efficiencies, and I am committed to doing that, so stay tuned,” he said.
It is almost certain that a carbon tax will not receive serious consideration in the current Congress, and both Kennedy and Hedelman said it is not even clear if a Republican-sponsored carbon tax bill would be released this year -- though they believe such legislation will be floated at some point and will mark a significant milestone in debate on the issue.
But once that bill is introduced and the debate begins, environmentalists have already identified a series of issues they would need to see addressed.
Key among them is the stringency of the tax and the related question of how much emissions it would reduce.
WRI's Kennedy touted a recent WRI white paper on an “emissions target mechanism” that could be included in carbon tax legislation to assuage environmentalists' fears. Such a measure would impose some new policy -- in the form of a stronger tax rate, new GHG rules or something else -- if the initial tax levels fail to hit some predetermined “benchmark.”
If discussions about a tax progress and become more serious, Kennedy said, it is possible that groups could begin to assess if they are “getting enough” out of the policy to “start making some compromises.”
To date, WRI is remaining “actively agnostic” on many issues to help advance the discussion, he said, though the group likely at some point “will have things that will be at least close to a red line.”
He also acknowledged some groups are unlikely to budge from their current opposition.
One example could be Food & Water Watch, which has long opposed carbon pricing and favors direct GHG restrictions. The group's Jim Walsh argued in an April blog post that oil and gas companies' support for some version of a carbon tax is “a serious cause for concern, not a sign of progress. These corporations know a tax will allow them to continue with business as usual, and pass any costs on to consumers.”
Regulatory Preemption
Aside from the stringency of the tax rate itself, another key area of debate will be over the extent to which the legislation preempts EPA and other complementary climate policies.
WRI's Kennedy said such a bill should not preclude policies that deal with “market barriers” beyond the fact that carbon emissions are not priced. A chief example would be energy efficiency, which faces several other hurdles for wider deployment. Policies targeting potent greenhouse gases not covered by the tax -- such as hydrofluorocarbons -- would also make sense, he said.
Others have also cited the example of transportation emissions, arguing that fuel economy and GHG standards would make sense alongside a carbon tax, given expectations that a very high tax rate would be needed to spur changes to consumer behavior -- and that such a rate would be politically unpopular.
Further, others have said that tax incentives and other measures are needed for specific low-carbon technologies such as carbon capture and storage, even if Congress were to enact a carbon tax.
“There will be lively discussion” on preemption, Kennedy said, noting that “some degree of regulatory rollbacks” would likely be required to make the carbon price “palatable” to industry.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/amid-new-push-carbon-tax-plan-faces-steep-hurdles-all-sides
-
Kennedy’s Retirement Could Clear Path for Trump’s Environmental Rollbacks
Jun 29, 2018 | New York Times
By Brad Plumer
The retirement of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy from the Supreme Court could significantly reshape environmental law in the decades ahead and potentially make it easier for the Trump administration to roll back Obama-era climate change policies in the coming years, legal experts said.
In his 30 years on the court, Justice Kennedy was frequently a crucial swing vote on major environmental questions. While he tended to be skeptical of expansive federal regulations that intruded on private property rights, he was also willing to break with the court’s conservative wing in favor of more aggressive government action to limit air and water pollution.
Perhaps most notably, in 2007, he sided with the court’s four liberal justices in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency to rule that the E.P.A. had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. That case laid the groundwork for many of the Obama administration’s major climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants.
“One can comfortably say that he was the single most influential justice for environmental law over the past 30 years,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard. “Many of those cases were sharply divided, but the one constant was that Kennedy was in the majority in every single case but one. He was the justice that advocates always tried to persuade, because he was persuadable.”
President Trump is widely expected to nominate a more conservative justice to fill the vacancy. If that nominee is confirmed by the Senate, he or she would give the court a five-seat conservative majority that is likely to take a dimmer view of federal environmental regulation.
It is far from certain that a new court would quickly overturn Massachusetts v. E.P.A. and take away the government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases altogether, legal experts said. The court has already upheld that ruling twice in subsequent cases, and, during oral arguments in 2014, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. indicated that he considered the case an established precedent.
“What’s more likely is that we could see a new court take a more narrow reading of how the Clean Air Act can be used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions,” said Ann E. Carlson, a professor of environmental law at the University of California, Los Angeles.
For example, Scott Pruitt, the E.P.A. administrator, announced in Octoberthat he would repeal the Clean Power Plan and replace it with less extensive carbon regulations on power plants. Environmental groups and states like New York planned to challenge Mr. Pruitt’s actions in federal court, arguing that the Obama-era rules were more appropriate. That argument may now find a less receptive audience if the case reaches the Supreme Court.
By the same token, a future president who wanted to direct the E.P.A. to cut emissions more aggressively in order to tackle climate change could face tougher scrutiny from the court.
The Trump administration is also crafting a proposal to weaken Obama-era emissions standards for cars and light trucks that, in one draft version, would rescind California’s authority to set its own stricter vehicle standards. California has threatened to challenge this move in court, but the state’s chances of prevailing now look somewhat murkier.
The shift at the court could also have broad implications for federal efforts to regulate water pollution. In a sprawling 2006 case, Rapanos v. United States, the court split over how the Clean Water Act, which imposes pollution limits in large bodies of water like the Chesapeake Bay, should extend to smaller rivers, streams and wetlands.
The court’s four conservative justices at the time — led by Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 — argued for a narrow interpretation of the law that limited its reach. The court’s four liberals argued for much broader wetlands protections. Justice Kennedy wrote a separate opinion that ended up in the middle, establishing an elaborate test to determine which bodies of water could be regulated.
In 2015, the Obama administration published a new rule on water pollution, known as the Waters of the United States, that attempted to follow Justice Kennedy’s guidance. But after farmers and private landowners complained that the rule was overly invasive, Mr. Trump asked Mr. Pruitt last year to replace this rule with a much narrower regulation that followed Justice Scalia’s opinion. Mr. Pruitt’s rollback effort could now have a better chance of success if it goes before the Supreme Court.
Justice Kennedy’s retirement could also affect what types of environmental cases and questions get argued before the court.
“You can imagine the Scott Pruitts of the world feeling emboldened and saying, ‘Let’s adopt a more aggressive stance on deregulation and take our chances before the Supreme Court,’” said Jody Freeman, a law professor at Harvard who was the counselor for energy and climate change in the Obama White House. “By the same token, you also might see environmental advocates try to keep cases away from the court if they think they’ll get a worse decision there.”EDITORS’ PICKSInside the White House’s Quiet Campaign to Get Kennedy to RetireCorruption Gutted South Africa’s Tax Agency. Now the Nation Is Paying the Price.3 Days in Wyoming With Kanye West
Still, even a more conservative Supreme Court could prove unpredictable on certain environmental questions, said Jonathan H. Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University. “The further you push into any doctrinal area, the more likely we’ll see differences emerge among the conservative justices,” he said.
For instance, he said, conservative justices in the past have often differed on whether to defer to the expertise of the E.P.A. and other federal regulators in areas where laws passed by Congress are ambiguous — a principle known as the Chevron deference doctrine — and on when the federal government can pre-empt state actions. The latter question could prove important if California’s vehicle case makes it to the Supreme Court.
It is still unclear whom Mr. Trump might pick as a replacement justice. One of the candidates on his short list, Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, has written opinions that are deeply skeptical of expansive E.P.A. authority. But many other potential candidates have a less extensive track record in this area.
An early test of the new court could come in October, when the justices will hear arguments in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. That case revolves around the extent to which the Interior Department can impose restrictions on private land in order to protect endangered species — in this case, the dusky gopher frog in Louisiana.
Justice Kennedy often played a central role in these types of cases, concerned about government intrusions on private property but reluctant to sharply curtail the federal government’s authority under laws like the Endangered Species Act.
“With Kennedy gone, that larger issue is undoubtedly going to receive renewed attention,” said Mr. Lazarus. “It’s a very big deal.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/climate/anthony-kennedy-supreme-court-environment.html
-
No Easy Task for EPA to Redo Air Pollution Standards for Boilers
Jun 28, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Revising how steel mills, power plants, or refineries reduce hazardous air pollutants from their heavy duty boilers may prove challenging for the EPA, industry analysts said.
A federal appeals court has twice told the Environmental Protection Agency to explain why it chose to use reducing emissions of carbon monoxide as a proxy for organic hazardous air pollutants such as formaldehyde. But that could prove difficult for the agency because there are few other pollutants as suitable and convenient as carbon monoxide, and regulating each toxic pollutant individually would be expensive, Gale Hoffnagle, senior vice president and technical director at TRC Environmental Corp., an engineering and consulting firm, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA plans to redo the standards, which affect 14,000 boilers nationwide, but William Wehrum, the EPA’s assistant administrator for air and radiation, couldn’t provide a timeline for that process during his a June 25 keynote address for the Air & Waste Management Association’s annual meeting in Hartford, Conn.
“We have a collection of issues we are working on, but I am not sure about the status. That’s not something I am focused on,” Wehrum said.
Wehrum acknowledged the significance of the reconsideration, saying the standard is “enormously important” because heavy duty boilers are widely used in industries ranging from power plants to refineries as well as in steel and paper mills.
Court Weighs in Twice
The EPA first set standards for toxic boiler emissions in 2004. In a 2013 update, the agency revised the standards, setting a lower limit for carbon monoxide of 130 parts per million. Reducing carbon monoxide emissions below that level didn’t provide any additional reductions in the toxic pollutants the EPA is targeting.
The U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in its March Sierra Club v. EPA decision ordered the agency to reconsider its decision to set that carbon monoxide limit.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.
That same court previously ordered the EPA to explain its decision to use carbon monoxide as a surrogate for some other toxic pollutants in U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA.
EPA Lacks Data
One of the primary challenges facing the EPA will be collecting data on those toxic pollutants for which carbon monoxide is a proxy.
“It’s difficult, but doable provided EPA has the data, but I don’t know if they have the data based on what the agency filed in the court’s docket,” Melvin Keener, executive director for the Ashburn, Va.-based Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration, told Bloomberg Environment.
Hoffnagle pointed out that there isn’t enough data for how each of the hazardous air pollutants can be controlled. The EPA’s task is further complicated by the fact that there are at least 30 different types of boilers, he added.
That is because there isn’t enough interest or funding to determine what controls can be used in boilers for hazardous air pollutants, according to Keener, who hopes the new rule will come out later this year. However, it isn’t on the EPA’s regulatory agenda, which came out in May.
In the meantime, Hoffnagle said he is advising clients to make sure the boilers get regular tuneups because an efficient boiler will emit fewer emissions of carbon monoxide.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/no-easy-task-for-epa-to-redo-air-pollution-standards-for-boilers
-
Progressives Eye Leadership Changes, Stronger Climate Action
Jun 29, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Bowlin
In the days since New York Rep. Joe Crowley's primary loss, rumbles of leadership change for House Democrats have intensified.
The No. 4 Democrat in the caucus, Crowley was soundly beaten by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old self-proclaimed democratic socialist.
She ran a potent campaign that stood far to the left of the Democratic Party, calling for single-payer health care, abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and a federal jobs program.
Her win seems to have energized young, progressive members who already wanted changes at the top. Ocasio-Cortez, like some other House candidates, would not commit to supporting Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as speaker if the party takes back the chamber.
The demands from progressives: more diversity, more youth and fewer moderates among the party leadership.
Crowley, 56, is young compared with other top Democrats. Pelosi is 78, and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland is 79. Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn of South Carolina is 77.
Pelosi has been clear that she intends to keep her team in place if the party takes the House in November.
Most prominent environmental groups still profess loyalty to Pelosi, noting her progressive policies and work to combat the Trump administration.
Still, they are quietly wondering about a future after she leaves. And some greens want an overhaul, citing the urgency of climate change's threat.
RL Miller, founder of Climate Hawks Vote and head of the California Democratic Party Environmental Caucus, described a common view from the left side of the Democratic coalition.
"Current leadership is not just old," she wrote in an email, "but also comprised largely of moderates who aren't serious about the climate crisis."
Future leaders?
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) was one of the first to back Ocasio-Cortez's bid. He got flak at the time for endorsing a challenger to an incumbent.
"If you want young minority progressives to run, it's probably going to be in districts where there are incumbents, and it's unfair to people like Alexandria not to embrace new voices, young voices, minority voices," he said in an interview this week.
Asked about whether he supports a leadership overhaul, Khanna would not call for ousters. Instead, he praised Pelosi as more progressive than Crowley on everything from financial regulation to military intervention overseas.
But he said that young and minority House members "need to be represented in different leadership roles."
"We need a strong progressive" in future leadership, he said. "There is hunger for generational change."
If the Democrats flip the House this fall, Rep. Ben Ray Luján of New Mexico, head of the party's campaign branch, will have a strong case for a promotion.
Another Congressional Hispanic Caucus member, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), has also come up as a rising star, along with Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-La.), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus.
"I don't care to have the leadership discussion" until Democrats win the House, Richmond told reporters on Wednesday in the Capitol.
He cautioned against the idea that a wave of new progressive members after this fall's election would end Pelosi's tenure, even those who have disavowed her.
"The new class, a lot of them on the leadership question are saying what they need to say to represent their district," he said. "I think when you get here, sometimes you realize that it's a little bit different from what you suspected."
A number of California members have signaled interest in Crowley's old job, including Reps. Barbara Lee, Linda Sánchez — the No. 5 Democrat — and Eric Swalwell, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Lee has the progressive cred. She was the only member of Congress to vote against using military force after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The highest-ranking Latina in Congress, Sánchez got in hot water last fall for publicly calling for leadership changes. That was seen as a blunder, a blow to her career, but the party could be turning Sánchez's way.
Leading this push is Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton. The second-term member openly bucks Pelosi's leadership, calling on her to step down. Moulton has barnstormed the country this campaign cycle, cultivating relationships with prominent progressives in competitive races.
He mentioned Illinois Rep. Cheri Bustos, Ohio Reps. Tim Ryan and Marcia Fudge, and Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell as possible party leaders, according to The Hill.
Bustos' name regularly appears in talks on a leadership shake-up. Talking to reporters this week, she stressed party unity in taking back the House this fall and opposing the administration.
Asked whether she would take a shot at leadership, Bustos said that would be up to the wishes of the caucus. She went on to note that Democrats need to improve their geographic diversity on the leadership team.
"I sit around the leadership table now, and I'm the only Midwesterner," she said. Trump won her district in 2016, while Bustos was re-elected comfortably.
Miller praised Lee for throwing her hat into the ring and touted Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a favorite of the anti-Trump left.
Reporter George Cahlink contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/06/29/stories/1060087345
-
Top GOP Lawmaker Not Persuaded by Green Groups’ Promises That They Aren’t Foreign Agents
Jun 28, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A top House Republican says he isn’t convinced that two leading green groups aren’t in cahoots with China and Japan to influence United States environmental policy, despite their ardent denial.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) said Thursday he still suspects that two groups — Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) — could be acting as foreign agents, based on lawsuits they’ve filed against U.S. military actions in Asia and the Pacific Ocean.
“Based on the committee's investigation to date, we are concerned that environmental groups that bring such lawsuits may be knowingly or vulnerable to unwittingly serving as proxies for our foreign adversaries,” Bishop said in a statement Thursday, referring to the House Committee on Natural Resources, which he chairs.
“The Foreign Agents Registration Act is an important mechanism for ensuring that the American people and U.S. government know the source of information and the identity of foreign entities attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws.”
Both the NRDC and CBD sent initial responses to the panel this month, following letters from Bishop and Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) asking for documents related to potential foreign influence or control of the groups.
In their responses, both groups denied that they are acting as foreign agents or that they must register with the federal government under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
But Bishop isn’t so sure.
CBD sent its response late Wednesday, saying that its actions against a military base in Okinawa, Japan, are fueled by its desire to protect the dugong, an endangered marine mammal."If Reps. Bishop and Westerman are truly confused about the center’s motivation and control, it is perhaps because they abuse their positions of power so regularly, and are so deeply influenced by powerful corporate donors, that they are unable to conceive of people being motivated by empathy, public interest and respect for the rule of law and democracy," the group told the committee.
Bishop responded Thursday saying CBD’s “flippant response is disappointing and beneath the dignity of an organization claiming to be a serious voice in environmental policy.”
Outside attorneys for NRDC sent two letters in response to the committee’s demands this month, which The Hill obtained.
In both letters, NRDC denied that its cooperation with the Chinese government and advocacy against certain military training amounts to being a foreign agent, declining to provide documents the GOP lawmakers wanted.
“NRDC’s public interest work in China is part of its mission to protect the environment and public health,” the group wrote. “As the world’s most populous nation, China is a key element in the NRDC’s pursuit of sustainable solutions to the environmental challenges that the planet faces today.”
The committee said NRDC’s responses don’t cut it.
“The incomplete nature of their responses to date along with the failure to provide supporting documents or commit to a firm document production timeline is disconcerting,” a spokeswoman said.
A committee aide said investigators still think their suspicions could be valid.
“What we’re really trying to do is get to the bottom of this. We have this pattern of behavior that is, I think, fairly obviously detrimental to U.S. interests,” the aide said.
The aide went on to deny that Bishop is trying to shut down litigation or other actions to legitimately participate in government, arguing that FARA is not designed to censor speech.
“It really should be thought of like warnings on a cigarette carton. The idea is that if a group is advocating on behalf of, or on the request of — even via an intermediary — a foreign entity, they need to disclose that to the American public, so they American public can take that into account when receiving their information,” the staffer said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/394717-top-gop-lawmaker-not-persuaded-by-green-groups-promises-that-they
-
Oregon Eyes Linking Toxic Air Pollution Permits to Health Risks
Jun 29, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Oregon regulators plan to enact new rules in November that tie air emission permits to the potential health risks of toxic pollutants contained in those emissions.
Nearly 2,500 companies that need the permits will have to report on the presence in their emissions of about 600 chemicals, from acetaldehyde to zinc under the draft rules released June 25. They then will have to calculate the health risk of their emissions for the approximately 250 chemicals for which sufficient toxicity data exists for state regulators to set a health-based standard. Companies can be required to take steps to reduce such health risks.
At least one large company said it backs the rules.
“The current regs we are operating under haven’t changed in 20 years, and we feel it’s appropriate to update them,” Alan Sprott, vice president for environmental affairs at shipbuilder and steel fabricator Vigor Industrial LLC in Portland, told Bloomberg Environment.
“Most of the costs are going to be associated with the analysis that goes into getting your permit,” said Sprott, whose company has facilities in Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. “We think that’s going to be about a quarter of a million dollars” for consultants to identify toxic pollution, plug it into a model, and see if it triggers health risks.
“That’s when we look to a product substitution,” he said, adding that in Vigor’s case, it likely will mean swapping one paint product for another that doesn’t present such a risk.
Boeing Seeks to Work With StateThe Boeing Co., which has manufacturing facilities in the state, declined to take a position. It said it wants to ensure the rules balance protecting health and environment while allowing for economic growth.
“We look forward to teaming with our industrial partners to work with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality on rulemaking that follows the intent of the Oregon Legislature in enacting SB 1541,” Boeing spokeswoman Holly Braithwaite wrote in reference to the law signed in April funding implementation of the rule and specifying some of its elements.
Oregon’s largest manufacturer, Intel Corp., declined comment June 27 and referred Bloomberg Environment to Oregon Business & Industry, a statewide association leading business response to the proposed rule. The association also declined to comment.
Several other companies, an industry association and an attorney representing business interests on a rulemaking advisory committee either declined comment or didn’t respond to Bloomberg Environment’s requests for comment.
Environmentalist’s Criticism
Lisa Arkin, executive director of Beyond Toxics, an environmental group with offices in Eugene and Phoenix, Ore., said the bill funding the implementation of the rule didn’t achieve health-based standards.
The law “allows an existing polluter to emit four times over the health benchmark for excess lifetime cancer risk or double the health benchmark for excess non-cancer risk before an industrial facility is required to reduce their toxic air emissions,” Arkin said in a June 27 email to Bloomberg Environment.
The result is that the law “is magnitudes higher than the health risks allowed by any other state that has updated their air toxics rules,” she said.
Excess Cancers in Play
The draft rules are intended to fill such gaps in the state and follow 24 other states that have adopted health-based air toxics regulations, Robb Cowie, a spokesman for the Oregon Health Authority, told Bloomberg Environment.
The law mandates certain elements to the proposed rule, with the most pivotal being that the rule could not require facilities to reduce health risks if they were below 10 excess lifetime cancers in 1 million people for new facilities or 50 excess cancers in 1 million for existing facilities.
That level is less protective of health than what the department originally proposed.
“One key change was in the risk action level at which an existing facility would have to either reduce risk, or demonstrate that they already have the best available control technology for air toxics,” Cleaner Air Oregon program coordinator Joe Westersund said in a June 27 email.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oregon-eyes-linking-toxic-air-pollution-permits-to-health-risks
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested