Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 9/27/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks to Ease EPA Rules to Address Ocean Plastic Pollution
Sep 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The chemical industry is calling for policymakers to ease EPA's rules to address the growing problem of ocean plastics, including scaling back hazardous waste permitting requirements for thermochemical and gasification processes that convert plastics into fuels and chemicals... -
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Blame Asia for Trash Problem
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Delivering a bipartisan punch, a Senate panel yesterday blamed Asian nations for leading the way in ocean pollution, with one veteran lawmaker suggesting it's time to publicly shame them into action. -
Trump’s EPA Makeover Could Put Regional Offices on Shorter Leash
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA’s regional offices could see structural changes by year’s end, but the trickle-down effects—on enforcement, staff levels, and leadership—are already raising alarms among current and former workers. -
Health Groups Seek to Stop Asbestos 'Wild West'
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus
Environmental and public health groups announced today they are petitioning EPA to strengthen its regulation of asbestos and make more information about it available to the public. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Advocacy Group Sues EPA over Unreleased Formaldehdye IRIS Assessment
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a US alliance of state and federal professionals, is suing the US EPA for failing to respond to a public records request related to an assessment of formaldehyde. -
EPA Promises Lawmakers Action on PFAS
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Several federal actions on PFAS are years away from being completed, witnesses from the Department of Defense and EPA said yesterday at the Senate's first hearing on the toxic class of chemicals. -
Delaware Bans Outdoor Use of Lead-Based Paints
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Delaware has become the first US state to ban outdoor lead-based paint. Governor John Carney (D) signed HB 456 into law on 29 August. -
3M May Face Colorado Firefighting Foam Med Monitoring Claims
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M and others may face medical monitoring claims by Colorado residents alleging firefighting foam from Peterson Air Force Base contaminated their groundwater. -
Brexit Threatens Chemicals ‘Chaos’ – Trade Union
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Livelihoods are "at risk" if the UK does not negotiate "as full an agreement as possible" that maintains its participation in Echa after withdrawing from the EU in March 2019, a trade union has said. -
Statistical Models Account for Mixture Effects Through 'Desirability' Concept
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
A group of scientists based in the US, Sweden and Finland have borrowed from the field of industrial design to create a new class of statistical models to inform risk assessment of mixtures. -
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Petrochemical Plant Forges Ahead
Sep 27, 2018 | Engineering.com
By Emily Pollock
The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH) is poised to become one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Appalachia. The planned petrochemical project, which has been estimated to cost around $10 billion, has attracted billions of dollars in investments -
BLM Paves Way for Hotly Debated First Production Plant
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management today formally approved a utility corridor allowing electrical power lines and pipelines for water, natural gas and oil product to cross public lands to and from what would be the nation's first oil shale production plant on private lands in Utah. -
Boulder Oil, Gas Suit Will Test Land Protection Strategy
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A pair of Boulder County lawsuits against two oil and gas companies could be test cases of whether a local government can use conservation easements to block or restrict drilling activities. -
Goldman Sees Exxon, Chevron Following Euro Peers into Renewables
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mikael Holter
Big U.S. oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.—which have lagged behind their European rivals in venturing into renewable energy—are likely to increasingly make room for cleaner energy in their portfolios, said Goldman Sachs Group Inc. -
Anti-Terrorism Program for Chemical Plants OK’d by Senate Panel
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marissa Horn
Facilities holding high-risk chemicals would see an easier path to compliance with a federal chemical security program for the next five years under legislation approved by a Senate committee on Sept. 26. -
Russian Cybersecurity Firm Drew Rare Grid Warning
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
North American grid regulators share the U.S. government's misgivings about Moscow-based cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, according to a confidential alert sent to the power sector last year. -
Minnesota Lawmakers Ask for Meeting on Refinery Explosion
Sep 19, 2018 | Minnesota Public Radio
By Dan Kraker
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum has asked the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to hold a public forum in the Twin Ports of Duluth and Superior, Wis., in early fall, citing "serious questions about the safety of U.S. refineries using hydrogen fluoride" in the wake of an explosion... -
OTC States Reject EPA Projection of 'Downward Trend' in Ozone Emissions
Sep 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic air regulators in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) are pushing back against EPA's projection of a “downward trend” in ozone emissions, saying it is inconsistent with their own modeling data and a trend of worsening ozone levels... -
Kavanaugh Fight Has Big Consequences for Climate Law
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
If Senate Republicans plow ahead and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the longtime jurist could have near-term impact on a slew of environmental cases. -
Republican Introduces Sea-Level-Rise Resolution
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) yesterday introduced a resolution stating the need to prepare for sea-level rise and more destructive hurricanes. -
UN Report: World ‘Nowhere near on Track' to Meet Key Climate Change Goal
Sep 27, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Governments across the globe are “nowhere near on track” to meet their goal of preventing global warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial period, according to a co-author of a United Nations report. -
Climate Change Panel Backed by Companies Valued at $7.3 Trillion
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeremy Hodges
Some of the world’s largest banks, asset managers, and pension funds controlling almost $100 trillion have backed efforts calling on companies to make more disclosures about their climate-related risks, according to a panel advising the Group of 20 nations. -
Climate Is 'Mainstream' Risk in Banks, Regulator Says
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
One of the world's top banking regulators said yesterday that climate change is becoming a "mainstream" concern in financial markets.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Seeks to Ease EPA Rules to Address Ocean Plastic Pollution
Sep 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The chemical industry is calling for policymakers to ease EPA's rules to address the growing problem of ocean plastics, including scaling back hazardous waste permitting requirements for thermochemical and gasification processes that convert plastics into fuels and chemicals and to grant renewable fuel credits to fuels derived from plastic waste.
The suggestion -- from Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) -- came at a Sept. 26 hearing held by the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee (EPW) as it considers measures to combat ocean plastic pollution that go beyond a bipartisan-backed bill, S. 756, that would require the United States to promote international measures to lower marine pollution.
The Senate was expected to approve the bill, which has already cleared the House, Sept. 26.
Lawmakers and panelists at the hearing noted the problem of mismanaged plastic waste is particularly acute in several Asian countries, with Dooley noting in testimony that more than half of land-based plastic waste leaks from five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), ranking member on EPW, said the great Pacific garbage patch -- a massive collection of plastic waste in the North Pacific -- is 300 times the size of Delaware, and nearly the size of Alaska.
He noted that the problem of plastic waste being landfilled rather than recycled is compounded by trade restrictions China recently imposed on accepting imported plastic waste for recycling. He said that China was previously accepting 30 percent of the United States' plastics waste.
To address this, Carper backed industry calls to bolster domestic recycling infrastructure. “We, as a nation, will need to invest in better waste management and recycling infrastructure to address challenges like this,” Carper said in his opening statement.
“We will also need to find a creative way to finance these investments,” he said, adding also that “we may want to consider proposals to incentivize the use of recycled plastics for manufacturing purposes.”
But ACC's Dooley urged lawmakers to change U.S. policies in order to improve waste management and aid in the development and use of technologies to capture the economic value and energy potential in plastic waste.
“Plastic waste has more captured energy than coal,” he said.
He said that many chemical companies are investing in, and developing, technologies that seek to unlock that captured energy, which would transform plastic waste into alternative fuels or feedstock for new manufacturing.
But, he charged that current regulations label these technologies as hazardous waste facilities rather than recycling, impeding these efforts.
He suggested to the committee that EPA and the federal government make changes to this policy and undertake other efforts to facilitate reuse of plastics. “There are some real opportunities to use this as an inflection point where we could see opportunities to increase the value of this accumulating plastic waste,” he said.
EPA Guidance
In particular, he suggested that EPA provide guidance to states that recognizes pyrolysis -- which is thermochemical treatment in the absence of oxygen -- and gasification facilities, both of which convert waste plastics into fuels and chemicals, as manufacturing, rather than hazardous waste facilities. Making this change could give a greater incentive to capital investments in new innovations in this area, he said.
Dooley also advocated for designating fuel derived from plastic waste as a renewable fuel under the renewable fuel standard (RFS).
The ACC head also pointed to other opportunities to address plastic pollution, such as revising EPA's guidelines governing the assessment of environmental performance standards and labels for federal procurement to make preferences for products and services that use recovered plastics as recycled content.
Further, he called for agencies such as the Energy and Transportation departments to partner on research opportunities for using plastic waste in construction materials, and transportation and water infrastructure projects.
Senators at the hearing did not respond to the details of his request but environmentalists are likely to strongly oppose any effort to ease EPA requirements for thermal treatment of plastic waste.
The industry push comes as senators are weighing options for addressing ocean plastic waste that go beyond S. 756, also known as Save Our Seas Act, expected to pass the Senate Sept. 26 after additions were made in the House.
Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), who has championed the issue along with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and others, noted “this is a fiercely bipartisan issue,” and said ocean waste is a preventable issue, adding he hoped to get momentum from the hearing to develop a second “2.0” bill.
He said S. 756 would strengthen federal response capabilities to marine debris disasters, address land-based marine debris sources and encourage interagency cooperation to stem the tide of ocean plastics waste. He added it would encourage the Trump administration to pursue international agreements on addressing this challenge. He said in talking with senior members of the administration, he believes the administration is supportive of the bill.
But the Trump administration, represented at a G-7 meeting last week by EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, rejected a recent non-binding charter signed by five of the seven G-7 countries, according to news reports. The charter recognizes the urgency of the threat of ocean plastic waste to ecosystems and the lost value of plastics in the waste stream, it says.
Under the charter, the ministers pledge to “take a lifecycle approach to plastics stewardship on land and at sea, which aims to avoid unnecessary use of plastics and prevent waste, and to ensure that plastics are designed for recovery, reuse, recycling and end-of-life management to prevent waste through various policy measures.”
The charter calls for countries to stimulate innovative sustainable solutions and technologies across the lifecycle of plastics to enable behavior changes among consumers and businesses, it says.
Mathy Stanislaus, who headed EPA's waste office during the Obama administration, told Inside EPA that the United States made a “huge mistake” by not signing onto the charter.
He says the United States' role would be to provide policy signals and financial incentives, particularly to secondary plastics markets, and to lead efforts among states, local governments and the private sector to discuss best practices, address local governments' rising recycling costs, relook at lifecyle design and discuss how to deliver goods with reduced waste.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/industry-seeks-ease-epa-rules-address-ocean-plastic-pollution
-
(ACC Mentioned) Lawmakers Blame Asia for Trash Problem
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Rob Hotakainen
Delivering a bipartisan punch, a Senate panel yesterday blamed Asian nations for leading the way in ocean pollution, with one veteran lawmaker suggesting it's time to publicly shame them into action.
"It's a few countries. ... And we can do a lot to try to clean that up through trade policy treaties, simple public shaming and friendly persuasion," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) told his colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the panel's chairman, called marine debris "a vital, vital issue" and said Asia now accounts for 80 percent of the plastic that ends up in oceans.
"Specifically, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam are responsible for more plastic pollution than the rest of the world combined," Barrasso said.
Asia found itself getting scolded as the committee convened to search for new ways to reduce ocean pollution, which many now regard as a global crisis.
Along with shaming, some more predictable ideas surfaced: more recycling, studying new biodegradable products, even a national ban on plastic straws.
Although the committee took no action, the full Senate is nearing final passage of the "Save Our Seas Act," S. 756, a bill that calls on the administration to pursue international agreements to curb waste.
The legislation, sponsored by Alaska Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan, would also reauthorize NOAA's marine debris program, which helps pay for cleanup.
Calling ocean trash a "chronic issue," Sullivan told the panel that the bill has already passed the House and that he expects President Trump to sign it into law (Greenwire, Dec. 13, 2017).
"I think, talking to the senior members of the administration, they're already there," Sullivan said. "So we're hopeful this is going to become law soon."
The committee took testimony from a handful of witnesses, including an executive from Coca-Cola North America.
Bruce Karas, the company's vice president of environment and sustainability, told lawmakers that Coca-Cola is "rethinking how bottles and cans are designed and made."
Among other things, Karas said, the company is aiming to create packaging that is 100 percent recyclable by 2025.
Jonathan Baillie, executive vice president and chief scientist for the National Geographic Society, said that 9.2 billion tons of plastic exists in the world today, with nearly 500 million tons of additional plastic produced every year.
Of that, he said, roughly 40 percent of the plastic is used only once before it's discarded.
"Unlike most other consumer materials, no one knows how long it takes plastic to biodegrade completely, with estimates ranging from 450 years to never," Baillie said.
Former California Democratic Rep. Cal Dooley, who's now the president of the American Chemistry Council, said studies have shown that most plastic litter that ends up in the ocean is the result of poor or insufficient waste management.
"The largest sources are rapidly developing economies, mainly in Asia, where basic waste management infrastructure has not kept pace with the rise in demand for consumer goods," Dooley said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/27/stories/1060099867
-
Trump’s EPA Makeover Could Put Regional Offices on Shorter Leash
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA’s regional offices could see structural changes by year’s end, but the trickle-down effects—on enforcement, staff levels, and leadership—are already raising alarms among current and former workers.
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward quickly with a reorganization of its 10 regional offices to minimize uncertainty for staff in those offices, Henry Darwin, the agency’s chief of operations and acting deputy administrator, told Bloomberg Environment.
Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the effort, which will reshuffle the regional offices to mirror EPA headquarters, in a Sept. 6 memo.
Former EPA officials and current employees are wary the reorganization could give the Trump administration an opportunity to shrink the agency. The effort could also allow political leadership a tighter rein over the regions—where approximately half of the agency’s career staff work and where much of the on-the-ground permit reviews, oversight, and enforcement operations occur.
“I wouldn’t doubt there is a back-of-the-envelope plan that talks about cutting enforcement resources once the reorganization goes into effect,” Mike Mikulka, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704 and spokesman for Save the U.S. EPA, told Bloomberg Environment.
State Effects?Changing up regional operations could affect state regulators, too.
Standardizing the daily work could help set common expectations, but having every region look the same could dilute the nuance that the current varied structures allow, based on states’ particular environmental needs.
“You would think this new administration, which is so keen in deferring to the states, would be sensitive to the need for the regions to have their ears to the ground and reflect the priorities of the states that they’re working with,” Robert Sussman, a former deputy EPA administrator in the Clinton administration, told Bloomberg Environment.
EPA PlansUnder the EPA’s proposal, each regional office would have eight divisions, matching the setup of headquarters. Agency staff are now drafting the final detailed plan, which will need the OK from congressional appropriators.
Lawmakers haven’t said much yet about the EPA’s plan, but some raised concerns last year about job losses from potential closures of EPA offices in Chicago and Ann Arbor, Mich.
EPA leadership hopes the reshuffle will make implementation of agency regulations more consistent and give headquarters staff a better view inside the regions.
“It’s at times difficult for headquarters to see where the work is being done, and so it makes it difficult to have conversations and make decisions based upon resources, to evaluate operations and performance, and also to make sure policies are implemented as directed by headquarters in a consistent way across the regions,” Darwin said.
Currently, EPA regions can vary significantly in the ways they implement policy and work with states, Sam Sankar, executive director of the Environmental Council of the States, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If it’s done right, standardization can be a tool to improve things for everybody,” Sankar said. “A rising tide can lift all ships.”
‘Moving Desks Around’
But the EPA plan comes just one year after the Trump administration explored the possibility of shuttering some regional offices. Agency officials ultimately determined closing offices wasn’t the right path, Darwin said.
Former and current EPA employees still point to dips in enforcement and an ongoing staff exodus as cause for concern.
“I don’t think that the state or local industry here in Region 5 were saying they can’t deal with region give because it’s screwed up in terms of organizational structure,” Mikulka said. “We don’t have enough staff to do the work, and they’re diverting people’s attention to spend a lot of time on a reorganization.”
The union chapter that Mikulka leads represents more than 900 EPA Region 5 staffers. The office has lost 31 people this year, on top of the 77 who left in 2017, and replacements aren’t being hired quickly enough, he said.
EPA leadership announced in late June that the agency would hire 20 new staffers in Region 5—but since then, 11 employees have left and only two new staffers have been hired, Mikulka added.
Adjusting ResourcesDarwin said the realignment won’t immediately result in changing staff levels. But better visibility into the regional offices “may allow us in the future to reallocate resources based upon need between the regions,” he added.
That doesn’t necessarily carry ill intent—internal tension always has existed about the varying size of the regions, Stan Meiburg, a former deputy regional administrator in regions 4 and 6, told Bloomberg Environment.
Region 4 in the Southeast, for example, serves more states and people than any other region, but it doesn’t have the largest staff, added Meiburg, now director of graduate programs in sustainability at Wake Forest University.
But leadership at the regions may be in jeopardy, Sussman suggested, because if positions are redefined, it could open the door to replacing division heads.
“This could be an effort to exercise more control over who the key people are in regional management,” he said.
Darwin, though, dismissed the idea the administration would be changing division heads. Some regions may need additional leadership if new divisions must be created, “but it is not intended to be an opportunity to demote existing leaders from their current positions,” he said.
Smooth TransitionThe EPA last reorganized in the mid-1990s, under former Administrator Carol Browner. The effort consolidated the EPA’s enforcement activities into a headquarters office and gave the regional offices the latitude to incorporate their differences into their design, Browner told Bloomberg Environment.
The process also invited EPA staff participation through public forums, she said. That could make a difference this time, too.
“Right now the agency is in a blue place,” Browner said. “How they go about it is important. Is it imposed on people, or are they trying to help build it?”
State regulators want to ensure a smooth transition at the regions, their primary EPA point of contact.
“The endpoint is good, but if the change takes three years and causes chaos in the interim, that’s not good,” Sankar said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trumps-epa-makeover-could-put-regional-offices-on-shorter-leash
-
Health Groups Seek to Stop Asbestos 'Wild West'
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus
Environmental and public health groups announced today they are petitioning EPA to strengthen its regulation of asbestos and make more information about it available to the public.
The petition by the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and other groups calls for amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act's Chemical Data Reporting rule.
The groups want asbestos added to the rule. Under the change, importers and users of asbestos and related products would need to report on their activities. The petition also requests that those reports be available to the public. Asbestos has been banned in dozens of other countries, but it can still be legally used in the U.S.
After TSCA was amended in 2016, EPA chose asbestos as one of 10 chemicals that would undergo risk evaluations. ADAO's legal counsel and former EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Sussman said they have concerns about the risk evaluation for asbestos.
"A big concern that we have is that we don't think EPA has done an adequate job of identifying all the asbestos-containing products that are coming into the country and where those products are going and who is using them, what amount of asbestos they contain," Sussman said.
"They admit that they cannot quantify the asbestos imports that are coming into the country. That's sort of a damning thing when they are attempting to do a risk evaluation," he added.
Last year, ADAO told EPA that a major asbestos importer, Occidental Chemical Corp., hadn't reported its asbestos imports.
In its response, EPA said that "naturally occurring chemical substances" including asbestos aren't subject to those reporting requirements. That interpretation effectively means no asbestos importers need to report on their activities, the petition explains.
"We are asking them to eliminate that exemption and loophole so that indeed there are reporting requirements for all asbestos imports and all asbestos uses. And we think that they need to move very quickly to do this so they can get the information expeditiously and use the information in their ongoing risk assessment," Sussman said.
An EPA aide said the agency "will review the petition and respond accordingly."
Since 2012, ADAO has been using Freedom of Information Act requests to find out who is importing and using asbestos, said Linda Reinstein, ADAO's president and CEO. Her husband died of mesothelioma, a cancer that has been linked to asbestos exposure.
"We're stopping the asbestos wild west now," she said.
Mike Mattmuller was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2011 when he was 29. He underwent surgery and other treatments, but the disease came back last year.
The experience has been "extremely traumatic" for him and his family, he said, while on Capitol Hill sharing his experience.
"It's something I'm always going to have to live with," said Mattmuller. "When I found out that my disease was caused by something that shouldn't be here, because of a man-made product, it's just silly to me."
Under TSCA, EPA is required to respond to the petition within 90 days. A lack of a response or a rejection enables the petitioners to sue the agency.
Separately, a report released Monday by EPA's inspector general found the agency's lack of asbestos oversight in schools puts students and faculty at risk of exposure to the carcinogen. The report faulted budget cuts and a shift in priorities.
In its last year, the Obama administration had directed the EPA enforcement office to devote nearly all its chemical program resources to address lead poisoning (Greenwire, Sept. 17).
"We're not done. This is a first step," Reinstein said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/26/stories/1060099837
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Advocacy Group Sues EPA over Unreleased Formaldehdye IRIS Assessment
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a US alliance of state and federal professionals, is suing the US EPA for failing to respond to a public records request related to an assessment of formaldehyde.
The claim relates to an unreleased revised draft assessment of the substance under the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The controversial draft is said to link the substance to leukaemia, despite loud industry dissent. And suspicions have arisen that this pushback has slowed its release.
The NGO filed a 9 July Freedom of Information Act request seeking the release of the IRIS assessment, as well as certain accompanying records. These include correspondences from senior agency officials, information on a 24 January meeting between the EPA and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and any recommendations received from any outside party to delay release of the assessment.
But in a 25 September complaint, PEER says that EPA has failed to respond to its request by the statutory deadline. It is seeking judicial review to obtain the "wrongfully withheld" records.
"So far, EPA has shared this important, tax-supported science with industry but not the public," said PEER staff counsel Kevin Bell. "We believe the documents this lawsuit seeks will evidence the extent to which industry keeps EPA in regulatory captivity to the detriment of public health."
Speaking at an August Congressional hearing, EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler hinted that the agency may be revisiting the science underlying the assessment. He did not indicate a timeline for its formal release.
"It is my understand that we still have a number of steps to complete," he said in response to questions from lawmakers.
An EPA spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending legislation, and declined to provide an update on a timeline for the assessment's release.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70582/us-advocacy-group-sues-epa-over-unreleased-formaldehdye-iris-assessment
-
EPA Promises Lawmakers Action on PFAS
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
Several federal actions on PFAS are years away from being completed, witnesses from the Department of Defense and EPA said yesterday at the Senate's first hearing on the toxic class of chemicals.
One step, though, is happening quickly: A previously canceled public event in Michigan to discuss PFAS is back on EPA's agenda and will happen as soon as next week.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been in use since the 1940s in products including firefighting foam and carpets.
Lawmakers on a Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee questioned representatives of EPA and DOD, among others, in a room packed with onlookers. A panel of three witnesses from communities and groups affected by PFAS contamination also testified.
Federal actions such as carrying out a nationwide health study of the effects of PFAS and DOD's search for a fluorine-free firefighting foam that meets its standards are expected to take years.
The director of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Peter Grevatt, said the agency plans to be at the public event in Michigan next week, though he said he didn't have a location to announce.
"We plan to have a roundtable event. We expect to have some opportunity for the public to participate, and also for the press to participate in that," Grevatt said.
At a PFAS hearing held earlier this month by a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) questioned Grevatt about the possibility of rescheduling the canceled event.
An EPA aide said the agency is targeting Oct. 5.
"EPA is working closely with the state of Michigan and members of the delegation to continue planning the agency's visit to the state next week. As plans are solidified, additional information will be available," EPA spokeswoman Molly Block wrote in an email.
The agency visited five other states for PFAS community engagement events during the summer.
Maureen Sullivan, deputy assistant secretary of Defense for environment, safety and occupational health, said research to find a fluorine-free foam that meets DOD's standards is ongoing. It would be two to three years before DOD stops using foam that contains fluorine, she said.
And a DOD-funded study of the health effects of PFAS in drinking water is expected to take about five years, according to Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program.
Andrea Amico, co-founder of the community action group Testing for Pease, called for "a more consistent approach" among federal agencies and said she doesn't think the federal government is acting fast enough on PFAS. The group says it aims to help those affected by water contamination at the former Pease Air Force Base in Portsmouth, N.H.
"It's disheartening to hear that action could take five to 10 years, when at Pease, we're coming up on five years of discovering our contamination," Amico said.
Amico and others at the hearing also called for regulation of the entire class of PFAS, which includes thousands of chemicals, instead of focusing regulations on just a few. For example, EPA's lifetime health advisory sets standards for two well-known PFAS, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, but not for other forms of PFAS.
"Certainly many people, including myself and the folks on this committee, would urge that the agency may need to think more broadly, considering the wide range of substances we're talking about," Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said before asking Grevatt whether EPA had ever used a class-based regulatory approach.
That approach has been used before, Grevatt said.
"EPA has a very active research effort underway to help us to transition, to think about the broader group of compounds. And we think the work we're doing on several individual compounds is going to help to inform that shift ... to think about hundreds of compounds, or even more, rather than two or three," he added.
Birnbaum's explanation of the science of PFAS also seemed to point toward a broader regulatory approach. Thousands of PFAS haven't been well-studied, she said, but existing data can be used to help predict how similar compounds will affect people.
"With so many PFAS compounds, we cannot test our way out of this," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/27/stories/1060099879
-
Delaware Bans Outdoor Use of Lead-Based Paints
Sep 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Delaware has become the first US state to ban outdoor lead-based paint. Governor John Carney (D) signed HB 456 into law on 29 August.
The Act, introduced to "protect public health", bans the use of lead paints on structures such as bridges, water towers, playground equipment, highways, parking lots, and utility towers and poles.
The prohibition on any new use of lead-based paints, pigments and coatings, will be effective from 1 January 2020. Any use of such items that began before that date will be outlawed from 1 January 2024.
Anyone violating the ban could face a fine up to a maximum of $10,000 a day, with each day of continued violation considered an additional offence.
The law also requires the state's health and natural resources departments to coordinate efforts to reduce the future effects of the weathering of lead paints already in use outdoors.Federal ban
The Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the use of lead-based paint for indoor or recreational uses in 1978. But Delaware has been the first to tackle outdoor use.
According to the Act, lead found in paints on outdoor structures threatens the health of workers and the general public because it "causes neurological damage, behavioural and learning disabilities among children, as well as anaemia, high blood pressure, kidney damage and reproductive effects".
There are no safe levels of exposure, the Act says, and no way to reverse the damage caused by lead exposure.
Delaware's ban comes after a two-year campaign by two state residents, environmental advocate Amy Roe and registered nurse Sarah Bucic.
One of the bill's co-sponsors, Representative John Kowalko (D), called it "one of the most important bills to be passed by the state legislature. This landmark legislation will ensure cleaner air, water, and soil and help protect the public against the threat that lead-based products presents."
https://chemicalwatch.com/70587/delaware-bans-outdoor-use-of-lead-based-paints
-
3M May Face Colorado Firefighting Foam Med Monitoring Claims
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
3M and others may face medical monitoring claims by Colorado residents alleging firefighting foam from Peterson Air Force Base contaminated their groundwater.
But the residents will have to show the medical examinations are reasonable and necessary to detect the claimed diseases, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado said.
While the Colorado Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue, the trial court predicted it would probably allow medical monitoring claims without proof of a current physical injury.
But to go forward, the residents will need to convince the court that monitoring and testing procedures exist which make the early detection and treatment of the diseases possible and beneficial.
The trial court Sept. 25 dismissed the class action claims but gave the residents a chance to file an amended complaint.
The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims, finding no evidence that the defendants participated in a conspiracy, rather than acting individually.
The residents sued 3M, Tyco Fire Products, National Foam, and other parties who manufactured or sold Aqueous Film Forming Foam used during emergency training exercises at Peterson Air Force Base as a firefighting suppressant.
The plaintiffs allege AFFF has contaminated the groundwater in their communities for decades, which can cause serious health impacts and affect property values.
But 3M and other makers argue that the chemicals, which have since been phased out of the foam, aren’t dangerous. They also argue that as contractors of the government, they’re protected from liability.
Peterson is one of several defense department sites where AFFF was used and residents are suing, including Naval Air Warfare Center in Warminster, Pa., Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, N.Y., and the Francis S. Grabeski Air National Guard Base in Suffolk County, N.Y.
In May 2018, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed medical monitoring claims by residents living near military bases because the plaintiffs didn’t allege a monitoring procedure that would detect any serious latent disease, or that monitoring is reasonably necessary, but gave the residents a chance to amend their complaint.
The plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania case filed an amended complaint in July, which the defendants have moved to dismiss.
Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued the ruling.
Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, PC-Englewood, and Napoli Shkolnik PLLC-Miami represent the residents.
Mayer Brown LLP, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Brewer Attorneys & Counselors, and Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP represent 3M.
Shook Hardy & Bacon, LLP, Dechert, LLP, Williams & Connolly, LLP, and Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell, LLP represent Tyco.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP represents National Foam.
The case is Bell v. The 3M Co., 2018 BL 346446, D. Colo., Nos. 16-cv-02351, 16-cv-02394, 16-cv-02352, 9/25/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/3m-may-face-colorado-firefighting-foam-med-monitoring-claims
-
Brexit Threatens Chemicals ‘Chaos’ – Trade Union
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Livelihoods are "at risk" if the UK does not negotiate "as full an agreement as possible" that maintains its participation in Echa after withdrawing from the EU in March 2019, a trade union has said.
The statement, from union Prospect, was released on 25 September, a day after the UK government published guidance on REACH in the event that Britain leaves the Union without a trade deal. Trade associations and NGOs have voiced their concern about the guidance.
Prospect senior deputy general secretary Sue Ferns said the UK is currently a leading authority in the chemicals sector and "runs the risk of losing its voice in a crucial area".
The trade union represents over 142,000 workers including professionals, managers, technical experts and craftspeople working in a wide range of industries.
Being outside of Echa and regulations like REACH and the Biocidal Products Regulation could bring about a "wider impact" on UK companies producing chemicals and biocidal products, Prospect said, as they may not be able to import what they need to produce products.
In turn this could lead to products such as cleaning products, pest control and preservation not being as easily available for UK consumers."
And even if the UK was able to negotiate limited participation with the EU, Prospect said:
· access to IT systems would be limited and as a non-EU member there could be a fee for using the system;
· the UK could be frozen out of discussions and advice for other European regulators while they are considering new chemicals; and.
· despite having access to the systems, the Chemicals Regulation Division (CRD) of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would likely not be allowed to veto new chemicals entering the UK, as it can today.
IT system
The CRD is supporting the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) on developing IT capability to enable the registration and regulation of chemical substances placed on the national market after a no-deal Brexit.
According to Prospect, the system is "an insurance policy at a considerable cost to the UK taxpayer and government as it might never need to be used". The trade union pointed out that it would not be used if the UK can become an active participant of Echa, albeit without voting rights.
Meanwhile, Prospect raised concerns that plans for a biocides IT system are yet to be confirmed and said it is unclear if the UK will continue to have access to Echa’s system.
In August, the HSE claimed that the UK’s IT capability is mostly built and "would work" tomorrow if needed. Just over a month later however the UK's National Audit Office warned that the system may need to be "significantly reworked" to allow further long-term enhancements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70584/brexit-threatens-chemicals-chaos-trade-union
-
Statistical Models Account for Mixture Effects Through 'Desirability' Concept
Sep 27, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
A group of scientists based in the US, Sweden and Finland have borrowed from the field of industrial design to create a new class of statistical models to inform risk assessment of mixtures.
The models incorporate the concept of "desirability functions" and deliver "guideline values" for risk based on epidemiological data.
Chemicals legislation typically addresses risks on a substance-by-substance basis and consequently conventional regulatory risk assessment involves consideration of substances in isolation.
Humans and organisms in the environment, however, are frequently exposed to broad mixtures of substances. Furthermore, study after study has shown that the latter can lead to "mixture effects" that are not properly accounted for in conventional assessment.
The desirability function concept is widely used in industry to optimise products and processes. Such a function describes the change in the desirability as the value of a specific variable changes. Multiple functions can be set for a given product or process, and then the desirability can be optimised by reference to the geometric mean of all the functions.
ACR models
The models, created by Chris Gennings, a biostatistician at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, transfer this concept to risk assessment but with desirability replaced by an absence of adverse effects.
Professor Gennings used data from the SELMA study, which captured prenatal concentrations and later life developmental endpoints from 2,582 pregnant women in Sweden between 2007 and 2010. The data gave a picture of the associations between 11 substances – all known to be endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – and two developmental endpoints, language development and birth weight.
She used the SELMA data to derive "guideline values" for each relevant substance-endpoint combination. These values correspond to concentrations below which, in theory, adverse effects are not expected if considering the substances in isolation.
She then extended the model to account for the influence of the full set of substances simultaneously. This was achieved by allowing for a mixture effect from the set of chemicals that incorporates an "acceptable concentration range" for each combination of target substance and endpoint.
The scientists say that the ACR models have various limitations relating to assumptions about the required complexity. The work should be considered "proof of concept" but more is required to refine and validate the models.
Nevertheless, Professor Gennings hopes policy makers will engage with the methodology at the core and with the novel idea of deriving guideline values directly from epidemiology data. They should do this, not least because the results were concerning, she said.
The scientists found that their guideline values were typically much lower than their equivalent in published literature and derived from animal testing. They conclude in their paper, published in Environment International, that "chemical-by-chemical approaches underestimate risk by a factor that ranges from 1 to 100 for different chemicals".
The scientists found that their guideline values were typically much lower than their equivalent in published literature and derived from animal testing. They conclude in their paper, published in Environment International, that "chemical-by-chemical approaches underestimate risk by a factor that ranges from 1 to 100 for different chemicals".
The research was part-funded by a grant from the US National Institutes of Health and the EU’s EDC-MixRisk project, which launched in 2015.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70586/statistical-models-account-for-mixture-effects-through-desirability-concept
-
(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian Petrochemical Plant Forges Ahead
Sep 27, 2018 | Engineering.com
By Emily Pollock
The Appalachian Storage and Trading Hub (ASTH) is poised to become one of the biggest infrastructure projects in Appalachia. The planned petrochemical project, which has been estimated to cost around $10 billion, has attracted billions of dollars in investments from both Chinese and American companies.
Enthusiasts, from local government officials to petrochemical executives, say that the project will be the key to prosperity in the region and U.S. energy independence. Its critics, a loose coalition of researchers, environmentalists and concerned locals, say that the project will create few new jobs, and could cause disastrous environmental consequences.
But most outside of the region (and the field) haven’t even heard of the project. “They’ve been working on this for ten years with support from both the West Virginia and Ohio governments,” said Cheryl Johncox, a Sierra Club organizer, in a recent article for Blue Ridge Outdoors. “Despite this, it hasn’t been on the radar for most citizens or even many large environmental organizations.”
So, what is the ASTH? How would it work? And what impacts could it have on the region, and the country, as a whole?
The Background
Appalachia is a region in the Central-Eastern United States that is centered on the Appalachian Mountains. Natural gas companies have recently started looking at the area as an alternative to the Gulf Coast, the current hydrocarbon hub in the continental U.S.
The rock under the Appalachians is rich in natural gas liquids like ethane and propane, hydrocarbons that can be made into fuel or the precursors of plastics. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the area’s Marcellus, Utica and Rogersville shale deposits have supplied two-thirds of the boom in U.S. natural gas production since 2012.
The high-value rock isn’t the only thing the region has going for it: the location is also convenient. Most of the manufacturers using ethane polymers in the continental U.S. are located in the Northeast, and 70 percent of them are within 700 miles of Pittsburgh, Pa. Being located so close to these manufacturers would make delivery faster, and less expensive. Additionally, Appalachia is safe from the hurricanes that batter the Gulf Coast, which have been growing stronger and more damaging in the last few years due to climate change.
All those factors make Appalachia a profitable place to mine: A recent IHS Markit report found that an ethylene project in the Appalachians would net its owners almost four times the earnings of a project located on the Gulf Coast.The Hub
The expected location for the ASTH is along the border of West Virginia and Ohio, through the Ohio River Valley. The hub is being planned by the Appalachia Development Group (ADG), which calls itself a “collaborative platform” owned by the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center (MATRIC) and the West Virginia University Innovation Corporation.
The ASTH would include underground storage locations for natural gas, as well as monitoring equipment and hundreds of miles of pipeline. Natural gas producers would store gas in the hub, and consumers would buy it, while an independent third party would monitor the system for leaks or problems. If built, the ASTH will be one of the largest infrastructure projects ever built in the region.A map of the proposed route for the ASTH pipeline, with ethylene and propylene facilities marked along the route. (Image courtesy of the Appalachia Development Group.)
The hub’s design would draw inspiration from a preexisting hub in Mont Belvieu, TX., a city located near the Gulf Coast that has 35 storage caverns capable of holding billions of barrels of natural gas liquids.
The ASTH’s underground storage will be housed in what will reportedly be impermeable salt domes under the Ohio River. A salt dome is a structure made by removing the salt from a large salt deposit. To achieve this, companies drill a well down into the deposit, pump in fresh water to dissolve the salt, and then pump the brine back out. Hollowing the salt deposit out creates a cavern that can be up to 1,200 feet tall and can be filled with natural gas. Pressure in the underground storage structure can keep the gasses liquid. While the location of the ASTH’s storage units haven’t been chosen yet, the Ohio River has plenty of salt deposits that could be hollowed out to create such storage structures.
The pipeline would stretch approximately 386 miles, from Monaca, Pa.,to Catlettsburg, Ky. Along the way, there would be supplementary pipelines running from storage areas and to factories. The pipeline would run above ground and would likely have a “six-pack” of pipe, with one pipe each designated for carrying methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene and chlorine.
The ADG hasn’t started building its hub yet, as it is waiting on a $1.9 billion loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to develop infrastructure in the area. In September 2017, ADG submitted its application, which was since approved for beginning the second phase in January 2019.The Impact
Why would the U.S. federal government be willing to put so much money into the development of this petrochemical hub? Because it is counting on the project bringing further investment to the area.
According to the American Chemistry Council, the development of the ASTH would create as much as $36 billion in “follow-on petrochemical investments.” What that means is that if there’s a facility for storing and transporting natural gasses, then gas-mining and processing companies may be drawn to the area.
If the hub is built, it would be storing natural gas from projects like the Pennsylvania Shell ethane cracker plant. Ethane cracking is a process where ethane gas is broken down into smaller ethylene molecules under tremendous heat. Afterwards, the ethylene molecules are polymerized (linked) to form polyethylene, which is the first step in most of the world's plastics.
Shell's plant, set to open in late 2021 or early 2022, will be one of the area's first large-scale ethane crackers. But it likely won't be the last. Local governments have focused on attracting outside ethane crackers. Indeed, the Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia governments entered into a tax competition for Shell's cracker, competing to see which state could provide the company with the greatest incentives for building the plant in their state.
But not everybody is as enthused at the possibility of a storage hub, or at the idea of more resource extraction from outside of Appalachia.The Controversy
To understand the controversy over the ASTH, you need to appreciate the last hundred years of Appalachian history.
Since the early 1900s, the Appalachian coal trade has extracted billions of pounds of fuel from the region's mountains, especially in Central Appalachia. But the wealth made from that coal hasn't stayed in the area: poverty and unemployment rates are significantly higher in the region compared to the national average. Instead, the money has gone to powerful landowners who live in different areas. "For well over a century now, Central Appalachia has been ruled by absentee landowners only interested in making the highest profit available from natural resource extraction, primarily coal," said researcher Theresa L. Burris in a 2014 article on poverty in the Appalachians.
Unfortunately, the environmental consequences of coal mining have remained rooted in the region. Appalachia residents have suffered serious health consequences from mining, especially when mountaintop removal (MTR) became the industry standard. People living near MTR developments have higher poverty and death rates, and have experienced a significant increase in problems like cardiovascular disease, lung cancer and birth defects.
So, when looking at the new petrochemical project, some Appalachians are asking what makes the project’s managers any different from the coal barons who left them with environmental costs and little benefit to show from it.
Government officials and petrochemical representatives certainly appear to believe that the hub could benefit Appalachians. In a press release in January 2018, ADG said that the project could lead to the creation of 100,000 jobs, both from construction and maintenance jobs within the hub itself and jobs with the ethane plants that may be drawn to the area.
“This project will not only transform the region, it will impact the entire country by enhancing America’s energy dominance,” said West Virginia Representative David McKinley of the announcement. “The storage hub has the potential to create thousands of jobs, attract billions in investment, invigorate Appalachia’s economy, and establish our area as a force in the petrochemical industry.”
Unfortunately, there’s also a serious potential for environmental costs, both from the hub and the accompanying petrochemical plants.
The first problem is with the salt domes that would be used to store the LNGs. Salt domes aren’t foolproof. If a dome doesn’t have adequate interior pressure, the empty dome could collapse in on itself. For residents, the worst-case scenario would be something like the Bayou Corne Sinkhole, which opened in Assumption Parish, La., in 2012. The sinkhole was created by the collapse of a salt dome, after the company that owned the dome ignored an unsatisfactory pressure test. Oil and gas began escaping to the surface, creating a 2.5-acre sinkhole that continues to shoot out oil and debris. Years later, hundreds of residents are still on an evacuation warning, as the sinkhole hasn't settled.
Another potential problem is the possibility of petrochemical leakage from the hub, and from the factories it serves. Louisiana’s “Cancer Alley," the petrochemical corridor stretching down the Mississippi from Baton Rouge to New Orleans, earn edits grim name because of the above-average incidence of cancer and other diseases in the region. The EPA has said that chemical emissions from nearby petrochemical plants are likely to blame, although plant owners have disagreed with such findings.
Petrochemical leakage can also occur in the form of methane leaks. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, trapping heat within our atmosphere and exacerbating global climate change. And methane leaks are relatively common.Indeed, research teams at the University of Colorado found that the U.S. natural gas industry is leaking 60 percent more gas than recent EPA estimates suggested. Methane leaks, which can be difficult to detect, can also have an adverse impact on any nearby population, as in the Aliso Canyon gas leak of 2015.
Any pollution from the ASTH’s pipeline would be a serious problem, given that it’s planned to flow alongside the Ohio River, already one of the most polluted rivers in the country. Indeed, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is already concerned about pollution from Shell’s ethane cracker pipeline. In June, the DEP reported that there were "significant technical deficiencies" in the company's pipeline plan, and the way in which it would impact local water sources.The Future
For now, the ASTH looks likely to go ahead. Local governments are enthusiastic about its promise of creating jobs, energy executives are excited by the possibility of “unlocking” the region’s natural gasses, and overseas investors see it as a great way to generate cash.
But there are still serious questions about the project: Will it generate jobs and profits for Appalachia, or will the wealth leave the region, like coal wealth before it? Will it adhere to strict environmental standards, or will the petrochemical boom lead to dangerous pollution?
We know approximately how much money it will take to build the petrochemical hub. But what we don’t yet is the project’s real cost.
https://www.engineering.com/BIM/ArticleID/17685/Appalachian-Petrochemical-Plant-Forges-Ahead.aspx
-
BLM Paves Way for Hotly Debated First Production Plant
Sep 26, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater
The Bureau of Land Management today formally approved a utility corridor allowing electrical power lines and pipelines for water, natural gas and oil product to cross public lands to and from what would be the nation's first oil shale production plant on private lands in Utah.
BLM's record of decision (ROD) is a major victory for Enefit American Oil's long-planned South Project, which is strongly opposed by environmental groups that say the project would lead to widespread air and water pollution.
Enefit American — the Salt Lake City-based arm of Estonian-owned Eesti Energia — plans to build an estimated 50,000-barrels-per-day oil shale production plant on private lands it owns; it also owns the mineral rights underneath the private parcel in Uintah County, Utah.
The ROD — signed this week by Joe Balash, assistant secretary for land and minerals management at the Interior Department — allows the company to route 13.7 miles of a water supply pipeline, 5.5 miles of a natural gas supply line and 7 miles of an oil product line across BLM land. Approval of the right of way application originally filed by the company in 2012 is a critical component to eventually building and operating the proposed plant, the company says.
The ROD also allows the company to upgrade and pave a roughly 5-mile section of Dragon Road that also includes some BLM land. And it allows Moon Lake Electric Association Inc. to build two 138-kilovolt transmission lines connected to the oil shale project across BLM land.
"This is a tremendous milestone for our future project and for energy development in Utah and the Mountain West Region," Enefit American CEO Rikki Hrenko-Browning said today in a statement.
It also supports the Trump administration's goals of increasing fossil fuel production on federal lands and securing "American energy independence," BLM said today in a press release announcing approval of the ROD.
"Right-of-way projects are tremendous economic drivers that involve critical coordination with our neighbors and stakeholders," BLM Deputy Director Brian Steed said in a statement. "We are proud to do our part to move this important energy project forward."
The proposed project could be a major advancement in a decadeslong effort to develop technologies capable of extracting vast oil shale reserves that proponents say could meet the nation's energy needs for more than a century.
But the ROD drew sharp criticism from environmental groups.
"The Trump administration is trying to jump-start a filthy new fossil fuel industry in the Colorado River Basin," Michael Saul, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
In general, the process of extracting crude oil from shale rock can be a resource-intensive process, with some government estimates calculating it could take three barrels of water for every one barrel of oil produced.
Extracting crude oil from shale rock requires heating an organic material in the rock called kerogen to 650 degrees Fahrenheit or more, requiring huge expenditures of energy and water and potentially causing large-scale environmental degradation, critics say.
Michael Toll, a staff attorney with Grand Canyon Trust, said in an email to E&E News that BLM's analysis of the project was "utterly inadequate" and failed to properly analyze the potential impacts to "air, water, climate, and [wildlife] species."
He added, "Considering the rights-of-way are a public subsidy of an otherwise economically unfeasible oil-shale facility, the public has a right to know exactly how Enefit's project will impact their health and environment."
But BLM has said in environmental review documents — including a draft environmental impact statement conducted by the Obama administration's BLM more than two years ago — that turning down the right of way request could have a detrimental impact because it would force Enefit to generate power on-site and haul fuel by truck (Energywire, June 16, 2016).
Today's ROD draws the same conclusion.
For example, the ROD notes that the buried oil product line is in the "public interest" because without it, "the commodity from the South Project would have to be trucked to market which will result in increased air emissions and additional trucks (and attendant wear-and-tear and safety issues) on the existing roadways."
Hrenko-Browning, who is set to step down as Enefit American CEO in January to become president of the Utah Petroleum Association, said in her statement that the company "worked closely and cooperated fully with the BLM and other federal, state and local agencies since the environmental review process began in late 2012."
She added, "Many potential concerns were identified by agencies, interest groups and the public during the process, and we appreciate the BLM's diligence in determining that these issues can be adequately addressed to allow a right-of-way easement across this federal property."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/09/26/stories/1060099839
-
Boulder Oil, Gas Suit Will Test Land Protection Strategy
Sep 27, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
A pair of Boulder County lawsuits against two oil and gas companies could be test cases of whether a local government can use conservation easements to block or restrict drilling activities.
Boulder County sued Crestone Peak Resources and 8 North LLC, a subsidiary of Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., both of which are proposing to construct drilling pads with multiple wells on property that is either county-owned open space or protected by county-owned conservation easements.
The lawsuits, filed Sept. 25 in Boulder County District Court, challenge the companies’ legal right to conduct hydraulic fracturing operations on the two sites in question.
Conservation ValuesThe county says state law prohibits someone from injuring or destroying conservation values protected by an easement, a type of voluntary legal agreement between a landowner and a land trust or other qualified organization in which a landowner agrees to place restrictions on the use of their property to protect its natural values.
The county says the Crestone Peak and 8 North proposals to place multi-well pads on conservation easements violate the state law, even though the property owners leased out the minerals before the county bought the conservation easements.
A spokesman for Crestone Peak didn’t immediately return Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment. A spokesman for Extraction declined to comment, instead referring requests to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.
Association spokesman Scott Prestidge told Bloomberg Environment that Boulder County’s “multiple lawsuits paid on the backs of taxpayers are not the answer.” He said the company has been in close communication with Boulder County staff and “have given every effort to find win-win scenarios.”
“We would hope the county would work toward mutually beneficial solutions, rather than take it to the courts,” he added.
Kate Burke, senior assistant county attorney for Boulder County, told Bloomberg Environment Sept. 26, said no Colorado law exists on the questions arising in the case. She said the companies have ignored the county.
“We’ve tried to talk with them,” she said. “We’ve sent letters and just gotten silence. Going to court was our only option.”
Industry Has ChangedThe nature of the oil and gas industry has changed dramatically recently, with companies proposing large-scale surface projects using long directional drilling, Boulder County Commissioner Elise Jones said in a statement.
“Those old leases didn’t envision that the property could be harmed by a multi-well mega-pad used to frack minerals located miles away,” she said. “It’s our duty to safeguard the environment and people of Boulder County and these lawsuits are our implementation of that responsibility. No one is above the law —including oil and gas companies.”
Crestone is proposing to conduct fracking operations on a 10-square-mile area in eastern Boulder County, all on county open space land or privately owned land protected by county-owned conservation easements. The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is scheduled to vote on Crestone’s plan at an Oct. 29-30 hearing.
Earlier Lawsuit8 North is proposing two operations: a 32-well pad on land protected by a Boulder County easement in Weld County, and a 20-well pad within the town of Erie. Boulder County challenged the latter project in an Aug. 31 lawsuitagainst 8 North and the state commission, Burke said.
The latest lawsuits aren’t limited to claims regarding conservation easements but include allegations the companies violated oil and gas leases in several ways, the county said.
A Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission spokesman didn’t immediately return Bloomberg Environment’s request for comment.
The cases are Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Crestone Peak Res. Operating, LLC, Colo. Dist. Ct., 9/25/18 and Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. 8 North, LLC, Colo. Dist. Ct., 9/25/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/boulder-oil-gas-suit-will-test-land-protection-strategy
-
Goldman Sees Exxon, Chevron Following Euro Peers into Renewables
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Mikael Holter
Big U.S. oil companies like Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp.—which have lagged behind their European rivals in venturing into renewable energy—are likely to increasingly make room for cleaner energy in their portfolios, said Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Over the past few years, European oil majors like Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and Equinor ASA have increased their bets on wind and solar power, while also investing in technology for electric vehicles including batteries and charging stations. The latter company even changed its name from Statoil ASA to reflect its move to be a broader energy producer.
Their U.S. rivals haven’t matched them, but Exxon, Chevron, and Occidental Petroleum Corp. this month joined an international industry initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help fight climate change.
Low MarksExxon and Chevron currently have the lowest score among the international majors in terms of renewable investments, lagging European peers, but that’s going to change, Goldman’s co-head of global natural resources, Gonzalo Garcia, said in a presentation at a conference organized by Norwegian utility Statkraft A/S in Oslo on Sept. 26.
“I don’t see how they can stand on the fence when every projection suggests that in the next couple of decades renewable energy will be the dominant source of electricity around the world,” he added in an interview.
During his presentation, Garcia also said he’s probably spent more time talking with oil company executives about the energy shift and renewables in the last two years than the previous 23 put together.
“Suddenly they’re waking up to the fact that this is happening, that it’s only moving in one direction, and they need to do something about it,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/goldmanseesexxon-chevron-following-euro-peers-into-renewables
-
Anti-Terrorism Program for Chemical Plants OK’d by Senate Panel
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marissa Horn
Facilities holding high-risk chemicals would see an easier path to compliance with a federal chemical security program for the next five years under legislation approved by a Senate committee on Sept. 26.
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved by voice vote a substitute amendment offered by the bill’s author, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the panel’s chairman. The measure reauthorizes the program under the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act (S. 3405).
It is unclear how soon the Senate could take up the measure on the floor. The committee action came after it approved several amendments to Johnson’s measure offered by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), the committee’s top Democrat.
McCaskill expressed disappointment that provisions that would protect whistleblowers were removed from the bill prior to the markup. The Missouri senator vowed to offer an amendment to reinstate those protections when the bill reaches the floor.
House lawmakers haven’t yet introduced companion legislation.
The measure addresses the need to reauthorize the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program before early 2019. The Department of Homeland Security program sets requirements for at-risk facilities to operate with appropriate security measures to prevent chemical releases, theft, diversion, or sabotage.
The program, launched in 2007, requires facilities holding more than 300 chemicalsabove specified quantities to submit information to department officials. They use the information to place facilities in four categories based on risk. Facilities then must submit site security plans to show the risk is addressed.
Congress last reauthorized the program for four years in 2014 with a scheduled expiration of January 2019. Homeland Security officials have said they need a long-term reauthorization to provide greater stability for the program.
Explosives Industry ExemptedThe bill grants the explosives industry’s request to be exempted from the requirements in favor of existing regulations by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The changes are a top priority for explosives companies such as Austin Powder Co., Davey Bickford North America, Dyno Nobel Inc., and others, the Institute of Makers of Explosives in Washington told Bloomberg Environment in early September.
“Layering the program across facilities already regulated by ATF has imposed significant costs that impact jobs and industry investment, with no discernible increase in security,” Debra Satkowiak, the group’s president, said in a statement.
The bill also bans the department from inspecting a facility more often than once every two years, or every three years if it’s in a new voluntary recognition program.
It lets facilities in the two lowest-risk categories opt out from a requirement that they submit employee information to be screened for terrorist ties. The department couldn’t include cybersecurity mandates in what it requires from facilities under the program.
In addition, the legislation would require the department to conduct a formal rulemaking if it adds new chemicals to the program and would give facility operators more information explaining how they were evaluated for security risk. A formal rulemaking would take longer but give companies a greater chance to weigh in before the changes take place.
—With assistance from Michaela Ross (Bloomberg Government) and Dean Scott (Bloomberg Environment.)
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/anti-terrorism-program-for-chemical-plants-okd-by-senate-panel
-
Russian Cybersecurity Firm Drew Rare Grid Warning
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
North American grid regulators share the U.S. government's misgivings about Moscow-based cybersecurity company Kaspersky Lab, according to a confidential alert sent to the power sector last year.
On Oct. 5, 2017, the North American Electric Reliability Corp. issued a rare "Level 2" cybersecurity recommendation — one of just three such warnings since 2013 — covering power utilities' potential use of Kaspersky anti-virus software, sources confirmed to E&E News. NERC is responsible for setting and enforcing security rules for the bulk U.S. power grid.
Bill Lawrence, NERC's vice president and chief security officer, said the regulator based its supply chain security alert on dialogue with the departments of Energy and Homeland Security and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the independent federal agency that gets final say over grid security standards.
NERC declined to comment on the contents of the document, which is restricted from public disclosure under the "Traffic Light Protocol."
"The strong information sharing relationships that NERC has between industry and government allow for focused attention on emerging threats, and positively impact NERC's mission of reliability and security of the grid," Lawrence said in a statement.
Patrick Miller, managing partner at Archer Energy Solutions, said he suspects NERC posted the alert in response to a U.S. government order to steer clear of Kaspersky software. On Sept. 13, 2017, DHS issued a "Binding Operational Directive" barring use of Kaspersky products across federal government networks, citing concerns "about the ties between certain Kaspersky officials and Russian intelligence and other government agencies."
The DHS directive kicked off an ongoing debate about the security of Kaspersky products and whether the company's roots in Russia posed a special risk compared with suppliers from other countries that often clash with the U.S. government.
"It's interesting that it was only Kaspersky: Why just one country [Russia], when other countries and other products have also been labeled security issues?" Miller said. "And if we can't buy products that are sourced in conflict countries, what is that going to do to the cost of our infrastructure?"
Miller spoke earlier this month at a Kaspersky-sponsored control system security event in Sochi, Russia, that also featured former U.S. government officials, including the onetime head of DHS's top industrial control system protection unit.
For its part, Kaspersky has battled the directive and subsequent provisions barring use of its products in the fiscal 2018 defense reauthorization bill, even taking DHS to court. The company announced in May it would move key data centers to Switzerland to assuage fears about snooping from Russian intelligence agencies.
The company said in a statement yesterday that it was aiming to address the core concerns outlined in the DHS directive, "as the false assumptions that underpin those actions have led to the development of other similar recommendations, such as the NERC alert."
Kaspersky pointed out that its in-house Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team "devotes its efforts primarily to identifying potential and existing threats that target industrial automation systems and provides vulnerability information to vendors and organizations, such as the U.S. DHS."
Bad optics
NERC's warning was a striking market setback for Kaspersky, a company that as recently as 2016 advertised its ability to help U.S. electric utilities meet NERC's exacting Critical Infrastructure Protection cybersecurity standards.
"The company is poised to have another strong year due to its advanced endpoint products and innovative security solutions," Kaspersky said in an April 2016 statement. "Our new Kaspersky Industrial Cybersecurity solution includes the software products and security services (including security training, incident response, etc.) that help companies effectively cover organizational issues to comply with NERC CIP."
Kaspersky noted at the time that CIP standards do not provide specific technical requirements for cybersecurity software.
That holds true today, lest NERC be accused of suppressing competition. But the regulator's Oct. 5 recommendation, dispatched to companies spanning power generation, transmission and distribution, effectively dashed Kaspersky's ambitions in the U.S. grid, according to multiple sources in the control system community who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.
The news outside Kaspersky's headquarters didn't help matters: Beginning in 2016, Russian intelligence agents ramped up a coordinated hacking campaign targeting U.S. Democratic political organizations ahead of the fall presidential election.
The following year, another Russia-linked hacking campaign put U.S. nuclear power plants, grid operators and other critical infrastructure systems in the crosshairs, sounding alarm bells at DHS and NERC (Energywire, June 27, 2017).
DHS has raised the prospect of Russian spy agencies applying pressure to Kaspersky at some point in the future.
"The risk that the Russian government, whether acting on its own or in collaboration with Kaspersky, could capitalize on access provided by Kaspersky products to compromise federal information and information systems directly implicates U.S. national security," DHS said in its directive last September.
Rather than draft a risk mitigation plan and continue using Kaspersky, at least one large power company and an industrial automation firm turned away from the Moscow-based firm, sources say.
Miller said Kaspersky "is doing some really good things" in the industrial control system space, though he said he does not expect the company to make inroads in U.S. critical infrastructure in the near future. "The optics are too bad," he said.
NSA surprise
Kaspersky's defenders have pointed to the vagueness of the U.S. government's warnings, which have failed to identify any specific vulnerability in Kaspersky products.
Several European government agencies and infrastructure operators continue to use Kaspersky, though authorities in the United Kingdom pledged last year to review their business with the company and urged agencies housing "secret" information to steer clear of Russia-based cybersecurity providers.
Kaspersky's core software products count on privileged access to customers' computers. Much like other anti-virus products, such as Windows Defender or Symantec Endpoint Protection, Kaspersky Anti-Virus scans files, flags anything suspicious and, on internet-connected computers, beacons back to Kaspersky servers both to upload newly identified malware samples and to download the latest signatures and software updates.
In perhaps the most concrete security breach tied to the Kaspersky brand, a National Security Agency employee using the software product on a home computer lost control of highly classified U.S. government hacking tools, The Wall Street Journal reported. Citing U.S. intelligence sources, the Journal reported that Russian cyber spies were able to exploit the Kaspersky connection to siphon off reams of secret data.
The NSA employee was later identified as Nghia Hoang Pho, a 68-year-old Maryland resident who started working for NSA's elite hacking unit, Tailored Access Operations, in 2006.
Pho, a U.S. citizen who was born in Vietnam, pleaded guilty last year to unlawfully keeping classified information at home over a five-year period starting in 2010. He was sentenced to 5 ½ years in prison Tuesday.
"Pho compromised some of our country's most closely held types of intelligence, and forced NSA to abandon important initiatives to protect itself and its operational capabilities, at great economic and operational cost," U.S. Attorney Robert Hur said in a statement.
Kaspersky addressed the episode head-on in a blog post last October, saying that the company has "never" helped cyber spies or military intelligence.
"It sounds like this contractor decided to work on a cyberweapon from home, and our antivirus detected it," Kaspersky said. "What a surprise!"
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/09/27/stories/1060099885
-
Minnesota Lawmakers Ask for Meeting on Refinery Explosion
Sep 19, 2018 | Minnesota Public Radio
By Dan Kraker
U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum has asked the federal Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board to hold a public forum in the Twin Ports of Duluth and Superior, Wis., in early fall, citing "serious questions about the safety of U.S. refineries using hydrogen fluoride" in the wake of an explosion and fires at the Husky oil refinery in Superior in April.
U.S. Rep. Rick Nolan, U.S. Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, and Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin also signed the letter Wednesday.
The accident on April 26 caused an enormous smoke plume, and forced the evacuation of thousands of people in a zone extending 10 miles south of Superior and three miles to the south and east.
The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board is currently investigating the incident. In a preliminary report released in August, investigators say a failed valve caused the initial explosion.
Debris flew about 200 feet, puncturing a large storage tank, spilling more than 15,000 barrels of hot asphalt, which ignited a major subsequent fire.
The debris did not damage a tank about 150 feet away, containing 15,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride, a highly toxic chemical that's used to make higher-octane gasoline. It's an acid that can cause lung damage when people are exposed to it.
"Had Twin Ports residents been fully informed about the risk of the HF stored at the refinery prior to the incident, it is likely that emergency evacuations would have been implemented more urgently," McCollum wrote in the letter.
A recent report found that social media caused confusion for emergency crews trying to evacuate people.
She added a public forum would allow for community input about the scope of the Board's investigation, and would also provide for public dialogue explaining "the Board's stated grave concerns about the use of HF in urban oil refineries."
A 2011 report from the Center for Public Integrity said hydrogen fluoride is used by 50 out of 148 refineries nationwide, including a refinery operated by Andeavor in St. Paul Park, Minn.
After the explosion, Duluth Mayor Emily Larson and Superior Mayor Jim Paine both asked Husky Energy to stop using the chemical at the Superior refinery.
Husky has said it will take up to two years to rebuild the refinery and for normal operations to resume.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board spokesperson Hillary Cohen said the board is currently reviewing the letter and hopes to have a plan on how they will be moving forward in the next few days.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/09/26/superior-refinery-meeting
-
OTC States Reject EPA Projection of 'Downward Trend' in Ozone Emissions
Sep 26, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic air regulators in the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) are pushing back against EPA's projection of a “downward trend” in ozone emissions, saying it is inconsistent with their own modeling data and a trend of worsening ozone levels that could frustrate OTC states' ability to attain federal ozone standards.
Speaking on a conference call Sept. 21, OTC modeling expert Jeff Underhill, a New Hampshire air regulator, presented air quality data showing that a trend toward lower ozone levels in the OTC area has reversed itself, and ozone levels in much of the region have begun to worsen.
“Our downward trend . . . doesn't look so downward anymore,” said Underhill, noting that the OTC area is, if anything, experiencing worsening ozone levels, based on data for 2016-2018. Maximum ozone levels in 2018 were the worst since 2010, at 115 parts per billion (ppb), and average readings have also edged up this year in some areas. Those levels are far above the 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb and 2015 limit of 70 ppb.
Not all OTC states have seen increases, however. For example, Connecticut -- a state with fairly serious ozone problems -- has seen a slow downward trend in ozone, while New Hampshire has seen a faster decline, Underhill said. For Connecticut, the maximum eight-hour ozone “design value”, used to determine NAAQS attainment, was 87 ppb for 2010-2012, and 82 ppb for 2016-2018. For New Hampshire, the comparable decrease was from 70 ppb to 67 ppb over the same period.
The findings of ozone increases in some OTC states come despite continued reductions in ozone-forming nitrogen oxides, (NOx), although critics of the Trump administration say that EPA's current wave of regulatory rollbacks threatens the downward NOx trend, which could further exacerbate ozone problems.
OTC states, which are subject to stricter ozone reduction mandates than other states, are already at odds with EPA over the likelihood of their attaining NAAQS in time to meet Clean Air Act attainment deadlines.
EPA is projecting attainment by the entire OTC region of the 2008 NAAQS by 2023, ending the need for other states upwind of the region to take further measures to mitigate interstate air emissions under the air law's “good neighbor” provision. The provision aims to reduce transport of air pollution that prevents downwind states from attaining federal air standards. However, the Trump administration is signaling no plans to push for any new interstate rules, most recently rejecting petitions from two OTC states to regulate air pollution in upwind states.
But OTC's computer modeling predicts at least two areas in the 12-state OTC region will be in nonattainment of the 2008 NAAQS in 2023, including Greater New York City.
The group's modeling shows parts of the region will not attain the tougher 2015 NAAQS by the relevant attainment dates either. Areas designated this year as in “marginal” nonattainment of the 2015 standard have until 2021 to attain, while areas in “moderate” nonattainment have until 2024 to attain.
The findings contrast with EPA's more optimistic projections of ozone attainment on the East Coast. Further, some computer models EPA and states rely on such as the MOVES vehicle emissions model are not updated to reflect Trump EPA regulatory rollbacks, sources say, casting further doubt on projections of ozone attainment.
NAAQS Attainment
EPA in a July 10 proposed rule finds that its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading program for power plants in eastern states will by 2023 accomplish its objective of helping states meet the 2008 NAAQS, and therefore further action by states or EPA is not required to meet the good neighbor mandate.
But OTC area states are strongly criticizing this finding, because 2023 is beyond their attainment dates for the 2008 standard, and also because the OTC modeling finds EPA's projections to be too optimistic.
OTC continues to press EPA for tougher measures to curb high hourly emissions from upwind power plants on hot summer days with high electric demand, when excess emissions from “peaking” power plants contribute to high ozone. OTC's stationary sources committee, chaired by New Jersey regulator Francis Steitz, has drafted a white paper on the topic for approval by the full OTC at a forthcoming meeting. The paper floats options for cost-effective controls to mitigate peak ozone, such as upwind power plants consistently running controls already installed. It further examines the role of natural gas pipelines in emitting ozone precursor chemicals.
OTC is developing “episodic modeling” to estimate the impact of peaking plants on such days, many of which are uncontrolled, to better fit with the ozone NAAQS' eight-hour averaging time. EPA currently employs annual modeling, which Steitz said fails to capture the high ozone incidents that result in NAAQS noncompliance and public health harm.
Contributing to the program is the low cost of CSAPR emissions allowances for NOx, which at around $250 per ton is far lower than OTC's estimated cost of running power plant controls such as selective catalytic reduction, which is around $800 per ton. Electric utilities can legally purchase emissions credits rather than running controls.
Meanwhile, California, the country's most smog-prone area, is also experiencing an upsurge in ozone levels. In 2018, the Greater Los Angeles region experienced 87 consecutive days of ozone levels exceeding the 2015 ozone NAAQS level of 70 ppb, starting June 19, according to state air quality monitoring data. This marks the longest streak of days with ozone exceeding the federal ozone standards in 20 years. The region covering Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties experienced peak ozone levels of 125 ppm.
California is not involved in the discussion over ozone transport in the East, and will be dealing with its intractable ozone issues for years to come. However, any increase in ozone in the state is likely to cause alarm there, given that the state already employs the toughest pollution control measures in the country and still cannot attain the NAAQS.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/otc-states-reject-epa-projection-downward-trend-ozone-emissions
-
Kavanaugh Fight Has Big Consequences for Climate Law
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Mark K. Matthews
If Senate Republicans plow ahead and confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the longtime jurist could have near-term impact on a slew of environmental cases.
Among the disputes the high court has agreed to hear this fall: a case that pits villagers from India against the World Bank in a fight over a coal plant. If the villagers prevail, it could have worldwide economic and political repercussions.
Several other climate-related issues have a decent shot, too, of getting a future date with the Supreme Court, including one closely watched fight — the "kids' climate case" — that makes the far-reaching argument that the government must take action on global warming so as not to imperil future generations.
Kavanaugh — currently a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — would replace Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in July after three decades of service and dozens of landmark decisions.
Kennedy was often a swing vote on the ideologically divided court, and he played a key role in several major environmental cases.
In 2007, for example, he sided with the court's liberal wing in the case Massachusetts v. EPA, which granted EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases. A year later, he joined with the court's conservatives to limit the financial damages against Exxon Mobil Corp. for its role in the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, which coated miles of Alaska coastline with oil.
Kavanaugh, nominated to the high court by President Trump in July, likely would shift the court further to the right. But a rightward shift would occur regardless of whether Kavanaugh weathers the sexual assault allegations that multiple women have raised. If the Kavanaugh nomination is derailed, Trump would likely tap an equally conservative replacement.
There's a lot at stake for domestic and international efforts to address climate change. Here are five brewing legal fights in which the future justice could play a role.
Kids want action on climate
When they filed their lawsuit in 2015, the plaintiffs behind what has become known as the "kids' climate case" picked the biggest target available: the U.S. government.
Three years later, their case — Juliana v. United States — appears bound, tractor-beam-like, for the Supreme Court.
The 21 plaintiffs, all children and young adults, argue that the federal government has chipped away for years at their constitutional right to live in a safe environment.
From one administration to the next, the government allowed decades' worth of planet-warming emissions to accumulate, even though top researchers at national laboratories and around Washington knew of man-made climate change and its perils, they say.
Through their case, the plaintiffs want a court to declare that their rights as U.S. citizens have been violated and to force the government to draft a plan to phase out fossil fuels.
No matter the outcome of the case, which is slated for trial beginning in late October in a federal Oregon court, it will likely wind its way back to the Supreme Court.
Justices in July rejected the Trump administration's attempt to halt the trial, though they hinted at concerns at the case's scope (E&E News PM, July 30).
Julia Olson, counsel for the plaintiffs, said then, "This decision should give young people courage and hope that their third branch of government, all the way up to the Supreme Court, has given them the green light to go to trial in this critical case about their unalienable rights."
A Justice Department spokesperson called the case "deeply misguided" and noted that the Obama administration had opposed the suit, too.
Villagers take on the World Bank
n January, a group of villagers from western India petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case against the World Bank, and at Oct. 31 oral arguments, the justices will listen.
At issue is the liability of the International Finance Corp., the lending arm of the World Bank, which financed a coal plant in Gujarat, on India's western coast, home to the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs sued the IFC in 2015, accusing it of violating its own environmental policies when it extended $450 million in loans for the project to Tata Power Ltd., an energy conglomerate in the country.
"Without the IFC's funding, the Tata Mundra Project could not have gone forward," they said (Climatewire, July 26, 2017).
The plant spews coal dust, ash and other toxic debris, according to the plaintiffs, who say its existence has killed and scared off fish, which they rely on for income. But the D.C. Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, who want a court to declare that the IFC is not immune to lawsuits like theirs.
The IFC defends its actions, and in court papers, its lawyers argue that allowing this case to proceed would expose multinational entities such as the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund to a rash of similar suits from foreign nationals.
In a brief filed Sept. 10, Donald Verrilli Jr., former solicitor general under President Obama, who is representing the IFC, stuck to the slippery-slope stance.
A ruling against the IFC, the brief says, "would open U.S. courts to a flood of foreign-focused lawsuits that would require U.S. courts to second-guess international organizations' core policy judgments, and that have only the most tenuous connection to the United States."
Kavanaugh questions EPA's reach
One big question before the high court is one that Kavanaugh already has dealt with — how far can EPA go to regulate hydrofluorocarbons, a class of potent greenhouse gases?
Under Obama, EPA in 2015 barred the use of HFCs in four major economic sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail food refrigeration and foam blowing.
Two foreign manufacturers sued in response to the rule with the claim that EPA had overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act.
Kavanaugh agreed, and in a 2017 majority opinion for the D.C. Circuit, he asserted that EPA had "tried to jam a square peg ... into a round hole."
"The Supreme Court cases that have dealt with EPA's efforts to address climate change have taught us two lessons that are worth repeating here," he added.
"First, EPA's well-intentioned policy objectives with respect to climate change do not on their own authorize the agency to regulate," Kavanaugh continued. And second, he wrote, "Congress' failure to enact general climate change legislation does not authorize EPA to act."
The issue is now on the radar of the high court, which soon could decide whether it wants to weigh in. Justices are scheduled to consider petitions challenging the ruling at their Oct. 5 conference.
If Kavanaugh is ultimately confirmed, his biggest impact likely could be his previous opinion, as it's typical for justices to recuse themselves from cases in which they already have played a part.
What happens to Trump's replacement of the Clean Power Plan?
Even if justices reject the HFC case, EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases may still wind its way back up to the high court in the form of challenges to the Affordable Clean Energy rule, the Trump administration's proposed replacement for the Clean Power Plan.
The ACE rule is aimed at cutting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. If finalized, it's certain to face strong legal challenges from opponents who say the rule does not do enough to cut CO2 or protect public health.
Because EPA is still developing the rule, it would likely take until 2020, barring any major delays along the way, before the case could even get in front of justices, according to Joanne Spalding, deputy director of the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program.
EPA would first have to finalize the rule, and initial challenges would have to go through the D.C. Circuit.
A faster way to the high court would be if the D.C. Circuit agreed with a recent request by states and environmental groups to decide on litigation on the Clean Power Plan. The case has been on hold as the agency has been drafting the ACE rule.
If the court does decide the case — and Spalding suggested the D.C. Circuit could respond when the latest extended stay of litigation expires — parties would then be open to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Clean cars fight raises 'interesting' legal issues
The Trump administration's plans for weakening clean car rules may end up in front of Supreme Court justices.
The high court in years ahead could also look at the Trump administration's bid to roll back motor vehicle mileage and pollution rules.
EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are examining whether to freeze the standard at 30 mpg from 2020 through 2026.
The Obama administration wanted 36 mpg by 2026.
The Trump agencies also proposed peeling back California's authority to set more stringent standards. That could kill the Golden State's programs aimed at getting more clean cars on the road.
If a final rule revoked California's waiver, the state would likely sue. But California and other states could also separately sue over a final rule that froze mileage and emissions at 2020 levels. That case potentially would question EPA's ability to allow more tailpipe pollution, given the Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA.
Ann Carlson, co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the Supreme Court likely would be interested, especially in the California waiver question, because it's "novel."
"It would raise questions that the justices would find interesting," she said. "They've never weighed in on the power of California under the waiver."
In terms of a case looking at vehicle mileage and pollution levels, Carlson said, the court has "tended to take up these big, meaty environmental issues," like regulations on mercury pollution and greenhouse gases.
"It just seems like they have shown interest in weighing in on EPA authority and interpreting the Clean Air Act in particular," she said.
If he's confirmed, Kavanaugh might urge his colleagues to look at a case dealing with EPA authority. "He's interested in questions of agency power and statutory power that these cases raise," Carlson said.
Reporters Benjamin Hulac, Niina Heikkinen and Anne C. Mulkern contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/27/stories/1060099893
-
Republican Introduces Sea-Level-Rise Resolution
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) yesterday introduced a resolution stating the need to prepare for sea-level rise and more destructive hurricanes.
The nonbinding measure would express the need to better plan for future risks posed by climate change, which Rooney said are especially prevalent in his home state.
"Sea-level rise and flooding, amplified by devastating hurricanes such as Hurricane Irma that ravaged our community one year ago, are an urgent concern to our many coastal communities in Florida," Rooney said in a statement. "This requires proactive planning in our state, and by our tourism-based economy, to mitigate future costly damages to our infrastructure."
Rooney is also a co-sponsor of H.R. 6463, the carbon tax bill introduced by fellow Florida Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo.
His office did not provide a copy of the resolution, but Rooney said he introduced it to "fire up necessary conversations about this pressing situation."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/09/27/stories/1060099873
-
UN Report: World ‘Nowhere near on Track' to Meet Key Climate Change Goal
Sep 27, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Governments across the globe are “nowhere near on track” to meet their goal of preventing global warming of more than 1.5 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial period, according to a co-author of a United Nations report.
“It’s extraordinarily challenging to get to the 1.5C target and we are nowhere near on track to doing that,” Drew Shindell co-author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which is set to be unveiled in South Korea in October, told the Guardian in a report published on Thursday.
“While it’s technically possible, it’s extremely improbable, absent a real sea change in the way we evaluate risk,” he continued. “We are nowhere near that.”
To prevent the global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius, the world's leading nations would need to undergo a massive transformation in the way their populations use transportation and grow food.
In the 2015 Paris climate pact, international leaders agreed to curb the global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above the era prior to mass industrialization, with an aspiration to limit this to 1.5 degrees.
Trump formally withdrew the U.S. from the pact last year, an act that separated the U.S. from most of the world on climate change. Trump said then that the climate change agreement “unfair at the highest level to the United States.”
“It’s a lot more difficult without the U.S. as a leader in climate change negotiations,” Norway’s environment minister, Ola Elvestuen, told the Guardian. “We have to find solutions even though the U.S. isn’t there.”
“We are moving way too slowly,” Elvestuen said. “We have to do more of everything, faster. We need to deliver on policies at every level. Governments normally move slowly but we don’t have the time.”
“The 1.5C target is difficult, but it’s possible. The next four to 12 years are crucial ones, where we will set the path to how the world will develop in the decades ahead. The responsibility in doing this is impossible to overestimate,” he added. “To reach the goals of the Paris agreement we need large structural changes.”
The report comes weeks after António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, said in an address to global leaders the world has less than two years to avoid “runaway climate change."
During his address, Guterres commended the Paris Climate Accord but also called for more efforts to reduce emissions that many scientists have found to be warming the planet over the past century.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/408677-un-report-world-is-nowhere-near-on-track-to-meet-key-climate-change
-
Climate Change Panel Backed by Companies Valued at $7.3 Trillion
Sep 26, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jeremy Hodges
Some of the world’s largest banks, asset managers, and pension funds controlling almost $100 trillion have backed efforts calling on companies to make more disclosures about their climate-related risks, according to a panel advising the Group of 20 nations.
More than 510 companies with a market value of $7.3 trillion are supporting the recommendations made by the the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures, the group set up by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney in his role as head of the Financial Stability Board.
‘Becoming Mainstream’“Climate-disclosure is becoming mainstream,” Carney said in a Sept. 26 statement. “As preparers, financial institutions and investors ‘learn by doing,’ a virtuous cycle will be created where more and better information creates the imperatives for others to adopt the TCFD and for everyone to up their game on the quality of information they provide.“
In December 2015, Carney named Michael Bloomberg to lead the 31-member panel, which also includes executives and advisers from a variety of industries around the world. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg. He has told the New York Times that he is considering a campaign for president.
Since the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures released its recommendations in June 2017, the number of companies supporting the initiative has grown from 101 to 513. It now includes 287 financial institutions. Backers include Barclays Bank Plc, mining giant Glencore Plc, oil major Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and investment adviser BlackRock Inc.
The panel has developed voluntary recommendations on climate-related information that companies should disclose to help investors, lenders, and others make informed financial decisions.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/climate-changepanel-backed-by-companies-valued-at-73-trillion
-
Climate Is 'Mainstream' Risk in Banks, Regulator Says
Sep 27, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Hulac
One of the world's top banking regulators said yesterday that climate change is becoming a "mainstream" concern in financial markets.
Speaking at the One Planet Summit in New York City, Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, said banks increasingly see climate change as a financial hazard.
"This is about moving climate to the mainstream of finance," Carney said. "And it's happening quite quickly."
A Bank of England survey that reached 90 percent of the United Kingdom's banking sector found that 70 percent of banks consider climate change a financial risk. Those findings were included in a report released yesterday.
"So this is moving very fast," Carney said.
Still, the report found that just 10 percent of banks are planning for "catastrophic" effects of climate change.
Since he became Britain's central banker in 2013, Carney has made the examination of climate change and its economic ramifications a central theme.
A separate group, a Group of 20 task force created to prod private companies to disclose how climate change affects them, recently released a separate report with similar findings.
Many firms disclose how climate change overlaps with their operations, but few explain how it stresses them financially, the report found.
"There's still much work to do," Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and U.N. climate envoy, said in a letter to Carney last week.
"While many companies report on environmental issues, most have yet to specifically provide the market with consistent information on the financial implications of climate change for their businesses," said Bloomberg. "In the coming year, we will vigorously support further implementation efforts."
Carney, in his remarks yesterday, said the panel will release another report next summer, adding that financial markets will favor companies that embrace climate adaptation.
"Companies will either be disclosing or hiding," Carney said.
"And the question is: Are you acting, are you disclosing, are you moving?" he added. "The best companies react to big structural change."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/27/stories/1060099897
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested