AM ACC Clips Report - March 14, 2019

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Why a US-China Trade Pact Will be a Boon for US Chemicals

   Mar 14, 2019 | Zacks

   By Anindya Barman
   
   
   The United States and China are inching toward a trade deal that could lead to a potential end to the year-long trade spat between the world’s two biggest economies.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Plastics Recycling Technologies Compete in Circular Economy

   Mar 14, 2019 | Petroleum Economist

   By Bill Barnes
   
   
   The factors feeding into world oil demand forecasts in recent years have been complicated by the rise of electric vehicles and ride-sharing, a change in world crude quality brought on by the US shale revolution and the challenge of new fuel blends for shipping arising from the International Maritime Organisation's 2020 sulphur restrictions.
3. EPA Regional Reorganization Spurs Staff ‘Chaos,’ Enforcement Concerns

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Dave Reynolds
   
   
   EPA is pushing ahead with a major reorganization of its regional offices that includes reassigning long-running enforcement directors and changing some staffers’ duties, changes that an agency source fears will cause “chaos” and further weaken already declining enforcement despite EPA’s vow to minimize adverse impacts on staff.
4. Senate Confirms Rao, Trump’s Deregulatory Czar, to D.C. Circuit

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   The Senate voted March 13 along party lines to confirm the Trump administration’s regulatory chief Neomi Rao to the appellate court that hears most challenges to EPA policies, placing her in the seat once held by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh just as the agency is preparing to enact a slate of controversial rules and rollbacks.
5. IG Warns FY20 Budget Cut Will Force ‘Difficult Decisions’ On New Reviews

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Anthony Lacey
   
   
   EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is warning that President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut its funding from roughly $41.5 million down to $38.9 million in fiscal year 2020 will require the OIG to make “difficult decisions” in accepting new requests for discretionary inquiries, such as those sought by lawmakers, and completing ongoing studies.

TSCA News

6. (ACC Mentioned) Quote-Unquote: What They’re Saying About . . .

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   ...Kierstin Turnock, American Chemistry Council state affairs manager, on state-regulator reactions to EPA implementation plans for the revised Toxics Substances Control Act.
7. EPA's Responsibility over Worker Safety Splits Lawmakers

   Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

   By Corbin Hiar
   
   
   Lawmakers yesterday divided along party lines over which federal agency should be in charge of protecting workers from dangerous chemicals.

Chemical Management News

8. (ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Consequences of America’s Plastics Boom

   Mar 14, 2019 | The Nation

   By Zoë Carpenter
   
   
   A beach at sunset. the sky is streaked peach and mauve, the wind cool and briny. A long line of dump trucks idles at the edge of the waves, each full of plastic—bags and milk jugs and floss containers, hair clips, shrink wrap, fake ferns, toys, and spatulas. Every minute, one of the trucks lifts its bed and deposits a load of trash into the sea.
9. (ACC Mentioned) Maryland May Become the First State to Ban Foam Food Containers and Cups

   Mar 14, 2019 | CNN

   By Michelle Lou and Saeed Ahmed
   
   
   Maryland is well on its way to becoming the first state to ban foam.
10. (ACC Mentioned) The Stunning Truth About Asbestos Use in the U.S. - AUDIO

    Mar 14, 2019 | PBS NewsHour

    By Miles O'Brien
    
    
    Asbestos is no longer ubiquitous in building materials, and since it's proven to cause cancer, many Americans likely assumed the substance had been banned entirely.
11. Pentagon Pushes for Weaker Standards on Chemicals Contaminating Drinking Water

    Mar 14, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Eric Lipton and Julie Turkewitz
    
    
    Facing billions of dollars in cleanup costs, the Pentagon is pushing the Trump administration to adopt a weaker standard for groundwater pollution caused by chemicals that have commonly been used at military bases and that contaminate drinking water consumed by millions of Americans.
12. As Wildfires Devour Communities, Toxic Threats Emerge

    Mar 14, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Sharon Bernstein
    
    
    As an uncontrollable wildfire turned the California town of Paradise to ash, air pollution researcher Keith Bein knew he had to act fast: Little is known about toxic chemicals released when a whole town burns and the wind would soon blow away evidence.
13. EPA Seeks Industry Data To Determine If Regions Changed RCRA Waiver

    Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Lara Beaven
    
    
    EPA has asked the specialty chemical industry to gather data that will help officials determine whether it has changed its interpretation of a hazardous waste exemption long used by the sector, following enforcement actions in Regions 1 and 5 that industry argues failed to understand the specifics of manufacturing small-batch chemicals.
14. Congress Revisits Legislation to Overhaul Us Cosmetics Rules

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Lisa Martine Jenkins
    
    
    Legislation is in the works in both chambers of the US Congress to reform the country's personal care products regulations, which have not been updated in over 80 years.
15. Proposed Ecodesign Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants Under Scrutiny

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    The European Parliament and Council of Ministers are scrutinising a Commission proposal to ban halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the Ecodesign Directive.
16. Lords Table Motions Opposing UK Draft REACH Statutory Instrument

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Two members of the UK Parliament's House of Lords, have proposed separate motions asking the House to decline to approve the UK government’s draft REACH statutory instrument (SI).

Energy News

17. LNG Industry Optimistic on FERC, Though Trade War Worries Persist

    Mar 13, 2019 | Politico Pro

    By Ben Lefebvre
    
    
    U.S. liquefied natural gas industry members said Wednesday they’re hopeful that FERC permit approval holdups are coming to an end, though they still worry the Trump administration's trade tensions with China is costing them business.
18. Shipping Companies Banking on Gas Carriers as LNG Demand Grows

    Mar 14, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Costas Paris
    
    
    A raft of U.S. natural gas projects coming online in the next few years are likely to boost the global fleet of seagoing tankers carrying the product by up to a third, as shipping operators jarred by sharp swings in oil markets rush to take advantage of a big new stream of business.
19. Industry Braces for 'Next Wave' of Natural Gas

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Jenny Mandel and Mike Lee
    
    
    A surge of natural gas export projects coming online around the world is rippling through global gas markets and upending the industry, with no end to the changes in sight.
20. Perry Heralds Start of 'New American Energy Era'

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Mike Lee and Edward Klump
    
    
    The world is entering a new era in which American innovation will upend the global fuel and electricity system, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said today.
21. Roll Group Wins Ethane Cracker Project Contract

    Mar 14, 2019 | Hydrocarbon Engineering

    By Callum O'Reilly
    
    
    Roll Group has been awarded a contract to transport 24 modules for the Total ethane cracker project in the US.
22. Colorado Bid to Overhaul Oil-Drilling Laws Clears State Senate

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Catherine Traywick
    
    
    Legislation to overhaul Colorado’s oil and natural gas laws passed the state Senate March 13, clearing a key hurdle as Democrats rush to finalize the bill before the legislative session ends in May.
23. Environmental Groups Challenge 78 Million Acre Offshore Sale

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Porter Wells
    
    
    Environmental groups sued to stop the U.S. Department of the Interior’s oil and gas lease sale of property on the Gulf Coast.
24. Big Oil CEO Brings Climate Action Call to Heart of Texas

    Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Javier Blas
    
    
    Two weeks ago, oil executives gathered in London were confronted by environmental protesters gluing themselves to the venue’s doors. This week in Houston, the most radical environmental message at an industry conference may come from an oil company CEO.

Chemical Security News

25. Pentagon to Utilities: Uncle Sam Wants You

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Peter Behr
    
    
    Walled off inside the National Security Agency complex in Fort Meade, Md., leaders of U.S. Cyber Command are preparing for digital combat against state-backed hackers targeting critical energy infrastructure.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

26. Group Holds Rally at Portland City Hall to Protest Expansion of Oil Train Terminal Along Willamette River

    Mar 13, 2019 | Fox 12 Oregon

    A group of people say the city is facing a serious health and safety emergency if a company based in Australia is not stopped from expanding here in Portland.

Environment News

27. Senate GOP Expected to Force Vote on Green New Deal in March

    Mar 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Jordain Carney
    
    
    Senate Republicans will bring the Green New Deal resolution to the floor as they try to jam Democrats on the progressive proposal.
28. Dems Avoid White House Climate Review

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

    By Scott Waldman
    
    
    A hearing on the readiness of the military to address climate change explored the numerous national security threats global warming poses to Americans.
29. Green New Deal May Doom House Budget

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By George Cahlink and Nick Sobczyk
    
    
    Concerns over the Green New Deal could complicate the chances of the House taking up a fiscal 2020 budget resolution in coming weeks.
30. Senate Democrats Push U.S. Chamber on Climate Change

    Mar 13, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    Senate Democrats are pushing the nation’s largest business group to do more to address climate change.
31. Cutting Military’s Carbon Use a Bridge Too Far, Republicans Say

    Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Abby Smith
    
    
    Building up the military’s resilience to extreme weather events and a changing climate is a laudable goal, Republican lawmakers say, but they’re drawing the line at requiring the Defense Department to cut its carbon footprint.
32. UN Warns of Risks to Human Health, Global Ecosystems

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Wachira Kigotho
    
    
    The world is moving too slowly to protect the environment, putting the integrity of global ecosystems at risk, the United Nations said March 13.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) Why a US-China Trade Pact Will be a Boon for US Chemicals

   Mar 14, 2019 | Zacks

   By Anindya Barman

   The United States and China are inching toward a trade deal that could lead to a potential end to the year-long trade spat between the world’s two biggest economies.

   The countries, which are engaged in a fierce trade conflict since last year, are in the final stages of negotiation for a deal that could see the roll back of most of the U.S. tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods as long as Beijing pledges to lower retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products, protect intellectual property rights and purchase a significant amount of American-made products.

   Top trade negotiators of both countries are currently discussing “major issues” that must be resolved before the parties could hammer out a formal deal to ease the trade disputes that have cost both economies billions of dollars. One of the top priorities of the U.S. administration is to achieve structural changes to end China’s unfair trade practices. If everything goes well, a deal may happen by the end of this month.

   U.S. Chemical Industry Bearing Brunt of Trade Tariffs

   The chemical industry is among the industries that have been badly hit by the trade tariffs. The damaging effects of the trade war were evident from the industry’s lackluster performance in 2018. The U.S. chemical industry, in particular, is caught in the crosshairs of Sino-U.S. trade tensions.

   The Trump administration slapped punitive tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products last year while China has imposed retaliatory tariffs on $110 billion in U.S. goods. China’s tariffs on American products include a wide range of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and plastics. The list includes chemicals such as polyethylene, polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) and polycarbonates.

   According to the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), a leading industry trade group, the United States has levied tariffs on $15 billion worth of imports of chemicals and plastics from China, with Beijing retaliating with duties on $11 billion in U.S. exports of chemicals and plastics to China.

   Progress on trade negotiations in February led the Trump administration agreeing to hold off raising tariffs (to 25% from existing 10%) on $200 billion in Chinese goods that would have taken effect March 1. However, the tariffs currently in place are already doing damage to the chemical industry.

   China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals, leaving the American chemical industry heavily exposed to China’s countermeasures. The tariffs have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in this major market. The tariffs are hurting U.S. chemical exports and the competitiveness of the American chemical industry.

   According to the ACC, China’s tariffs on U.S. chemicals and plastics exports have put roughly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity at risk as a result of lower demand for those products, which would lead to considerable losses for U.S. manufacturers. The ACC estimates that the loss to U.S. chemical and plastics exports to China could reach as much as $6.1 billion annually.

   There is also concern that the tariffs may dampen new chemical investment in the United States. According to the ACC, 333 chemical projects (both on new plants and capacity expansions) have been already announced by chemical makers since 2010 worth $202 billion. A significant portion of the investment is directed toward U.S. export markets including China.

   The shale boom has incentivized a number of chemical companies to pump in billions of dollars for setting up facilities (crackers) in the United States to produce ethylene and propylene in a cost-effective way. Chemical makers including DowDuPont Inc. (DWDP - Free Report) and LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (LYB - Free Report) are investing on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of abundant natural gas supplies.

   However, the tariffs have raised concerns that chemicals companies would reconsider their investments in new projects, which could lead to a slowdown in growth in the American chemical industry.

   Trade Truce Will Bring Respite

   A U.S.-China trade pact, if eventually takes place, will likely provide a much-needed relief for the U.S. chemical industry. As part of the trade deal, China is reportedly offering to lower tariffs and other sanctions on U.S.-made goods including chemicals, automotive and farm products. Beijing has also reportedly pledged to import a significant number of U.S. products.  

   The ACC has urged the United States and China to remove all chemical products from their tariff lists. The trade group has also appealed to the Trump administration to include chemicals and plastics on Beijing’s import list as the United States seeks commitment from China to purchase more American products. The ACC sees this as “the most promising and advantageous opportunity for U.S. export growth”.

   China is among the most important trading partners of the U.S. chemical industry. Moreover, export markets are expected to contribute to the growth of the American chemical industry in 2019.

   The ACC expects growth in manufacturing and exports markets to drive demand for U.S. chemicals this year. As such, a potential trade deal could provide a significant boost to American chemical exports which would augur well for the U.S. chemical industry’s growth this year and beyond.

   https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/359374/why-a-uschina-trade-pact-will-be-a-boon-for-us-chemicals
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Plastics Recycling Technologies Compete in Circular Economy

   Mar 14, 2019 | Petroleum Economist

   By Bill Barnes

   The factors feeding into world oil demand forecasts in recent years have been complicated by the rise of electric vehicles and ride-sharing, a change in world crude quality brought on by the US shale revolution and the challenge of new fuel blends for shipping arising from the International Maritime Organisation's 2020 sulphur restrictions. Now, plastics recycling is likely to further reduce demand expectations as technologies compete to establish themselves as the most efficient recyclers.

   Initiatives from international bodies such as the UN and World Bank, and China's decision last year to ban the import of foreign waste, including many plastics, have helped focus attention on the need to review the world's love affair with plastics, and especially with post-consumer plastics (PCP) such as polyethylene and polypropylene, widely used in packaging and quickly discarded. The European Union (EU) last year launched a strategy for plastics in a circular economy, under which, by 2025, 50pc and, by 2030, all plastics packaging must be either reusable or cost-effectively recyclable.

   Members of the American Chemistry Council's plastics division, which includes the leading US producers, also agreed last year a target that 100pc of US plastics packaging be recyclable or recoverable by 2030, and that, by 2040, all plastics packaging be reused, recycled, or recovered. Further pressure is mounting from major brands such as Coca-Cola that use plastic packaging and containers and are evaluating shifts to alternatives. Chemicals companies, including industry leaders BASF of Germany and Dow DuPont of the US, are actively researching recycling technologies.

   Oil demand forecasts have begun to reflect the concern that such changes will substantially reduce projected consumption. BP's latest World Energy Outlook to 2040, published in February, suggests that a scenario in which a worldwide single-use plastics ban, progressively implemented by 2040, could reduce oil demand growth by up to 6mn bl/d. Until this year, BP and other major oil companies had consistently argued that the chemicals industry would be a key factor sustaining oil demand growth through their forecast periods, and oil producing countries were counting on the earnings from the sector to sustain revenues.

   The chemicals industry regards this as a "licence-to-operate moment", says Paul Hodges, chairman of International eChem, a chemicals industry consultancy. In response, the chemicals, oil refining and waste management industries have begun to commercialise several long-standing technologies to address the issue. Some companies, such as Austria's Borealis, emphasise the need to recover intermediate products, such as ethylene and propylene, from discarded packaging waste. Borealis has been buying recycling businesses: in 2016, it acquired German firms MTM Plastics and MTM Compact, a post-consumer polyolefin recyclate producer. Two years later it bought Ecoplast Kunststoffrecycling, a recycler of household and industrial plastic wastes into low- and high-density polyethelene recyclates. The company is reportedly working with its key shareholders, Austria's OMV and Abu Dhabi's Mubadala investment fund, to bring its European recycling expertise to Asia, which-with Africa-is a key target for the growth of recycling.Waste gasification

   While chemicals producers are concentrating on recyclates, waste management firms and oil refiners have long experimented with waste gasification and liquefaction, in order to produce fuel for industrial processes, onsite electricity generation, and oil refining or blending. In waste gasification, treated and homogenised feedstock is heated into a mix of combustible gases, collectively referred to as syngas, which can be used as a fuel or further processed.

   The process is substantially the same as that used for integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power generation from coal or heavy refined oil fractions. Like IGCC, however, waste gasification has high capital costs, which can exceed $150mn for a mid-sized plant, according to a 2013 report by solid waste management consultants Gershman, Brickner & Bratton. Costs appear to have fallen somewhat since then, but remain high. The quantity of waste input into the process is also very large, beginning at 300t/d, which makes it impractical for smaller-scale waste-collection processes.

   Plastics-to-liquids technology appears to have acquired the most adherents among oil refiners, as recent interest in recycling plastic waste has grown. This technology involves the use of thermal cracking, or pyrolysis, technologies and catalysts to transform waste plastics into liquid petroleum products, either synthetic crude oils which can be blended into a refinery's crude oil input blend, or a feedstock or blending stock for the production of finished oil products. Because of the use of plastics as feedstocks, the resulting fuels tend to be lower in sulphur than those directly refined from most refinery input blends, helping refiners meet stringent end-user sulphur specifications.

   OMV has emerged as one of the larger European companies developing such technology. Its pilot ReOil plant, located at its 190,000bl/d Schwechat refinery on the outskirts of Vienna, produces synthetic crude from about 800t/yr of PCPs. OMV says its proprietary technology produces approximately 1ltr of synthetic crude from 1kg of PCP feedstock. According to Manfred Leitner, head of OMV's downstream operations, "in the long run a commercial plant with a capacity of up to 200,000t/yr is targeted, depending on the learnings from the scale-up process".

   While the equivalent of less than 4,000bl/d, the crude is expected to provide a consistent sweet crude feedstock for the OMV refinery. "It is lighter than fossil crude oil. It's possible to maintain a consistent crude quality, with minor deviations depending on the feedstock mixture," Leitner says. Should the commercial scale plant prove a success, OMV hopes to roll out the technology to its two other refineries, in Germany and Romania, and may market it through licences and joint ventures.Creating logistics chains

   Delivering PCP feedstock to refineries can be a challenge, plastics-to-liquids developers say, as a logistics chain to deliver municipal waste to the site must be established. Leitner says OMV is negotiating with feedstock suppliers from the waste industry to ensure that delivered material conforms to feedstock requirements and expects supplies for a commercial plant to arrive by rail or ship. He points out that feedstock should contain only minimal amounts of products such as PVC or PET. "Ideal feedstock contains common packaging material" such as polyethylene, polypropylene and polystyrene, Leitner says.

   Further North, Finland's Neste aims to process up to 1mn t/y of waste plastic by 2030, largely using a process developed by its joint-venture partners ReNew ELP of the UK and Australia's Licella PTY. ReNew ELP says its CAT-HTR hydrothermal upgrading technology, which uses water in a supercritical state, allows for an environmentally cleaner conversion of waste plastics to fuels than other technologies.

   Companies active in the sector are reluctant to reveal the technical details and economics of their technology while plants are in development. OMV's Leitner says that "costs per barrel depend on the income generation and the economies of scale effect by future plants with a higher throughput". Priyanka Bakaya, CEO of privately-held and US-based Renewlogy, says its can produce a diesel blendstock product at operating costs of $30/bl.

   That compares with current US heating oil futures prices of about $85/bl. Capital costs, however, appear considerably higher: a 2015 analysis by the Ocean Recovery Alliance suggest that plastics-to-fuel development capital costs may run around $100/bl, in excess of current Brent prices around $65/bl. But the relatively small volumes to be blended into the crude and products pools may mitigate the price effect. Also, some of this cost differential may be offset in particular projects by tipping fees collected from waste management companies delivering feedstocks to plastics-to-liquids plants.

   Analysts say current technology suggests such plants are best sited near large urban areas that generate high volumes of waste, with either onsite power generation consumption or nearby logistics which facilitate the consumption or sale of the resulting liquids. Like many other elements of the circular economy, plastics-to-fuels processes benefit from synergies between industry sectors. OMV's Leitner says his company is in "close cooperation" with affiliate Borealis and "both companies should profit from the synergies".

   Industry officials believe that the major market for such technologies will be in Asia. A study by Germany's Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research suggests that just 10 river systems in Asia and Africa account for over 90pc of the used plastics carried into the world's oceans. eChem's Hodges says he believes that China in particular holds considerably promise for large-scale plastics-to-liquid technology as collection infrastructure develops around its cities. But he adds that as the technology is increasingly used smaller-scale units may well emerge, along the lines seen in the development of distributed power generation units on electrical systems. According to the Ocean Recovery Alliance, technology capable of converting as little as 1t/d of plastic waste to liquids has been available for years, although its economic viability is yet to be proved.International attention grows

   Global campaigns to eliminate plastics pollution have recently gained traction. In January, up to 30 petrochemicals producers and consumers announced the formation of the Alliance to End Plastic Waste to develop to scale "solutions that will minimise and manage plastic waste". The Alliance collects numerous chemicals producers, oil companies and consumer brands, including ExxonMobil, Total, Proctor and Gamble, Sasol, Braskem Petrochemical and Eni.

   This year, the pace of recycling integration between oil and petrochemicals companies and plastics recyclers appears to be accelerating. In February, Total said it had agreed to acquire Synova, which makes recycled polypropylene for the auto manufacturing sector. Also, BASF announced its ChemCycling project, aiming to discover means of recycling plastic waste that is currently difficult to treat. In particular, it is focussing on multi-layered plastics structures which are difficult to handle by existing recycling processes because they combine various types of plastic, unlike packaging which is generally uniform.

   Recycled plastics-to-liquids volumes are currently low, but each year nearly 300mn t of plastics are produced and most of that volume escapes recycling. Were it fully recycled at a rate equivalent to what OMV claims for its plastics-to-liquids process, it could yield up to 6mn bl/d of feedstock and fuel. Add that to inevitable substitution of plastics by other forms of containers, and oil industry forecasts of continued volume growth fuelled by petrochemicals demand growth look less certain.

   BP's own forecasts to 2040 suggest that the displacement could make the difference between steadily rising oil consumption through 2040 and peak world oil use around 2035, towards the end of the forecast period. Oil producing countries counting on a buoyant petrochemicals sector to balance declining revenue from traditional crude oil sales may need to review their planning.

   https://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/midstream-downstream/refining-marketing/2019/plastics-recycling-technologies-compete-in-circular-economy
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. EPA Regional Reorganization Spurs Staff ‘Chaos,’ Enforcement Concerns

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Dave Reynolds

   EPA is pushing ahead with a major reorganization of its regional offices that includes reassigning long-running enforcement directors and changing some staffers’ duties, changes that an agency source fears will cause “chaos” and further weaken already declining enforcement despite EPA’s vow to minimize adverse impacts on staff.

   “This is one of the most concerning things for [EPA staff] that has happened in years,” the source tells Inside EPA, referring to staff reassignments resulting from realignment, as well as fears the reorganization will lead to a further weakening of enforcement. “You don’t put people in new jobs and not have just complete and utter chaos.”

   Sources say the Trump administration is preparing this month to step up implementation of a plan announced last fall to reorganize regional offices to mirror headquarters’ divisions. Still, the plan could face delays as it requires review from Congress and it is unclear whether lawmakers have signed off on the agency’s effort.

   EPA did not respond to a request for comment by press time, but agency chief Andrew Wheeler could potentially address any reorganization in an address to all employees slated for March 14.

   The realignment appears likely to most significantly impact four regional offices that have run enforcement efforts out of program-specific offices, such as air, waste, water and toxics, rather than a dedicated enforcement division.

   As part of the effort, EPA is reassigning enforcement directors and moving other staff to new positions for which they may have little or no training, creating what the agency source calls “chaos” at the regional level.

   The source said that shifts in employee responsibilities are requiring significant changes, including revised job descriptions and resumes for workers, which must be kept on file, and in some cases new security clearances.

   For example, the source said one regional employee is moving from a data analytics job to an inspector role for which they currently lack training.

   EPA management has made some pledges to support staff through the reorganization process, including that the move will not lead to staffing reductions or pay cuts, according to a Feb. 25 memorandum of agreement (MOU)between the agency and one of its unions, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE).

   But the agency source says EPA is pushing ahead with the realignment despite staff concerns, and that the union is unable to negotiate whether realignment occurs -- instead it can only negotiate how implementation of the administration’s plan affects employees.

   “All these issues that make no sense cannot be changed,” the source says, adding that the Trump administration has refused to amend the plan, claiming realignment as an absolute right of management. “Reassignment issues are going to be dealt with as it goes through.”

   A second EPA staffer says that some long-time enforcement directors are being reassigned, and that the agency is only allowing staff that have achieved the rank of Senior Executive Service -- federal employees who work at a level just below presidential appointees -- to work as enforcement directors.

   EPA’s jobs board shows the agency is currently hiring enforcement division directors in Atlanta and Lenexa, KS, who would lead enforcement in Region 7 and Region 4. Region 7 covers Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri. Region 4 spans Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

   EPA union officials have previously charged that realignment and the prospect of newly-appointed regional enforcement heads would allow the Trump administration to further weaken agency enforcement.

   EPA’s fiscal year 2018 enforcement report shows a series of key metrics for penalties and pollution cleanups at historic lows, which drew criticism from House Democrats in a hearing last month.

   But a third staff source, who is a union official working in Region 2, said that the effects of the realignment will likely vary depending on whether a region has a separate office dedicated to enforcement. Because Region 2 already has such an office, the source does not expect major impacts. The region covers New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands.

   “I don’t think it was done democratically, but there has been minimal impact in Region 2,” the source says.

   Enforcement Fears

   The pending realignment of agency regions could be a focus of Wheeler’s imminent speech to all agency staff. In a recent email to EPA employees, Wheeler says his speech will “celebrate the progress we have made and discuss how we can continue to improve the core functions of the agency.”

   Wheeler first announced the realignment in an Sept. 6 email to staff, saying the restructuring would divide each of the 10 regional offices into eight divisions to more closely mirror the design of headquarters and boost coordination.

   EPA Chief of Operations Henry Darwin told Inside EPA last month that the agency planned to begin implementingthe reorganization in March, but that the plan is subject to congressional review, so could be delayed.

   The first staff source says that it is unclear whether Congress has signed off on realignment but that management appears to be preparing to move forward with implementation as soon as any congressional questions are answered.

   The source says EPA plans to begin realigning some regions March 17, with more beginning the transition March 30 and others in mid-April.

   The realignment is part of the Trump administration’s wide-ranging effort, led by Darwin, to improve agency efficiency, through a variety of steps, including LEAN business concepts and streamlining regional oversight of state permitting and enforcement processes.

   According to EPA’s website, LEAN principles and methods eliminate waste and accelerate processes, though union officials have faulted LEAN as a step toward achieving staff reductions.

   The reorganization plan has drawn a variety of criticisms, including that it is a one-size-fits-all approach for regions with diverse challenges, and that its overhaul of existing enforcement chains of command will bolster political leadership's ability to push reduced regional enforcement and more-lenient compliance.

   In an exclusive interview with Inside EPA in November, AFGE Local 704 Chief Steward Nicole Cantello said the staff union sees the prospect of newly-appointed regional enforcement heads as a way for the Trump administration to limit enforcement. AFGE Local 704 represents Region 5 staff, whose leaders have been particularly strident in their public opposition to the Trump agenda.

   “The 'new' enforcement offices under the reorg will have new upper level managers, picked by HQ, who will oversee them. This person will (1) not be pro-enforcement and (2) will run every enforcement issue by the folks in HQ offices so they can interfere and quash. That was not happening before,” Cantello said.

   Cantello’s enforcement fears followed a series of Trump EPA policy directives designed to curb federal enforcement actions unless they are initiated at the request of a state -- part of a broader agenda to increase “cooperative federalism” where states take the lead in implementing federally delegated environmental laws within their borders.

   Cantello told Inside EPA those memos have only had limited effects on regional work, because -- at least in Region 5 and other regions without enforcement divisions -- enforcement officials are largely career staff who have discretion on day-to-day operations and cannot be fired or disciplined without cause.

   EPA-Union MOU

   The criticism that realignment is causing significant staff confusion and shifting employees away from their areas of expertise are concerns that the agency apparently sought to address in the MOU reached with AFGE.

   The MOU addresses more than a dozen topics, including communication, work schedules, qualification standards, and training, and outlines steps that the agency pledges to take to ease workers’ transition.

   For example, EPA agrees to hold regional information sessions to answer questions on the realignment and allows employees to discuss their job description or classification with a supervisor. The agency also plans to conduct webinar briefings on qualification standards for technical jobs within 90 days after final implementation.

   The MOU also says employees assigned to new positions will receive performance expectations in writing.

   While the staff source says that the changes are placing some employees in jobs where they lack experience, the MOU says that management will provide additional training where necessary.

   “If an employee is assigned new duties as a result of the regional realignment, management will work with the employee to evaluate whether or not the employee has the necessary skills or training to perform their newly assigned duties,” according to the MOU.

   “If, in management’s determination, the employee requires additional training, training will be provided consistent with the employee’s position description and will be approved when feasible.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-regional-reorganization-spurs-staff-%E2%80%98chaos%E2%80%99-enforcement-concerns
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Senate Confirms Rao, Trump’s Deregulatory Czar, to D.C. Circuit

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   The Senate voted March 13 along party lines to confirm the Trump administration’s regulatory chief Neomi Rao to the appellate court that hears most challenges to EPA policies, placing her in the seat once held by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh just as the agency is preparing to enact a slate of controversial rules and rollbacks.

   Rao, who served as the head of the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the White House Office of Management & Budget, won confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by a 53-46 vote.

   All GOP senators backed her nomination while all present Democrats opposed it; Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) did not vote.

   As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Rao could help decide the legality of EPA’s pending rules that will govern power plants’ greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle efficiency, coal ash disposal, the reach of the Clean Water Act, ambient air standards and many more subjects.

   But thanks to OIRA’s role in conducting interagency review of proposed and final rulemakings for EPA and other agencies, Rao might also be forced to recuse herself from such cases -- though she would still be in a position to decide the legality of future administrations’ policies on the same topics.

   Rao’s track record at OIRA made her a focus for opposition from Democrats and other Trump administration foes, including environmentalists who said her work at the office showed willingness to “misuse the regulatory review process for partisan political purposes.”

   But at the same time, she drew concerns from some GOP lawmakers for potentially not being conservative enough. Those fears led Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, for whom Rao clerked early in her career, to make personal calls to at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Josh Hawley (R-MO), to assure him that Rao would apply an “originalist” philosophy of the law.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-confirms-rao-trump%E2%80%99s-deregulatory-czar-dc-circuit
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. IG Warns FY20 Budget Cut Will Force ‘Difficult Decisions’ On New Reviews

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   By Anthony Lacey

   EPA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is warning that President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut its funding from roughly $41.5 million down to $38.9 million in fiscal year 2020 will require the OIG to make “difficult decisions” in accepting new requests for discretionary inquiries, such as those sought by lawmakers, and completing ongoing studies.

   “Constrained budgets make it difficult for the OIG to perform all of the duties of our office, which include completing statutorily mandated and risk-based projects, such as those requested by Congress,” an OIG spokesperson told Inside EPA.

   His comments come in response to EPA’s “Budget in Brief,” which says the administration is seeking to cut roughly $2.6 million from the OIG’s FY19 annualized continuing resolution (CR) funding level of $41.5 million for management of the office.

   A separate budget line item dedicated to OIG auditing of the Superfund program would provide an $800,000 boost from the FY19 annualized CR level of $8.8 million up to roughly $9.6 million.

   It suggests that EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler is continuing his predecessor Scott Pruitt’s focus on ramping up the Superfund program. But even with the slight funding increase, staffing for the audits would be cut from 50.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff down to 40.6 FTEs.

   Combined, the total OIG funding requested for FY20 would be $48.5 million, which the OIG says represents a 3.6 percent cut from the combined $50.3 million funding the two accounts received in FY19.

   As a result of the cuts, “the OIG will have to make difficult decisions about accepting new requests, and our ability to complete audits and investigations with return on investment commensurate to past capability will be at risk,” the spokesperson says.

   The OIG is mandated by law to conduct a series of audits, investigations and reviews of various EPA programs including annual financial audits. But lawmakers can request that the OIG pursue discretionary work, such as a host of investigations Democrats sought into Pruitt’s spending and other ethics scandals during his tenure.

   Such requests have continued since Pruitt’s departure. For example, Democrats recently asked OIG to investigate allegations that the agency failed to inspect Chicago-area facilities emitting the carcinogenic gas ethylene oxide.

   And a retired EPA attorney recently asked OIG to investigate allegations that Region 5 Administrator Cathy Stepp suppressed critical staff comments on a water permit for a controversial Minnesota mine.

   But the president’s budget cut and the statement from the OIG spokesperson indicate that the office might not be able to grant many discretionary requests if Congress approves the budget cuts, though lawmakers have previously rejected requests for similar cuts.

   ‘We’re Shrinking’

   The OIG’s warning echoes comments that former Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Jr. made for several years that ongoing cuts to his office reduced its ability to undertake such discretionary projects.

   For example, in an exclusive interview with Inside EPA in March 2018 Elkins reiterated concerns he raised to Congress earlier that year over Trump’s FY19 proposal to cut the office's funding from $41.5 million level -- the amount it received in the FY18 spending law -- to $37.5 million would “seriously” hinder its work and sought at least $62 million for the OIG, though lawmakers instead approved the FY19 CR.

   Elkins noted that the OIG has a consistently high “return on investment” in terms of the dollars its investigations and other work can return, such as uncovering misuse of agency funds or identifying options to save large amounts of money across EPA. “For 2017, for every dollar invested [in the IG], we returned 17 dollars to the Treasury,” he said. “As always, I think that's a big deal and a big accomplishment in light of our downsizing.”

   In order to cope with budget cuts, the OIG cut its staff from 289 FTEs to 253. “We have shrunk in size,” he said, “In terms of the senior leadership team we started out with nine people and as of today we only have five.”

   Elkins said those reductions have come “mostly through attrition and not having funds to back-fill.”

   As a result, Elkins said his office has had to “consolidate and reorganize,” for example combining the previously separate roles of assistant IG for audit and assistant IG for program evaluations into one role.

   “We haven't had to furlough anybody or lay anybody off, but we're shrinking. And the same implications of rapid weight loss is there, you just don't have the energy, if you will, to kind of go out and do all the work that we've done in the past because you don't have the resources to address it, so we're adapting,” said Elkins.

   “We've had to change our scope, it's a lot narrower than we've had in the past where we could take on big issues with broader scope. Now we have to focus a little bit and so the [scope isn't] as broad, but we've adapted, and under that environment that's . . . a huge accomplishment under the circumstances,” he added.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/ig-warns-fy20-budget-cut-will-force-%E2%80%98difficult-decisions%E2%80%99-new-reviews
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

6. (ACC Mentioned) Quote-Unquote: What They’re Saying About . . .

   Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

   California GHGs, the FY-20 budget and federal-state relationships.

   EPA’s Plan B on California vehicle GHGs: pre-emption but ‘we tried’.

   “In order to have a 50-state solution, we have to take care of the waiver. There probably will be legal action. We can't stop that from happening. We hope it will be wrapped up rather quickly. . . . At this point, we have to move to finalize. We don't have time to move to reopen [negotiations]. We tried to work with California, but we were just not able to. In California, politics was playing the bigger hand than the policy.”
   -- EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, indicating -- after failed negotiations -- it will preempt California and other state rules governing vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions.

   Trump’s FY-20 budget: state grants would plummet.

   “We do ask states to step up and to perform some of the activities that they should also be contributing towards. We eliminate most of the regional economic programs,”
   -- A senior administration official, on the budget proposal, which seeks an over-all 15% reduction in EPA’s budget, but greater percentage reductions for categorical grants and water infrastructure projects.

   The new TSCA at the state level: ‘not a lot of confidence’.

   “There is not a lot of confidence at the state level about how EPA is implementing TSCA and what the process is, so they are continuing to pass regulations [restricting chemicals]. For the time being it’s clear that state regulators are somewhat baffled by what TSCA is and how it’s being implemented.”
   -- Kierstin Turnock, American Chemistry Council state affairs manager, on state-regulator reactions to EPA implementation plans for the revised Toxics Substances Control Act.

   DOJ urges High Court not to review CWA jurisdiction, defer to ‘process of revising’.

   “Because the Corps [of Engineers] and EPA are charged with administering the CWA, and because the process of revising the regulatory definition of ‘waters of the United States’ is still ongoing, review of the statutory question in this case is unwarranted.”
   -- Justice Department filing urges Supreme Court not to review Clean Water Act jurisdiction suits, which have produced conflicting decisions, while the agencies develop a new rule.

   Cooperative federalism: ECOS head sees ‘better starting point now’.

   “There are still difficult issues that states will have to talk about in how programs work and how decisions are made. But I think the starting point under cooperative federalism is that we ought to sit down and talk about them. Whereas I think states would have said years ago that the starting point was EPA will tell us what they think and then we’ll react to it. I think the framework of how you do tackle individual issues is in a better starting point now given cooperative federalism; that the starting point is that we will sit down at a table and talk about it.”
   -- Don Welsh, Environmental Council of the States executive director, on the future of federal-state relations.

   https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/quote-unquote-what-they%E2%80%99re-saying-about-2
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. EPA's Responsibility over Worker Safety Splits Lawmakers

   Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

   By Corbin Hiar

   Lawmakers yesterday divided along party lines over which federal agency should be in charge of protecting workers from dangerous chemicals.

   Republicans at the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on chemical risks argued that the Labor Department's Occupational Health and Safety Administration should take the lead in protecting workers.

   But Democrats on the Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee — aided by a Clinton-era regional director of OSHA and union representatives — argued that the recent overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act directed EPA to consider workers whenever it reviews the safety of chemicals.

   At issue was a provision in the 2016 TSCA reform law that requires EPA to determine whether new chemicals or new uses of existing substances present "an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," including — for the first time — the health of workers and other groups who are at higher risk of or more susceptible to dangerous chemical exposures.

   "Our track record of protecting workers is appalling," Rep. Frank Pallone, chairman of the full committee, said at the outset of the hearing. The New Jersey Democrat said that occupational diseases kill more than 50,000 workers in the United States annually, a figure the AFL-CIO has also cited.

   "Many of us who worked to update TSCA hoped it would help," Pallone said. "But unfortunately, I fear EPA's implementation of the act is moving us in the wrong direction."

   Adam Finkel, an OSHA veteran who's now a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, agreed with Pallone's assessment.

   Along with witnesses from firefighters and teachers unions, he was particularly critical of EPA's decision to exclude "legacy uses" from its evaluation of asbestos and some other carcinogenic substances (E&E Daily, March 11).

   Finkel also criticized EPA's efforts — supported by Republican lawmakers — to place the responsibility for protecting workers squarely on OSHA.

   "EPA doesn't ignore water pollution because there's a Fish and Wildlife Service, and it shouldn't ignore workers because there is an OSHA," he said. "I'm proud of my former agency, but it's overmatched and unable to reduce unreasonable risks."

   For instance, OSHA is only legally required to prevent chemical risks from exceeding one gravely ill worker in 1,000, Finkel noted. EPA, by comparison, generally has to cut health hazards to one potentially fatal incident per 1 million people. He added, "OSHA's budget is about one-twentieth the size of EPA's."

   But many Republicans, including Illinois Rep. John Shimkus, weren't convinced.

   "There are different views on are they cooperating or could they cooperate more," he told reporters after the hearing, referring to OSHA and EPA. Shimkus is the subcommittee's ranking member and was one of the lead authors of TSCA reform.

   "What the Democrat majority wants to do is highlight what they feel is the lapse of the EPA, endangering workers," Shimkus said. "I think OSHA has the primary responsibility."

   EPA, which wasn't invited to testify at the hearing, nevertheless sent a letter defending its record.

   "Protecting workers is of the utmost importance to EPA and is a key component of our Agency's mission to protect public health and the environment," Alexandra Dunn, the assistant administrator for chemical safety, wrote in a letter for the hearing record.

   But Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee's chairman, suggested after the hearing that EPA chief Andrew Wheeler could soon have to answer for the agency's disputed efforts to keep chemical workers safe.

   "I would imagine we're going to have EPA leadership here for their explanation of the budget, which will probably incorporate, I am certain, questions about this," he told E&E News.

   https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/14/stories/1060127263
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

8. (ACC Mentioned) The Toxic Consequences of America’s Plastics Boom

   Mar 14, 2019 | The Nation

   By Zoë Carpenter

   A beach at sunset. the sky is streaked peach and mauve, the wind cool and briny. A long line of dump trucks idles at the edge of the waves, each full of plastic—bags and milk jugs and floss containers, hair clips, shrink wrap, fake ferns, toys, and spatulas. Every minute, one of the trucks lifts its bed and deposits a load of trash into the sea.

   The dump trucks aren’t real, but the trash is. No one knows exactly how much plastic leaks into the oceans every year, but one dump truck per minute—8 million tons per year—is a midrange estimate. Plastic waste usually begins its journey on land, where only 9 percent of it is recycled. The rest is thrown away, burned, or buried, left to wash into

   streams and rivers or to blow out to sea. Once in the ocean, the plastic drifts or sinks. The sun and the waves break it down into tiny particles that resemble plankton. Birds and fish and other sea creatures eat it and begin to starve. One analysis predicts that by 2050, the plastic in the oceans will outweigh the fish.

   Some of the trash winds up in one of five current systems in the oceans known as gyres, where it forms a slowly circulating plastic soup. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest of these zones, spanning an area twice the size of Texas between Hawaii and California, a merry-go-round of the remains of global consumption. Researchers have found small plastic shards and large objects in the gyre: hard hats and Game Boys and milk crates and enormous tangles of fishing nets, all swirling in a smog of microplastics.

   Often inaccurately described as a solid island, the garbage patch has become a potent symbol of the world’s plastic problem, alongside viral photos of a sea horse clutching a Q-tip, a sea turtle with a straw wedged deep in its nostril, and a dead adolescent albatross with a stomach full of jewel-like plastic shards. These images have helped raise the alarm about plastic waste around the world, inspiring responses ranging from weekend beach sweeps to the Ocean Cleanup, a controversial and expensive effort to collect the trash in the Great Pacific gyre. Even the corporations that produce plastics have grown alarmed. In January, dozens of companies including Dow, ExxonMobil, Chevron Phillips, and Formosa Plastics Corporation announced the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, with an initial commitment of $1 billion to fund recycling and cleanup.

   But those same petrochemical giants are about to make the plastic problem worse. Companies are investing $65 billion to dramatically expand plastics production in the United States, and more than 333 petrochemical projects are underway or newly completed, including brand-new facilities, expansions of existing plants, vast networks of pipelines, and shipping infrastructure. This is a sharp reversal of fortune for American plastics manufacturers. Just over a decade ago, major plastics makers shed tens of thousands of jobs as cheaper operating costs in Asia and the Middle East lured production overseas. Now, thanks to the fracking revolution, producing plastic has become radically cheaper in the United States, leading to a glut of raw materials for its creation. The economic winds have shifted so profoundly that petrochemical companies have declared a “renaissance” in American plastics manufacturing. In turn, plastic is becoming an increasingly important source of profit for Big Oil, providing yet another reason to drill in the face of climate change.

   The expected result of all this investment is a spike in the amount of plastic produced globally, as manufacturers in Asia and the Middle East ramp up their own production—with capacity increasing by more than a third in the next six years alone, according to an estimate from the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL). Most of this new plastic will be sent to developing countries with waste infrastructure ill-equipped to handle it. “If you’re going to increase production of plastics—double it in the next 15 years—you’re going to see an increase of unrecyclable plastic products and packaging going to the more remote parts of the world, where there is still no plan for efficient recovery,” said Marcus Eriksen, a scientist and former Marine who co-founded the 5 Gyres Institute. Against this backdrop, investing $1 billion in trash collection is like trying to empty a bathtub with a teaspoon while the tap is on full blast.

   But plastic—and its fossil-fuel precursors—leaves a mark long before bags and bottles and Q-tips scatter across fields or wash into the oceans. Communities all along the supply chain will feel the impacts of the American plastics renaissance. What the industry describes as a bright new economic opportunity, others see as a looming disaster. “For too long, one of the most invisible aspects of the plastics crisis has been the impacts of plastics on communities who live in the shadows and along the fence line of plastics refining and manufacturing,” said Carroll Muffett, CIEL’s president and CEO. “These people are experiencing the impacts of our plastic planet in a way that is more immediate and more severe than just about anybody else in the world.”

   In the United States, the front of the plastics boom runs along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Louisiana, and through the upper Ohio River Valley, which spans Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. It’s made up of small communities that often had little say in their role in the new infrastructure build-out, with decisions made largely behind the scenes by politicians and corporate behemoths. Until recently, many people had no idea that their towns would soon become the knots connecting an immense plastic net thrown across the country.

   In May 2017, Donald Trump made his first overseas trip as president, to Saudi Arabia. He waved a sword during a ceremonial dance, accepted lavish gifts—including a portrait of himself and a robe lined with white tiger fur—and signed a $110 billion arms agreement. Meanwhile, in a mint-and-gold-colored room within the Saudi royal court, executives struck their own deals. Among them were Darren Woods, the CEO and chairman of ExxonMobil, and Yousef Al-Benyan, CEO of the Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), one of the world’s largest producers of petrochemicals. With Trump, Saudi King Salman, and then–US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (a former Exxon CEO) looking on, Woods and Al-Benyan shook hands on a joint venture to build what will be the largest plastics facility of its kind, on Texas’s Gulf Coast.

   Long before the deal was immortalized with glitzy photo ops, it was known as Project Yosemite—a code name designed to keep the initiative secret while its backers scouted sites. What the two companies wanted to build is known as a “cracker,” a facility that uses heat and pressure to crack apart molecules of ethane gas so they can be reconfigured as ethylene and later polyethylene, the building block for a wide range of plastic products, from packaging to bottles. Once an unwanted by-product of oil and gas fracking, ethane flowing from Texas’s Permian Basin and Eagle Ford Shale is now prompting a massive build-out of petrochemical infrastructure—pipelines, crackers, polyethylene plants, tanker terminals—along the Gulf Coast from St. James, Louisiana, to Corpus Christi, Texas.

   In 2016, with help from Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Exxon found a site for Project Yosemite on 1,400 acres of farmland north of Corpus Christi. By the time residents of two neighboring towns learned of the massive project, county commissioners had already rezoned the farmland and were eagerly courting the oil giant. Soon Exxon was seeking $1 billion in tax breaks from the county and local school district. “That’s when people woke up,” said Errol Summerlin, a retired Legal Aid attorney who lives a few miles from the Exxon site, in the town of Portland. “Bingo. We started the battle then.”

   A trim man with slightly stooped shoulders and a gravelly voice, Summerlin has lived in the same single-story white-brick house in Portland for 34 years. When I met him there in early January, he laid out a large map across his glass-topped dining table. With his finger, he traced the outline of Copano and Aransas bays to the north, where briny waters provide habitat to shrimp and oysters, redfish and black drum, roseate spoonbills and whooping cranes, and where billions of gallons of wastewater from the cracker will discharge. He pointed to an industrial corridor established in recent years on the north side of Corpus Christi Bay, where the flare from a natural-gas plant flickers incessantly. “That’s Cheniere. You’ve got Sherwin Alumina, you’ve got Oxychem, Flint Hills…,” he said, ticking off various industrial sites. Across the water, a narrow shipping channel runs like a vein along Refinery Row, a corridor of round white storage tanks and towers that puff out columns of white and gray fumes.

   When Summerlin learned that hundreds of acres of farmland would be turned into an entirely new industrial zone for the cracker plant, he was disturbed. “Industry has been inching itself closer and closer to Portland,” he explained. Plotted on a map, the rectangle of land where Exxon plans to build is nearly as large as Portland and about twice the size of neighboring Gregory, a low-income, largely Hispanic community. While county officials and members of local business groups boasted of some 600 permanent jobs promised by Exxon, Summerlin worried about air and water pollution from the plant. According to Exxon’s requested air permit, the facility will emit sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and nitrogen oxides, which can combine to form ozone smog; carcinogens, including benzene, formaldehyde, and butadiene; and other particulate matter. The health risks of these emissions include eye and throat irritation, respiratory problems, and headaches, as well as nose bleeds at low levels and, at high levels, more serious damage to vital organs and the central nervous system.

   In late 2016, Summerlin and other concerned residents joined a newly formed group called Portland Citizens United, which sought initially to collect information about the proposed plant and later to try to stop the project, or at least convince Exxon to relocate to an area already given over to heavy industry. First they challenged the rezoning, which had been done in violation of open-meeting laws. That set the project back a few months. The Portland City Council unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the site, on the grounds that it was too close to public schools—but because the site lies just outside city limits in unincorporated San Patricio County, the resolution amounted to a toothless plea. Now, the Texas Campaign for the Environment and the Sierra Club, working on behalf of Portland and Gregory residents, are contesting the air-quality permits that Exxon requested from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Summerlin is not naive about the prospects of this effort: The commission is notoriously friendly to industry and, as far as Summerlin knows, has never denied a permit—certainly not to Exxon, one of the largest employers in the state. Nevertheless, Summerlin said, “I’m doing my best to slow the suckers down.”

   We got into Summerlin’s car and drove through Portland’s sleepy neighborhoods, past the high school and middle school, then hooked a left on the straight, flat road that runs next to the site. Once planted with cotton and sorghum, the plot is a weedy brown rectangle two miles long and a mile wide, ringed by a tall wire fence and newly installed power lines. Summerlin drove slowly along the fence line, pointing to the outflow ditches where stormwater will be flushed out to the bays. In the fields stretching out to the north and east, a fleet of windmills stood at attention, arms spinning lazily. We passed a small pasture of Texas longhorns, which raised their heads to look at the car. Sandwiched between houses, with industrial smokestacks looming on the horizon, the cattle appeared lost. Further down the road, limp plastic bags dotted a fallow field of brown stalks like giant tufts of wet cotton.

   As Summerlin learned more about the facility, he grew increasingly alarmed by its scale and started to feel like the community had been misled. In addition to the steam cracker, which will produce 1.8 million tons of ethylene every year, Exxon and SABIC are building three units to make polyethylene and monoethylene glycol—which can be turned into antifreeze, latex paints, and polyester for clothing—as well as a rail yard where plastic pellets will be loaded onto trains bound for ocean ports and then shipped to Asia and Latin America. The facility needs a new road to transport components to build the plant, as well as a cargo dock and marine terminal. “They’re all lauding this as a game changer—and it is, in a bad way,” Summerlin said. “It transforms the whole area.”

   Such infrastructure is just a small part of what oil and gas companies have planned for the Gulf Coast. Across Texas in recent years, more than 8,000 miles of pipeline have been laid down to carry oil, gas, and natural-gas liquids (which include ethane) from the Permian Basin and the Eagle Ford Shale to the coast, where dozens of new petrochemical projects are in the works. Exxon alone is planning to spend some $20 billion over a decade on its “Growing the Gulf” venture, a suite of petrochemical projects that includes the cracker outside Portland; another cracker at the company’s chemicals complex in Baytown, near Houston; and an expansion of its plastics plant in nearby Beaumont. Other development is being driven by Congress’s lifting, in 2015, of 40-year-old restrictions on crude-oil exports. With oil and natural-gas production surging, companies are eager to get their products overseas. Recently, the Port of Corpus Christi put forward plans to build new terminals for massive oil tankers, which raised hackles in Port Aransas, a beach town close to the proposed site that depends on tourism and fishing, both of which could be disrupted by ships nearly the length of four football fields coming and going.

   All of these new facilities will require water; Exxon’s cracker alone will consume 20 to 25 million gallons per day, more than all the water currently used each day in San Patricio County’s water district. But the area is prone to drought. The Port of Corpus Christi has plans to build a seawater-desalination plant on Harbor Island near Port Aransas, which could lead to discharges of extremely salty water back into the bays that serve as nurseries for shrimp and fish. The development is also vulnerable to hurricanes. When Hurricane Harvey swept across Houston in 2017, many chemical plants shut down, releasing an estimated 1 million pounds of excess toxic emissions that drifted into neighboring communities.

   But with little resistance from regulators, companies are plowing ahead with new development. Recently, the Port of Corpus Christi purchased 3,000 acres to the west of Portland, which Summerlin expects will be leased for other petrochemical projects. “We know what’s going on,” he said, “but nobody’s telling us.” A recent planning document showing the port’s new tract of land listed code names for two new undisclosed proposals: Projects Falcon and Dynamo.

   About 80 miles up the coast from Portland in Point Comfort, tiny translucent pellets the size of lentils burrow into the muck and weeds at the edge of a sluggish creek. Further out, the pellets mingle with aquatic plants, floating together in whorls like confetti. Oystermen and anglers working in bays nearby find them inside oyster shells and in the guts of fish.

   Diane Wilson has been collecting these pellets for years. The “nurdles,” as they’re often called, have taken over her barn, which is stacked with bags of them, and 30 years of her life. A former commercial shrimper, Wilson is locked in a protracted battle against the source of the pellets: Formosa Plastics, a Taiwanese company that manufactures polypropylene, PVC, and other petrochemicals at a 2,500-acre complex along Cox Creek. In 1994, Wilson tried to sink her shrimp boat in a nearby bay to protest the chemical-laden wastewater discharges from the plant. Almost daily over the past four years, she and a handful of volunteers, some of them former Formosa employees, have gone out in kayaks and waders to collect evidence of the ongoing pollution. Although the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have fined Formosa repeatedly for various air- and water-quality violations, the nurdles continue to wash into the creek. Wilson is currently suing Formosa, asking a federal judge to fine the company $173 million and order an end to the dumping.

   In Louisiana’s St. James Parish, a majority-black community that spans the Mississippi River west of New Orleans, Formosa’s plans to build a $9.4 billion plastics complex have drawn outrage from residents already hemmed in by dozens of chemical facilities and refineries. Cotton, sugar, and indigo plantations once lined the river; more recently, lifetime resident Sharon Lavigne remembers, her grandfather caught shrimp in the Mississippi River and picked figs and pecans from the trees in their yard. Now, St. James hosts more than a dozen industrial sites—part of a corridor stretching from Baton Rouge to New Orleans that is often referred to as “Cancer Alley.”

   Formerly designated for agricultural uses, the land for Formosa’s new plant—which sits in a district that is more than 85 percent black—was redesignated as a “future industrial” zone in a planning document published in 2014, a decision that residents and environmental groups say was made with inadequate community input. A section of the planning document focused on the parish’s history quotes a 1950s-era historical account that describes the early 1800s in St. James as an “era of fabulous plantation life” and “luxurious living,” during which “acreage was counted by thousands and slaves by hundreds.” Aside from demographic figures, that is the report’s sole mention of the area’s black communities. Anne Rolfes, founding director of the environmental-justice group Louisiana Bucket Brigade, called the planned development in the area one of “the most disgusting racial situations I’ve ever seen.”

   Like many St. James residents, Lavigne can list a number of friends and relatives who have died from cancer or been sickened by respiratory conditions. After she learned about Formosa’s plans to build yet another facility, Lavigne, a teacher who lives about a mile and a half from the proposed site, started a group called RISE St. James. At first, it consisted of 10 people meeting at her house. The group has since grown to a few dozen; they’ve held marches and shown up at public meetings to oppose Formosa and other plants. “We go to the meetings, we express our concerns, and people just look at us as though we’re nothing,” Lavigne told me. In December, activist Cherri Foytlin brought a permit hearing for the facility to a standstill when she told government officials, “You don’t give a shit about brown and black people.” A single mother of three who lives in St. James Parish because she can’t afford a home closer to New Orleans told regulators, “I feel like I’m trapped. I feel like I don’t have anywhere to go. I can’t get away from the pollution. I’m surrounded by it.” Two months later, the state approved one of Formosa’s critical permits.

   For a long time, communities like St. James and people like Diane Wilson fought lonely battles against the petrochemical industry. The Break Free From Plastic movement, a coalition of more than 1,400 organizations, is working to connect these various localized struggles, from communities in West Texas impacted by fracking to neighborhoods in the Philippines that are awash in plastic trash. Carroll Muffett of CIEL, which is a member of the coalition, said, “They realize they’re all fighting different aspects of the same industry and the same problem.”

   The story that the petrochemical industry tells about its products is not about pollution. It’s a story of an innovation-driven manufacturing comeback, one that will create jobs at home and provide essential products to meet a growing demand overseas. “We are using new, abundant domestic-energy supplies to provide advantaged products to the world,” Exxon CEO Darren Woods said at a 2017 energy conference regarding the company’s planned $20 billion investment in petrochemical infrastructure along the Gulf Coast. “The advent of plastics has benefited the world,” Graham van’t Hoff, executive vice president of Shell’s chemicals division, wrote in January. Solar panels, wind turbines, and electric vehicles all use plastic components, he continued. The plastic products that account for the bulk of rising demand in developing countries, however, are not life-saving medical devices or specialized vehicle components. They aren’t even really products in their own right. According to the International Energy Agency, “the single largest source of plastic demand” is packaging—the shrink-wrapping around a box of mushrooms, the tiny sachets containing a single wash of shampoo—much of it thrown away as soon as it is removed. This has historically been the plastic industry’s profit model: “The future of plastics is in the trash can,” Lloyd Stouffer, the editor of the trade journal Modern Packaging, declared in 1956. Now, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, about a third of packaging ends up as trash. The environmental damage it causes and the greenhouse gases emitted during its production together cost some $40 billion annually—“exceeding the profit pool of the plastic packaging industry.” The petrochemical industry sees this largely as the fault of waste-collection systems in poor countries. “I find the issue of unmanaged plastic waste deeply concerning,” van’t Hoff wrote in January. But, he added, “The challenge is not with plastics themselves. It is what happens after people use them. In some places, waste and recycling infrastructure is inadequate…. As a producer of petrochemicals and plastic resin, we cannot directly control the amount of plastic waste that gets into [the] environment.”

   Plastics producers have responded to growing public pressure by offering some support for cleanup efforts. “We believe we have a role in fixing it,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, which represents petrochemical companies, speaking of the plastic-waste crisis; he added that current funds for the industry’s Alliance for Plastic Waste are “a start point” and expects them to top $10 billion eventually. But many environmental advocates see these efforts as greenwashing. Marcus Eriksen of the 5 Gyres Institute said that many of the solutions put forward by the industry require costly technology that will take years—if not decades—to scale. “They’ve been very effective in making the public think that recycling is key, and that it’s the burden of the citizen, of the community, of the government to manage waste,” Eriksen continued. “Globalization is still going to send unrecyclable materials to more remote parts of the world that can’t employ the solutions that industry proposes, because they’re expensive.”

   Environmental groups like those in the Break Free From Plastic movement are increasingly calling for a prevention-focused strategy, in which companies stop making materials designed to be used only once and pay the full cost of collecting and recycling plastic products. NGOs, academics, even the corporate consulting group McKinsey have embraced the concept of a “circular” plastics economy, in which products flow through a closed loop rather than “leaking” out. The circular model depends on improving the economics and technology of recycling and on fundamentally redesigning materials to replace single-use plastics with biodegradable or recyclable alternatives. A true circular model also requires reducing and eventually eliminating the amount of plastics created from fossil fuels—by developing alternative feedstocks from renewable sources, and by supplanting virgin feedstocks with recycled content.

   Running in the opposite direction are the major oil companies, who have placed big bets on their role as plastics producers. For oil giants like Exxon and Shell, plastics and other chemicals represent an increasingly significant source of profit—one that a circular-economy approach would threaten. “While increased recycling of plastics represents a gain in circular-economy terms, it is less good news for oil-resource-holding countries and oil companies, which will lose part of a source of future demand growth,” McKinsey analysts wrote recently. According to the International Energy Agency, “petrochemicals are rapidly becoming the largest driver of global oil consumption,” picking up the slack as efforts to curb emissions and increase efficiency limit other sources of demand. In 2015, while only 10 percent of Exxon’s revenue came from its chemicals division, chemicals accounted for more than a quarter of its profits.

   As climate change forces a reckoning with fossil-fuel consumption, plastics offer another incentive to keep drilling. “Investing in chemicals is part of our strategy to thrive through the energy transition,” wrote Shell’s van’t Hoff. The billions invested in new petrochemical infrastructure and local markets for ethane could help keep shale drillers—many of whom have been bleeding money—afloat. (According to the US Energy Information Administration, the high content of ethane and other natural-gas liquids in “many shale plays has made it economical for operators to continue to aggressively develop…shale gas resources during periods of low natural gas prices.”) The boom in plastics “will perpetuate a fossil fuel economy that underpins both the climate crisis and the plastics crisis,” concludes a 2017 CIEL report, “while impacting frontline communities and the wider public at every stage of its toxic lifecycle.”

   Early one morning last September, a gas pipeline near Terrie Baumgardner’s home in western Pennsylvania exploded, turning the sky the color of dirty orange sherbet. Flames shot 150 feet into the air, destroying a house and sending several families scrambling to evacuate. Driving down the interstate days later, Baumgardner could make out a patch of scorched earth where the gas had burned itself out.

   Two days later, officials in the nearby township of Independence voted to repeal a rule mandating that pipelines be built at least 100 feet away from homes and 500 feet from parks, schools, and hospitals. Eliminating the ordinance eased the way for the Falcon Pipeline, a 97-mile project that will carry ethane from the Marcellus Shale to a new cracker being built by Shell on the banks of the Ohio River in Beaver County. To Baumgardner, a retired college instructor and member of a local nonprofit called the Beaver County Marcellus Awareness Community, the elimination of the pipeline-setback rule was yet another example of state and local officials’ rush to accommodate Shell.

   The cracker, slated to start operating in late 2021 or early 2022, will be the first to open outside the Gulf Coast in decades. But it’s just one of several projects underway in the Ohio River Valley as corporations, state officials, and members of the Trump administration look to transform the region into a brand-new petrochemical corridor. A Thai company has proposed a cracker farther down the Ohio River in Belmont County, Ohio, and the industry and its political allies want to build a massive storage hub to hold as much as 100 million barrels of ethane and other natural-gas liquids beneath West Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania and Ohio as well. The US Department of Energy is considering a $1.9 billion loan for that project, which Energy Secretary Rick Perry has described as a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for this country.”

   To many people in northern Appalachia, petrochemicals look like the answer to the economic problems created by the collapse of steel and coal. Shell has helped drive that narrative, commissioning a study that predicted the cracker would produce $15 to $19 billion in regional economic activity in southwestern Pennsylvania over four decades. Although some economists have disputed the methodology that produced this rosy projection—for instance, it assumes that every job created at the plant will lead to 13 elsewhere, and omits the cost of a historic $1.65 billion tax break the state gave Shell—it was welcome news in Potter Township, where Shell is building its facility: 500 jobs there vanished when a zinc-smelting facility closed in 2014, leaving hundreds of acres contaminated with lead and arsenic. Shell promised to clean up the site and pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars for local historic-preservation projects.

   But to others, including Baumgardner, whatever economic benefits the cracker provides are far outweighed by the risks of large-scale petrochemical development. Pennsylvania has a long history of damage related to extractive industries, from the Donora smog of 1948, when a poisonous air inversion killed 20 people and sent some 6,000 others to the hospital, to the fragmented disasters of fracking: toxic-waste ponds, ruined property values, lingering illnesses. “This area of the Ohio River Valley, and other areas that have had a lot of experience with resource extraction, they follow this boom-bust cycle. When you’re in a bust phase and you lose jobs, there’s a lot of momentum: ‘Well, we need to attract industry to bring these jobs back,’” said Jennifer Baka, an energy geographer at Penn State. “We can’t think outside of the box and think about what an alternative-energy future might be, because we’re so familiar and accustomed to the existing fossil-fuel economy.”

   Southwestern Pennsylvania suffers from some of the poorest air quality in the nation, according to Matthew Mehalik, the executive director of the Breathe Project, which works on air-pollution issues. “If you consider that backdrop—[that we] already have a serious air-quality problem—the potential to add more burden to our airshed will only make things worse,” he added. One estimate puts the health-care impacts over a 30-year period from the Shell plant and two other crackers proposed in the region at $616 million to $1.4 billion in Beaver County alone, and up to $8.1 billion nationally.

   Critics of the projects also argue that regulators and communities are unprepared for the scale of development that is now underway. Lisa Graves-Marcucci, the Pennsylvania coordinator for the Environmental Integrity Project, is particularly worried about what she describes as “piecemeal, egg-slicer” permitting, in which projects like Shell’s cracker are considered in isolation, obscuring the web of industrial infrastructure—drilling sites, compressor stations, storage hubs, pipelines—that goes along with them. Even some people in the industry have suggested that communities might not be fully aware of what’s coming. “I think the magnitude of some of these projects that we’re talking about here is hard for a lot of us and a lot of our communities to wrap their heads around,” said Chad Riley, the CEO of the Thrasher Group, an engineering firm with projects in oil and gas fields, speaking at an industry conference in 2018 that was attended by reporter Sharon Kelly.

   Ultimately, the fate of a facility that will affect the whole region was largely decided by three supervisors in tiny Potter Township, population 496. “Decisions have been made at higher levels of government, or sometimes in these small communities…that will forever change our region,” Graves-Marcucci said. “Does that mean we’ve signed over our entire future to this constant need to drill more and frack more? Are we stuck on this treadmill of plastics?”

   Pennsylvania’s northeastern neighbor has taken a different approach. New York banned fracking in 2014 and, a year later, unveiled a clean-energy initiative that established some of the most aggressive energy-transition goals in the country. In 2018, Governor Andrew Cuomo announced a $1.5 billion investment in renewables projects across the state, with a goal of creating 40,000 clean-energy jobs by 2020.

   For a long time, Terrie Baumgardner didn’t think much about what would come out of Shell’s ethane cracker. Early on, she heard that the plant would produce plastic pellets, perhaps to fill stuffed animals. “But I don’t think we realized at that point what a hazard plastic was for us and for the planet,” she said. “It’s only lately become a ‘for what?’ question—why are we doing this?” She continued: “Our leaders said, ‘Here comes an industry and it can get people jobs.’ And it was a backward-looking industry, but they didn’t see it that way.”

   https://www.thenation.com/article/plastics-pollution-crisis-fracking-petrochemicals/
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. (ACC Mentioned) Maryland May Become the First State to Ban Foam Food Containers and Cups

   Mar 14, 2019 | CNN

   By Michelle Lou and Saeed Ahmed

   Maryland is well on its way to becoming the first state to ban foam.

   The Legislature has approved bills to ban polystyrene -- commonly known as plastic foam -- cups and food containers. If a final measure is passed and the governor signs it, Maryland would be the first state to implement such a ban, environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council says.

   Democratic Delegate Brooke Lierman is the primary sponsor of the House bill. She said banning foam products is the first step to curbing people's reliance on single-use plastics.

   "Single-use plastics are overrunning our oceans and bays and neighborhoods," Lierman told CNN. "We need to take dramatic steps to start stemming our use and reliance on them ... to leave future generations a planet full of wildlife and green space."

   Lierman proposed the bill twice before but says she believes public opinion has now shifted to recognize the problem with plastic."We see plastics in our neighborhoods, in our riverbeds and streams -- it is ubiquitous," Lierman said.

   "We've seen major companies like Dunkin' Donuts say they're going to phase out" the foam.

   A conference committee will work to resolve discrepancies between the House and Senate versions of the bill. Lierman said she expects the negotiations to go smoothly, saying there are "no real substantive differences."

   However, it's unclear whether Republican Gov. Larry Hogan will sign the bill.

   A spokeswoman for his office said Hogan is "always willing to consider any piece of legislation that reaches his desk."

   Cailey Locklair Tolle, president of the Maryland Retailers Association, said such a law could hurt Maryland businesses.

   "Not only will costs go up for restaurants and be passed onto consumers, but because comparable products weigh more and many cannot be recycled, costs will increase due to higher tipping fees (based on weight) at landfills," Locklair Tolle said.

   The American Chemistry Council, the trade association of chemical manufacturers, voiced opposition to the legislation.

   "Polystyrene foam packaging and containers provide business owners and consumers with a cost-effective and environmentally preferable choice that is ideal for protecting food and preventing food waste, particularly when used for food service. Foam packaging is generally more than 90 percent air and has a lighter environmental impact than alternatives," the council said in a statement.

   Foam is difficult to clean up

   Several areas in Maryland have already introduced foam bans, including Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

   Lierman said plastic foam "is probably the most insidious form of single-use plastics."

   The lightweight material easily breaks into smaller pieces, which makes it difficult to clean up, says Ashley Van Stone, executive director of Trash Free Maryland.

   Foam also absorbs toxins faster than other plastics and is mistaken for food by marine life, Van Stone said. And the toxins that wildlife consumes makes its way up the food chain into people.

   Van Stone, who worked with lawmakers to pass the foam ban legislation, said it would be only the first step.

   "We know that banning one material is not going to stop and eradicate all litter. But by banning foam we can work to ensure that the material is reduced from entering our environment," Van Stone said.

   https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/13/health/maryland-plastic-foam-ban-legislation-trnd/index.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. (ACC Mentioned) The Stunning Truth About Asbestos Use in the U.S. - AUDIO

    Mar 14, 2019 | PBS NewsHour

    By Miles O'Brien

    Asbestos is no longer ubiquitous in building materials, and since it's proven to cause cancer, many Americans likely assumed the substance had been banned entirely. But not only is asbestos a naturally occurring mineral, it is also still used to make some household products. Science correspondent Miles O’Brien reports on "broken" U.S. regulation and why we continue to import the carcinogen.

    Full Transcript

    Judy Woodruff:

    If you followed any number of stories about asbestos and its role with cancer, deaths and health problems over the years, you might think it's been banned from use in the United States.

    Well, that's not the case. It is true that asbestos is not used in building materials the way it once was. But it still is found in some household products, and some public health experts worry about its continued use.

    Miles O'Brien is back with that story, and why the regulation and oversight of it remains a public health concern.

    It's for our weekly segment on the Leading Edge of science, technology and health.

    Miles O’Brien:

    For 15 years, Linda Reinstein has pounded the marble halls of power in Washington, a foot soldier in a long environmental battle that you might think was over.

    Linda Reinstein:

    We deserve to have our air free of contaminants, air, soil and water. And without an asbestos ban on all products, we remain in peril.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Asbestos, naturally occurring mineral fibers that are durable, fire-resistant and highly carcinogenic. Breathing them can trigger lethal diseases. There is no debate about that.

    But more than 50 years after a landmark study confirmed this, asbestos is a poster child for a broken regulatory process. It is still used by U.S. industry, present in 30 million homes, and is a contaminant in consumer products, including children's toys and makeup.

    Woman:

    The FDA is now warning parents to throw out three products from Claire's after new tests found they contained asbestos.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Officially, asbestos kills nearly 3,000 Americans every year, but these deaths are under-reported. Environmental and health advocates believe the actual toll is much higher.

    Linda Reinstein:

    I urge you to expeditiously and thoroughly evaluate the risk, and move to fully banning asbestos without any exemptions.

    Miles O’Brien:

    In 2006, Linda Reinstein's husband, Alan, died of mesothelioma, cancer of the thin layer of tissue that covers our internal organs, a fatal disease caused almost exclusively by asbestos.

    Alan Reinstein was exposed to asbestos at a shipyard and while doing home renovations. His widow is pushing newly introduced legislation to enact an outright ban on asbestos.

    Do you feel like you have made progress?

    Linda Reinstein:

    Progress is glacially slow. I have buried so many people I have known and loved, including my husband.

    Woman:

    You OK?

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    Yes. I'm just loopy from the drugs.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Paul Zygielbaum is one of those stories behind the grim numbers. When we first met him in December of 2017, he was in the midst of a powerful chemotherapy infusion 14 years after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    I'm just hoping that I can get back to a better physical condition, to where I can do the things I want to do. And I have no idea whether that's going to happen or not, so that is kind of frustrating.

    Miles O’Brien:

    This is just one of more than 50 rounds of chemotherapy and immunotherapy he endured. A former engineer for the space, computer and utility industries, he believes he was exposed to asbestos at a power plant.

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    This is a carcinogen. It's deadly. It's insidious, because a disease doesn't show up for 15 to 50 years after exposure. And it's like there's a blind eye being turned to that, where that doesn't happen with many other carcinogens.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Why do you think that is?

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    I think there's decades of industry lobbying behind it.

    Miles O’Brien:

    But scientists see a lot of need for urgency. Every time they look at asbestos under an electron microscope, they are reminded of the risks.

    Brenda Buck is a medical geologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    Brenda Buck:

    This little fiber coming off here is quite long and very thin, which is very typical of asbestos fibers. It's strong. It's durable. It's fireproof.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Those properties made them an appealing choice in hundreds of household products. At one time, asbestos was marketed as a modern marvel.

    Woman:

    Ooh, it is attractive.

    Man:

    Yes, and it'll stay that way too. That's what I like about it.

    Miles O’Brien:

    But people who worked around it in shipyards factories and mines, started getting sick, most infamously in Libby, Montana, where asbestos dust from a mine has killed 10 percent of the population.

    Brenda Buck:

    They have these great properties that we can use in materials, but those very same properties is why they're so hazardous in the human body. They don't break down. When you breath them in, they're pretty much going to stick with you for your lifetime.

    Miles O’Brien:

    The human immune system response? Attack the stubborn fiber. But, eventually, this backfires, creating damage, disease and eventually death from cancer and a host of other afflictions.

    Brenda Buck:

    So, the government started to regulate occupational exposures. They started at pretty high levels. And as more and more science was conducted, we began to realize that we needed lower and lower exposures to prevent disease.

    Miles O’Brien:

    In the 1980s, schools across the country scrambled to remove asbestos insulation from pipes and boilers. Then, in 1989, the EPA issued a ban on the manufacturing, importation, processing and sale of products containing asbestos.

    But the chemical industry successfully sued to overturn it in 1991. So, in 2016, Congress and the Obama administration enacted an updated Toxic Substances Control Act. The idea? Give the EPA more teeth to regulate asbestos and other hazardous chemicals that remain in the environment.

    But the march toward a ban came to a grinding halt with the election of Donald Trump. In 2005, speaking as a real estate developer, he told a Senate committee this:

    Donald Trump:

    A lot of people in my industry believe asbestos is the greatest fireproofing material ever — ever made.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Trump's appointee in charge of chemical safety at the EPA is Nancy Beck, who came straight from a high-level post at the largest chemical lobbying firm in the country, the American Chemistry Council.

    In a statement, the ACC denies Beck has a conflict of interest, and says that claims that she does "unfairly disregard her career experiences and decades of work as an objective and highly respected scientist."

    But, under her leadership, the EPA is refusing to even study, much less regulate, the legacy asbestos that is all around us. The EPA says it is committed to protecting the public from asbestos exposures. And it says, the statute gives discretion to the administrator to focus on the uses that are of greatest concern.

    Linda Reinstein:

    It's a David-and-Goliath battle. And we are the small person trying to move big mountains. There's huge money that flows.

    Miles O’Brien:

    And so does the asbestos. The United States has imported more than 6,000 tons of asbestos since 2011, almost all of it used by the chlor-alkali industry to make chlorine. It mostly comes from Brazil, but, in 2017, that country banned the mineral, as have more than 60 other nations.

    As Brazil winds down production, asbestos imports will increasingly come from Russia, where some shipments are stamped with a seal of the president's face, along with the words "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States."

    Meanwhile, in Southern Nevada, Brenda Buck and her colleague medical geologist Rodney Metcalf have found even more troubling cause for concern about asbestos.

    Man:

    It's everywhere. Look at this, everywhere.

    Miles O’Brien:

    They have mapped more than a million acres of naturally occurring asbestos here. The discovery came after they uncovered evidence of unusually high rates of mesothelioma among women and children, a telltale sign of asbestos exposure that is environmental, rather than occupational.

    Brenda Buck:

    Even if the EPA banned all use of asbestos in the nation, we still have it occurring in our soils, and therefore, in our air. And people are still being exposed to it just through these natural mechanisms.

    Miles O’Brien:

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set limits on asbestos use in the workplace. But scientists say there is no evidence there is any safe level of exposure to asbestos, which is why Linda Reinstein keeps pushing for a total ban.

    Linda Reinstein:

    Alan's chair will remain empty forever, and my heart will be broken, but I will fight on.

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    I'm optimistic about a change in attitude in Washington. I think it can happen. I don't think we're done yet. But I think, ultimately, we will win.

    Miles O’Brien:

    You're an unlikely optimist.

    Paul Zygielbaum:

    That's what keeps me going.

    Miles O’Brien:

    Paul Zygielbaum lost his 15-year battle with mesothelioma on January 25.

    Asbestos will likely take thousands of other American lives before the year ends. The deaths are slow and painful, not unlike the regulatory response to this public health crisis.

    For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Miles O'Brien in Santa Rosa, California.

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Pentagon Pushes for Weaker Standards on Chemicals Contaminating Drinking Water

    Mar 14, 2019 | The New York Times

    By Eric Lipton and Julie Turkewitz

    Facing billions of dollars in cleanup costs, the Pentagon is pushing the Trump administration to adopt a weaker standard for groundwater pollution caused by chemicals that have commonly been used at military bases and that contaminate drinking water consumed by millions of Americans.

    The Pentagon’s position pits it against the Environmental Protection Agency, which is seeking White House signoff for standards that would most likely require expensive cleanup programs at scores of military bases, as well as at NASA launch sites, airports and some manufacturing facilities.

    Despite its deregulatory record under President Trump, the E.P.A. has been seeking to stick with a tougher standard for the presence of the chemicals in question in the face of the pressure from the military to adopt a far looser framework.

    How the administration resolves the fight has potentially enormous consequences for how the United States is going to confront what a top official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called “one of the most seminal public health challenges” of the coming decades.

    An estimated five million to 10 million people in the country may be drinking water laced with high levels of the chemicals — known as Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or highly fluorinated chemicals — including thousands of people who live near military bases in states including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.

    PFAS, as the chemicals are most commonly called, are present in a vast array of products, including food packaging, nonstick pans, clothing and furniture. They have been linked in recent years to cancers, immune suppression and other serious health problems.

    But since the 1970s, the Defense Department has been one of the most frequent users of PFAS. The chemicals are a key ingredient in firefighting foam employed at bases nationwide, with military crews spraying large amounts during training exercises (and on emergency calls) into unlined basins that drain into the soil and then into groundwater.

    In 2017, after military communities around the country began to report alarming levels of PFAS in their drinking water, the Pentagon confirmed that there were 401 known military facilities in the United States where it was used.

    Further study by the Pentagon concluded that the PFAS contamination had turned up in drinking water or groundwater in at least 126 of these locations, with some of them involving systems that provide water to tens of thousands of people both on the bases and in nearby neighborhoods. In some instances, the Defense Department is providing temporary replacement water supplies.

    The military and many airports nationwide have relied on PFAS-based firefighting spray because it can more quickly put out liquid fuel fires and it works when mixed with both fresh water and seawater.

    The Defense Department has been moving in recent years to phase out the use of the most worrisome version of these chemicals and replace them with a formulation that does not break down in the environment as easily or build up as much in the bloodstream if it ends up in drinking water. But this replacement chemical is also generating health concerns.

    The E.P.A. — after intense criticism from communities facing contaminated water, as well as from both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill — is moving toward creating two new PFAS standards to address the problem nationwide.

    The first would establish guidelines for when cleanups will be required at federally controlled sites to try to prevent that contamination from reaching drinking water supplies.

    The second would set a legally binding, maximum allowable drinking water level for PFOS and PFOA, two of the most common forms of PFAS. Separately, the E.P.A. is preparing to designate these chemicals hazardous substances, meaning areas contaminated can be designated Superfund sites, formalizing the cleanup effort.

    The E.P.A. completed its work on the first step, the proposed groundwater cleanup standard, last August, and transferred it to the White House Office of Management and Budget for approval, with a prediction that it would be finalized and made public by last fall.

    But federal officials briefed on the negotiations, including the office of Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware, the ranking member of the Senate committee that oversees the E.P.A., said major objections were raised by the Pentagon, as well as by NASA, another major user of PFAS, and the Small Business Administration.

    Among the sites that could be subjected to a cleanup are NASA’s launch sites at Cape Canaveral, Fla., and Wallops Island, Va.

    The E.P.A., Mr. Carper said, proposed that contaminated sites be cleaned up to a level equivalent to the E.P.A.’s current drinking water health advisory of 70 parts per trillion of PFOS and PFOA, citing information provided to his office.

    But the Pentagon, in a report to Congress last year, indicated that it believed that an appropriate cleanup level for PFAS would be 380 parts per trillion, or nearly six times the proposed E.P.A. advisory drinking water level. That 380 parts per trillion is also more than 30 times a level suggested as safe for drinking water by the Department of Health and Human Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (One part per trillion is equivalent to one drop of water in 20 Olympic-size swimming pools.)

    The Defense Department has also argued that the two variants of these chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — should be counted separately, as opposed to the E.P.A., which wanted the combined total to be used as the groundwater standard, Mr. Carper said in a letter sent this week to the E.P.A.

    The Pentagon has agreed to clean up groundwater to the 70 parts per trillion standard, if contamination of either of the chemicals at a site is found above 400 parts per trillion, according to Mr. Carper’s letter. That would mean many sites that would have been subject to cleanup requirements based on the E.P.A.’s original proposal would now be able to avoid such remediation efforts — and costs — potentially polluting drinking water in the future.

    “Many of these sites have languished for years, even decades. How can these Americans prosper if they cannot live, learn, or work in healthy environments?” Mr. Carper said in his letter, urging Andrew Wheeler, the E.P.A. administrator, not to give in to pressure.

    “Please take prompt action to finalize groundwater clean-up guidelines for PFAS that live up to your stated objectives and reject efforts by other federal agencies to weaken them,” Mr. Carper wrote.

    Frustration is only increasing across the United States as the Trump administration moves slowly to confront the challenge.

    Just Wednesday, the Vermont Senate voted 29 to 0 in favor of legislation that would create a new limit on PFAS in drinking water that at 20 parts per trillion is far tougher than even the current E.P.A. drinking water advisory standard. The legislation will also require annual testing by public water systems in the state.

    The move was motivated in part by widespread contamination caused by a manufacturing plant in Bennington, Vt., called Chemfab, that once made fabrics and roofing materials coated with the chemicals. Chemfab is now closed.

    Maureen Sullivan, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for environment, told a House panel last week that a “very, very rough, back-of-the-envelope calculation” yielded an estimate that the Pentagon was facing a $2 billion cleanup effort. But the price tag depends a great deal on what the government decides represents “clean.”

    Heather Babb, a Pentagon spokeswoman, declined to address what specific number the Defense Department is urging the White House to adopt as the new groundwater cleanup standard.

    The department “will work in collaboration with regulatory agencies and communities to ensure our resources are applied effectively to protect human health across the country as part of a national effort led by E.P.A.,” she said in a written statement. “However, we do not discuss the details of our interagency coordination.”

    A NASA spokeswoman and a spokesman for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget both declined to comment.

    Jennifer McLain, the acting director of the E.P.A.’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, declined to discuss the different proposals, but she did not dispute that the E.P.A. and the Pentagon have different points of view.

    “Each one of those agencies has a different mission and will be looking at the issue from a different perspective,” she said.

    Several state and local governments — including the Security Water District in Colorado, the city of Newburgh, N.Y., and the state of New Mexico — have already filed lawsuits against the Defense Department.

    In Oscoda, Mich., a community near the former Wurtsmith Air Force Base, use of the chemicals has polluted drinking water, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and toxic foam now froths on community beaches. The town and the state are battling with the military over how much cleanup should be done.

    Aaron Weed, an Air Force veteran who is now Oscoda’s town supervisor, called the response “disgraceful.”

    “It’s just been constant pushback,” he said. “‘It’s not a big deal, it’s going to cost too much, the technology isn’t there,’ Every cause they can think of.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/us/politics/chemical-standards-water-epa-pentagon.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. As Wildfires Devour Communities, Toxic Threats Emerge

    Mar 14, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)

    By Sharon Bernstein

    As an uncontrollable wildfire turned the California town of Paradise to ash, air pollution researcher Keith Bein knew he had to act fast: Little is known about toxic chemicals released when a whole town burns and the wind would soon blow away evidence.

    He drove the roughly 100 miles to Paradise, located in the Sierra Nevada foothills, from his laboratory at the University of California, Davis, only to be refused entrance under rules that allow first responders and journalists - but not public health researchers - to cross police lines.

    It was the second time Bein says he was unable to gather post-wildfire research in a field so new public safety agencies have not yet developed procedures for allowing scientists into restricted areas.

    Fires like the one that razed Paradise last November burn thousands of pounds of wiring, plastic pipes and building materials, leaving dangerous chemicals in the air, soil and water. Lead paint, burned asbestos and even melted refrigerators from tens of thousands of households only add to the danger, public health experts say.

    Bein’s experience highlights the difficulties in assessing the impact of today's massive disasters, whether wildfires that burn entire towns or flooding after major hurricanes, incidents scientists say are becoming more common due to climate change.

    "Everything that we're doing, it feels like this is a question nobody has asked before, and we have no answers," said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, director of the Environmental Health Sciences Center at U.C. Davis.

    Researchers are examining soil tested for the presence of chemical compounds in neighborhoods destroyed by the 2017 wildfire that swept into Santa Rosa, located in California's Sonoma County north of the Bay Area, and comparing it to uninhabited land nearby where only trees had burned, Hertz-Picciotto said. In that still-uncompleted study, researchers found nearly 2,000 more chemical compounds in the soil than in uninhabited parkland nearby. Researchers are now working to identify the compounds.

    While scientists have studied wildfires for decades -- learning much about the impact on air, soil and nearby ecosystems -- fires that race from the forest into large urban communities were, until recently, exceedingly rare.

    COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH

    As natural disasters increase in scope and frequency, public health researchers across the United States are developing new lines of inquiry with unusual speed.

    Scientists, many of them funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), are studying pregnant women exposed to polluted air and water after Hurricane Harvey hit Houston in 2017; residents of Puerto Rico forced to live in unrepaired homes where mold and fungi grew after Hurricane Maria in 2017; eggs from backyard chickens that ate California wildfire ash, among other topics.

    "It's fundamentally critical that we be able to understand these situations and the risks to populations both in the short term and in the long term," said NIEHS senior medical adviser Aubrey Miller, who is helping to develop quick-response disaster research cutting across scientific specialties.

    To do that, NIEH has sped up the time it needs to fund research, from months or years to as little as 120 days, said Gwen Collman, who directs the agency's work with outside researchers.

    At U.C. Davis, where researchers are studying eggs from backyard chickens that may have breathed smoke and pecked at ash in areas affected by wildfires, the work is complicated.

    "In an urban fire you’re dealing with contaminants that don’t go away – arsenic, heavy metals, copper, lead, transformer fluid, brake fluid, fire retardant," said veterinarian Maurice Pitesky, who is leading the study.

    Any contaminants found in the eggs could stem from other factors such as the proximity of the home to a factory, a waste disposal site or a highway, he said.

    In an as-yet-uncompleted study, researchers have tested eggs sent by individual owners of roughly 350 backyard properties concerned about possible contamination from wildfires and other causes, researcher Todd Kelman said. The locations of the yards were mapped to see which homeowners lived near wildfire areas, and the eggs were tested to see if they have high levels of contaminants such as lead, cadmium and other chemicals associated with human buildings and activities.

    COMBING PARADISE

    One recent morning, teams from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in white hazmat suits combed through Paradise, loading seared paint cans, partially melted pesticide containers and the remains of propane tanks onto trucks to be hauled away.

    Rusty Harris Bishop, a toxics expert with the EPA who worked on the Paradise cleanup, said removal teams take away whatever contaminants they find, including melted pipes or asbestos-laden construction materials, going beyond the older definition of hazardous household waste.

    But cleanup protocols after such disasters are evolving along with the public health science, he said. 

    That gap in knowledge concerns researchers like Bein, who plans to train as a firefighter to get access to the burned areas in the next big blaze.

    "As these types of fires become more frequent in nature, where instead of once every decade it's once every summer . . . then we really need to know how this is going to affect health," Bein said.

    https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/03/13/us/13reuters-california-wildfires-environment-feature.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. EPA Seeks Industry Data To Determine If Regions Changed RCRA Waiver

    Mar 13, 2019 | Inside EPA

    By Lara Beaven

    EPA has asked the specialty chemical industry to gather data that will help officials determine whether it has changed its interpretation of a hazardous waste exemption long used by the sector, following enforcement actions in Regions 1 and 5 that industry argues failed to understand the specifics of manufacturing small-batch chemicals.

    “Figuring out whether policy has changed has to be the first step,” Elizabeth Corona of EPA's Smart Sectors program said March 8 at the GlobalChem conference in Washington, D.C.

    The trade association Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), which represents the specialty chemical industry, approached Smart Sectors for assistance in addressing what it perceived to be a change in the agency's interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's (RCRA) manufacturing process unit (MPU) exclusion.

    The MPU exclusion, contained in federal hazardous waste regulations, allows facilities to accumulate hazardous waste in a manufacturing unit without being subject to regulatory requirements as long as the waste was generated in the MPU and remains in the MPU, and the MPU does not cease operation for more than 90 days.

     Robert Helminiak, SOCMA's vice president for legal and government relations, said the sector's inability to use the MPU exclusion is problematic for SOCMA's members because it means that products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are associated with hazardous waste.

    “If you're making FDA products, you don't want hazardous waste stamped on your equipment,” he said.

    But the industry concerns and calls for EPA to reinstate the exclusion are drawing criticism from environmentalists. After SOCMA tweeted Helminiak's presentation, John Walke, clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in response that it read “like a parody of how some in industry believe regulatory exclusions should apply.”

    Helminiak said the problem stems from enforcement actions in Regions 1 and 5, where facilities that had relied on the MPU exclusion were issued violation notices after inspections.

    Typically, the enforcement process starts with an EPA inspection that leads to an EPA report of what the inspector found, Helminiak said. If there are deficiencies, EPA will take formal enforcement action, which can lead to a settlement meeting and, if not resolved, on to administrative and judicial appeals, he said.

    But in the cases in Regions 1 and 5, the alleged violations were not mentioned in the post-inspection report, prompting concern from the companies involved, he said.

    Helminiak said it was clear in talking to EPA inspectors involved in one of the recent cases that “they didn't understand batch processing” where a product may run for just a few weeks and then the equipment is tweaked to manufacture a different type of chemical.

    Following discussions with the company and SOCMA, Region 1 has officially dropped its enforcement action, and Region 5 has “shelved” its action, meaning it has not officially dropped the enforcement but has indicated it is not currently pursuing it, Helminiak said.

    'Gap In Understanding'

    Conversations with SOCMA as well as internal EPA conversations between various agency offices “made us realize there's a gap in understanding” how batch-process manufacturing of chemicals differs from continuous manufacturing, Corona said.

    As a result, the group is continuing discussions with the agency's Smart Sectors program, a Trump administration initiative that aims to be an “ombudsman” for industries to raise concerns they have about federal oversight such as conflicting guidance from various EPA offices and other policy issues.

    While Smart Sectors does not get involved with enforcement matters, the program's Corona said, the office decided it could play a role in facilitating internal agency conversations to determine whether the agency's interpretation has changed and to better define what is meant by some key terms, such as dual use, that could determine whether the MPU exclusion applies.

    She said the agency asked SOCMA to gather data to document previous and current use of the MPU exclusion and instances when it has been questioned.

    Helminiak added that some of the group's members will be meeting with representatives from the Office of Land and Emergency Management to further discuss the issue.

    “We want to solve this broadly for industry,” he said. “We really need some consistency and finality.”

    https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-industry-data-determine-if-regions-changed-rcra-waiver
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Congress Revisits Legislation to Overhaul Us Cosmetics Rules

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    By Lisa Martine Jenkins

    Legislation is in the works in both chambers of the US Congress to reform the country's personal care products regulations, which have not been updated in over 80 years.

    As they have in previous sessions of Congress, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D–California) and Susan Collins (R–Maine) last week introduced the ‘Personal Care Products Safety Act’.

    The measure calls for updating the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 to require cosmetics companies to register with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and provide information on ingredients used in products. It also looks to expand the FDA’s oversight authority, such as by giving it the ability to order recalls of unsafe products and to review the safety of at least five cosmetic ingredients a year.

    Meanwhile, Representatives Frank Pallone (D – New Jersey) and John Shimkus (R – Illinois ) have floated a discussion draft of similar legislation to be introduced in the House.

    According to Ms Collins, the legislation "will help increase safety for consumers, protect small businesses, and provide regulatory certainty for manufacturers."

    The bill "would modernise FDA’s oversight authority and give consumers confidence that everyday personal care products won’t harm their health," said Ms Feinstein.‘Regulatory black hole’

    Consideration of the legislation comes as the FDA’s oversight authorities enter the spotlight, following the agency's investigation into the presence of asbestos in certain talc-based makeup products sold at major national retailers Claire’s and Justice.

    On 12 March, a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Oversight Committee held a hearing on the public health risks of carcinogens in consumer products. They examined both the scientific evidence of health risks from long-term use of products containing talc, as well as the federal regulatory framework over consumer products.

    The Environmental Working Group’s Scott Faber testified that the FDA has regulated only nine ingredients for safety reasons, while dozens of countries have already taken steps to ban or restrict more than 1,400 chemicals or contaminants in personal care products.

    "Cosmetics and other personal care products have fallen into a regulatory black hole," he said.

    Committee Chairman Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Illinois) also raised concern over claims that Johnson & Johnson talc products – which were not directly implicated in the FDA’s recent investigation – contain asbestos.‘Conclusive and strong bipartisan compromise’

    A broad range of stakeholders, including industry groups and consumer advocates, have welcomed Congress’s efforts to revisit the decades-old laws governing cosmetics.

    The Personal Care Products Council said that "well-crafted, science-based reforms – applied on a consistent basis nationwide by FDA – will enhance our industry’s ability to innovate and further strengthen consumer confidence in the products they trust and use every day."

    "We hope the 116th Congress provides an opportunity to find a conclusive and strong bipartisan compromise," it added.

    The EWG was similarly positive, saying it would give the FDA "the tools the agency needs to protect consumers from dangerous chemicals in these everyday products".

    And the Endocrine Society agreed that the legislation would equip the agency with necessary authority and adequate fees to properly regulate personal care products.

    With bipartisan backing in both legislative chambers and support from industry and consumer advocates alike, efforts to strengthen the FDA’s authority over cosmetics have the potential to gain traction despite a polarised Congress.

    Previous sessions, however, have seen similar bills fail to get the momentum necessary to become law.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/74980/congress-revisits-legislation-to-overhaul-us-cosmetics-rules
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Proposed Ecodesign Ban on Halogenated Flame Retardants Under Scrutiny

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    The European Parliament and Council of Ministers are scrutinising a Commission proposal to ban halogenated flame retardants in electronic displays under the Ecodesign Directive.

    The review period finishes at the end of March, three months after member states gave their approval at the Committee on Ecodesign and Energy Labelling of Energy–related Products meeting on 29 December.

    The measure establishes requirements for displays intended for household, office or commercial use. These include:televisions;monitors; andsignage displays.

    Questioning this decision would "put at risk the Ecodesign measure itself and may even endanger the release of a package of measures that has the potential to deliver significant savings to EU citizens, businesses and the environment", NGOs have warned.

    In a recent letter to the European Commission, the European Environmental Bureau and the European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation (Ecos) gave their support to the planned ban.

    The presence of halogenated flame retardants in products "continues to be a barrier to a circular economy, and undermines the protection of environmental and human health", Chloe Fayole, Ecos senior programme manager said.

    The letter added that "it is possible to ban all halogenated flame retardants from products entering the EU market". The EU should also, it said, continue evaluating non-halogenated flame retardants for their hazards through the REACH Regulation.

    Several alternatives to halogenated flame retardants "have been, and continue to be, developed", the letter said. As such "drop-in alternatives" are now established and already available on the market".

    Last January multinational retailer Kingfisher committed to phasing out halogenated flame retardants from its own-brand products by 2025.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75001/proposed-ecodesign-ban-on-halogenated-flame-retardants-under-scrutiny
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Lords Table Motions Opposing UK Draft REACH Statutory Instrument

    Mar 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch

    Two members of the UK Parliament's House of Lords, have proposed separate motions asking the House to decline to approve the UK government’s draft REACH statutory instrument (SI).

    The House of Commons passed the SI following a debate on 27 February. It has faced much criticism from industry which claims the REACH plan is ‘not workable’.

    The House of Lords is the second, unelected, chamber of the UK Parliament and shares the task of making laws and overseeing the government's work.

    In his motion, Lord Fox said the government has provided insufficient information on the impact of the proposed changes, particularly in relation to:the additional responsibilities being transferred to the Health and Safety Executive and its readiness to act as the national regulator;the potential costs for the chemical and advanced manufacturing industries in the UK;the potential duplication of testing on animals; andthe need to uphold environmental protections.

    He also called on the government to "lay new regulations following full consultation with the chemical, manufacturing and consumer goods industries, and the environmental sector, with the aim of delivering a regulatory regime of the highest standard".

    Meanwhile, Lord Whitty's motion said the draft REACH fails to fulfil the prime minister’s intention to maintain the UK’s participation in Echa. Potential duplication of registrations and the consequential increased costs to UK manufacturers, downstream users and importers could have been avoided, he said.

    A date for the House of Lords to debate the motions has not yet been confirmed.

    Commenting on the motion, a spokesperson at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the government is working closely with industry stakeholders to ensure they are prepared in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

    "Our approach will maintain regulatory standards, provide continuity for business and reduce the risk of interruption in supply chains. The transitional arrangements, as established in the REACH SI, will ensure the continued access of chemicals to and from the UK market, including the import of products from outside the EU."

    In a letter last week to Defra junior minister Thérèse Coffey MP, a House of Lords subcommittee said "significant concerns" remain about the government's preparedness for a no-deal Brexit scenario.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/75014/lords-table-motions-opposing-uk-draft-reach-statutory-instrument
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

17. LNG Industry Optimistic on FERC, Though Trade War Worries Persist

    Mar 13, 2019 | Politico Pro

    By Ben Lefebvre

    U.S. liquefied natural gas industry members said Wednesday they’re hopeful that FERC permit approval holdups are coming to an end, though they still worry the Trump administration's trade tensions with China is costing them business.

    FERC broke a nearly two-year stretch of not issuing export facility permits when it approved Venture Global’s Louisiana LNG export facility last month. The long period when the commission lacked a quorum, as well as the the recent death of Commissioner Kevin McIntyre, contributed to the slowdown in permitting despite a backlog of applications.

    The Venture Global approval came after Commissioner Cheryl LaFleur and Chairman Neil Chatterjee struck a deal to include a calculation of downstream carbon dioxide impacts of the plant in the approval, a move Chatterjee hailed as a potential “breakthrough.”

    Charif Souki, the former head of Cheniere LNG and the founder of Tellurian LNG, which is planning an export plant in Driftwood, La., said he was “optimistic [FERC] is getting its house in order and they know what they need to do.”

    “They had their teething pains for a little while because they were trying to figure out," Souki told reporters at the CERAWeek conference. “Their attitude from day one has been absolutely wonderful. They’re now starting to get their legs under them and starting to do the right thing.”

    Michael Smith, head of Texas-based Freeport LNG, which also has a permit application pending at FERC, said he hoped the agency's long slog on permits is speeding up.

    “We’re optimistic that Venture Global is indicative that the logjam that has occurred ... will be rectified shortly,” he told reporters. “We’re next in the queue.We’re hopeful we’ll get through it."

    "It would help if we had a [new commissioner],” he said, referring to the vacancy on the commission.

    The administration's trade spat with China remained a headache for the industry that is likely to need Chinese buyers to snap up growing shipments and drive future investments, Smith said. China has imposed tariffs on U.S. LNG imports and the Trump administration’s tariffs on imported steel have raised the raw material costs for LNG projects still under construction.

    “Let’s get the trade war with China over with,” Smith said. “They’re the largest growth country for LNG and we’re having a trade war. We’re exporters. We want to export to them. It’s slowing down new deals with China.”

    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2019/03/lng-industry-optimistic-on-ferc-though-trade-war-worries-persist-1266921
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Shipping Companies Banking on Gas Carriers as LNG Demand Grows

    Mar 14, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal

    By Costas Paris

    A raft of U.S. natural gas projects coming online in the next few years are likely to boost the global fleet of seagoing tankers carrying the product by up to a third, as shipping operators jarred by sharp swings in oil markets rush to take advantage of a big new stream of business.

    At around $175 million each, vessels outfitted for liquefied natural gas can cost up to four times more than other ship types. But top shipowners say they could be the vehicle for most profitable trade in shipping since crude oil tankers powered global maritime fortunes in the 1960s.

    LNG business has long been a small piece of the global tanker market, but trade in natural gas is on a sharp upswing as energy producers look for cleaner sources of power to replace oil and coal. Demand has grown at a sharp rate in Asia, in particular, and output has soared in the U.S. as improved hydraulic fracturing technology has made shale drilling for both oil and gas more cost effective, which has helped reshape global energy markets.

    “We are moving into an era where fossil fuels will be reduced in the energy mixture, and LNG will be used extensively in the transitional period where more clean forms of energy can be developed,” said shipowner George Prokopiou. “If you are in shipping, you can’t ignore LNG.”

    Mr. Prokopiou is chairman of Dynagas LNG Partners LP, which has five icebreaking LNG carriers on long-term contracts to move gas from the Yamal LNG project in the Russian arctic. He operates more than 100 ships, including crude oil supertankers and dry bulk carriers, under different companies.

    Gassing Up the Fleet

    The world's biggest shipowners say they will spend billions more in the coming years on LNG carriers to meet growing gas demand from Asian importers.

    The LNG market is powered by growing demand from Japan, China, India and Southeast Asia that has helped triple seaborne LNG cargoes since 2000 to 308 million metric tons last year, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. World-wide capacity for another 170 million metric tons is expected to be added by 2030, if planned projects are completed.

    Much of the anticipated growth is driven by new LNG projects in Texas, Louisiana, Maryland and Georgia that will come online by 2022. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the U.S. will become the No. 3 LNG exporter in the world, behind Australia and Qatar, by the end of this year.

    By then, the agency says, U.S. LNG export capacity will reach 8.9 billion cubic feet a day, more than double the current capacity of 3.6 billion cubic feet.

    “The energy costs in the U.S. are half of those in Europe and a third compared to the Far East,” Mr. Prokopiou said. “The financial benefits the U.S. has are tremendous, and more ships will be needed to move gas to export markets.”

    Maritime operators and a beleaguered shipbuilding sector buffeted by sharp swings in various shipping markets in recent years are as anxious as the shale drillers to tap into the market.

    There are now about 520 tankers capable of carrying LNG across oceans, according to David Bull, an analyst at London-based Maritime Strategies International. He expects the fleet to grow by about 28% by 2020, roughly in line with the growth in production.

    South Korea’s Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. and Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering Co. , which are completing a merger agreed to last month, will be the biggest beneficiaries, as they will control 52% of existing orders with a combined order book worth $31.4 billion. Executives from both yards say LNG transport is the single bright point in an otherwise depressed shipbuilding industry.

    LNG tankers cost more than oil tankers—the largest crude supertankers sell new for about $95 million—because of the technology needed to carry and control natural gas on long voyages. The gas is chilled to be condensed and then transported as liquid. Special alloys are needed for the ship’s tanks to keep the temperature at -165 degrees Celsius (-265 Fahrenheit) so the gas doesn’t evaporate.

    Along with 101 ships on order, the total fleet of existing and ordered LNG tankers has a combined value of nearly $50 billion, according to marine data provider VesselsValue Ltd.

    For the buyers, those orders carry risks since they target speculative business rather than existing demand.

    Major producers like Houston-based Cheniere Energy Partners LP prefer to limit their exposure to volatile rate changes with long-term contracts called time charters that can stretch up to seven years. But experts expect many of the new ships to head into the short-term spot market as operators look to get the most revenue out of their expensive new vessels.

    “In the past, owners ordered LNG tankers based on long-term contracts,” said Basil Karatzas, chief executive of New-York-based Karatzas Marine Advisors & Co. “Now, many shipowners prefer to trade their LNG tankers on the spot market as they see profits from the upside potential. This is unprecedented, because the ships involved are very expensive.”

    Still, owners expect demand to run ahead of shipping capacity until at least 2024, paving the way for five years of healthy freight rates.

    “With the new U.S. LNG plants, quite a few vessels will be required fairly quickly as there is no spare capacity out there,” Mr. Bull said. “The shift from coal and oil for power generation and heating will continue to propel Asian demand and barring a major crisis, not much can go wrong in gas trade over the next years. It’s good news for LNG vessel operators.”

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/shipping-companies-banking-on-gas-carriers-as-lng-demand-grows-11552555800
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

19. Industry Braces for 'Next Wave' of Natural Gas

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Jenny Mandel and Mike Lee

    A surge of natural gas export projects coming online around the world is rippling through global gas markets and upending the industry, with no end to the changes in sight.

    "We are in search of that elusive new business model," Charif Souki, chairman of the board at natural gas export company Tellurian Inc., said in a talk yesterday at the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference.

    Increasingly global natural gas markets are starting to shift power from sellers toward buyers, driven by growing volumes. The changes could also have environmental implications as they spur new production.

    Souki led a wave of U.S. projects less than a decade ago that sought to parlay the fruits of the shale revolution into a new liquefied natural gas export industry. As co-founder and CEO of Cheniere Energy Inc., he set out with a new business model for exports that gave buyers access to low-priced U.S. gas through long-term liquefaction contracts based on a domestic price index.

    LNG markets have evolved since then, and at Tellurian, Souki is taking a different tack.

    "We would love to do things the same way, but we can't. So in this particular case, necessity is the mother of invention," Souki said.

    Tellurian's model reaches upstream to bring LNG buyers into the production business. The company is currently soliciting partners that will split an investment in natural gas assets. Tellurian will drill for the gas, transport it to a proposed $15 billion export terminal in Louisiana and load it onto ships for the buyer.

    Souki is confident that a vertically integrated business model backstopped by U.S. shale can win globally on pricing, as long as the company keeps tight control of costs.

    "We will have to live with price fluctuations that will be pretty dramatic," he predicted. "You'll have to accept that when the prices are low, you're going to have very meager returns on your equity, and you're going to make your money 20 percent of the time when the prices are high."

    A key feature of the plan is that it does not feature the 20-year buyer contracts that have historically underpinned LNG export terminals. Long contracts give investors confidence in financing the expensive infrastructure, but since the entry of U.S. projects into world markets, buyers' interest has shifted toward a mixture of short-, mid- and long-term purchasing that lets them take advantage of shifts in world LNG pricing.

    "On a global basis today we don't see a need for long-term contracts," Souki said. "This is a commodity. Other commodities don't trade on long-term contracts."

    That view puts him at odds with some other companies putting new LNG export projects together.

    Peter Coleman, CEO and managing director of Woodside Petroleum Ltd., an Australian oil and gas company that operates an export plant off the country's western coast, agrees that LNG is developing into a true commodity. But he doesn't see that as precluding the kind of extended contracts that can underpin financing arrangements.

    "Do we need long-term contracts?" Coleman asked. "We absolutely do."

    A true commodity like oil has transparency and liquidity, and its price fluctuates continuously. LNG hasn't reached that stage yet, Coleman says, but could get there in the next five to 10 years.

    Souki, always bullish, says that point has essentially arrived.

    "You now have 400 cargoes at any given time on the water full of LNG. You can make a phone call, and in two days you can have it delivered. All you have to do is pay the price," he said.'All of the above plus more'

    As natural gas shippers catch up to the shale surge of the past decade, some voices are warning of more changes to come.

    Andrew Walker, vice president at Cheniere, said the LNG business has already seen three waves of supply come into the market — Qatar, Australia and the United States — and should expect that trend to grow.

    "It's clear the next wave will be all of the above plus more," Walker said. "It's Qatar, it's Canada, it's Africa, it's Russia, it's the U.S."

    PAO Novatek, the Russian company that sent its first cargo from a new LNG export plant on the Arctic coast last year, is evidence of that. Construction of Yamal LNG required building 38,000 pylons deep into the permafrost, each with its own temperature monitoring device to warn of melting.

    The company's next project, Arctic LNG 2, will place the entire production complex on giant bargelike structures that can shift with the earth beneath.

    "Without LNG we wouldn't bring this to the marketplace, because it makes no sense to bring this into the most crowded pipeline market, Russia," said Mark Gyetvay, Novatek's chief financial officer and deputy chairman.

    The company is developing the project as a blend of about half spot market sales and half mid- to long-term arrangements, he said.

    Argentina could also become a gas exporter as development ramps up in its Vaca Muerta shale field. YPF SA, an integrated oil company based in Buenos Aires, controls 4,600 square miles of the 11,500-square-mile field, according to the company's website, and Argentina could have larger gas reserves than the United States.

    The Argentine gas market is about one-twentieth the size of the U.S. market, so YPF will look to exports to find customers for the gas.

    Africa is also on the edge of an export boom, with Mauritania, Senegal, Mozambique and Cameroon all working on export projects. Floating LNG liquefaction plants are central in African plans to bring offshore resources to market quickly, while bypassing some of the complexities of building an onshore terminal.Flare it or ship it

    And then there's the next phase of exports from the Permian Basin.

    "The second wave of the U.S. shale revolution is coming," Fatih Birol, the International Energy Agency's executive director, told reporters earlier this week. IEA projections show the United States accounting for 75 percent of LNG trade growth over the next five years.

    Much of that stems from dramatic productivity growth in Texas' and New Mexico's Permian Basin, where drilling advances based on data analysis and new abilities to steer drill bits in real time are increasing companies' output.

    Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. recently announced major expansions in the Permian, and other oil majors are also snapping up assets in the basin (Energywire, Nov. 19, 2018).

    That drilling is targeted at crude oil, but Permian fields tend to co-produce natural gas, which can be sold or, if pipeline constraints prevent it from getting to market, flared or burned, releasing climate-forcing methane.

    What looks like a climate liability to oil drillers is an asset to LNG companies with infrastructure along the Gulf Coast.

    Tellurian's Souki said he is not concerned with LNG industry headwinds like trade friction with China, which has restricted China's LNG buying and caused anxiety within the industry (Energywire, Oct. 5, 2018).

    "We are going to concentrate on the problems that we have here in the United States, which is a sea of natural gas that is going to hit us in the face in the next five years," Souki said.

    For exporters, that gas will only be a problem if it is flared or burned, rather than put into the pipelines that serve their facilities.

    Souki noted that flaring of methane in the Permian Basin has spiked, and the United States is now fourth in the world for flaring.

    "The Texas Railroad Commission will be under pressure if they continue to allow this," Souki said, referring to the state agency charged with overseeing the oil and gas industry.

    He expressed confidence that the agency will "do the right thing" and step up to reduce gas flaring. "The choice of prosperity with oil production versus environmental concern, they know what balance needs to happen, they know what they need to do, they will do the right thing," he said.

    From a business perspective, Souki said the price impacts of growing Permian gas production will dwarf any tweaks the company makes to the liquefaction portion of its business.

    "In refrigeration you can organize things better, but you proceed by little steps," Souki said. "What's happening on the upstream side is simply astonishing, which is why we came to the conclusion that we have to be integrated."

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/14/stories/1060127277
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Perry Heralds Start of 'New American Energy Era'

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E News PM

    By Mike Lee and Edward Klump

    The world is entering a new era in which American innovation will upend the global fuel and electricity system, Energy Secretary Rick Perry said today.

    Changes developed by private industry and by the Energy Department's laboratories have created an abundance of oil and gas, alongside advances in renewable sources of electricity and energy efficiency, Perry said at the CERAWeek by IHS Markit conference.

    "We're approaching the dawn of what I call the new American energy era," he said, adding, "An era of vastly improved energy choice for the entire world where we embrace new and smarter ways to reach our energy and our environmental goals."

    Perry, whose family farm was electrified with help from the New Deal-era Rural Electrification Administration, has frequently touted the role of energy in reducing poverty around the world. His full-throated support of conventional energy today echoed other Trump administration officials who also spoke at the conference.

    EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said Monday the Green New Deal's supporters are trying to cut the U.S. and other countries off from reliable energy (E&E News PM, March 11).

    Yesterday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged the conference's energy executives to help spread American influence through the energy trade (Energywire, March 13).

    The energy companies, however, are increasingly acknowledging pressure to reduce emissions that are linked to climate change (Energywire, March 13).

    Perry gave a winding answer when asked whether DOE or the administration was preparing any direct financial assistance to keep coal-fired and nuclear power plants from retiring. He said he's "thrown a lot of Jell-O at the wall" but that the question still vexes the administration.

    "Here's the broader issue: Does America need to have a stable foundation of electric power that is uninterruptible?" he said.

    Overall, Perry continued, the U.S. has proved that the world can have abundant energy while still reducing emissions.

    "Just ask Dr. Fatih Birol," he said, referring to the head of the International Energy Agency who said the energy industry was making progress on reducing emissions.

    "The way we did it is clear — not through the onerous regulations of the Paris accord but by continuous innovations in our science-driven labs and by people like you in this room," Perry added.

    Perry overlooked other comments Birol made Monday at the conference. Birol said the oil industry, while making progress, needs to do more to reduce emissions, and he said the worldwide increase in oil production would have "implications for the environment."

    "We need to all together address these issues," Birol said.

    It's important for the industry and the government to engage with critics, including supporters of the Green New Deal, Perry said. But he echoed predictions from the IEA and others that the world will continue to rely on fossil fuels until at least 2040.

    When asked about whether he's open to meeting with freshman lawmaker and Green New Deal advocate Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Perry told reporters he doesn't think she should be castigated for comments about wanting to live in a place with clean air and water. Perry said he does too and that he hoped he could be successful in helping her understand what has been done in the country over the last decade.

    "I'd rather be agreeable," Perry said. "Life's too short to be pissed off all the time."

    One obstacle to continuing the rapid production growth is a lack of infrastructure, such as pipelines to connect the Permian Basin and other oil fields to coastal ports, Perry said.

    Looking into the audience, he said, "There's an issue that goes back before any of those, and I'm looking at one of the solutions right here in the audience — Bernie [McNamee], he's on the [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission]."

    He paused and said, "Permits."

    https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/03/13/stories/1060127227
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Roll Group Wins Ethane Cracker Project Contract

    Mar 14, 2019 | Hydrocarbon Engineering

    By Callum O'Reilly

    Roll Group has been awarded a contract to transport 24 modules for the Total ethane cracker project in the US.

    The transport will cover seven single voyages, using both RollDock and BigRoll vessels. The services and expertise of Roll-Lift will also play a part in the completion of the land transport aspects of the project.

    The first voyage is scheduled within the next two weeks. The other transports will be undertaken between April and August 2019. The modules are currently in the process of building in Hamriyah, the UAE. After completion, Roll Group will roll the modules on board of our vessels for transportation to Port Arthur, US. It is the first time that Roll Group will complete the transportation from the fabrication yard to the job site of such a large project - including the land transport, according to Wiebe Broeksma, Roll Group Project Manager. “This was one of the reasons our client awarded the contract to us, since we have the ability to load and discharge the majority of the cargo directly from the quay onto our RollDock vessels and vice versa, due to the limited draft of our vessels.’’

    Due to the size of the modules, the BigRoll Module Carriers will be utilised on two voyages. Broeksma stated: “When unloading the BigRoll vessels in Port Arthur, the intermediate transport will be arranged by our sister company Roll-Lift USA. A good example of our ‘Factory to Foundation’ ability.’’

    The Roll Group project team has been involved in the Total ethane cracker project for a long time, with the first request for transportation in 2016. The project team is working together with Roll Group’s engineering department on all preparations to ensure that the transport will be performed as safely and efficiently as possible. Total’s new cracker is scheduled to start up in 2020, and will have an ethylene production capacity of 1 million tpy. It will be built alongside Total’s Port Arthur refinery and Total/BASF existing steam cracker.

    https://www.hydrocarbonengineering.com/refining/14032019/roll-group-wins-ethane-cracker-project-contract/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. Colorado Bid to Overhaul Oil-Drilling Laws Clears State Senate

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Catherine Traywick

    Legislation to overhaul Colorado’s oil and natural gas laws passed the state Senate March 13, clearing a key hurdle as Democrats rush to finalize the bill before the legislative session ends in May.

    The bill is designed to significantly change the way drilling is permitted in Colorado. It gives local governments more power to regulate development by companies such as Anadarko Petroleum Corp., Noble Energy Inc. and ConocoPhillips, three of the biggest acreage holders in the state.

    Introduced less than two weeks ago, the proposal now heads to the House for consideration. If approved there, it could land on Governor Jared Polis’s desk within the month.

    Ahead of the Senate vote, the oil industry managed to win a few concessions from Democratic leaders, including new language that somewhat limits the scope of local authority.

    Regulations on oil and gas development will have to be “necessary and reasonable” to protect public health and safety -- a higher legal bar than the original bill had set. The amended bill also would force the energy regulator to develop “objective criteria” for delaying permits.

    “We ultimately view this legislation as a long-term positive for Colorado-exposed E&Ps” such as SRC Energy Inc., PDC Energy Inc. and Extraction Oil and Gas Inc., Washington-based Height Securities said in a note March 13.

    Passage of the bill in its current form would lower the odds of a drilling referendum making it onto the 2020 ballot, “increasing investor certainty and allowing the DJ Basin’s fundamentals to shine through,” the note said.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/colorado-bid-to-overhaul-oil-drilling-laws-clears-state-senate
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

23. Environmental Groups Challenge 78 Million Acre Offshore Sale

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Porter Wells

    Environmental groups sued to stop the U.S. Department of the Interior’s oil and gas lease sale of property on the Gulf Coast.

    The Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Sale 252 would transfer 78 million acres of seafloor to a purchaser, “making it the largest lease sale in U.S. history,” Healthy Gulf alleged in its complaint, filed March 13 with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

    The sale currently is set to take place March 20.

    Healthy Gulf, along with the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity, allege that the department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management didn’t perform proper analyses as required by the National Environmental Policy Act before announcing the lease sale.

    “Expanding offshore drilling while glossing over its environmental harms is reckless and illegal,” Kristen Monsell of the Center for Biological Diversity said March 13.

    “A proper study would reveal that marine life, our climate and coastal communities are being harmed by oil spills and other pollution from offshore drilling,” she said.

    The plaintiffs point to a variety of industries potentially affected by the lease sale, including boat tours, underwater diving, photography, scientific studies, and nature tourism.

    The suit is related to another action challenging 2018 lease sales using similar legal arguments, Healthy Gulf said in an additional court filing.

    The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. BloombergEnvironment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.

    Causes of Action: violations of the National Environmental Policy Act; violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

    Scope/Relief: The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the sale is unlawful, for the court to vacate the decision to have the sale, and to vacate or enjoin any lease executed pursuant to the sale.

    Response: The department and BOEM didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg Law’s request for comment.

    Attorneys: Earthjustice represents Healthy Gulf.

    The case is Healthy Gulf v. Bernhardt, D.D.C., No. 19-cv-00707, complaint filed 3/13/19.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/environmental-groups-challenge-78-million-acre-offshore-sale
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

24. Big Oil CEO Brings Climate Action Call to Heart of Texas

    Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Javier Blas

    Two weeks ago, oil executives gathered in London were confronted by environmental protesters gluing themselves to the venue’s doors. This week in Houston, the most radical environmental message at an industry conference may come from an oil company CEO.

    Bob Dudley, chief executive officer of London-based BP Plc, told about 5,000 energy executives, consultants and journalists gathered for CERAWeek by IHS Markit that the industry is operating “in a world that is not on a sustainable path.” He called for the industry to engage with policymakers around the world, “including those behind the Green New Deal.”

    The Green New Deal is the brainchild of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the freshman congresswoman that calls herself a Democratic socialist. The policy proposal calls for freeing the U.S. economy from dependence on fossils fuels in 10 years.

    “We may be on track to meet the world’s growing demand for energy,” he said March 12. “But greenhouse gas emissions are expected to rise by around 10 percent over the next two decades, when they need to be falling dramatically.“
    Signs of Change

    The speech wouldn’t be unusual for Dudley to deliver in Europe, but CERAWeek is a conference that has been dominated by executives who promote oil and natural gas development. Still, there are signs of change amid rising shareholder pressure for action on the climate. On March 13, a small group of climate protesters briefly entered the conference venue, before being removed by police.

    “Shareholders are increasingly asking how our strategies relate to the Paris goals,” Dudley said in reference to a global climate deal signed in the French capital. “There is a rising tide of concern on many fronts about the lack of progress on climate issues—not just concern: anger.“

    Equinor ASA, the Norwegian energy company which recently dropped the word oil from its name, was equally critical of the industry, warning about the consequences of climate change at CERAWeek. Equinor CEO Eldar Saetre said that oil majors will need to invest more in renewable energy under pressure from shareholders.
    Shell Methane

    Earlier on March 12, the top U.S. executive at Royal Dutch Shell Plc had strong words on climate change, directly challenging the Trump administration.

    “At Shell, we generally don’t make a habit of trying to tell governments how to do their jobs,” said Gretchen Watkins, head of U.S. operations. “I am breaking that rule today to request that the Environmental Protection Agency continue the direct regulation of methane emissions.“

    CERAWeek comes weeks after climate change and the energy transition were key themes at the annual International Petroleum Week in London, another top oil industry conference. It’s also occurring amid a push in the U.S. House of Representatives for a stronger response to climate change.

    For Big Oil, the trouble is more acute as it needs to carefully make bets outside petroleum in a rapidly evolving landscape.

    “The market and policy signals in areas like solar and electrification are already becoming much stronger and we are starting to lay down some bigger bets,” Dudley said in his speech, which was received with muted applause before proceedings moved on to a question-and-answer session. He also expressed support for natural gas, a cleaner form of energy.

    But he’s confident that the industry could adapt. “We can readily reshape BP however fast the energy transition unfolds—and I’m sure it’s a similar story at the other majors,” he said.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/big-oil-ceo-brings-climate-action-call-to-heart-of-texas-1
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

25. Pentagon to Utilities: Uncle Sam Wants You

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire

    By Peter Behr

    Walled off inside the National Security Agency complex in Fort Meade, Md., leaders of U.S. Cyber Command are preparing for digital combat against state-backed hackers targeting critical energy infrastructure.

    The top-secret work comes after a decade of relentless probing by cyber units from Russia and China. It follows two years of sobering revelations about accelerating efforts by America's adversaries to break into electric grid and pipeline control rooms.

    And in a sharp departure from the past, Cyber Command is recruiting U.S. energy companies as partners in developing and defining the new strategy disclosed last fall. Several have joined up so far, the command says, without identifying them.

    Called "defend forward," it includes for the first time a commitment by Pentagon cyber commandos to hit back at adversaries to block the most dangerous attacks before they're launched.

    The offensive strategy has the support of leaders in Congress who are eager to send a message to U.S. rivals. But the support is joined by anxiety about throwing open the door to a dangerous, more chaotic new chapter in digital warfare.

    "My initial reaction is positive," said Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.), head of the House Armed Services subcommittee that oversees cyberthreats, adding a note of caution. "We want to make sure the actions that are taken to protect the country don't lead to the creation of a Wild West out there in cyberspace."

    The nation's largest regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, which serves 13 states and Washington, D.C., is among those in talks with the Pentagon, said Thomas O'Brien, its senior vice president and chief information officer. "PJM is in discussions with Cyber Command about participating, and we certainly are interested in doing so."

    If more than a few energy companies eventually ally with the Pentagon, it would raise the stakes for would-be attackers plotting to disrupt the U.S. economy with a blackout or a natural gas shortage.

    Any offensive cyber actions would be Cybercom's mission. "Hacking back" by private-sector companies "is a very difficult concept," says Gen. Paul Nakasone, heading Cybercom. "I think we need to be very careful about that," he told a security conference last week.

    Still, some in the industry worry that locking arms with the Pentagon and the nation's sprawling national security enterprise could center power grid operators in an enemy's crosshairs.

    "That is not a good place for the private sector," said one power industry leader. "I would hope the government would consider the potential for retaliation."

    Goldilocks dilemma

    Cybercom's mission metaphor is "shoot the archer."

    It envisions a seamless melding of work by U.S. intelligence analysts, utility workers and Cybercom's rapid-response teams.

    Nakasone has said the goal is to thwart attacks on the most likely targets of cyberespionage and life-threatening hacking campaigns in the United States.

    Nakasone grabbed headlines last month after members of the Senate Armed Services Committee heaped praise on the U.S. cyber force for heading off potential Russian interference in the 2018 congressional elections. According to The Washington Post, Cybercom signaled to Russian hackers that their systems had been tagged by U.S. cyber forces and could be attacked if the Russians tried a repeat of the 2016 election disinformation campaign.

    "I think there was a well-coordinated strategy with all hands on deck," Langevin said in an interview. "On a number of levels, we were able to communicate with our adversaries that we're not standing still. We are not going to be caught off guard."

    The action against the Russian groups was not the first. Documents released by former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden describe an NSA operation that hacked into computers of the Chinese People's Liberation Army to block intrusions into U.S. systems.

    "'Defend forward' is not a new idea or practice," said James Clapper, former director of national intelligence. The latest iteration of the offensive policy, with more authority to aggressively pursue hackers, raises what Clapper calls the "Goldilocks" dilemma: finding the right balance between "too hot" and "too cold," he said.

    "Not-too-hot cyber offense could elicit unintended consequences. The last administration agonized over that a lot, maybe too much," Clapper said. "The not-too-cold offense will not get the adversary's attention. How much can we degrade an adversary's infrastructure before we suffer a counter-retaliation we can't deal with?"

    Today, the question is whether the new partnerships pull U.S. power companies into a shadowy world where uncertainty creates its own threats.

    Managing the escalation risk is complicated because the United States and its adversaries are on the starting rung of a more violent conflict. They're using cyber tools to spy on each other, analysts say.

    "All nations are engaged in intelligence gathering," former Attorney General Eric Holder said in 2014, when the Justice Department announced indictments of five Chinese army hackers. In this case, the indictments responded to "a state-sponsored entity, state-sponsored individuals, using intelligence tools to gain commercial advantages, and that is what makes this case different."

    Ben Buchanan, author of "The Cybersecurity Dilemma," warned in a Council on Foreign Relations blog post of the blurred lines between intelligence gathering and an attack. "It is even harder still to distinguish between defending forward and attacking forward," he wrote. "If the new strategy permits U.S. [government] operators to be more aggressive than what the NSA was previously doing, that could have significant implications for escalation risks."

    "The concerns I have are mostly around the potential for escalation," said Dave Weinstein, vice president of threat research at Claroty, a cyberdefense firm. "There's kind of been this tacit acceptance among nations for a couple of years now that as long as you don't cross a certain line, everything is OK, and that line between intelligence, traditional espionage operations and cyberwarfare is increasingly blurred."

    But he said, "On the other side of the equation, the benefits are potentially great if, for example, they can succeed in drawing clearer lines in the sand on what's acceptable and not acceptable activity."'We see you'

    For years, executives in the U.S. electric power sector have steamed with frustration over delays in getting security clearances and the trouble they've had getting federal agencies to declassify actionable threat intelligence.

    "There are many who welcome this because they feel there is increasing sophistication among nation-states," said Caitlin Durkovich of Toffler Associates, former Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary for infrastructure protection. "The private sector doesn't have the capability it needs to push back."

    Some experts speculate the strategy could work this way: Intelligence agencies would share sensitive information on attackers' plans and tactics. Utilities would use the intelligence to help find dangerous intrusions, and then Cybercom would follow the hackers back home. When a foreign hacking group shifted from basic surveillance to prepare an attack, the United States would send a warning, "We see you. Stop now, or else." Or another option: moving straight to "or else."

    Joseph Holstead, Cybercom's deputy director for public affairs, told E&E News that Cybercom is already working with a few companies and the Department of Energy. The collaboration builds on a memorandum of understanding signed last November by the Defense Department and DHS to launch "pathfinder" actions that test the strategy.

    One goal, he added, is for DOD to compare energy industry cybersecurity issues with what the U.S. government's digital spies find in the field. "This information-sharing helps us to broaden our understanding of the cyberthreats the energy sector is continuously battling," he said.

    "This will enable our energy-sector partners to be able to better defend their systems while enhancing our insights as we persistently engage — defending forward — adversaries who intend to negatively impact critical U.S. infrastructure," Holstead explained.'

    Disrupt, defeat and deter'

    The Pentagon's fiscal 2019 budget authorization cleared DOD to "take appropriate and proportional action in foreign cyberspace to disrupt, defeat and deter."

    An attempt to access a power company — without actually taking a utility down — could still trigger a response, the Pentagon has suggested. "We will defend forward to disrupt or halt malicious cyber activity at its source, including activity that falls below the level of armed conflict," the Pentagon said in a policy statement.

    A couple of forceful "shots across the bow" of China, Russia, Iran and North Korea could be effective, said David London, senior director at the Chertoff Group. "It's quite possible that bad actors might relent or reduce the level of attack," he said.

    The idea that utilities and the Pentagon could work hand in glove is gaining some traction within the field of private-sector cybersecurity specialists.

    "It can certainly work, but it will require time and real investment to realize it," said Michael Assante, an expert on industrial control system security at the SANS Institute, an influential security training and research institute. Assante investigated a 2015 Russian attack on Ukraine's grid.

    "Thwarting targeted cyberattacks requires an active approach to security," Assante wrote in a recent paper on the U.S. offensive strategy. "It is time to discuss and debate how civilian and private-sector entities may work with the military to reduce the mutual risks faced by these entities and the nation."

    An energy industry-Pentagon partnership is required in part because the pursuit of foreign hackers cannot be done lightly or without a full scope of knowledge ahead of time, said Keith Alexander, former head of Cybercom and NSA and now co-CEO of IronNet Cybersecurity. "I work with a lot of energy companies' CEOs. They are forward leaning," Alexander said. "But they realize they can't attack back."'Kill chain'

    A critical challenge for Cybercom and energy companies is defining the line between what's tolerable from an adversary and what's intolerable.

    Assante and Robert M. Lee, founder of Dragos Security, scripted a "kill chain" sequence of actions attackers would likely follow in trying to take over a utility's computers or industrial control system.

    Steps include reconnaissance, intrusion through phishing attacks or other means, operator credential theft, cyber weapon development and testing, weapon delivery and installation, and the attack.

    Using the kill chain analysis, Assante, Lee and Tim Conway at SANS dissected Russia's methodical attack on Ukraine power utilities, which knocked out electric power to a quarter-million people during Christmas week 2015. Their report also traced the kill chain's steps.

    Ukraine utility employees were lured into opening emails that contained concealed Black Energy 3 malware. Attack software code instantly hid inside the utilities' business computers to search for utility operators' sign-on and password information. The goal: to open access to operating systems and implant malicious code.

    The "preparation of the battlefield" took months, analysts found. But eventually the methodical first steps transitioned to the action phase. Attackers were about to take command of critical devices that manage communications between control rooms and utility substations.

    But the utilities' primitive watchdog defenses missed the signs. The first moment the operators grasped they were under attack was when hackers' unseen hands took control of workstations. Operators were helpless in that moment, as the Russian hackers moved cursors across the screens to disable substations (Energywire, Sept. 6, 2016).

    "There was a clear line crossed when attackers began to test their ability to interface with the control system to conduct switching and open breakers," Assante said. "One can argue that the first time a configuration or setting is changed that could affect the reliable operation of the infrastructure, even if it is testing their ability, that is when the line is crossed."

    In a plausible "defend forward" playbook, a targeted U.S. energy company would recognize that moment the line is crossed and send for Cybercom. Nakasone said, "Ideally, these partnerships will allow our persistence force to address patterns of malicious cyber behavior before they become attacks."

    "The imminence of the threat — or the lack of imminence — is critically important, which is why reliable, real-time and high-confidence intelligence in the form of indications and warnings will be crucial," Weinstein commented last year in the Lawfare blog.

    But a recent cyber campaign by Russia illustrates the challenge for Cybercom and utilities of spotting a potentially dangerous intrusion in time. According to a DHS summary, Russian state hackers launched a campaign to break into U.S. nuclear plants and other targets in 2016, starting with probes to penetrate system vendors. After a dormant period, the attack began its campaign early in 2017. An official, non-public alert on the threat was not issued until June of that year (Energywire, July 26, 2018). The campaign was not officially blamed on Russia until a year ago.

    "Defending forward as a concept for network defense is fundamentally flawed. It is not easy in practice to say the enemy is there and I am here," said a former high-ranking government cyber official, citing mazes of circuitous paths that attackers create in the internet to hide their origins. "It is difficult to know where 'forward' is."Deception technology

    Chances of success could improve if U.S. intelligence developed profiles of an attacker's tactics and techniques to help utilities make "threat-focused hunts" for malware, Dragos analyst Dan Gunter said in a recent paper.

    There's also an emerging strategy called "deception technology." Utilities using this technology would route an attacker to a decoy operating system designed to mirror the real one. Hackers' actions could then be tracked, said Carolyn Crandall, chief deception officer and chief marketing officer at Attivo Networks, based in Freemont, Calif., a developer of the technology.

    "One of the strengths of deception is that it can sit inside a network, non-destructively, and when reconnaissance happens, whether it's a light ping, a scan, or an attempt to download malware, we see it," Crandall said.

    "The attacker really cannot identify what is real and what is fake, and so as they do their early reconnaissance, regardless of how they get into the network, they have to look around to figure out what the network looks like and where the target assets are," she said.

    "We spend a lot of time studying the attackers' playbook," Crandall said. "They go in low and slow. They've got lots of time and lots of resources to be able to do that. The typical posture of a security team is to stop and deflect the attack. When you do that, what you lose is a lot of information and intelligence about the adversary."

    A deception tool can follow hackers home, she said. "If a company decides they want to let a document go out of the company, you can tell where that document gets opened up," she added.

    The government agency could also use a decoy to hit the hacker with a taste of its own medicine. "It's just not something enterprises should be doing," she said.

    Nakasone said two-thirds of the military's effort to engage industry is to enable companies to act, in some capacity, to stop and trace intrusions. The other one-third is about action, according to his piece in Joint Force Quarterly.

    "How do we warn, how do we influence our adversaries, how do we position ourselves in case we have to achieve outcomes in the future?" Nakasone said.

    https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/03/14/stories/1060127201
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

26. Group Holds Rally at Portland City Hall to Protest Expansion of Oil Train Terminal Along Willamette River

    Mar 13, 2019 | Fox 12 Oregon

    A group of people say the city is facing a serious health and safety emergency if a company based in Australia is not stopped from expanding here in Portland.

    Environmental and public health advocates, youth leaders and local elected officials were at Portland City Hall Wednesday morning to urge Zenith Energy to halt the expansion of its oil train terminal on the Willamette River.

    The group wants to highlight what they call the unacceptable public health, safety, and climate impacts of expanded oil train shipments.

    In 2015, the city passed policy against new oil train developments.

    The next year, Multnomah County studied oil train risks and determined they posed a serious health and safety hazard.

    The group on Wednesday says despite the opposition from the city and county, Zenith Energy is actively constructing new equipment to ship more heavy oil through Portland.

    "In the last few months they have started to expand their infrastructure, enabling them to unload more oil obtained by one of the dirtiest methods of extraction on the planet," said Dr. Melanie Plaut, a retired physician, climate activist and member of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.

    Zenith Energy's website says the terminal in Portland can receive, store and deliver heavy and light petroleum products by ship, railroad and truck.

    The protest group says the heavy product - tar sands oil- is some of the most difficult to clean up and a spill would be disastrous for the Willamette River.

    The group cited reports of the tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan that cost $1 billion and took five years to clean up.

    Mayor Ted Wheeler released a statement about the expansion in February, saying:

    "In 2014, Zenith Energy applied for a building permit to construct infrastructure that would allow them to offload and operationalize an increased number of oil trains. This permit was issued two years before the Portland City Council approved legislation in 2016 that would prohibit the construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure in the City of Portland.

    As such, I am committed to undertaking whatever action I am permitted to ensure that there are limits placed on this proposed expansion. I do not support the proposed activity at the Zenith site. The risks associated with running oil trains anywhere, let alone through a major city, are significant, as you might remember from the environmental catastrophe in Mosier, Oregon, three short years ago, when a 96-car oil train derailed.

    Risks of derailment, of air and water contamination, of public health hazards, are ever-present.

    I continue to be in full support of ensuring that the City of Portland remains committed to mitigating the effects of climate change and investing in renewable and alternative sources of energy."

    Zenith responded to the rallies Wednesday and said it has been safely handling petroleum-based products for decades, and said this terminal will meet all local, state and federal standards. 

    Read their statement in full below:

    Zenith Energy’s Portland terminal has been safely handling petroleum-based products since 1947. The terminal is an important link in supplying the Pacific Northwest with energy for our cars, our homes and our businesses. Zenith is committed to delivering safe, reliable, efficient and flexible service to our customers while maintaining the highest environmental and operational safety standards. The Portland terminal meets all local, state and federal standards, including the City of Portland’s Fossil Fuel Terminal Zoning Amendments – Ordinance No. 188142 (December 2016).

    Our business is meeting a key economic need while providing family-wage jobs with benefits. We operate with a focus on safely and in accordance with all regulatory requirements; in fact, many aspects of our current improvement project are above and beyond what is mandated.

    We agree that renewables and biofuels are the future, and Portland requires infrastructure to handle that energy. As part of the ongoing work, we invested several million dollars in equipment we recently brought on line that is allowing the terminal to handle renewable fuels (biodiesel), a part of our business we plan to continue growing. We anticipate the vast majority of the biodiesel will supply the Portland area.

    Our ongoing modernization project is focused on improving safety, increasing efficiency and enhancing environmental performance; it does not increase storage capacity at the facility. The multi-million-dollar construction project uses local contractors, trades men and women, plus numerous suppliers – currently averaging more than 100 individuals on site per day – providing significant economic stimulus for the area.

    https://www.kptv.com/news/group-holds-rally-at-portland-city-hall-to-protest-expansion/article_9b436032-45bd-11e9-ba9e-03a82305bfa6.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

27. Senate GOP Expected to Force Vote on Green New Deal in March

    Mar 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

    By Jordain Carney

    Senate Republicans will bring the Green New Deal resolution to the floor as they try to jam Democrats on the progressive proposal.

     Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a member of Senate GOP leadership, said that he expected Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would bring the resolution up for a vote the week of March 25, when the Senate returns from its one-week recess.

     “That’s my understanding,” he said.

    Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), another member of GOP leadership, said he also thought the proposal would be brought up for a vote that week.

     A spokesman for McConnell said he didn’t have an announcement on timing for the Senate’s vote but that the GOP leader has said it will take place during the upcoming work period.

     The Senate is expected to leave town by Friday for a one-week recess. They’ll then return on March 25 and remain until April 12, when they’ll leave for two weeks.

     The Green New Deal, which strives for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while creating millions of “good, high-wage jobs,” has zero chance of passing in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes to advance.

     But Republicans have seized on the Green New Deal, spearheaded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), as they hunt for fodder for the 2020 presidential election; several Senate Democrats are vying for their party's nomination.

     McConnell blasted the progressive proposal from the Senate floor earlier Wednesday, calling it an example of "garden-variety 20th-century socialism."

     "Our Democratic colleagues have taken all the debunked philosophies of the last hundred years, rolled them into one giant package, and thrown a little green paint on them to make them look new. But there’s nothing remotely new about a proposal to centralize control over the economy and raise taxes on the American people to pay for it," he said.

     Democrats have blasted McConnell, arguing that he's trying to "troll" them and dodge a broader debate on climate change policy. Several have suggested they will vote present on the Green New Deal resolution to try to dodge the GOP leader's political trap.

     They're also trying to turn the tables on McConnell.

     Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democrats are rolling out a litany of measures meant to let them go on offense on climate change. Among their targets is a the defunding of a Trump administration panel meant to counter the scientific community on climate change.

    "Why are our Republican friends so silent on this, perhaps the major issue of our day? History is not going to look kindly on them when it looks back. What are they afraid of, the oil industry?" Schumer said from the Senate floor earlier this week. "What are they afraid of, the facts? What are they afraid of, right-wing orthodoxy often funded by the Koch brothers who don’t want to admit climate change? Shame, shame."

    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/433972-senate-gop-expected-to-force-vote-on-green-new-deal-in-march
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

28. Dems Avoid White House Climate Review

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

    By Scott Waldman

    A hearing on the readiness of the military to address climate change explored the numerous national security threats global warming poses to Americans.

    But it barely touched on a White House plan to conduct an "adversarial" review of climate science and national security that's meant to undermine the link between the two. The White House views on climate change were only briefly alluded to during the two-hour hearing of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness.

    Retired Rear Adm. David Titley, director of the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Pennsylvania State University, said there is typically at least some recognition of the dangers of climate change in the highest levels of government. He said President Trump's rejection of climate science inhibits proper military planning.

    The Pentagon is a hierarchical institution, according to Titley, and "if your boss is interested, you are fascinated."

    "Right now, the boss is not interested, and I would say at the National Security Council, they have given very definite signals, do not bring this issue up, that makes it much, much harder," he said. "The Pentagon is between a rock and a hard place, they understand their board of directors is interested, they know they should be — their boss is not there."

    Military leaders, climate scientists and Democrats have widely panned the planned White House review. Last week, 58 intelligence leaders, combatant commanders and national security officials — as well as former secretaries of Defense and State — wrote a letter condemning the effort and stating it was "dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics."

    The military faces a number of direct threats from climate change and needs to better plan for how to address them, a number of witnesses and former military leaders said at the hearing.

    Drought and heat make live fire ranges combustible and threaten base water supplies, Titley said. Hot and dry conditions also increase wildfire risks, directly threatening bases located in regions of the country more prone to blazes.

    Rising sea levels threaten dozens of other bases and military installations across the country. In the Arctic, thawing permafrost and shrinking sea ice has allowed Russia to begin moving weapons into the region.

    Climate change itself does not have a military solution, said Sharon Burke, a senior adviser at New America's International Security and Resource Security programs and a former assistant secretary of Defense for operational energy in the Obama administration. In other words, a soldier cannot defeat it by shooting at it or blowing it up.

    Fundamentally, addressing climate change is a governance and economic development challenge, she said. However, Burke said the military must prepare now for the consequences of what would happen in the future if global warming continues unabated.

    "While the Department of Defense has good reasons to account for energy and climate security now," Burke said, "if the nation does not have the adequate civilian capacity, if we do not innovate, if we do not get ahead of the changes that are underway and coming, they might also want to prepare for a worst-case scenario where it's entirely their mission to deal with consequences."

    Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), the subcommittee's chairman, noted that California's wildfires led to the evacuation of family housing at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in San Diego County, Ventura County's Naval Air Station Point Mugu and the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in Bridgeport, Calif. He said coastal installations, including the naval base in Norfolk, Va., are already experiencing significant flooding due to sea-level rise.

    "Climate change presents a myriad of readiness challenges both at home and abroad," he said. "It is not only a future threat but is impacting resiliency of our installations and operations today. The department must act now to address these challenges."

    But some Republicans questioned whether the committee even had the authority to address climate change issues. They also feared the military would be stifled with regulations that would restrain fossil fuel use, compromising operations.

    Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), who once blamed rising sea levels on rocks falling into the sea, asked the invited speakers to present the military with data he claimed would show sea levels are not rising as they did thousands of years ago, before humanity built modern cities and military bases at the edge of coastlines.

    "I hope that you all will do your part in hoping the military understands that over the past century sea levels have risen approximately 8 to 9 inches, which is one-third of the average century rise over the last 20,000 years," Brooks said.

    Scientists have concluded that sea-level rise is now accelerating over the last century as a result of human-caused climate change. Future projections of sea-level rise vary, but some estimates have suggested waters could climb 3 to 6 feet by the end of the century at the world's current rate of warming.

    https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/03/14/stories/1060127247
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

29. Green New Deal May Doom House Budget

    Mar 14, 2019 | E&E Daily

    By George Cahlink and Nick Sobczyk

    Concerns over the Green New Deal could complicate the chances of the House taking up a fiscal 2020 budget resolution in coming weeks.

    House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) said this week that his committee would mark up a spending blueprint the first week in April, but he said it will not contain the sweeping progressive plan for combating climate change.

    "We will have some climate initiatives, but we are not going to try to" include the Green New Deal, he told reporters this week. "First of all, the Green New Deal is not really a proposal, so I don't know what numbers you can possibly use."

    Moderate Democrats have privately suggested that backing the bold, undefined plan could play into GOP messaging that the party favors budget-busting mandates to fight climate change.

    But Yarmuth conceded that failing to include major elements of the Green New Deal could complicate moving it to the floor for adoption, given that 90 Democrats have signed on as sponsors of the resolution advocating an ambitious effort to combat global warming.

    House Democrats hold only a 36-seat majority, so if Republicans were united against the budget it would only take fewer than half the backers of the Green New Deal to sink it.

    It would hardly be the first time partisan jockeying has held up a budget resolution. Over the past decade, adopting the fiscal plan has been the exception, not the norm, as both parties have tried to protect vulnerable members from budget votes that could easily be distorted for political gain.

    Asked about a floor vote on the budget, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) this week declined to offer a time frame and would only say he's waiting on a recommendation from the Budget Committee.

    Like most Democratic leaders, Hoyer trained his fire on President Trump's $4.8 trillion request rather than offer specifics on the Democrats' own plan.

    Hoyer said his main goal is making sure there is at least an agreement on overall discretionary spending levels — if not a full budget plan — because those are needed to write the 12 fiscal 2020 appropriations bills.

    The budget itself is only meant to guide appropriators.

    Yarmuth said his initial meetings with progressives have not generated "huge ideological obstacles" from the party's left flank. "They are not putting a lot of pressure on us to include Green New Deal, that type of thing in the budget document," he added.'Semantics'

    The Congressional Progressive Caucus is drawing up its own budget, in part to pressure the party to include priorities like the Green New Deal and Medicare for All in its proposal.

    Its focus will be reining in defense spending, or at least pushing for parity between defense and non-defense discretionary increases, but progressives are also pushing to talk about climate and other priorities in broad strokes in the Democratic budget.

    But both the budget and the Green New Deal are so vague that they can often be defined differently by different members. In that sense, progressives said yesterday they didn't expect it to be much of a hurdle for the main Democratic budget offering.

    To Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), including the Green New Deal in the budget proposal could be as simple as boosting funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy or expanding renewable energy and electric vehicle tax credits.

    "It's semantics," Khanna said of leadership and centrist reluctance to embrace the Green New Deal.

    Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), co-chair of the CPC and a member of the Budget panel, said a "nod" to progressive climate and health care priorities would be sufficient.

    It may all be a moot point. Jayapal gave the budget a "50-50" chance of even seeing the floor and passing the House.

    "The reality is budgets haven't tracked at all with what ultimately gets passed, and so then it just becomes a question of how much political capital do you want to expend on it," she said.

    Republicans, meanwhile, are more than eager to highlight how Democratic differences might doom their budget.

    "At least we're trying to put out some kind of markers to begin the negotiations to try to get our fiscal house in order," said Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the House GOP caucus chairwoman. "Hopefully, the House Dems will try to push a budget, but they're showing no promise right now."

    Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), a Budget Committee member, offered what's likely to be a common refrain from Republicans in the coming weeks, telling reporters that the Green New Deal is too expensive to attach to the budget.

    He said implementing it would cost $9.7 trillion annually, a hyperbolic estimate that's about double current federal spending.

    https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/03/14/stories/1060127239
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

30. Senate Democrats Push U.S. Chamber on Climate Change

    Mar 13, 2019 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

    By Anthony Adragna

    Senate Democrats are pushing the nation’s largest business group to do more to address climate change.

    In a letter today led by Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), 24 members of the Democratic caucus are asking the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to reverse its opposition to aggressive climate policies.

    “As you know, many of your member companies and supporters agree with the scientific consensus that climate change is real and requires action,” the senators wrote to Tom Donahue, the Chamber’s president. "However, we are aware that the Chamber — the largest lobbying organization in the country — has long used its considerable resources to fight legislative and administrative action on climate change."

    Specifically, the letter asks the Chamber to support a climate change “unity resolution” S.J. Res. 9 (116), backed by the entire Democratic caucus that acknowledges climate change is real, caused by human activity and demands an immediate federal response. The resolution is an alternative to the Green New Deal, H. Res. 109 (116), which calls for rapid decarbonization of the economy but is opposed by some Democrats, all Republicans and business groups like the Chamber.

    The Democrats cite multiple examples where the Chamber fought policies that would have helped address climate change, such as backing a Congressional Review Act resolution H.J. Res. 36 (115) in 2017 overturning BLM’s rule to address methane emissions and funding a study critical of the Paris agreement subsequently cited by President Donald Trump in explaining his decision to withdraw from it.

    They also ask the Chamber to disclose what percentage of its funding comes from the fossil fuel sector.

    The Chamber has called climate change a “serious challenge” and says that “technology and innovation offer the greatest potential” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. A spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

    https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

31. Cutting Military’s Carbon Use a Bridge Too Far, Republicans Say

    Mar 14, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Abby Smith

    Building up the military’s resilience to extreme weather events and a changing climate is a laudable goal, Republican lawmakers say, but they’re drawing the line at requiring the Defense Department to cut its carbon footprint.

    Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee generally expressed support for strengthening the military’s response to climate change during a March 13 hearing of the committee’s readiness panel. But they also suggested that drawing connections between climate change and global national security challenges—as well as urging the Defense Department to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—would divert from bipartisan efforts to increase the military’s resilience.

    “In the past, environment-based mandates have squandered too much money and effort on greening the military,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), ranking member of the readiness panel, said at the hearing.

    He cautioned against placing requirements on the Defense Department to reduce its carbon footprint and energy use that don’t “meaningfully affect climate change, but does reduce the department’s readiness.”

    The sentiment from Lamborn and other Republicans on the panel suggests Democrats on the committee might still face some challenges in gaining their colleagues’ support on climate-change resilience efforts.

    That resistance comes even as Republican lawmakers including Lamborn speak to the importance of military resilience. Some Republicans on the committee voted in favor of language included in the 2018 defense authorization bill that the Defense Department outline the risks its bases and operations face from climate change in a report to Congress.

    The report, submitted in January, found two-thirds of its 79 mission-essential operations in the U.S. were vulnerable to current and future flooding. More than half of those operations faced risks from drought, and nearly half faced risk from wildfires.
    ‘Rock and a Hard Place’

    Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), who chairs the readiness subcommittee, said the committee’s goal should be to help the military better prepare for climate-change impacts, even as the Trump administration downplays the national security risks from global warming.

    “The Pentagon is between a rock and a hard place,” David W. Titley, a retired Navy rear admiral who is now the director of Pennsylvania State University’s Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk, told lawmakers at the hearing.

    The Pentagon’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, which serves as a guide for military planning, called the effects of climate change “threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions—conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”

    Top military officials recognize the risks the military faces from climate change, but the Trump White House and the National Security Council are sending definite signals they aren’t interested, Titley added.

    The White House is exploring plans offered by William Happer, a National Security Council adviser who rejects mainstream climate science, to reevaluate whether climate change poses risks to national security.

    Titley urged the committee to focus on any money, appropriations, or legislative language that could help Defense Department officials “overcome the institutional opposition to this in the White House.”

    Garamendi said in response: “This conversation has laid out the task the committee has.”

    As the Trump administration is resistant to this issue of climate change, he added, “we’ll have to find a way of maneuvering through that at least in the near term.”

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/cutting-militarys-carbon-use-a-bridge-too-far-republicans-say
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

32. UN Warns of Risks to Human Health, Global Ecosystems

    Mar 13, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Wachira Kigotho

    The world is moving too slowly to protect the environment, putting the integrity of global ecosystems at risk, the United Nations said March 13.

    “Key actions are urgently needed towards improving water and land management, resource efficiency, and adapting climate change mitigation processes,” Joyce Msuya, acting executive director of the U.N. Environment Program, said March 13 at the Fourth Session of the United Nations Environment Assembly meeting in Nairobi.

    Land degradation, biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate change are undermining the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, she said.

    Msuya presented the sixth Global Environmental Outlook, often referred to as the U.N.'s flagship environmental assessment. The report was produced by 250 scientists and experts from more than 70 countries.

    “Science is clear that health and prosperity of humanity is directly tied with the state of the global environment,” Msuya said.
    Deadly Pollution

    Air pollution is the main environmental threat, causing 6 million to 7 million premature deaths and leading to an estimated $5 trillion in economic losses annually, said the report.

    Worldwide, air pollution exposure harms urban residents in countries with rapid urbanization, and about 3 billion people in rural areas who burn high-emissions fuel sources like wood, coal, crop residue, dung, and kerosene for cooking, heating, and lighting.

    Unless environmental protections are scaled up, cities and regions in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa could see millions of premature deaths by midcentury, the report said.

    In addition, pollutants in freshwater systems will contribute to anti-microbial resistance and become a major cause of death by 2050, the report said. 
    Facing Extinction

    “Presently, 42 percent of terrestrial invertebrates, 34 percent of freshwater invertebrates, and 25 percent of marine invertebrates are considered to be at risk of extinction,” said Susan Gardner, director of ecosystems at the U.N. Environment Program.

    Between 1970 and 2014, global vertebrate species populations declined by 60 percent, while steep declines were recorded among pollinators that provide crucial services for food production.

    “The value of lost ecosystem services between 1995 and 2014 has been estimated at about $20 trillion,” Global Environment Outlook co-authors Paul Ekins and said Joyeeta Gupta said in a joint statement at the conference.
    Steps to Sustainbility

    There is a window of opportunity, however, and technology companies and business could help reduce unintended negative consequences for human and ecosystem health, according to the report.

    Investments in off-grid electrification solar companies could be solutions to reducing fossil fuel in power generation, the report said. It also identified investments in digital infrastructure that could address critical sustainability challenges for cities, such as transportation, consumption patterns, energy, nutrition, water, and waste management.

    “These should be political will to phase out unsustainable products and industrial processes through new regulatory mechanisms and standards,” Gupta said.

    https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/un-warns-of-risks-to-human-health-global-ecosystems
    

    Return to headline | Return to top