Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - April 10, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Two States Lower Barriers for Plastics Conversion
Apr 10, 2019 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Dan Leif
Lawmakers in Iowa and Tennessee recently passed legislation that eases regulation for gasification and pyrolysis facilities that handle recovered polymers. The similar bills – SF 534 in Iowa and SB 923 in Tennessee – define... -
(ACC Mentioned) US NGO Seeks ‘Moratorium’ on New PFASs
Apr 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An NGO in the US has called on Congress to halt the introduction of new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) until there is "sufficient scientific information" on their toxicity and persistence in the environment. A review of TSCA... -
(ACC Mentioned) State Bill Would Ban Toxic Chemicals in Firefighting Foam
Apr 10, 2019 | Colorado Springs Independent
By Faith Miller
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers has introduced a bill to ban firefighting foam that contains certain toxic, man-made chemicals: those classified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS. El Paso County... -
Lawmakers Resurrect Bill to Address PFAs
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) are reviving legislation that would establish a database for service members and veterans with health problems potentially caused by exposure to toxic nonstick chemicals. -
River Project to Study BPA Release from Microplastics
Apr 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A global project on microplastics in rivers will measure how BPA and nanoparticles are released from different sample types. The 100 Plastic Rivers project was set up in 2018 to address a lack of knowledge on the transport, fate and... -
Trump to Issue Executive Orders Seeking to Speed up Oil and Gas Projects
Apr 10, 2019 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Toluse Olorunnipa
President Trump is planning to issue a pair of executive orders on Wednesday to “help American energy companies avoid unnecessary red tape” by making it easier for firms to build oil and gas pipelines and harder for state agencies to... -
Ewire: Trump Orders to Target Cross-Border Pipelines, EPA Policies
Apr 10, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump today will sign a pair of executive orders seeking to ease permitting for cross-border oil and gas pipelines -- an issue underscored by the long-running Keystone XL tar sands pipeline dispute -- and curtail states'... -
Trump to Order EPA to Review Pipeline Permitting, Amid State Blockades
Apr 10, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order directing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to review the agency’s permitting processes to speed up the construction of natural gas pipelines, a senior White House official... -
Update 1-Trump to Fight States Delaying Energy Projects
Apr 10, 2019 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
President Donald Trump will issue two executive orders in the heart of the Texas energy hub on Wednesday seeking to speed gas, coal and oil projects delayed by coastal states as he looks to build support ahead of next year’s election. -
Oil Drilling Plan Threatens Trump's 2020 Chances in Florida
Apr 10, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman and Ben Lefebvre
The Trump administration is considering auctioning off Florida’s coastal waters for oil and gas drilling — and Republicans are warning it could cost the president dearly in Florida in the 2020 election. An industry lobbying... -
Chevron Phillips Chemical to Report Pellet Pollution
Apr 9, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Materials maker Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. has agreed to start providing more public reporting around pellet spills from its factories, following pressure from a shareholder advocacy group. The Oakland, Calif.-based group As You... -
Pieces Falling Into Place for Green Light on Ohio Ethane Cracker
Apr 10, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
PTT Global Chemical pcl (PTTGC) and Daelim Industrial Co. continue to work toward sanctioning the multi-billion dollar ethane cracker proposed for southeast Ohio, a project spokesman said this week. -
Month After ITC Explosion at Deer Park Plant, Fire Investigators Enter Tank Farm
Apr 10, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Perla Trevizo
Nearly a month after a chemical holding plant caught fire and exploded, fire investigators on Tuesday entered the tank farm at the charred Deer Park plant for the first time as they sought answers into how and where the blaze started. -
Decision on Deadly Oil Refinery Blast Seen Expanding Chemical Process Standard
Apr 10, 2019 | Business Insurance
By Louise Esola
A recent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ruling related to alleged safety violations stemming from a deadly oil refinery explosion in 2012 could have wider implications for companies dealing with highly hazardous... -
Everything You Need to Know About the Logistics of Bulk Chemical Transportation
Apr 10, 2019 | Manufacturing.net
By Abby Drexler
When dealing with bulk chemical transportation, there are numerous factors to take into consideration. From using the proper tanks during transport, ensuring truck drivers have the necessary training and permits, and having a full... -
Second House Committee Advances Paris Climate Bill
Apr 10, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Zack Coleman
Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee today advanced a bill by a 24-16 vote calling on the United States to re-enter the Paris climate accord. No Republicans voted for the bill, H.R. 9 (116). The House Energy and Commerce... -
Green New Deal Name-Calling Aims to Shape Upcoming Elections
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
To supporters it has always been the Green New Deal—or GND—a mass mobilization to address climate change by putting people to work reducing the nation’s climate footprint. But Republican opponents have offered their own... -
The Energy 202: John Kerry: Ocasio-Cortez 'Offered More Leadership in One Day' on Climate Change Than Trump Ever Has
Apr 10, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Democrats have found a way of talking about — and even praising — the Green New Deal even after many on Capitol Hill have withheld support for it. The method: Endorsing the enthusiasm it is generating. The latest example of that...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Two States Lower Barriers for Plastics Conversion
Apr 10, 2019 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Dan Leif
Lawmakers in Iowa and Tennessee recently passed legislation that eases regulation for gasification and pyrolysis facilities that handle recovered polymers.
The similar bills – SF 534 in Iowa and SB 923 in Tennessee – define gasification and pyrolysis as activities distinct from solid waste processing. The pieces of legislation in both states also categorize feedstocks for those processes separate from solid waste.
Such distinctions are important because they would allow operators that use those methods to be regulated more akin to manufacturers than solid waste facilities.
Similar legislation has previously passed in Florida (2017), Georgia (2018) and Wisconsin (2018).
“Iowa and Tennessee become the most recent states to create a welcoming environment for businesses to convert more post-use plastics into valuable raw materials, thereby keeping more of our plastic resources out of landfills,” Craig Cookson, senior director of recycling and recovery at the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division, said in a statement.
The Iowa legislation, which had been opposed by the Iowa Recycling Association, passed the state Senate by a vote of 45-3 on March 13 and passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 90-6 on March 28. Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed the bill into law on April 8.
In Tennessee, meanwhile, the bill passed the Senate 31-0 on March 28 and the House 75-16 on April 8. It is now on the desk of Gov. Byron Lee.
Pyrolysis and gasification methods heat materials in oxygen-deficient environments to produce chemical feedstocks, fuels and other products.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/04/10/two-states-lower-barriers-for-plastics-conversion/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US NGO Seeks ‘Moratorium’ on New PFASs
Apr 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An NGO in the US has called on Congress to halt the introduction of new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) until there is "sufficient scientific information" on their toxicity and persistence in the environment.
A review of TSCA chemical data reporting (CDR) information by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) suggests that the number of PFAS varieties produced in or imported in very large quantities into the US has "skyrocketed", from 76 in 2002 to 118 during the most recent reporting cycle (2012-15).
In a 27 March letter to leaders of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), PEER said this jump has come after industry voluntarily pledged to phase out the use of two long-chain substances – PFOA and PFOS – because of their toxicity and biopersistence.
But according to Kyla Bennett, PEER science policy director, the rapid influx of short-chain substitute PFASs onto the market "makes it impossible for public health agencies to keep up with toxicology assessments in time to protect the public."
PEER has encouraged lawmakers to adopt a 'moratorium' on any new PFASs and require manufacturers to contribute to a research fund for risk assessments by toxicologists not affiliated with industry.
And the Environmental Working Group’s senior scientist David Andrews agreed: "Stop allowing the chemical industry to substitute versions of chemicals known to be hazardous with new formulations that haven’t been adequately tested for safety and may be just as hazardous."
However, the FluoroCouncil, a subsidiary of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), disagrees that a "blanket, one-size-fits all" approach is appropriate for PFASs. Efforts to regulate PFAS as a class, said the organisation’s Robert Simon, "are not only misleading for the public, they are scientifically inaccurate".
The amended TSCA requires that new chemistries – which includes all new short-chain PFASs – have an affirmative safety determination before they are brought to market, Mr Simon told Chemical Watch.
A ‘protective action agenda’
Meanwhile, the NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families has released a ‘protective action agenda’ on PFAS contamination that broadly advocates phasing out their use in products.
PFASs have been used for several decades as surfactants in fire retardants, in furniture, food packaging and non-stick cookware, among other uses. But according to the SCHF, the best way to prevent pollution is to avoid putting them in consumer, commercial and industrial products at all.
A coalition of state environmental agencies echoed this request in a letter to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler last week.
The comments came in response to the EPA’s PFAS management plan. Released in February, this largely focused on cleanup of legacy substances, and was criticised by the environmental advocacy community for its lack of specificity.
The groups called on Mr Wheeler to "go beyond PFOA and PFOS and beyond drinking water" in the agency’s approach to PFASs. And they said the EPA should develop "appropriate measures for the entire class of PFAS chemicals" and impose more concrete timelines and deadlines for this process.
Congressional focus
Outside federal agencies, the class of chemicals has also increasingly drawn bipartisan attention in Congress.
The Senate EPW held a 28 March hearing focused on the federal response to PFAS-associated risks. Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) highlighted the importance of industry cooperating with the EPA, the CDC and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) "to help these agencies better detect PFAS, identify where these chemicals are produced and used and understand the risks associated with them."
And bipartisan legislation focused on PFASs has been introduced in both chambers, including: the PFAS Action Act (S 638 / HR 535), which would require the EPA to designate PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund toxics law; the PFAS Detection Act, which would provide the US Geological Survey with $45m to develop new PFAS-detection technologies, and then to conduct nationwide sampling for the substances; the Veterans Exposed to Toxic PFASs Act, which aims to address risks posed by exposure to PFAS-containing firefighting foams at military bases, by requiring the veterans affairs department to cover the costs of resulting health problems; and the Protecting Military Firefighters from PFAS Act (S 858), which would require the Pentagon to provide blood testing for military firefighters, in order to determine potential exposure to PFASs.
The EWG’s Scott Faber says that the bipartisan interest in the issue "underscores just how serious this PFAS crisis is throughout the country".
https://chemicalwatch.com/76094/us-ngo-seeks-moratorium-on-new-pfass?q=%E2%80%9CAmerican+Chemistry+Council%E2%80%9D
-
(ACC Mentioned) State Bill Would Ban Toxic Chemicals in Firefighting Foam
Apr 10, 2019 | Colorado Springs Independent
By Faith Miller
A bipartisan group of state lawmakers has introduced a bill to ban firefighting foam that contains certain toxic, man-made chemicals: those classified as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, better known as PFAS.
El Paso County Democrats Rep. Tony Exum and Sen. Pete Lee joined forces with their Republican counterparts, Rep. Lois Landgraf and Sen. Dennis Hisey, on House Bill 1279, which was introduced March 27. It would prohibit the sale of firefighting foam that contains PFAS for use in Colorado.
The U.S. military used firefighting foam containing long-chain PFAS for decades, and contaminated the drinking water supplies of communities near military installations around the world — including Fountain, Security-Widefield and Stratmoor, outside Peterson Air Force Base. (Those water districts have changed sources or added filtration systems since 2015, when evidence of the contamination began to emerge.)
Studies have linked two types of long-chain PFAS — PFOA and PFOS — to low infant birth weights, immune system disorders, cancer and thyroid problems.
The Department of Defense has completely phased out its original foam formula and replaced it with a new, supposedly safer formula that contains shorter-chain PFAS. Peterson's emergency response vehicles were outfitted with the new formula in 2016, and the base no longer uses the foam for training exercises.
But while the Department of Defense has said that the new formula's shorter-chain chemicals don't accumulate in the body and are more environmentally friendly, some clean-water advocates beg to differ.
"In some cases, the [shorter-chain chemicals] may migrate farther ... so you may have a bigger contamination area," says Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney for Environmental Working Group. "We don't have strong evidence that these newer substitutes are much safer and much better for the environment."
But could a state ban on all PFAS-containing foam change the federal government's policy?
"The Air Force isn't going to speculate on proposed legislation," wrote Stephen Brady, a spokesperson for Peterson Air Force Base, when asked how the bill could affect Peterson's operations.
The Air Force's website explains that so far, no non-fluorinated foam formula meets "performance criteria necessary to safeguard our Airmen from real time fire emergency responses." PFAS-containing foams "are the most effective foams currently available to fight flammable liquid fires in military, industrial, aviation and municipal arenas," it continues.
Fire departments and airports separate from the military have said they could replace PFAS foam with other products, and don't oppose the bill, Landgraf says. She believes that the ban wouldn't affect the Air Force.
But the Sierra Club — an environmental nonprofit that backed the bill — expects opposition from the chemical industry.
Modern PFAS foams should "not be banned outright," the American Chemistry Council, a group representing chemical manufacturers, said in a statement. "We look forward to working with the bill sponsors to ensure that these products are available for use where needed, while also reducing unnecessary release into the environment."
Advocates say the bill — which would also require manufacturers to disclose when personal protective equipment contains PFAS — is a decisive step in the ongoing fight against PFAS, which have been used in everything from Teflon pans to food packaging. While the Environmental Protection Agency announced in February that it would begin the process of setting a maximum contaminant level for PFOA and PFOS, that process could take years.
In February, El Paso County was announced as one of eight new locations for a federal assessment of human exposure to PFAS near military installations. A future study will examine the health effects of elevated PFAS levels.
-
Lawmakers Resurrect Bill to Address PFAs
Apr 10, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) are reviving legislation that would establish a database for service members and veterans with health problems potentially caused by exposure to toxic nonstick chemicals.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been used for decades in consumer and industrial products such as military firefighting foam and nonstick cookware. After being released into the environment, the persistent chemicals can make their way into groundwater.
A type of PFAS called perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, has been linked to health effects such as kidney and testicular cancer and thyroid disease.
The legislation, titled the "PFAS Registry Act," would also allow service members and veterans to get information and updates on the study and treatment of health conditions linked to PFAS exposure.
"Our service members are occupationally more likely to be exposed to PFAS, so it's necessary that they have all the resources available to understand the potential health implications related to their exposure," Shaheen said in a statement.
"The federal government has a role to play here in delivering those answers and ensuring accountability to keep our water supplies clean. Our military members dedicate their lives in service to our nation — they should have access to the information they need to keep themselves healthy and safe," she said.
Shaheen previously introduced the legislation in April 2018.
New Hampshire Rep. Chris Pappas (D) is introducing companion legislation in the House, co-sponsored by Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), Annie Kuster (D-N.H.) and Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.).
A flurry of other bills that aim to address PFAS have also been introduced this year.
Last week, Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. Dan Kildee revived legislation that would force the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay for treatment of health conditions linked to PFAS exposure. The measure is one of several PFAS-related bills currently in play (E&E Daily, April 4).
Stabenow told reporters that efforts to pass PFAS legislation could get the most traction through the appropriations process (E&E Daily, April 5).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/04/10/stories/1060152709
-
River Project to Study BPA Release from Microplastics
Apr 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A global project on microplastics in rivers will measure how BPA and nanoparticles are released from different sample types.
The 100 Plastic Rivers project was set up in 2018 to address a lack of knowledge on the transport, fate and ecotoxicity of microplastics in freshwater systems.
It involves scientists in over 60 locations worldwide sampling water and sediment in rivers.
Led by Birmingham university, a key part of the project is to establish standard methods for sampling and analysing microplastics in water and sediment samples. For example, the Birmingham team has produced a toolkit with instructions on how to collect samples.
The project is now beginning to develop a protocol for quantifying BPA and nanoparticles, according to Birmingham's Holly Nel. She is involved in a team looking at how microplastics with different shapes, densities and composition release BPA and nanoparticles at the interface between river water and sediment. The work will also analyse processes controlling how the plastics travel and accumulate.
Another team is looking at ways to predict transport, accumulation, and BPA and nanoparticle release from microplastics.
Early results from the project's pilot study with the Clean Seas Odyssey show a wider than expected variety of plastic types in river samples.
The project's first months have largely been spent on "creating a universal field protocol, validating microplastic extraction methods, getting the correct analytical techniques for microplastic morphological and chemical identification and developing a global network of partners," says Dr Nel.
The 100 Plastic Rivers project is funded by the EU's Horizon 2020 framework, the Leverhulme Trust, the UK’s Royal Society and NGO the Clean Seas Odyssey.
https://chemicalwatch.com/76147/river-project-to-study-bpa-release-from-microplastics
-
Trump to Issue Executive Orders Seeking to Speed up Oil and Gas Projects
Apr 10, 2019 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson and Toluse Olorunnipa
President Trump is planning to issue a pair of executive orders on Wednesday to “help American energy companies avoid unnecessary red tape” by making it easier for firms to build oil and gas pipelines and harder for state agencies to intervene, according to the White House.
The executive action seeks to rein in states’ power by changing the implementation instructions, known as guidance, that are issued by federal agencies , according to a former Trump administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his relationships.
The order would also alter Transportation Department rules to allow the shipment of liquefied natural gas by rail and tanker truck, he said. And it would seek to limit shareholder ballot initiatives designed to alter companies’ policies on environmental and social issues. Trump will ask the Labor Department to examine whether retirement funds that pursue those investment strategies are meeting their responsibility to maximize returns.
A second order, focused on cross-border energy projects, would clarify that the president is solely responsible for approving or denying pipelines and other infrastructure that cross international boundaries. The secretary of state has previously played that role.
Critics said that the president’s orders on pipelines would trample on authority delegated to the states under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and other congressional legislation. That authority has been upheld twice by the Supreme Court. Trump’s move would benefit, among others, Energy Transfer, whose chief executive, Kelcy Warren, was a major contributor to Trump’s campaign.
The orders are a response to the oil and gas industry, which has complained that pipeline delays have slowed expanded production. Shale gas in Pennsylvania’s giant Marcellus formation has been unable to reach New England markets, and TransCanada has been unable to persuade the Nebraska Public Service Commission or federal courts to allow the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry low-quality crude oil produced in Canada’s tar sands region.
“These two executive orders will promote the development of new energy infrastructure, create jobs and provide more affordable, reliable energy,” said a senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity to discuss the orders before they are signed.
The construction of oil and gas pipelines has become a flash point for the environmental movement, which has launched high-profile protests and court battles to block pipelines not only for concerns about local pollution but also as part of a strategy to keep oil and gas fossil fuels in the ground.
Burning those fossil fuels contributes to climate change, and climatologists say that the administration should be discouraging, not encouraging, more widespread use of them. The scientific consensus is that global carbon dioxide emissions must be cut in half by 2030 to avoid severe global warming.
In Michigan, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) halted work on a pipeline project by the Canadian company Enbridge, while the state attorney general said a law enabling it was unconstitutional. Separately, Enbridge is expected to go to court in Minnesota to restart another line.
In Virginia, the Southern Environmental Law Center has won a string of legal victories that have disrupted work on the $7 billion, 600-mile gas pipeline.
Moreover, state leaders have urged Trump not to try to override state agencies. Doing so, said a letter from the Western Governors Association, “would inflict serious harm to the division of state and federal authorities established by Congress.” The group said that the states had “exercised their authority . . . efficiently, effectively and equitably.”
“This is a disastrous idea, one that exposes the hypocrisy of the Trump administration and threatens to undercut the ability of state leaders to determine how best to protect their rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands,” the Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement Tuesday.
The NRDC said that “when it comes to weakening protections in any number of areas, Republicans in Washington often use the excuse that state leaders should have the broadest authority possible. However, once states take action to protect their environment, these so-called federalists balk.”
The executive order Trump will sign will require the secretary of transportation to submit reports to the president assessing the economic effect of the inability to transport natural gas and other domestic energy to New England and to the West Coast, a senior administration official said.
Trump will speak Wednesday in oil- and gas-rich Texas at the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) International Training and Education Center in Crosby, Tex. Construction unions have been strong supporters of infrastructure measures. Trump is expected to repeat themes he’s sounded before, including U.S. “energy dominance,” infrastructure and economic growth. And he is expected to claim credit for the expansion of U.S. oil and gas production, saying that tax cuts and streamlined permitting have spurred investment.
One of the nation’s biggest pipeline companies is Energy Transfer, developer of the controversial Dakota Access and Rover gas pipelines. Both lines were ultimately completed.
But not without a fight. Protests along the Dakota Access route lasted for weeks. And the Rover pipeline triggered a fight with Ohio’s Environmental Protection Agency. The company reported 18 leaks and twice spilled large quantities of drilling fluids in two pristine Ohio wetlands while constructing a $4.2 billion natural gas pipeline. The drilling fluid — a mudlike substance used to lubricate and cool equipment — is not toxic. But the state EPA and environmental groups were worried that the two spills, which covered a vast area the size of 8½ football fields, could smother aquatic life in the wetlands.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission stopped work on the pipeline for a time but later let it proceed.
Energy Transfer chief executive Warren gave $100,000 to Trump’s campaign and $250,000 to his inaugural committee. Earlier, he had given $5 million to Rick Perry’s political action committee. Perry, then a presidential candidate, is now energy secretary.
While in Texas, Trump will also visit San Antonio and Houston for political fundraisers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-to-issue-executive-orders-seeking-to-speed-up-oil-and-gas-projects/2019/04/09/4949e74e-5ae2-11e9-9625-01d48d50ef75_story.html?utm_term=.d0813dcdb1fa
-
Ewire: Trump Orders to Target Cross-Border Pipelines, EPA Policies
Apr 10, 2019 | Inside EPA
President Donald Trump today will sign a pair of executive orders seeking to ease permitting for cross-border oil and gas pipelines -- an issue underscored by the long-running Keystone XL tar sands pipeline dispute -- and curtail states' authority to review pipelines' water quality effects.
Trump will unveil the measures this afternoon at an event near Houston. As Inside EPA's Dave Reynolds and Doug Obey report, the latter measure would direct EPA to revisit its 2010 guidance on section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Industry and Republicans have complained that some states have abused the power to block needed pipeline and coal export projects.
“Many states” implement section 401 faithfully, one senior administration official told reporters April 9. However, implementation “on occasion” has delayed permitting and development of energy projects with “broad regional and national benefits.”
The official argued EPA's guidance gives states too much leeway on deciding when a project application is complete -- which starts a one-year clock for states to complete their CWA section 401 assessment.
Meanwhile, the order focused on cross-border pipelines appears inspired by the Keystone project, a long-running saga that has at times been a symbol of the deep partisan gulf on climate change and energy issues.
Specifically, the directive would limit the State Department's ability to conduct environmental reviews of cross-border projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Current law gives the president the authority to issue such permits, though in the past that power has been delegated to the State Department.
Trump's order “clarifies that any decision to issue or deny a cross-border permit shall be made solely by the president of the U.S.,” the senior official said.
State would continue to “provide advice” to the president on foreign policy issues, though “our land management and environmental agencies will be doing environmental reviews within the United States. We won't have the State Department doing NEPA.”
It is not clear how the new order will intersect with ongoing legal issues surrounding Keystone. Trump recently re-issued a cross-border permit for the project after a federal judge blocked construction because the State Department's NEPA review did not adequately address climate issues.
Along the lines of his forthcoming executive order, the new permit was issued directly from the president, and not from the State Department.
But an April 5 environmentalist lawsuit targeted the new permit, arguing Trump unlawfully issued it without consulting relevant agencies.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-trump-orders-target-cross-border-pipelines-epa-policies
-
Trump to Order EPA to Review Pipeline Permitting, Amid State Blockades
Apr 10, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
President Donald Trump is preparing to sign an executive order directing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to review the agency’s permitting processes to speed up the construction of natural gas pipelines, a senior White House official said.
The president is expected to sign that and another order streamlining permitting for cross-border infrastructure projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline during a visit to Houston Wednesday, where the president will speak at the International Union of Operating Engineers International Training and Education Center in Crosby.
The order will direct staff at the Environmental Protection Agency to review the regulatory language by which states are granted authority over pipeline projects under the Clean Water Act, which limits activities that might pollute U.S. waterways, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal White House conversations. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has used that authority to block a series of pipeline projects carrying natural gas to New England from the gas-rich Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, the latest fight in a wider debate around climate change and fossil fuel consumption.
Trump’s order is unlikely to stop states from using that authority, but it will tighten rules under which they raise their objections, putting state officials on notice their efforts are likely to get even tougher legal scrutiny by the administration.
“We’re not trying to take away power from the states, but we’re making sure their actions comply with the law,” the White House official said.
The action on pipelines is part of a sprawling executive order addressing the nation’s energy infrastructure, as Trump seeks to expand what he likes to call “American energy dominance.”
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao will be directed to find ways to ease the transportation of LNG by rail tank cars. The Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior will need to review utilities’ ability to construct power lines across private land. And Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta will be instructed to review whether investment fund managers are acting in the interest of shareholders in their decisions on whether to invest in pipelines and other energy projects.
A number of large investors, including New York City’s pension fund, Stanford University and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund have announced plans to divest from investments in fossil fuels.
With climate change forecasts by scientists growing increasingly dire, Trump is fighting against a growing concern among Americans about the risks of continued greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas are major sources of those emissions.
Environmental activists have taken to the nation’s courthouses to block pipelines and other infrastructure aiding the transportation of fossil fuels.
“This executive order is nothing but an attempt to trample people’s rights to protect their air, water, and climate from polluting oil and gas pipelines,” Rachel Rye Butler, a campaigner with Greenpeace said in a statement Monday, following early reports of Trump’s plans.
The delays have riled pipeline executives, who have urged Trump to assert federal authority over interstate pipelines.
In February, Dan Dinges, CEO of the Houston energy company Cabot Oil and Gas, criticized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for not doing more to get pipeline construction moving. Cabot is a partner in one delayed pipeline through New York
"The gamesmanship of the state of New York has never been more legally suspect," he wrote in a letter to FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee. "We urge you and your fellow Commissioners not to lose sight of the more substantial contributions to energy security and reliability in the region that can be achieved by decisive action on needed pipelines."
But such an action would likely require intervention by Congress, and so far both Republicans, sensitive to states’ rights, and Democrats, concerned about climate and the environment, are resisting such a move.
In January the Western Governors’ Association wrote a letter to Trump, warning him that any move to reduce state authority under the Clean Water Act would “inflict serious harm to the division of state and federal authorities established by Congress.”
“We urge you to direct federal agencies to reject any changes to agency rules, guidance, or policy that may diminish, impair, or subordinate states’ well-established sovereign and statutory authorities to protect water quality within their boundaries,” the letter read.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Trump-to-order-EPA-to-review-pipeline-permitting-13754687.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Update 1-Trump to Fight States Delaying Energy Projects
Apr 10, 2019 | Reuters
By Timothy Gardner
President Donald Trump will issue two executive orders in the heart of the Texas energy hub on Wednesday seeking to speed gas, coal and oil projects delayed by coastal states as he looks to build support ahead of next year’s election.
Trump’s orders will direct his Environmental Protection Agency to change a part of the U.S. clean water law that has allowed states, on the basis of environmental reasons, to delay projects such as pipelines to carry natural gas to New England and coal export terminals on the West Coast.
Trump will issue the orders at a training center for union members in the petroleum industry in Houston, an event sandwiched between fundraising events in Texas for the 2020 campaign.
“Outdated federal guidance and regulations issued by the EPA have caused confusion and uncertainty leading to project delays, lost jobs and reduced economic performance,” a senior administration official told reporters in a conference call. “We are not trying to take away power from the states, but we are trying to make sure that state actions comply with the statutory intent of the law.”
An environmentalist decried the planned orders. “Trump can try to rewrite regulations in favor of Big Oil, but he can’t stop people power and our movement,” said May Boeve, the head of 350.org.
The orders will direct the EPA to review and update guidance issued during the administration of Democratic President Barack Obama on the so-called 401 provision of the Clean Water Act. The measure required companies to get certifications from states before building interstate pipelines approved by the federal government.
New York state used it to block pipelines that would send natural gas to New England, forcing the region at times to import liquefied natural gas from countries including Russia.
In 2017, Washington Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat and 2020 candidate for president, denied a water permit for the Millennium Bulk Terminal, a coal export facility that would have expanded the ability of companies to send Western coal to Asian markets.
Inslee, who has centered his campaign on tackling climate change, slammed Trump’s latest tactic on energy.
“If Donald Trump is proposing it, it a) violates science and b) probably violates any sense of economic growth, because we know the largest economic growth is now coming from the development of new energy technologies,” Inslee said on the sidelines of a conference in New York.‘ENERGY DOMINANCE’
The executive orders are part of the Trump administration’s policy of “energy dominance” to increase oil, gas and coal production, but forcing the EPA changes will take time. The official said the agency would have to follow normal procedures, including a comment period, and that projects already tied up in litigation “are obviously a much longer-term issue.”
One of the orders will direct the transportation secretary to propose allowing liquefied natural gas, a liquid form of the fuel, to be shipped in approved rail cars, a change that could increase its flow between terminals and markets.
ADVERTISEMENT
The executive orders could also speed projects in Texas. Energy investors vying for permits to build oil export terminals along the Gulf Coast say they have worked closely with Trump officials in a bid to speed regulatory reviews of facilities capable of loading supertankers.
U.S. and state agencies overseeing permit applications have taken too long to approve projects, the investors said, adding they were worried their projects would miss the most profitable years of the U.S. crude export boom.
Four energy groups led by Trafigura AG, Carlyle Group, Enterprise Products Partners LP and Enbridge Inc have applied to build terminals in Texas. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner; Additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici in Washington, Collin Eaton in Houston, and Jessica Resnick-Ault in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney and Jonathan Oatis)
https://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFL1N21S0QI
-
Oil Drilling Plan Threatens Trump's 2020 Chances in Florida
Apr 10, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Zack Colman and Ben Lefebvre
The Trump administration is considering auctioning off Florida’s coastal waters for oil and gas drilling — and Republicans are warning it could cost the president dearly in Florida in the 2020 election.
An industry lobbying offensive has put it on the cusp of achieving its holy grail: access to the resource-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico. The idea is so politically toxic in Florida that past presidents haven't even entertained it. But behind the scenes, oil and gas interests are appealing to Trump's desire to turbocharge U.S. energy production, including his past openness to drilling off the Florida coast.
The president and his top advisers haven't yet weighed in on the plan taking shape inside his Interior Department. But giving it the green light would be tantamount to a declaration of war on his second home state, given the uniform opposition from Florida Republicans, including prominent allies like Sen. Rick Scott Gov. Ron DeSantis and others.
“He would have a price to pay for that,” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.), a staunch Trump supporter, told POLITICO.
Industry representatives have said a plan has been imminent since last fall, but many expect the Interior Department is waiting for the Senate to confirm acting Secretary David Bernhardt to fill the agency's top slot before formally releasing the draft. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellfiled cloture Monday on Bernhardt’s confirmation, teeing up a vote this week.
Multiple oil and gas industry sources told POLITICO that the eastern Gulf, along with the Atlantic coast, are included in the administration’s current five-year off-shore drilling proposal, which hasn’t yet been released. The deliberations surrounding that plan are occurring mostly at Interior between lower-level policy aides who are being lobbied by industry representatives, they said.
The administration's position was muddied when former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke held an elaborately staged Jan. 2018 meeting with Scott, then Florida's governor, to declare the state wouldn’t be on the drilling map. The announcement was seen as a favor to boost Scott’s electoral fortunes in his ultimately successful challenge against Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson, who tried to use environmental issues to separate himself from the Republican challenger.
In reality, Trump was upset by the announcement. People familiar with his reaction said Zinke’s statement came without White House approval and contradicted the administration’s “energy dominance” message.
Both parties in Florida oppose offshore drilling. Memories of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, which sent tarballs ashore in Florida, bring fears of a future spill damaging the state’s fisheries and tourism. Many in the state also say drilling would conflict with military exercises in the area.
Bernhardt has stayed mum about what’s in the offshore leasing proposal, remarking in a March 28 confirmation hearing that the department is at “step one” of the process. Several industry sources disputed that, though, saying the plan is nearly complete.
“For all intents and purposes, it’s done,” said an industry lobbyist familiar with the plan.
But the senior political officials charged with protecting Trump’s electoral prospects haven’t yet focused on the drilling plan, said a source close to the president who met recently with members of Trump’s energy policy team.
The White House referred a request for comment to the Interior Department. An agency spokesperson did not immediately reply to questions about whether the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be included in any draft plan. Bernhardt said at his nomination hearing that the latest draft plan hadn’t reached his desk.
Offshore drilling is broadly unpopular in Florida. A Quinnipiac University poll of Florida voters released March 13 showed 64 percent oppose the practice. Republicans, though, supported it by a 54-38 percent margin. A ballot measure banning oil and gas development in state waters passed overwhelmingly in November.
“I’m going to do everything I can to make sure Florida remains off the table,” Scott told POLITICO in an interview earlier this month. “I’ve been very clear to let the White House know where I stand. This is very important to me.“
The draft plan from Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management would have to go through a comment period, giving the Trump administration another chance to rewrite it before finalizing. It does not need to pass Congress.
The current plan includes a “buffer” to keep rigs at least 100 miles from Florida’s shoreline, according to industry representatives. They said they plan to present Trump with several options for each of the major regions to be covered under the plan, including the mid-Atlantic and Pacific.
“They can put the plan out and if it doesn’t go over very well, this isn’t the final version, so they can just pull it back,” said an oil-and-gas industry source, who added that industry is trying to figure out how close it can get to Florida without inviting backlash. Former President Barack Obama, for example, offered the eastern Gulf of Mexico with a 125-mile buffer before implementing a seven-year ban following the Deepwater Horizon disaster, though Congress already had imposed a moratorium on drilling in waters closest to Florida until 2022.
Florida lawmakers from both parties have signed numerous letters rejecting offshore drilling, no matter how far from the state’s shoreline. Many also have pushed back on what’s known as seismic testing, a precursor to drilling that involves blasting sonar from boats toward the seafloor to search for buried oil and gas deposits. Both chambers of the state legislature are moving resolutions rejecting offshore drilling in the Gulf.
“We don’t want to see any of it in the Gulf, I don’t want to see any of it on the Atlantic side, which is where I represent,” Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.) told POLITICO. “We’re not looking for Deepwater Horizons off of Jensen Beach, Miami Beach, Fort Lauderdale Beach, Fort Pierce Beach, and we don’t want to see it out there in the Gulf.”
Even DeSantis, whom Trump endorsed in a crowded Republican primary last year, signed an executive order in January committing the state’s Department of Environmental Protection to “adamantly oppose” offshore drilling. Pressure on Republicans to oppose drilling has only grown since DeSantis was elected in November, as Democrats have homed in on fighting climate change.
“It seems hard to believe that the administration would move forward with drilling off the coast of Florida less than two years before a presidential election,” said Alex Conant, a partner at Firehouse Strategies and former aide to Sen. Marco Rubio(R-Fla.). “It would certainly be an issue that Democrats would try to use against [Trump] throughout the state.”
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/oil-drilling-plan-threatens-trumps-2020-chances-in-florida-1334725
-
Chevron Phillips Chemical to Report Pellet Pollution
Apr 9, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Materials maker Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. has agreed to start providing more public reporting around pellet spills from its factories, following pressure from a shareholder advocacy group.
The Oakland, Calif.-based group As You Sow said April 9 that it was withdrawing a shareholder resolution made with CP Chem's parent companies — Chevron Corp. and the Phillips Co. 66 — after CP Chem agreed to the additional reporting.
CP Chem had announced a few days earlier, on April 3, that it was stepping up its efforts to contain pellet loss. The company announced it would join Operation Clean Sweep Blue, an enhanced version of the plastics industry's voluntary pellet loss prevention program. The company also said it would begin providing more information in its sustainability report.
As You Sow filed shareholder resolutions last year with Chevron and Phillips seeking votes at their annual meetings requiring more public information around pellet loss from CP's factories.
CP's announcement comes after ExxonMobil Chemical Co. made a similar agreement last month with AYS, which has been pressuring the materials industry for more disclosure.
"We are pleased to see Chevron Phillips follow ExxonMobil and agree to public reporting on plastic pellet spills and management," said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president of AYS. "Such basic transparency is essential to enable policy makers and other stakeholders to assess the scope of this growing problem."
AYS said it was pressuring materials firms because resin pellets are estimated to be the second-largest direct source of microplastics in the ocean, by weight.
The group also argues that the plastics industry's voluntary pellet loss program, Operation Clean Sweep, is not strong enough because it lacks public reporting.
CP Chem, based in The Woodlands, Texas, said the new efforts are a continuation of longstanding work on pellet pollution, and it said the information it will disclose in its upcoming sustainability report will show that.
"We are always seeking ways to improve our results and joining Operation Clean Sweep Blue is yet another significant step as our company and our industry work to eliminate plastic waste from finding its way into unintended places," said Jim Becker, vice president of polymers and sustainability.
"We are pleased that the procedures and safeguards we have put into place at all facilities are working effectively to minimize and eliminate pellet spills and are confident that the numbers reported in our sustainability report will confirm the success of these initiatives."
It noted it was a founding member of the $1.5 billion industry-funded Alliance to End Plastic Waste and that it would begin publicly reporting data that previously had only been given to state regulatory agencies.
Both Chevron and Phillips 66 had tried to get the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to toss the resolutions from their upcoming shareholder meetings, but the SEC turned down their requests.
The advocacy group confirmed that CP Chem has agreed to report data it submits to state regulatory agencies.
As well, it said CP Chem will report the amount of material recovered from its resin-handling facilities that is recycled, along with "substantive information" on best management practices, production capacity and information on how it works with its supply chain share best practices and reduce pellet pollution elsewhere.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190409/NEWS/190403337/chevron-phillips-chemical-to-report-pellet-pollution?CSAuthResp=1%3A773715940988844%3A284601%3A38%3A24%3Aapproved%3AD6F01DE087EE911F04948F9921207A19
-
Pieces Falling Into Place for Green Light on Ohio Ethane Cracker
Apr 10, 2019 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
PTT Global Chemical pcl (PTTGC) and Daelim Industrial Co. continue to work toward sanctioning the multi-billion dollar ethane cracker proposed for southeast Ohio, a project spokesman said this week.
Subscription required for full article.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/117989-pieces-falling-into-place-for-green-light-on-ohio-ethane-cracker
-
Month After ITC Explosion at Deer Park Plant, Fire Investigators Enter Tank Farm
Apr 10, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Perla Trevizo
Nearly a month after a chemical holding plant caught fire and exploded, fire investigators on Tuesday entered the tank farm at the charred Deer Park plant for the first time as they sought answers into how and where the blaze started.
Remediation done in the last week at Intercontinental Terminals Co. put investigators in a better position to enter the farm, said Rachel Moreno, a spokeswoman for the Harris County Fire Marshal's office. The farm held 15 tanks, many containing components to make gasoline.
The fire that erupted March 17 sent a plume of dark smoke into the skies over Houston, raising concerns about air and water quality in the area. No serious injuries were reported.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is assisting in the investigation. Moreno had said the federal agency could provide electrical and fire-science engineers. The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration are also on site conducting their own investigations.
Fire investigators wearing HAZMAT suits and air-purifying respirators entered the site four times and completed the initial scene investigation, which included taking photos and video, Moreno said. As of Tuesday afternoon, they had not determined the origin or cause of the fire and it was unclear what would come next or whether future entries were planned. Officials had suspended cleanup efforts, but they were expected to resume after the fire marshals left the site.
Authorities said in a press conference Tuesday that they had secured 11 tanks and the tank farm itself, which lowers the risk for re-ignition and escaping vapors. The next phase includes de-gassing each tank to remove residual vapors so crews can wash each tank.
Material recovered from the water and tank farm is being stored in other farms in the terminal, and the company will work with government agencies to determine a "proper way forward," said Brent Weber, ITC's incident commander.
Nearly 120,000 barrels of oily water mix have been removed from the waterways, nearly twice as much as was reported last week. And as of 7 a.m. Tuesday, close to 172,000 barrels of product mixed with water and firefighting foam had been removed from the tank farms, officials said.
Air monitoring continues, but so far readings have not warranted notification to local governments, state and federal officials said. Past readings showed spikes in benzene, which prompted a shelter-in-place warning in the Deer Park area.
Authorities also said that nearly four dozen animals have died since the incident, including five red-eared slider turtles, six opossum, 15 birds and 21 fish. None are on an endangered species list, said Adam Adams with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Out of 21 birds recovered, 11 are ready to be released and six died during rehabilitation, Adams said.
In the meantime, the Houston Ship Channel, which was temporarily closed to regular traffic for more than a week, is operating at near-capacity, said Kevin Oditt, sector commander for the U.S. Coast Guard.
A containment wall breached at the charred tank farm last month and released an unknown amount of chemicals and firefighting foam into the waterway, prompting daylight restrictions on ship channel traffic. Those restrictions were lifted Friday, Oditt said.
None of last week's inbound ships required decontamination. Tugs and barges are operating at 65 percent to 75 percent capacity.
The leading edges of the affected area in the ship channel are Peggy Lake to the east and Sam Houston Parkway to the west. There were 117 skimmers and 48 vacuum trucks on the channel working cleanup operations as of Tuesday.
Officials also confirmed that storms this past weekend had not adversely affected cleanup efforts. "The storm helped to flush the drainage pathways and any product into our recovery locations," Adams said.
Authorities continue to say they have no timeline for how long cleanup operations will take.
"It's day by day," Adams said. "We'll know when we get there."
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Month-after-ITC-explosion-at-Deer-Park-plant-13753517.php
-
Decision on Deadly Oil Refinery Blast Seen Expanding Chemical Process Standard
Apr 10, 2019 | Business Insurance
By Louise Esola
A recent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission ruling related to alleged safety violations stemming from a deadly oil refinery explosion in 2012 could have wider implications for companies dealing with highly hazardous chemicals, likely expanding the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s reach, according to legal experts.
“It’s a really big deal,” said Micah Smith, Washington-based partner for Conn Maciel Carey LLP.
Clients in oil and gas and manufacturing could be affected by what many deem as OSHA’s expansion of what is included in the process when it comes to handling highly hazardous chemicals, he said.
“Any facility that has highly hazardous chemicals needs to pay attention to this,” said Amy Wachs, St. Louis-based partner with Husch Blackwell LLP.
The cause for concern is the commission’s March 28 affirmation of 12 citations and a $58,000 fine against a Wynnewood, Oklahoma, oil refinery operated by Wynnewood Refining Co. LLC, after two workers were killed in an explosion, the result of workers improperly starting a boiler, as detailed in more than 100 pages of documents in Secretary of Labor v. Wynnewood Refining Co. LLC.
Specifically, OSHA cited the refinery for 12 violations of various provisions of OSHA’s Process Safety Management standard, which the review commission affirmed despite the argument that OSHA’s 23-year-old standard for management of hazardous chemicals never intended to include processes that do not manage such chemicals — such as the steam boiler in question, according to experts weighing in.
“The process safety management standard is an extremely detailed way of a process of running a manufacturing plant, and it has a lot of details to it on how a facility has to operate and the various processes that have to be in place to ensure the plant doesn’t have mishaps … and to minimize the chance of mishaps,” said Ms. Wachs. “The question is now, what is the boundary of that process?”
Mr. Smith described a refinery operation as being a site where multiple processes are broken into “chunks,” each calling for its own PSM plan to be in compliance with OSHA’s requirements.
Prior to the Wynnewood ruling, it was widely understood that utilities unrelated to the manufacturing process are were not included in the requirements for PSM, according to Mr. Smith.
PSM affiliation comes from interconnection and co-location, he said, adding that the Wynnewood decision put the utilities boiler — which he and others consider to be not part of the refinery operation that handles highly hazardous chemicals — in the “process” on both the colocation and interconnection issues, thus creating a complicated situation for businesses that may find themselves out of compliance, experts warn.
“It’s utilities, it’s not highly hazardous,” Mr. Smith added, echoing sentiments from other legal experts.
“Generally a boiler does not contain highly hazardous chemicals,” said Ms. Wachs.
But OSHA and the review commission determined that the boiler is close to other processes and is interconnected, according to documents.
More troubling for businesses such as refineries is that the decision put Wynnewood out of compliance without the refinery even knowing that OSHA would expand PSM to utilities unrelated to the chemicals used in other processes, according to Shannon Broome, managing partner of the San Francisco office of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. “This creates a gotcha situation without providing notice in a manner to let companies know what is expected of them,” she said.
The ruling now poses a question for manufacturers dealing with chemicals, according to Ms. Wachs: “What are the boundaries of the process and what other aspects of this facility have to follow the standard?”
The answer is unclear, according to Ms. Broome.
“This expands the process definition so that one could argue that everything is interconnected, yet the PSM rules were written with integrated plants in mind and there was a reason why the interconnection language was used,” said Ms. Broome. “It was used to create demarcation, and this opinion seems to gloss over that.”
https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20190410/NEWS08/912327792/Decision-on-deadly-oil-refinery-blast-seen-expanding-chemical-process-standard
-
Everything You Need to Know About the Logistics of Bulk Chemical Transportation
Apr 10, 2019 | Manufacturing.net
By Abby Drexler
When dealing with bulk chemical transportation, there are numerous factors to take into consideration. From using the proper tanks during transport, ensuring truck drivers have the necessary training and permits, and having a full knowledge of HAZMAT rules so that chemicals are properly classified as hazardous before transport, the logistics of bulk chemical transportation involves many different aspects. To gain a greater understanding of these logistics and ensure all bulk chemical transportation is done in a manner that is safe and meets all state and federal rules and regulations, here is everything you need to know about the process.
Transporting to the Buyer
The first step involved in bulk chemical transportation is determining how much and what type of chemical will be transported to the buyer. Once this is done by the supplier, the tank to be used will be cleaned before having the chemical pumped into it at the supplier's facility. After this is completed, the tank is then hooked up to a truck for transport, and will be tracked by GPS to ensure it arrives on time.
Determining Transportation Costs
For suppliers and buyers to make a profit on the transport of chemicals, it is crucial that transportation costs be precisely calculated. To do so, a variety of factors come into play, such as the distance involved in making the shipment, the size of the shipment, and how many days it will take for the shipment to arrive. When determining these costs, it is important to remember that U.S. Department of Transportation rules require truck drivers to take breaks after driving for a certain number of hours. Therefore, these breaks should be factored into the total time for the trip.
Delivery to the Buyer
Once the chemicals arrive at the buyer's destination, they are pumped out of the truck's tank. In many situations, the chemicals are pumped directly into storage tanks, which may be located above or below ground. Or they may be pumped into tanks that are stored in warehouses or other facilities, where they will be used either for manufacturing or until they are resold or redistributed.
Using the Proper Tanks for Transportation
When transporting bulk chemicals, using the proper tank during transport will ensure everyone's safety. In most cases, one of four types of tanks will be used, which can include a general-purpose tank trailer, rubber-lined tank trailer, fiberglass-reinforced plastic, and aluminum tank trailers. Ranging in size from 5,000-8,500 gallons, each type of tank trailer is used for specific types of chemicals. For example, a fiberglass-reinforced plastic tank trailer will hold 5,600 gallons, and is used primarily to haul acids or various types of bleaches.
DOT and HAZMAT Requirements
There are various DOT and HAZMAT rules and regulations that must be strictly adhered to when doing bulk chemical transportation. For example, shippers must inform drivers and support staff of the hazards and regulations associated with the chemical being transported, and must also ensure the trucks, tanks, and trailers used in transport are in excellent condition. Along with this, all drivers transporting bulk chemicals must have a CDL and HAZMAT certification, and are required to inspect their equipment prior to the trip as well as make periodic inspections while on the road.
Fines and Penalties
Since bulk chemical transportation is strictly regulated, a number of fines and penalties can be enacted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency if suppliers are in violation of certain rules and regulations. Since the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act contains provisions for how hazardous chemicals are transported throughout the United States, violations regarding packaging, labeling, employee training, and operational procedures can lead to severe penalties. Since these penalties are considered federal offenses, criminal penalties can be levied against violators, and can range from fines of $75,000 or more, jail, or prison sentences, or a combination of these penalties.
Variation of Transportation Permits
Since chemical transportation is very dangerous, most cannot be transported across state lines without proper documentation. In many instances, specific permits are required from each state through which the chemicals are transported. Therefore, it is extremely important all paperwork be completed in a proper manner prior to transport. Otherwise, not only will the delivery of the chemicals be delayed, but it is also likely the transportation company and supplier will face extensive fines and other penalties.
For more information on the logistics of bulk chemical transportation, check out this infographic by Transport Resources.
https://www.manufacturing.net/article/2019/04/everything-you-need-know-about-logistics-bulk-chemical-transportation
-
Second House Committee Advances Paris Climate Bill
Apr 10, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Zack Coleman
Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee today advanced a bill by a 24-16 vote calling on the United States to re-enter the Paris climate accord.
No Republicans voted for the bill, H.R. 9 (116). The House Energy and Commerce Committee advanced it last week in a party-line vote.
Two Republicans on the committee who support carbon taxes to address climate change — Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Francis Rooney of Florida — did not attend the markup.
The bill is House Democrats' first salvo on climate change, teeing the House up for a rebuke of President Donald Trump's climate change policy. It would prevent funding an official exit from the Paris accord and asks for a plan to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, which is what former President Barack Obama committed the U.S. to through the climate deal.
Trump has announced he will withdraw from the international climate pact, though he can't formally do so until Nov. 4, 2020, one day after the presidential election.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/04/second-house-committee-advances-paris-climate-bill-3053883
-
Green New Deal Name-Calling Aims to Shape Upcoming Elections
Apr 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
To supporters it has always been the Green New Deal—or GND—a mass mobilization to address climate change by putting people to work reducing the nation’s climate footprint.
But Republican opponents have offered their own shorthand. They’ve called it a “socialist” dystopian plan, one that’s “tantamount to genocide.” Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) dismissed it as “a completely unrealistic and enormously expensive and impractical nightmare.”
Name-calling serves a strategic purpose for Republicans, who, in eyeing the 2020 election, hope to use the Green New Deal to cement the idea that Democrats have swerved too far left and jeopardized control of the House after their 2018 takeover.
GOP members are betting that many of the GND’s Democratic backers—including six senators running for president—may regret they signed onto a deal that could be seen as too extreme in rural and swing districts that may decide the White House’s next resident.
President Donald Trump sees the green deal as a political winner. At a March 26 luncheon with senators, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) later told reporters that Trump said: “Make sure you don’t kill it too much, because I want to run against it.”
‘Part of the Political Lexicon’
“It’s become part of the political lexicon strongly enough that I’m sure the president will attack the Democratic nominee over it” in 2020, Kyle Kondik, managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, which analyzes elections, told Bloomberg Environment.
Any Democratic nominee opposing Trump will likely be forced to respond with a serious climate platform, even if they don’t endorse the green deal, Kondik said. “Whether it would play in a general election remains to be seen,” he added.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the plan’s most outspoken champion, predicted voters will see through Republicans’ hyperbole. She said at a March 29 town hall meeting that she expected GOP criticism, “but I didn’t expect them to make total fools of themselves.”
Dry Run?
Republicans may have the Green New Deal in the crosshairs now, but their central points—that Democrats are pursuing radical climate actions that will raise energy costs and hurt the economy—are likely a dry run for broader attacks on House climate legislation, said Tiernan Sittenfeld, the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president of government affairs.
It echoes Republican attacks on cap and trade legislation backed by the Obama administration nearly a decade ago, when they helped sink a bill they branded a “light switch tax” that would raise utility bills.
That derogatory message wasn’t the sole reason that Republicans were able to win back control of the House in the 2010 midterm election.
Coverage
The message did appear to gain more prominence in news and opinion-page accounts than the Democratic argument that their cap-and-trade legislation to address climate change would only have a modest affect on consumers, according to a 2012 study by a University of Colorado, Boulder graduate student.
The idea that the bill would raise energy costs showed up in 33 percent of all news articles and more than one-quarter of all opinion pieces, the study found. A Congressional Budget Office report showing an average net cost of only $175 a year appeared in just 15 percent of news articles and 19 percent of opinion pieces.
Worsening climate impacts in the decade since, including increasingly severe weather events, suggest Republicans risk appearing to obstruct policies to combat the growing threat “even as people looking out the window and seeing impacts worsen every day,” Sittenfeld said.
“Polling shows there is tremendous support for combating the climate crisis,” she said, with support for the Green New Deal and renewable energy “extremely high” in early primary states for the 2020 election.
Those in Congress “standing in the way of climate action are doing so at their political peril,” she said.
Some Attacks Backfire
The Green New Deal calls for a “10-year national mobilization” on climate, moving the U.S. to 100 percent renewable energy over a decade and decarbonizing entire sectors of the U.S. economy, from transportation and agriculture to manufacturing—all while providing millions of new jobs and health care for all.
Occasionally, attacks have backfired. Top House Natural Resources Republican Rob Bishop (R-Utah) drew laughs in February for unwrapping a hamburger that he said would be “outlawed” if the Green New Deal became the law of the land.
Bishop’s next jab, at a March 14 press event, may have missed the mark when he called the platform “tantamount to genocide,” though he quickly added his comment was “maybe an overstatement. But not by a lot.”
He said he now regrets the genocide comment, partly because his comment torpedoed the House GOP leadership’s attempt to orchestrate talking points attacking the green deal.
If Bishop had to do it over again? He’d “maybe grab another hamburger and eat it” instead of referencing mass murder, he said.
Green New Deal backers say such attacks prove their point: Congress and Trump are only protecting the fossil fuel sector and ignoring increased warnings about the steep costs and damage created by climate change.
“This is urgent, and to think that we have time is such a privileged and removed-from-reality attitude that we cannot tolerate,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/green-new-deal-name-calling-aims-to-shape-upcoming-elections
-
Apr 10, 2019 | Washington Post
By Dino Grandoni
Democrats have found a way of talking about — and even praising — the Green New Deal even after many on Capitol Hill have withheld support for it.
The method: Endorsing the enthusiasm it is generating.
The latest example of that rhetorical tact came Tuesday from former secretary of state John F. Kerry.
During testimony in front of the House Oversight Committee, Kerry suggested to lawmakers that while he may not agree with every facet of climate resolution from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who took Kerry’s Senate seat after Kerry joined President Barack Obama’s Cabinet in 2013, he likes the energy it created.
“We all have some differences with one piece of legislation or another,” Kerry told lawmakers. “But in proposing what she has proposed, together with Sen. Markey, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez has in fact offered more leadership in one day or in one week than President Trump has in his lifetime on this subject.”
Since the resolution calling on the United States to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions was introduced in February, congressional Democrats have tried to show a unified front regarding the Green New Deal in the face of an onslaught of criticism from Republicans seeking to cast it as a socialist fantasy.
And this attempt continues even after the resolution was defeated in the Senate — and Democrats did not formally back it in the March vote.
The top Senate Democrat, Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), rallied his caucus to vote “present” for what he derided as a “sham” vote held by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). But Schumer then he wanted to harness “the energy of the young people” on the climate issue. “We want to take that energy and channel it into something more constructive,” he told the New York Times.
And it's a sentiment that's been around since even before Ocasio-Cortez and Markey rolled out their resolution. Back in February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “I haven’t seen it, but I do know that it’s enthusiastic and we welcome all the enthusiasms that are out there.” That was her way of walking back a dismissive comment published earlier that day in Politico calling the proposal “the green dream or whatever.”
And other Democrats said it was clear that the Green New Deal would spark substantial debate across the country about how to curb climate-warming emissions and its effects. “I appreciate the consciousness that they've raised among Americans coast to coast,” Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chair of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on climate change and the environment, told Roll Call that month.
Yet Republicans have alleged the resolution, which is nonbinding, means its backers intend to ban meat and airplanes. The text of the resolution mentions neither.
The bashing continued during Tuesday’s hearing. “The Green New Deal’s not new, but it is devastating,” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said, encouraging lawmakers to read a Green New Deal fact sheet published but later retracted by Ocasio-Cortez’s office.
Ocasio-Cortez, herself a member of the Oversight panel, asked her colleagues to read the nonbinding document itself.
“We don’t need CliffsNotes for a 14-page resolution that was designed to be read in plain English by the American people,” she said. “So I would encourage my colleagues to actually read the resolution presented, so that they can speak to it responsibly and respectfully.”
She added later on Twitter that she was “humbled” by Kerry's remark.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/04/10/the-energy-202-john-kerry-ocasio-cortez-offered-more-leadership-in-one-day-on-climate-change-than-trump-ever-has/5cacee7d1ad2e567949ec0fd/?utm_term=.c1c3a8471107
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested