Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 22/08/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Several Flooring Players Set to Testify at Chinese Tariff Hearings This Week
Aug 22, 2018 | Floor Daily
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will hold public hearings on August 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 regarding proposed tariffs on approximately $200 billion worth of Chinese products, and floorcovering industry players will testify both in support of and in opposition to the tariffs. -
You Can Kick the Planet 'In the Butt' — Trump's Science Pick
Aug 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
President Trump's pick to lead the White House science office told scientists two years ago that "he doesn't know" if there's a climate tipping point and said the planet can be kicked "in the butt really, really hard." -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Problem Formulations Set 'Improper Precedents', Say Former EPA Staff
Aug 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Former US EPA staff members have cautioned that the approach to TSCA ‘problem formulations’ sets "improper precedents for future chemical risk evaluations" under the recently reformed law. -
Carey Gillam and Nathan Donley: A Story Behind the Monsanto Cancer Trial — Journal Sits on Retraction
Aug 22, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Carey Gillam and Nathan Donley
Consumers and journalists around the world were stunned earlier this month when Monsanto, after being forced in a court of law for the first time to defend the safety of its popular weed killer Roundup, was found liable for the terminal cancer of California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson. -
Big Oil Asks Government to Protect It From Climate Change
Aug 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile "spine" of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast. -
Early Anti-Dumping Finding by US Commerce Adds to Pressure on Pipelines
Aug 22, 2018 | Platts
Adding to potential costs of steel import tariffs faced by US pipeline developers, the US Commerce Department has made preliminary determinations that exporters of large-diameter welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, South Korea and Turkey have sold at less than fair-market value in the US. -
Harsh New Anti-Protest Laws Restrict Freedom of Speech, Advocates Say
Aug 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Nicholas Kusnetz
A new oil pipeline was looming in Oklahoma, and Ashley McCray wanted to be part of the resistance. -
Ewire: Virginia Declines to Revoke CWA Permits for Gas Pipeline
Aug 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
Virginia regulators are declining to reconsider their earlier approval of key Clean Water Act (CWA) certifications for a controversial natural gas pipeline, further inflaming an issue that has flared up in several states regarding similar permits for pipelines and other energy infrastructure. -
Accidents at Cannabis Cultivation Facilities Worry Industry Chemists
Aug 22, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Recent safety incidents at US cannabis cultivation facilities have caused concern at the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) autumn meeting. -
New Mexico Rail Runner Nets $30 Million From Feds for PTC
Aug 22, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has awarded a nearly $30 million grant to the Rio Metro Regional Transit District for the implementation of positive train control (PTC) on the New Mexico Rail Runner Express system. -
Air Pollution Is Shortening Your Life. Here’s How Much.
Aug 22, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
Air pollution is shaving months — and in some cases more than a year — off your life expectancy, depending on where you live, according to a study published Wednesday. -
Greens Bombard EPA Bid to Overhaul Permitting Program
Aug 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly and Amanda Reilly
Attorneys allied with environmental groups are slamming an EPA plan to rewrite a key tenet of its New Source Review permitting program, saying the proposal would protect older coal-fired power plants from installing modern pollution controls.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Several Flooring Players Set to Testify at Chinese Tariff Hearings This Week
Aug 22, 2018 | Floor Daily
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will hold public hearings on August 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 regarding proposed tariffs on approximately $200 billion worth of Chinese products, and floorcovering industry players will testify both in support of and in opposition to the tariffs.
Mohawk, Congoleum and the Tile Council of North America will testify in support of the tariffs.
Shaw, Milliken, MSI, Bedrosians and the American Consumers and Workers Justice Coalition will testify against the tariffs, as will the American Chemistry Council and the National Retail Federation. The American Consumers and Workers Justice Coalition represents 50 flooring manufactures and distributors.
The hearings will take place at the U.S. International Trade Commission (500 E Street SW, DC).
The proposed tariffs are a supplemental action in response to China’s unfair trade practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, based on the findings in USTR’s investigation of China under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Tariffs on $34 billion in goods from China are currently in effect, and tariffs on an additional $16 billion will take effect on August 23.
The public hearings will be held at 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST August 20 to 24 and from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on August 27.
Stay tuned for more in-depth coverage of this Chinese tariff debate as it relates to floorcovering on FloorDaily.net and Floor Focus magazine.
https://www.floordaily.net/flooring-news/several-flooring-players-set-to-testify-at-ustr-tariff-hearings
-
You Can Kick the Planet 'In the Butt' — Trump's Science Pick
Aug 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
President Trump's pick to lead the White House science office told scientists two years ago that "he doesn't know" if there's a climate tipping point and said the planet can be kicked "in the butt really, really hard."
The comments of former University of Oklahoma extreme-weather expert Kelvin Droegemeier, the choice to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, occurred during a discussion at the South Central Climate Science Center. The remarks are in one of several videos online where the nominee sheds more light on his views of warming temperatures.
Droegemeier is set to testify tomorrow before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and his views on climate change and federal research budgets are expected to be a focus. In the past, Droegemeier also diverged from Trump administration officials in calling for more federal science spending (Greenwire, Aug. 1).
In the videos, the Oklahoma meteorologist expresses belief in human-driven climate change but also repeatedly points out the limits of climate models. They are more complicated than weather models, which also are not perfect, he said.
During the talk at the science center, Droegemeier said the climate issue has become too politicized and that some people "become kind of crazy" when those limits are pointed out.
"If we are intellectually honest with one another, we'll say, yeah, the observations show the planet is warming. The evidence of the models suggest that it's human-induced, or there's a strong human signal ... but we don't know everything there is to know about the nitrogen cycle, about all the carbon cycling, all this stuff. Carbon sequestration. We don't know," he said, according to online audio of the talk.
"Frankly, unfortunately, a lot of the scientific community has gotten to the point where they're saying ... you're an idiot if you go up there and say what I just said to you," he added.
"So I'm very skeptical of people who take that almost deeply ideological position of we absolutely know the answer," he said. "No, we don't." He called for a new approach, where researchers are more active in explaining their results to policymakers.
Droegemeier said that computers can model the past climate very well when known factors like volcanic eruptions are plugged in. But at the same time, he pointed to the 2010 BP PLC oil spill and said "it's gone" in part because microbes that previously were unknown gobbled up the oil.
In the same way, "the atmosphere is incredibly resilient. The planet's incredibly resilient," he said. "So what do I feel about it? Well, my feeling is the planet ... you can kick it in the butt really, really hard, and it will come back."
"Is there a tipping point for climate change? I don't know. The only thing that we can say for certain is we have our model results," he said.
On a STEM-talk podcast two years ago, Droegemier discussed climate models further, saying "they are never perfect."
"We can have some degree of confidence of what the human impacts are versus the natural impacts," Droegemeier said on the podcast about models. He noted that climate models can assess the past "quite faithfully."
"Every day, we are learning more. So science never ends, and models are never perfect, but I think they are getting better and better all the time," he said.
In his faculty profile video, Droegemeier explains how he founded a center to help predict extreme storms and expresses support for university work on climate and the human microbiome.
After Trump picked Droegemeier, several climate scientists offered support. Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University who has criticized Trump's climate policies, said Droegemeier has "absolutely mainstream views about the atmospheric sciences and climate."
The nominee also won praise from lawmakers who often disagree, including Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla) and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas).
In a statement today, Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) said she had met with Droegemeier and urged the Senate to swiftly confirm him.
"In particular, I was pleased to hear that, if confirmed, Dr. Droegemeier would focus on ensuring that the United States continues to be a leader in science and technology, as well as working to strengthen science, technology, education, and mathematics (STEM) education for our young people," Hassan said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/22/stories/1060094981
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Problem Formulations Set 'Improper Precedents', Say Former EPA Staff
Aug 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Former US EPA staff members have cautioned that the approach to TSCA ‘problem formulations’ sets "improper precedents for future chemical risk evaluations" under the recently reformed law.
The comments from the Environmental Protection Network – an EPA alumni group formed last year to provide a "defense against efforts to undermine" the agency’s mission – came in response to a consultation on TSCA problem formulations. These further refine the scope of the first ten risk evaluations that the EPA is conducting following the update of the law in 2016.
In line with comments raised by consumer advocacy groups, the EPN’s concerns centred on the EPA’s decision to exclude certain conditions of use from its evaluations. The group says this runs counter to its mandate to consider risks resulting from all intended, known and reasonably foreseen uses of a chemical.
And, because all ten chemicals addressed in the problem formulations have chronic toxic effects, "a comprehensive aggregate assessment of all co-occurring exposures is critical, since excluding even one pathway will underestimate cancer and non-cancer effects."
Public health professionals group AHPA said in comments that by not considering all uses, the EPA is likely to conclude the total exposure level to a substance is lower than it is. And it may therefore "determine incorrectly" that the substance does not present an unreasonable risk – a decision they say is "unlawful and lacks scientific credibility".
A coalition of NGOs lead by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families agreed in its response that the EPA is "on a path to produce evaluations that ignore important exposure pathways and at-risk populations, disregard evidence of adverse effects and reach misleading and incomplete conclusions that understate risks and weaken public health protection."
It has called on the agency to put the risk evaluations on hold in order to "rethink how they are being conducted, and [to] initiate them in accordance with the law and principles of sound science".Excluded uses questioned
Comments from an array of groups have focused on the "questionable exclusions and loopholes" in the problem formulations.
Among those omitted, the Environmental Defense Fund said, are exposures:that could potentially be covered by another EPA-administered statute;resulting from past conditions of use that could reasonably recur;from accidents; andresulting from imperfect compliance with existing regulations.
The EPA "cannot ignore ongoing, real-world exposures" such as these, the NGO said.
The SCHF coalition cautioned that by excluding discontinued uses, industry could cease production of a specific use to prevent its inclusion in the risk evaluation, and then re-enter the marketplace without restriction or a risk determination. But if the agency were to evaluate those abandoned uses, it would have the authority to permanently ban or restrict them under section 6(a) of TSCA, "providing certainty to the marketplace and long-term public health protection".
The coalition added that it "appears that EPA will examine each source of exposure in isolation and will not consider either the combined effect of multiple exposures or the contribution of environmental releases to overall exposure and risk". This, it said, is in violation of the law’s mandate to evaluate a chemical in its totality.
And it cited a "minimal effort" to identify data gaps and assess how they will impact conclusions. It has called on the EPA to use its authorities to require testing to address these.Industry generally supportive
The American Chemistry Council said in its comments that it "generally supports the approach taken to addressing conditions of use" in the first ten problem formulations.
Focusing on those uses that "raise the greatest potential for risk … allows EPA to be efficient, while still addressing the highest priority conditions of use", it said.
The trade group, however, has called for the development of a framework that "articulates its process for deciding when conditions of use are in or out of scope".
This would "streamline future efforts, provide greater understanding of EPA’s decisions, increase transparency and reproducibility and enable industry to identify the types of information that may be most helpful" to develop and/or share with EPA, it said.
The problem formulations consultation closed on 16 August. The EPA must finalise its risk evaluations by December 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/69901/tsca-problem-formulations-set-improper-precedents-say-former-epa-staff
-
Aug 22, 2018 | Environmental Health News
By Carey Gillam and Nathan Donley
Consumers and journalists around the world were stunned earlier this month when Monsanto, after being forced in a court of law for the first time to defend the safety of its popular weed killer Roundup, was found liable for the terminal cancer of California groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson.
The unanimous 12-member jury found that Mr. Johnson's exposure to Monsanto's weedkiller was a "substantial" contributing factor to his disease and that there was "clear and convincing" evidence that Monsanto acted with "malice or oppression" because the risks were evident and Monsanto failed to warn of those known risks.
Aside from dueling expert testimony on both sides, the jury was provided with internal company emails and work plans indicating that Monsanto had been corrupting the scientific record by ghostwriting literature asserting safety.
As the jury's decision sets in, and thousands of additional plaintiffs who have filed similar suits wait for their day in court, it is worth taking time to understand exactly what "ghostwriting" by Monsanto means, how it has influenced, and still is influencing, material found in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We offer this example:
When the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (CRT) published a series of papers reviewing the carcinogenic potential of weed-killing agent glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup, in September 2016, the findings were so significant that they were widely reported by media outlets around the world.
The papers, published in a special issue of CRT entitled "An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate," directly contradicted the findings of the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which in 2015 found glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen. The authors of the 2016 review found that the weight of evidence showed the weed killer was unlikely to pose any carcinogenic risk to people.Related: Monsanto's ghostwriting and strong-arming threaten sound science—and society
The findings were critical to Monsanto – the company was facing doubts by European regulators about allowing glyphosate to remain on the market. As well, Monsanto was facing a growing mass of lawsuits claiming its weed killer caused people to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Sixteen scientists from "four independent panels" signed their names to the published work, declaring to readers that their conclusions were free of Monsanto's intervention. Underscoring the supposed independence of the work, the declaration of interest section stated: "Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel's manuscripts prior to submission to the journal."
It has since become evident that these papers were anything but independent. Internal Monsanto documents forced into the public spotlight through litigation show that the papers were conceptualized from the outset as a deceptive strategy for Monsanto. One of Monsanto's top scientists not only reviewed the manuscripts but had a hand in drafting and editing them. The finished papers were aimed directly at discrediting IARC's classification.
In one internal email, Monsanto's chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, told the organizer of the panel: "I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple spots I did a little editing."
The internal documents show that Heydens even argued over statements that he wanted included but that author John Acquavella deemed "inflammatory" and "not necessary" criticisms of IARC. Draft documents show Heydens' edits contradicted Acquavella's edits even though Heydens was not supposed to have even reviewed the papers. Heydens went so far as to state: "I would ignore John's comment" and "I don't see a reason for deleting the text that John did below."
Other edits show Heydens attempting to control the tone of the manuscript, stating: "The deleted statement below has nothing to do with IARC criticism and should be put back in, John over-stepped the bounds here" and "I can live with deleting the text below, assuming that exposure text above … is added back in." He also argued for putting a deleted phrase back in because it gave "clarity about IARC's approach." "This is not inflammatory, it is descriptive," he wrote.
The importance of the papers to Monsanto as a tool to counter IARC's classification of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was laid out in a confidential document dated May 11, 2015, naming several of the scientists who could be used as authors to give the papers credibility. The internal documents speak of "ghost-writing" strategies aimed at using non-company scientists as authors to lend credibility to the findings.
When placed under oath in a deposition, Heydens acknowledged that the manuscripts were sent to him and he read "parts of some of them," prior to their submission to the journal. He said he did not "recall" whether or not he made the 28 edits that plaintiffs' attorneys counted in the internal records.
All of this was among the evidence presented to jurors in San Francisco Superior Court as they considered Johnson's claims. But the evidence of ghostwriting and misconduct have far broader implications than one lawsuit.No action has been taken
How many ghostwritten papers declaring pesticide safety are littering the scientific literature? And given the evidence of misconduct in this instance, why are these papers still in publication? Why has there been no retraction, no clarification, no correction to the obviously deceptive disclosure?
Last August, after the documents gained media attention CRT editor Roger McClellan said the "serious accusations" deserved "careful investigation," and he and CRTpublisher Taylor & Francis would take "appropriate action."
Shortly thereafter the Center for Biological Diversity and three other national environmental-health organizations sent a letter to CRT and Taylor & Francis detailing the ethical misconduct and formally asking for a retraction. It's been more than a year since this investigation was begun and, despite multiple follow-up requests by the organizations, no action has been taken.
With Taylor & Francis's own policy being to issue a retraction for misconduct "when there has been an infringement of publishing ethics," the case for retraction couldn't be more clear.
Monsanto's fingerprints are all over this "independent" review, as laid out in Monsanto's own internal documents.
Taylor & Francis must determine the standards to which it is willing to hold scientists who publish in its journals – if not for the reputation of the journals themselves, then for the sake of scientific integrity itself and the public's right to the truth.
https://www.ehn.org/monsanto-science-ghostwriting-2597869694.html
-
Big Oil Asks Government to Protect It From Climate Change
Aug 22, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
As the nation plans new defenses against the more powerful storms and higher tides expected from climate change, one project stands out: an ambitious proposal to build a nearly 60-mile "spine" of concrete seawalls, earthen barriers, floating gates and steel levees on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Like other oceanfront projects, this one would protect homes, delicate ecosystems and vital infrastructure, but it also has another priority — to shield some of the crown jewels of the petroleum industry, which is blamed for contributing to global warming and now wants the federal government to build safeguards against the consequences of it.
The plan is focused on a stretch of coastline that runs from the Louisiana border to industrial enclaves south of Houston that are home to one of the world's largest concentrations of petrochemical facilities, including most of Texas' 30 refineries, which represent 30 percent of the nation's refining capacity.
Texas is seeking at least $12 billion for the full coastal spine, with nearly all of it coming from public funds. Last month, the government fast-tracked an initial $3.9 billion for three separate, smaller storm barrier projects that would specifically protect oil facilities.
ADVERTISEMENT
That followed Hurricane Harvey, which roared ashore last Aug. 25 and swamped Houston and parts of the coast, temporarily knocking out a quarter of the area's oil refining capacity and causing average gasoline prices to jump 28 cents a gallon nationwide. Many Republicans argue that the Texas oil projects belong at the top of Washington's spending list.
"Our overall economy, not only in Texas but in the entire country, is so much at risk from a high storm surge," said Matt Sebesta, a Republican who as Brazoria County judge oversees a swath of Gulf Coast.
But the idea of taxpayers around the country paying to protect refineries worth billions, and in a state where top politicians still dispute climate change's validity, doesn't sit well with some.
"The oil and gas industry is getting a free ride," said Brandt Mannchen, a member of the Sierra Club's executive committee in Houston. "You don't hear the industry making a peep about paying for any of this and why should they? There's all this push like, 'Please Senator Cornyn, Please Senator Cruz, we need money for this and that.'"
Normally outspoken critics of federal spending, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz both backed using taxpayer funds to fortify the oil facilities' protections and the Texas coast. Cruz called it "a tremendous step forward."EDITORS’ PICKSThis Is the Way Paul Ryan’s Speakership EndsThe Scientist Who Scrambled Darwin’s Tree of LifeHow Do You Get Better Schools? Take the State to Court, More Advocates Say
ADVERTISEMENT
Federal, state and local money is also bolstering defenses elsewhere, including on New York's Staten Island, around Atlantic City, New Jersey, and in other communities hammered by Superstorm Sandy in 2012.
Construction in Texas could begin in several months on the three sections of storm barrier. While plans are still being finalized, some dirt levees will be raised to about 17 feet high, and 6 miles of 19-foot-tall floodwalls would be built or strengthened around Port Arthur, a Texas-Louisiana border locale of pungent chemical smells and towering knots of steel pipes.
The town of 55,000 includes the Saudi-controlled Motiva oil refinery, the nation's largest, as well as refineries owned by oil giants Valero Energy Corp. and Total S.A. There are also almost a dozen petrochemical facilities.
"You're looking at a lot of people, a lot of homes, but really a lot of industry," said Steve Sherrill, an Army Corps of Engineers resident engineer in Port Arthur, as he peered over a Gulf tributary lined with chunks of granite and metal gates, much of which is set to be reinforced.
The second barrier project features around 25 miles of new levees and seawalls in nearby Orange County, where Chevron, DuPont and other companies have facilities. The third would extend and heighten seawalls around Freeport, home to a Phillips 66 export terminal for liquefied natural gas and nearby refinery, as well as several chemical facilities.
The proposals approved for funding originally called for building more protections along larger swaths of the Texas coast, but they were scaled back and now deliberately focus on refineries.
"That was one of the main reasons we looked at some of those areas," said Tony Williams, environmental review coordinator for the Texas Land Commissioner's Office.
ADVERTISEMENT
Oil and chemical companies also pushed for more protection for surrounding communities to shield their workforces, but "not every property can be protected," said Sheri Willey, deputy chief of project management for the Army Corps of Engineers' upper Texas district.
"Our regulations tell us what benefits we need to include, and they have to be national economic benefits," Willey said.
Once work is complete on the three sections, they could eventually be integrated into a larger coastal spine system. In some places along Texas' 370-mile Gulf Coast, 18 feet is lost annually to erosion, threatening to suck more wetlands, roads and buildings into rising seas.
Protecting a wide expanse will be expensive. After Harvey, a special Texas commission prepared a report seeking $61 billion from Congress to "future proof" the state against such natural disasters, without mentioning climate change, which scientists say will cause heavier rains and stronger storms.
Texas has not tapped its own rainy day fund of around $11 billion. According to federal rules, 35 percent of funds spent by the Army Corps of Engineers must be matched by local jurisdictions, and the GOP-controlled state Legislature could help cover such costs. But such spending may be tough for many conservatives to swallow.
Texas "should be funding things like this itself," said Chris Edwards, an economist at the libertarian Cato Institute. "Texans are proud of their conservatism, but, unfortunately, when decisions get made in Washington, that frugality goes out the door."
State officials counter that protecting the oil facilities is a matter of national security.
"The effects of the next devastating storm could be felt nationwide," Rep. Randy Weber, a fiercely conservative Republican from suburban Houston who has nonetheless authored legislation backing the coastal spine.
ADVERTISEMENT
Major oil companies did not return messages seeking comment on funding for the projects. But Suzanne Lemieux, midstream group manager for the American Petroleum Institute, said the industry already pays into programs such as the federal Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the Waterways Trust Fund, only to see Congress divert that money elsewhere.
"Do we want to pay again, when we've already paid a tax without it getting used? I'd say the answer is no," she said.
Phillips 66 and other energy firms spent money last year lobbying Congress on storm-related funding post-Harvey, campaign finance records show, and Houston's Lyondell Chemical Co. PAC lobbied for building a coastal spine.
"The coastal spine benefits more than just our industry," Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell, one of the world's largest plastics, chemicals and refining companies, said in March. "It really needs to be a regional effort."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/08/22/us/ap-us-saving-big-oil-texas.html
-
Early Anti-Dumping Finding by US Commerce Adds to Pressure on Pipelines
Aug 22, 2018 | Platts
Adding to potential costs of steel import tariffs faced by US pipeline developers, the US Commerce Department has made preliminary determinations that exporters of large-diameter welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, South Korea and Turkey have sold at less than fair-market value in the US.
The preliminary findings are part of a long, judicial process that could lead to duties that are additive to the existing tariffs on imported steel imposed by the Trump administration. US pipeline developers have already complained that 25% steel tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are driving up project costs and threaten to delay some future development.
For now, preliminary dumping margins have been set at 24.38% for Canada, 132.63% for China, 22.51% for Greece and 50.55% for India. Preliminary AD rates for South Korean producers were set in the range of 14.97%-22.21%, while the preliminary AD rate for Turkish producers was set at 3.45%-5.29%.CASH DEPOSITS
While the judicial process continues, cash deposits will be collected from importers of the products based on the preliminary rates. With respect to India and Turkey, Commerce will adjust rates by the amount of export subsidies found in its ongoing countervailing duty investigation.
In 2017, total US imports of line pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, South Korea and Turkey were valued at an estimated $179.9 million, $29.2 million, $10.7 million, $294.7 million, $150.9 million and $57.3 million, respectively, according to Commerce. The pipe affected is larger than 16 inches in diameter and may be used to transport oil, gas, slurry, steam or other fluids, liquids or gases, Commerce said.
Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the pipeline trade group Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, noted that Commerce and the International Trade Commission will review the issue in further detail later this year. "In developing its final determination, we urge the ITC to consider that domestic capacity differs for different types of line pipe. ICF studied this issue last year and determined that for certain larger-diameter, heavy-walled, specialty pipe -- the type of pipe often used to build interstate natural gas pipelines -- there is limited domestic capacity today."CHINESE TARIFFS
Separately Tuesday, Stephen Comstock, director of the American Petroleum Institute, testified that an additional round of broad tariffs on Chinese imports under consideration would likely slow US natural gas and oil production and could open a window for overseas LNG developers competing with US terminals.
He was among hundreds of business leaders testifying during six days of hearings held by the US Trade Representative in Washington on proposed new tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese products.
He highlighted products the oil and gas industry imports to use in production that are included on the proposed tariff list. That includes natural barium sulfate, a weighting agent used in drilling fluids and to maintain control of wells during drilling operations. He noted that the US currently produces limited amounts and about 42% of global supply was produced in China in 2017. While production elsewhere could increase, he pointed to inefficiencies of disrupting supply chains or starting from scratch.
Comstock also highlighted worries about a ripple effect for the LNG sector, should China follow through on retaliatory threats.
"The US is one of the world's main LNG suppliers, but other countries are capable of supplying China -- including Australia, Qatar, Malaysia and Russia," he said. "This trade dynamic suggests that additional tariffs by the Chinese on US LNG will hurt the US more than it hurts China and naturally incentivize other LNG suppliers to fill this market." An impact on construction of domestic LNG projects could cascade into reductions of domestic natural gas production, he said.
The US has already slapped tariffs on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods, and tariffs on another $16 billion are slated to begin on August 23.
As part of a round of tariff threats this summer, China threatened to add a 25% tariff on US LNG imports. The Trump administration says the tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 are a tool to rein in China's unfair trade practices related to technology transfer and intellectual property.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/082218-early-anti-dumping-finding-by-us-commerce-adds-to-pressure-on-pipelines
-
Harsh New Anti-Protest Laws Restrict Freedom of Speech, Advocates Say
Aug 22, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Nicholas Kusnetz
This story is in partnership with InsideClimate News, a nonprofit, independent news outlet that covers climate, energy and the environment.
A new oil pipeline was looming in Oklahoma, and Ashley McCray wanted to be part of the resistance. She and other activists set up camp near McCurtain, one of the towns where the Diamond Pipeline was slated to slice through the landscape.
Then the surveillance started. A small plane circled above the camp, McCray recalled, appearing to photograph its occupants. Later, she said, helicopters whirred overhead. Demonstrators were pulled over and questioned on their drive in or out, though the local sheriff said people were only pulled over for violating traffic laws.
Only days after McCray and the coalition announced their plans to resist the Diamond Pipeline construction, an Oklahoma state lawmaker introduced a bill to stiffen penalties for interfering with pipeline projects and other “critical infrastructure.” The law, which the governor signed, imposed punishments of up to 10 years in prison and $100,000 in fines — and up to $1 million for any organization “found to be a conspirator.” Merely stepping onto a pipeline easement suddenly risked a year in prison.
It became a trend.
Dozens of bills and executive orders that aim to restrict high-profile protests have been introduced in at least 31 states and the federal government since November 2016. Fifteen have been enacted, according to the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, including the critical-infrastructure pipeline bill signed in Oklahoma and similar bills in Louisiana and Iowa. Some of the laws would expand definitions of rioting and terrorism and would even increase penalties for blocking traffic.
"That was really pretty successful in thwarting a lot of our efforts to continue any activism after that,” McCray said.
A member of a Shawnee tribe in Oklahoma, McCray had been at Standing Rock — a high-profile confrontation that attracted thousands of people to fight the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. In early 2017, she wanted to make a similar statement at a camp called Oka Lawa, this time against a pipeline being built across tribal lands in her home state.
But the dynamic had changed. A Republican was in the White House — one who encouraged physical violence against protesters on the campaign trail. When President Trump was inaugurated, activists saw the balance of power tilt toward energy companies.
The pipeline bills may get their first test soon in Louisiana, where three activists were arrested this month on felony charges stemming from one of the new laws after they maneuvered kayaks on a bayou to block construction of an oil pipeline. They were arrested by off-duty officers with the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections who were armed and in uniform but were working at the time for a private security firm hired by the pipeline developer.
If the district attorney brings charges, the activists will challenge the law itself, said William Quigley, a professor at Loyola University College of Law in New Orleans who is representing the three people pro bono. They face up to five years in prison.
“I think this shows how ridiculous this law is if this is the way it’s going to be applied,” he said, pointing out that a private company had apparently ordered the arrests.
In separate incidents, five more protesters and one journalist were arrested over the weekend under the new law in Louisiana after activists set up a platform in the trees to block work on the pipeline.
Law enforcement and private companies have surveilled pipeline campaigners in Louisiana, Virginia, Washington, North Dakota and other states, according to public records obtained by environmental groups and news organizations. Covert surveillance risks equating political protest with criminal activity, said Keith Mako Woodhouse, a historian at Northwestern University who wrote a book about radical environmentalists.
“It gives a sense that law enforcement is, if not on the side of, at least more sympathetic to the industries and practices that are being protested,” he said. “Presumably they’re not surveilling the energy companies.”
In 2017, 84 members of Congress wrote a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking if protesters who tamper with pipelines could be prosecuted as domestic terrorists. Sponsors of the state pipeline bills have also invoked terrorism.
“There’s a legal process to stop something,” said Oklahoma state Rep. Mark McBride (R), who sponsored another bill that assigns civil liability to anyone who pays protesters to trespass. “But if you’re chaining yourself to a bulldozer or you’re standing in the way of a piece of equipment digging a ditch or whatever it might be, yes, you’re causing harm to the project and to the person that’s contracted to do that job.”
Some pipeline opponents have conducted dangerous and illegal stunts, cutting pipelines with oxyacetylene torches or closing valves, but the majority of protests have been peaceful. If they’ve broken laws by trespassing, activists say, they’ve done so as part of the tradition of civil disobedience to enact change.
“All of the social progress we’ve made has depended, over the entire history of this nation, from the very beginning, on that ability to speak out against things that are wrong, things that are legal but should not be,” said Carroll Muffett, president of the Center for International Environmental Law. “These bills put that fundamental element of our democracy in jeopardy.”
Advocacy groups fear the legislation uses a handful of dangerous incidents as a pretext to intimidate mainstream advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union in Oklahoma is considering legal challenges, but said it may have to wait until a district attorney tries to use the new law.
“By equating those kinds of things together, essentially political speech on one end and on the other end outright terrorism,” said Brady Henderson, legal director for the Oklahoma chapter of the ACLU, “the [Oklahoma] bill is a pretty gross instrument.”
The Sierra Club has a policy against engaging in civil disobedience. But the Oklahoma bill’s conspiracy element — which says a group can be charged with 10 times the fines given to a person who violates the provisions — worries the organization’s Oklahoma director, Johnson Grimm-Bridgwater.
“The law is punitive and is designed to create friction and divisions among groups who normally wouldn’t have a second thought at working together,” he said.
David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, says there is a worrying trend on both sides of the aisle to suppress speech.
“I think a lot of people feel a lot more threatened than they have in a long time,” he said, “and I think that’s true on all sides of the political spectrum. And when people feel threatened, they tend to lash out.”
Soon after the coalition to resist the Diamond Pipeline announced plans to establish Oka Lawa, law enforcement agencies had identified “environmental rights extremists” as the top domestic terrorist threat to the project, according to a Department of Homeland Security field report obtained by the Washington Examiner.
The report, which the Department of Homeland Security will not confirm the authenticity of, said protesters could spark “criminal trespassing events resulting in violence.” It advised authorities to watch for people dressed in black because they could be “indicators of planned criminal or violent activities.” An FBI team arrived to train local police on how to handle the protest camp.
At Oka Lawa, McCray said the new law discouraged people from joining the camp. The movement to stop the Diamond Pipeline never drew the attention that made the Dakota Access pipeline protests a national cause. Activists closed the camp in August 2017, and the Diamond Pipeline was completed later that year.
After Oka Lawa, McCray channeled her energy into politics. She’s now running for a seat on the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates the energy industry. But even as a candidate, McCray says, she watches her words and her Facebook posts, afraid of being implicated as a conspirator if someone were to violate the law, even if she doesn’t know the person.
“I don’t feel safe, honestly,” she said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/08/22/environmentalists-say-new-pipeline-protest-laws-restrict-their-freedom-speech/?utm_term=.5a682a33d448
-
Ewire: Virginia Declines to Revoke CWA Permits for Gas Pipeline
Aug 22, 2018 | Inside EPA
Virginia regulators are declining to reconsider their earlier approval of key Clean Water Act (CWA) certifications for a controversial natural gas pipeline, further inflaming an issue that has flared up in several states regarding similar permits for pipelines and other energy infrastructure.
The certifications under CWA section 401 -- which give states a unique authority over major federal infrastructure projects -- have also become major issues in New York and Washington state, with Republican senators citing those states' actions as the impetus for their legislation to restrict states' authority under section 401.
Under that provision, states can evaluate if activities under a federal permit will undermine attainment of state water quality standards, and a state certification that water quality will be protected is necessary for projects requiring such permits, including CWA permits, to proceed.
Among the changes to that section in a bill floated by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) and other Senate Republicans would be clarifying that the reviews are limited to water quality impacts only and clarifying that states can only consider discharges that would result from the federally permitted or licensed activity itself and not other sources.
As the Washington Post reports, the Virginia Water Control Board approved 401 certifications for the 300-mile Mountain Valley Pipeline that would carry gas from West Virginia into southwest Virginia. It has yet to issue similar approvals for another controversial gas pipeline, the Atlantic Coast Pipeline that would run 600 miles from West Virginia to North Carolina through the middle of Virginia.
The board met Aug. 21 to reconsider its decision to accept a “blanket federal water quality certification” for the Mountain Valley project, rather than ordering a separate state review of every point at which the projects cross a waterbody. The federal certification came under the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 12.
However, the board voted 4-3 to reject a motion to begin such a review, with the board opting instead to require regulators to “enforce state environmental regulations as strictly as possible and to look for ways to apply further standards to environmental oversight,” according to the Post.
The move came after Gov. Ralph Northam's (D) Advisory Council on Environmental Justice urged the governor to rescind the 401 certifications, according to S&P Global charging that minority communities along the pipeline route would be disproportionately harmed.
Environmentalists decried the state water board's decision. “It's absurd to think that a one-size-fits-all nationwide permit could adequately protect the unique waterways and communities of Virginia,” said Kate Addleson of the Sierra Club's Virginia chapter in a statement. “The bare minimum action taken by the board today pales in comparison to what a truly thorough review could accomplish.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-virginia-declines-revoke-cwa-permits-gas-pipeline
-
Accidents at Cannabis Cultivation Facilities Worry Industry Chemists
Aug 22, 2018 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Recent safety incidents at US cannabis cultivation facilities have caused concern at the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) autumn meeting. ‘I have a level of professional and personal concern about this new-born industry – while marijuana has been around a long time, at the industrial production level it is an infant,’ stated Neal Langerman, a safety consultant and founder of Advanced Chemical Safety in California, during a session of the 256th American Chemical Society meeting in Boston, US on 20 August.
In July, there were reports that 16 employees at a large cannabis cultivation facility, Copperstate Farms, in Arizona sought emergency medical attention following a spill of the commercial greenhouse cleaner Strip-It. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has now inspected the facility and sanctions could follow.
Earlier this month, there was also an explosion at the Arizona Development Services cannabis facility that was caused by ‘improperly stored hazardous materials’, according to the Casa Grande Dispatch.
‘These were not home-grown idiots,’ remarked Langerman, a corporate liaison to the ACS’s committee on chemical safety. ‘These were industry sites.’ He also referred to an assessment by Colorado researchers that found that there was ‘an imminent need to establish formal health and safety training to implement best practices’ across the cannabis industry.
Andrew Pham, the new chairman of the ACS’s cannabis chemistry subdivision, also expressed concern that the safety aspects of the rapidly expanding legal cannabis are being ‘pushed aside’. ‘What are the real repercussions, and are there any real dangers to public safety that we have to consider with cannabis being legalised?’ asked Pham, who is scientific director at BelCosta Labs, a cannabis testing lab in California.
Since recreational marijuana was legalised in California in November 2016, there has been a ‘huge increase’ in the number of arrests for driving under the influence (DUI) of that drug, according to Pham. ‘This is near and dear to my heart,’ he said, having testified as an expert witness in more than 20 such DUI cases in San Diego County, mostly for the public defender’s office.
In the US, there is a legal limit for blood alcohol when driving a car but there isn’t an equivalent for cannabis. ‘There is no breathalyser for THC [the psychoactive compound in cannabis],’ Pham said. The closest thing is a blood test, which is typically administered about two hours after a suspect is arrested. This is problematic because these tests are for THC and its metabolites, but a person’s THC blood level generally peaks quickly after consumption and then drops rapidly within 20 minutes.
Since THC is lipophilic, it is distributed into fatty tissues rather than staying in the bloodstream. Therefore, if two people take an identical amount of cannabis the person with a higher BMI will have less THC in their bloodstream than someone with a lower BMI. This makes it particularly challenging to develop a sensible law to prevent people from driving after taking cannabis. ‘I like to science my way out of most problems, but this is one that is really difficult to do,’ Pham said.
Pham suggested that possible solutions to achieve a limit for cannabis intoxication that’s comparable to alcohol include establishing clear legal THC limits, field-testing a device to measure levels of the drug, as well as validating a sobriety test for THC intoxication.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/accidents-at-cannabis-cultivation-facilities-worry-industry-chemists/3009412.article
-
New Mexico Rail Runner Nets $30 Million From Feds for PTC
Aug 22, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) has awarded a nearly $30 million grant to the Rio Metro Regional Transit District for the implementation of positive train control (PTC) on the New Mexico Rail Runner Express system.
Without the grant, the district likely would have needed to cut service to accommodate PTC costs, according to a joint press release issued by U.S. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and U.S. Reps. Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.).
In June, the lawmakers wrote to the USDOT in support of the grant.
"The Rail Runner connects rural, native and urban communities in central New Mexico, offering thousands of New Mexicans access to employment, education, health care and service opportunities," Udall said. "While positive train control represents a critical safety upgrade, it also carries with it a high price tag that threatened to limit the essential service the Rail Runner provides to central New Mexico."
As of March 31, the New Mexico Rail Runner had not equipped any locomotives or track segments with PTC equipment, according to the Federal Railroad Administration's first-quarter PTC report.
Each day, up to 16 one-way commuter trains roll along the Rail Runner's 100-mile corridor connecting Albuquerque to Santa Fe, Pueblos, Los Lunas, Belen and several rural communities.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/New-Mexico-Rail-Runner-nets-30-million-from-feds-for-PTC--55421
-
Air Pollution Is Shortening Your Life. Here’s How Much.
Aug 22, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta
Air pollution is shaving months — and in some cases more than a year — off your life expectancy, depending on where you live, according to a study published Wednesday.
Worldwide, outdoor air pollution reduces the average life expectancy at birth by one year. The effect is much more pronounced in some countries: It cuts the average Egyptian’s life span by 1.9 years and the average Indian’s by 1.5 years. In Russia, it’s around nine months.
For the United States, it’s less, currently reducing the life expectancy of an American born today by a little more than four months on average.
Those findings come as the Trump administration is proposing a loosening of pollution controls from coal-fired power plants.
ADVERTISEMENT
The administration proposal, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency this week, would replace the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which aimed to steer the energy sector away from coal and toward cleaner energy sources. By the E.P.A.’s own calculations, the Trump administration’s plan could lead to up to 1,400 premature deaths annually.
The study, in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, took into account measurements of outdoor, or ambient, air pollution. It gathered data from previous studies that used satellites and ground-based pollution meters to calculate levels of ambient fine particulate matter, known as PM 2.5.
That kind of pollutant can come from a variety of sources, including coal-fired power plants, truck tailpipes, wildfires and dust storms. The researchers then calculated the impact of that pollution on the life span of a person born today.
Joshua Apte, an engineering professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the lead author of the study, called that kind of particulate matter “the single most important environmental pollutant for ill health and death.”
The sources of PM 2.5 pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are often “tightly linked,” Dr. Apte added, meaning that moving to cleaner sources of energy can also deliver quick dividends for public health.EDITORS’ PICKSThe Super Bowl of BeekeepingHow Do You Get Better Schools? Take the State to Court, More Advocates SayOpinionMake Your Daughter Practice Math. She’ll Thank You Later.
ADVERTISEMENT
“For example, more efficient cars or cleaner electricity directly benefit both climate and health,” Dr. Apte said by email. “Indeed, the near- and long-term health benefits of cleaner and more efficient energy use are one of the best co-benefits of tackling climate change, as we will lead healthier and longer lives.”
Dr. Apte’s team found that exposure to indoor air pollution — for example, cooking with wood, charcoal, or animal dung — can also be devastating. In South Asia, for instance, it reduces life expectancy by an additional 1.2 years.
Indoor air pollution levels were calculated by taking a limited set of actual indoor air pollution data and extrapolating it based on what fuels people use in their kitchens in different countries.
The damaging impact of air pollution undercuts the overall progress that the world has made in raising life expectancy in the past decades. The global average is 72 today, about 20 years longer than in 1960. Improved access to health care has been a major factor in that change.
Indoor and outdoor air pollution together are directly responsible for one in nine deaths worldwide, according to estimates by the World Health Organization.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/22/climate/air-pollution-deaths.html
-
Greens Bombard EPA Bid to Overhaul Permitting Program
Aug 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly and Amanda Reilly
Attorneys allied with environmental groups are slamming an EPA plan to rewrite a key tenet of its New Source Review permitting program, saying the proposal would protect older coal-fired power plants from installing modern pollution controls.
Moreover, they say, the Supreme Court rejected a similar approach to the Clean Air Act program more than a decade ago.
"Under cover of an extremely weak climate rule, they're trying to do very significant changes and weakenings in permit requirements that could have really adverse effects on public health," Sean Donahue, a lawyer representing the Environmental Defense Fund in litigation over the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, said yesterday in a conference call with reporters.
Richard Revesz, a New York University law professor, called the effort "cynical" and noted that the proposed revisions are legally "severable" from other parts of what EPA has dubbed the "Affordable Clean Energy" (ACE) plan.
"They want to make sure that, should this New Source Review rule not survive, it won't bring down the effort to replace the Clean Power Plan," Revesz said on the same call.
The proposed rule, which is the Trump administration's intended replacement for the Clean Power Plan, would give states the option of using a different gauge for determining whether a power plant upgrade or expansion qualifies as a "major modification" that would warrant an NSR pre-construction permit and, potentially, new pollution controls.
Currently, the yardstick is whether the project would lead to growth in annual emissions. The administration's plan would allow states to use an approach tied to the expected impact on the hourly emissions rate.
In a 2007 decision in Environmental Defense et al. v Duke Energy Corp. et al., the Supreme Court found that Duke Energy Corp. had overstepped when it replaced or redesigned some generating units and then claimed that the changes did not need a New Source Review permit because none increased the units' hourly emissions rates and they therefore did not amount to a major modification.
While the power company had argued that another set of Clean Air Act regulations, known as New Source Performance Standards, relied on an hourly emissions rate, it "seems too far a stretch for the language used" to apply that approach to New Source Review, Justice David Souter wrote in the unanimous opinion reversing a decision by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
While Donahue yesterday alluded to that opinion in calling the Trump administration's plan a "warmed-over New Source Review proposal," an EPA spokeswoman said in an email that it "didn't address the type of revisions" that are now being proposed.
While she didn't elaborate, the draft rule depicts the proposed NSR changes as integral to the administration's broader attempt to reducing the power industry's carbon dioxide emissions through efficiency improvements at individual plants, as opposed to the grid-wide approach taken by the Clean Power Plan.
At 80 percent of coal-fired plants, for example, emission rates for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides exceeded what would typically be required under New Source Review, according to a 2014 study cited in the draft rule.
For those plants, undertaking efficiency improvements may thus "result in substantial time, effort and money to comply" with NSR requirements while also burdening regulators, the draft says.
The proposal acknowledges the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in the Duke Energy case but also cites an analysis from the same year that found "the more efficiently and the more cost-effectively [a power plant] operates, the more likely it is to install controls due to other EPA air regulations."
The proposal could also be seen as a reflection of EPA air chief Bill Wehrum's continuing preoccupation with New Source Review requirements.
In his previous stint at the agency during the George W. Bush administration, Wehrum pursued major changes to the program, only to be blocked in part by the courts. Since taking over as air chief last November, he had signaled plans for a more incremental approach to change.
Last December, for example, EPA announced that it would no longer challenge companies' pre-construction forecasts of expected air pollution increases resulting from particular projects. The agency "does not intend to substitute its judgement for that of the owner or operator by 'second-guessing' the owner or operator's emissions projections," then-Administrator Scott Pruitt wrote in a memo announcing the change.
As Pruitt's memo acknowledged, that issue was at the center of litigation before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals brought by DTE Energy Co. in connection with the overhaul of a coal-fired power plant in Michigan.
After the 6th Circuit ruled against the Detroit-based utility, the Supreme Court declined last year to take its appeal.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/08/22/stories/1060094989
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested