Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 8/10/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) China's Tariffs to Target Most, Not All, New US PE Output: ACC
Aug 9, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The American Chemistry Council on Thursday revised its list of US petrochemicals and plastics targeted for $16 billion in retaliatory tariffs from China, removing a grade that will make up about one-fifth new US polyethylene capacity -- much of which is intended... -
(ACC Mentioned) Us PVC Outlook Becomes Scrambled for H2 as Trade Fears Take Hold
Aug 9, 2018 | ICIS
By Bill Bowen
US polyvinyl chloride (PVC) market players had reasons for high hopes at the dawn of 2018: strong production levels; a seeming return to strong US construction growth, up solidly this year; rising domestic demand; and growing export sales opportunities. -
(ACC Mentioned) Two Views of Us Manufacturing Anchor Trade Debate
Aug 9, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
There are two very different views of how manufacturing is doing in the United States lurking under the increasingly heated trade debate we're having. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chem Sector Jockeys for Trucking Capacity
Aug 9, 2018 | JOC.com
By Clay Boswell
US chemical producers knew a sector boom would create logistics challenges. But what they did not anticipate was other growing sectors putting extreme pressure on US trucking as well, with a huge spillover to intermodal rail... -
(ACC Mentioned) CPIA Resource Recovery Partnership Conference Shapes Broader Approach to Recovery Framework
Aug 9, 2018 | Recycling Product News
Striving for zero waste across multiple waste streams is daunting yet imperative for sectors involved in the lifecycle chain of extracting, consuming, disposing and recovering resources. -
A Looming Trade Lesson
Aug 9, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
America lost more than three-fourths of its textile-mill jobs between 1991 and 2016. “One of my main objectives was to bring those opportunities back,” says Gary Heiman, president and CEO of Cincinnati-based Standard Textile. -
In 'Test,' Environmentalists Urge Wheeler to Break with Pruitt on Key Rules
Aug 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are urging Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to narrow or scrap a series of proposals that his predecessor Scott Pruitt championed before resigning last month, eyeing the agency’s coming decisions on science policy... -
They Won’t Sink Zinke
Aug 9, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
To serve in the Trump administration is to deserve hazard pay, and lately that’s especially true of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. -
(ACC Mentioned) This EPA Rule May Expand Asbestos Use, and There’s One More Day to Give Feedback
Aug 9, 2018 | PBS Newshour
By Nsikan Akpan
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to stop taking public comments for a proposed rule that critics say could expand the use of asbestos — an industrial material known to cause cancer and lung disease. -
A Toxic Substance Has Been Found in Crayons Again
Aug 9, 2018 | The Atlantic
By Angela Lashbrook
Crayons are generally an innocuous children’s product, but a consumer-advocacy group has discovered a dangerous substance in one brand. In a newly released report on 27 back-to-school products, the United States Public Interest Research Group, or PIRG, -
EPA’s Chemical Analysis Plans Unlawful, 11 Attorneys General Say
Aug 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s plans to decide whether asbestos and nine other chemicals pose unreasonable risks are “woefully incomplete” and would ignore many ways people could be exposed to the substances, according to 11 attorneys general. -
Why Is Everyone Tweeting About a SNUR? For That Matter, What Is a SNUR?
Aug 9, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
A Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) is a rule that EPA issues in order to get advance notice about the new use of a chemical that could have potential to harm human health or the environment. (“New use” can also mean the return of an old one.) -
(ACC Mentioned) Consumer Agency Takes Step Toward Possible Flame Retardant Ban
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Consumer Product Safety Commission kicked off a science review Aug. 9 on whether a group of flame retardants should be examined together as the commission decides whether to ban the chemicals in children’s toys and other products. -
Water Utilities Seek EPA Focus on Research, Source Control to Address PFAS
Aug 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
Wastewater utilities are urging EPA to focus its work on perfluorinated chemicals on research to better understand the fate, transport and toxicity of the chemicals and then to use “heightened source control efforts and certain, specifically tailored regulatory standards,” -
EPA Nears Chlorpyrifos Ban on Crops as Advocates’ Petition Prevails (1)
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A federal appeals court order has paved the way for the EPA to ban nearly all uses of a widely used pesticide linked to neurodevelopmental delays, in a victory for environmentalists. -
EU Wants US to Drop Restrictions on Natural Gas Exports
Aug 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The European Union wants United States officials to repeal restrictions on exporting liquefied natural gas. -
Europe Shows It’s Getting Serious About Buying U.S. LNG
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Shiryaevskaya and Naureen S. Malik
European nations are far behind Mexico and China when it comes to receiving liquefied natural gas from the U.S., but the region is making its biggest effort to date to change that. -
Is the Anti-Pipeline Playbook Starting to Work?
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups have grown accustomed to losing courtroom battles over natural gas pipelines. -
FERC Official's Comments Spotlight Pipeline Cyber Risk
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Comments by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's chief of staff, Anthony Pugliese, to an industry group appear to be more evidence of concern over potential attacks on U.S. gas pipelines that could threaten the nation's electricity supply. -
Energy Transfer May Boost Dakota Access Capacity
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Energy Transfer Partners LP has seen heavy use of its Dakota Access pipeline and is looking at an expansion in the "near future," an executive said yesterday. -
(ACC Blog) Congress and the White House Rein in a Flawed Chemical Security Regulation
Aug 9, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erney and Matthew J. Eggars
Numerous national security issues dominate the attention of policymakers today – border security, cybersecurity, North Korea, and Iran easily come to mind. While these are weighty subjects, it’s also important that we don’t lose sight of other key economic and homeland security priorities... -
Russia-Linked Grid Hackers Could Be Poised for a Comeback
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last fall, a group of more than two dozen utility executives huddled in downtown Washington, D.C., to discuss an urgent threat to the power grid. -
NTSB: Oil Train Was Just Below Speed Limit Before Derailing near Doon
Aug 10, 2018 | Sioux City Journal
By Mason Dockter
The BNSF Railway train that spilled 160,000 gallons of crude oil into floodwaters in rural Lyon County was going just below the speed limit when it derailed in June, the National Transportation Safety Board found in a preliminary report of the accident issued Thursday. -
Canada Drops Pursuit of Fine in Fatal Lac-Megantic Rail Disaster
Aug 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada is no longer pursuing C$600,000 ($460,000) in environmental fines from a rail company involved in a 2013 train explosion that killed 47 people in rural Quebec. -
Oil Industry Quick to Denounce Carbon Tax
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Shortly after Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) convened a climate change team last year, the oil and gas industry got busy. -
2018 Is Shaping Up to Be the Fourth-Hottest Year. Yet We’re Still Not Prepared for Global Warming.
Aug 10, 2018 | New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
This summer of fire and swelter looks a lot like the future that scientists have been warning about in the era of climate change, and it’s revealing in real time how unprepared much of the world remains for life on a hotter planet.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) China's Tariffs to Target Most, Not All, New US PE Output: ACC
Aug 9, 2018 | Platts
By Kristen Hays
The American Chemistry Council on Thursday revised its list of US petrochemicals and plastics targeted for $16 billion in retaliatory tariffs from China, removing a grade that will make up about one-fifth new US polyethylene capacity -- much of which is intended to meet Chinese demand through the next decade.
The ACC, along with US petrochemical producers and traders, has rushed to sort out what was and was not on China's revised list of tariffs that will be imposed on August 23 in response to a $16 billion chemical- and plastics-heavy list of tariffs that the US will impose on Chinese goods from that date.
Initially the ACC said China's list included three grades of US-origin polyethylene: low density (LDPE), linear low density (LLDPE) and high density (HDPE). An earlier version of China's $16 billion list had included just LDPE, which makes up about 20% of the 9.2 million mt/year of known US polyethylene capacity starting up in from 2017 through 2020 and beyond. The revised list was thought to have all three, making up the total amount of known new capacity.
On Thursday, the ACC said further study revealed that LDPE was not on the revised list of tariffs to be implemented on August 23, but it does target LLDPE and HDPE, which make up 80% of the new capacity. LLDPE is used to make pliable plastic films and packaging, while HDPE's uses include milk jugs, grocery bags and detergent bottles.
The revised list also dropped polyvinyl chloride, a resin used to make construction materials like flooring, vinyl siding and pipes. It still targets ethylene dichloride, a precursor to PVC, and China is the top market for US export EDC. It also still targets gasoline, propane, crude oil and diesel.
Producers and traders were also watching for more revisions.
"They realized they left a loophole," Fernando Musa, CEO of Brazilian petrochemical producer Braskem, said about the addition of HDPE during the company's quarterly earnings call on Thursday.
A source with Chinese customs said Thursday that market participants should check repeatedly with China's Ministry of Commerce for further revisions, which could be made before the tariffs were implemented.
The dual lists of $16 billion in tariffs are the second round of an initial $50 billion. The US imposed $34 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods July 6, and China responded immediately with tariffs of the same value on US goods, largely agricultural crops and automobiles.
The US started in March with tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from China and other sources that eventually included Mexico, the European Union and Canada, the largest steel importer to the US.
The US is considering another $200 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods, and China said it would retaliate with another $60 billion in taxes on US products.
The ACC has vehemently argued against adding taxes on Chinese imports of chemicals and plastics made with them, citing nearly $200 billion in new US chemical infrastructure that includes eight new ethane-fed steam crackers and 13 new PE plants opening in 2017-2019 with more thereafter.
Plentiful cheap feedstocks from the US natural gas boom prompted the buildout, though most if not all new output will be exported to growth markets -- with China by far the top destination.
Musa said Thursday that trade flows would adjust and eventually reach a new equilibrium, albeit with short-term difficulties. He also said it was not in the interests of the US or China "to keep going and escalating."
"With two very strong-willed leaders, it's hard to predict. So let's see where it goes," he said.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/080918-chinas-tariffs-to-target-most-not-all-new-us-pe-output-acc
-
(ACC Mentioned) Us PVC Outlook Becomes Scrambled for H2 as Trade Fears Take Hold
Aug 9, 2018 | ICIS
By Bill Bowen
US polyvinyl chloride (PVC) market players had reasons for high hopes at the dawn of 2018: strong production levels; a seeming return to strong US construction growth, up solidly this year; rising domestic demand; and growing export sales opportunities.
But the promising signs that had lifted those bright hopes crashed quickly.
“What you don’t want is disruption,” said a producer preoccupied with placing material once bound for Turkey.
What no one wanted - and no one expected - were tariffs on US PVC sales to China. Neither did anyone expect Turkey to increase duties on US material - or to end the re-export exemption on duties paid on US PVC imports.
That elimination of the re-export exemption all but ended US shipments to Turkey, an important and promising market that had absorbed 122,000 tonnes of US PVC in 2017, up from 88,000 the year before.
China, the US’s second-largest export market after Canada, is prepared to retaliate with tariffs of 25% if the US imposes a second round of tariffs on $200bn in Chinese goods, a move that now appears likely later this summer.
“Things weren’t just out of this world, but they were going pretty well,” said another PVC producer. “Now everybody is side-tracked.”
Market prospects for the second half of 2018 have become clouded by these fast-changing challenges, as traders and producers search for new buyers to buy material bound for now-prohibited markets.
Demand in the US and Canada domestic markets remain firm-to-robust, with construction activity running at 4.5% higher in May than in the same month in 2017 gauging by an annualised rate, according to the US Census Bureau.
But US and Canada PVC manufacturers export one-third of their PVC production, or about 2.24m tonnes in 2017, as they boost output to leverage low-cost shale-based ethane to make feedstock ethylene, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC) using data compiled by Vault Consulting.
US producers have worked to build export business and expect a disruption to trade flows to affect their bottom lines.
The PVC trade route to Turkey dried up quickly in June with the change of duty treatment there, according to suppliers who operate in that market.
Some US market participants are holding out hope that the exemption will be re-instated as the presidential election held in that country in recent weeks fades in the rear-view mirror.
The proposed retaliatory tariffs from China are another impediment to US players’ market plans.
China threatens 25% tariffs on US PVC and for precursor chemical ethylene dichloride (EDC).
China is the largest export market for US EDC, taking 371,000 tonnes in 2017, down from 495,000 tonnes in 2016, according to data from the US International Trade Commission (ITC).
The 300,000 tonnes of PVC that buyers in China took last year was mostly re-exported to Southeast Asia markets, enjoying the same re-export exemption that producers had enjoyed in Turkey.
The question now is, if China puts 25% tariffs on US PVC, it will not matter much if the re-export exemption remains in place. But if it is removed, the China market will also dry up.
“If Turkey can work out how stop this re-export business, I am sure that China will figure it out very quickly, if they want to,” said a frustrated trader.
China has reduced tariffs from India and South Korea in order to encourage sales from these origins. That is not a hopeful sign to US observers of the current market changes.
“The market is a mess and it will take some time to sort out,” the trader added.
Sorting it out may be a bit of an intra-company sport.
Some US producers, such as Shintech and Formosa Plastics, are divisions of companies headquartered in other market regions. So they may be able to coordinate adjustments quickly and without much disruption to sales and marketing efforts, according to market observers.
Westlake Chemical also has a specialty division in Europe, Vinnolit. That may allow Westlake to sell into Europe while Vinnolit provides some supply to Turkey and China, these observerrs point out.
OxyChem may be in the weakest position. It has a relationship with Mexichem, which the company might be able to leverage to shift sales efforts more smoothly than going it alone.
However it plays out, gaining sales in new markets will likely require competitive prices.
Additionally, selling into alternative markets is likely to require longer travel times and greater freight costs.
Both of those factors may work against proposed price increases.
But given the complications, the extra-market factors that come into play and the political nature of trade war, make the outcome difficult to gauge.
It may turn out that the tangling of trade flows may push prices higher if some markets are starved of supply.
"You can make all the plans and figure out what you're going to do, but it's really hard to know how this is going to turn out," said a major US producer.
Major US PVC producers include Occidental Chemical, Westlake Chemical, Shintech and Formosa Plastics.
(read in paragraph 26 …However it plays out, gaining sales in new markets will likely require competitive prices.… instead of …However it play out, gaining sales in new markets is likely to force producers and traders to use competitive prices to build sales.)
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/08/09/10248011/us-pvc-outlook-becomes-scrambled-for-h2-as-trade-fears-take-hold/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Two Views of Us Manufacturing Anchor Trade Debate
Aug 9, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
There are two very different views of how manufacturing is doing in the United States lurking under the increasingly heated trade debate we're having.
There's the view shared by the Trump administration and its supporters, that unfair trade, particularly with China, is responsible for millions of lost factory jobs and has really hurt domestic manufacturing.
...The American Chemistry Council told a recent U.S. government hearing that the the U.S. plastics industry "is highly competitive and does not need protective ...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180809/BLOG03/180809877/two-views-of-us-manufacturing-anchor-trade-debate
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chem Sector Jockeys for Trucking Capacity
Aug 9, 2018 | JOC.com
By Clay Boswell
US chemical producers knew a sector boom would create logistics challenges. But what they did not anticipate was other growing sectors putting extreme pressure on US trucking as well, with a huge spillover to intermodal rail...
...To get ahead of the issue, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) commissioned a study by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), “Transporting Growth: Delivering a ...
§ Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-chem-sector-jockeys-trucking-capacity_20180809.html
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Recycling Product News
Striving for zero waste across multiple waste streams is daunting yet imperative for sectors involved in the lifecycle chain of extracting, consuming, disposing and recovering resources. To examine the challenges and benefits of recovering resources and building a sustainable economy, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA), Waterloo Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE), City of London, Western University/Institute for Chemicals and Fuels from Alternative Resources (ICFAR) and PAC Next held their fifth annual Resource Recovery Partnership Conference (RRPC) at the University of Waterloo, in Waterloo, Ontario June 21 and 22.
"The ultimate goal was to engage international experts, policymakers, researchers, business leaders, innovators and entrepreneurs in helping to shape a broader approach to a resource recovery framework," said CPIA's President and CEO, Carol Hochu. "More than 150 people participated in the conversation, helping to elevate the discussion about these issues."
Hochu noted the conference's first objective was to emphasize waste prevention and then to address how to manage the remaining waste resources sustainably.
Prior to the conference, registrants were invited to read a draft document entitled: Primer for Developing an Advanced Resource Recovery Framework and encouraged to add ideas on how to achieve zero waste and a sustainable economy by leveraging the opportunities provided by resource recovery technologies beyond conventional reuse and recycling practices.At the conference, they participated in group sessions to provide their opinions on topics such as:
• The role resource recovery practices such as mixed waste processing, mechanical biological treatment and energy from waste should play in helping provinces achieve diversion goals.
• How should feedstock supplies be directed or encouraged toward resource recovery facilities?
• What kind of innovative opportunities exist for government to support Canadian leadership and development of resource recovery technologies?
• How can emerging technologies be de-risked to support resource recovery sector investment and development from research through pilot projects to full commercialization?"The valuable insights we received will help elevate the primer to a draft white paper on Developing an Advanced Resource Recovery Framework which we will circulate to conference participants in the fall for continued input and collaboration," said Joe Hruska, CPIA's VP of Sustainability.
Key speakers featured thought leaders from Canadian, American and international industry, academia, government and associations including Jay Stanford, Director, Environment, Fleet and Solid Waste, City of London; Stephen Sikra, Associate Director, Circular Economy and Sustainable Materials Management, Procter and Gamble; Dr. Umberto Arena, Professor of Solid Waste Management and Air Pollution Control Engineering, University of Campania, Italy; and Craig Cookson, Director, Sustainability and Recycling, American Chemistry Council. Speaker presentations are posted on RRPC's website.
https://www.recyclingproductnews.com/article/28801/cpia-resource-recovery-partnership-conference-shapes-broader-approach-to-recovery-framework
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Editorial Board
America lost more than three-fourths of its textile-mill jobs between 1991 and 2016. “One of my main objectives was to bring those opportunities back,” says Gary Heiman, president and CEO of Cincinnati-based Standard Textile. Mr. Heiman has succeeded, creating around 400 jobs in two Southern towns, but now the Trump tariffs are threatening to drive those jobs back overseas. That’s the opposite of what Mr. Trump claims is happening due to his tariffs.
Standard Textile specializes in making sheets, towels and other reusable fabric products for hospitals and hotels. Since 2002 the company has invested some $66 million in American manufacturing facilities and equipment in Union, S.C., and Thomaston, Ga.
Workers don’t need a college degree, and Standard Textile provides on-the-job training for anyone who shows the right attitude and aptitude to work. Employees earn an average of $44,000 a year in salary and benefits—well above the median household income of $35,000 in Union and $27,500 in Thomaston.
A raw fabric known as greige is Standard Textile’s main input, and the company buys about $30 million worth from China each year. Workers at the Union facility scour, bleach, dye and finish the cotton material, sending rolls of the fabric to Thomaston for cutting, sewing and packaging. But in July the Trump Administration proposed raising tariffs by 10% on $200 billion of Chinese goods—greige included. On Aug. 1 President Trump directed the U.S. Trade Representative to lift the tariff to 25%.
That increase would put Standard Textile at a major disadvantage against foreign competition. The company paid $2.9 million in duties for greige last year, and this would add up to $7.5 million more to its manufacturing costs. Finished textiles made by Chinese workers would continue to face the old tariff of 6.7%.
Mr. Heiman says the increased tariffs on greige would be such a burden that it could force him to shut down some of his American manufacturing plants, lay off hundreds of workers, and move operations overseas.
Mr. Trump won a majority of votes in Union and Thomaston in 2016. Russ Ogle, a plant manager at Standard Textile’s Union facility, says the President’s proposed tariffs have left his workers feeling bewildered. “The mantra for the Trump election, the promises, were bring back jobs to the United States, and particularly, manufacturing jobs,” Mr. Ogle says, adding:
“We’re here trying to fight the battle, to be competitive against lower-wage-paying countries around the world. And this tariff and its possible consequences would be devastating—absolutely devastating. Not only the loss of income, but the senselessness of it. This policy creates an unfair advantage for companies that are sourcing finished products from overseas at the expense of American manufacturers and jobs. We aren’t asking for any handouts, just a level playing field.”
Hundreds of companies are asking similar questions as they cope with the harmful consequences of his tariffs that Donald Trump doesn’t like to talk about.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-looming-trade-lesson-1533854863
-
In 'Test,' Environmentalists Urge Wheeler to Break with Pruitt on Key Rules
Aug 9, 2018 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are urging Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to narrow or scrap a series of proposals that his predecessor Scott Pruitt championed before resigning last month, eyeing the agency’s coming decisions on science policy, climate regulation and other issues as key signs of whether the new acting chief will be “Pruitt 2.0.”
“We know full well that some of the proposals that his predecessor started would be illegal if they were finalized as written. So this is the test for him -- is he going to hit the pause button and look at these very closely . . . . is he going to put some of the promises that Scott Pruitt made to polluters on ice?” Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Felice Stadler said in an Aug. 9 interview with Inside EPA.
EPA is slated in the coming days to close the public comment dockets on a host of high-profile regulatory proposals that were issued under Pruitt, such as repeal of the 2015 Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction standard, a controversial overhaul of how the agency uses science in its rulemakings, lead-dust hazard limits, how to consider costs and benefits in rulemakings and renewable fuel standard biofuel blending targets for 2019, among others.
And another round of proposals are still going through interagency review that began under Pruitt, including replacements for the Obama-era CWA jurisdiction rule and Clean Power Plan greenhouse gas emissions standards for existing power plants.
With the agency facing pressure from conservatives to enact high-profile rulemakings by the end of 2018, in order to allow time for lawsuits to resolve before the end of President Donald Trump’s current term, observers are expecting quick action on many of the rules now under consideration -- meaning that even if Wheeler does not stay at EPA for the long term, his choices in the next few months will be key to defining the agency’s agenda through 2020.
Environmentalists are thus calling on the acting administrator to reverse or moderate the policy proposals that EPA developed under his predecessor, and looking at how he approaches them as an acid test for whether his policy agenda will be substantively different from Pruitt’s.
For instance, a source at Sierra Club who works on climate policy says stakeholders are expecting EPA to unveil its replacement for the Clean Power Plan “this month, and maybe as soon as next week,” and are looking to see if that proposal matches early reports that it will require at most a few percentage points of emissions reductions.
“If that’s what we’re going to see, and we don’t know if it is but it’s what they’ve been talking about, it’s Pruitt 2.0,” the source says.
One area where Wheeler has already signed off on a major cutback to Obama-era climate policy is the newly proposed rollback of vehicle emissions standards -- although that rule was co-developed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and sources say that agency has taken the lead, giving Wheeler and other EPA officials little room to seek a more cautious path forward.
“While I’ve heard rumors that it was really driven by NHTSA, it was baked before he got there -- in the end, his name’s on it,” the Sierra Club source says.
“What we had expected from Wheeler as opposed to Pruitt was less of a tendency to do the most outrageous and extreme things. This is pretty outrageous and extreme.”
Key Policies
Environmentalist sources highlighted a range of policies as key indicators of whether Wheeler will break with Pruitt in substantive ways -- a demonstration of how many major policy proposals EPA is poised to put forward or enact in the coming months.
For instance, in an Aug. 8 blog post, EDF’s Stadler highlighted as tests of “Wheeler’s true EPA agenda” whether he would scrap the science transparency rule, reverse proposed denials of Mid-Atlantic states’ petitions to reduce interstate ozone transport from out-of-state power plants, preserve the agency's budget in the administration's fiscal year 2020 budget request due early next year, and drop a plan to roll back facility safety rules under the Clean Air Act.
And a longer white paper from the group also highlights Wheeler’s position on production limits for high-emitting “glider” trucks, where he reversed an enforcement waiver granted on Pruitt’s final day in office -- after a court stayed it pending litigation -- but has voiced support for a rulemaking effort to repeal the limits altogether.
The paper also urges Wheeler to adopt a strict plan for limiting lead in drinking water and to complete proposed Obama-era bans under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for several existing chemicals, including
methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, and N-methylpyrrolidone.
Speaking to Inside EPA, Stadler also noted that Wheeler has discretion to reverse guidance letters and other policies that Pruitt issued without notice and comment, such as his decision to block scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on advisory panels like the Science Advisory Board (SAB).
“Scott Pruitt was not shy about exercising his authority and issuing directives, and absolutely [Wheeler] can reverse those,” she said.
The science-adviser policy is under an active court challenge, but Wheeler has a decision to make on SAB membership soon, as nominations to the board and four subcommittees were due on Aug. 8.
A source at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says Wheeler’s decisions on how to proceed with chemical regulations under the reformed TSCA are also being closely watched -- including both how he proceeds with a slate of pending safety reviews, and whether he finalizes the chemical bans that the Obama administration proposed -- noting that Pruitt pledged to advance them before leaving office.
“Pruitt basically shelved them on his way out . . . those bans need to be finalized, and that could be done at any time,” the source says.
However, one of those is now out of his hands, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held on Aug. 9 that Pruitt was wrong to reverse a proposed ban on the pesticide chlorpyrifos. “He’s now going to have to do that,” the NRDC source continues.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/test-environmentalists-urge-wheeler-break-pruitt-key-rules
-
Aug 9, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Kimberley A. Strassel
To serve in the Trump administration is to deserve hazard pay, and lately that’s especially true of Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
The green-industrial complex claimed Scott Pruitt’s scalp last month, ginning up a storm of ethics allegations that forced his resignation as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now it has shifted focus to Mr. Zinke. But it’s hitting walls. Mr. Zinke isn’t giving his detractors easy opportunities. He has aides who know and follow the rules, and backing in the White House and in Congress.
Not that the incoming is pleasant. Few movements are better funded and coordinated or more messianic than the environmental left. They despise a Trump team that is correcting decades of backward energy and environmental schemes and are working furiously to bring down the reformers. Unlike green groups of 20 years ago, which focused on policy, today’s effort is focused almost entirely on personal destruction.
Mr. Zinke’s antagonists include the usual big-dollar organizations, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, many of which are now staffed or run by former Obama officials; self-described watchdog groups like the Western Values Project, that are closely tied to major environmental and labor groups; and congressional allies such as Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who call daily for investigations. The coalition produces an assembly line of allegations, which the mainstream media dutifully pass along.
Their problem is that they can’t find any real stink with Mr. Zinke. Mr. Pruitt was hit with an array of allegations, many nonsensical, but what tipped the scale against him were those in which he seemed to be using his position for gain or wasting taxpayer dollars. The critics have tried desperately to do the same to Mr. Zinke, with no luck.
One claim was that he secretly arranged a Puerto Rico contract for an energy firm from Whitefish, Mont., his hometown. The Interior Department’s Office of Inspector General tells me it never opened an investigation, and even Democrats have dropped it in embarrassment.
Mr. Zinke’s foes more recently claimed he has misused his office to promote a land development in Whitefish. But the story involves a foundation from which Mr. Zinke resigned upon becoming secretary, and a project that has been on the table for ages.
The groups have also tried to go after him on spending, including three chartered flights. But the inspector general found Mr. Zinke had followed “relevant law, policy, rules and regulations.” It also found all the trips were “reasonable,” save one—and Mr. Zinke’s staff wasn’t to blame since it received prior approval from ethics officials for every flight. Then there has been the attempt to claim he violated the Hatch Act by attending political events while out on official duties. The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (a permanent government body that monitors federal personnel issues) in May said Mr. Zinke had done everything legally. Every “scandal” is of this type; lots of smoke, but never any fire.
Mr. Zinke has an added asset in Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, who worked at Interior during the George W. Bush administration, where he went through the ethics rodeo. Mr. Bernhardt is hiring an unprecedented number of new ethics officials, including in April two ethics gurus, Scott de la Vega and Heather Gottry, who each bring decades of expertise. The goal is not only to give the political team the best guidance, but to ensure better compliance across Interior’s 70,000 employees.
One final point in Mr. Zinke’s favor: He has support within the administration. One recently departed White House official tells me this is in large part because the interior secretary (unlike Mr. Pruitt) is the “consummate team player,” constantly engaged in dialogue with White House staff, and in particular willing to take direction on how to handle questions and situations.
And there is respect—internally, in Congress, and at the state level—for his reform program, which has been sweeping. The department has been leading the way on swifter, smarter timelines for environmental analyses and permitting. It is tackling the failed Endangered Species Act, jump-starting oil and gas development on federal lands, making sure public lands are once again for “public use” by all, and working to cut an enormous maintenance backlog in the national parks.
All of this is why he will continue as the environmental left’s top target—they despise any plan that envisions our public lands for “the benefit and enjoyment of the people” ( Teddy Roosevelt’s words at Yellowstone). Expect to see more headlines suggesting Mr. Zinke is corrupt. But know that those headlines don’t come via fact or reason or policy debate. They come out of a known take-down strategy from the left—and one to which Mr. Zinke and his team are on guard.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/they-wont-sink-zinke-1533855298
-
(ACC Mentioned) This EPA Rule May Expand Asbestos Use, and There’s One More Day to Give Feedback
Aug 9, 2018 | PBS Newshour
By Nsikan Akpan
On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency is scheduled to stop taking public comments for a proposed rule that critics say could expand the use of asbestos — an industrial material known to cause cancer and lung disease.
Since the health hazards of asbestos emerged 40 years ago, use of the material has dropped dramatically across the globe. By 2013, more than 60 countries had implemented partial or full bans of asbestos.
Critics and news reports say the proposed rule would open the door for asbestos to make a comeback. Before becoming president, Donald Trump voiced his support for asbestos, suggesting the fire retardant could have prevented the World Trade Center from collapsing during 9/11. Though the public comment period has been open since June 11, only 15 remarks had been made as of Tuesday. Even after a flurry of news coverage this week, the number is less than a thousand.
But EPA officials say it will do the opposite — by filling a loophole that companies could currently use to manufacture or distribute new products with asbestos. They argue without this new rule, a full regulatory ban of asbestos in the future will not be possible.
We asked the EPA, an epidemiologist and an environmental lawyer for their insight. Here’s what you need to know.
Why the EPA proposed this rule
People think asbestos is banned in the U.S., but they’re wrong, said Thomas Burke, an environmental epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health.
“Most people dread the word asbestos and know that it’s a recognized carcinogen, but don’t realize just how much is still in the environment and in common products,” Burke said.
Today, you can find asbestos in brake liners, potting soil, chlorine factories and firefighters’ clothing. Just this week, the chemical was found in crayons and other school supplies.Meanwhile, homeowners and communities continue to deal with the fallout of using asbestos as clothing and building material for thousands of years, most recently as a flame retardant, wall insulation and liner for cement pipes.
“Unfortunately, we all have asbestos fibers in our lungs — whether it’s from the subway stations of New York, to the brakes on cars to background exposure from the historical use in insulation of pipes in our grade schools,” said Burke, who chairs Health Risk and Society program at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. “These asbestos fibers are tiny, and they get in your lungs. They’re like needles, and they stick there forever.”
Most people don’t encounter enough asbestos to suffer health problems, but high exposure has been linked to lung cancer, lung scarring and tumors in the linings of internal organs, a cancer known as mesothelioma.
So why hasn’t the U.S. banned asbestos? Well, officials tried.
The EPA began outlawing asbestos for building materials in 1975, starting with pipe insulation. By 1989, the agency had issued a final rule for a near-total ban of the mineral, under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Yet in 1991, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA’s rule, leaving the door open for the importing and manufacturing of asbestos-containing products.
“What happened is that many of these [asbestos] uses were voluntarily phased out. But nothing stopped someone from bringing those uses back to market,” Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told PBS NewsHour. “If somebody wanted to start manufacturing for any of those uses today, they actually could.”
Beck said the proposed rule is necessary to close the gaps created by the court’s decision, so the agency can build the foundation for an outright ban of asbestos.
The rule calls on manufacturers to alert the EPA if they try to use asbestos in an array of products, including adhesives, sealants, and roof and non-roof coatings; separators in fuel cells and batteries; vinyl-asbestos floor tile; and any other building material (other than cement). (See side story for full list).
“It basically prohibits anyone from starting that new use without sending that package to the EPA first for our robust evaluation and approval, if warranted…or disapproval,” said Beck, who worked as an executive for the American Chemical Council, an industry trade organization, before joining the EPA.
Closing a door but opening a window?
All of this is happening now because of the so-called Lautenberg reforms of 2016.
Two years ago, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, mandating that the EPA take steps to evaluate the risks of all existing chemicals used commercially in America. The law set enforceable deadlines for the EPA and required that a chemical be designated as safe before being sold.
A month before President Trump assumed office, the EPA announced the first 10 chemicals to undergo evaluations under the new law, and asbestos topped the list.
For asbestos, the evaluation has involved a few stages, but the two most pertinent center around the proposed rule and something known as “the problem formulation.”
The purpose of the problem formulation is to pinpoint the full scope of risk associated with asbestos. EPA officials will use it to set new regulations or institute a full ban.
“The EPA has received criticism, including from us, with regards to the way it is proposing to conduct this risk assessment of asbestos,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group.
The problem formulation excludes some past findings on the risks of asbestos, Benesh said. In particular, it omits hazards associated with so-called “legacy uses” of the chemical, including the asbestos left over in buildings across the country.
“We think it’s really irresponsible of the agencies to not take those exposures into consideration when determining whether or not this is dangerous,” Benesh said. “The agency is also proposing to exclude certain non-cancer health risks from its assessment of asbestos, even though there are known cancer lung diseases associated with exposure to asbestos.”
This exclusion includes the risks posed to firefighters linked to flame retardant materials and clothing. In 2013, a study of 30,000 firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia found they’re twice as likely to develop mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure.
Both Benesh and Burke said these omissions in combination with the proposed rule may leave room for asbestos to enter new products.
“It would be beneficial for new uses but would miss the forest for a couple of trees in terms of public health,” said Burke, who served with the EPA during Obama Administration as science advisor and deputy assistant administrator for research and development.
Why it matters
Last December, Brazil, the leading supplier of asbestos to the U.S., issued a nationwide ban of the mining, use and commercialization of the material. In 2016, the U.S. imported 705 metric tons of asbestos from overseas, twice its tally from the year before, and 95 percent of these imports came from Brazil.
The rest originated in Russia, which is now poised to become the most significant exporter of asbestos to the U.S.
Russian manufacturers see an opportunity to expand their markets with Trump as president, given his past support for asbestos, with one company going as far as stamping his face on their packaging. Beck said the president has not been involved in the EPA’s recent activities involving asbestos.
The U.S. chemical industry supports the steps taken by the EPA. The American Chemical Council declined to comment via phone, but shared this statement:
“ACC and its members commend the release of the problem formulation of asbestos. This brings the agency one step closer to a comprehensive risk evaluation of asbestos use in the chlor-alkali industry and elsewhere. ACC and its members will continue to work with and provide requested information to EPA to ensure the evaluation and final assessment are scientifically accurate and protective of worker and environmental health.”
But will the proposed rule and the problem formulation, which has a public comment period that ends August 16, trigger an increase in asbestos use?
No one will know until the rule is confirmed, and the EPA begins reviewing new applications for the chemical.
Beck said the rule creates a disincentive for manufacturers and distributors who want to bring these products to market because they can’t immediately do so.
“They have to come to us for a thorough evaluation of the environmental and human health risks before they can go to market,” Beck said.
But Burke said the the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the same applies to environmental protections. He cited the example of a chemical called MTBE, which is added to gasoline so the fuel burns cleaner.
“This is now perhaps one of the most pervasive drinking water contaminants and groundwater contaminants in the U.S. That’s what happens when you use a narrow lens, when you have the blinders on,” Burke said. “Asbestos is a bellwether issue for the protection of public health and chemical safety. It’s important to have a public health approach that looks at the full range of uses and potential risk to a population.”
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/this-epa-rule-may-expand-asbestos-use-and-theres-one-more-day-to-give-feedback
-
A Toxic Substance Has Been Found in Crayons Again
Aug 9, 2018 | The Atlantic
By Angela Lashbrook
Crayons are generally an innocuous children’s product, but a consumer-advocacy group has discovered a dangerous substance in one brand. In a newly released report on 27 back-to-school products, the United States Public Interest Research Group, or PIRG, revealed that some green crayons in packs by Playskool, available at Dollar Tree, Amazon, and eBay, contained a toxic chemical with a deadly history: asbestos. The substance is known to cause mesothelioma and lung cancer, and is suspected to contribute to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and kidney cancer.
This sort of testing and detection of toxic chemicals is nothing new. Last year, the U.S. PIRG found lead in fidget spinners, and in 2015, the Environmental Working Group found trace amounts of asbestos in crayons. But the new incident highlights a hard-to-nail-down problem in the increasing availability of products on the internet: Enforcing bans with such disparate points of sale is an incredible challenge, and can make keeping kids safe a logistical nightmare.
In their investigation, the U.S. PIRG discovered that two other children’s products containing toxic materials were currently available: a three-ring binder containing phthalates, a plastic that is being investigated for suspected links to asthma and birth defects; and markers containing benzene, a common chemical that’s known to cause leukemia and potentially other types of cancers. The reason these products are available, says Kara Cook-Schultz, a co-writer for the report, is that there aren’t strict laws that protect Americans from every potentially dangerous chemical. Benzene is allowed in concentrations less than 5 percent; asbestos is allowed in concentrations less than 1 percent.
To put it into perspective, says Andrew Stolbach, a medical toxicologist for Johns Hopkins Medicine, “asbestos is a rock that’s shaped like a fiber. And it sounds really cool! You know, you spray it onto houses and make them fireproof. But as we know, that went very wrong.” The mineral, which has been used in the United States for hundreds of years in insulation, car parts, cement, and more, was found to be harmful in the early-20th century. It has been banned in 55 countries.
The United States is not one of these countries. In the 1970s, the Environmental Protection Agency introduced regulations on the import and use of asbestos, and while its use has been significantly curtailed, it has only been entirely banned from six product categories. And the rules around the chemical are likely to change under Donald Trump’s administration, which introduced a proposal in June that would overturn a ban on new uses of asbestos and institute something called a “Significant New Use Rule.” This rule would allow the development of new products containing asbestos, after the EPA evaluates the new use for any potential safety concerns. The EPA contendsthat its proposal would protect consumers by requiring companies to receive approval before manufacturing or importing asbestos-containing products. Advocacy groups and former EPA officials, however, have erupted in opposition to new health hazards.
A 2015 study estimates that about 9.9 million people a year are still killed from asbestos poisoning globally, with the United States leading the charge among countries with good data: At least 2,500 Americans die from the effects of exposure every year.
It may seem odd that crayons would contain asbestos, given that the chemical is typically found in housing-construction materials. But the asbestos isn’t a component of a crayon so much as it is a byproduct of processing talc, a widely available material that’s also found in cosmetics, baby powder, and deodorant. “Talc is mined in places where asbestos is co-occurring,” says Cook-Schultz. “So what you have to do is refine the talc, and then you test it, and then you put the talc in your product, your crayon, your makeup. But some of these companies aren’t doing enough of a process to refine the asbestos out of the products.” A lot of talc mines and refineries are in China, says Cook-Schultz. And while there are refineries that adequately remove traces of asbestos, regulations are not as stringent as they are in the United States.
When asbestos is found in products, it’s often found in trace amounts, which, Stolbach says, isn’t dangerous for most people. In that case, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CPSC, might issue a voluntary recall to the manufacturers and retailers with the product on its shelves. The U.S. PIRG has requested a recall of the crayons, which the CPSC has not yet issued.
But Cook-Schultz says there’s still a danger in accumulation: The trace amount found in a crayon or a face powder might not be harmful on its own, but exposure from enough products could put consumers at risk. In a statement, Playskool stood by the safety of its products. “We are currently re-verifying that they are safe and free of any asbestos, as well as requesting a review of PIRG’s testing methods.”
Online retailers, from Amazon to eBay to many smaller shops not based in the United States, present an additional challenge to managing consumer’s exposure to toxic chemicals. Because essentially anyone can sell on Amazon and eBay, resulting in huge numbers of sellers and products available there and on the web at large, it’s difficult for the CPSC to ensure that products containing asbestos or other chemicals are removed.
“It may be riskier for parents to buy products online because international sellers may not meet the same safety standards that the U.S. has in place,” says Morgan Statt, a health-and-safety investigator for ConsumerSafety.org, a consumer-advocacy group.
“That’s something we are concerned about,” Cook-Schultz says. “That you can buy stuff online but not in stores, and that there are products you can’t find in stores but may be able find on Amazon or Ebay. The CPSC does spot-check, but there’s a lot of websites and places to buy things. So this is a new area that we’re grappling with how to regulate.”
Stolbach agrees. “We’ve relied on imminent regulation to protect us from nasty things that have been in products before, and regulations have been a real success story,” he said. “It does worry me that consumption has become decentralized. We do more buying from places with relaxed regulations, and we will be less likely to know what is in our stuff.”
To ensure safety, Cook-Schultz recommends that parents check product images for the AP nontoxic label, which appears on art supplies like crayons and glue sticks. (The contaminated Playskool crayons did not have this label, according to Cook-Schultz.) Or parents can check with manufacturers for a Children’s Product Certificate, which guarantees that the product was made in a factory that adheres to CPSC standards.
In a statement, eBay said that it maintains a recalled-items policy and hazardous-goods policy to keep consumers informed. As for dangerous products at Dollar Tree, the company wrote in a statement that it “has since re-verified that each of the listed products successfully passed inspection and testing.” Amazon did not respond to a request for comment.
As far as dangerous products go, crayons aren’t the worst. The most likely mode of asbestos exposure from a crayon for a child is if they eat it, and that’s less dangerous than inhaling it, Stolbach says. Still, it’s safer for children to avoid contact with it. And, Stolbach adds, “Why do we have it in our life? There’s no reason for crayons to have asbestos. But it shouldn’t be something that keeps you up at night.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/asbestos-crayons-kids-safety/567131/
-
EPA’s Chemical Analysis Plans Unlawful, 11 Attorneys General Say
Aug 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA’s plans to decide whether asbestos and nine other chemicals pose unreasonable risks are “woefully incomplete” and would ignore many ways people could be exposed to the substances, according to 11 attorneys general.
The attorneys general commented on 10 risk evaluation plans, or “problem formulations,” that the Environmental Protection Agency released in June. The officials’ comments are significant because they could portend future lawsuits.
The plans describe the chemical uses of—and thus the exposures to—the first 10 chemicals the EPA is evaluating under the Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016. But the EPA won’t look at things like the legacy uses of asbestos. The agency is accepting comments on the 10 plans through Aug. 16.
The 10 chemicals are asbestos, pigment violet 29, a single group of three flame retardants, and seven solvents—1-bromopropane, 1,4-dioxane, carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, n-methylepyrroliodone, perchloroetylene, and trichloroethylene.
If the EPA was to conclude that one or more of the 10 chemicals pose an unreasonable risk of harming people or the environment, TSCA requires the agency to issue regulations, such as label warnings, restricted uses, or even bans, to reduce that risk.
EPA Accused of Wearing ‘Blinders’The “blinders” the EPA decided to wear put state residents, particularly susceptible populations, at “dire” risk of having their potential health problems ignored, wrote the attorneys general for Massachusetts, California, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia in comments dated Aug. 3.
For example, the EPA has decided it will not examine what it calls “legacy” asbestos found in buildings, vehicles, cement pipes, and elsewhere throughout the country.
“EPA does not even attempt to provide a rationale for ignoring exposures related to the current widespread and most common uses of asbestos,” the attorneys general said. Yet, “the cutting and beveling of asbestos cement pipe leads to extremely high airborne concentrations of asbestos fibers putting workers at risk,” they said.
“EPA is failing to account for some of the most significant, generally recognized pathways of exposure,” to 10 chemicals known to cause cancer among other health problems, the attorneys general said.
The “woefully incomplete” risk analysis plans also could prevent needed regulations to protect public health, they said.
“We fully expect that after conducting appropriate risk evaluations, EPA will impose new protective restrictions, and in some cases bans, for the chemical substances in this group,” the attorneys general wrote.
The officials’ comments echo concerns by medical, health, and environmental organizations that repeatedly have criticized the administration for ignoring the ways chemicals can expose—and potentially harm—people and the environment.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epas-chemical-analysis-plans-unlawful-11-attorneys-general-say
-
Why Is Everyone Tweeting About a SNUR? For That Matter, What Is a SNUR?
Aug 9, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Beth Kemler
A Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) is a rule that EPA issues in order to get advance notice about the new use of a chemical that could have potential to harm human health or the environment. (“New use” can also mean the return of an old one.)
The SNUR that’s creating more buzz and media coverage than any in memory is EPA’s proposed SNUR for asbestos “for certain uses identified by EPA as no longer ongoing.” The uses in the proposal include products like insulation, plaster, and floor tiles.
There has been some misleading information making the rounds about the proposed SNUR. While surprising to many, there is currently nothing in federal law that limits manufacturers from returning to a discontinued use of asbestos in products. EPA has proposed a rule (the SNUR) that would allow it to at least consider whether or not to impose limits. By requiring that manufacturers notify EPA before they can begin a new use or reintroduce an old one, EPA would then have to decide if the use would present unreasonable risk. If it would present an unreasonable risk, EPA could prevent it. But we have no assurance that EPA would take action to block a new use of asbestos so old asbestos products could once again be in commerce.
This proposal has captured so much attention because EPA is also conducting a risk evaluation of asbestos – one of the first ten chemicals that the Agency chose for a comprehensive review as required under the reform of TSCA in 2016. But when EPA published the “problem formulation” laying out the scope of its review, we discovered that they are not considering old uses of asbestos. These are uses that have been discontinued but were never actually banned because the old law was so weak that the courts stopped EPA from taking that step. These products may not be in current use, but that’s not because they are illegal. They are in the plaster, insulation and floor tiles in older buildings and they still affect our families’ health. The potential harm to public health from their reintroduction would be very serious.
While a SNUR is an appropriate tool to track and potentially ban these vampire unsafe products before they rise from the (presumed) dead and make a return to the marketplace, it should be a backstop to a robust evaluation of all “circumstances under which a chemical substance is . . . reasonably foreseen to be manufactured, processed, distributed in commerce, used or disposed of.”(The criteria under the 2016 TSCA reforms by which EPA is required to evaluate a chemical.)
While EPA completes a thorough evaluation and regulation of asbestos, the proposed SNUR would require notification of any reincarnation of old uses that EPA could then shut down. On receiving notification as a result of the SNUR, EPA would have 90 days to decide whether to allow the use or to take action to determine that it poses an unreasonable risk and restrict the use in some way. This rushed process would largely take place behind closed doors with little to no public input or even notification until, for all intents and purposes, EPA has already made its decision.
On the other hand, a robust evaluation of all uses of asbestos under section 6 would require a more transparent process, with many opportunities for public comment. This is important not only to provide the Agency with information it may need from various stakeholders but also, frankly, to create a record on which a court can review the final decision. For EPA to bypass the section 6 evaluation and instead review uses in response to a SNUR allows the agency to hand off decision making almost entirely to the chemical industry surrogates on loan to the Trump EPA.
EPA has repeatedly said that its risk evaluation would not look at “legacy” or discontinued uses, which will keep EPA from developing the full picture that the law requires, and could allow some old uses to be new again. This is a major missed opportunity to protect Americans’ health from a chemical that is known to be deadly.
The SNUR itself should be broadened to cover all of the asbestos uses that EPA is not reviewing in its risk evaluation, including mining. Even though mining of asbestos is currently not happening in the U.S, it is also currently not legally prohibited. Mining asbestos in the U.S. might seem unthinkable, but let’s remember the times we live in, and be prepared for somebody to think of the worst ideas.
Given the overwhelming evidence of asbestos’ dangers to public health, including nearly 40,000 asbestos-related deaths each year, EPA should address all of the ongoing and potential “undead” uses in its ongoing risk evaluation. EPA could then determine that current and former uses “present an unreasonable risk of injury” and ban them permanently under section 6 of TSCA, as EPA proposed nearly thirty years ago.
EPA’s process is leaving a door ajar for old uses when they should be slamming it shut to all uses of asbestos.
https://saferchemicals.org/2018/08/09/why-is-everyone-tweeting-about-a-snur-for-that-matter-what-is-a-snur/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Consumer Agency Takes Step Toward Possible Flame Retardant Ban
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Consumer Product Safety Commission kicked off a science review Aug. 9 on whether a group of flame retardants should be examined together as the commission decides whether to ban the chemicals in children’s toys and other products.
CPSC Assistant Executive Director George A. Borlase and toxicologist Kristina Hatlelid tasked a panel of outside scientists with developing strategies to evaluate the hazards of at least 25 flame retardants.
The commission officials asked the panel—convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine—to decide if there are strategies the commission could use to estimate the combined risks the flame retardants pose as a single class of chemicals. Looking at all the chemicals as a single group would increase the estimated total exposures to them and boost the chance that the entire group would be deemed hazardous.
Industry representatives said the flame retardants should not be considered as a group.
The academies report, expected in the spring of 2019, is the first of what could be a four-step process culminating in the commission’s decision on whether or not to ban the flame retardants from four types of consumer products, Hatlelid told the science panel. CPSC also asked the panel to estimate the costs of conducting a full analysis.
Future Chemicals Included
The commissioners decided Sept. 20, 2017, to grant a rulemaking petition from 11 health, environmental, and consumer groups including the American Academy of Pediatrics, Consumer Federation of America, and the International Association of Fire Fighters.
The petition asked the commission to examine all the organohalogen flame retardants as a single group, and to ban them from children’s highchairs, toys, and other durable goods; upholstered furniture; mattresses and mattress pads; and plastic casings that surround smart phones, computers, and other electronic devices.The commissioners’ decision to consider classifying all the flame retardants as a group was a departure from agency staff scientists who concluded the chemicals would not fit into a single class, Hatlelid told the science panel.
The advocacy groups want the flame retardants banned based on scientific studies that found the chemicals migrate from household products into dust where sufficient exposures may harm reproduction, impair children’s ability to learn, damage the immune system, and cause other diseases.
In public comments, both Chris Cleet, senior director of environment and sustainability at the Information Technology Industry Council representing electronics makers, and Kimberly White, a senior director at the American Chemistry Council, told the panel the different flame retardants discussed in the petition cannot be treated as a single class.
Organohalogen Retardants
Nor are their uses interchangeable, said White who helps manage the North American Flame Retardant Alliance that represents producers and users of the compounds. Different chemicals are specifically designed for particular types of products and fires, White said.
The commission issued guidance in 2017 urging manufacturers to voluntarily stop using any of the flame retardants to make products children can be exposed to, including furniture, mattresses, and electronic goods.
The health and consumer advocates are urging that the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants be banned to prevent “regrettable substitution” where manufacturers replace one banned chemical with an equally or more risky substitute from that same group.
The petition lists 25 specific flame retardants. But, it includes future flame retardants that have not yet been made, but would fit into the group, Patricia Pollitzer, an assistant general counsel for the commission, told Bloomberg Environment.
Although the commission staff and petition referred to all of the flame retardants as “organohalogens,” some do not meet the scientific definition of such compounds, said David Dorman, chairman of the academies panel that will advise the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Organohalogens are molecules in which carbon is bound to fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine.The panel should, nevertheless, decide whether all of the flame retardants can be a single group because that’s what the petition and the commissioners requested, Hatlelid said.
Phaseouts
Many of the flame retardants named in the advocates’ petition—such as octabromodiphenyl ether (octaBDE) or pentabromodiphenyl ether (pentaBDE)—already have been phased out of U.S. production but may still be found in imported products.
Other flame retardants such as tetrabromobisphenol A remain in U.S. production. The Albemarle Corp., Huntsman Corp., and Olin Corp. are among the companies that reported manufacturing between 50 million and 100 million pounds of the chemical in 2015, the most recent year for which volume information was reported to the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA also is examining the health risks of several flame retardants that are among those the academies’ panel will review. The EPA’s analysis, however, looks at smaller groups of flame retardants, not the entire organohalogen group.
The issue of how to address organohalogen flame retardants “is not just a CPSC-specific issue,” Borlase, assistant executive director of CPSC’s Hazard Identification and Reduction office said.
Some states, including California and Washington, have already banned some of the 25 organohalogens from children’s and other products.
The city of San Francisco, Rhode Island, and other jurisdictions either have banned or are considering various types of flame retardant controls, he added.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/consumer-agency-takes-step-toward-possible-flame-retardant-ban
-
Water Utilities Seek EPA Focus on Research, Source Control to Address PFAS
Aug 10, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
Wastewater utilities are urging EPA to focus its work on perfluorinated chemicals on research to better understand the fate, transport and toxicity of the chemicals and then to use “heightened source control efforts and certain, specifically tailored regulatory standards,” to remove the constituents from the environment.
In July 20 comments to EPA on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) says local, state and federal efforts to address PFAS contamination are already impacting utilities as they seek to comply with Clean Water Act requirements.
“These efforts could ultimately have major impacts on wastewater treatment operations and the way clean water utilities manage their biosolids for decades to come,” the comments say.
NACWA filed its comments in response to EPA's request for input as part of its continuation of its PFAS national leadership summit and as it decides on its strategy for addressing the class of chemicals.
The group, which represents municipal wastewater treatment utilities, says that as analytical techniques become more advanced and can detect PFAS at exceedingly low levels, EPA and state regulators need “to carefully consider and balance how the mere presence of PFAS in the environment relates to actual risks.”
While there is ample peer-reviewed scientific literature discussing PFAS occurrence, characteristics and behavior, many pivotal questions remain, and the answers are needed to inform EPA's action plan and any regulatory pathway, NACWA says.
“Generally, not only is more peer-reviewed research on PFAS necessary, but research that is specifically tailored to better understanding PFAS and the similarly related chemical constituents, including their fate, transport, and toxicity in the environment, the exposure routes of these chemicals and the risks associated, consistency in detecting these ultratrace levels, and bioaccumulation in the food web among others,” NACWA says.
“This is where EPA should work to support and/or conduct research to develop the limited information we currently have as well as help to standardize the approaches used nationwide,” the group adds.
With as many as 4,500 chemicals in the PFAS class, the substances, known for their non-stick qualities, have been used in many consumer and industrial applications. But their occurrence in water systems has alarmed communities, prompting a push by lawmakers and the public for a regulatory response.
Before he resigned, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced several actions to address the substances, including making a determination on whether to set enforceable drinking water standards for two of the most common PFAS and regulating the substances under the Superfund program, though officials and many citizen groups are pressing the agency to act quickly and aggressively.
ELG Study
While none of the actions Pruitt announced address PFAS in wastewater, the agency may already be planning such a study, indicating in its recently released plan for how it will update its effluent limitation guidelines program that it will conduct an industry-wide study on PFAS discharges.
The near-term goal of such a study “is to identify the extent to which these pollutants are discharged from industrial categories,” the agency said.
EPA said the study will focus on discharges from industrial categories that may be using long-chain PFAS, as well as industries that may produce or use short-chain PFAS.
The study, together with a similar study EPA is planning on nutrients, marks a shift from the agency's usual focus of using the biennial ELG plan to announce efforts to study industrial sectors, according to an Aug. 9 post on the Nickel Report, a blog of the Hunton Andrews Kurth law firm, written by Elizabeth Aldridge.
NACWA says in its comments that dealing with the presence of PFAS in the environment and how to remove and dispose of the chemicals “could be done through heightened source control efforts and certain, specifically tailored regulatory standards that are considered carefully and fully reflect the wide-range of potential impacts those decisions will have over the long-term.”
The utility group emphasizes that municipal wastewater and biosolids are not “sources” of PFAS but can act as a pathway through which the original sources of PFAS contaminate the environment, and efforts to control PFAS levels in the environment must start at and focus on the original source of the chemical.
Conventional wastewater treatment plants are not designed to remove these synthetic industrial chemicals, and communities could face considerable operational and technical challenges as well as substantial costs if required to treat for or otherwise address the presence of these substances in wastewater effluent and biosolids, NACWA says.
Therefore, “it is imperative that any policy decisions specifically ensure those responsible for the contamination and endangerment of public health bear the burden of cleanup costs and other related expenses,” NACWA says.
NACWA's comments follow similar ones from drinking water utilities, which have also urged EPA not to leap ahead with regulatory actions before significant gaps are addressed in detecting and treating the chemicals, determining their health effects and ensuring the country has enough laboratory capacity to handle a higher demand for chemical testing.
Health Advisories
Meanwhile, state drinking water regulators use July 20 comments to reiterate their January call for EPA to address a number of concerns related to PFAS. Among the requests from the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) are determining whether EPA's current health advisory for two PFAS -- perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) -- is still adequate, prioritizing PFAS efforts that address multiple PFAS compounds holistically and expanding the agency's focus beyond drinking water to reduce PFAS exposure through all media.
EPA should prioritize efforts to determine if controls can be put in place to keep PFAS and other highly fluorinated compounds from entering commerce using the Toxic Substances Control Act and/or other federal authorities and undertake additional efforts to consider listing these compounds as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, ASDWA says.
Additionally, the state regulators say EPA should base its evaluation for developing an enforceable drinking water standard on more than just the results of the third unregulated contaminant monitoring rule (UCMR3), which showed only 3 percent of all the systems sampled to be affected by PFAS. “ASDWA believes that UCMR3 does not accurately portray the national extent of PFAS contamination.”
EPA should again include PFAS compounds in UCMR5, which will cover monitoring between 2022-2024, including sampling at lower detection limits of 5 to 10 parts per trillion (ppt) rather than the 20-40 ppt for the six PFAS compounds on the UCMR3, ASDWA says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/water-utilities-seek-epa-focus-research-source-control-address-pfas
-
EPA Nears Chlorpyrifos Ban on Crops as Advocates’ Petition Prevails (1)
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
A federal appeals court order has paved the way for the EPA to ban nearly all uses of a widely used pesticide linked to neurodevelopmental delays, in a victory for environmentalists.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff, sitting by designation on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, criticized the administration for its multiple efforts over the years to delay restrictions on chlorpyrifos. In the Aug. 9 ruling, the court nullified the EPA’s decision to overturn a proposed ban on the pesticide and directed the agency to cancel all registrations for chlorpyrifos within 60 days.
“The time has come to put a stop to this patent evasion,” Rakoff wrote in the opinion. Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen joined the opinion, and Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez dissented.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America filed a petition in 2007 asking the EPA to disallow spraying of chlorpyrifos on crops. The groups sued the agency in 2014 for failing to act on the petition.
Former Administrator Scott Pruitt in March 2017 denied that petition and delayed a decision on how to regulate the pesticide to 2021.
Dow PesticideEarthjustice, the environmental law groups representing plaintiffs League of United Latin American Citizens, NRDC, PANNA and others, praised the decision as a “major victory for children and farmworkers.”
“Soon our fields, our fruits and vegetables will be chlorpyrifos free,” Earthjustice attorney Marisa Ordonia said in an email to Bloomberg Environment.
Developed by Dow Chemical Co. and approved by the EPA in 1965, chlorpyrifos is widely used on corn and soybeans, as well as fruit and vegetables and golf courses. It is the most common in a class of pesticides called organophosphates.
Corteva, the agricultural division of DowDupont Inc., didn’t immediately respond for Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment. The Justice Department said it is reviewing the ruling and wouldn’t comment further.
The chemical works by overstimulating an insect’s nervous system, which kills them. In humans, sufficient levels of organophosphate exposure can lead to headaches and nausea, and in serious cases convulsions or death.
A number of studies also have linked long-term exposure to cognitive delays and low IQ in children. The Obama administration took steps to ban the pesticide on crops, releasing a human health risk assessment and proposed rule that relied on studies that linked chlorpyrifos exposure to low IQ and other cognitive delays. The agency reached an agreement with the pesticide industry in 2000 to ban all indoor uses of chlorpyrifos.
Pruitt’s March 2017 denial of the petition reversed course on the previous administration’s work.
Seven states and Washington, D.C., intervened in the case to oppose the Trump administration’s decision. Dow Agrosciences LLC filed a brief in support of the EPA’s decision to postpone.
‘Utter Failure’Rakoff lambasted EPA’s inaction on restricting the pesticide, despite its own assessments that found current use in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The agency was unable to defend the merits of its decision in court, he wrote.
EPA “has itself long questioned the safety of permitting chlorpyrifos to be used within the allowed tolerances,” Rakoff, ordinarily a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote. “The EPA’s utter failure to respond to the objections deprives us of jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in refusing to ban use of chlorpyrifos on food products.”
Fernandez’s disagreed with the majority opinion’s holding that the court has jurisdiction to review the case.
The case is League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wheeler, 9th Cir., No. 17-71636, 8/9/18.(Adds comments from companies, organizations throughout.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-nears-chlorpyrifos-ban-on-crops-as-advocates-petition-prevails-1
-
EU Wants US to Drop Restrictions on Natural Gas Exports
Aug 9, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The European Union wants United States officials to repeal restrictions on exporting liquefied natural gas.
The request came in a Thursday statement from the European Commission, laying out what European officials want to accomplish to follow up on a nonbinding deal European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker made last month with President Trump that included, in part, a desire to ship more liquefied natural gas from the United States to Europe.
“The European Union is ready to facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S. and this is already the case as we speak. The growing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, if priced competitively, could play an increasing and strategic role in EU gas supply; but the U.S. needs to play its role in doing away with red tape restrictions on liquefied natural gas exports,” Juncker said in the statement.
Under the Natural Gas Act, the Department of Energy needs to certify that a proposal to export gas is in the “national interest” before it can proceed, except for countries that have free-trade agreements with the United States.
Any change to that would require legislation from Congress. Numerous Republican proposals would partially or fully repeal the requirement.
The European Commission said Juncker and Trump set up a working group between their governments last month to sort out agreements.
Juncker’s staff is also organizing an Aug. 20 trip to Washington, D.C., to discuss liquefied natural gas with their U.S. counterparts, the commission said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/401144-eu-wants-us-to-drop-restrictions-on-natural-gas-exports
-
Europe Shows It’s Getting Serious About Buying U.S. LNG
Aug 9, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Anna Shiryaevskaya and Naureen S. Malik
European nations are far behind Mexico and China when it comes to receiving liquefied natural gas from the U.S., but the region is making its biggest effort to date to change that.
European Commission trade officials will travel to Washington on Aug. 20 to follow up on an energy agreement last month between the Commission’s President Jean-Claude Juncker and President Donald Trump. Europe pledged to import more LNG in a bid to diversify imports, while America is seeking new markets for its expanding production of the fuel. Russia is currently Europe’s biggest supplier.
“The European Union is ready to facilitate more imports of liquefied natural gas from the U.S. and this is already the case as we speak,” Juncker said in a statement Aug. 9. “The growing exports of U.S. liquefied natural gas, if priced competitively, could play an increasing and strategic role in EU gas supply.”
Europe received about 10 percent of total U.S. exports last year, up from 5 percent in 2016 after the American shale gas revolution went global with the opening of the Sabine Pass export facility on the country’s Gulf of Mexico coast. Since then, Europe has imported more than 40 LNG cargoes from the U.S., or 2.8 billion cubic meters, the Commission said.
Still, that’s just a fraction of Europe’s demand of almost 550 billion cubic meters last year. Most gas arrives by pipelines from Russia and Norway, as well as in LNG tankers from Qatar, the biggest producer of the super-chilled fuel. As the region’s own fields deplete and nuclear and coal plants are decommissioned, demand for the fuel is rising.
European buyers are taking a closer look at U.S. gas after Brent oil futures, a key pricing component for much of the LNG sold across the globe, soared to a 3 1/2-year high earlier this year, Greg Vesey, chief executive officer of Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., said Aug. 8 in an interview in New York.
Russian gas supplies to Europe are also linked to crude, and moves in the commodity affect gas prices at the region’s hubs. U.S. supplies, in contrast, are tied to low-cost shale gas at the benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana.
The discount for Henry Hub versus futures at the U.K.’s National Balancing Point has widened to about $5 per million British thermal units, the most for this time of the year since 2013.
“Now the prices actually make sense with where crude is going, the spreads are there and it’s worthwhile to talk about U.S. gas,” said Vesey, whose company is developing an export terminal in Louisiana.
While potential buyers from Europe had previously insisted on locking in supplies based on their local benchmarks, they’re now asking for document details based on Henry Hub, Vesey said.
Europe has also pledged to reduce its increasing dependency on the Russian fuel by supporting the development of new LNG terminals. And while Trump has a vision of Europe becoming a “massive buyer” of U.S. LNG, the product will still have to compete with lower-cost gas arriving from Siberian fields.
So far, the economics work against large-scale U.S. LNG volumes sent to Europe, but that may change as the global market for the fuel expands, Citigroup Inc. said in May.
To facilitate LNG trade with the region, the U.S. needs to lift its requirement for prior regulatory approval of exports to the EU, the Commission said. The bloc has also committed to help finance LNG infrastructure projects and is supporting new terminals from Croatia to Greece and Ireland.
—With assistance from Kevin Varley.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/europe-shows-its-getting-serious-about-buying-us-lng
-
Is the Anti-Pipeline Playbook Starting to Work?
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups have grown accustomed to losing courtroom battles over natural gas pipelines.
Although they've notched some important wins over the years, the scoreboard shows developers and federal regulators overwhelmingly in the lead.
This summer, though, things have started to change. Two critical legal victories over the Atlantic Coast and Mountain Valley pipelines in Appalachia could signal a long-awaited turn of the tide for the tireless anti-pipeline crowd.
"That's why we do this," Southern Environmental Law Center attorney D.J. Gerken said. "The theory behind organizations like mine is we clarify the law so the government does its job and we don't have to do it for them."
Gerken argued against the Atlantic Coast pipeline in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year, securing a major ruling this week that scrapped two federal approvals: a right of way across National Park Service land and a Fish and Wildlife Service assessment of protected species along the project's 600-mile route.
And just 10 days earlier, environmental groups persuaded the 4th Circuit to scrap two other federal approvals for the 300-mile Mountain Valley proposal: a Bureau of Land Management right of way and a Forest Service approval.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission then took the unusual step of suspending construction on Mountain Valley while the other agencies address the permitting deficiencies. Atlantic Coast may face a similar fate (Energywire, Aug. 7).
"It used to be there was never a victory for the opponents to pipeline projects," said longtime pipeline foe Maya van Rossum, head of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, which was not involved in the recent cases. "We lost at every turn."
Fast-tracked permitting backfires
Experts say a variety of factors played into pipeline opponents' sudden shift in fortunes: rushed permitting decisions, sympathetic judges and savvy legal strategies, to name a few.
University of Minnesota energy law professor Alexandra Klass said increasingly well-organized environmental opposition has helped move the needle. As natural gas infrastructure grows, groups have tracked the FERC process and other federal pipeline permits more closely.
Environmentalists' watchdog efforts combined with streamlined federal permitting paved the way for the recent 4th Circuit decisions, she said.
"One of the ways the administration can attempt to be responsive to industry is to more quickly grant these more individual permits for various crossings, whether it's BLM land or forestland or national parks," she said, noting that fast-tracked permitting is easier to implement than formal legislative changes to the process.
"They're doing it as quickly as they can to be responsive, and they're cutting a lot of corners, and when you do that in the permitting process, it's more obvious to a court that you're doing it."
For Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast, she said, the approach appears to have backfired for developers.
"That's the risk," Klass said. "In the short term, 'Oh, great, we got this permit more quickly than we would have maybe in another administration,' but then you have a huge setback when it gets challenged in court. So in the long run, maybe it's not so good."
Energy analyst Rob Rains of Washington Analysis LLC said the legal setbacks for the two pipelines serve as a lesson to the federal agencies to be more careful in their assessments, even as they commit to being efficient.
"They're trying to provide a balance between performing what is statutorily required and in the public interest, but then also trying to make sure developers are able to hit their deadlines," he said. "That seems to have possibly worked to their disadvantage in this instance.
"We're learning throughout the growing legal cases that keep piling up here is that there aren't necessarily shortcuts for these permits," he added.
Gerken, the SELC lawyer, said he hopes the agencies have gotten the message.
"With these particular agencies, some standards have been clarified that they would be not just remiss but foolhardy to not apply," he said.
Rains cautioned, however, that it's likely NPS, BLM and the other agencies will ultimately reissue the vacated permits.
Van Rossum, of the riverkeeper group, said the recent legal wins may aid future battles by helping advocacy groups secure funding for litigation.
"Over the last 10 years, we've been seeing increasing foundation support for our organization and others," she said. "And I think what we may start to see as a result of these important victories is recognition by these foundation funders, is that not only is this a critically important battlefront ... but that strategically investing in litigation is very, very important if one really wants to see change."
Inevitable development?
Still, environmental groups haven't yet caught their big fish: FERC.
While groups have been successful in recent challenges to other federal approvals, they've had only sporadic victories over the most powerful permit: the FERC pipeline certificate.
One of those rare wins was last year in a case involving the commission's climate review for a pipeline. Another was in 2014 in a case dealing with a segmented pipeline review.
"The courts seem willing to stand up to these other agencies when they are so much less inclined to rationally read and apply the law when it comes to FERC," van Rossum said.
Gerken said FERC has managed to duck a lot of challenges through its issuance of tolling orders — an internal review tool that often allows the commission to avoid the courtroom until construction on a pipeline project is well underway. Environmentalists attempted to get early judicial review of FERC's Atlantic Coast decision, but their case was thrown out as premature in March.
"We feel very strongly that FERC made deep substantive errors in approving the pipeline in the first place," he said. "The difference is these [other] agencies have the same sort of errors, and we were able to get review before the pipeline was built."
SELC and a coalition of groups plan to take FERC to court again as soon as the agency issues a final rehearing decision that the groups can challenge. Similar efforts are moving forward against FERC's approval of the Mountain Valley pipeline.
Rains, the analyst, warned that the groups will have a tougher time in that round of litigation, as lawsuits against FERC still generally come out in the agency's favor.
"You are seeing deficiencies in regards to the preliminary and final environmental analyses necessary to get the projects built that I think have provided these temporary reprieves for opponents of the projects," he said.
"But," he added, "I don't think it necessarily changes the longer-term inevitability that the vast majority of these proposed projects will be constructed."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/10/stories/1060093811
-
FERC Official's Comments Spotlight Pipeline Cyber Risk
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Comments by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's chief of staff, Anthony Pugliese, to an industry group appear to be more evidence of concern over potential attacks on U.S. gas pipelines that could threaten the nation's electricity supply.
Pugliese singled out pipelines as a priority target for state-based cyberattacks. "More and more, you have adversarial countries ... who see pipelines, for example, as an area of great opportunity, let's put it that way," he said.
And he also dismissed the capabilities of the Transportation Security Administration to oversee pipeline cybersecurity, a mission given the agency by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. TSA has published standards for cybersecurity defense that gas pipelines are expected to follow. The guidelines are voluntary.
"TSA doesn't really have a lot of the resources; they certainly don't have enough subject matter expertise," he said.
Pugliese's comments at a meeting of the American Nuclear Society, shared with E&E News by Rod Adams of Atomic Insights, raised questions about how FERC's staff might be contributing to a top priority DOE policy initiative to channel subsidies to struggling coal and nuclear plants to prevent their retirement (Energywire, Aug. 9).
DOE says that these plants provide greater security and resilience to the grid because their fuel is on-site — in reactors, or plant-side coal piles — in contrast with pipeline supplies for gas-fired generators. DOE's proposed "resilience" policy was leaked in June, but has not been approved, as the department seeks ways to identify which plants should be supported.
The FERC official said at one point, "We are working with DOD and DOE and NSC to identify the [coal and nuclear] plants that we think would be absolutely critical to ensuring that not only our military bases but things like hospitals and other critical infrastructure are able to be maintained, regardless of what natural or man-made disasters might occur."
Congress has made DOE responsible for assuring electric power availability to defense facilities, and DOE's plan would invoke that authority.
But a FERC spokesman said yesterday that despite Pugliese's "working with" comment, the commission was not DOE's partner in policy formation. "In response to a question after the speech, the chief of staff was simply stating that the federal government is working to ensure that important critical infrastructure, like hospitals, remains operational. FERC is an independent agency and therefore has not assisted in the development of policy but provides technical assistance as subject matter experts," FERC spokesman Craig Cano said.
The DOE plan has split the U.S. energy industry, with a coalition of wind, gas, solar and other industry sectors promising to fight it in court, if it is advanced.
"Our main point ... is the scope of any review should be all fuels, not just natural gas. That means rails and barges for coal, for example," said John Shelk, president of the Electric Power Supply Association, representing independent power producers and marketers.
Pugliese's comments singled out the risk to gas supplies, however, giving support to a policy push by the PJM Interconnection, the Eastern power grid operator, and Exelon Corp., the nation's largest nuclear operator, who have urged FERC to require gas pipeline companies to work more closely with grid operators in strengthening defenses against possible cyber and physical attacks.
PJM announced in April that because of the potential risk to power plants from gas supply disruptions, it would undertake "targeted analyses to identify fuel security risks" to particular locations, including challenges in fuel delivery under stressed conditions.
PJM has urged FERC to require gas pipelines to share confidential operating information about potential vulnerabilities. Today, such sharing is voluntary — encouraged but not mandated — and pipeline companies' cooperation varies markedly, PJM said. (The grid operator said better cooperation is also essential from telecom companies that carry grid operators' critical communications.)
It needs "regulatory support" from FERC to get a clear picture of cyber and physical vulnerabilities of gas pipelines, PJM said. The commission should use its existing authority to order cooperation between grid and gas companies on threat assessment, PJM urged.
Classified briefing
PJM met with DOE officials in July for a classified briefing on cyber or physical threats that could affect fuel supply and affect the grid, according to Mike Bryson, PJM vice president for operations. The briefing also covered attack methods and capabilities that foreign or domestic adversaries might use.
"The information from the DOE meeting is a key input into ... PJM's fuel security study to analyze a range of risk scenarios and determine the potential impact on PJM's ability to continue to provide reliable electricity" in its service area, which covers 13 states and the District of Columbia, the organization said in a policy update.
"PJM is demonstrating exemplary leadership in reaching out to DOE to better understand the risk that adversaries will disrupt the flow of natural gas on which power generation increasingly depends," said Paul Stockton, former assistant secretary of Defense for homeland defense, and managing director of Sonecon LLC, a consultant on security issues for Exelon and other energy companies.
"Two factors will be especially important in assessing these risks. First, providing a realistic but extreme scenario that reflects the risk that a large number of gas pipelines will be attacked simultaneously," Stockton said. "The second factor — in addition to the number of pipelines attacked — is the duration of the gas interruptions that would result from such attacks."
Pugliese did not indicate how FERC will respond to the PJM requests. A senior power industry official, speaking not for attribution, said that FERC has plenty of statutory authority to weigh into the security of pipeline gas deliveries to power plants. A first step could be an order directing PJM and other regional grid organizations to assess their vulnerabilities to gas pipeline disruptions. That would, in turn point to the question of how secure the pipelines are.
Exelon, in its filing with FERC, commended PJM for seeking to define the threats it faces. But it added, "unless PJM is modeling the right scenarios, its analysis of fuel security vulnerabilities, and the solutions it will propose based on that analysis, will not necessarily ensure resilience. Yet PJM lacks access to the information needed to assess which risks it should plan its system to meet."
PJM says it is getting good cooperation from a number of pipeline companies, as it investigate threat vulnerabilities, but not all. "They recognize the fact that collaboration is production and they want to make sure their system capabilities and their cyberdefenses are well understood," said Jonathon Monken, senior director of system resilience at PJM.
But the information sharing is also not at a full "open kimono" level, he added. The process is ongoing.
"One of the most significant challenges is being able to have a good snapshot of cybersecurity defenses across U.S. critical infrastructure," he added. "You have companies with very sophisticated cyberdefense capabilities all the way down to folks who are at a fundamental blocking and tackling level."
Jennifer O'Shea, vice president for communications at the American Gas Association, repeated the industry's insistence that its cyberdefenses are strong, in a comment to E&E News.
"Natural gas utilities actively manage cybersecurity risk using a number of tools," O'Shea said. Voluntary actions adopted by AGA members include implementation of the TSA Pipeline Security Guidelines and the application of the NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity."
Neither the AGA nor the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America would comment on how TSA is evaluating pipeline cyberdefenses.
PJM's analysis of fuel supply vulnerabilities will not tell pipelines how to do their business, Monken said. "This is not going to produce a punch list for the gas folks," he said. "It's not airing dirty laundry, either."
But, at least in PJM's view, if the analysis shows serious vulnerabilities on the pipeline side, that will be a call for action. Commenting to FERC on the disparity between mandatory cyber and physical rules for the interstate grid and voluntary ones for gas pipelines, PJM said, "Although legislation would be needed to change this disparate paradigm, there is little reason why the approach by TSA and FERC to these cross-industry topics needs to be so diverse."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/10/stories/1060093825
-
Energy Transfer May Boost Dakota Access Capacity
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Energy Transfer Partners LP has seen heavy use of its Dakota Access pipeline and is looking at an expansion in the "near future," an executive said yesterday.
In an earnings call, Energy Transfer Chief Operating Officer Mack McCrea said the company has experienced heavy demand for shipping on the pipeline, which went into service last year after intense protests over its route along the edge of a Standing Rock Sioux reservation.
The pipeline has been moving about 500,000 barrels per day, McCrea said, close to its maximum of 520,000, along a path that spans 1,172 miles across North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois en route to the Gulf Coast.
The company said in March that it was considering boosting capacity by 50,000 barrels, but the new comments reflect bigger expansion plans.
McCrea said the company's analysis shows that a 100,000-barrel expansion may be possible. He said "competitive reasons" limited what he could say about the plans, but it is likely that the company would look to higher pipeline pressures to force more oil through the system.
McCrea said the company has been re-evaluating all its existing pipelines looking for ways to boost throughput, as rising oil prices have juiced oil and gas production. "We are looking at everything that we own, how do we create more capacity and hence more revenue," he said.
In Texas particularly, producers are facing pipeline bottlenecks in bringing oil to market, and analysts say the pinch won't ease until next year, at the earliest (Energywire, June 11). Energy Transfer Partners has a trio of pipelines serving the Permian Basin — the Permian Express 1, 2 and 3 pipelines — that it is also looking to expand, according to McCrea.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/10/stories/1060093819
-
(ACC Blog) Congress and the White House Rein in a Flawed Chemical Security Regulation
Aug 9, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Bill Erney and Matthew J. Eggars
Written by Bill Erney, senior director, American Chemistry Council, and Matthew J. Eggars, vice president, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Numerous national security issues dominate the attention of policymakers today – border security, cybersecurity, North Korea, and Iran easily come to mind. While these are weighty subjects, it’s also important that we don’t lose sight of other key economic and homeland security priorities, including protecting our nation’s chemical manufacturing facilities.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) commend Congress for passing and the president for signing H.R. 5729, the Transportation Worker Identification Credential Accountability Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-230). This bipartisan legislation, authored by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), constructively addresses a critical screening program for workers who access high-risk chemical facilities.
The new law pushes the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to complete a long overdue review of the effectiveness of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program before compelling chemical entities to implement the Coast Guard’s 2016 TWIC reader rule.
Two years ago, Congress mandated a study of the TWIC reader pilot in response to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that raised serious questions about the weaknesses of the program. Among its conclusions, GAO said, “With potentially billions of dollars needed to implement the TWIC program, it is important that DHS provide effective stewardship of taxpayer funds and avoid requiring [chemical facilities] to invest in a program that may not achieve its stated goals. DHS estimates that implementing the TWIC program could cost the federal government and the private sector a combined total of as much as $3 billion over a 10-year period.”
In addition to granting DHS additional time to assess the TWIC program, the Katko legislation halts the implementation of the defective reader rule, which would force companies to install and use TWIC cards with readers at considerable expense. Without the much-needed pause provided by H.R. 5729, the new regulation was set to become effective later this month.
What’s notable, the Coast Guard’s 2013 proposed rulemaking benefited from broad industry input. However, when the final requirements surfaced in 2016, it became apparent that the agency made problematic amendments to the rule without sufficient justification and engagement with the business community, striking many as a clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
The scope of the final rule went well beyond what officials initially suggested and departed from established Coast Guard policy. In particular, the regulation increased both the number of facilities and the number of points of entry subject to the rule. We estimate that there would be a massive 276% increase in the number of facilities covered from 532 to approximately 2,000 as a result of the unwarranted change in scope.
The statute that authorized the TWIC reader rule, the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA), allows the Coast Guard to impose security measures (e.g., TWIC readers) on covered entities only to the extent that they’re necessary to deter or mitigate transportation security incidents. Yet the final rule neither acknowledged nor justified the dramatic increases in regulated facilities—and the corresponding hike in businesses’ compliance burdens—compared with the proposed rulemaking. The bottom line is that the TWIC reader requirement is faulty and out of step with the White House’s executive order to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs.
The U.S. Chamber and ACC have significant concerns with the TWIC reader rule. Still, we are pleased that Congress and the White House responded quickly to an urgent business, security, and policy need. Chemical security stakeholders in the public and private sectors are trying to achieve the same goal—enhanced security and resilience at high-risk facilities. The new law creates an opportunity for DHS, the Coast Guard, and industry to move ahead on a new and improved TWIC reader rule that leads to a stronger worker screening program and improves chemical facility security.
You can also read this blog on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s blog here
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/08/congress-and-the-white-house-rein-in-a-flawed-chemical-security-regulation/
-
Russia-Linked Grid Hackers Could Be Poised for a Comeback
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Last fall, a group of more than two dozen utility executives huddled in downtown Washington, D.C., to discuss an urgent threat to the power grid.
Days earlier on Sept. 7, researchers at Symantec Corp. had disclosed the resurgence of a hacking group known as "Dragonfly," which U.S. intelligence agencies later tied to the Russian government.
Symantec had uncovered Dragonfly activity as far back as 2012, but the group's 2017 resurgence, dubbed Dragonfly 2.0, turned heads with new techniques and alarming audacity. Symantec had caught the recent Dragonfly hackers buzzing around in the industrial control systems that underpin the U.S. power grid, taking screenshots and hauling away reams of sensitive data.
"Not to say that the first one didn't get a lot of attention, but the interest in the [grid] community was far greater this time around," said Jon DiMaggio, senior threat intelligence analyst at Symantec, on the sidelines of the Black Hat conference here. "We knew that they were on systems that run ICS operational software."
After Symantec released its report, the group quieted down, largely halting attempts to "spearphish" electric utilities and walk away with employee credentials.
By the time the Department of Homeland Security and FBI released a March 15 alert linking the spearphishing and "watering hole" hacking activity to the Russian government, the group had all but ceased those attempts to infect the U.S. power grid, experts say.
But in recent months, a backdoor used by the Dragonfly 2.0 hackers — dubbed "Goodor" — has popped back on to security researchers' radars, experts familiar with the malware told E&E News.
Meanwhile, DHS has led a series of briefings on Russia-linked hacking activity aimed at heading off future incursions into U.S. critical infrastructure.
The uptick in reports of Goodor could point to a round 2.0 for Dragonfly 2.0 — but, as is often the case in the murky world of industrial cybersecurity, it's hard to say for certain, experts warn.
While it has been associated with the Dragonfly 2.0 hackers in the past, Goodor is "not unique to any particular group," industrial cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc. pointed out in a blog post earlier this summer. Dragos tracks the Dragonfly 2.0 activity under the name "Dymalloy."
"Since initial disclosure, Dragos has observed only slight DYMALLOY-related activity since early 2017 and assess with medium confidence that the group has either reduced or significantly modified operations," Dragos concluded.
Ben Read, senior manager for cyberespionage analysis at cybersecurity firm FireEye Inc., said his company has kept an eye on the group that spurred the string of DHS warnings. Aside from a "little bit of activity" since the March 2018 alert, he said the group has been largely quiet.
Still, he pointed out that much of the attackers' techniques could be reactivated at a moment's notice — particularly the "watering hole" sites that infect unsuspecting visitors.
"They could very easily be turning it [back] on," he said yesterday. "It's something that we continue to track."
DHS warnings
The Dragonfly 2.0 campaign drew renewed scrutiny following a series of DHS webinars beginning late last month.
Jonathan Homer, chief of the industrial control systems group in DHS's Hunt and Incident Response Team, said that hackers had targeted U.S. utilities across the generation, transmission and distribution levels, managing to compromise at least one control system where they could have caused physical impacts.
"They got to the point that they could turn the switches, but they didn't," Homer said during a July 23 briefing.
Homeland security officials later clarified that the control system in question was connected to a small wind power generator, whose disruption would not have brought down the wider grid.
Charles Carmakal, vice president at FireEye subsidiary Mandiant, said that while the hackers behind recent DHS alerts showed no intention of actually disrupting infrastructure, that could change in the wrong conditions.
"We have been incredibly lucky that there hasn't been a catastrophic cyberattack against national critical infrastructure," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/08/10/stories/1060093833
-
NTSB: Oil Train Was Just Below Speed Limit Before Derailing near Doon
Aug 10, 2018 | Sioux City Journal
By Mason Dockter
The BNSF Railway train that spilled 160,000 gallons of crude oil into floodwaters in rural Lyon County was going just below the speed limit when it derailed in June, the National Transportation Safety Board found in a preliminary report of the accident issued Thursday.
Maximum authorized speed on that section of tracks was 49 miles per hour, 1 mph below the speed NTSB investigators estimated the train was traveling when the emergency brakes were applied at around 4:35 a.m. on June 22. Of the 33 tank cars that left the tracks, 10 were breached. The damaged cars sustained tears, punctures or damaged valves, with some of the punctures as large as 3 feet by 3 feet.
The area had received between 5 and 7 inches of rain in the 48 hours before the accident, washing out track and flooding a tributary of the Little Rock River and farm fields adjacent to the derailment site. Most of the leaking crude that spilled was contained to a small triangular area between the tracks and two roads, Garfield Avenue and 270th Street, about a 1 mile south of the small Lyon County town of Doon. But some oil reached the Rock River and promoted the evacuation of 18 to 20 people, the report said.
In the aftermath of the accident, officials from BNSF, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and Lyon County, worked together to mitigate and recover the crude oil. Crews also have been replacing topsoil contaminated by the spill.
Remaining crude also has been removed from the damaged tankers, which were stacked in a nearby field. A berm was built around the cars to keep any additional leaking oil from entering the flood plain.
NTSB investigators completed on-scene work in Lyon County on July 10. Additional investigation to examine parts removed from one of the tank cars is planned at the agency's laboratories in Washington D.C.
The 110-unit train was moving nearly 2.5 million gallons of crude from a terminal in Alberta, Canada to Houston, Texas for ConocoPhillips, according to the report. Each car carried about 29,000 gallons. The shipper classified the mixture of heavy crude and diluent mixture as "Hazard Class 3, Packing Group 1 (highest degree of danger.)
The derailed tankers were older cars that were upgraded to DOT-117R safety standards. Federal regulations require such tankers to be retrofitted or removed from service by 2020.
After the derailment near Doon, BNSF warned shippers of plans to ban retrofitted cars in all new contracts, the news service Reuters reported, citing sources familiar with the discussion.
https://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/ntsb-oil-train-was-just-below-speed-limit-before-derailing/article_0a3b1887-1291-5ccc-99c9-5f124df82146.html
-
Canada Drops Pursuit of Fine in Fatal Lac-Megantic Rail Disaster
Aug 10, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By James Munson
Canada is no longer pursuing C$600,000 ($460,000) in environmental fines from a rail company involved in a 2013 train explosion that killed 47 people in rural Quebec.
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co. pleaded guilty in February to polluting Lac-Megantic and the Chaudiere River, a violation of Canada’s Fisheries Act, and paid C$400,000 ($307,000) of a C$1 million ($767,000) fine at the time. Fuel and other substances entered the waterways after a train owned by the company exploded in the town of Lac-Megantic on July 6, 2013.
But the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, which prosecutes violations under federal law, has been unable to recover the remaininig C$600,000 because the rail company went bankrupt shortly after the accident and doesn’t currently have any assets, service spokesperson Joel Gluss told Bloomberg Environment in an email Aug. 9.
“It is not in the interests of justice to attempt to recover sums that do not exist,” Gluss wrote.
Montreal Maine & Atlantic Canada Co.'s bankruptcy proceedings in Canada are taking place under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act. The firm’s U.S. parent company, Montreal Maine & Atlantic Railway, also entered bankruptcy after the accident.
The company had until July to pay the C$600,000, Environment and Climate Change Canada told Bloomberg Environment in a July 4 email.
The C$400,000 federal officials have already received has gone into a government pool that will fund the conservation, protection, and restoration of the Lac-Megantic habitat and the Chaudiere River, the department said.
Ecological Impact Still FeltThe accident, which led to several reforms in Canadian rail regulations, caused a massive ecological disaster that is still being felt in Lac-Megantic.
The cost of cleaning up Lac-Megantic and the Chaudiere River is estimated to be C$134.5 million ($103.1 million), Quebec’s Ministry for Sustainable Development, Environment and Climate Change told Bloomberg Environment in a July 20 email.
Petroleum products from the accident that leaked into the Chaudiere River were found in rates as high as 215 milligrams of oil per kilogram of sediment in 2013, dropping to 62 milligrams per kilogram in 2014 and then 40 milligrams per kilogram in 2016, the ministry’s email said.
High levels of contamination were initially detected as far as 80 kilometers down the river in 2013, with the affected region shrinking to 5.3 kilometers in 2016, it said.
Approximately 270,000 metric tons of contaminated soil had to be removed from Lac-Megantic’s downtown after the accident and placed at a temporary treatment site, the ministry added. The last contamination warnings around the town will be removed by the end of this summer.
Thirteen wells around the town to track groundwater contamination remain in place and currently don’t indicate higher-than-average levels of pollution, the email said.
https://bnanews.bnbna.com/environment-and-energy/canada-drops-pursuit-of-fine-in-fatal-lac-megantic-rail-disaster
-
Oil Industry Quick to Denounce Carbon Tax
Aug 10, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Kelsey Brugger
Shortly after Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) convened a climate change team last year, the oil and gas industry got busy.
It formed its own group — the Climate Action Leadership Team Oil and Gas Panel — to scrutinize the recommendations made by Walker's Climate Action for Alaska Leadership Team. Chief among those recommendations: enacting a carbon tax.
But the state oil industry thinks that's a bad idea.
"We are an oil and gas state," said Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. "I understand what their motivation is, but I think the potential solution is one that will harm investment without any improvement to the environment."
Walker formed the climate team last fall as his state experienced severe effects of global warming: rising seas, torrential rain and heat waves. Just last month, Juneau, the state capital, experienced several days of unusually warm weather followed by days of torrential rains. "It's been crazy," said Michael LeVine of the Ocean Conservancy, who is a member of Walker's climate team.
The governor's climate team, made up of 20 experts, is recommending cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 as well as implementing other efficiency targets. Walker has not weighed in on the draft report. He will receive the final recommendations next month. The leadership team's draft report, dated July 27, states that Alaska is a perfect place to enact a carbon tax (Climatewire, Aug. 9).
The oil and gas industry accounts for 90 percent of state revenue, and each Alaskan gets an annual check from the state's permanent fund. The amount has dropped in recent years as oil prices have plunged. The state's economy has suffered, and a carbon tax could provide relief. The revenue could also establish a green bank to spur investment.
But it is unclear whether or when Walker might act on the carbon tax. Walker, a Republican-turned-independent, is running on a nonpartisan ticket with Democratic Lt. Gov. Byron Mallott and faces a tough re-election battle in November. Any carbon tax would need to be approved by the GOP-dominated state Legislature.
The oil industry isn't taking any chances.
The industry released its own report in July, calling the climate team's draft goals "a complete contradiction from the goals of the state to develop a robust oil and gas industry."
The population in Alaska is just 740,000 people, and the industry said the state's greenhouse gas emissions make up 0.63 percent of the nation's emissions and just 0.09 percent of global emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions have steadily declined despite increases in electricity consumption, gross domestic product and population, the industry report says. "Alaska's emissions are decreasing at a faster rate than the nation's declining emissions," it adds. The specific causes of the decline, however, are not known, the report states. Possible causes include facility upgrades, changes in facility operations, economic downturns or new federal regulations that affect greenhouse gas emissions.
Because it is not possible to pinpoint the drivers for the rate of decline in industry emissions, the gas panel states, it is difficult to identify drivers in the future. "Thus, establishing arbitrary goals not driven by data does not seem to be practical," the report reads.
Moriarty, the industry association president, said research shows that global carbon emissions could increase if it becomes more expensive to do business in a highly regulated state like Alaska.
"You could be looking at a situation where your intentions may be noble but the impacts could be that you are losing investments [and] you take products out of the market," she told E&E News. "All of this is to say that climate change is a global problem, but when you look at the amount of emissions in Alaska, we are less than 1 percent and less than a tenth of a percent globally."
Still, Alaska produces 350,000 barrels of oil per day, which is shipped all over the world.
Chris Rose of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project said the price on carbon should be called a fee rather than a tax.
Rose said: "When we go to the landfill, we pay a fee to dump our garbage. We can't dump it on the street. Yet we are all dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which is a public commons. Most of us don't realize it's a problem, because it's an invisible gas. But because it is contributing to the climate change, it makes sense to pay a fee to dump that carbon into the atmosphere. People will be incentivized to burn less carbon dioxide."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/08/10/stories/1060093823
-
2018 Is Shaping Up to Be the Fourth-Hottest Year. Yet We’re Still Not Prepared for Global Warming.
Aug 10, 2018 | New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
This summer of fire and swelter looks a lot like the future that scientists have been warning about in the era of climate change, and it’s revealing in real time how unprepared much of the world remains for life on a hotter planet.
The disruptions to everyday life have been far-reaching and devastating. In California, firefighters are racing to control what has become the largest fire in state history. Harvests of staple grains like wheat and corn are expected to dip this year, in some cases sharply, in countries as different as Sweden and El Salvador. In Europe, nuclear power plants have had to shut down because the river water that cools the reactors was too warm. Heat waves on four continents have brought electricity grids crashing.
And dozens of heat-related deaths in Japan this summer offered a foretaste of what researchers warn could be big increases in mortality from extreme heat. A study last month in the journal PLOS Medicineprojected a fivefold rise for the United States by 2080. The outlook for less wealthy countries is worse; for the Philippines, researchers forecast 12 times more deaths.
Globally, this is shaping up to be the fourth-hottest year on record. The only years hotter were the three previous ones. That string of records is part of an accelerating climb in temperatures since the start of the industrial age that scientists say is clear evidence of climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
And even if there are variations in weather patterns in the coming years, with some cooler years mixed in, the trend line clear: 17 of the 18 warmest years since modern record-keeping began have occurred since 2001.
“It’s not a wake-up call anymore,” Cynthia Rosenzweig, who runs the climate impacts group at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said of global warming and its human toll. “It’s now absolutely happening to millions of people around the world.”
Be careful before you call it the new normal, though.
Temperatures are still rising, and, so far, efforts to tame the heat have failed. Heat waves are bound to get more intense and more frequent as emissions rise, scientists have concluded. On the horizon is a future of cascading system failures threatening basic necessities like food supply and electricity.
For many scientists, this is the year they started living climate change rather than just studying it.
“What we’re seeing today is making me, frankly, calibrate not only what my children will be living but what I will be living, what I am currently living,” said Kim Cobb, a professor of earth and atmospheric science at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta. “We haven’t caught up to it. I haven’t caught up to it, personally.”
This week, she is installing sensors to measure sea level rise on the Georgia coast to help government officials manage disaster response.
Katherine Mach, a Stanford University climate scientist, said something had shifted for her, too.
“Decades ago when the science on the climate issue was first accumulating, the impacts could be seen as an issue for others, future generations or perhaps communities already struggling,” she said, adding that science had become increasingly able to link specific weather events to climate change.
“In our increasingly muggy and smoky discomfort, it’s now rote science to pinpoint how heat-trapping gases have cranked up the risks,” she said. “It’s a shift we all are living together.”
Globally, the hottest year on record was 2016. That was not totally unexpected because that year there was an El Niño, the Pacific climate cycle that typically amplifies heat.
More surprising, 2017, which was not an El Niño year, was almost as hot. It was the third-warmest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the second-warmest, according to NASA.
The first half of 2018, also not marked by El Niño, was the fourth-warmest on record, NOAA found.
In the lower 48 United States, the period between May and July ranked as the hottest ever, according to NOAA, with an average temperature of 70.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 21.6 degrees Celsius, which was almost 5 percent above average. Sea levels continued their upward trajectory last year, too, rising about 3 inches, or 7.7 centimeters, higher than levels in 1993.
What does all that add up to?
For Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Los Angeles, it vindicates the scientific community’s mathematical models. It doesn’t exactly bring comfort, though.
“We are living in a world that is not just warmer than it used to be. We haven’t reached a new normal,” Dr. Swain cautioned. “This isn’t a plateau.”
Against that background, industrial emissions of carbon dioxide grew to record levels in 2017, after holding steady the previous three years. Carbon in the atmosphere was found to be at the highest levels in 800,000 years.
Despite a global agreement in Paris two years ago to curb greenhouse gas emissions, many of the world’s biggest polluters — including the United States, the only country in the world pulling out of the accord — are not on track to meet the reductions targets they set for themselves. Nor have the world’s rich countries ponied up money, as promised under the Paris accord, to help the poor countries cope with the calamities of climate change.
Still, scientists point out that with significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and changes to the way we live — things like reducing food waste, for example — warming can be slowed enough to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Some governments, national and local, are taking action. In an effort to avert heat-related deaths, officials are promising to plant more trees in Melbourne, Australia, and covering roofs with reflective white paint in Ahmedabad, India. Agronomists are trying to develop seeds that have a better shot at surviving heat and drought. Switzerland hopes to prevent railway tracks from buckling under extreme heat by painting the rails white.
Climate scientists are also trying to respond faster, better. Dr. Rosenzweig’s team at NASA is trying to predict how long a heat wave might last, not just how likely it is to occur, in order to help city leaders prepare. Similar efforts to forecast the distribution of extreme rainfall are aimed at helping farmers.
Researchers with World Weather Attribution are working to refine their models to make them more accurate. “In Europe the warming is faster than in the models,” said Friederike Otto, an associate professor at Oxford University who is part of the attribution group.
Her group recently concluded that a human-altered climate had more than doubled the likelihood of the record-high temperatures in northern Europe this summer.
The impact of those records is being felt in multiple ways. The continent’s power supply is overstretched as air-conditioners are cranked up.
Then, there’s the impact of heat and drought on farms. In El Salvador, a country reeling from gang violence, farmers in the east of the country stared at a failed corn harvest this summer as temperatures soared to a record 107 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 41 degrees Celsius. The skies were rainless for up to 40 days in some places, according to the government.
Wheat production in many countries of the European Union is set to decline this year. In Britain, wheat yields are projected to hit a five-year low. German farmers say their grain harvests are likely to be lower than normal. And in Sweden, record-high temperatures have left fields parched and farmers scrambling to find fodder for their livestock.
Palle Borgstrom, president of the Federation of Swedish Farmers, said in an interview that his group estimated at least $1 billion in agricultural sector losses.
“We get quite a few phone calls from farmers who are lying awake at night and worrying about the situation,” he said. “This is an extreme situation that we haven’t seen before.”
Christina Anderson contributed reporting from Stockholm, Nick Cumming-Bruce from Geneva, and Gene Palumbo from San Salvador, El Salvador.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/climate/summer-heat-global-warming.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fscience
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested