Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - May 1, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips Subsidiary Launches Chemical Recycling Joint Venture
May 1, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A subsidiary of Chevron Phillips Chemical has launched a new joint venture aimed at taking chemically-based plastic recycling processes to a bigger commercial scale. The Woodlands-based Americas Styrenics, part owned by Chevron... -
(ACC Mentioned) The Disappearance of Straws
May 1, 2019 | HERLIFE Magazine
By Catie Watson
Plastic straws have become ubiquitous in restaurants and bars since their introduction in the 1960s, replacing paper straws that became soggy in sodas and milkshakes. A plastic drinking straw may seem like a small thing, but the... -
Bill to Halt Plastic Straw Bans Heads to Governor
May 1, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Florida's local governments wouldn't be able to ban plastic straws for the next five years under a bill going to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis. The bill passed the state Senate on a 24-15 vote yesterday. It also requires a study of... -
Studies Identified That Support TSCA Prioritisation Candidate Selections
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published a list of risk assessments, conducted by other federal agencies or countries, that it says supported its selection of 20 candidate substances for designation as high priorities under TSCA. Formally released... -
BASF Cautions EPA Against Releasing REACH Studies Under TSCA
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A European affiliate of BASF has cautioned the US EPA that it risks jeopardising voluntary submission of REACH data to support its TSCA activities if that information cannot be withheld as confidential. The comments from BASF Colors... -
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes 1st State to Ban Single-Use Foam Containers
May 1, 2019 | AP (In the New York Times)
Maine has become the first state to ban single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, commonly known as Styrofoam. Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed the bill, which takes effect in 2021, into law Tuesday. -
EPA Rejects Another Petition to Beef up Asbestos Reporting
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariana Figuero
EPA for the second time has denied a petition that aimed to increase asbestos reporting requirements, this time from more than a dozen attorneys general. The petition requested that EPA keep a record of manufacturers that import... -
EPA Reiterates Its View That Glyphosate Is Not Carcinogenic
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Trump EPA is reiterating its view that glyphosate, the widely used herbicide, is not carcinogenic, underscoring a long-running dispute with environmentalists and some states, like California, which view the chemical as a carcinogen... -
New York Lawmakers Move to Restrict Toxins in Children’s Products
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
New York state’s legislature has passed a measure to ban the sale of children’s products containing organohalogen flame retardants and other substances of concern, and to require the disclosure of dozens of others. -
New York State Ban Would Shelve Toxic Toys, Kid Products
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Keshia Clukey
New York state is poised to ban the use of toxic chemicals in children’s toys, clothing, and furniture and to require manufacturers to disclose whether those chemicals are in their products. The state Senate and Assembly April 30... -
Benzene Found in the Water Supply of Fire-Ravaged Paradise, California
Apr 30, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
After the October 2017 Tubbs wildfire, the northern California town of Santa Rosa was blindsided when it discovered that some of its fire-damaged water systems were contaminated with the carcinogen benzene. This phenomenon... -
Bayer Shareholders Reproach Management Over Roundup Woes
Apr 29, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A majority of Bayer shareholders do not like the way the company has been run over the past year. In a vote at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting late last week, 55% refused to back management, largely because of Bayer’s... -
Chemical Management: Five Ways to Meet the Challenges of IH in a Changing Industry
May 1, 2019 | Occupational Health & Safety
By Phil N. Molé
Industrial hygiene (IH), the deliberate and scientific control of occupational hazards and risks, is more important than ever. Yet for the last 20 years, the number of certified industrial hygienists (CIHs) has been on the decline. CIH... -
Trump Said to Ease Drilling Rules Sparked by 2010 Gulf Oil Spill
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is poised to relax offshore drilling requirements imposed in response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people in 2010 and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history. The Interior Department... -
Markey Presses DOE on Tainted Crude Claims
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jenny Mandel
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey is pressing the Department of Energy to answer complaints from energy companies that crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is contaminated with dangerous hydrogen sulfide. -
American LNG Positioned to Win With IMO 2020
May 1, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Charlie Reidl
In less than a year, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) standards to cap sulfur emissions in marine fuels will go into effect. These “IMO 2020” standards will not only benefit the American oil and shipping industries, but also... -
House E&C Blasts TSA for Skipping Pipeline Hearing
May 1, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee blasted the TSA for declining to send a representative to a hearing on updating pipeline safety regulation from 2011 and 2016. The TSA, which issues security guidelines and... -
Reps Overseeing Pipeline Safety are Profiting From Pipeline Companies
May 1, 2019 | Sludge
By Donald Shaw
As the network of pipelines transporting oil and gas continues to grow, the agency in charge of pipeline safety has been unable to finalize rules to protect the public from poorly designed and operated systems that can leak and put... -
Ewire: Democrats Say Infrastructure Bill to Go Beyond Transport
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
Let's spend a little more time with yesterday's White House meeting on infrastructure in which President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats reportedly agreed to work on a bill that would pump $2 trillion in federal investment... -
AAR Statement on STB Rate Reform Task Force Report
May 1, 2019 | American Journal of Transportation
AAR president and CEO Ian Jefferies issued the following statement regarding the recent report from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Rate Reform Task Force, developed by staff as a set of recommendations for the Board... -
North Dakota, Washington State at Odds Over Oil Train Rules
May 1, 2019 | AP (In the Register Guard)
By Blake Nicholson
North Dakota officials are pressuring the state of Washington to back off from legislation requiring oil shipped by rail to have more of its volatile gases removed, urging the governor to veto the bill and promising a lawsuit if he doesn’t. -
BNSF Responds To Pacific Northwest Legislation Targeting Crude-By-Rail
May 1, 2019 | Freight Waves
By Joanna Marsh
As state legislatures react to the growing volumes of crude oil being transported by rail in the Pacific Northwest, their responses will continue to bump up against the freight railroads’ federally mandated obligation to move goods... -
Green New Deal's Centralized Government Approach Won't Ensure a Cleaner Environment
May 1, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Kay Coles James
There’s no way around it: big government proposals require big public scrutiny. Americans are skeptical of government, which is why those promoting far-reaching climate legislation have worked hard to sweeten the Green... -
Pelosi Invokes Obama to Head Off Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off her party’s restive progressive caucus by invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama to build support for a climate change bill that falls well short of the ambitions of the Green... -
GAO to Study Warming's Impact on Pentagon Contractors
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Philip Athey
The Government Accountability Office has agreed to a request to investigate the effects of climate change on defense contractors and the defense supply chain. In a letter last month, Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chevron Phillips Subsidiary Launches Chemical Recycling Joint Venture
May 1, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
A subsidiary of Chevron Phillips Chemical has launched a new joint venture aimed at taking chemically-based plastic recycling processes to a bigger commercial scale.
The Woodlands-based Americas Styrenics, part owned by Chevron Phillips Chemical and Trinseo LLC, is joining forces with Agilyx, a Tigard, Ore. based chemical company, to launch a new chemical recycling joint venture, the companies announced this week.
The joint venture, called Regenyx LLC, will use Agilyx's chemical recycling process to convert used polystyrene products back to their original liquid form, the companies said in a release Tuesday. AmSty can then take that liquid feedstock to make new polystyrene products without downgrading the quality of the plastics.
Already Americas Stryenics recently started using recycled chemical feedstocks produced by Agilyx to create new plastic products. Now the companies want to expand that partnership and pursue developing a new chemical recycling plant.
Unlike traditional forms of mechanical recycling, chemical recycling turns plastics back into its original building blocks. It can turn previously difficult-to-recycle plastics into fuels and feedstocks.
While the issue of plastic waste has gained more attention in recent years, polystyrene in particular has been a sticking point for environmentalists because recycling rates of the plastic -- used in foam materials, plastic cups, packaging and picnic products -- have lagged behind recycling rates for other plastics.
Although the technology for chemically recycling polystyrene already exists, making the process cost effective and easy to take to a commercial scale has remained a challenge. But if successful, this new joint venture could provide a model for making polystyrene recycling more viable on a mass scale.
The joint venture Regenyx will assume the assets of Agilyx's Tigard, Ore, facility, which is currently scaled at 10 tons per day and already shipping recycled liquid feedstock (styrene monomer) to AmSty.
The joint venture will also work to develop plans for a larger regional facility capable of producing up to 50 tons per a day somewhere on The West Coast.
Brad Crocker, President and Chief Executive Officer of AmSty, said polystyrene products are "are uniquely suitable for conversion back to chemical building blocks that can be used to make new products over and over. We are committed to a future where discarded polystyrene materials are no longer sent to landfills. This approach also holds great promise for other types of plastics as well."
The companies have branded this form of circular chemical recycling PolyUsable process.
"Today's announcement marks a major milestone, not only for AmSty and Agilyx, but for our collective ability to dramatically increase recycling rates. Our collaboration with AmSty brings together a complete system that will allow us to continually recycle polystyrene products back to polystyrene products," Joe Vaillancourt, CEO of Agilyx, commented said. "Agilyx has been driven for the last 15 years with a vision to end wasteful outcomes of post-consumer plastics, and we are very excited to be partnering with AmSty to help drive innovations that will give perpetual use to polystyrene."
A recent report from the American Chemistry Council estimates that chemical recycling could create $9.9 billion in economic output in the U.S. economy annually, including $4.1 billion related to new products generated by chemical recycling facilities and $2.2 billion in annual payroll. The trade group found that chemical recycling could potentially support 260 new facilities and 38,500 jobs in the U.S. if adopted more broadly.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Chevron-Phillips-subsidiary-launches-chemical-13810002.php?cmpid=ffrefining
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Disappearance of Straws
May 1, 2019 | HERLIFE Magazine
By Catie Watson
Plastic straws have become ubiquitous in restaurants and bars since their introduction in the 1960s, replacing paper straws that became soggy in sodas and milkshakes.
A plastic drinking straw may seem like a small thing, but the National Park Service estimates that more than 500 million straws are used and disposed of each day in the United States. When even a small portion of these straws are scattered on our nation’s beaches and wash into oceans and waterways, the damage can be significant. They have been found embedded in the bodies of sea turtles, birds, fish and even whales.
Straws are one piece of a much bigger environmental problem caused by plastics. Although many people assume that straws can be recycled, their size makes it nearly impossible to process them in a recycling plant. When plastic straws make their way into rivers and oceans, joining plastic bottles, bottle tops, containers and cutlery, they eventually break down into microscopic particles that impact every level of the food chain. Ongoing scientific studies suggest that these particles could soon affect human health as they show up in our food sources.
Environmental activists have targeted drinking straws because they are one disposable plastic item that may be possible to eliminate. Their campaign has been aided by a viral YouTube video from 2015 showing a sea turtle with a plastic straw stuck in its snout. Although a few people may require straws because of medical problems, the majority of people can make do without a straw or they can invest in a reusable straw made from stainless steel or bamboo. Some restaurants are even deciding to return to old-school paper straws. Cities are getting involved in the fight against plastic pollution and banning plastic straws, with Seattle outlawing their use by restaurants and other businesses in 2018 and Washington, D.C., following suit in 2019.
Plastics straws are just one little piece of the 18 billion pounds of plastic waste that enters the world’s oceans each year. Much of this is due to single-use plastics—the cutlery, bottles, packaging and bags that are used just once and then discarded. National Geographic reports that about 40 percent of all plastic produced in the world is destined to be used only once and then thrown away, with only about a fifth of discarded plastic currently being recycled. Unlike climate change, a problem that many prominent individuals deny exists, there’s no denying the looming catastrophe caused by discarded plastic objects.
There are several things that can be done to cut down on plastics pollution, including legislation targeting single-use products. In 2014, California became the first state to pass a law banning single-use bags at large retail stores. The state also imposed a dime charge for paper bags and reusable plastic bags. Hawaii followed with legislation prohibiting non-biodegradable plastic bags in stores.
Major American cities that have passed laws to discourage the use of plastic bags by retailers, including Seattle, Boston and Washington, D.C. Seattle has also banned the use of non-compostable plastic straws and utensils in restaurants and bars. Legal bans on plastic bags have been met with opposition from the plastics industry. Intense lobbying by professional groups such as the American Chemical Council and the American Progressive Bag Alliance has led to legislation that protects the use of plastic bags in Florida, Idaho, Missouri and several other states.
The Plastic Pollution Coalition is a global alliance of businesses, organizations and activists that was founded in 2009 to address pollution caused by single-use plastic products. The group’s motto is “Plastic is a substance the world cannot digest. Refuse Single-Use Plastic.” The organization reports that even though some single-use plastics are biodegradable, these products rarely make it to a recycling center where the conditions allow recycling. Also, recycling facilities don’t exist in many countries around the world where plastics pollution is heaviest. In response, the organization is pressuring fast-food companies to commit to eliminating plastic straws and bags as well as foam cups and food containers.
Unlike the legal actions that have been taken to eliminate plastic straws, the movement against single-use straws has been voluntary. Instead of attempting to change the law, activists are hoping that consumers will stop using plastic straws once they understand the damage these and other single-use plastics cause to the environment and wildlife. Some companies have joined the movement, with Starbucks announcing it will stop handing out plastic straws by 2020. Alaska Airlines and American Airlines have also stated that they will begin phasing out plastic straws. Eliminating plastic straws is one environmental goal that could be achievable, providing hope that larger challenges related to plastic pollution can also be overcome.
http://herlifemagazine.com/blog/green-living/the-disappearance-of-straws/
-
Bill to Halt Plastic Straw Bans Heads to Governor
May 1, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
Florida's local governments wouldn't be able to ban plastic straws for the next five years under a bill going to Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The bill passed the state Senate on a 24-15 vote yesterday. It also requires a study of local straw bans that have already been enacted in Florida, including the information governments relied on to make their decisions.
A legislative analysis of the bill lists 10 Florida cities that have enacted straw bans, including Miami Beach, St. Petersburg and Fort Lauderdale.
The bill also has language requiring local governments to address the collection and processing of recyclable materials that have been contaminated with non-recyclable trash. Governments couldn't require private recycling companies to pick up and process contaminated recyclables unless it is specified in a contract.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/01/stories/1060252155
-
Studies Identified That Support TSCA Prioritisation Candidate Selections
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published a list of risk assessments, conducted by other federal agencies or countries, that it says supported its selection of 20 candidate substances for designation as high priorities under TSCA.
Formally released on 21 March, the TSCA prioritisation candidates list covers chemicals that the agency has proposed to send into the risk evaluation process at the end of the year. If those designations are finalised, the agency will have three years to complete its reviews, with a possible six month extension.
In its announcement earlier this year, the EPA said it had "surveyed the information and checked quality data elements in a step-wise approach that ensured responsible and timely completion of the process according to TSCA timelines" for the substances.
But Chemical Watch understands that some stakeholders subsequently asked the agency to provide a list of assessments it has for each of the chemicals, so they can better understand and help address potential data gaps.
In a document dated 9 April but posted in the public docket on 25 April, the EPA indicated that it has: studies from the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for 11 of the 20 substances; Canadian priority substances list assessment reports and/or state of science reports for seven substances; Canadian phthalate substance grouping screening assessments from October 2017, covering five chemicals; human health data for eight substances from Australia’s National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme (Nicnas); and Echa risk assessment reports for seven substances.
The EPA is accepting comments on its slate of prioritisation candidates until 19 June. The agency has said it "intends to update and refine its initial review, based on data sources identified by the public during the comment period."
https://chemicalwatch.com/77023/studies-identified-that-support-tsca-prioritisation-candidate-selections
-
BASF Cautions EPA Against Releasing REACH Studies Under TSCA
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A European affiliate of BASF has cautioned the US EPA that it risks jeopardising voluntary submission of REACH data to support its TSCA activities if that information cannot be withheld as confidential.
The comments from BASF Colors & Effects GmbH came in a 5 February letter to the EPA, in response to an agency request for the company to substantiate confidentiality claims for 24 studies submitted in support of the ongoing TSCA risk evaluation of pigment violet 29 (see box).
The letter has been publicly released as part of an NGO coalition’s Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request, filed last year over concerns that health and safety data underpinning the PV29 evaluation had been withheld as confidential.
But in its letter, not only did BASF defend the confidentiality of this data, it also told the EPA that the agency has "a strong policy interest under TSCA in not disclosing the confidential aspects of the studies", or else it risks losing future access to such information.
BASF pointed out that the EPA received full copies of the PV29 studies voluntarily rather than under its TSCA authorities, because the owners of the studies are European companies not subject to the law.
And in many cases, "the only realistic hope" that the agency has of obtaining full copies of studies is through such voluntary submissions.
European study owners, however, will "be very unlikely" to make additional voluntary submissions if the EPA releases the full PV29 studies notwithstanding the confidentiality claims made over them, it said.
"Study owners invest heavily in studies, which have commercial value based in part on their remaining confidential," the company said. Their public disclosure would "destroy part of that commercial value".
"Future voluntary disclosures to EPA of confidential studies, without an assurance that the studies would remain confidential, would mean that European study owners would have a substantial disincentive from submitting additional confidential studies to EPA," it added.
Health and safety data confidentiality
In response to a request for additional comment, a spokesperson for BASF told Chemical Watch the company is "concerned with protecting the kind of trade secret and other confidential information that is important to all research-based companies and [it] made that position known to EPA".
The correspondence, however, has also added a new layer to the ongoing debate about whether the EPA is authorised to withhold as confidential health and safety data under the 2016 reforms to TSCA.
That discussion has thus far largely centred around section 14(b) of TSCA, a provision that environmental advocates have argued blocks the agency from protecting such information.
But in its letter, BASF said that European companies are not subject to TSCA; therefore, this provision does not apply. Instead, it argued for confidentiality protections under traditional Foia law.
In a 14 March response, the EPA told BASF it agreed that the information it claimed as confidential could be exempted from release under Foia. And the following week, it released nine studies that had been sanitised by BASF and 15 others for which the company had dropped its confidentiality claims.
NGOs, however, have protested against the redactions.
PV29 timeline
According to a timeline of events outlined in BASF’s letter, the US EPA contacted Dutch company Sun Chemical Group Coöperatief UA in September 2017, requesting its cooperation in providing REACH studies to support its work on pigment violet 29. It did so because an affiliate of that company (Sun Chemical Corporation) manufactures the substance in the US.
After receiving the request, Sun Chemical Group approached BASF Colors & Effects GmbH, a German company that owns the PV29 data (BASF does not produce PV29 in the US or import it in TSCA-reportable quantities). The two companies entered into a data-sharing agreement allowing Sun Chemical Group to disclose the studies to the EPA.
The agreement, for which Sun Chemical Group compensated BASF €84,000 (roughly $95,600), stipulated that it "make all reasonable efforts to ensure that disclosure of [the studies] … shall only take place in a form (for example, short summaries where possible) reflecting the minimum information required to be disclosed."
Sun Chemical Group subsequently submitted "complete copies" of the studies to the EPA, and claimed all of the information as confidential business information (CBI).
However, in December 2018, a group of NGOs submitted a Foia request, seeking access to unsanitised copies of the studies. This prompted the EPA to request substantiation from BASF on the CBI claims.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maine Becomes 1st State to Ban Single-Use Foam Containers
May 1, 2019 | AP (In the New York Times)
Maine has become the first state to ban single-use food and drink containers made from polystyrene foam, commonly known as Styrofoam.
Democratic Gov. Janet Mills signed the bill, which takes effect in 2021, into law Tuesday.
The Natural Resources Council of Maine said that Maine's the first state to enact such a ban. Similar legislation passed Maryland's legislature in April, but it's unclear whether that state's Republican governor, Larry Hogan, will sign it.
Oregon, Vermont and Connecticut are also considering banning such food containers statewide, and dozens of communities from Berkeley, California, to Seattle to Minneapolis to New York City have already passed their own bans, some of which date back to the late 1980s.
Environmental groups have sought bans amid rising public awareness of throwaway plastic that accumulates in the oceans without decomposing.
Companies such as Dunkin' and McDonald's have pledged to or have already eliminated foam cups, while communities around the globe are also considering bans of their own. In December, European Union officials agreed to ban some single-use plastics, such as polystyrene food and beverage containers, in an effort to curb marine pollution.
"With the threats posed by plastic pollution becoming more apparent, costly, and even deadly to wildlife, we need to be doing everything possible to limit our use and better manage our single-use plastics — starting with eliminating the use of unnecessary forms like plastic foam," said Sarah Lakeman, Sustainable Maine director at the Natural Resources Council of Maine.
Mills called it an "important step forward in protecting our environment." The governor said it creates consistency for businesses while providing time to adjust.
The law will prohibit "covered establishments" like restaurants and grocery stores from using polystyrene containers. Hospitals, seafood shippers and state-funded meals-on-wheels programs will be exempt.
Maine had banned foam food containers at state facilities and functions since 1993 . Some communities in the state had already banned polystyrene.
The legislation faced strong opposition from the plastic industry, food service container manufacturers and Maine business and tourism groups, which argued polystyrene is economical and a better way to keep food from spoiling.
Such industry groups asserted that the bill doesn't mean consumers will stop littering. The groups said they're taking voluntary steps to make plastic package reusable, recyclable or recoverable by 2030. The plastic industry in January committed to spending $1.5 billion over five years to end plastic waste through a new nonprofit, The Alliance to End Plastic Waste, according to American Chemistry Council lobbyist Margaret Gorman.
"All packaging leaves an environmental footprint regardless of the material type," Gorman told Maine lawmakers in written testimony.
Maine State Chamber of Commerce lobbyist Ben Gilman said the bill would raise costs for small businesses in particular while sending a "chilling message" to companies in the state that manufacture food service containers.
"These types of issues are better dealt with on a regional or national basis due to unbalanced cost impact it will have on Maine businesses," he said in written testimony to lawmakers.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/05/01/us/ap-us-maine-foam-containers.html?searchResultPosition=1
-
EPA Rejects Another Petition to Beef up Asbestos Reporting
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariana Figuero
EPA for the second time has denied a petition that aimed to increase asbestos reporting requirements, this time from more than a dozen attorneys general.
The petition requested that EPA keep a record of manufacturers that import products made from asbestos or containing the mineral.
"Without a new rule requiring adequate reporting regarding the manufacture and use of asbestos, EPA will be unable to comply with its statutory mandate to prevent unreasonable risks to health and the environment presented by this highly hazardous chemical that unfortunately continues to be in widespread use in the United States and poses ongoing dangers to the residents of our states," the 15 Democratic attorneys general wrote to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Alexandra Dunn, EPA's assistant administrator for chemical safety, yesterday denied the petition and said the agency would not initiate rulemaking on asbestos reporting.
Dunn said that EPA already has the information the attorneys general requested and that it would publish its full reasoning for denying the request in the Federal Register.
"EPA believes that the agency is aware of all ongoing used of asbestos and already has the essential information that EPA would receive if EPA were to grant the petition," she wrote.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), who signed on to the petition, said he was not surprised EPA denied the request.
"The EPA has once again failed to do its job," Becerra said in a statement. "Asbestos is among the most dangerous chemicals known to humankind."
Asbestos was once widely used in building materials in the United States because of its strength and resistance to fire. But EPA in 1989 banned its use in new materials because of its public health threat. As they break down, thin asbestos fibers can get stuck deep in people's lungs, where they can cause scarring, inflammation and lung cancer.
The attorneys general have 60 days to respond if they plan to challenge EPA's decision in court.
The other attorneys general who signed off on the Jan. 31 petition represent Massachusetts, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.
EPA late last year denied a nearly identical petition from health advocates (Greenwire, Feb. 12). One of those groups, the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, is moving forward with litigation.
"This is what we've come to expect from Trump's EPA," Linda Reinstein, the group's president, said of EPA's denial of the latest petition.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/01/stories/1060253021
-
EPA Reiterates Its View That Glyphosate Is Not Carcinogenic
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
The Trump EPA is reiterating its view that glyphosate, the widely used herbicide, is not carcinogenic, underscoring a long-running dispute with environmentalists and some states, like California, which view the chemical as a carcinogen and potentially bolstering its manufacturer, which is facing billions of dollars in tort claims.
EPA announced April 30 that it is releasing its proposed interim registration review decision for glyphosate, and will take public comment upon it for 60 days once the announcement is published in the Federal Register.
“EPA has found no risks to public health from the current registered uses of glyphosate,” Administrator Andrew Wheeler says in an April 30 statement. “Today’s proposed action includes new management measures that will help farmers use glyphosate in the most effective and efficient way possible, including pollinator protections.”
The latest document reiterates EPA's conclusions in its draft human health risk assessment, as well as conclusions in its draft ecological risk assessment that the pesticide poses some risk to birds, mammals and plants. EPA released both assessments for public comment in December 2017.
“If we are going to feed 10 billion people by 2050, we are going to need all the tools at our disposal, which includes the use [of] glyphosate,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue says in EPA's April 30 statement. The Agriculture Department “applauds EPA’s proposed registration decision as it is science-based and consistent with the findings of other regulatory authorities that glyphosate does not pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans,” he said.
Those draft findings were at odds with California's listing of glyphosate as a carcinogen under its Proposition 65 warning-label law, a finding that California's Supreme Court upheld in its August 2018 rejection of Monsanto Co.'s appeal of the listing. EPA's cancer finding is also contrary to the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2015 monograph that concluded glyphosate probably causes cancer.
“EPA’s Pesticide office is out on a limb here -- with Monsanto and Bayer and virtually nobody else,” Jennifer Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council senior scientist, said in an April 30 statement.
Her comments underscore arguments that the chemical's manufacturer -- Bayer, the successor to Monsanto -- is facing billions of dollars in tort claims from plaintiffs who charge their exposure puts them at risk of cancer.
So far, two U.S. juries have sided with plaintiffs against the company is expecting additional suits from as many as 13,400 plaintiffs in the United States, as well as additional suits in other countries.
As part of the ecological assessment, EPA conducted an evaluation of risk to pollinators and milkweed. “Available data (laboratory and field-based) indicate no risk to pollinators,” a pre-publication copy of the Federal Registernotice states.
Still, EPA says it “is proposing spray drift management measures (e.g., release height, droplet size, and wind speed restrictions) to reduce off-site exposure to nontarget wildlife. EPA is also proposing weed resistance management labeling (e.g., information on mode of action, scouting instructions, and reporting instructions for weed resistance) to preserve glyphosate as a valuable tool for growers.”
EPA is required by 1996 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to complete registration review of every registered pesticide every 15 years. For glyphosate and 700 other pesticides, that deadline falls on Oct. 1, 2022.
EPA describes glyphosate as “a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide” with registered agricultural uses including “glyphosate-resistant (transgenic) crops such as canola, corn, cotton, soybean, and sugar beet. Non-agricultural use sites include residential areas, turf, rights of ways, and aquatic areas.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-reiterates-its-view-glyphosate-not-carcinogenic
-
New York Lawmakers Move to Restrict Toxins in Children’s Products
May 1, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
New York state’s legislature has passed a measure to ban the sale of children’s products containing organohalogen flame retardants and other substances of concern, and to require the disclosure of dozens of others.
If signed into law by Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Child Safe Products Act will take effect from 1 March 2020.
The legislation addresses a broad range of products intended for children, including toys, baby products, car seats, personal care products, jewellery, apparel, bedding and furniture, and school supplies.
It calls for a sales prohibition from 1 January 2023 on any that contain certain "dangerous chemicals", including: organohalogen flame retardants; tris(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl)phosphate (TDCPP); benzene; formaldehyde (other than in textiles); and asbestos.
The legislation also lays out processes for modifying this list of substances, with a sales prohibition to take effect within three years of a chemical’s addition. Enclosed electronic components and batteries are exempted, as are scenarios where the state’s regulation is preempted by federal laws.
Meanwhile, the bill sets out a list of nearly 100 "chemicals of concern" for which manufacturers must report certain product information to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
At a minimum, this notification would include the product, which concerning substance(s) it contains and their intended use. But the bill gives latitude to the DEC to also require reporting on the amount of chemical in the product and possible exposure details.
The DEC, in turn, would be required to notify consumers about children’s products containing chemicals of concern and dangerous chemicals, and to periodically review its lists of substances.
In a justification statement, the legislation says that the bill is modelled on comprehensive chemical policies that have been passed in states like Washington, California and Maine to "prevent the use of dangerous chemicals and ensure the use of safer chemical alternatives in children's products."
New York’s current process of identifying and prohibiting chemicals one-by-one "is especially problematic for children’s products, since children are often more vulnerable to smaller amounts of chemicals," it adds.A long time coming
On 30 April, both chambers of the New York legislature passed identical companion bills (S 501/A 6296) by wide margins: 53-9 in the Senate and 100-23 in the Assembly. This coincided with an ‘Environmental Health and Justice Advocacy Day’, organised by the JustGreen Partnership, a collaboration of 50 environmental and consumer advocacy groups that have lobbied extensively for the legislation.
The move represents New York’s latest of several attempts to pass the Child Safe Products Act. Similar measures previously came close to passage in 2014 and 2015, but both times died in the Senate despite winning bipartisan support in the Assembly.
In the meantime, several New York counties adopted ‘toxic toys’ laws, though these were largely guttedafter industry filed lawsuits challenging that they were in conflict with existing federal laws.
The November 2018 election, however, shifted control at the state level, allowing Democrats – who have long championed the legislation – to consolidate control in both the Assembly and Senate.
Governor Cuomo is also a Democrat, and he included passage of the Child Safe Products Act in his 2015 and 2016 Opportunity Agendas. He will have ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign or veto the legislation, or it becomes law without his signature.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77043/new-york-lawmakers-move-to-restrict-toxins-in-childrens-products
-
New York State Ban Would Shelve Toxic Toys, Kid Products
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Keshia Clukey
New York state is poised to ban the use of toxic chemicals in children’s toys, clothing, and furniture and to require manufacturers to disclose whether those chemicals are in their products.
The state Senate and Assembly April 30 cleared legislation (A.6296/S.501), known as the Child Safe Products Act, that would require the New York Department of Environmental Conservation to post and periodically review a list of dangerous chemicals or chemicals of concern.
If signed into law, the act will take effect March 1, 2020, and the list would have to be posted within 180 days. It would prohibit the sale of children’s products containing chemicals such as organohalogen flame retardants, tris, and asbestos starting in Jan. 1, 2023.
The products include items intended for or marketed to children, including toys, car seats, personal care products, teething and baby products, bedding, furnishings, and clothing. Certain items such as batteries, electronics like computers, and game consoles are excluded.
The measure heads to the desk of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). A Cuomo spokesman said the office is reviewing the legislation.
Connecticut, Maine, and Washington state have enacted similar laws.
Not There Yet
“The fact that you could buy products with arsenic in them today, with lead, with cadmium, with mercury, shows that we have leaps and bounds to go in our state,” said state Sen. Todd Kaminsky (D), who chairs the Senate Environmental Conservation Committee and sponsored the toy bill in the Senate. “It’s about time that we banned the most dangerous products and informed parents of what’s in the products that they’re entrusting to be used on their most loved and precious individuals.”
The legislation defines children as those younger than 12. The bill would require manufacturers to disclose if the listed chemicals are present and provide consumers information regarding the chemicals’ toxicity. They also would have to pay a $600 fee per chemical upon submission of chemical use reports or waiver requests.
Business groups opposed the measure as it is written, saying it is too broad, and there should be scientific justification for why certain chemicals are on the list.
“The legislation is not grounded in sound science,” Darren Suarez, senior director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State, said in an April 30 interview. The law should take into consideration the presence of the chemical and how children will be interacting with it, he said.
For example if there is a flame retardant on the voice box inside a stuffed animal, children aren’t likely to come into contact with it, but it is there for a safety reason, Suarez said.
Businesses will have to evaluate what is included in the legislation and could have to change their product lines, according to Suarez. “It could also lead to some products not being available in New York,” he said.
The Legislature is expected to clear an amendment to the bill providing for exemptions, which could provide some relief, he said.
Environmental and health advocacy groups said the needed measure was a long time in the making, having kicked around the Legislature for about 10 years.
“It’s about letting parents know the fact that this dangerous chemical is in the products they might buy and then systematically going through and banning those products that have these dangerous chemicals that’s gonna be tremendous for public health and improve the lives of so many kids,” said Peter Iwanowicz, executive director of Environmental Advocates of New York.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/new-york-state-ban-would-shelve-toxic-toys-kid-products
-
Benzene Found in the Water Supply of Fire-Ravaged Paradise, California
Apr 30, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Elizabeth K. Wilson
After the October 2017 Tubbs wildfire, the northern California town of Santa Rosa was blindsided when it discovered that some of its fire-damaged water systems were contaminated with the carcinogen benzene. This phenomenon, never before reported, threatened to add millions and months to recovery cost and time. Little more than a year later, it happened again.
In November 2018, the Camp Fire—California’s most destructive wildfire in history—leveled the town of Paradise. Water officials there now report they have discovered the same problem with benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that plagued Santa Rosa, but on an exponentially greater scale.
Whereas Santa Rosa will be replacing up to 500 service lines at a cost of several million dollars, Paradise has 10,500 affected lines—roughly 280 km of pipe. Paradise estimates replacing the pipes could cost as much as $300 million, and it may be 2 years before the city can provide safe drinking water to its residents. The legal limit in California for benzene in drinking water is 1 part per billion, while average levels in benzene-positive samples in Paradise have been 31 ppb.
The contamination in Santa Rosa and Paradise paints a grim picture for wildfire-vulnerable towns in the western US as climate change increases fire frequency and intensity. When only Santa Rosa was affected, people might have thought it was extra-bad luck. Now that it’s happened in Paradise also, “I have a feeling people are paying attention to this now,” says Jackson Webster, a water quality engineer at California State University, Chico. The need for water scientists and engineers to pay attention is great: there is no standard protocol to test water after a wildfire, let alone courses of action to prevent water system contamination.
The California towns are leading the way out of necessity. Santa Rosa established a protocol of letting water sit inside a pipe for 72 hours before testing, to allow contaminants to collect. Though it takes two weeks for contents in a pipe to reach equilibrium, 72 hours has appeared to work well, water officials say.
Paradise is stepping up from Santa Rosa and is now undertaking an arduous testing program. On the advice of Andrew Whelton, an environmental engineer at Purdue University, Paradise has decided to test not only for benzene, but 65 other VOCs, setting a bar for rigorous contaminant detection.
As for prevention strategies, those may hinge on pinpointing the mechanism of contamination. One likely source is fires causing plastic pipes—a necessity in earthquake country for their flexibility—to melt or combust. Then the extreme amounts of water needed to fight these enormous blazes could create a pressure drop that allows vapors or particulates to be sucked into the water system. But these are still theories, Whelton says.
Further complicating the picture is that not all recently fire-ravaged northern California towns suffered the fate of Santa Rosa and Paradise. Redding, which was devastated by the Carr fire in August 2018, did not report benzene or other contamination in its water system. Whelton cautions, however, that without standardized water testing, it’s hard to know what really happened in Redding.
Meanwhile, Paradise residents desperate for drinking water may be taking risks. Some whose houses are still standing are spending thousands of dollars on large temporary water filtration systems. Others are simply using refrigerator or pitcher filters. The efficacy of such filtration for the extreme conditions in Paradise hasn’t been established, Whelton says. The Paradise school district is installing “industrial strength activated carbon systems” in two schools it hopes to reopen in August, according to an April 11 facilities update sent to families.
And after a winter of average or greater precipitation, much of the Western US is carpeted in greenery that will soon dry into fuel for the next fire season.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/water/Benzene-found-water-supply-fire/97/web/2019/04
-
Bayer Shareholders Reproach Management Over Roundup Woes
Apr 29, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
A majority of Bayer shareholders do not like the way the company has been run over the past year. In a vote at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting late last week, 55% refused to back management, largely because of Bayer’s problematic decision to buy Monsanto.
The acquisition came with a torrent of lawsuits over the role played by Monsanto’s Roundup brand glyphosate herbicide in incidents of nonHodgkin’s lymphoma and other illnesses among agriculture workers.
Indeed, only two months after the $63 billion acquisition closed in June, a US jury found Bayer responsible for a groundskeeper’s cancer. A second case also went against Bayer; the company is appealing both verdicts. And that’s just the beginning: roughly 13,400 plaintiffs are waiting in the wings.
Disgruntled shareholders feel Bayer did not properly price the financial and reputational risks of the coming litigation. Shareholder countermotions, filed ahead of the meeting, call the Monsanto acquisition “catastrophic,” a “disaster,” and “ill-fated.”
The mood at the meeting itself was no better. “Management infected a healthy Bayer with the Monsanto virus, is now playing doctor but has no healing drug at hand,” said Ingo Speich, head of corporate governance at Deka Investment, which holds roughly 1% of Bayer, according to reports from the event.
Shareholders are particularly miffed that Bayer’s stock price has been on a downward slide since the deal, orchestrated by CEO Werner Baumann, was completed. The nearly 40% drop has wiped out market value at the company worth about $62 billion, close to the price paid for Monsanto.
The negative feedback is unusual. At last year’s shareholders’ meeting, 97% of shareholders backed management’s actions. The votes are nonbinding, according to German law.
Bayer’s supervisory board responded to the vote with a unanimous declaration of support for Baumann. Chairman Werner Wenning told assembled shareholders that the company will work to restore confidence. “While we take the outcome of the vote at the annual stockholders’ meeting very seriously, Bayer’s supervisory board unanimously stands behind the board of management,” he said.
Bayer first revealed its desire to buy Monsanto in May 2016. At the time, the merger of Dow and DuPont had kicked off a wave of consolidation among agriculture giants. Bayer wanted to add Monsanto’s strong seeds and traits capability to shore up its crop protection chemicals business. At the time, Baumann pushed back against the preference of some shareholders that Bayer invest instead in its health care business.
https://cen.acs.org/business/mergers-&-acquisitions/Bayer-shareholders-reproach-management-over/97/web/2019/04
-
Chemical Management: Five Ways to Meet the Challenges of IH in a Changing Industry
May 1, 2019 | Occupational Health & Safety
By Phil N. Molé
Industrial hygiene (IH), the deliberate and scientific control of occupational hazards and risks, is more important than ever. Yet for the last 20 years, the number of certified industrial hygienists (CIHs) has been on the decline. CIH responsibilities are being subsumed by technicians and EHS generalists, farmed out to costly consultants, or even left unfulfilled.
The EHS industry is changing in response to these challenges. For one thing, professional organizations such as the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) have opened their doors and have begun targeting their message about the importance of IH to broader audiences.
For another, EHS software is empowering employees at all levels to make workplaces healthier, more productive environments. Best of breed cloud-based programs make it easy to follow industry best practices, capture data, facilitate the flow of information, and provide real-time visibility and reporting into occupational activities.
A great example of the ability of software to bolster IH is in the management of chemicals. Proper chemical management is a critical component of a solid IH program, even if many organizations fall short. Hazard Communication has ranked #2 or #3 on OSHA’s annual list of most cited violations for more than a decade, which points to systemic chemical management issues that undermine the effectiveness of IH programs and place workers at risk.
Following is a look at five ways software can help improve chemical management, strengthen your IH program, and protect the safety of your workforce.
1. Chemical Inventory & Ingredients Tracking
Everything starts with knowing what chemicals you have in the workplace. It's the key to drafting an accurate written HazCom plan, ensuring you have all necessary safety data sheets (SDSs) for the chemicals in your inventory, effectively managing workplace labels, training your employees on chemical hazards, and meeting regulatory responsibilities.However, knowing what chemical products you have isn’t enough. You also need visibility into the ingredients of those products, along with their specific hazards and regulatory considerations. Take methylene chloride, for example, a common ingredient in aerosol degreasing sprays and paint-removing solvents. Facility managers are often unaware it is present in their facilities because the names of the products don't provide obvious clues. And if you don’t know you have methylene chloride, it's unlikely that your IH program includes exposure monitoring for it, which leaves you out of compliance with OSHA’s methylene chloride standard.
A good chemical management software solution makes it easy to avoid this issue. Chemicals can be tracked by container at the company, facility, department, and even storage level. Some software even gives you visual insight into of your chemical footprint with drag-and-drop controls that allow you to instantly identify, move, and manage your chemical inventory on an image map of your facility. And the most robust software solutions feature ingredient indexing to help you track chemical ingredients across products while flagging those that are subject to more stringent regulatory standards.
2. Right-to-Know (RTK) Access
Not only must you know what chemicals you have, but also you must make sure your workforce does, as well. That means ensuring employees have access to SDSs in their work areas during their work shifts and that all chemical containers remain properly labeled with the original manufacturer-supplied label on shipped containers or employer-created workplace labels on secondary containers.Chemical management software can make a big difference here. The same software used to track your chemical inventory also should provide employees immediate RTK access to up-to-date SDSs. A true cloud software solution can provide that access from any tablet or smartphone, along with offline access out in the field through an accompanying mobile app.
When considering chemical software options, pay attention to how easy it is to fill gaps in your SDS library. Do you get a library of SDSs to start your search (some of the best solutions have millions of SDSs) and a simple way to request missing or updated SDSs? How often does the solution update existing documents, and does it push updates to you automatically? These features can make a huge difference when it comes to compliance and safety.
Your chemical management software also should provide a fast and easy way to create workplace labels. Information indexed on the SDS can be used to "replicate" the chemical's shipped label and ensure that all Hazard Communication information on that label is communicated to workers or create customized labels to fit the needs of your people and unique work environment.
Employees armed with the tools described above are more empowered to make their workplaces safer, which is essential as IH increasingly becomes a shared responsibility.
3. Employee Training & Preparedness
One of the keys to getting IH right is employee training. Here, too, chemical management software is invaluable.Employers are required to train employees on key information in SDSs (including health and physical hazards, storage and disposal requirements, and emergency response information) prior to their working with hazardous chemicals, but SDSs also help employees put that training into use in the moment. Software that makes that information easy to access wherever and whenever your people need it makes it more likely they'll use it.
EHS software also can help simplify your IH training management by tracking who's been trained on what and when, while also providing engaging content in a format that's easy for you to deploy and your people to access.
4. Keeping Your IH Sampling Plan Up to Date
A common mistake employers make is using a single SDS from one manufacturer to stand in for SDSs from other manufacturers who supply a similar product. In a 2015 directive, OSHA explained that employers are out of compliance if they don't maintain the specific SDS for a particular chemical from its manufacturer. Having the specific documents is the only way to make sure you can understand and control exposure to the hazards of those chemicals.Likewise, if you don’t keep your inventory and SDS library current, you won't be able to maintain your IH sampling plan. During compliance inspections, it's common for regulatory compliance officers to ask which chemicals have been added to your inventory since the last time IH sampling was conducted. If chemicals added since then have established exposure limits, and you haven't yet conducted exposure monitoring for them, you're putting your regulatory compliance and workers at risk.
As new chemicals arrive, carefully review information in their SDSs to identify all ingredients that may pose exposure hazards and include all relevant exposure limitations in your IH plan. Make sure you're not only sampling for 8-hour time-weighted average exposures such as the permissible exposure limit (PEL), but also for shorter-term exposure guidelines such as:Short-term exposure limit (STEL), measured as a 15-minute TWA concentrationImmediately dangerous to life and health (IDLH) concentration, which indicates a maximum level above which only a highly reliable breathing apparatus, providing maximum worker protection, is permittedLower explosive limit (LEL), which is the lowest concentration of a gas or vapor capable of igniting with air
How you incorporate this information into your IH sampling plan will depend on your operations. Those with periodic aspects to them, like cleaning out of a tank or adding chemical ingredients to a mixture, are good examples of instances in which concentrations can temporarily spike. Evaluate compliance with short-term limits like the STEL, IDLH, and LEL while those tasks are performed, in addition to evaluating 8-hour TWAs. Assess your equipment and sampling needs, because you may find it necessary to purchase or rent a photoionization detector (PID) in order to capture airborne concentrations in real time and install monitors with alarms to warn workers when concentrations reach dangerous levels.
The right chemical management software can assist you in tracking this information by grouping products and chemicals into customizable categories that serve up the pertinent information to your people quickly and easily. EHS software also can help you manage your monitoring schedule.
5. Chemical Banning & Approval Workflows
A major component of IH is following the hierarchy of controls, so one of the best ways to control chemical hazards is to keep them out of the workplace in the first place. Well-designed chemical management software can help you do that by creating approval workflows that require sign-off from authorized personnel before a chemical enters the facility, or even letting everyone know within the software when a product isn't allowed on premises.You can't be everywhere at once and, as mentioned before, the need for IH has increased while people and resources to manage it have become scarcer. Putting this new breed of EHS software to work for you means that responsibility for IH best practices can be shared. Workflows and chemical banning allow you to extend your reach, even when you’re not there in person.
Picking the Right Tools
What should you look for in software for managing IH? It should be easy to implement, easy to use, and work the way you work. The right software can significantly reduce or eliminate the high costs associated with hiring consultants and improve and streamline all aspects of your program. However, the wrong software can become just another obstacle to overcome.As we've seen, there are quite a few nuances to doing chemical management and IH effectively, but the right tools help you meet the challenges of IH in changing times and provide a safer, healthier workplace for all.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2019/05/01/chemical-management.aspx
-
Trump Said to Ease Drilling Rules Sparked by 2010 Gulf Oil Spill
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is poised to relax offshore drilling requirements imposed in response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster that killed 11 people in 2010 and unleashed the worst oil spill in U.S. history.
The Interior Department will unveil its final plan Thursday to ease some of the mandates, following industry complaints they are unwieldy and expensive, said two people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named before a formal announcement. The White House Office of Management and Budget said it had completed a review of the drafted regulation on April 29, clearing it for a final release.
The measure is set to ease requirements for real-time monitoring of offshore operations and mandated third-party certifications of emergency equipment that can be summoned as a last resort to block explosive surges of oil and gas flowing up from wells. Many of the final changes were already outlined in a proposal released last year.
Trump administration officials previously cast the changes as a surgical revision of the Obama-era rule, arguing the rewrite would better align with voluntary industry standards, decrease downtime on rigs and lead to more than $900 million in oil industry savings over the next decade.
The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement said last year the measure responds to oil and natural gas companies that “raised concerns about certain regulatory provisions that impose undue burdens on their industry but do not significantly enhance worker safety or environmental protection.”
Environmentalist Concerns
Conservationists and safety advocates warned the planned rollbacks in the agency’s proposed version would “put the environment, the economy and workers’ lives at risk.” They argue the administration hasn’t pointed to any studies, investigations or reports justifying its plan to roll back vital safeguards inspired by the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.
“The Trump administration is once again putting corporate profits over safety by gutting the primary offshore drilling safety measure put in place to prevent the next massive oil spill,” said Amit Narang, a regulatory policy expert at the watchdog group Public Citizen. “As the public just saw with the Boeing crashes, letting the offshore drilling industry regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.”
The underlying requirements were developed over six years and finalized by the Obama administration in April 2016 in response to recommendations from investigators who probed BP Plc’s Macondo well failure. The 2010 disaster, caused when flammable gas surged out of the well and ignited on board Transocean Ltd.’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, killed 11 workers and sent oil spewing into the water, fouling coastlines and harming marine life.
Improvements
Oil industry leaders stress that much has changed in the wake of that disaster, and they argue the Trump administration’s move won’t undo other, critical reforms, including federal requirements for companies to holistically assess and manage rigs at their offshore facilities. Drilling standards imposed with months of the spill also will be untouched, as will voluntary industry efforts to promote safety.
The American Petroleum Institute has argued the Obama-era rule imposed “a one-size-fits-all approach” with “arbitrary” requirements that ignore the unique characteristics of every well, including varying geological conditions, depths, pressures and temperatures. Trump administration changes will provide flexibility for oil companies to adapt to various offshore conditions and foster innovations, industry leaders say.
The safety bureau is set to change requirements for certifying blowout preventers, the massive devices made famous in the BP spill because the one sitting on top of the Macondo well failed to stop the lethal surge of oil and explosive gas. The heart of blowout preventers are their sealing and shearing blades, which can be activated in emergencies to sever drill pipe in a well and close it off, keeping rushing oil and gas locked within.
The bureau is set to remove requirements for bureau-approved organizations to regularly analyze and certify the blowout preventers used at offshore oil facilities. Instead, independent third-parties could conduct the reviews.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-said-to-ease-drilling-rules-sparked-by-2010-gulf-oil-spill
-
Markey Presses DOE on Tainted Crude Claims
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Jenny Mandel
Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ed Markey is pressing the Department of Energy to answer complaints from energy companies that crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is contaminated with dangerous hydrogen sulfide.
Markey's letter yesterday followed reports that Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Macquarie Group and PetroChina Co. Ltd. have reported excessive levels of hydrogen sulfide in fuel purchased from the SPR (Energywire, April 15).
The letter points to reports saying crude tested at up to 250 times the allowable limit for hydrogen sulfide, which can injure or kill workers if inhaled and can damage pipelines and other equipment. It says DOE paid PetroChina about $1 million to clean a shipment of contaminated oil.
Markey said quality problems with the stockpile could drive down prices for the commodity, causing harm to taxpayers, and could leave the country vulnerable in case of a supply emergency.
The letter asks DOE to report on any steps taken to address the issue, including affected companies and expenses. The missive requests DOE's assessment of the source of the problem.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/01/stories/1060252779
-
American LNG Positioned to Win With IMO 2020
May 1, 2019 | Real Clear Energy
By Charlie Reidl
In less than a year, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) standards to cap sulfur emissions in marine fuels will go into effect. These “IMO 2020” standards will not only benefit the American oil and shipping industries, but also America’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) sector.
IMO 2020 will reduce the sulfur content in marine fuels from a maximum of 3.5 percent to 0.5 percent. To achieve compliance with these stronger standards, shippers will need to either install emissions-control devices known as “scrubbers” or instead they could switch to a low-sulfur alternative, like LNG. This presents a unique opportunity for the American LNG sector—one of our fastest growing energy industries. LNG is simply natural gas that has been cooled to approximately -260 degrees Fahrenheit, which reduces its volume by 1/600th of its original size and makes it easy to store and export.
The use of LNG as a marine fuel reduces sulfur oxide emissions to nearly zero. Because of this, global demand for LNG is growing as shippers prepare for IMO 2020. America is ready to meet this increased global demand and doing so will strengthen our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The United States is advantageously positioned with an abundance of natural gas that allows us to easily meet our energy needs domestically while simultaneously supplying our allies abroad. Specifically, conservative estimates of U.S. natural gas supplies exceed 2,400 trillion cubic feet, enough natural gas to last about 80 years, and America consumed less than 2 percent in 2018. This large surplus positions America to dominate the global LNG market as the world prepares for IMO 2020.
While IMO 2020 is likely a boon for American energy, there has been talk of delaying its implementation. However, with America already producing and exporting large volumes of compliant fuels, this would be an unnecessary and even harmful move. Since 2015, all U.S. ports restrict sulfur emissions to amounts five times more stringent than IMO 2020 standards require. This experience with cleaner fuels places the United States ahead of our foreign competitors, many of whom have yet to prepare for the standards.
From February 2016 to January 2019, the U.S. exported LNG to more than 30 countries, and the Energy Information Administration estimated that American LNG export capacity will more than double by the end of 2019. Substantial industry investments have already been made, and the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has approved the construction of new production and export terminals, such as the Golden Pass LNG facility in Texas or Tellurian’s Driftwood facility in Louisiana. Once completed, this facility will be able to export 27.6 million tons of LNG per year to customers worldwide.
IMO 2020 will help bolster our energy economy and create jobs across the entire LNG value chain – ranging from natural gas production, turbine manufacturing, pipefitting, and many other industries across the country. According to a study by the U.S. Department of Energy, LNG exports could add between $50 and $73 billion to the U.S. economy by 2040, while creating between 220,000 and 453,000 jobs. This reaffirms a point illustrated in previous studies: when LNG exports increase, the U.S. economy grows. The study also notes that even as exports grow, the price of LNG is projected to be less than $2 higher in 2040 than it was in 2010.
LNG is one of the safest fuels to transport, which makes it an especially enticing export. Since 1959, logs kept of maritime accidents reveal an industry with an untarnished record at sea. A 2014 report by the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators noted that in a period of over 50 years, there were “no onboard fatalities directly attributable to [the LNG cargo]. This is a very impressive, in fact unprecedented, safety record.”
As a clean-burning, cost-efficient and safe fuel, LNG remains a prime choice for shippers post-IMO 2020.
With a natural gas base as strong as America’s, timely implementation of IMO 2020 standards will ensure that the U.S. can maximize its competitive advantage and further enhance our energy economy. Continuing with IMO standards will benefit Americans throughout the country, and we should proceed without delay.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/05/01/american_lng_positioned_to_win_with_imo_2020_110434.html
-
House E&C Blasts TSA for Skipping Pipeline Hearing
May 1, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Ben Lefebvre
Lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee blasted the TSA for declining to send a representative to a hearing on updating pipeline safety regulation from 2011 and 2016.
The TSA, which issues security guidelines and evaluates the vulnerability of pipeline systems, has come under fire since a GAO report last year found it had inadequate staffing at its pipeline safety operations, was relying on outdated information and was too dependent on pipeline companies to police their own facilities.
“We’re worried that TSA is working with outdated information,” Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said during the hearing. “It’s unacceptable that TSA refused to testify on the troubling findings that GAO found in its work.”
“Maybe it’s time we find another federal agency to handle this responsibility,” he added later.
TSA has only four employees working on identifying threats to the millions of miles of interstate hazardous materials pipelines, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said during the hearing.
“I was most disappointed to hear that while TSA was invited to today’s hearing, they declined to appear,” Upton said. “Like the Alamo, we’re going to remember that.”
A TSA spokesperson did not immediately reply to an email asking why the agency did not send a representative to the hearing.
One of the committee’s particular concerns was that the TSA allowed companies to identify their own critical facilities, which might require tighter security and safety standards. Under that plan, a third of the 100 largest companies operating interstate pipelines said they had no facilities that they would consider “critical,” said GAO acting Director William Russell at the hearing.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/house-e-c-blasts-tsa-for-skipping-pipeline-hearing-3178191
-
Reps Overseeing Pipeline Safety are Profiting From Pipeline Companies
May 1, 2019 | Sludge
By Donald Shaw
As the network of pipelines transporting oil and gas continues to grow, the agency in charge of pipeline safety has been unable to finalize rules to protect the public from poorly designed and operated systems that can leak and put lives at risk. As a result, hundreds of thousands of miles of natural gas pipelines have been built without so much as minimum safety standards for their owners to follow.
Fossil fuel pipeline safety standards are set by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which states that its mission is to “protect people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy.” Since 2011, PHSMA has left open several rulemaking procedures to establish safety standards for natural gas pipelines, but it has so far failed to conclude any of them. While these rules sit in limbo, there have been several fatal gas pipeline incidents, including at least three in 2018—the Columbia Gas explosion in Massachusetts, an explosion in Texas that was caused by a leaking gas gathering pipeline, and an explosion of an Atmos pipeline, also in Texas.
As natural gas production has increased since the mid-2000s, gas gathering pipelines, systems that transport gas from production sites to collection points, have been built at a rapid pace, and many of the new pipes flow through densely populated, “high consequence” areas. It is estimated that there are now at least 439,000 miles of unregulated natural gas pipeline in the U.S.
Some experts point to a burdensome cost-benefit analysis process that PHMSA must complete as an explanation for why it has been unable to complete new regulations for these pipelines. Under a law passed by Congress in 1996, the PHMSA can only issue a regulation after making a reasoned determination that the quantifiable benefits of the proposal exceed the expected costs.
PHSMA’s cost-benefit analysis requirement is unique among laws passed by Congress to protect public safety. The 1996 law is “the only health and safety or environmental protection statute where such an explicit directive to an administrative agency to base regulation of risk on a cost-benefit test was actually inserted into statute,” according to a recent congressional testimony submitted by Carl Weimer, executive director of the nonprofit Pipeline Safety Trust.
Weimer explained at a recent hearing that in order to enact a regulation, PHMSA must show that the cost of implementing that regulation would not outweigh the benefit of protecting human lives.
“[PHMSA uses] a figure of about $9-10 million as the benefit of a human life,” Weimer said. “So if you have a tragedy like San Bruno that kills 8 people and you go through a cost-benefit to look at installing new valves on pipelines, and you say that over the course of 10 years you’re going to prevent 10 lives from being lost, that would be worth about $100 million. At the same time if you look at what the cost would be for the industry to put a valve on every mile of pipeline that might be required…the cost of implementing automated valves way outweighs the benefit of the human lives you’re going to save.”
The laws regulating the pipeline industry, including the cost-benefit analysis requirement, fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. House Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. The subcommittee, part of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, is responsible for legislation reauthorizing the PHMSA every few years and establishing laws governing its operation and rulemaking process. So far the subcommittee has not passed legislation to address the agency’s stalled rulemaking process.
According to a Sludge analysis of financial disclosures, the members of the Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee have as much as $2.8 million invested in fossil fuel companies that own and operate oil and gas pipelines, presenting significant conflicts of interest.
Many of the companies in which the representatives, both Democrats and Republicans, are personally invested are members of trade groups that oppose the PHSMA’s proposals to regulate natural gas gathering pipelines. The American Petroleum Institute and the GPA Midstream Association filed a joint position paper with the Department of Transportation in December 2018 opposing much of the PHSMA’s proposal for regulating gas gathering pipelines, stating that the new regulations would cost the industry $28 billion over a 15-year period.
None of the subcommittee members responded to requests for comment about their investments.
Of the eight subcommittee members invested in companies that operate fossil fuel pipelines, Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) has the most money in play, owning as much as $1.25 million worth of stock in Berkshire Hathaway—which owns the BHE Pipeline Group and operates 16,400 miles of natural gas pipeline in the U.S., including one that operates in his home state—and as much as $250,000 worth of stock in Suncor Energy, whose pipeline group manages over 1,700 km of pipeline across the U.S. and Canada. Suncor refineries receive Canadian crude oil via Enbridge’s Line 5 Pipeline Project, which runs through Michigan, where the state’s Democratic Attorney General is attempting to shut it down.
On his website, subcommittee member Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) praisesthe LNG export facility in Sabine Pass, Texas, stating that it “will make America stronger and more secure.” The facility is currently expanding to accommodate a deal between Qatar and ExxonMobil, which is headquartered in Babin’s oil-rich state, to export liquified natural gas. Babin owns as much as $15,000 in Exxon Mobil stock. The Sabine Pass facility receives gas shipped through pipelines operated by two companies in which Babin owns as much as $15,000 worth of stock—Kinder Morgan and Energy Transfer Partners. Babin’s congressional district, TX-36, lies just outside of downtown Houston, where Kinder Morgan has its corporate headquarters, and Energy Transfer is based in Dallas.
In total, Babin owns as much as $155,000 worth of stock in companies that operate oil and gas pipelines.
Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen has as much as $515,000 invested in companies that own and operate pipelines. His largest investment in the industry is in stock of Berkshire Hathaway worth between $115,000 and $300,000. Cohen also owns up to $100,00 worth of stock in ExxonMobil, which operates a crude oil pipeline and several other pipelines in his state.
Rep. Greg Pence (R-Ind.), brother of Vice President Mike Pence, owns up to $250,000 worth of stock in Marathon Petroleum. Marathon Pipe Line operates several pipelines that cross the state of Indiana, including the Martinsville pipeline, which transports crude oil, and the Lima pipeline, which transports gasolines, distillates, and liquified petroleum gases.
The Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee is currently working on legislation to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, which governs PHMSA. The committee held its first hearing on the issue on April 2, and some lawmakers said that they would like to address issues that are causing delays in the regulatory rulemaking process, including the cost-benefit analysis requirement.
However, others on the committee, including Babin and Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), appeared to favor an approach that relies on industry self-regulation to do the job that PHMSA has shirked.
“Is there any reason to believe that the company itself—with the significant investment and the significant liability—doesn’t have a great stake in making sure that they play safely, that they maintain correctly, and that their whereabouts are known and documented?” Rep. Perry asked Andrew Black, CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, a trade group representing the owners and operators of liquid pipelines.
“I understand what you say to be the case,” Black responded. “I think you’re right.”
https://readsludge.com/2019/05/01/reps-overseeing-pipeline-safety-have-are-profiting-from-pipeline-companies/
-
Ewire: Democrats Say Infrastructure Bill to Go Beyond Transport
May 1, 2019 | Inside EPA
Let's spend a little more time with yesterday's White House meeting on infrastructure in which President Donald Trump and congressional Democrats reportedly agreed to work on a bill that would pump $2 trillion in federal investment toward projects.
According to a Washington Post report, Democrats claimed after the April 30 meeting that the spending would go beyond only transportation infrastructure such as roads and bridges, and could also include water, broadband and electric grid projects.
“Probably the largest chunk would go to roads, bridges, transit, but we're also going to do wastewater, harbors, [and] probably include airports,” said House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Chairman Peter DeFazio (D-OR). “There was consensus on the need for universal broadband and some discussion of a more efficient energy grid to transmit energy over longer distances. There was some discussion of renewable energy, but no specifics on those.”
DeFazio's statement is good news for a broad coalition of industry, state, water and environmental groups that had urged lawmakers earlier this year to ensure that any bill funds a range of water and wastewater projects along with the transportation infrastructure.
Democrats have also pushed to include climate change-related provisions in any infrastructure bill, including grid upgrades that could accommodate higher levels of renewables.
But one of the big questions looming over this issue is how policymakers will pay for the $2 trillion they say they have agreed to provide for new infrastructure.
Some Democrats have proposed enacting a carbon tax to raise revenue for new projects -- though many observers doubt Republicans would warm to this.
More likely, according to the Post, is an increase in the federal gasoline tax, which has remained at 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993. The story notes that major industry groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Trucking Associations support a gas tax increase.
Some experts have noted that the current gas tax-based formula to distribute federal highway funds is incompatible with efforts to deeply decarbonize the transportation sector -- because it ties funding to states' fossil fuel consumption and thus discourages officials from aggressively moving to limit carbon emissions.
Even a shift toward a formula based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) -- as DeFazio and others have proposed -- might still complicate climate goals because it would act as a disincentive for land-use changes intended to spur transit use and curb VMT.
Despite the apparent progress at a recent White House meeting, a separate Post story notes that the moment of bipartisanship “could evaporate quickly” and that Hill Republicans “cast a much more skeptical note,” particularly over how to pay for a massive infrastructure package.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said Democratic proposals for rolling back some of the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations in the 2017 GOP tax code overhaul are a “nonstarter.”
However, Democrats say the onus is on Republicans to come up with funding sources. “The ball is in their court,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). “We told [Trump] that, it was repeated over and over again, that unless he is willing to come up with the pay-fors for this large package, it will never get done, and he agreed.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-democrats-say-infrastructure-bill-go-beyond-transport
-
AAR Statement on STB Rate Reform Task Force Report
May 1, 2019 | American Journal of Transportation
AAR president and CEO Ian Jefferies issued the following statement regarding the recent report from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) Rate Reform Task Force, developed by staff as a set of recommendations for the Board members to consider:
“AAR and its member railroads are pleased that the STB’s Rate Reform Task Force has completed its report and has affirmed the economic soundness of the Board’s Stand Alone Cost (SAC) test. We continue to be committed to participation in a constructive conversation among freight railroads, shippers and the Board regarding possible improvements to the Board’s rate reasonableness procedures. “We are concerned, however, that the report lacks balance and objective support for many of its conclusions, mischaracterizes the law, and that many of the proposals in the report would move the Board backward towards discredited methods of heavy-handed rate regulation. As recently as 2015, Congress made clear that the STB’s role is to assist freight railroads in earning revenues adequate for the infrastructure and investment needed for present and future freight demand. The Task Force’s proposals recommending profit regulation through rate caps and forced access as a result of achieving revenue adequacy goes in the opposite direction, and would hobble the railroads’ ability to serve current and future demand for transportation. The AAR and its member railroads will carefully consider the proposals in the report and will offer constructive suggestions for how the Board can address its legitimate goals for improving its rate case processes and procedures, including procedures for the smallest rate disputes and improving the Stand Alone Cost test, while also complying with the law and preserving the core economic principles on which those analyses are based.”
https://www.ajot.com/news/aar-statement-on-stb-rate-reform-task-force-report
-
North Dakota, Washington State at Odds Over Oil Train Rules
May 1, 2019 | AP (In the Register Guard)
By Blake Nicholson
North Dakota officials are pressuring the state of Washington to back off from legislation requiring oil shipped by rail to have more of its volatile gases removed, urging the governor to veto the bill and promising a lawsuit if he doesn’t.
The bill awaiting Gov. Jay Inslee’s signature requires a lower vapor pressure limit for crude shipped by rail than either North Dakota requirements or industry standards. Violations could result in fines of up to $2,500 per day per rail car.
That “would result in a de facto ban of crude-by-rail traffic from North Dakota to refineries throughout the Pacific Northwest,” North Dakota’s three members of Congress said in a letter sent Friday imploring Inslee to veto the bill that North Dakota officials worry could hamper the energy industry of the nation’s No. 2 crude producer.
Inslee, who has made climate change a focus of his 2020 Democratic presidential campaign, indicated in a statement to The Associated Press on Tuesday that he’s likely to sign the bill.
“It’s pretty striking that the governor of the state of Washington is seeking to protect the people of North Dakota from oil spills, more than their members of Congress,” he said.
North Dakota’s Industrial Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry, discussed its options on Tuesday. The group comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner intends to sue if Washington’s bill becomes law because the commission believes it would violate interstate commerce law.
“The likelihood that this law if signed is unconstitutional is rather high,” Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said.
The volatility of oil trains drew widespread public attention following several explosive derailments, including one in 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec that killed 47 people. Washington’s bill is aimed at boosting safety for schools and homes that are near passing oil trains, according to Democratic Senate Majority Leader Andy Billig, the sponsor.
“These large shipments of extremely flammable fuel run through the heart of our state, starting with my community in Spokane,” he said in March after the Washington Senate gave initial approval .
The bill sets a vapor pressure limit of less than 9 pounds per square inch for oil unloaded from trains, lower than North Dakota’s limit of 13.7 psi and what is considered the national standard for stable crude of 14.7. North Dakota’s limit, implemented in 2015 , builds in 1 psi as a margin of error.
About 150,000 barrels of North Dakota crude, or about one-tenth of the daily production in the state, is shipped to Washington refineries. Lowering that oil to a vapor pressure below 9 psi would require the removal of components such as butane, which is needed as an additive for winter gasoline blends so vehicles start in cold weather. That would devalue the product, said Kari Cutting, vice president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, a trade group representing about 500 energy companies.
Council President Ron Ness said the Washington bill is “frankly scary” and the group “will be looking at all of our legal options.”
The Washington bill would require new refineries to adhere to the new vapor pressure standard. Existing facilities would have to follow the rule beginning two years after increasing their oil volume by more than 10 percent from 2018. Cutting said some of the refineries had “major maintenance downtime” in 2018 and that they could trigger the requirement simply by resuming their normal volumes.
North Dakota Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said West Coast markets offer the best price for North Dakota crude, and as pipeline capacity in the state continues to shrink, “there is a lot of potential growth in the crude-by-rail industry.”
The West Coast “is the prime growth market for North Dakota crude oil, and by capping it like this they’re without question harming the state,” he said.
North Dakota produces more oil than any other state but Texas, accounting for about 12 percent of U.S. production. The state saw record production in January of 1.4 million barrels daily.
If Bakken crude is cut off from the Pacific Northwest it ultimately will find other markets, though “there will be some time that it will be restrained,” Cutting said. But she said the pressure on Washington to backtrack on the oil train rule is important because “it can’t be allowed (for) one state to hamper commerce for other states.”
https://www.registerguard.com/news/20190501/north-dakota-washington-state-at-odds-over-oil-train-rules
-
BNSF Responds To Pacific Northwest Legislation Targeting Crude-By-Rail
May 1, 2019 | Freight Waves
By Joanna Marsh
As state legislatures react to the growing volumes of crude oil being transported by rail in the Pacific Northwest, their responses will continue to bump up against the freight railroads’ federally mandated obligation to move goods, including hazardous materials.
Washington state’s Senate Bill 5579, which seeks to establish a vapor pressure limit on crude oil shipments, could face scrutiny in the courts should the bill get signed into law, while Oregon has several pieces of legislation addressing crude-by-rail activities in the state.
Oregon House Bill 2209 requires railroads owning or operating routes for trains carrying highly hazardous materials to have oil spill contingency plans that have been approved by Oregon’s Department of Environmental Quality. The state will also collect fees on these plans and also on tank cars, and these fees will be collected for an oil spill safety fund.
Oregon Senate Bill 99 and House Bill 2858 direct Oregon’s Environmental Quality Commission to adopt rules that pertain to high-hazard trains and address oil spills and emergency response planning. Those rules could include additional insurance and fees.
Proponents of the Oregon bills say their passage would put Oregon’s laws governing crude-by-rail shipments on par with California and Washington state.
But BNSF (NYSE: BRK) says the rules would make it harder for the railroad to comply with the common carrier obligation, a federal mandate requiring a railroad to provide transportation to all parties and for all goods, including hazardous materials.
“We are currently working with state officials on possible implementation plans that meet both BNSF’s and Oregon’s common goals that are focused on safety and at the same time, that are not in conflict with our common carrier obligations,” BNSF spokesperson Courtney Wallace said.
“BNSF remains concerned about new tax and fee proposals that could disproportionately burden common carriers and, in doing so, shift transport of hazardous materials to less safe modes of transportation,” Wallace said.
The various pieces of legislation in Oregon are in response to an emergency order issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation on June 2016, in which rail carriers transporting 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil must provide volume information to state emergency response commissions so that local first responders can coordinate a response to a hazardous materials spill. (The Bakken Formation covers about 200,000 square miles of the subsurface of the Williston Basin, underlying parts of Montana and North Dakota and the Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Shale oil is being shipped from oil fields in those areas.)
Also in June 2016, a 96-car train carrying crude oil derailed in Mosier, Oregon, resulting in the evacuation of 100 residents and a fire that burned for 14 hours. The cause of the derailment was worn or damaged track infrastructure, according to a staff report by the Oregon legislature.
Wallace said BNSF has invested in new technologies deployed along certain routes that monitor potential problems that could cause premature equipment wear or failure, and it has a track inspection program that can identify defects or problems that can be undetected by the human eye.
The railroad industry as a whole has also ramped up its production of DOT-117 tank cars. The design of these tank cars make them harder to puncture. The cars comply with a 2015 rule regulating tank car standards and operational controls for high-hazard flammable trains.
These state bills responding to increasing crude-by-rail movements also come at the same time that another federal rule addressing crude-by-rail has taken effect.
Effective April 1, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration mandates that freight railroads share information about high-hazard flammable train operations with state response commissions to coordinate local preparedness plans.
HIgher volumes of crude-by-rail in the northern U.S. are a result of increased crude oil production in North Dakota. Because production is outpacing the installation of pipelines – and also because pipelines are facing regional and environmental hurdles – crude-by-rail has become a viable option for companies in North Dakota seeking to transport Bakken crude to points in the Pacific Northwest.
Estimated current rail volumes of crude oil exported from North Dakota are higher than the second half of 2017 but significantly lower than 2013 to 2015. The North Dakota Pipeline Authority estimates that crude-by-rail volumes were roughly 250,000 barrels per day in February 2019, compared with about 290,000 barrels per day around October 2018. In contrast, crude-by-rail volumes were between 700,000 and 800,000 barrels per day in the second half of 2013 through February 2015.
https://www.freightwaves.com/news/railroad/bnsf-responds-to-oregon-crude-by-rail-bills
-
Green New Deal's Centralized Government Approach Won't Ensure a Cleaner Environment
May 1, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) and Kay Coles James
There’s no way around it: big government proposals require big public scrutiny.
Americans are skeptical of government, which is why those promoting far-reaching climate legislation have worked hard to sweeten the Green New Deal (GND). GND proponents sell this huge takeover of the American economy and the American way of life not only as a supposed antidote to climate change, but as the ultimate provider of economic security, regardless of the cost.
As national leaders in the public policy arena, we both want economic security and justice for the American people, too. But we realize that socialist policies and paternalistic, big government programs will produce exactly the opposite result.
One of us learned this lesson from personal experience — having grown up poor in the projects in Richmond, Va., during segregation — one of six children in a single-parent household. The other learned it as a federal lawmaker and student of history, witnessing socialism’s champions enrich themselves, and live by a different set of standards while failing to deliver on their promises to improve lives.
That’s why we’re so troubled when people who purport to want economic security propose policies that would actually do irreparable harm to the very communities they claim they’re trying to help. The GND would be economically catastrophic for American families while also failing in its supposedly primary mission: to significantly reduce the earth’s temperature.
Under the Green New Deal, manufacturing and energy production in the United States would be outsourced to countries like China and India. Many nations lack the environmental safeguards long since implemented in the United States, and this outsourcing would result in a drastic increase in global emissions.
As far as economic justice, the Green New Deal would increase the injustice it purports to eliminate. Affordable, reliable, abundant energy (currently oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy) has provided the economic opportunity to lift people out of poverty and improve their lives, health, and comfort. It has allowed them to buy cars, drive to jobs, heat their homes in the winter, and cool their homes in the summer. Low-cost energy has also made food, clothing, and furniture all more affordable, as energy is used at every stage of planting, harvesting, manufacturing, and transporting goods to consumers.
The GND would make all those things – from the electricity to heat our homes to the food on our tables – more expensive by taking away some of the cheapest energy sources America has. Research suggests switching to 100 percent renewable energy sources would cause electricity bills to skyrocket for working families.
We’ve already seen how states and regions with the most extreme environmental laws also have the highest energy costs. In New England, for example, moratoriums on natural gas pipelines used to transport gas from Pennsylvania and Ohio have caused electricity price increases double that of similar regions. And New Yorkers face natural gas shortages because radical state policies won’t allow the state to explore and harvest the abundant resources beneath its own soil.
Higher energy costs disproportionately affect low-income families. The poorest Americans spend 22 percent of their household budgets on energy. And many already make huge sacrifices to pay for the energy they currently use. According to the 2011 National Energy Assistance Survey, a poll of low-income families, 24 percent went without food for a day and 37 percent decided to forgo medical and dental care so they could pay their energy bills. Many kept their homes at temperatures that were unsafe. As a result, 19 percent had a family member who became sick because the home was too cold.
Instead of dangerous proposals like the Green New Deal, we should encourage the advancement of technologies that promote innovation and lower costs. Congress should eliminate high tax and high regulatory barriers to innovation and incentivize competition. For example, reducing regulatory burdens that prevent gas pipeline construction would make low-cost natural gas that reduces carbon emissions more available around the country and would provide relief to hard-working families who deserve affordable and reliable energy.
Congress should also pass measures to drive innovation in all forms of energy, including oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, and nuclear, as well as renewables. The fracking revolution – both in oil and natural gas – for example, has created new economic opportunities across the country and produced cleaner energy in the process.
This is how we can ensure cheaper, more reliable, and cleaner energy for families. This is how we can help create new jobs in America. This is how we can reduce costs not only of energy, but of food and household goods, for everyone, especially lower-income families. And this is how we can ensure a cleaner environment: years of economic data have proven that economic freedom and a growing economy support a sustainable environment better than any centralized government control model that strips Americans of their freedom and their money. This is the true path to a healthier environment and a stronger economy.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/441526-green-new-deals-centralized-government-approach-wont
-
Pelosi Invokes Obama to Head Off Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal
May 1, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is trying to head off her party’s restive progressive caucus by invoking the legacy of President Barack Obama to build support for a climate change bill that falls well short of the ambitions of the Green New Deal championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Pelosi is planning a vote by the House this week on a bill that would prohibit President Donald Trump’s administration from going through with plans to pull out of the Paris climate agreement.
Liberal Democrats are leaving little doubt that the legislation won’t be enough.
“The idea that we can just reintroduce 2009 policies is not reflective of action that is necessary for now in the world of today,” said Ocasio-Cortez. The New York lawmaker said “there is no harm in passing” the Paris bill, but she still backs the bolder action called for in her Green New Deal, which conservatives have derided as a socialist manifesto.
Revisiting Obama’s accomplishments on climate change mirrors Pelosi’s strategy on other issues, including health care. She often suggests shoring up the Affordable Care Act rather than pursuing bolder policies like Medicare for All that some liberal presidential candidates have embraced but that might unnerve swing voters.
The House is expected to begin debate on the climate legislation, H.R. 9, Wednesday and could take a vote by the end of the week.
There is a legislative argument for House Democrats to start with these bills since Trump has been testing the constitutional limits of what he can do to reverse his predecessor’s signature achievements. He has taken executive action to reverse Obama administration policies and chip away at regulations.
There is also a political rationale for starting with issues that in some cases have become more popular with voters. Moderate Democrats, some of whom displaced Republican incumbents to help regain Democratic control of the House, are wary of being cast with progressive colleagues as they prepare to defend swing district seats in 2020.
“That administration put forward real solutions for the American families,” Rep. Katherine Clark of Massachusetts, vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, said of Obama’s tenure. “There is no sort of ‘moderate response’ here. It’s just that we are at the beginning of this process.”
The climate legislation by Florida Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor has 224 Democratic co-sponsors.
It would prohibit Trump from making good on his vow to pull out of the climate agreement, under which the U.S. promised to reduce carbon pollution by at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The legislation bars the Trump administration from using any funds to withdraw from the agreement and instead requires it to craft a plan to meet the greenhouse gas reductions under the accord.N
“We must make the Republican denial face the reality of what the Trump administration is doing to our natural environment and our constitutional environment -- and act with the boldest common denominator to repair the damage and build a better future,” Pelosi, a California representative, wrote in an Earth Day letter.
Yet that won’t do for progressives who are pushing for more aggressive action and are worried that the vote would be a substitute for meaningful legislation.
“Simply put, it’s the junior varsity bill,” said RL Miller, the chairman of the California Democratic Party’s environmental caucus and co-founder of the Climate Hawks Vote, a political action committee. “It’s nice but extremely insufficient.”
Focusing on the Paris accord allows Democrats to paint Republicans as opposing solutions to global warming and highlight what they say is a lack of leadership on the issue by Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax.
The White House has issued a veto threat for the bill, reiterating arguments Trump made when he announced he would pull the U.S. out of the agreement -- that staying in it would cost billions of dollars, put millions of jobs at risk, and make the U.S. less competitive.
Democrats say they plan additional action on climate change, but have yet to outline the next steps -- instead pointing to a special climate committee established by Pelosi to study the issue, a move that critics have dismissed as toothless.
“The Paris agreement is a substantial step in the right direction,” Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said of the bill up for a vote. “It is a beginning point. It is not a middle point, it’s not an end point.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pelosi-invokes-obama-to-head-off-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal
-
GAO to Study Warming's Impact on Pentagon Contractors
May 1, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Philip Athey
The Government Accountability Office has agreed to a request to investigate the effects of climate change on defense contractors and the defense supply chain.
In a letter last month, Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — both members of the Armed Services panel — asked GAO to look into what they called a "significant gap" in previous Department of Defense studies into the effects of climate change (E&E News PM, April 15).
DOD has long acknowledged the potential impact of climate change on the military, but the new GAO study will be the first comprehensive look at how that impact will affect the large network of contractors on which the military relies.
The senators asked GAO to brief their staff on the reports by Feb. 1, 2020, with the full report to be released at a later date. A spokesman said the review would begin in about three months.
In a press release sent out yesterday, the two senators said they were "pleased" GAO had accepted their request for an investigation.
They added that "the DOD and its contractors must take our rapidly changing climate into account as part of enhancing military readiness and ensuring the efficient use of taxpayer dollars."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/01/stories/1060252885
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested