Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 29, 2019
-
The Energy 202: Senate Democrat Blasts Ethics Of Trump Interior Secretary Nominee
Mar 29, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It was a remarkable moment at the hearing for President Trump’s choice to run the Interior Department. While many senators were skeptical of the former lobbyist's ties to the oil industry and other businesses, Sen. Ron Wyden lit into... -
New York To Become Second State To Ban Plastic Bags
Mar 29, 2019 | The Hill
By Rachel Frazin
New York state lawmakers have agreed to a ban on single-use plastic bags, The New York Times reported Thursday. The ban, which will likely be part of the state's budget bills that are expected to pass Monday, will reportedly prohibit... -
Worker Safety Advocates Underwhelmed by EPA’s Efforts on Chemical Exposure
Mar 29, 2019 | EHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
In a congressional hearing, a lineup of advocates for worker safety faulted the way the EPA is using its new authority under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to shield workers from the occupational... -
(ACC Blog) Part III – FORMALDEHYDE: The Science, The Truth, and The Industry’s Commitment to Objective Chemical Assessments
Mar 29, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The following blog is a segment of a three part series regarding EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. Part III: The Industry’s Commitment to Objective Chemical Assessments. Over the past several months... https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/03/part-iii-formaldehyde-the-science-the-truth-and-the-industrys-commitment-to-objective-chemical-assessments/ -
(ACC Mentioned) Country Focus: Industry Sees USMCA As Chance To Prod Mexico Into Comprehensive Chemical Management
Mar 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Mexico’s chemical regulation is amorphous, run by a hodge-podge of internal departments — health, environment, agriculture, energy — with no overarching law like TSCA or REACH. So, when Mexico began renegotiating the North... -
House Subcommittees Hold Hearing on EPA’s IRIS Program
Mar 29, 2019 | JD Supra
On March 27, 2019, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing on “EPA’s IRIS Program: Reviewing its Progress and Roadblocks Ahead.” -
Lead-Pipe Replacement Proposal Coming from EPA This Summer
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA’s long-awaited overhaul of regulations on lead in drinking water will prioritize low-income neighborhoods and be issued this summer, the agency’s leader told a gathering of environmental lawyers March 29. The Environmental... -
Senate Democrats Re-introduce Chlorpyrifos Ban
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats have re-introduced a bill that would ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos just days after appellate judges grappled with whether they can continue to review environmentalists' suit challenging former Administrator Scott... -
ExxonMobil To Report Pellet Pollution
Mar 29, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Following pressure from a green shareholder activist group, ExxonMobil Chemical Co. agreed March 27 to expand its public reporting around resin pellet spills from its factories. Under terms of an agreement reached with Oakland... -
Ewire: Trump Poised To Sign Order On Pipeline Approvals
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump will reportedly sign an executive order next week that seeks to speed approvals for natural gas pipelines and other energy projects, a measure that in earlier iterations sought to undercut states' authority to... -
Coming Soon: Trump's Order On Pipeline Permits
Mar 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump could sign an executive order streamlining permitting for oil and gas pipelines as early as next month. National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow shared that news at a meeting Wednesday hosted by the... -
Colorado Moves to Regulate Drilling After Years of Conflict
Mar 29, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Dan Frosch
Erin Martinez never got too involved in politics until her husband and brother were killed in an explosion after natural gas leaked from an abandoned line near her property. Two years later, the 41-year old high-school science teacher has... -
Offshore Energy: A Window Into America’s Economic and Strategic Future
Mar 29, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Jim Webb & Jim Nicholson
The first months of the 116th Congress and the run-up to the 2020 election cycle have featured a dramatic leftward turn in the Democratic Party on a wide array of issues – including energy. Some presidential aspirants have even... -
FERC Grants Two Orders, Denies One for Permian Crude Expansions
Mar 28, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC granted orders for two crude oil expansion projects in the Permian Basin proposed by subsidiaries of EnLink Midstream LLC, but denied an order to a unit of Enterprise Products Partners LP for a similar expansion on concerns... -
Lone Star Secures Lease for Deepwater Oil Export Terminal in South Texas
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A proposed deepwater oil export project in South Texas that would move Lower 48 volumes to overseas markets on Thursday clinched a 50-year lease agreement for a terminal near Corpus Christi. -
California Pro-Natural Gas Coalition Pushing for Balanced Energy Policy
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Two years in the making, a coalition of business, education and labor interests has been formed in California to support natural gas and push back against climate change-driven policies for electrifying the state’s energy system. -
Oil Firms Get Grace Period to Fix Emissions Leaks Under EPA Rule
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Oil and gas companies that acquire multiple drilling sites will get more time to decide whether to identify and fix leaking storage tanks, under the EPA’s first update to the sector’s self-auditing policy in more than a decade. -
U.S. Trade Negotiators Take Aim at China’s Cybersecurity Law
Mar 29, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators haggled over how to get Beijing to walk back China’s tough cybersecurity law as both sides push to resolve deep-seated irritants and settle a yearlong tariff fight. During discussions Friday, issues... -
EPA Accused Of Not Issuing Regulations Mandated By Congress Nearly 30 Years Ago
Mar 29, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Marian Jones
The Environmental Justice Health Alliance For Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA) has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the federal government agency's alleged failure to issue regulations... -
Firefighters at Houston Chemical Disaster Scrambled to Find Foam
Mar 29, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kevin Crowley
Firefighters confronted with the worst Gulf Coast industrial disaster in 14 years had to call on outside sources to augment their supply of the special foam required to extinguish chemical blazes. Intercontinental Terminal Co... -
End TWIC, Don’t Mend It
Mar 29, 2019 | Waterways Journal
Does anyone in the federal government understand the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program? The recent report by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) details the latest revelations... -
Limited Infrastructure May Hamper Initial LNG Use as Marine Fuel
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Despite global plans to reduce the sulfur content in marine transportation fuels by 2020, limited infrastructure and high development costs initially may prevent vessel operators from switching to liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel source... -
FBI Allowed Suspected Terrorist To Get TWIC
Mar 29, 2019 | Waterways Journal
By David Murray
The Department of Justice Inspector General (OIG) released a blistering report March 21 identifying “significant deficiencies relating to the FBI’s efforts to help ensure the security of our nation’s ports.” Among the report’s findings...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
-
The Energy 202: Senate Democrat Blasts Ethics Of Trump Interior Secretary Nominee
Mar 29, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
It was a remarkable moment at the hearing for President Trump’s choice to run the Interior Department.
While many senators were skeptical of the former lobbyist's ties to the oil industry and other businesses, Sen. Ron Wyden lit into David Bernhardt. The Oregon Democrat accusing him of lying to his face about his commitment to ethics.
“You asked to come to my office to say you stood for strong ethics,” Wyden told Bernhardt, referring to their meeting last week. “A few hours after we met, I saw documents that show within the last two years you blocked the release of a Fish and Wildlife analysis of toxic chemicals.”
That Fish and Wildlife agency analysis, reported by the New York Times this week, found the use of two chemicals to kill pests also imperiled more than 1,200 endangered animals and plants. Bernhardt stopped the release of the analysis, referring it to lawyers within the department.
“You sound like just another corrupt official," Wyden told Bernhardt, whose children were in attendance during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
While Bernhard's confirmation is nearly guaranteed in the GOP-led Senate, the exchange underscores the opposition he may face from Senate Democrats.
The line of questioning revealed the potential questions Bernhardt could continue to face even if he gets the top job at Interior.
Wyden added that Bernhardt, who served at the agency under President George W. Bush before becoming a lobbyist, was "so conflicted" that “if you get confirmed, you’re going to have to disqualify yourself from so many issues I don’t know how you will go about your day.”
In the hearing, Bernhardt explained he intervened because the analysis did not have a legal review, and he decided to “kick it over to career lawyers” because “you can’t ignore the law.” He added that he reviewed the document with “exactly the same standards” he would any other.
He also said he would comply with laws and ethics rules. Already in his time at Interior, he has “had to recuse himself from matters directly affecting at least 26 former clients to adhere to the Trump administration’s ethics requirements. His critics say he should have recused himself from far more," The Post's Darryl Fears and Juliet Eilperin report.
Other Senate Democrats grilled the nominee about the Trump administration’s plans to expand offshore oil drilling and to relax legal protections for migrating birds that stop at spots in the United States.
As a former solicitor at the Interior Department during the Bush administration, Bernhardt brings considerable legal expertise to his current role. Perhaps nowhere is Bernhard’s particular experience more valuable than with the Endangered Species Act. Once, just before moving over to the solicitor’s office in 2005, Bernhardt brought the entire legislative history of the law with him to read on a beach vacation.
Now under Trump, Bernhardt is proposing a rule that would make it easier for development to take place in the habitats of endangered species.
Despite Democrats' concerns, Republicans were largely enthusiastic about the nominee, regarding Bernhardt as having “a level of experience and qualifications we rarely see,” according to Republican committee chairwoman Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
She did, however, express concern during the hearing about the potential for conflicts at a department whose former leader, Ryan Zinke, had his own ethical troubles that received Justice Department scrutiny. “For whatever reason, you seem to have outside groups working against your nomination more than anyone else we’ve had in front of us,” Murkowski said.
This is not the first time Wyden has gone off against a leader of the Interior Department. In 2017, Wyden voted to confirm Zinke, a decision he said a year later he regretted because of what he saw as Zinke’s shortcomings in being a steward of public lands.
“I said I would support your nomination, and I did,” Wyden told Zinke during a hearing last March, nine months before the interior secretary resigned amid various ethics investigations. “I will tell you right now, as of today, it is one of the biggest regrets in my public service.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/29/the-energy-202-top-democrat-blasts-ethics-of-trump-interior-secretary-nominee/5c9d05911b326b0f7f38f2a0/?utm_term=.cb0a9a9ad662
-
New York To Become Second State To Ban Plastic Bags
Mar 29, 2019 | The Hill
By Rachel Frazin
New York state lawmakers have agreed to a ban on single-use plastic bags, The New York Times reported Thursday.
The ban, which will likely be part of the state's budget bills that are expected to pass Monday, will reportedly prohibit retailers from giving customers single-use bags, making New York the second state to ban the bags.
There will be several exceptions to the ban, including for trash bags, newspaper bags, garment bags and food takeout bags.
It will go into effect next March.
Counties will also reportedly be allowed to opt in to a 5-cent fee on paper bags to discourage their use as well.
California became the first state to ban plastic bags last year. Hawaii has also effectively banned the bags, as all of the state's counties have passed legislation banning them.
According to the Times, the plan was proposed a year ago by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D).
"For far too long plastic bags have blighted our environment and clogged our waterways and that's why I proposed a ban in this year's budget," Cuomo said in a statement to The Hill.
"With this smart, multi-pronged action New York will be leading the way to protect our natural resources now and for future generations of New Yorkers," he added.
Supporters of such bans say that the non-biodegradable bags are harmful to the environment. Environmental groups such as the Nature Conservancy of New York are supporting the ban and also calling for a fee on other single-use bags.
Other groups, like the Food Industry Alliance of New York State, which represents many in the state's grocery industry, oppose the ban. The group said in a January statement that it believes paper bags are the real environmental threat and that the plastic ban will be harmful for business.
"A plastic bag ban will simply increase the financial duress for New York’s grocery store industry without achieving the goal of improving the environment," the group said. "While we strongly oppose this proposal from Governor Cuomo, we look forward to working with the administration on a more sustainable solution that benefits both our industry and environment.”
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/436438-new-york-to-become-second-state-to-ban-plastic-bags
-
Worker Safety Advocates Underwhelmed by EPA’s Efforts on Chemical Exposure
Mar 29, 2019 | EHS Daily Advisor
By William C. Schillaci
In a congressional hearing, a lineup of advocates for worker safety faulted the way the EPA is using its new authority under the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to shield workers from the occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals.
The amendments direct that in reducing the risks of exposure to these chemicals, the Agency must consider the risks to “susceptible subpopulations,” which the amendments define as groups that may be at greater risk than the general population, including but not limited to “infants, children, pregnant women, workers, or the elderly.” But in testimony before the House Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, witnesses said that in implementing the law, the Agency is missing opportunities to reduce exposure experienced by groups that include autoworkers, firefighters, and teachers.
Criticisms of how the Agency is fulfilling its responsibility come from several directions. For example, according to Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), who chairs the subcommittee, the EPA’s risk prioritization rule, one of several rules the Agency has promulgated to implement the amendments, allows the EPA to exclude consideration of commercial uses of a chemical and occupational exposure to it. This is occurring even though one witness claimed that occupational exposures can be tens of thousands to a million times higher than those experienced by the general population. Also, another implementation rule detailing the Agency’s procedures for conducting risk evaluations allows the EPA to exclude “legacy uses” of a chemical from an evaluation. A legacy use is one that is no longer allowed; however, legacy uses have left significant amounts of hazardous chemicals in workplace environments. A representative from the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) said firefighters are routinely exposed to legacy asbestos and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a flame retardant, released into the ambient air by extreme heat.
“[Fire]fighters enter burning buildings, extinguish fires, and open walls and ceilings to check for fire extension; all three tasks expose [fire]fighters to asbestos fibers,” said the IAFF’s Paul Morrison. “These activities are daily occurrences, and while the asbestos to which they are exposed is legacy, these are technically new exposures.”
OSHA’s Role
Other hazardous chemicals the Agency is evaluating for risk include methylene chloride (MC) and pigment violet 29 (PV-29). For both substances, the EPA has decided not to include occupational exposures in its risk evaluations. The Agency appears to be assuming that OSHA is providing workers with adequate protections from these substances. But one witness, who formerly served as OSHA’s director of health standards and also as an OSHA regional director, provided a detailed explanation on why OSHA is limited in what it can do regarding hazardous chemicals in the workplace while the EPA has significantly more regulatory power.
Another witness, an attorney who has worked as counsel for chemical companies for over 20 years, said the EPA is meeting its responsibilities under the TSCA amendments, even while the Agency’s resources are stretched to the maximum. Regarding asbestos, Mark N. Duvall, currently a principal with the law firm Beveridge & Diamond, said TSCA is not a good statute for addressing legacy asbestos and that several OSHA standards, as well as the EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for asbestos, provide better tools to safely remove and dispose of asbestos from buildings and structures.
Hearing participants also discussed how the EPA addresses worker chemical exposures under the Clean Air Act’s Risk Management Program covering facilities with hazardous chemicals and the Worker Protection Standard and Certified Pesticide Applicator rules, both of which the Agency issued to reduce farmworkers’ and others’ exposure to agricultural pesticides. Testimony on those issues is available at the subcommittee’s website.
Firefighters
According to Morrison, firefighters are being harmed due to the EPA “systemically ignoring exposure risks in its loose implementation” of the TSCA amendments. Morrison notes that the IAFF was pleased that the EPA included both asbestos and HBCD in the list of the first 10 chemicals for which the Agency would develop risk evaluations. Firefighters are regularly exposed to these chemicals through their work, Morrison said before focusing on the shortcomings of the Agency’s risk-reduction plan.
“Unfortunately, despite the clear danger asbestos and HBCD pose to our members and their demonstrable regular exposure, the EPA failed to include [fire]fighters as a susceptible subpopulation in their problem formulation document for asbestos released in May 2018,” Morrison added. “The HBCD problem formulation document was more general, stating EPA will evaluate susceptible subpopulations, including occupational nonusers. Furthermore, the EPA also removed the evaluation of both legacy HBCD and legacy asbestos, including disposal, from such documents. We find these omissions unfathomable. With their removal, EPA is no longer evaluating a large population of workers experiencing regular and significant exposure.”
Morrison called attention to an incident in August 2017 when firefighters from the Honolulu Fire Department responded to a seven-alarm fire, where they had no knowledge that asbestos was present. It wasn’t until after the fire that the firefighters were notified of potential asbestos exposure. This resulted in mass bagging of gear, thorough cleaning, and the fear of the unknown health effects associated with the exposure. As a result, over 100 firefighters may have been exposed and subjected to an increased risk of health effects. Unless the EPA includes asbestos legacy uses in its risk evaluation, it will be ill-prepared to require owners of buildings and structures with asbestos to take actions to reduce such risks, said Morrison.
Methylene Chloride
MC is a solvent used in commercial and consumer applications, such as paint stripping and surface refinishing. From 2000 to 2011, 13 Americans died from acute exposure to MC while refinishing bathtubs. In January 2017, the EPA proposed banning MC’s commercial and consumer use as a paint stripper. But in a final rule, the EPA has not followed through with the commercial prohibition. Instead, in a separate advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, the Agency is soliciting public input on potential training, certification, and limited-access requirements that “could address any unreasonable risks that EPA could potentially find to be presented by methylene chloride when used for commercial paint and coating removal.” Tonko called attention to MC’s deadly trail.
“At least four people have died since the proposed rule was published in January 2017,” said Tonko.
Part of the EPA’s reluctance to ban commercial uses of MC derives from an existing OSHA standard that sets the workplace permissible exposure limit (PEL) for the substance at 25 parts per million (ppm). But experience with the OSHA standard highlights the difference between OSHA and EPA regulations, noted Adam M. Finkel, the former OSHA official and currently a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan. Finkel said he led the development of OSHA’s MC standard in the 1990s. At that time, Finkel continued, OSHA recognized that the 25 ppm PEL was too high, but the agency could not issue the preferred PEL of 10 ppm because it had failed to perform the required economic feasibility analysis. Even at that lower level, said Finkel, the risk of severe acute or chronic illness was reduced to only 1 in 1,000.
“In various federal environmental statutes, Congress has instructed EPA to reduce grave risks to a level of one chance in one million where possible,” testified Finkel. “OSHA, however, has always chosen to interpret the 1980 Supreme Court decision in the Benzene case to require it only to reduce worker risks to below one chance per thousand.”
Moreover, he added, “employers have widely failed to comply even with that weak exposure limit.”
PV-29 and the HCS
Finkel expands his comparison of the EPA and OSHA in the context of PV-29, a colorant used in the production of automotive paint and fiber dye. The substance was the subject of the first risk evaluation under the TSCA amendments. In 2018, the EPA released its draft evaluation, which found that PV-29 presented no unreasonable risk. Worker exposure consideration was excluded from the evaluation.
Finkel believes this decision by the EPA is based on an “imagined OSHA authority” that doesn’t exist. Specifically, in the draft evaluation, the EPA states that occupational exposures to PV-29 are likely to be limited due to the expected use of personal protective equipment (PPE), mainly respirators. Finkel calls this statement “doubly inaccurate.” First, he states that respirators are hard to fit properly, are prone to leakage both through the filter media and at the seal with the wearer’s face, and can place a physiological and a safety burden on the user. But the larger problem is a misunderstanding of OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which requires that chemical manufacturers provide downstream users with safety data sheets (SDSs) that include information on keeping exposure to chemicals to a safe level.
“EPA is assuming that recommendations by the manufacturer of a toxic chemical, present on the SDS, create any obligation on the part of the employer,” explains Finkel. “This is the most fundamental misreading possible of the entire HCS, which creates obligations for manufacturers to create and disseminate accurate information, and for employers to make the SDSs available to workers, but as the standard clearly says, ‘while the … HCS requires the provision of information on recommended control measures, including respiratory protection, personal protective equipment, and engineering controls, there is no requirement for employers to implement the recommended controls. An employer should use all available information when designing an appropriate protective program, but a recommendation on a Safety Data Sheet by itself would not trigger the need to implement new controls.”
Assumptions About Employers
In his testimony, Duvall agrees that the EPA does make TSCA safety determinations for a chemical’s use in occupational settings based on PPE recommendations in SDSs. Duvall focused part of this testimony on TSCA regulatory determinations the EPA completes for new chemicals intended for the market. Before producing their products, manufacturers must notify the EPA of new chemicals in Premanufacture Notices (PMNs). According to Duvall, the EPA has made required not likely to present an unreasonable risk to workers findings based on PPE recommendations in SDSs. There is some rigor in these recommendations. For example, manufacturers must include the protective measures in SDSs. Furthermore, when considering the submitter’s intended conditions of use, the EPA must also consider whether the protective measures are sufficient for reasonably foreseen uses of the hazardous chemical. Importantly, according to Duvall, the basic policy at the EPA is that employers will follow the SDS recommendations, including intended use of PPE. He uses the example of an SDS protective measure regarding impervious gloves, which was included in a PMN.
“It is certainly possible that some employers might not require their workers to use impervious gloves when handling this PMN substance,” said Duvall. “EPA evidently considered that this possibility is speculative, not ‘reasonably’ foreseeable, given the OSHA requirements applicable to all manufacturers and processors of PMN substances.”
The different views of Finkel and Duvall may accurately represent general disagreement among stakeholders on the extent to which the EPA should rely on OSHA standards in meeting its TSCA responsibilities.
https://ehsdailyadvisor.blr.com/2019/03/worker-safety-advocates-underwhelmed-by-epas-efforts-on-chemical-exposure/
-
Mar 29, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The following blog is a segment of a three part series regarding EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program.
Part III: The Industry’s Commitment to Objective Chemical Assessments
Over the past several months, there have been claims that industry is trying to block chemical assessments. Industry does not seek to discredit or limit regulation; rather Americans deserve to know that high quality science is the foundation of government decision-making.
Since 2010, numerous of peer-reviewed studies have been published and submitted to EPA regarding formaldehyde. Industry has regularly met with EPA career-level staff, including the Director of the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program and the Director of the National Center for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) to share critical science on formaldehyde. These efforts were intended to ensure the assessment of formaldehyde is objective, employs rigorous scientific standards, and is reflective of real-world human exposure. Members of the scientific community have frequently called attention to the IRIS program’s failure to utilize the best available science or modern scientific approaches to draw conclusions regarding human health risk.
When reaching conclusions about human health risk, the IRIS program consistently fails to integrate scientific evidence in a systematic and balanced way. Moreover, the IRIS program has yet to demonstrate or document its full implementation of a series of recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences in 2011 and 2014, including developing a clear set of criteria for judging the relative merits of individual mechanistic, animal, and epidemiologic studies for estimating human dose-response relationships as well as issuing a handbook to outline the IRIS assessment process.
IRIS assessments are also known to generate overly conservative estimates that are not reflective of actual human health risk. Some recent IRIS assessments have even proposed that exposure to certain chemicals at levels that are below those levels naturally produced by the human body or below natural environmental background levels poses an unacceptable risk. These kinds of conclusions defy common sense.
Since IRIS assessments don’t undergo a “reality check” to ensure the risk values make sense, they can lead to unnecessary public alarm and cause the Agency to make poor risk management decisions. Simply utilizing IRIS information, regardless of the quality or relevance of the science, is not acceptable and is counter to the congressionally-mandated scientific standards required for EPA assessments.
Ensuring the safety of our industry’s products and addressing potential risks from exposure is important. We take this responsibility seriously. To accomplish this task, a transparent science-based approach that incorporates current knowledge about chemical hazards and relevant human exposures is imperative.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/03/part-iii-formaldehyde-the-science-the-truth-and-the-industrys-commitment-to-objective-chemical-assessments/
-
Mar 29, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Mexico’s chemical regulation is amorphous, run by a hodge-podge of internal departments — health, environment, agriculture, energy — with no overarching law like TSCA or REACH.
So, when Mexico began renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), Mexico’s trade partners in the US were eager to influence the country’s regulation scheme.
"This is an opportunity to shape what could be a chemical management regime formation effort in Mexico in the future," said Ed Brzytwa, director for international trade at the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
The resulting document – the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) – contains a sectoral annex on chemical substances that was absent in the original Nafta. It promotes a risk-based approach to regulation, directing the three countries to align their risk assessment and management measures within their legal frameworks.
Chemical industry groups in the US (ACC), Mexico (ANIQ) and Canada (CIAC) all coordinated in writing the annex and applauded its inclusion.
However, the enthusiasm of ACC and CIAC about a Mexican "regime" on the horizon might be premature. Guillermo Miller Suárez, vice president of information and international trade for ANIQ, said that the chemical annex is simply a regulatory cooperation document, not an indication of something more.
"That doesn’t mean that we will in the near future – or even eventually – adopt any North American[-style] regulations. I don’t see that happening anytime soon."
A starting point?
But Mr Brzytwa said the annex, and the significant industry discussion that prompted its inclusion, could be a starting point for Mexico and for the development of a North American model of chemical regulation.
"These provisions of the USMCA are not creating a chemical management regime in Mexico; they are guideposts," he said in an interview with Chemical Watch. "So if Mexico does move in that direction, they will have a stronger foundation now."
Despite Mexico’s uncertainty over chemical regulation – made all the more so by a self-described "revolutionary" president who took office in December – the ACC describes the USMCA as an opportunity to encourage Mexico to build a broader regulatory framework in the US's image.
"We were in constant communication with ANIQ," said Mr Brzytwa. "They know that their government could be taking steps to build a chemical management regime and they felt that having these provisions in the USMCA was an important starting point."
Mexico’s chemical exports are valued at $2.36bn per year, according to 2017 figures from Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography.
Much of Mexico’s chemical regulation is in the hands of the environment ministry (Semarnat) and specifically the climate change institute (Inecc, which is within Semarnat), but the country does not have one agency or regulation that governs the sector.
"Chemicals are managed by many different agencies [with] many different approaches'' but none of these are harmonised, said Nidia Calvo, the Americas chemical regulatory compliance programme manager at Hewlett-Packard.
Background to USMCA
The final version of USMCA – which has yet to be ratified – is the result of almost two years of negotiation by industry groups.
In a 2017 joint statement by the ACC, ANIQ and CIAC, the Nafta revision was described as an opportunity for a North American model in contrast to the "hazard-based approaches rising elsewhere".
And, in the final draft, industry wishes have been largely granted. It has essentially formalized aligning the risk-based approach to regulation that all three countries already used – while Mexico does not have a TSCA or a CMP, existing laws in Mexico already regulate individual chemicals based on risk rather than hazard.
Other potential areas of cooperation include: implementation of the UN Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classifying and labelling of chemicals; coordination of safety data sheets and how confidential business information (CBI) is relayed; compatibility of chemical inventories; coordination on chemical risk assessment and risk management methodologies, tools, and models, and on the development of specific chemical assessments; and scientific criteria and data sharing.
The ACC’s Greg Skelton told the US trade representative that the revision could be a chance to extend the TSCA and Canadian Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) models to Mexico. However, the industry’s Mexican counterpart does not necessarily agree.
"As far as I know, there are no whispers of this [within the government]," said ANIQ’s Mr Miller.
Changes to the Mexican status quo
USMCA is not the only factor driving change in Mexico’s chemical sector.
Mexico previously had duel labelling and safety data sheet requirements to meet domestic and international requirements. However, ANIQ, which represents 95% of Mexico’s chemical manufacturers, requested the voluntary option of using the GHS system as an alternative in 2011. The mandatory fifth revision of the GHS standard came into force in October 2018.
Also in autumn, Mexico catalogued its chemical substances with information from producers and importers, which will be updated regularly by Inecc. The effort prioritises using a single nomenclature for identifying substances.
Despite the massive effort of cataloguing chemicals, there has not been a high level of interest in the chemical sector, either in Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration, which oversaw the endeavour, or in the new president’s, Ms Calvo said. There also isn't a lot of information about chemical management available from Semarnat or Inecc, the two main organisms in charge of the sector, she adds.
The Obrador variable
Mexico’s leftist president Andres Manuel López Obrador took office on 1 December 2018, promising "revolution" after decades of corruption and deteriorating trust in the government.
USMCA was signed by all parties on 30 November, just one day before Mr Obrador became president. But Rodrigo Favela, a partner at HCX, a consulting firm in Mexico City, said the president was very involved in its negotiation: no changes to the agreement are expected to come from his office.
Some argue his involvement in the negotiations illustrates the new president’s desire to have a hand in every change in Mexico.
Mr Obrador "wants to have control over everything," said Jeremy Martin, vice president for energy and sustainability at the Institute of the Americas.
However, the new president has specifically highlighted environmental sustainability as a priority for his administration, which is compatible with the priorities put forth by USMCA.
"We view having a sound chemical management regime as a way to improve the environment and foster more sustainable practices around chemicals," said Mr Brzytwa.
Wildcards
The ACC and others fear that the Canadian and US governments may prove to be even bigger wildcards than Mexico’s new president in the long run, however.
Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau must hold a federal election by 21 October and government officials have said anger over US steel and aluminum tariffs could prevent Canada from ratifying USMCA. Speaking at the ACC’s recent GlobalChem conference, Scott Thurlow, an independent lobbyist who formerly worked for CIAC, said it is not even clear if the USMCA will be introduced in this Parliament.
In fact, he continued, "there is a convention in Canada that we will not introduce a trade measure before it has been ratified by its partners."
But ratification in the US is also not guaranteed. Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in November, expressing concerns about insufficient labour and environmental provisions in the trade deal.
Meanwhile, US president Donald Trump has threatened to pull out of Nafta in order to pressure Mexico and Canada into either choosing between the new trade deal or the pre-Nafta conditions.
Mr Brzytwa called a potential early withdrawal "a difficult proposition for many members of Congress, and for industry for that matter".
Industry on both sides of the US-Mexico border accept that ratifying USMCA will take time and effort. But just having the text of the deal – especially one that reflects the regulatory alignment the ACC, ANIQ and CIAC have pushed for – gives them a starting point for discussion.
"We are able as an industry to talk very openly about the contents of that text," said Mr Brzytwa, and that conversation is "another opportunity to acclimate these Mexican officials to the North American, risk-based model."
https://chemicalwatch.com/75287/country-focus-industry-sees-usmca-as-chance-to-prod-mexico-into-comprehensive-chemical-management
-
House Subcommittees Hold Hearing on EPA’s IRIS Program
Mar 29, 2019 | JD Supra
On March 27, 2019, the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight and Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing on “EPA’s IRIS Program: Reviewing its Progress and Roadblocks Ahead.” The hearing focused on issues with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program, as described in two recent reports issued by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Chemical Assessments: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Produce Assessments and Implement the Toxic Substances Control Act (Chemical Assessments Report) and High-Risk Series: Substantial Efforts Needed to Achieve Greater Progress on High-Risk Areas (High-Risk Report).
Background
As reported in our March 6, 2019, memorandum, “GAO Reviews EPA’s IRIS Assessment Efforts and Implementation of TSCA Reforms,” on March 4, 2019, GAO published the Chemical Assessments Report. The Chemical Assessments Report describes the extent to which the IRIS Program has addressed identified challenges and made progress toward producing chemical assessments; and assesses whether EPA has demonstrated progress implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
GAO reports that, in June 2018, EPA leadership in the Office of Research and Development (ORD) reportedly told IRIS officials not to release any IRIS-associated documentation without a formal request from EPA program office leadership. In August 2018, EPA program office leadership was asked to reconfirm which ongoing IRIS assessments their offices needed. In late October 2018, leadership in ORD reportedly asked these offices to limit their requests further, to the top three or four assessments. GAO states that at the same time, four months after IRIS assessments were stopped from being released, 28 of approximately 30 IRIS staff were directed to use 25 to 50 percent of their time to support TSCA implementation.
When EPA deliberations about the IRIS Program’s priorities were completed, a memorandum was issued on December 4, 2018, listing 11 chemical assessments that the IRIS Program would develop. Although this was a reduction of the Program’s workflow from 22 assessments, GAO states that the memorandum “gave no reason for the reduction.” GAO notes that it received this memorandum at the end of its review and did not have the opportunity to review the prioritization process that led to its drafting.
In its March 6, 2019, High-Risk Report, GAO included “Transforming EPA’s Process for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals” on a list of three areas that have regressed in their ratings against GAO’s criteria for removal from the High-Risk List. GAO notes that since adding this area to its High-Risk List in 2009, it has made 12 recommendations to EPA related to the IRIS Program and TSCA. According to GAO, while EPA has taken steps to manage chemicals that pose risks to human health and the environment, leadership and implementation challenges remain. More information on the High-Risk Report is available in our March 8, 2019, memorandum, “EPA’s Process for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicals Remains on GAO’s High-Risk List.”
Hearing
The following opening statements are available online: Representative Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), Chair of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; Representative Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Chair of the Subcommittee on Environment; Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), Committee Ranking Member; Representative Ralph Norman (R-SC), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight; and Representative Roger Marshall (R-KS), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Environment.
The first panel of witnesses included: Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science for ORD, EPA Science Advisor, EPA; and Mr. Alfredo Gomez, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, GAO.
Members of the Committee and Subcommittees had a number of questions regarding the GAO’s finding that EPA leadership in ORD reportedly told IRIS officials not to release any IRIS-associated documentation without a formal request from EPA program office leadership. Members also focused on the two surveys conducted to determine IRIS priorities: the first, in August 2018, asking EPA program office leadership to reconfirm which ongoing IRIS assessments their offices needed; and the second, in late October 2018, asking these offices to limit their requests further, to the top three or four assessments. On December 4, 2018, a memorandum was issued listing 11 chemical assessments that the IRIS Program would develop. Gomez expressed concern about the increased involvement of political leadership in ORD, such as the directive that IRIS officials not release any IRIS documents without instruction from EPA program office leadership.
Orme-Zavaleta stated that she was not involved in the discussions between the first and second surveys of the EPA program offices. She noted that after receiving responses to the first survey, there was concern that the requests for 50 or so chemicals was too large for IRIS to manage. For the second survey, she received “templates” that were signed off on by the assistant administrators for the offices, for a total of 11 chemicals. The templates reported the priority chemical assessments that were needed and by when, and how the IRIS assessments were to be used by program offices. Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY) asked about the responses submitted by the Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP). According to Orme-Zavaleta, she received OCHP’s response to the second survey the day after the December 4, 2018, memorandum was issued. Orme-Zavaleta stated that EPA will be sending another request to program offices this summer.
Questions also focused on the status of the IRIS handbook, which is expected to provide guidance for the development of IRIS assessments. According to GAO’s Chemical Assessments Report, in early November 2018, IRIS officials informed GAO that EPA had almost completed internal review of the handbook, which was being prepared for public release. During the hearing, Orme-Zavaleta stated that the government shutdown delayed work on reviewing and responding to internal comments on the handbook. According to Orme-Zavaleta, although the handbook is not a final document, elements of the handbook have been used in recent IRIS assessments.
Members also addressed the status of the IRIS assessment for formaldehyde, which has reportedly been ready since the end of 2017 but was not included on the December 2018 list of priority chemicals and, according to GAO’s Chemical Assessments Report, its future is unknown. Orme-Zavaleta stated that she believes the draft IRIS assessment will help EPA evaluate formaldehyde as a high-priority prioritization process candidate under TSCA.
Witnesses on the second panel included: Dr. Bernard D. Goldstein, Professor Emeritus, Dean Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health; Dr. Ivan Rusyn, Professor, Department of Veterinary Integrative Biosciences, Texas A&M University; Chair, Interdisciplinary Faculty of Toxicology; Director, Texas A&M Superfund Research Center; Dr. Julie E. Goodman, Principal, Gradient; and Ms. Wilma Subra, President, Subra Company; Technical Advisor, Louisiana Environmental Action Network.
Questions for the second panel from the Committee and Subcommittee members focused on the usefulness of the IRIS Program. Goldstein stated that IRIS was intended to coordinate risk assessments throughout EPA, ensuring that the programs used the same science and minimizing the influence of political appointees. When asked how Congress can support career staff at EPA, Goldstein recommended that Congress provide as much oversight as it can. According to Rusyn, the IRIS Program is a leader in pushing risk assessment methodology forward, most recently in its implementation of systematic review.
Commentary
The hearing was largely a recap of what was already known about the IRIS program, including EPA’s efforts to prioritize IRIS assessments as described by the recent GAO reporting. Perhaps not surprisingly, IRIS came under criticism from both majority and minority members. The issues raised included timeliness of outputs, IRIS’ long ongoing efforts to improve and strengthen its assessments and approach, the status of the IRIS assessment handbook, and the effect of EPA’s political leadership on the program.
Apart from the delay and disruption of ongoing work, we can see the benefit of EPA leadership efforts to obtain clear written statements of the priorities as seen by program Assistant Administrators. Perhaps this type of confirmation step will be an ongoing feature of the IRIS program into the future.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/house-subcommittees-hold-hearing-on-epa-71874/
-
Lead-Pipe Replacement Proposal Coming from EPA This Summer
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
The EPA’s long-awaited overhaul of regulations on lead in drinking water will prioritize low-income neighborhoods and be issued this summer, the agency’s leader told a gathering of environmental lawyers March 29.
The Environmental Protection Agency has already missed eight internal deadlines. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said he slowed down the proposal’s rollout because he wanted to make sure that “the last mile that’s replaced is not the most corrosive.”
Corroded pipes are the primary cause of lead-contaminated water. Lead is a toxic metal that can cause irreversible neurological, cognitive, and behavioral damage to children even in small amounts.
Such pipes were partly responsible for the lead contamination in low-income neighborhoods in Flint, Mich., an incident that Wheeler highlighted in his March 29 remarks to the American Bar Association’s Section of Energy, Environment, and Resources conference in Denver.
Replace, Not Just Monitor
EPA regulations now require water utilities to monitor tap water for lead but not to replace lead pipes unless contamination levels remain elevated for months.
Wheeler said he worried that the EPA would end up with a rule that would replace pipes in affluent neighborhoods first and low-income neighborhoods last. He said there are no accurate maps to depict where the lead pipes are located.
“So when we put out a rule this summer, we can focus our work on the most needy neighborhoods,” Wheeler said.
Apart from the lead rule, Wheeler said the EPA is planning to announce a third round of loans totaling $12 billion under its new water infrastructure loan program. The agency gave out $2.3 billion in loans during 2017’s inaugural round, and another $5 billion in November.
He said this round will see priority given to water reuse projects in upcoming loans from the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, or WIFIA. The loans are politically popular and supported by both parties in Congress.
Wheeler will formally announce the $12 billion in loans when he tours Denver Water’s Reclamation Plant, to highlight the need to invest in more water reuse projects.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/lead-pipe-replacement-proposal-coming-from-epa-this-summer
-
Senate Democrats Re-introduce Chlorpyrifos Ban
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats have re-introduced a bill that would ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos just days after appellate judges grappled with whether they can continue to review environmentalists' suit challenging former Administrator Scott Pruitt’s March 2017 reversal of the Obama-EPA’s proposed rule banning use of chlorpyrifos on food.
The bill S.921 would amend the two statutes governing pesticides' use, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, by prohibiting EPA from registering the pesticide or allowing its' residue on food.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), the bill's chief sponsor, introduced similar legislation last Congress.
“Enough delays. The Trump EPA’s unrelenting campaign to keep this dangerous pesticide on the shelves -- in spite of all the evidence telling us how dangerous it is to human health -- tells you everything you need to know about who this administration sides with,” Udall says in the statement. “We can’t sit around and wait for the EPA to stop dragging its feet while vulnerable families and precious wildlife are poisoned -- Congress must act.”
Udall's efforts -- and the lawsuit environmentalists and farmworkers brought against EPA -- follow Pruitt's decision to reverse the Obama EPA's proposed rule banning chlorpyrifos' use on food. Pruitt said the rule was based on novel studies of human exposures that warranted further review as part of the agency's registration review process for the substance, which is scheduled to continue through 2022.
But environmentalists won a sweeping victory last August when a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in League of United Latin American Citizens et al. v. Wheeler that "[t]here was no justification for the [Trump] EPA’s decision in its 2017 order to maintain a tolerance for chlorpyrifos,” and ordered EPA to ban the substance.
Then in February, the 9th Circuit granted EPA’s request for an en banc rehearing of that panel’s ruling, raising the possibility the court could undo the order and reject environmentalists' bid to block the substance from the market.
In the request for re-hearing, Justice Department (DOJ) attorneys drew on Judge Ferdinand Fernandez's dissenting opinion that petitioners lacked standing, and that precluding EPA from completing its process of responding to objections to Pruitt's order reversing the proposed Obama-era ban would allow for “premature attacks” on matters committed to agency expertise.
According to press reports, judges at the March 25 oral arguments grappled with complicated questions about the court's jurisdiction to continue to review the issue because the agency has not yet taken a final action responding to environmentalists' objections.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-democrats-re-introduce-chlorpyrifos-ban
-
ExxonMobil To Report Pellet Pollution
Mar 29, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Following pressure from a green shareholder activist group, ExxonMobil Chemical Co. agreed March 27 to expand its public reporting around resin pellet spills from its factories.
Under terms of an agreement reached with Oakland, Calif-based As You Sow, ExxonMobil will begin to report this year on pellet management as part of its sustainability report, giving details on where, how and when it monitors for spills and describing systems it has in place.
AYS submitted a resolution to Irving, Texas-based ExxonMobil in December seeking a shareholder vote that would require the company to publish annual reports around its pellet leakage into the environment. But it's now withdrawn that resolution.
AYS said it's pressuring ExxonMobil and other companies in the resin industry because it believes such disclosure will help get a better handle on one source of plastic in the environment. The industry's main program for reducing pellet loss, Operation Clean Sweep, is lacking because it has no public reporting requirements, AYS said.
The group said pellet leakage is estimated to be the second-largest source of direct microplastic pollution in the ocean, by weight.
"We are pleased that ExxonMobil has agreed to do public reporting on plastic pellet spills and management," said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president at AYS. "It is important for all industry players to establish similar transparency so stakeholders can get a realistic view of the size and scope of this problem. We hope the other companies we are engaged with will follow its lead."
AYS said ExxonMobil said it did not have any pellet spills last year.
In the agreement with AYS, ExxonMobil said it was committed to zero pellet loss, and has been a member of Operation Clean Sweep since 2008, applying OCS best practices at its facilities worldwide.
It said it would include details on its OCS processes in this year's sustainabilty report and include pellet spill data starting in 2020.
AYS has also asked DowDupont Inc. and the owners of Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. — Chevron Corp. and the Phillips Co. 66 — to make similar reports.
MacKerron said both Chevron and Phillips tried to block their resolutions from coming to a vote. He said both companies asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to toss out the AYS resolution, but the SEC declined to do that, so it will now proceed to shareholder votes.
The March 27 announcement came as a federal court in Texas was in the middle of several days of hearing arguments around a lawsuit brought by an environmental group, seeking millions of dollars in fines against Formosa Plastics over pellet releases from its large complex in Point Comfort.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190329/NEWS/190321230/exxonmobil-to-report-pellet-pollution
-
Ewire: Trump Poised To Sign Order On Pipeline Approvals
Mar 29, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump will reportedly sign an executive order next week that seeks to speed approvals for natural gas pipelines and other energy projects, a measure that in earlier iterations sought to undercut states' authority to assess the water quality effects of such projects under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Axios has the news on the timing of the directive, quoting two sources saying the order could come “as soon as next week.”
Inside EPA and others have reported that the White House has been mulling such an order for weeks, amid growing Republican and industry concern over Democratic states using their CWA 401 power to block such projects.
CWA Section 401 generally gives states authority to review and impose conditions on federal actions that may adversely impact water quality standards. Industry officials and some GOP lawmakers have suggested amending the program that governs state approval of federally permitted energy projects, charging that states have abused the authority to block construction of pipelines, coal export terminals and other projects.
One prior report from Politico said Trump administration officials were assuring Republican-led states that any order would not harm state sovereignty.
Though it appears the Trump order will focus on pipelines, the CWA 401 issue has also been a factor in Washington state's rejection of a high-profile coal export terminal -- a move that could have huge stakes for whether coal produced in Wyoming's Powder River Basin can be shipped to Asian markets to offset flagging domestic demand.
But state governors, legislators and regulators have strongly resisted EPA's efforts to curtail states' CWA 401 authority. Last month, several state groups proposed a series of steps the agency could take to speed reviews while still ensuring states keep their statutorily mandated one-year period to conduct a review.
The states floated several options that would require project developers to submit necessary data before states begin their reviews.
For example, a letter from the group said: “In order to preserve state flexibility, continue to work with states to define ‘receipt of request for certification’ to require applicants for CWA Section 401 certification to submit baseline data and information to states before the commencement of any statutory or regulatory timeline for review."
The letter also suggests that federal officials, “Adopt policies expressly stating that timelines for state action under CWA Section 401 do not begin until an applicant has submitted a substantially complete application to request the issuance of a water quality certification.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-poised-sign-order-pipeline-approvals
-
Coming Soon: Trump's Order On Pipeline Permits
Mar 29, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump could sign an executive order streamlining permitting for oil and gas pipelines as early as next month.
National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow shared that news at a meeting Wednesday hosted by the American Council for Capital Formation, sources who attended told E&E News. Trump may sign the order in Midland, Texas, a city located in the heart of the Permian Basin. Axios first reported the meeting today.
Attendees, who asked to remain anonymous in order to speak freely, said the order could be signed as early as next month, but they had no firm details about what the executive order would call for or accomplish. Kudlow's speech was light on details, they said.
Speculation has circulated in Washington for months about the Trump administration's plans to issue a number of energy-related executive actions, but the substance of those orders and what they would accomplish remain mysteries.
Sources expect presidential actions to boost the proliferation of pipelines across the United States, limit state interference on water permitting and touch on everything from fast-tracking pipeline approvals out of the Permian Basin to potential action on liquefied natural gas exports (Greenwire, Jan. 24).
But they've also cautioned that the actions are far from settled.
Leading the effort is Francis Brooke, a senior energy adviser to Trump who left Vice President Mike Pence's office to replace former White House energy aide Mike Catanzaro.
Scott Segal, a partner and energy industry analyst with Bracewell LLP's Policy Resolution Group, agreed there's been much discussion about an energy infrastructure executive order for months.
"The general purpose appears to be to clear away some of the underbrush that has resulted in unpredictable delays for major projects like pipelines, domestic energy production, export facilities and the like," Segal said. "Improved agency coordination on permitting will likely be an important element. Agencies should be updating their approaches, picking up on the work of the one-federal-decision effort last year."
The White House declined to comment when asked about Kudlow's comments or the status of the executive orders.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/29/stories/1060134157
-
Colorado Moves to Regulate Drilling After Years of Conflict
Mar 29, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Dan Frosch
Erin Martinez never got too involved in politics until her husband and brother were killed in an explosion after natural gas leaked from an abandoned line near her property. Two years later, the 41-year old high-school science teacher has become one of the leading voices calling for tougher regulations on this state’s booming drilling industry.
Not far from where Ms. Martinez lives on the plains in northern Colorado, oil-and-gas wells have provided vital revenue for Lynn Fagerberg’s onion farm amid the uncertainty of the agriculture business. The 65 year-old farmer worries that more drilling regulations could hit his community hard.
A conflict between those who believe drilling has crept too close to backyards and schools and risks marring the environment and those who tout its economic benefits for rural areas is once again flaring in this energy-rich state. Mirroring the urban-rural divide between Democrats and Republicans, lawmakers have long struggled to find common ground on how to regulate a surge of drilling activity along this growing corridor at the foot of the Rockies, where oil-and-gas equipment juts out from farmland and derricks loom close to new subdivisions.
Now, a newly Democratic-controlled state government is on the verge of passing regulations that backers say are the most significant new oil-and-gas rules in 60 years.
“It’s been a very long time since we’ve had any meaningful oil and gas reforms in Colorado, and oil and gas activity has moved closer to where people live,” said State Rep. Steve Fenberg, a Democrat from Boulder and sponsor of the legislation.
Dan Haley, president of the state’s oil and gas association described the bill as “cause for great concern” and “driving a significant amount of uncertainty for businesses and our workforce.”
The legislation gives local communities greater control over drilling permits, the state new regulatory powers, and reduces the number of people with industry ties on a commission that oversees oil and gas, while requiring the body to place more emphasis on health, safety and the environment.
The bill has cleared the state Senate and, after a marathon debate, received initial approval from the full House on Thursday night. Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has said he would sign it.
The battle over the legislation follows a political seesaw of skirmishes on the issue. Last year, Colorado voters rejected an initiative that would have barred drilling near homes, businesses and green spaces. A countermeasure backed by the energy industry that would have required the government to compensate landowners whenever regulations caused property values to fall also failed.
In 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that municipalities couldn’t outright ban hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—after the cities of Fort Collins and Longmont sought to halt the controversial drilling technique.
According to state data, 5,116 annual drilling permits were issued last year, the highest total since 2010, when about 6,000 were issued. More than half of the permits are for Weld County, which stretches northeast of Denver to the Wyoming border.
Barbara Kirkmeyer, chairwoman of the Weld County commission, said she feared smaller oil and gas operators would be stifled by additional regulations that the legislation allows the state to create. “It’s oil and gas and agriculture that holds up this state’s economy, not mountain biking and tourism,” said Ms. Kirkmeyer, a Republican.
But proponents say municipalities should have more control over business activity within their boundaries, and that in places where drilling is popular, such as Weld County, the legislation’s impact would be minimal. “This is about local control. It’s a conservative principle for crying out loud,” said Mayor Brian Bagley of Longmont. “Nobody wants to live next to a well.”
Kristy Hartman, energy policy director for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Colorado’s bill was unusual because the trend among some oil-and-gas states such as Texas and New Mexico has been to bar municipalities from imposing restrictions either through legislation or the courts.
Mr. Fagerberg, the Weld County onion farmer, said the wells leased on his farmland had brought in several million dollars for the family farm over the past decade.
His 36 year-old son Ryan, president of the family produce company, said he didn’t find many allies on the issue among people his age. “Liberal people, particularly young ones, fail to understand the harmful long term effects this bill has on our local economy and landowners,” he said.
Ms. Martinez, who has testified in favor of the legislation, noted that it required more public disclosure of flow lines like the one attached to a well that investigators concluded caused the explosion that killed her brother and husband. Following the accident, which left her severely burned, she reached an undisclosed settlement with Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
After her husband and brother died, she moved to a new housing development after poring over maps to make sure there weren’t any wells nearby. But Anadarko recently found that an old well she said was supposed to be at least 1,000 feet away was actually in a neighbor’s yard near Ms. Martinez’s porch.
Now Ms. Martinez says she is planning to move again. She promised her 13 year-old son they would never live so close to a well again.
“I’ve probably done more than anyone in this county to not be by oil and gas, and I’m still by oil and gas,” she said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/colorado-moves-to-regulate-drilling-after-years-of-conflict-11553864763
-
Offshore Energy: A Window Into America’s Economic and Strategic Future
Mar 29, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Jim Webb & Jim Nicholson
The first months of the 116th Congress and the run-up to the 2020 election cycle have featured a dramatic leftward turn in the Democratic Party on a wide array of issues – including energy. Some presidential aspirants have even signed on to support the so-called “Green New Deal,” which proposes to completely eliminate the use of natural gas and oil in the American economy within the next decade.
Many of us with long government experience who for years have called for a bipartisan “all of the above” approach to national and global energy solutions can only shake our heads in wonderment at this recent drift toward uncertainty. In the real world, the global demand for all forms of energy continues to grow dramatically as the economies in emerging markets expand. Here at home reliable projections indicate that natural gas and oil will supply an estimated 60 percent of U.S. energy needs in 2040, even under optimistic scenarios for the development of renewables.
Energy security is a key element in our health as a country. Decades of recent experience demonstrate unequivocally that the level of our country’s energy independence has a measurable impact on our national security interests, as well as the stability and predictability of our national economy.
That’s why the five-year offshore leasing program coming soon from the Department of the Interior is so important. Expanding natural gas and oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf is critical to protect our strategic and economic future, even as we rightfully explore other energy alternatives.
Since 1984, government policies have restricted even basic exploration in 94 percent of the federal areas offshore from our coastline – and we emphasize far offshore, because much of the activity would take place far from our precious beaches and environmental havens. These areas could prove a treasure trove of natural gas and oil reserves. As anyone typing on a computer or talking on a cell phone can attest, the technological world is not the same as it was in 1984. And yet offshore energy policy has remained frozen in the past, even as technology has become more sophisticated and industry safety standards have become more rigorous.
Some opponents of offshore energy argue that it would interfere with our military operations, but nothing could be further from the truth. A long-standing framework of cooperation between the Interior Department and the Department of Defense demonstrates that military and energy operations are compatible missions. More importantly, increased domestic production of natural gas and oil will help to advance our national security goals, strengthening our position in the international arena.
The rest of the world, from South America to Northern Europe to Africa, has moved forward to take advantage of natural gas and oil resources in their offshore regions. It’s time to “unfreeze” America from the archaic standards of the past, and to allow exploration that could unleash billions of dollars in added revenues to our federal and state governments, help bolster infrastructure and schools in local communities, add tens of thousands of jobs, and help guarantee our national security.
The upcoming five-year offshore leasing program could open key areas for offshore natural gas and oil exploration and development, including the Atlantic, additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic.
Florida alone could see more than 50,000 new jobs and nearly $4.5 billion per year in new revenue by opening additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico – which could be a game-changer for the entire Gulf region. Florida depends on reliable and affordable energy to power its bustling tourism industry, and offshore energy development could play a key role in making the state even more attractive to visitors.
Despite the overblown political rhetoric calling for an abrupt end to natural gas and oil production, the foundations of our national energy policies depend on natural gas and oil. Modern technology and increased cooperation with government regulators have made such production far safer and cleaner than at any time in history.
Unlike the policies of the world’s greatest polluters, including China and India, the U.S. has been a global leader in developing energy while protecting the environment. The administration’s five-year program for exploring offshore opportunities should fit into this model. Rather than a retreat into the past, expanding offshore exploration will provide a safe and economically beneficial door to the future. Let us no longer stand down while our competitors develop their offshore energy to our strategic and economic detriment.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/03/29/offshore_energy_a_window_into_americas_economic_and_strategic_future_110415.html
-
FERC Grants Two Orders, Denies One for Permian Crude Expansions
Mar 28, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
FERC granted orders for two crude oil expansion projects in the Permian Basin proposed by subsidiaries of EnLink Midstream LLC, but denied an order to a unit of Enterprise Products Partners LP for a similar expansion on concerns with that project's open season.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117861-ferc-grants-two-orders-denies-one-for-permian-crude-expansions
-
Lone Star Secures Lease for Deepwater Oil Export Terminal in South Texas
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
A proposed deepwater oil export project in South Texas that would move Lower 48 volumes to overseas markets on Thursday clinched a 50-year lease agreement for a terminal near Corpus Christi.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117872-lone-star-secures-lease-for-deepwater-oil-export-terminal-in-south-texas
-
California Pro-Natural Gas Coalition Pushing for Balanced Energy Policy
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Two years in the making, a coalition of business, education and labor interests has been formed in California to support natural gas and push back against climate change-driven policies for electrifying the state’s energy system.
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117870-california-pro-natural-gas-coalition-pushing-for-balanced-energy-policy
-
Oil Firms Get Grace Period to Fix Emissions Leaks Under EPA Rule
Mar 29, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Oil and gas companies that acquire multiple drilling sites will get more time to decide whether to identify and fix leaking storage tanks, under the EPA’s first update to the sector’s self-auditing policy in more than a decade.
Under the new timeline, companies will get nine months to decide, two to six months to identify problems, and another six months to plug the leaks. Once companies begin working to identify problems, the Environmental Protection Agency will agree not to penalize them. The changes, announced March 29, are meant to spur self-reporting.
The oil and gas industry, however, said the EPA’s revised policy is too onerous, and questioned whether the Clean Air Act even allows the agency to require all these steps before it can agree to waiving penalties.
The revisions target thousands of controlled storage tanks at drilling sites that are leaking volatile organic compounds—such as benzene—because of poor vapor controls.
With oil and gas companies stepping up exploration in the Permian basin, the self-auditing policy gives owners extra time to manage their newly acquired assets. The EPA said it would free up enforcement resources.
Incentive for Companies
“It is an incentive for a company because it ensures we aren’t going to come knocking on their door with a formal enforcement action while they are taking corrective actions,” Apple Chapman, deputy director of EPA’s Air Enforcement Division, told Bloomberg Environment in an exclusive interview March 28.
The oil and gas sector is the largest industrial source of volatile organic compounds air pollution, and a significant source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is more potent than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA. Volatile organic compounds contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, or smog, which is linked to respiratory problems in children, people with asthma, and older adults.
The EPA’s changes to its 2008 self-auditing policy comes as the agency is battling claims from environmental groups and congressional Democrats that it is lax in enforcing environmental laws.
They point to the EPA’s fiscal 2018 enforcement record, which showed the number of inspections and evaluations by the agency declined to 10,612 in 2018 from 11,941 the previous year, down from a trend around 20,000 between 2008 and 2012.
“It has a chilling effect on EPA staff’s willingness to take bold action when their bosses cut the total number of enforcement orders by 50 percent and propose 30 percent budget cuts, and when President Trump promises to eliminate EPA ‘in almost every form,’” said Paul Gallay, president of New York-based environmental group Riverkeeper Inc. and former official in New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation.
He spoke March 28 at the American Bar Association’s Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources’ spring environmental law conference in Denver.
Successful Self-Auditing Program
Patrick Traylor, deputy assistant EPA administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, dismissed criticism that polluting companies shouldn’t to be allowed to police themselves.
He said the EPA’s self-disclosure program, not just the one for the oil and gas sector, has been successful.
He also pointed to the agency’s fiscal 2018 record, saying 532 companies, including new owners, voluntarily disclosed violations at more than 1,500 facilities, representing a 47 percent increase over the prior year.
Like Traylor, Chapman maintained that the agency’s self-auditing policy isn’t intended to reduce formal enforcement.
“Instead, it complements our strong enforcement presence,” she said.
Enforcement Won’t Lag
Nothing will prohibit the EPA from taking enforcement action against a prior owner, or even a new owner that hasn’t yet decided whether to engage in a self-audit, she said.
If new owners suspect or have evidence that the newly acquired drilling sites are out of compliance, it would benefit them to join the audit program as early as possible; They don’t have to wait for the full nine months, she added.
Once they sign on, the policy requires companies to self-audit and identify problems. This process can take anywhere between two to six months depending upon the number of tank systems being evaluated, “but our expectation is that will be done as quickly and efficiently as possible,” Chapman said.
The companies then have six months to design and engineer fixes. The EPA changed that deadline in response to comments it received on its original proposal, which had no deadline.
The American Petroleum Institute is objecting to the many hoops the EPA is requiring oil and gas companies to seek before qualifying for penalty mitigation. The national industry trade group also is questioning whether the analyses and corrective actions aren’t based on any federal statutory or regulatory requirements.
“Companies should be provided time to come into compliance with all of the applicable regulations instead of imposing a new standard,” the API said in a March 29 statement to Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA, however, sees this self-auditing policy as a strategy that will conserve resources and ensure that more companies comply.
“We know there is potential for excess significant emissions at storage tanks, but we can’t be everywhere at the same time,” Chapman said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oil-firms-get-grace-period-to-fix-emissions-leaks-under-epa-rule
-
U.S. Trade Negotiators Take Aim at China’s Cybersecurity Law
Mar 29, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Lingling Wei and Bob Davis
U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators haggled over how to get Beijing to walk back China’s tough cybersecurity law as both sides push to resolve deep-seated irritants and settle a yearlong tariff fight.
During discussions Friday, issues related to Chinese regulations of information security and cross-border data flows, as well as high-tech sectors such as cloud computing, crowded the negotiation agenda, said people briefed on the matter. The Trump administration has been pressing China to loosen restrictions that U.S. companies, especially large technology firms, say unfairly disadvantage them in the world’s second-largest economy.
The cybersecurity law presents a significant challenge for U.S. businesses operating in China, Washington officials have said, as it requires them to store sensitive data in China and to favor Chinese network equipment over foreign ones.
In recent weeks, Chinese officials have shown a willingness to discuss those issues, which they previously viewed as off-limits for negotiation, said the people briefed on the matter as well as others with knowledge of the process, to try to clear remaining stumbling blocks to reaching a trade agreement.
So far, the two sides have made what both governments have called meaningful progress toward a deal, with China agreeing to substantially increase its purchases of American goods and services, to open Chinese markets wider for U.S. companies and to better protect U.S. intellectual property rights.
The White House said both sides on Friday “continued to make progress during candid and constructive discussions on the negotiations and important next steps.” A statement by China’s official Xinhua News Agency said the two sides had discussed the text of an agreement and made “new progress.”
For now, Washington negotiators, led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and their Chinese counterparts led by Vice Premier Liu He, are shooting to close a deal by the end of April, officials on both sides say. Mr. Liu is scheduled to arrive in Washington on Wednesday to continue the negotiations.
Obstacles persist, including how to enforce an agreement, the pace at which the U.S. and China will roll back the tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars in goods imposed in the past year, and the technology-related matters. These issues are taking up more time as negotiators grind toward the finish.
A central issue in the latest round of talks between Messrs. Lighthizer, Mnuchin and Li at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse on Friday was China’s sweeping cybersecurity law, the people briefed on the matter said.
Enacted in mid-2017, the law is part of President Xi Jinping’s plan to build China into a global power in cyberspace and to strengthen the government’s control over information. Since the enactment of the law, Chinese authorities have put in place hundreds of rules and standards governing products ranging from software to routers, switches and firewalls, making it increasingly challenging for multinational firms to operate in the country.
Of particular concern for foreign businesses is a requirement for operators of “critical information infrastructure” to undergo stringent security reviews to ensure that data systems are “secure and controllable.” So far, Beijing hasn’t identified those operators, but has broadly defined them as companies with data which, if compromised, would pose a threat to national security and the public interest.
As a result, U.S. firms operating in China, be they American technology firms, banks or energy firms, have to keep their networks’ data in China and in many cases have to source servers, routers and other equipment and products from Chinese suppliers. Companies found in violation could have their business permits and licenses revoked.
U.S. negotiators have been pressing Beijing to clearly define which companies count as operators of “critical information infrastructure,” according to the people briefed on the matter. In recent discussions, Chinese officials have floated an idea of defining such operators based on their market share in China, according to the people with knowledge of China’s plans. If a U.S. firm with operations in China only accounts for a small fraction of the industry it is in, it wouldn’t be subject to the data-localization requirement under the law.
Another offer Chinese negotiators made involves better access to the country’s rapidly growing cloud-computing industry. Under the plan, China would allow trial operations for foreign cloud-service providers in a free-trade zone, possibly in the southern city of Guiyang, which is a center for big data.
The cloud proposal, reported by The Wall Street Journal on Thursday, is being met with skepticism in the U.S., with some tech executives characterizing it as a limited step that could end up benefiting only one or two U.S. firms.
Beijing’s cloud proposal would also require a relaxation of the cybersecurity law to allow U.S. providers of cloud services to connect their data centers in China to their global networks.
In a separate market-opening gesture Friday, China’s securities regulator approved applications by JPMorgan Chase & Co. andNomura Holdings Inc. to set up majority-owned brokerage joint ventures. The approvals make good on a pledge made in November 2017 to allow foreign investment banks to own majority stakes in their Chinese ventures, lifting their equity cap on foreign ownership to 51% from 49%.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-trade-negotiators-take-aim-at-chinas-cybersecurity-law-11553867916?mod=hp_lead_pos6
-
EPA Accused Of Not Issuing Regulations Mandated By Congress Nearly 30 Years Ago
Mar 29, 2019 | Legal Newsline
By Marian Jones
The Environmental Justice Health Alliance For Chemical Policy Reform (EJHA) has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the federal government agency's alleged failure to issue regulations mandated by Congress nearly 30 years ago.
According to the lawsuit filed March 21 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the EJHA , Clean Water Action and the Natural Resources Defense Council allege the EPA has not implemented regulations required by an amendment to the Clean Water Act passed by Congress in 1990.
The amendment mandated that the EPA issue regulations by August 1992 that require "dangerous chemical facilities" to create a response plan in the event of a "worst-case spill" of hazardous chemicals such as what happened in the Houston area during Hurricane Harvey.
According to the lawsuit filing, Hurricane Harvey caused tens of thousands of pounds of carcinogens to be released and mixed into flood waters. The plaintiff alleges EPA's failure to issue the "worst-case spill" regulations violates the Clean Air Act.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the EPA's failure to issue the regulations and to compel the agency to "promptly initiate rulemaking" in accordance with the Clean Water Act.
https://legalnewsline.com/stories/512328807-epa-accused-of-not-issuing-regulations-mandated-by-congress-nearly-30-years-ago
-
Firefighters at Houston Chemical Disaster Scrambled to Find Foam
Mar 29, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll and Kevin Crowley
Firefighters confronted with the worst Gulf Coast industrial disaster in 14 years had to call on outside sources to augment their supply of the special foam required to extinguish chemical blazes.
Intercontinental Terminal Co. confirmed it appealed to other companies for foam during the fire that erupted on March 17 and ravaged its chemical storage complex in Houston’s eastern suburbs for four days. Almost two weeks after the calamity began, local officials are questioning whether ITC had the proper equipment and personnel in place to handle such an event.
“It just seems that they had an incredible amount of difficulty doing something they should have been prepared to do,” said Harris County Commissioner Adrian Garcia,whose precinct encompasses the disaster site. “They have been operating at the minimum requirements. They are only required to have so much foam. This fire proved to be more than the foam they were required to have.”
ITC, a unit of Japanese conglomerate Mitsui & Co., sought additional foam from third-party sources “for the entire event,” Brent Weber, the senior vice president of sales and marketing who’s been the face of the company’s response effort.
However, Weber said ITC never ran short of foam. The entities ITC called upon included Channel Industries Mutual Aid, a Houston-area cooperative that lends rescue trucks and other gear when a member company has an emergency.Foam Supplies
“I don’t have the specific numbers but I can tell you this, at no time were we low on foam,” Weber said. “We continued throughout the fire fighting process to bring in all the foam that we needed to fight the fire.”
U.S. Fire Pump, the Louisiana-based company the ITC brought in to help suppress the blaze, didn’t respond to requests for comment. The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, the Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Harris County’s fire marshal have launched investigations of the incident.
The fire cast a mile-high plume of inky black smoke over the fourth-largest U.S. city that dropped shards of grimy soot on homes and cars. On the second night of the blaze, a dip in water pressure allowed the conflagration to intensify and engulf more storage tanks.
After the blaze was extinguished on March 20, clouds of cancer-causing benzene prompted take-shelter alerts in Deer Park and other suburbs, shutting down schools and highways, and paralyzing everyday life for tens of thousands of people.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-29/firefighters-at-houston-chemical-disaster-scrambled-to-find-foam
-
Mar 29, 2019 | Waterways Journal
Does anyone in the federal government understand the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) program?
The recent report by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) details the latest revelations on the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to properly classify maritime threats or to communicate threats to other agencies. Whether the report speaks more to FBI failures, or to the pointlessness of the entire TWIC program, is an open question.
While the Coast Guard is the primary federal agency concerned with port security, and the National Maritime Center issues merchant mariner credentials and TWICs, the FBI is supposed to conduct background checks on TWIC applicants. This typically involves cross-checking their names and data (such as birthdates, addresses and Social Security numbers) against information on various federal databases, including no-fly lists and terror watchlists.
It should not be possible for anyone on any of these lists to get a TWIC, yet it happened more than once. We don’t know how many times, exactly, but the report does say that the FBI had 214 “encounters” involving TWIC-holders. The report shows that the FBI failed many times to classify incidents involving TWIC-holders as related to “maritime” or “transportation” in their database.
What’s more disturbing, the OIG’s report says, is that “FBI agents we spoke to who provided input on these individuals did not adequately understand the TWIC program. Some agents were unable to explain what a TWIC was and what access it granted, and others had not fully considered the impact of allowing an investigative subject continued access to secure maritime areas.”
The information often never made its way from agents to the Maritime Security Program, a separate FBI terrorism-related program within the Maritime Administration that is supposed to prevent terrorist attacks on ports.
Last August, the president signed the TWIC Accountability Act, which restricts the Department of Homeland Security from implementing any rule requiring the use of biometric readers for TWICs until after Congress receives the results of an assessment of the effectiveness of the TWIC program. This assessment has been contracted out to the RAND Corporation. That report will not be delivered to Congress until this summer at the earliest.
In September of last year, a report from another OIG office—this time from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—found that the DHS “did not complete an assessment of the security value of the TWIC program” as required by law. “As a result, the Coast Guard does not have a full understanding of the extent to which the TWIC program addresses security risks in the maritime environment.”
For example, the Coast Guard “did not clearly define the applicability of facilities that have certain dangerous cargo in bulk when developing a final rule to implement the use of TWIC readers at high-risk maritime facilities. The Coast Guard has granted so many exemptions to facilities that it estimates only 5 percent of TWIC-regulated persons are required to use the card readers that scan the biometric data. Most current TWIC readers are “at the end of their service life,” according to the DHS report.
Even after that report, the Coast Guard could not tell the Justice Department’s OIG examiners how many TWIC readers were in operation, or where. That is not only poor security practice, but it makes a mockery of the trouble and expense that mariners and port workers go through to get this document.
We can’t help but remember that the entire reason for President George W. Bush’s consolidation of federal bureaucracies into the Department of Homeland Security was precisely to prevent the kind of information “siloing” and lack of communication between agencies that contributed to the intelligence failures of 9/11.
If TWICs are not keeping ports and vessels safer but are only increasing expense and annoyance to mariners and port workers, we should get rid of the program altogether.
https://www.waterwaysjournal.net/2019/03/29/end-twic-dont-mend-it/
-
Limited Infrastructure May Hamper Initial LNG Use as Marine Fuel
Mar 29, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Despite global plans to reduce the sulfur content in marine transportation fuels by 2020, limited infrastructure and high development costs initially may prevent vessel operators from switching to liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a fuel source, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Subscription required for full text.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117859-limited-infrastructure-may-hamper-initial-lng-use-as-marine-fuel
-
FBI Allowed Suspected Terrorist To Get TWIC
Mar 29, 2019 | Waterways Journal
By David Murray
The Department of Justice Inspector General (OIG) released a blistering report March 21 identifying “significant deficiencies relating to the FBI’s efforts to help ensure the security of our nation’s ports.”
Among the report’s findings: the FBI allowed a known terrorist suspect who was on a federal no-fly list to receive a Transportation Workers Information Credential (TWIC). The report highlighted one “particularly concerning” individual who “had access to large scale modes of maritime transportation and ports.”
A redacted version of the full report made available to the public notes that “fortunately,” because of intelligence gathered elsewhere, the FBI was able to interview (and presumably detain) the unnamed person later.
TWICs were created after 9/11 as part of measures designed to improve port safety and security, but they have been severely criticized as a costly and ineffective extra step that imposes large costs on mariners. TWIC cards include a chip with biometric information on the mariner or port worker holding it. But after years of delay, the Coast Guard still does not have a final rule for a machine that could read the chips. This led at least one member of Congress to mock the TWIC during a hearing as “an expensive library card.”
Among the deficiencies the report found are lapses in the information provided by the FBI to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for background checks for applicants for TWICs. “We believe FBI personnel may have made recommendations to the TSA regarding TWIC credentialing decisions without an adequate understanding of the TWIC program, the level of access a TWIC provides to restricted port facilities and vessels and the potential risks posed by such individuals possessing a TWIC,” according to the report.
The FBI is supposed to cross-check information given on a TWIC application, such as name, Social Security number or date of birth, with information on the federal terrorist watchlist. If there is a correlation, the vetting agent is supposed to create an “encounter.” The report blacked out the number of persons possessing a TWIC who were found to have been the subject of an “encounter.” It noted that some known terrorist suspects had either since lost their TWICs or have been removed from the no-fly list.
Relying on the Coast Guard, the FBI has never conducted its own formal independent maritime threat assessment. The FBI has a system called Guardian that flags potential incidents and categorizes them. According to the FBI, maritime-related incidents account for only 2 percent of Guardian-flagged incidents. Between FY 2014 and FY 2016, the FBI initiated full or preliminary investigations for 15 maritime-related Guardian incidents.
However, the OIG’s report said, “We identified Guardian records associated with TWIC-related encounters that were not categorized as Transportation or Maritime,” and were therefore not included in estimates of maritime threats the FBI compiled. The report concluded the FBI is relying on “incomplete information [that] can pose a significant threat to the maritime domain.”
The list of keywords used by FBI personnel to retrieve Guardian data did not include “TWIC,” “Transportation Worker Identification Credential,” or other relevant terms such as “stowaway,” submersible” or “submarine.” When the OIG’s team asked FBI personnel to conduct searches using the first two terms, the system flagged 206 Guardian incidents, of which 29 related to lost, stolen or counterfeit TWICs. According to FBI policy, all of these incidents should have received either preliminary or full investigations.
The report also found that even when individuals with TWICs were subjects of an FBI investigation, the investigators did not always communicate with MSP (Maritime Security Program, a division of the Maritime Administration) officials.
The report concluded, “Based on the foregoing, we believe the MSP does not currently identify all TWIC intelligence, and therefore does not have the information it needs to develop a complete understanding of the terrorism threat to the maritime domain.”
The FBI is not the only agency that comes up short in the OIG’s report. The Coast Guard, the primary federal agency responsible for port security, was unable to provide estimates of how many TWIC readers are in activation or where they are located—information the FBI and other agencies would need to investigate maritime incidents. The report notes that the Coast Guard’s final rule regarding TWICs requires card readers only for a group designated as Risk Group A, about 5 percent of the MTSA-regulated population, according to one estimate.
The report made nine recommendations to the FBI to strengthen its TWIC-related security procedures. The FBI agreed with all of them. The first recommendation was for the FBI “to conduct a full and independent evaluation of the terrorist threat to the maritime domain, with resulting intelligence products disseminated to key audiences.”
Other recommendations included better training of its personnel on the uses and purposes of TWICs, and better coordination between agencies.
The report’s full title is “Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Management of Maritime Terrorism Threats.” The full redacted report is available here.
https://www.waterwaysjournal.net/2019/03/29/fbi-allowed-suspected-terrorist-to-get-twic/
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Add recipients
Suggested