Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 9/18/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Ratchets Up China Tariffs and Business Community Alarm
Sep 18, 2018 | Politico Pro
By Doug Palmer
U.S. business groups mostly ripped President Donald Trump’s decision Monday to order a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion more of Chinese goods, effective Sept. 24. -
(ACC Mentioned) Final $200bn US Tariffs Against China Excludes Some Chemicals
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
The list of US tariffs against China in the latest $200bn round excludes 297 products from the original list, including some chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) How do Plastics Impact Waste? The Answer Might Surprise You
Sep 18, 2018 | GreenBiz
By Tony Kingsbury
Have you ever stopped to ask, why do we use so much plastic, especially in packaging? The answer depends on the type of packaging, but one overriding answer is that plastic is more resource-efficient than its competing materials. In other words, it takes less energy and materials to do the job. Less energy means less money, and less money means that it is often the desired choice for a given package or consumer good. -
EPA Issues 28 TSCA Significant New Use Rules
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for 28 substances subject to section 5(e) consent orders. The chemicals covered are varied, but include substances intended for use as a flame retardant for textiles, paint, urethane foam, and as an aromatic polyester polyol for rigid foam. -
Over 100 Lawmakers Consistently Voted Against Chemical Safeguards: Report
Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill
By Miranda Green
More than 100 lawmakers consistently voted for legislation to weaken safeguards against toxic chemicals, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund released Tuesday. -
Glass Half-Full on State Solutions to Chemicals in Water
Sep 18, 2018 | Bloomberg BNA
By Gerald B. Silverman
States fearing that federal inaction on chemical safety may harm their residents are jumping into the breach. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's CO2 Rule on Electricity is 'Template' for Industry
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Heavy-emitting industries like oil refining, chemicals and paper might see a glimpse of their future in the power plant rule proposed by the Trump administration last month. -
U.S. Natural Gas in Chinese Tariff Crosshairs
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz and Hannah Northey
American energy companies could be hit by trade war woes, as China announced new retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products including liquefied natural gas today. -
U.S. Gas Exports Hit by China Tariffs as Trade War Escalates
Sep 18, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Stephen Stapczynski and Christine Buurma
China plans to slap tariffs on U.S. natural gas exports as trade tensions escalate, a likely setback for the burgeoning energy relationship between the world’s two largest economies. -
Zinke Touts 'Big Interest' in Oil and Gas Leasing
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday linked the Trump administration's "energy dominance" push with the United States' rise to its position as the world's top crude oil producer. -
Trump Administration to Ease Rule on Methane Leaks on Public Land
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Timothy Gardner and Dan Grebler
The Trump Administration is slated on Tuesday to roll back an Obama-era rule on emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations on public lands in its latest step to ease energy industry regulations, environmental groups said. -
Shell Latest Firm to Make 'Smart' Move to Reduce Methane
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Benjamin Hulac
Royal Dutch Shell PLC's announcement yesterday that it would reduce methane leaks from its oil and gas operations suggests that not all the industry is embracing Trump administration rollbacks for greenhouse gas emissions. -
What to Watch for as Methane Targets Become the New Normal
Sep 18, 2018 | EDF Blog
By Ben Ratner
Last October, the 10 CEOs of major oil and gas producers, including BP, China National Petroleum and Saudi Aramco, announced an aspiration to reach near zero methane emissions from their companies’ natural gas value chains. -
Metra Finishes Installing On-Board, Wayside PTC Equipment
Sep 18, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
By Daniel Niepow
Metra has finished installing positive train control (PTC) components on all its trains and all communications and signal systems, the railroad announced yesterday. -
Trump Climate Rollbacks Spur Air Quality Concerns
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration's wholesale attack on Obama EPA greenhouse gas regulations is sparking opposition not just from those concerned about addressing climate change, but it is also driving air quality concerns because the rules were expected to significantly reduce conventional air pollutants as a co-benefit. -
California Selenium Criteria Presents New Test for EPA
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House review its draft selenium water quality criteria proposal for California to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, which could open a new test for the agency on how to apply its controversial national chronic selenium criterion, which is based in part on fish-tissue values, to address regional concerns.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Ratchets Up China Tariffs and Business Community Alarm
Sep 18, 2018 | Politico Pro
By Doug Palmer
U.S. business groups mostly ripped President Donald Trump’s decision Monday to order a 10 percent tariff on $200 billion more of Chinese goods, effective Sept. 24. Trump also announced the duty would rise to 25 percent on Jan. 1 and said he would target an additional $267 billion worth of Chinese goods if Beijing retaliates.
That unleashed a flood of statements opposing the action, though at least one expressed support (more on that below). Here’s a sampling to get your day started:
‘Reckless’: “President Trump’s decision to impose an additional $200 billion is reckless and will create lasting harm to communities across the country. China must change, but this is not the way to achieve the needed market access in China,” said Dean Garfield, president and CEO of the Information Technology Industry Council.
‘Shows a deep disregard’: “Today’s announcement shows a deep disregard for American businesses, American workers, and American families, who will be negatively impacted by this decision. This is a very dangerous game to play, one that will not end with a winner,” said Rick Helfenbein, president and CEO of the American Apparel & Footwear Association.
Even 10 percent is too high: “There is no acceptable tariff rate for global chemicals trade with China or any U.S. trading partner. Only zero tariffs will maximize our industry’s potential to deliver innovative products to new regions and increase social, environmental, and economic sustainability around the world,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council.
Watch out for the backfire effect: “Retaliation by China to tariffs already in place has made U.S. auto exports uncompetitive and will eliminate our bilateral auto trade surplus,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of Global Automakers.
Ignored again: “Today’s decision makes clear that the administration did not heed the numerous warnings from American consumers and businesses about rising costs and lost jobs on Main Street, in factories, and on farms and ranches across the country,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue said.
There’s a better way: “We continue to believe that a better solution is for the United States and its trading partners to apply concerted pressure to address China’s unfair trading behavior, especially via the WTO,” the United States Council for International Business said.
‘Now is the time for talks’: “With every day that passes without progress on a rules-based, bilateral trade agreement with China, the potential grows for manufacturers and manufacturing workers to get hurt. No one wins in a trade war, and manufacturing workers are hopeful the administration’s approach will quickly yield results. Now is the time for talks,” said Jay Timmons, president and CEO of the National Association of Manufacturers.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/09/18/trump-ratchets-up-china-tariffs-and-business-community-alarm-344179
-
(ACC Mentioned) Final $200bn US Tariffs Against China Excludes Some Chemicals
Sep 18, 2018 | ICIS
By Will Beacham
The list of US tariffs against China in the latest $200bn round excludes 297 products from the original list, including some chemicals.
The Office of the US Trade Representative said late on Monday that the latest round of tariffs in its trade war with China would go live at 10% on 24 September.
The tariff rate is scheduled to increase to 25% from 1 January 2019.
Following a period of public consultation which ended on 6 September, the US has partially or fully removed 297 products from the original Part 3 list.
Click here to see the final tariff list which contains 5,745 of the original 6,031 products in the earlier version.
'Certain chemical inputs for manufactured goods, textiles and agriculture' were removed, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative.
Click here to see the earlier proposed list of products to be targeted by the US, published in July.
Other products removed from the proposed list include consumer electronics such as smart watches and bluetooth devices; health and safety products such as bicycle helmets, and child safety furniture such as car seats and playpens.
US hearings to get feedback on the $200bn round of tariffs ended on 6 September after the Trump administration proposed on 1 Augustto increase the tariff from 10% to 25%.
The earlier $200bn tariff list would have impacted an additional $16.3bn in China chemical and plastics exports, according to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US' chemicals industry trade group.
The earlier list was very large, exceeding 6,000 products. It included olefins, aromatics, alcohols, acetyls, acrylics, anhydrides, glycols and glycol ethers.
Nitrogen fertilizers and surfactants were included as well as caustic soda and titanium dioxide (TiO2).
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/09/18/10260345/final-200bn-us-tariffs-against-china-excludes-some-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) How do Plastics Impact Waste? The Answer Might Surprise You
Sep 18, 2018 | GreenBiz
By Tony Kingsbury
Have you ever stopped to ask, why do we use so much plastic, especially in packaging? The answer depends on the type of packaging, but one overriding answer is that plastic is more resource-efficient than its competing materials. In other words, it takes less energy and materials to do the job. Less energy means less money, and less money means that it is often the desired choice for a given package or consumer good.
I remember as a kid getting potato chips in a box, with a bag inside, and getting deodorant in a steel spray can. Now, I get both in plastic. We used to get our milk exclusively in glass and our motor oil in a steel-and-paperboard canister. Now, we get milk in plastic or plastic-coated paperboard and motor oil in plastic bottles. With this plastic and other materials, we get waste. Some of it we recycle and most of it we don’t, or can’t. Regardless of the waste we create we could all do a better job of recycling. But with all the new plastic we use, are we creating more waste?
If you are like most people, you missed the publication in the journal Waste Management of a peer-reviewed article titled "Role of plastics in decoupling municipal solid waste and economic growth in the U.S." This article, by researchers from City College of New York’s Chemical Engineering Department, explored the historic drivers of municipal solid waste (MSW) and the links to the materials that make up the waste.
Typically, we would expect that waste would track with population and economic growth. As the economy grows, people buy more goods and services which economists express as personal consumption expenditure (PCE). This takes population growth out of the picture, which seems fair. As we buy more, you would expect we would throw more away. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tracks MSW by material and categories and determines what we recycle, what we incinerate for energy and what we landfill.
Weight watchers
It turns out that as plastic consumption grew, the percentage of waste that is paper, metals and glass and glass is reduced. As many of these other materials are recycled at a higher current rate than plastics, you might think this is bad. In fact, the researchers determined there would be 30 percent more waste if we didn’t have plastic. They write: "The correlation with PCE demonstrates that since the late 1990s there has been a decoupling of MSW generation rates with PCE or economic growth. Plastics play a role in the decoupling due to materials substitution that reduce the overall weight of MSW and down-gauging that reduces the amount of material needed."
This may seem sort of boring, but it is also important. As we consider banning plastic materials, we need to think about what we are replacing it with. If we replace the plastic items with heavier, more resource-inefficient materials, we will cause an increase in energy use which correlates to greenhouse gases and climate change.
The Waste Management article cites research where plastic reduced waste across six categories of products: caps and closures; beverage containers; stretch and shrink; carrier bags; other flexible; and other rigid packaging. Thus, for example, beverage containers that normally would be glass were replaced with plastic, and caps and closures that would be metal were replaced with plastic. The environmental impact in the United States, where the total material weight replaced was 109 million pounds over the six categories, resulted in an 80 percent energy reduction and a 130 percent reduced potential global warming impact. This same study also notes that while replacement reduces weight and resource use, plastics continue to be source-reduced after they replace another material such as metals or glass. Between 2000 and 2014, they averaged a 3 percent per year reduction in weight.
Back to the future?
Another way to look at this is to consider the consequences of shifting back to non-plastic materials. A 2016 Trucost study (PDF) for the American Chemistry Council estimated that moving back to alternatives globally, away from plastics in consumer products and packaging would increase environmental costs by 3.8 times — from $139 billion to $533 billion.
In today’s world of knee-jerk reactions, banning plastic packaging items altogether requires careful thinking, especially as it relates to climate impacts. As with most sustainability questions, the simplest answer is often incorrect, environmentally speaking. The correct answer will depend (as it always does) on a number of factors — do we need to use the item in the first place, are there ways to use less of it, and are the alternatives really better?
My conclusion from the studies referenced above is that we need to think deeper before jumping to conclusions. Plastics have contributed to a significant reduction and decoupling of waste generation. As we look at switching back to alternatives such as glass, metals and paperboard, we all need to ask, "Will the alternative require more energy to make and process, and thus contribute more to global warming than the plastic item it is replacing?"
We also need to insist that the waste we do create is managed properly, which means we need to recycle, compost, recover the energy or landfill everything. Nothing should end up being littered or in our oceans.
Sitting here in hot and burning California right now, I vote to reduce global warming and manage all my waste properly.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-do-plastics-impact-waste-answer-might-surprise-you
-
EPA Issues 28 TSCA Significant New Use Rules
Sep 18, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has issued TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for 28 substances subject to section 5(e) consent orders. The chemicals covered are varied, but include substances intended for use as a flame retardant for textiles, paint, urethane foam, and as an aromatic polyester polyol for rigid foam.
Once finalised, these Snurs will hold users of the substances to the same requirements as those negotiated with the original pre-manufacture notice (PMN) submitters and agreed to in the consent orders. The requirements for each substance differ but cover limitations on uses, hazard communication, personal protective equipment use and the submission of certain toxicity testing data. These protective measures are designed to address potential unreasonable risks the EPA identified, while reviewing the request to bring each new substance to market. In line with other recent groupings – 29 on 29 August, 27 on 21 August and 145 others on 1 August – the agency has promulgated these as a direct final rule and a proposed rule to take effect from 16 November.
For any substance for which the EPA receives significant adverse feedback before 17 October, it will drop the Snur from the direct final rule and address it through the proposed rulemaking process.https://chemicalwatch.com/70344/epa-issues-28-tsca-significant-new-use-rules
-
Over 100 Lawmakers Consistently Voted Against Chemical Safeguards: Report
Sep 18, 2018 | The Hill
By Miranda Green
More than 100 lawmakers consistently voted for legislation to weaken safeguards against toxic chemicals, according to a recent report by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Action Fund released Tuesday.
The political arm of the environmental group found in its first scorecard of the voting patterns of House lawmakers on chemical policy measures that a number of largely Republican lawmakers voted for measures that aim to weaken chemical standards or place obstacles in front of new chemical protections.
Looking at 17 separate bills and amendments voted on during the 114th and 115th Congresses, report found that over 100 lawmakers voted for these measures at every chance they got. Additionally, the analysis found that 140 House members voted against toxic chemical safeguards in every of the measured instances. Contrastingly 149 members voted consistently for chemical safety protections.
"While no president has ever done as much to weaken safeguards for toxic chemicals as Donald Trump, too many members of Congress have collaborated with the Trump administration or cast votes in favor of policies that reversed or delayed chemical bans, gutted chemical safety rules, rejected sound science, weakened worker and consumer protections, and denied justice to asbestos victims," the report found.
Legislators who EWG say consistently championed legislation that would weaken chemical safeguards include Rep. Jason Lewis (R-Minn.), Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) and Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas). All three politicians were among a group that introduced their own bills that in some fashion could make it easier for chemicals to pass regulatory hurdles.
According to EWG Action Fund, Lewis for example introduced a bill that could require agencies to submit chemical safety plans for congressional review, which the group says could delay or block the implementation of the safeguards.
A spokeswoman for Lewis' office pushed back against the characterization, saying the bill would only affect guidance documents believed to lead to an annual effect of at least $100 million, and that there is "no reason to believe" that chemical safety measures would be one of them.
"It’s no surprise that the EWG, which has a long history of supporting candidates and controversial causes backed by more extreme environmental groups, think that more transparency and taxpayer accountability are negatives," said Lewis in a statement to the Hill.
"EWG has no interest in the open process my legislation provides, they are clearly more interested in putting workers at Pine Bend out of work.”
EWG Action Fund is the advocacy arm of the non-profit environmental group that focuses on raising money and legislative awareness on a trove of environmental and chemical issues.
Their report also highlighted Republican lawmakers who voted for legislation that would increase chemical standards including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) who voted against the farm bill, which included a number of amendments making it easier for pesticides to pass inspection, the group said.
Concerns about chemical safety standards have grown under the Trump administration as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other departments move to implement a number of new policies critics say weaken environmental protections.
The EPA this summer has been criticized over its new plans to regulate asbestos. Asbestos is largely not banned on the federal level, but a 2016 law gave the EPA authority to prohibit the carcinogen.
The EPA’s proposal, released in June, was criticized as an open the door to widespread uses of asbestos. EPA officials ardently denied the accusations, saying the proposed regulations would effectively ban the substance.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/407093-over-100-lawmakers-consistently-voted-against-chemical-safeguards
-
Glass Half-Full on State Solutions to Chemicals in Water
Sep 18, 2018 | Bloomberg BNA
By Gerald B. Silverman
States fearing that federal inaction on chemical safety may harm their residents are jumping into the breach.
Faced with growing public pressure to address a class of persistent chemical contaminants found in drinking water and at waste sites, eight states are stepping up because they see the Environmental Protection Agency as dragging its feet.
They are driven by findings that the chemicals—perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and others like them—are pervasive across the country, including at military sites and near manufacturing plants.
Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Texas, Vermont, and Washington have all taken action on water or cleanup regulations for the class of toxic chemicals with multiple consumer and industry uses.
And 11 other states—Alabama, California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—are considering similar steps, according to an analysis by Bloomberg Environment.
But those responsible for cleaning up the contamination, like the military and some industrial facilities, caution that a patchwork of different state rules will complicate their efforts.
The chemicals have been linked to problems with liver and immune system function, increased blood cholesterol levels, developmental delays, and increased cancer risk. They were once widely used in making nonstick cookware, fire-retardant upholstery coatings, and other consumer products. In addition, they have numerous industrial applications in o-rings, gaskets, and other equipment, including in hydraulic fluids used in airplane landing gear.
They are part of a class of about 3,500 chemical compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The EPA set a nonenforceable health advisory in 2016 for PFOA and PFOS levels in drinking water at a combined 70 parts per trillion, but the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in June that exposure to even lower concentrations may pose health risks.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced in May that PFOA and PFOS may eventually be classified as hazardous substances for waste site cleanups. An EPA drinking water official told a congressional panel Sept. 6 the agency will decide by the end of 2018 whether to initiate the multiyear process of developing drinking water standards called maximum contaminant levels, or MCLs.
The EPA also recently announced it will share a draft toxicity value for a PFAS chemical called GenX with states by the end of September. The compound is made by Chemours and was found in the Cape Fear River in North Carolina.
States are addressing the problem in a variety of ways including product bans, regulations, and guidance that differs from federal recommendations.
Connecticut: Reports of possible PFAS contamination in Greenwich, Conn., prompted the state in 2017 to test eight to 10 private wells and eight to 10 public drinking water systems using the state advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for five perflourinated compounds: PFOA, PFOS, perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA), and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS). One private well tested above the 70 ppt advisory. EPA tests conducted between 2013 and 2015 of drinking water systems serving 10,000 or more people didn’t find any PFAS chemical compounds above 70 ppt. About 85 percent of the public drinking water systems were tested at the time.
Delaware: The state doesn’t have its own standards but wants the EPA to expedite a regulatory determination on whether enforceable limits are needed for the chemicals. “Give the states something more concrete to work with,” a spokesman for the state’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control said.
Maine: Since 2016, the state has used the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory, which applies to each of the PFAS chemicals individually except for PFOA and PFOS, which have a guideline of 70 ppt when they’re found together.
Maryland: The state hasn’t initiated any action to set drinking water standards for PFOA or PFOS but is awaiting the results of the EPA’s evaluation of the need for a maximum contaminant level.
Massachusetts: Interim guidance issued June 8 for five PFAS chemicals (PFOA, PFOS, PFNA, PFHpA, and PFHxS) recommends that pregnant women, nursing mothers, and infants not consume water containing the PFAS substances at levels above 70 ppt, individually or in combination.
New Hampshire: The state is considering a stricter state limit for PFAS and PFOA in drinking water than what the EPA recommends following the discovery in 2016 of PFOA contamination in the private drinking water wells of more than 500 families in southern New Hampshire.
New Jersey: The Department of Environmental Protection set a 13 ppt standard Sept. 4 for PFNA. State officials are reviewing New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommendations for a standard of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS. The state aims to adopt the standards by the end of the year.
New York: The state has been considering drinking water limits for PFOA and PFOS for almost a year but has yet to issue standards.
Pennsylvania: The Department of Environmental Protection began evaluating in 2017 whether additional measures are needed to address PFAS compounds in drinking water in the state.
Rhode Island: The state sampled 35 public drinking water systems within a mile of suspected releases and found one system, serving 175 people, with PFOA and PFAS above the 70 ppt advisory level. Residents there are still using bottled water. The state still relies on the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory level.
Vermont: The state has a health advisory of 20 ppt for any combination of PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA. About 570 private wells in southern Vermont near a Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant were tested in 2016, and 266 of them exceeded the 20 ppt limit. Vermont passed a law in June 2017, which is retroactive, requiring companies found responsible for contamination to pay for cleanups, monitoring, and to extend public drinking water to affected areas.
Illinois: The state is developing groundwater quality standards that will include limits for PFOA and PFOS of 70 ppt combined or individually.
Indiana: The state follows the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory.
Iowa: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none are being developed.
Kansas: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none are being developed. The state is planning to test for PFOA and PFOS contamination and would rely on the EPA health advisory if the chemicals are found in drinking water supplies.
Michigan: The state imposed a drinking water limit for PFOA and PFOS in January, mirroring the EPA level of 70 ppt.
Minnesota: The state set an unenforceable health-based value of 35 ppt for PFOA and 27 ppt for PFOS in 2017 and is about to propose an enforceable limit for perfluorobutyrate and PFOA. Violations of health values for drinking water can prompt the state to compel responsible parties to mitigate or remediate contaminated aquifers under the Superfund program.
Missouri: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none in the works. The Department of Natural Resources is monitoring federal policy and action related to the contaminants.
Nebraska: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none in the works.
North Dakota: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none in the works, but it is conducting tests to determine the prevalence of these compounds in the environment.
Ohio: The state is working on benchmarking PFAS levels and sampling wells, but no standards are in the works.
South Dakota: The state has no standards for PFOA and PFOS, and none are being developed.
Wisconsin: The state asked its Department of Health Services to recommend health-based groundwater quality standards for a number of substances, including PFOA and PFOS, and expects a response this fall.
Alabama: The state is “working to develop appropriate testing protocols, health-based standards, proper messaging to the public, and to address other issues related: to PFAS, a spokeswoman said. Eight of the state’s water systems showed levels of PFOA and PFOS that exceeded the EPA’s health advisory level of 70 ppt. The systems have “either changed water sources, installed treatment, or are in the process of installing treatment to bring the levels of PFOA and PFOS below the lifetime drinking water health advisory level.”
Arkansas: The state isn’t pursuing standards for PFOA and PFOS.
Florida: The state is focused on ensuring drinking water facilities comply with existing state and federal laws, a spokeswoman said. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection also continues to work with the few water systems that have PFOA or PFOS levels exceeding the EPA’s advisory level.
Georgia: The state isn’t working on any PFOA or PFOS regulations now but “will reassess once U.S. EPA releases its PFAS management plan later this year,” a spokesman said.
Kentucky: The state isn’t considering action but is relying on the EPA health advisory.
Louisiana: The Department of Health adopts standards set by EPA in the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, a spokesman said.
Mississippi: The Department of Health is considering state standards for PFOA and PFOS, a spokeswoman said.
North Carolina: The state has set a provisional health goal for GenX in drinking water at 140 ppt. Discharges of GenX and other PFAS compounds of concern into the Cape Fear River have led to a state and federal investigation, several lawsuits, and administrative actions against Chemours Co. and its past parent company DuPont. State regulators are completing a court order that would require Chemours to conduct toxicity studies on chemical discharges from its Fayetteville, N.C., facility.
Oklahoma: The state supports the “evaluation of which PFOA/PFOS compounds may need to be phased out of common usage” under the Toxic Substances Control Act,the nation’s chemicals law. “We also support consideration of making specific PFOA/PFOS compounds Superfund hazardous substances in order for EPA and/or states to use Superfund authority to address contaminated groundwater and surface water,” a spokeswoman said.
South Carolina: The state is “engaged in national conversation and working with EPA as science drives the policy making decisions on how best to address PFOS/PFOA in drinking water,” a spokeswoman said.
Tennessee: The state doesn’t regulate PFAS chemicals but has established a workgroup to identify sites with the potential for contamination. The data will guide any needed drinking water and environmental monitoring efforts.
Texas: The state has no drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS but does have residential and commercial/industrial cleanup standards for 16 perfluorinated chemicals. These are referred to as protective concentration levels under the Texas Risk Reduction Program, which only apply to contaminated sites. Levels exceeding the protective concentration levels would be subject to action or cleanup by state’s remediation program.
Virginia: The state follows the EPA’s 70 ppt health advisory.
West Virginia: The state follows the EPA’s health advisory.
Alaska: The state follows EPA health guidance of 70 ppt but may develop groundwater standards later for cleanup purposes.
Arizona: The state has worked with water systems for the last four years to mitigate PFAS and PFOA concentrations that exceed the EPA’s health advisory but is prohibited from setting standards stricter than federal limits.
California: The state set drinking water notification limits for PFOA and PFOS July 13, but water agencies aren’t required to test for the compounds. If they do and detections are at or above 14 ppt for PFOA or 13 ppt for PFOS, the agency must notify its governing board and the state. The state is also conducting biomonitoring studies to screen for PFAS chemicals.
Colorado: The state listed PFOA and PFOS as hazardous constituents in the state’s hazardous waste regulations in February. The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission adopted a limit of 70 ppt for an area in the vicinity of Fountain Creek in central El Paso County.
Hawaii: The state follows the EPA health guidance of 70 ppt.
Idaho: The state follows the EPA health guidance of 70 ppt.
Montana: The state is looking into setting water quality standards for PFAS in groundwater at the EPA health advisory level. Changes would require a rulemaking.
Nevada: The state follows EPA health guidance of 70 ppt.
New Mexico: The Water Quality Control Commission voted to add PFOA and PFOS to the list of toxic pollutants the state regulates in July. “We will regulate it at a risk-based level” of 70 ppt, since there is no maximum contaminant level, a spokeswoman said.
Oregon: The state follows the EPA health guidance of 70 ppt.
Utah: “We have begun to explore options for monitoring based on experience in other states but have not yet collected any ambient water quality samples. We can’t make any policy recommendations until we know if this is an issue of concern in Utah,” a water quality spokesman said.
Washington: The first state to pass laws partially banning perfluorinated compounds in firefighting foam and food packaging is now working with the Washington Board of Health to set a drinking water standard.
Wyoming: The state is conducting a review of potential PFOA and PFOS contamination at sites throughout the state. “We’re working to identify an inventory of locations and whether they pose a risk to ground water,” spokeswoman said.
States LeadingPFAS contamination has been found in at least 172 sites in 40 states, according to the Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group that tracks pollution and supports tougher standards. More than 1,500 drinking water systems serving 110 million people may be contaminated with PFOA or PFOS, it said in May.
David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg Environment that it could take several years for the EPA to act, but “states seem to be more responsive and have the ability to act more quickly.”
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp, which has been linked to PFOA contamination at locations in New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont, supports legislation that is “based on sound science,” Dina Silver Pokedoff, a spokeswoman for the company, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Donna Fleming Runyon, a spokeswoman for 3M Co., which phased out its manufacturing of perfluorooctanol compounds in 2000, said state or federal regulations “must be guided by the best available science and a realistic assessment of risk.”
“The vast body of scientific evidence does not show that PFOS or PFOA cause adverse health effects in people at current exposure levels,” she told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
https://www.bna.com/eight-states-lead-n73014482593/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump's CO2 Rule on Electricity is 'Template' for Industry
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Heavy-emitting industries like oil refining, chemicals and paper might see a glimpse of their future in the power plant rule proposed by the Trump administration last month.
Expectations have long been that greenhouse gas regulations would be applied to sectors that have so far escaped rules governing their emissions under the Clean Air Act. Power plants were the first to walk the regulatory plank, given their large contribution of planet-warming pollutants. Whatever regulations applied to electricity would eventually hit those comparatively smaller sources, many in the industrial sectors believed.
Trade groups and lobbyists representing industry now see the Trump administration's Affordable Clean Energy plan as a "template" for those unregulated sectors. For years, they feared being saddled with an expansive rule by the Obama administration. Now industry is facing a potential bargain.
"They are looking at how to have replacement rules for the major industries," Myron Ebell, former Trump EPA transition team head and director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Center for Energy and Environment, said of EPA. "They're definitely moving in that direction."
EPA did not return a request for comment.
Any regulation on greenhouse gas emissions is likely to face litigation. The Obama administration sought to extend Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to cover the entire electric grid system rather than individual generators. The Supreme Court stayed that effort, so it never went into effect. EPA under President Trump rescinded the Obama rule and proposed one that applies only to individual facilities.
So far, the power sector has largely supported the Trump plan. It's mostly what the industry has asked for ever since regulations on carbon emissions appeared imminent. Many think it will hold up in court, too, making it harder for a Democratic administration to tear down and rewrite the rule. That view would find firmer footing if Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, who has shown little love for deferring to agencies to interpret statute, is confirmed to the high court.
"This is a much more legally durable approach to CO2 emissions. And, you know, we told the more active environmentalists that there was a threat to the Clean Power Plan and it came, right? It wasn't durable. It wasn't legal," Karen Harbert, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, said on Bracewell LLP's podcast last week.
Industry and environmentalists have anticipated that the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in 2007, and the subsequent endangerment finding would propel EPA to write rules for new and existing sources of greenhouse gases. The Obama administration had plans to do just that — refineries were included in a settlement agreement that sparked the carbon rules on power plants. But the Obama EPA never got around to issuing rules for refineries.
That's why the other industries covered under 111(d) have watched the Affordable Clean Energy plan closely.
"We're next on the list in terms of settlement agreements," a refining industry representative said. "We're obviously keenly interested in how they proceed."
It's perhaps no coincidence that the trade groups for those industries — such as the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council and American Forest & Paper Association — filed joint comments when EPA filed its notice to propose a new rule.
"I think we're seeing some of the individual sectors start to look a little bit harder at the rule," said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy with the National Association of Manufacturers. "They're saying, 'OK, well now there's an opportunity here to provide some input on what eventually might become a template for us.'"
In fact, the contours of the Affordable Clean Energy plan might be enticing enough to compel those sectors into asking Trump to impose regulations.
The refining industry representative said the path of the Affordable Clean Energy plan in the courts will affect strategy. The source didn't rule out working with Trump's EPA, given that industry would likely have more input than with a Democratic administration.
"There is something to that," the source said. "I could see why others feel that way."
There are several reasons for this. Some industry lawyers have argued that regulations, even modest ones, would shield industries from public nuisance lawsuits — basically, that industries are neglecting their effect on a warming planet and the toll that takes on humans, ecosystems and property.
Industry involvement would probably be greater under a Trump-led regulatory process. That could help stave off a more aggressive approach from a future White House.
The likely conservative makeup of the Supreme Court would also help defend modest rules that reflect a more rigid interpretation of the Clean Air Act, the argument goes.
To be sure, these discussions are muted, said Scott Segal, a partner at Bracewell. Many industries are content not facing regulations in the immediate term. But the power plant proposal has gotten the other 20 industrial sectors covered by federal air quality laws to pay "a high degree of interest."
Still, unregulated industries might balk at asking the administration for rules, even if it gives them the friendliest regulations they could hope for, said Brendan Collins, an attorney at Ballard Spahr LLP who has represented power companies.
He said the play for power plants is straightforward — the major option available to them is to improve efficiency. Other industries are different. Some "expensive pedestrian things" like leak detection or other methods could qualify. Industries might emit multiple kinds of greenhouse gases, or from different parts of the industrial process.
The refining industry representative reiterated that point, saying those facilities "are a lot more complex." Cement-making, too, involves emissions not just from energy consumption but also from breaking down limestone, which emits carbon.
"We're still reviewing the rules to assess potential implications for future regulatory policy," Portland Cement Association spokeswoman Holly Arthur said in an email.
Essentially, unregulated industries are only going to ask for rules if they know they can reasonably comply, Collins said.
"If it's an emission control remedy that is not very expensive and they will be willing to do, then yes, I could see them coming to the president and say, 'Let's get this set up for our industry in a way that makes sense.'"
The reasons those industries are watching the Affordable Clean Energy plan are fairly straightforward, Segal said. Those sectors pay a lot in energy costs, so any regulation on the electricity sector affects them. The other reason is that the rule serves as "a template for both policy and law."
Having some policy in place would make it more difficult for a future administration to argue that a new regulation is necessary, Collins said. The extent to which a narrower rule gives those sectors cover depends on the pace of technological innovation. Technologies or methods that are too expensive for addressing greenhouse gases may become cheaper in the future.
Much of 111(d) rests on the "best system of emissions reduction," Collins said. If there are more feasible ways to address climate change, it's possible to write a more aggressive rule that would pass muster if fixes are more widely available.
"You have some opportunity to score some points in the present and complicate, but not block, an administration in the future," Collins said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060098189/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
U.S. Natural Gas in Chinese Tariff Crosshairs
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz and Hannah Northey
American energy companies could be hit by trade war woes, as China announced new retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products including liquefied natural gas today.
The Chinese tariffs on $60 billion of American products are set to take effect Sept. 24, the same day U.S. tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese products, announced last night, will begin.
A 10 percent tariff on U.S. LNG puts it among the thousands of items targeted by Beijing.
"The purpose of implementing the above-mentioned tariff increase measures is to curb the escalation of trade frictions. It is a forced response to U.S. unilateralism and trade protectionism," wrote China's Ministry of Finance in a statement on its website.
Uncertainty caused by the escalating trade war has started to undermine confidence in U.S. suppliers, an industry source told E&E News earlier this month (Climatewire, Sept. 4).
China is the third largest importer of U.S. LNG, leading gas industry voices such as the American Petroleum Institute to say that the trade dispute "will hurt America more than it hurts China" (Energywire, Aug. 6).
And a top U.S. energy official said today the Chinese retaliation could mean planned export facilities might not get built in the U.S.
"The market has to be there," Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Neil Chatterjee toldS&P Global Platts. "Ultimately, the markets will prevail. We'll have to see how that plays out."
Several U.S. companies, including Cheniere Energy Inc., Sempra Energy and Kinder Morgan Inc., are developing new LNG export terminals, and the new ramping up of the trade war could threaten those plans.
Industry advocates urged the two countries to find a resolution.
"Certainty is key for the U.S. LNG industry, where timelines are years long and investments are worth billions, and these tariffs cause serious uncertainty," said Charlie Riedl, executive director of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.
He said the tariffs could price U.S. LNG out of the Chinese market and make long-term contracts more difficult to negotiate.
Fred Hutchison, president of the industry advocacy group LNG Allies, said the short-term effect of Chinese tariffs on LNG is "very limited."
"However, we don't think tariffs are the best solution to trade disputes, and we hope that bilateral trade negotiations will soon result in a lasting agreement that takes LNG off the table," Hutchison said.
David Wochner, an attorney with K&L Gates and co-practice area leader of the firm's global policy and regulatory practice area, said China has ramped up its U.S. gas consumption to reduce pollution, and the country's consumption will be critical if all proposed projects are built.
"To build every single project that's been proposed, I expect some volumes will need to flow to China," said Wochner.
President Trump took to Twitter this morning, calling China's tariffs an attack on American farmers, ranchers and industrial workers.
"What China does not understand is that these people are great patriots and fully understand that China has been taking advantage of the United States on Trade for many years," he wrote.
"They also know that I am the one that knows how to stop it," he tweeted. "There will be great and fast economic retaliation against China if our farmers, ranchers and/or industrial workers are targeted!"
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/18/stories/1060098239
-
U.S. Gas Exports Hit by China Tariffs as Trade War Escalates
Sep 18, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Stephen Stapczynski and Christine Buurma
China plans to slap tariffs on U.S. natural gas exports as trade tensions escalate, a likely setback for the burgeoning energy relationship between the world’s two largest economies.
The Asian nation said in a statement Tuesday it would levy a 10 percent duty on liquefied natural gas starting Sept. 24, retaliation for a fresh round of tariffs announced the day before by the U.S.
While China’s levy is less than the 25 percent it proposed last month, the tariff still brings additional pressure to bear on the U.S. gas industry, which is competing with Russia, Australia and Qatar for market share in China, the world’s biggest buyer. Just last year, American officials were courting Chinese companies to invest in new export projects.
China’s move signals how much pain Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump are willing to endure not to back down from a trade fight. Trump risks stifling the U.S. gas export industry, which is seeking about $130 billion to fund more than a dozen projects, while Xi threatens to raise the cost of his drive to eliminate smog by burning less coal.
“Chinese companies will have an aversion to investing in U.S. LNG projects in the short term” if tariffs are imposed, Saul Kavonic, Credit Suisse Group AG’s director of Asia energy research, said before China’s announcement. “Australia and Qatar’s LNG sectors will benefit from being seen as a lower-risk source of supply by customers in the world’s fastest growing LNG market, at least over the near term.”ADVERTISING
Booming Demand
China’s push to use more natural gas is driving global demand growth, with LNG imports jumping 47 percent in the first seven months of the year. Though it’s the third-largest buyer of U.S. cargoes, American supply made up a little less than 6 percent of purchases over that period, according to Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. If U.S. companies can seize 20 percent of the market by 2030, it could lower the trade deficit with China by $50 billion, Bernstein estimates.
Higher oil prices and a surge in LNG demand have reignited interest in export ventures, with about 15 U.S. projects targeting final investment decision this year and next, the most of any nation, according to Bloomberg NEF. Projects have been seeking investments or off-take agreements from China, which earlier this year topped Japan as the world’s biggest gas importer.
On Monday, Cheniere Energy Inc., America’s first and biggest shipper of shale gas, struck a 15-year agreement to sell the fuel to commodities trader Vitol Group. The pact is Cheniere’s fifth this year. Venture Global LNG Inc., which is developing a terminal in Louisiana, has finalized four such contracts over that period.
Liquefied Natural Gas Ltd., which has yet to make a final investment decision of the $4.35 billion Magnolia LNG project in Louisiana, expects Chinese buyers will wait for uncertainty on tariffs to be removed before signing contracts, Chief Executive Officer Greg Vesey said Monday at an industry conference in Barcelona.
“It is hard to see any of these hopeful projects getting another Chinese buyer signed up for long-term volumes” if China slaps tariffs on U.S. gas, Trevor Sikorski, an analyst at Energy Aspects Ltd., said before Tuesday’s announcement. “Given China is a huge part of global LNG demand growth, that is a big headwind for these new projects.”
Exporting nations such as Australia and Qatar could benefit from the trade tensions, according to Xizhou Zhou, an analyst at IHS Markit.
“You have two important parties in the LNG market -- one is a very important large buyer, one is an important large supplier -- less likely to negotiate with each other,” he said by phone. “So Qataris, Australians will have less competition when it comes to the Chinese market for long-term contracts. ”
The vessel GasLog Greece, which left Cheniere’s liquefied natural gas export terminal in Louisiana on Aug. 15 en route to China, changed its destination mid-journey to South Korea. It was one of at least two U.S. LNG shipments heading for China during the past month. The other ship, Rioja Knutsen, arrived Sept. 3 at Tianjin.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-Gas-Exports-Hit-by-China-Tariffs-as-Trade-13238346.php
-
Zinke Touts 'Big Interest' in Oil and Gas Leasing
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke yesterday linked the Trump administration's "energy dominance" push with the United States' rise to its position as the world's top crude oil producer.
U.S. production surpassed Russian output this summer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (Greenwire, Sept. 13). The United States pumped out nearly 11 million barrels of oil a day on average in August.
Zinke said he thinks the country can get to 14 million barrels daily.
"The driver in the economy is affordable, abundant and reliable energy — all of the above — but certainly an energy revolution," he told Fox Business' "Varney & Co." yesterday. "And those doubters are saying, 'Well, there's no interest on federal lands on energy.' If we do it right — big interest."
A two-day oil and gas lease sale in New Mexico this month brought in nearly $1 billion in bids, shattering the Bureau of Land Management's prior record for an entire year of auctions. Zinke said the sale would have the Trump administration's critics "eating their words" (Greenwire, Sept. 7).
Four days later, BLM released data showing that its offering of 295,174 acres in Nevada failed to attract even a single bid.
EIA tied increased U.S. oil production to market forces that began to take hold at the close of the Obama administration.
"The oil price decline in mid-2014 resulted in U.S. producers reducing their costs and temporarily scaling back crude oil production," EIA wrote. "However, after crude oil prices increased in early 2016, investment and production began increasing later that year."
Zinke repeated his stance that it is preferable to explore domestic energy sources than to rely on foreign output.
"I don't want to ever be held hostage by a foreign entity over energy needs," he said. "I don't want to send your kids, my kids on foreign shores to fight for energy, and environmentally, it is best to produce energy in this country under reasonable regulation than watching it get produced overseas with no regulation."
The Interior secretary then echoed President Trump's claim that the administration has quashed 22 regulations for every one rule it has created. Regulatory policy experts have called that number into question (E&E Daily, Dec. 15, 2017).
Zinke also pointed to Interior's efforts to open the Atlantic Ocean to offshore wind development (Energywire, July 12).
"We're all of the above, too," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/18/stories/1060097403
-
Trump Administration to Ease Rule on Methane Leaks on Public Land
Sep 18, 2018 | The New York Times
By Timothy Gardner and Dan Grebler
The Trump Administration is slated on Tuesday to roll back an Obama-era rule on emissions of the greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations on public lands in its latest step to ease energy industry regulations, environmental groups said.
The Interior Department did not have an immediate comment on the rule but said it would have a press call at 4 p.m. EDT regarding final changes revising the venting and flaring rule.
The rule is aimed at reducing leaks of natural gas, or methane, that occur through venting and flaring during oil and gas production on federal land. The Obama administration said that venting of methane cost taxpayers over $330 million a year in lost revenues from natural gas.
The department in February proposed replacing the so-called Waste Prevention Rule by returning to standards that date back to the 1970s. President Donald Trump had issued an executive order in 2017 directing the department to review the rule that was published late in former President Barack Obama's second term.
The rule has been challenged in court by industry and some states, including Wyoming.
Last week, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency proposed weakening requirements for testing and repairing methane leaks in drilling operations, the latest step toward rolling back Obama-era regulations to combat climate change.
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and the oil and gas business is the largest single source of the emissions, according to the EPA.
Environmentalists slammed the rollback of the Waste Prevention Rule.
"The Trump administration is relentless in its push to give the oil and gas industry multi-million-dollar handouts at the expense of Americans' health and environment," said David Doniger, the Natural Resource Defense Council's senior strategic director of its climate and clean energy program.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/09/18/us/18reuters-usa-interior-methane.html
-
Shell Latest Firm to Make 'Smart' Move to Reduce Methane
Sep 18, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel and Benjamin Hulac
Royal Dutch Shell PLC's announcement yesterday that it would reduce methane leaks from its oil and gas operations suggests that not all the industry is embracing Trump administration rollbacks for greenhouse gas emissions.
Some observers say it's also a smart public relations move for the oil and gas giant.
Shell said it will reduce methane emissions intensity among its oil and gas operations to less than 0.2 percent of total marketed natural gas by 2025 by targeting leaks, venting and incomplete combustion of the fuel.
"This methane target complements Shell's ambition to cut the net carbon footprint of our energy products by around half by 2050, which we announced in November 2017," said Maarten Wetselaar, Shell's director for integrated gas and new energy, adding that the targets "are a critical part of Shell's strategy to thrive during the global energy transition by providing more and cleaner energy."
Environmental groups, too, described the targeted reduction as significant.
"The goal is stringent, time-bound, and covers both oil- and gas-side emissions," said Ben Ratner, a senior director at the Environmental Defense Fund who works on methane issues. "Shell's industry-leading target makes clear that the race to near-zero methane emissions is on."
The announcement comes as a rebuke of sorts to an EPA proposal last week that would reduce the frequency that new and modified oil and gas sources have to monitor for methane leaks. The agency said the change would save companies money but also increase greenhouse gas emissions and potentially harm public health (Greenwire, Sept. 11).
There will be a 60-day period for the public to provide input, after which EPA will consider comments before making changes.
Oil and gas groups like the American Petroleum Institute and Western Energy Alliance have welcomed the proposed changes. API described them as "cost-effective, achievable regulations."
But a small cadre of large, internationally active oil and gas companies have committed to more aggressively addressing methane emissions over the past year, in part aiming to shore up claims that natural gas is more environmentally sound than other fossil fuels.
Last year, Shell, BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp., Statoil, Eni SpA, Total SA and Repsol SA signed a public pledge to improve their methane emissions profile, including through transparency, emissions cutbacks and advocacy for strong regulation.
Since then, BP and Exxon Mobil have similarly announced that they would trim methane leaks from their operations.
In April, BP committed to bringing its methane emissions rate to 0.3 percent or less of marketed gas production, but its target includes only gas fields, not the oil fields that co-produce natural gas and make up a major source of vented and flared gas around the world. In May, Exxon said it would reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 15 percent and flared gas volumes by 25 percent by 2020 across its global oil and gas operations.
Warding off a backlash
EDF's Ratner said the announcement by Shell, the first by a major industry player since the EPA proposal, reflects an understanding of how important it will be for industry to show leadership on the issue.
"The smart money in industry understands that it's in the long-term interest to address methane emissions," Ratner said. "Shell is taking the position that while rules can be improved, methane rules should not be eliminated. Methane rollbacks are actually not in the long-term interest of their industry."
Alan Krupnick, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan think tank Resources for the Future, agreed.
"My opinion is that the companies are nervous that the Trump administration will roll back regulations so much that there will be a backlash," Krupnick said. "The industry is already suffering from an erosion of social license to operate."
Stepping out in front of the pack can bring in positive public attention for a company, he added. "So they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too," he said.
Andrew Logan , who directs the oil and gas industry program for investment adviser Ceres, said other industry players should follow Shell's lead.
"The economics behind reducing methane are relatively compelling," he said.
He noted that measuring methane emissions from the oil and gas industry can be difficult due to the high degree of uncertainty involved. "There's a huge debate over how big a problem this is," he said.
In its announcement, Shell said it uses a combination of generic emissions estimates and measurement data in calculating its methane leakage. Current operations range from 0.1 to 0.8 percent loss rates.
One big question is whether other oil and gas operators, including smaller companies that may have less at stake in protecting their reputations, will follow the big companies in committing to reduce their methane emissions.
Ratner said there are some signs of that happening. He pointed to the One Future Initiative, a coalition of natural gas companies working on policy and technical solutions to the methane emissions issue. The group includes major U.S. producers, pipeline companies and distributors such as Antero Resources Corp., Apache Corp., BHP Billiton Ltd., Kinder Morgan Inc. and TransCanada Corp. By 2025, the member companies aim to limit their methane emissions to a rate that equates to 1 percent or less of natural gas production.
"We have some questions about that initiative. They have some work to do about bringing data to bear, and they'll get some questions about whether their stringency is high enough," Ratner said, but "zooming back out, that is an example where you see some companies across the value chain, and some companies that are not big supermajors, making commitments" on methane.
Still, he added, "with thousands of small players in the American oil and gas industry, it's clear that rules of the road, not merely voluntary commitments, are needed."
The Sierra Club is one group that has little patience for the industry-led approach.
"These voluntary programs fall far short of what is necessary to protect our communities and our climate from the dangers of methane and other harmful air pollution," said Kelly Martin, director of the group's Beyond Dirty Fuels campaign. "Dismantling federal protections and leaving the public at the mercy of oil and gas companies to decide how much pollution they'll allow is a recipe for dirty air, unhealthy communities and climate disaster."
Examining the significance of announcements like Shell's will take time, said Sarah Smith of the Clean Air Task Force.
"We'll really need to see what sort of data the company puts forward," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/18/stories/1060098187
-
What to Watch for as Methane Targets Become the New Normal
Sep 18, 2018 | EDF Blog
By Ben Ratner
Last October, the 10 CEOs of major oil and gas producers, including BP, China National Petroleum and Saudi Aramco, announced an aspiration to reach near zero methane emissions from their companies’ natural gas value chains. They pledged, as part of their participation in the Oil & Gas Climate Initiative (OGCI), to work together on a target that would deliver on this future by the time they reconvened for their next annual event.
Because that anniversary is right around the corner, it’s timely to revisit an analysis EDF released this year – with support from several leading investors and industry experts –that lends key criteria for companies to craft robust methane targets, and for stakeholders to evaluate them.
The guidance is useful for gauging the soon-to-be-released OGCI target, in addition to the growing number of methane targets from individual companies like Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and ENI. Voluntary targets by leaders have merit, but are in no way a substitute for policy and regulations that help all of industry improve. Rather, strong targets can show what is possible and spur advancements in technology and practice.
So, how does EDF assess the rigor of company methane targets?
Here are the three questions that we, and other stakeholders, should ask:
1. Is the target specific and stringent?
Some companies are making general pledges to reduce methane emissions. To turn those pledges into meaningful action, companies must have specific, time-bound, and measurable targets. Specificity provides a clear marker for success, and a near-term deadline creates an important sense of urgency.
In EDF’s analysis, we point out that targets oriented on absolute numbers guarantee environmental outcomes in a way that intensity-based targets that fluctuate with production levels do not. IEA’s analysis concludes that 75 percent of industry’s methane emissions are technically and economically feasible to reduce.
Producers that opt for intensity targets instead of absolute targets should shoot for a leak rate of 0.20 percent or lower (total methane emissions from all oil and gas production divided by total natural gas production).
2. Which emissions and which assets are included?
Efforts to target methane must address two key scope issues: (1) whether methane from oil production is covered, and (2) how methane will be controlled from assets companies have ownership of but do not operate.
Methane emissions from oil must be targeted because these emissions are a large share of the problem. Indeed, IEA estimates that more than half of upstream methane emissions come from oil production. For natural gas to live up to its cleaner fossil fuel claims, all of industry’s emissions must be minimized, whether from a gas field or an oil field.
With technology advances like satellite monitoring, energy companies also have the reputational incentive to help reduce emissions from facilities they invest in and own, even if they are not the day-to-day operator. This is important, especially for OGCI companies. In 2017, 27 percent of global oil and gas production came from joint ventures with an OGCI partner. Addressing both operated and non-operated assets may take more time and require enhanced collaboration and coordination across business partners, but driving methane management through joint ventures is a key part of achieving large-scale impact and risk mitigation.
3. Is the target based on good and transparent data?
For external stakeholders and policymakers to have confidence in the effectiveness of industry’s methane efforts, the pledges OGCI companies or individual operators make – and the progress made toward them – must be transparent. The OGCI group level goal should be disaggregated at the company level to show that numbers add up.
And because reporting is only as good as the data that goes into it, the underlying quality of the data and methods for calculating emissions will be paramount. Multiple studies show that emission factors tend to underestimate emissions because they do not capture certain large leaks, like those from abnormal process conditions. OGCI companies and others setting targets may use emission factors in year one, but should increasingly shift to direct methane measurements to tie target reporting to what is really happening in the field.
Fortunately, efforts like OGCI’s Climate Investment fund and the Stanford/EDF Mobile Monitoring Challenge are advancing new technologies and approaches to detect and quantify emissions – key tools both for achieving OGCI and individual company targets and for verifying that progress with good data.
OGCI’s pending announcement comes at a crucial time. Reducing oil and gas methane emissions isn’t just the fastest and most immediate opportunity we have to reduce the rate of warming now, it’s an early indication of whether industry leaders are adjusting to a world that increasingly demands more responsibly produced and sourced energy.
The pending OGCI target matters, and not just because the member companies represent roughly 20 percent of global oil and gas production. It matters because these companies are presenting themselves as leaders that recognize the risk that unchecked methane emissions pose to natural gas’s role in a decarbonizing world. If any collection of oil and gas executives should set an ambitious target, it’s OGCI.
We’ll be watching and asking these questions. We hope you do, too.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2018/09/18/what-to-watch-for-as-methane-targets-become-the-new-normal/#more-18282
-
Metra Finishes Installing On-Board, Wayside PTC Equipment
Sep 18, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
By Daniel Niepow
Metra has finished installing positive train control (PTC) components on all its trains and all communications and signal systems, the railroad announced yesterday.
The task involved installing the technology on 528 vehicles and 240 wayside units, Metra Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director Jim Derwinski told reporters at an event held yesterday at the railroad's 49th Street Coach Shop in Chicago.
The railroad is working with 13 other railroads in the Chicago area on its PTC implementation plans, he added.
"No one else in the country works with 13 other railroads," Derwinski said. "The cooperation that happens now in the industry — not just here in Chicago, but nationwide — has changed, and it's changed us for the better."The component installation is one of the first four requirements that Metra must meet by the year's end to receive a deadline extension from the Federal Railroad Administration to implement PTC across its system. The other three requirements that Metra must meet are to acquire radio spectrum, complete worker training on the new technology and begin a revenue service demonstration on a line.
Metra already has acquired the needed radio spectrum, and in October, it will complete worker training and begin a revenue service demonstration on its Rock Island Line.
Federal Railroad Administrator Ron Batory and Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) General Manager Jeffery Knueppel joined Derwinski at yesterday's event.
Metra's announcement comes after Batory last week told a congressional panel that nine passenger railroads are at risk of failing to qualify for an extension to implement PTC.
PTC has been a "sophisticated and unprecedented technology challenge," said Knueppel, who's overseeing the technology's implementation on SEPTA's Regional Rail system.
For Metra, PTC implementation is expected to cost about $400 million. Funding has been a "major challenge," railroad officials said. The railroad has received about $43 million in federal PTC grants, but will have to cover the remaining costs with its own capital resources.
Each year, PTC is expected to add $15 million to $20 million to Metra's operating costs, Metra officials said.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Metra-finishes-installing-on-board-wayside-PTC-equipment--55638
-
Trump Climate Rollbacks Spur Air Quality Concerns
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Trump administration's wholesale attack on Obama EPA greenhouse gas regulations is sparking opposition not just from those concerned about addressing climate change, but it is also driving air quality concerns because the rules were expected to significantly reduce conventional air pollutants as a co-benefit.
Inside EPA's Dawn Reeves offers up a deep dive on this issue, reporting that the concern is particularly acute for EPA's national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter (PM).
Trump EPA officials brush aside these worries, using boilerplate language in all of its GHG rollback proposals asserting that there will be no adverse NAAQS impacts from the weaker rules.
In essence, the claim is that even if the Obama climate rules would have driven reductions in conventional air pollutants, local and state officials can use other programs to drive such cuts.
State officials, environmentalists and some industry officials are questioning that claim. Rolling back GHG standards for the oil and gas industry, heavy-duty “glider” trucks, existing power plants and passenger cars will “add hundreds of thousands of tons of ozone and PM precursors” to the air, one environmentalist warns.
“They are taking away all the national and regional tools to address pollution and say, 'Don't worry. The air will magically continue to get clean.'”
Also, industry sources outside of the sectors subject to the GHG proposals are quietly expressing concern that they could be required to install additional pollution controls to offset increased emissions from the eased climate rules.
“Theoretically, if you allow some sources to emit more, you need to squeeze others to achieve the same results,” one fertilizer industry source says.
Dawn is also reporting that the situation is more complicated for EPA's proposed vehicle GHG rule freeze, given that fuels and engines are governed by the agency's Tier III program that limits pollutants on a grams-per-mile basis. That means that new cars sold under weaker GHG standards should have no change in conventional air emissions.
However, air pollution changes can be affected by overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from the existing fleet, and many critics are questioning the Trump administration's VMT calculations in the rule.
Further, states are voicing concern that the agency has not updated its model that states use to estimate long-term emissions impacts from the transportation sector to judge if they will meet federal air quality limits.
The current model “bakes in” Obama-era vehicle GHG standards – which the agency has proposed to sharply roll back – an important point because the model projects emissions out to 2040.
If the rollback is finalized, any long-term planning done with the current model is “fictitious and on shaky ground," says one state source.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-climate-rollbacks-spur-air-quality-concerns
-
California Selenium Criteria Presents New Test for EPA
Sep 18, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA has sent for White House review its draft selenium water quality criteria proposal for California to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, which could open a new test for the agency on how to apply its controversial national chronic selenium criterion, which is based in part on fish-tissue values, to address regional concerns.
The agency sent the draft proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Sept. 14, according to OMB's website. OMB review typically takes 90 days but can be shorter or longer depending on the item being reviewed. A 2014 consent decree with environmentalists requires EPA to propose the statewide criteria by Nov. 30.
“EPA is proposing water quality criteria applicable to waters under the state of California's jurisdiction to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife from exposure to selenium,” the spring 2018 Unified Agenda says. The consent decree provides an exit for EPA if California develops its own water quality standards for selenium and EPA approves them, but the Unified Agenda says, “At this time, California does not intend to initiate state rulemaking to adopt selenium criteria.”
EPA's proposed rule will not include waters of the San Francisco Bay Delta system that were previously covered in the agency's June 2016 proposed rule, but it could prompt a similar debate over the values the agency chooses to include in the statewide criteria.
The agency has yet to finalize the proposed Bay/Delta criteria, but both industry and environmentalists criticizedvarious aspects of the proposal.
Industry claims the Bay/Delta proposal's assertion that all elements of the draft selenium criteria are equally protective contradicts the approach EPA took in its 2016 final national criterion, where the agency specified that fish-tissue values take precedence over the water column numbers.
Industry also objects to the inclusion of clam tissue values in the Bay/Delta proposal, arguing that the fact the national criterion does not include clam tissue values “draws into question the inclusion of these elements and importance in the present criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta."
Environmentalists back the inclusion of clam or prey criteria, saying it “serves as a defensible and practical monitoring parameter to detect likely exceedances of the fish tissue criteria in the most sensitive bottom-feeding species.” But they also urged EPA to tighten various provisions of the draft criteria.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-selenium-criteria-presents-new-test-epa
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested