Preview Newsletter

AM ACC Clips Report - May 10, 2019

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) NAFTA Update A Step Backward For US Investors
May 9, 2019 | Law 360
By Ian Laird and Melissa Morris

The current U.S. policy on international investment is, quite simply, moving backwards. U.S. investors are justly concerned that they will soon lose the robust international law protections and dispute resolution mechanisms that they have accessed for years.
(ACC Mentioned) Teamwork, Talks Needed on Trade Issues
May 10, 2019 | ECNS
By Li Yan

The Ministry of Commerce said on Thursday it hopes that the United States can resolve existing economic and trade issues with China through cooperation and consultation, to the benefit of all, instead of through tariffs.
(ACC Mentioned) Graduating from Plastics: Local Recycler Pushes to Do More
May 9, 2019 | Climate Online
By Bill Shilstone

The Bomb. Climate change. Bad governing. Men from Mars. Now plastics pollution has been added to the list of things that could destroy the world.
Bipartisan Senate Duo Eyes Legislation To Improve Rule Reviews, Input
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

The chairman and ranking member of a Senate governmental affairs committee panel are poised to introduce bills they say will make “surgical fixes” to the regulatory process by creating a test to ensure health and safety rules are effective via future retrospective reviews and providing more opportunity for early input on proposed measures.

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Data Concerns Fuel Controversy over TSCA PV29 Risk Evaluation
May 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin

US NGO the Environmental Defense Fund has pointed to recent data revelations as evidence that the public’s ability to trust TSCA risk evaluations "falls flat" without access to full and unredacted copies of health and safety information.

Chemical Management News

Use Care to Protect Trade Secrets, Chemical Makers Warned
May 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical makers that don’t protect sensitive business information in forms they submit to the EPA about proposed new compounds could soon find their trade secrets disclosed to the public, the agency’s top chemicals official said May 9.
EPA Seeks CHPAC's Help With Crafting Health Risk Communication Policy
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven and Maria Hegstad

EPA is asking its Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) to help with crafting a policy to ensure the agency communicates consistently about environmental and public health risks, prompting mixed reactions from committee members who say the Trump administration is still failing to take full advantage of the panel's expertise.
Amazon to Boost Quality Control After Selling Toxic Kid Products
May 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky

Amazon.com Inc. has agreed to tighten quality control standards on its marketplace following an investigation that determined dozens of children’s school supplies and jewelry sold on the site had illegal levels of toxic metals lead and cadmium.
Nessel Targets 3M as Documents Indicate Firm Knew of PFAS Harms for Decades
May 10, 2019 | The Detroit News
By Beth LeBlanc

State Attorney General Dana Nessel is targeting chemical companies believed responsible for the creation and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the "forever chemicals" threatening Michigan’s natural resources.
Committee OKs PFAS Funding, Revival of Science Agency
May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By George Cahlink

A water contaminant on military bases would be targeted and a congressional agency focused on nonpartisan technological analysis would be revived under a pair of House spending bills approved today.
Lawmakers Introduce Flurry of PFAS Bills
May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Courtney Columbus

More lawmakers have added to the flurry of bills that aim to address nonstick chemicals that have contaminated drinking water.
N.M. Demands Closure of Air Force Lake over Contamination
May 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E News PM)
By Susan Montoya Bryan

New Mexico's top prosecutor is demanding that the Air Force close a publicly accessible lake at Holloman Air Force Base, saying today that the concentration of hazardous chemicals at the site poses a risk to public health and the environment.

Energy News

Beijing Mulls Response to Us Tariff Hikes on Chinese Goods Imports
May 10, 2019 | Platts
By Eric Yep, Maya Weber and Daisy XU

China has reiterated its intention to respond to the US tariff hike on imports of $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25% that kicked in on Friday but the lack of details about Beijing's next moves has left market participants hanging.
Facing Democratic Resistance, Interior Secretary Promotes Oil and Gas Drilling
May 10, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin

The Trump administration will calculate the climate effects of its oil, gas and coal leasing decisions, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in an interview Wednesday, but will not make those impacts the key factor in its final decisions.
5 Takeaways from Perry's Hill Appearance
May 10, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Jeremy Dillon

Energy Secretary Rick Perry appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday to defend the Department of Energy's fiscal 2020 budget request.
Revived Proposal for New Oil, Gas Drilling in California
May 9, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Brian Melley

The U.S. government moved Thursday toward allowing new oil and gas drilling on wide swaths of federal land in California that has been off-limits since environmentalists sued in 2013.
BLM Proposes Oil and Gas Development Across Central Calif.
May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Scott Streater

The Bureau of Land Management is advancing a proposal to authorize oil and natural gas leasing and development on federal lands across central California.
EIP Seeks Stricter SO2 Air Permits, Monitoring for Texas Drilling
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) is calling on EPA and Texas to impose stricter air permit and monitoring requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from oil and gas drilling in the sparsely populated west of the state, arguing in a new report that SO2 from drilling in the region often exceeds federal standards for the pollutant.
Court Rejects Key Pipeline GHG Suit But NEPA Policy Remains Vulnerable
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

A federal court has dismissed on standing grounds a challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) climate review of a New York natural gas pipeline approval, effectively upholding for the first time FERC’s narrow review policy though sources say the approach remains vulnerable in a pending case over a Tennessee pipeline.
Lotte Chemical's U.S. Ethane Cracker to Start Commercial Operations in May
May 10, 2019 | Reuters
By Jane Chung

Lotte Chemical Corp said on Friday that its U.S. ethane cracker in Louisiana is expected to commence commercial operations within May.
DOE 'Will Not' Deny Any LNG Export Applications, Perry Says
May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff

Energy Secretary Rick Perry told a congressional panel today that the Department of Energy would not deny LNG terminal applications while he is in office.
Occidental Wins Battle for Anadarko as Chevron Exits Bidding
May 9, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal
By Bradley Olson and Christopher M. Matthews

Occidental Petroleum Corp. OXY -6.44% struck a $38 billion agreement to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. APC -3.26% after Chevron Corp. CVX 3.14% bowed out of the bidding, ending one of the most high-stakes energy-deal dramas in years.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

'The Insanity Must Stop'
May 8, 2019 | Jacksonville Business Journal
By Will Robinson

Rail customers across the country are asking federal regulators to take action after a surge in fees stemming from an industrywide policy change spearheaded by Jacksonville-based CSX Corp.

Environment News

House Panel Eyes Hearing To Launch Debate On EPA’s Post-Trump Future
May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves and David LaRoss

A House subcommittee is planning a June 11 hearing to get input from former EPA administrators -- two Republicans and two Democrats -- on how to reform the agency following President Donald Trump’s policy rollbacks and budget cuts, launching Congress’ debate on burgeoning questions about the future of environmental protection.
Wheeler: Trump Admin Might 'Re-Examine' Climate Science
May 10, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler used an overseas gathering of environment ministers this week to hint that the United States might overhaul the way it uses climate data and modeling.
House Panel Advances Spending Bill with Commitment to Paris Climate Agreement
May 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a spending bill that would allow the U.S. to resume contributions to a global fund that helps emerging countries deal with climate change.
GOP Support for Green New Deal Plummets — Poll
May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk

Republican support for the Green New Deal has plummeted over the past few months amid increased attention from the media and a GOP messaging barrage on Capitol Hill, according to a new poll.
Carbon-From-Air Success Rides on Federal Support: Report
May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith

The U.S. will need to suck carbon out of the air in large quantities to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, and the technology will need significant, targeted federal support to meet the challenge, a new report says.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) NAFTA Update A Step Backward For US Investors

May 9, 2019 | Law 360

By Ian Laird and Melissa Morris

The current U.S. policy on international investment is, quite simply, moving backwards. U.S. investors are justly concerned that they will soon lose the robust international law protections and dispute resolution mechanisms that they have accessed for years. The investment chapter of the recently signed, but not yet ratified, U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement[1] is at the forefront of this trend.
Will the retrenchment in investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS, continue to be the general policy of the Trump administration, and result in the watering down of all such protections and dispute resolution alternatives in future trade agreements? What are the wider business implications of this change? Should this trend be stopped now before it spreads further?
In summary, under the USMCA:
The new investment chapter represents a 180-degree change in policy direction. The approach taken in the USMCA represents a retreat to the world before the U.S.’ first bilateral investment treaty, or BIT, was signed with Panama in 1982.
U.S. investors in Canada will have no ability to make direct claims against Canada for failure to follow basic and fundamental obligations to treat investors fairly and in a nondiscriminatory manner, or for compensation in cases of direct or indirect expropriation.
The vast majority of U.S. investors in Mexico will see access to dispute resolution procedures limited as well, requiring that they first go to a local court. Once there, their protections will be limited.
A few sectors have been promised better treatment. The oil and gas (but not mining), power generation, telecommunications and transportation service industries will not have to go to a Mexican court first, and will have access to the same traditional protections and standards of treatment that were given in the North American Free Trade Agreement.[1] But the new USMCA investment chapter may ultimately provide little help to the investors in those sectors, because of its limited scope of application to defined “covered government contracts” and other limiting factors.
In contrast, when NAFTA came into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, the investment chapter at the time was considered the gold standard in international investment protection. NAFTA provides international dispute resolution through arbitration for U.S. investors in Mexico and Canada. Investors are protected against expropriation without compensation, discrimination and arbitrary treatment — basic international protections every U.S. investor should expect from a host government when investing abroad.
NAFTA was consistent with U.S. model BIT practice. Today, the U.S. has negotiated over 40 such BITs and free trade agreements, with strong investment chapters. Almost every country in the world has signed such treaties, with over 3,000 similar treaties in existence.[2]
U.S. investors are also the largest beneficiaries of this international investment treaty system, having been claimants in over 225 disputes against foreign governments for breaches of international law protections.[3] The next largest claimant group is investors in the United Kingdom, with 112 such claims. Canadian investors have been claimants in 54 cases. It is notable that the U.S. government has been respondent in 30 such cases, and has never lost once. Any arguments that such policies have worked against U.S. interests are simply unsustainable on their face.
But what is the basis for this dramatic shift in U.S. policy direction? U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer has justified it on the basis of purposefully discouraging U.S. investment abroad, on the premise that the change will purportedly encourage companies instead to return and invest in the U.S. Lighthizer’s political motivation may have been to ensure, at the end of the day, stronger bipartisan support in Congress for ratifying the agreement . But we think the systemic costs of narrowing ISDS protections so drastically are greater than the short-term benefits of attracting a few votes of support.
We would argue that Lighthizer’s justification for curtailing ISDS protections ignores key U.S. business realities. The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, has expressed fundamental concerns about the investment provisions in the USMCA, even though the group supports the agreement’s ultimate passage in its current form.[4] Ed Brzytwa, the council’s director for international trade, noted in a Dec. 4, 2018, blog post that while “USMCA is poised to support chemical manufacturing growth in many ways,” it is also true that U.S. chemical manufacturers have traditionally relied strongly on ISDS in their investment decisions:
U.S. chemical manufacturers do not invest in foreign markets simply to ship products back to the U.S. They are in overseas markets because they need to be close to their customers and to take advantage of having proximity to locally-produced feedstocks. Moreover, opening foreign markets creates demand for exports of innovative products from the U.S.
For a highly-regulated sector such as chemicals, it is safer and more efficient to build and invest in manufacturing facilities locally, as a way to minimize shipping and to protect people and the environment.
It appears that Lighthizer understands well that ISDS provides the benefit of legal certainty through protections and dispute resolution to U.S. investors who invest in Canada and Mexico, and thus encourages such foreign investment. This is something that U.S. investors agree is a positive factor.
However, in the current political climate, encouraging and protecting foreign investment through meaningful remedies such as ISDS is viewed as a negative. By effectively eliminating NAFTA chapter 11, the logic is that there would be no protections or remedies for U.S. investors, thus taking away what Lighthizer perceives as an added policy incentive to invest in Canada and Mexico. Adopting an “America First” attitude toward investment, Lighthizer argues that without the recourse to ISDS provided to companies overseas, firms would be more inclined to invest in the U.S.
The problem is that, as in the case of the chemical industry, companies need to be near their foreign suppliers and markets. Many U.S. investors are not investing abroad to move jobs from the U.S., but the nature of their industries are such that they can only do their business abroad.
Some obvious categories are mining and natural resources, construction and infrastructure (which includes transportation, energy, public works and tourism). The latest set of statistics from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID arbitration makes up about 70% of the total number of ISDS cases) indicates that these sectors make up over 60% of the ISDS caseload in 2018.[5] Manufacturing is only a small percentage of the investments under dispute. Again, Lighthizer’s rationale is simply inconsistent with the facts.
Under the USMCA, the United States’ investment policy is moving from the gold standard to no standard. U.S. investors in Canada and Mexico are rightly concerned. U.S. investors in other overseas markets should also be concerned. Their investment protections might be in the crosshairs next.
Implications of Weakened Investment Protections for U.S. Business Abroad
At the very least, the narrowed set of options for investment protections in the USMCA causes greater global uncertainty for U.S. investors. On top of the existing uncertainties caused by Trump’s trade policies, including the use of national security tariffs under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 on steel and aluminum, the weaking of protections for U.S. investment abroad raises broad questions:
What alternative approaches to agreement-specific ISDS will be available to U.S. investors? Some may be able to take advantage of networks of existing BITs, depending on how their investments are structured and legal rights are conferred, but this may not always be the case.
As the U.S. pursues the weakened approach to investment protection policy in new free trade agreements (and revises existing FTAs accordingly), how do U.S. companies assess their vulnerabilities? Do they simply accept greater risks and hope for the best? What are their optimal mitigation strategies?
The hoped-for result that U.S. investors will simply repatriate operations back to the U.S. in the face of these increased uncertainties is unrealistic. It does not reflect the realities of how U.S. companies do business today, or how they structure their global operations, whether they are manufacturers or global services providers.
A maxim of U.S. economic and trade policy in the past was, “Where U.S. investments go, exports will follow.” U.S. foreign direct investment abroad was seen as another way to project U.S. economic influence abroad, and to open foreign markets to U.S. goods, services and business practices. It is in the U.S. interest for markets around the world to welcome U.S. investments, along with our brands and innovations.
Retrenching from protecting U.S. investors’ interests abroad could well lead to ceding a larger share of foreign markets to competitors such as China. Already, U.S. companies are reporting vigorous competition from Chinese firms in markets where they had strong presences only a few years ago. This trend will undoubtedly continue.
Moreover, the limited ISDS provisions negotiated in the USMCA may raise serious questions about the political support that may be forthcoming from congressional Republicans for the completed trade pact once the agreement proceeds to Congress for ratification, perhaps as soon as this summer under the White House’s preferred timetable.
In March 2018, when the USMCA was still under negotiation, 103 Republican lawmakers warned U.S. negotiators that eliminating or weakening NAFTA’s original ISDS provisions could endanger eventual Republican support for the agreement. Ranking Ways and Means member Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, continues to raise concerns about the limitations on ISDS as he assesses USMCA outcomes.
The U.S. business community is also wary of the precedent established by the ISDS provisions in the USMCA for future U.S. investment interests. They view maintaining strong investment protections equivalent to those the U.S. has favored in the past as essential to safeguarding U.S. investors’ rights during the preestablishment phase, providing a consistent and predictable minimum standard of treatment, and for protecting against instances of indirect expropriation.
They know that such strong standards of investor protection, once eroded, will be hard to win back. U.S. investors are prepared to fight vigorously to maintain such standards in existing agreements, and to make the case that these standards are essential to supporting U.S. exports and the ability of U.S. companies to sell to and support their customers, both at home and abroad.
U.S. investors need the strong support of U.S. economic, trade and foreign policy behind them. The drastic change in U.S. policy on ISDS in the agreement represents a misstep whose broader business and commercial implications need to be carefully considered.
https://www.law360.com/articles/1157475/nafta-update-a-step-backward-for-us-investors

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Teamwork, Talks Needed on Trade Issues

May 10, 2019 | ECNS

By Li Yan

The Ministry of Commerce said on Thursday it hopes that the United States can resolve existing economic and trade issues with China through cooperation and consultation, to the benefit of all, instead of through tariffs.
Noting that no one wins in a trade war, ministry spokesman Gao Feng said China hopes the US will address trade issues through dialogue rather than unilateral measures. The peaceful resolution of the trade tensions meets the expectations of the entire world, Gao told reporters.
China has always kept its promises, Gao said. "Negotiation is a process of exchanging opinions, solving problems and reaching consensus. It is normal for both sides to have different views."
Also on Thursday, Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said China hopes the two countries can meet halfway and achieve a mutually beneficial trade agreement on the basis of respecting each other.
The remarks came as Vice-Premier Liu He headed to Washington to attend the 11th round of economic and trade consultations.
Liu's visit to the US, following Washington's announcement of new tariff plans, shows China's "responsible attitude toward and sincerity in advancing consultations", Gao said.
The planned US tariff increase on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports from 10 percent to 25 percent starting on Friday was filed by the Office of the US Trade Representative, and the filing appeared on Wednesday in the Federal Register.
The Ministry of Commerce announced late on Wednesday that China will have to take necessary countermeasures if the US tariff increase takes effect.
Beijing opposes unilaterally imposed tariffs, and will be fully prepared to defend its interests in resolving trade disputes, Gao said. "China will not succumb to any pressure," he said.
US business communities described the planned US tariffs targeting China as the worst outcome and urged the government to avoid escalating tensions and wrap up negotiations with China.
In what could easily be described as the worst outcome for US soybean growers, the Trump administration confirmed what the industry has feared for months, the American Soybean Association said in a statement.
Davie Stephens, president of the American Soybean Association, said, "We need a positive resolution of this ongoing tariff dispute, not the further escalation of tensions."
" … Our patience is wearing thin as prices remain low and the tariff dispute drags on. The financial and emotional toll on US soybean farmers cannot be ignored," Stephens said.
Cal Dooley, president and CEO of American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that "the risks of continuing to use tariffs as a negotiating tactic with China are simply too high, and any potential benefits are still unclear."
In another development, the Ministry of Commerce announced on Thursday that China will continue reviewing the anti-dumping measures against a special category of steel pipes imported from the US and the European Union. During the scheduled one-year review period starting on Friday, the anti-dumping duty for certain US steel products will remain at 14.1 percent, while that for EU products will be 13 to 13.2 percent.
http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-05-10/detail-ifzicwaz7649456.shtml

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Graduating from Plastics: Local Recycler Pushes to Do More

May 9, 2019 | Climate Online

By Bill Shilstone

The Bomb. Climate change. Bad governing. Men from Mars. Now plastics pollution has been added to the list of things that could destroy the world.
The realities of Earth drowning in discarded plastic are well documented. China has stopped buying garbage from the United States. The price of recycling is going up, driving many of the nation’s cities to throw it away instead. People are not very good at recycling in the first place and are not willing to give up the conveniences of plastics. The ocean is becoming plastic slush, the main culprits being Third World countries with little or no recycling infrastructure.
Is there anything a trash collecting and recycling center on Shoreway Road in San Carlos can do about it?
Maybe. There are signs that Earth Day 2019 will mark a turning away, at least in California, from the classic – and fateful – “one word” bit of career advice to young Benjamin Braddock in the 1967 movie “The Graduate”: “Plastics.”
The Shoreway Environmental Center is part of the three-state Recology corporation, recognized as one of the most sophisticated and successful recyclers in the U.S. It diverts 80 percent of its collected waste, far more than the national average. Recology San Mateo County has increased its commercial recycling diversion by 39.5 percent since it was established in 2011, according to Shoreway General Manager Mike Kelly. A drop in the worldwide bucket, maybe, but also maybe valuable as an example of how to do it.
Sophisticated sorting-and-baling machinery is one weapon of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority, a 12-member joint powers agency that operates the Shoreway system, which includes the Material Recycling Facility. The buildings and equipment cost $50 million. “The equipment is state-of-the-art and becoming more so,” Kelly said. “The SBWMA is considering equipment upgrades to improve material handling and sorting.”
Perhaps as important as diversion tonnage are Recology’s education programs, waste audits for businesses and efforts to promote policy reforms by governments and plastics manufacturers. Eric Potashner, the corporation’s vice president and senior director of strategic affairs, said that while he admires Dutch inventor Boyan Slat’s quest to scoop up and recycle the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, “We’re looking upstream” (to keep plastics out of the stream in the first place). The company’s Waste Zero motto “is not about sorting, it’s about changing day-to-day behavior,” he said.
“Businesses and individuals are getting better at it,” Potashner said. Recology helps with its education programs and a new “how-to” website, Better At The Bin.
Recology also is trying to influence government and plastics industry policies. Chief Executive Michael Sangiacomo has pledged $1 million toward a California ballot measure modeled after the European Union laws that require recycled content in all plastic bottles and ban certain single-use plastic products.
Before starting the campaign, Potashner said, “We’ll see what happens with Assembly Bill 1080. The voting public is ready for this movement away from plastics.” Introduced last month, AB 1080 would require that single-use plastic packaging and products be reduced, recycled or composted by 75 percent by 2030.
“We have to stop treating our oceans and planet like a dumpster,” said Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, who is author of the bill. “Any fifth-grader can tell you that our addiction to single-use plastics is killing our ecosystems.”
California already is a leader in fighting plastics pollution, being the first state with plastic straw and single-use plastic bag restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed a law reducing the use of non-recyclable takeout food containers.
In San Mateo County, all cities have ordinances that prohibit free distribution of single-use paper and plastic bags and require a 25-cent charge for a recycled bag.
Recology’s approach with the plastics industry includes Sangiacomo’s offer to meet with the CEO of the American Chemistry Council, which represents plastics manufacturers, to offer a partnership on waste control strategies. The meeting was scheduled for last week. The council has a goal of 100 percent recovery, reuse or recycling of plastic packaging by 2040.
Assemblywoman Gonzalez’s fifth-grader is proving to be an effective secret weapon in shooting for that goal, Recology Public Affairs Manager Robert Reed said. “A lot of our outreach is to students,” he said. “They are doing a good job of showing parents how to do it.”
There still are obstacles to Waste Zero, but they are manageable so far, Potashner said. Although China, which just 14 months ago took 50 percent of the world’s trash and turned it into manufactured products, now takes nothing, there are markets in the U.S. and Southeast Asia, he said.
But “recycled paper used to bring $100 a ton; now it’s $30.” Another complication is a new requirement by manufacturers that bales of recycled plastics contain less than one percent impurities. Economics like these have added recycling costs that have led cities in some parts of the country to give up and throw everything in the dump, Potashner said, “but in California it’s mandatory to recycle.”
A reduction in recycling markets could eventually drive up rates, Kelly said. “As the prices for recycled material decreases, rates may increase to the customer.” In Redwood City, residents pay $12.87 per 20-gallon can per month on their utility bills, according to the city website.
Other recycling barriers include less-than-perfect household strategies. “In California we do a pretty good job of recycling,” Potashner said. “But we still find some things in bins that don’t belong. Plastic bags are not recyclable with food in them. We’re getting too much organics in the blue (recycle) bins.”
Flimsy plastics such as newspaper, produce and bread bags, and plastic air pillows also require special treatment. They are almost impossible to recycle and they gum up the million-dollar machines that do the sorting. “The best way to handle this material is to place all plastic film together and take it to your local grocery store’s drop-off receptacle, or bring it to the Shoreway Environmental Center for recycling,” Kelly said.
Other tips are can be found at the Better At The Bin website, which was inaugurated in October. “We’ve had 50,000 visits, with an average stay of four minutes,” Reed said. The encompassing message of the site, he said, is that “people can make a difference by voting with their dollars, buying products with little or no packaging with junk plastic.”
Reed’s community relations counterpart at Shoreway, Gino Gasparini, harks back to that famous word of advice in “The Graduate.” “All wrong.”
https://climaterwc.com/2019/05/09/graduating-from-plastics-local-recycler-pushes-to-do-more/

Return to headline | Return to top
Bipartisan Senate Duo Eyes Legislation To Improve Rule Reviews, Input

May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

The chairman and ranking member of a Senate governmental affairs committee panel are poised to introduce bills they say will make “surgical fixes” to the regulatory process by creating a test to ensure health and safety rules are effective via future retrospective reviews and providing more opportunity for early input on proposed measures.
Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), the chair and ranking Democrat on the committee’s regulatory affairs subcommittee, are slated May 13 to introduce the legislation that specifically aims to improve environmental, health and safety rules issued by agencies such as EPA and OSHA.
Witnesses at a May 7 panel hearing gave bipartisan support for the legislative plan but prospects for the bills’ success are unclear in the House, even though they make targeted attempts to change the rulemaking process rather than a more sweeping overhaul.
The first bill is the Early Participation in Rulemaking Act, which would direct agencies to issue advance notices of proposed rulemaking (ANPRs) for rules costing more than $100 million per year. EPA and other agencies would have to ensure the ANPRs outline the problem they aim to solve, and solicit public input.
The second bill, the Setting Manageable Analysis Requirements in Text Act, would order agencies to set metrics for how a future rule will be measured for success and requires such a retrospective review within 10 years.
At the May 7 hearing, the plan received measured praise from two former chiefs of the White House Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA): Susan Dudley, OIRA chief from 2007 to 2009 for the George W. Bush administration, and Sally Katzen, who led OIRA from 1993-1998 under President Bill Clinton.
While Dudley offered general support for the plan, Katzen raised some doubts, saying that the regulatory process can always be improved but that she has been “skeptical” of attempts over the last decade to rewrite the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs the rulemaking process.
She said many prior attempts to change the process have been highly partisan and would turn “regulatory roadmaps” into “an obstacle course.”
However, she noted that the two senators are “looking for surgical fixes to address discrete problems.”
Lankford introduced legislation similar to the Early Participation in Rulemaking Act in the prior Congress with then-ranking member Sen. Heidy Heitkamp (D-ND), who lost her reelection bid last year. The bill was voted out of committee in May 2017 but never received a floor vote.
‘Modest’ Changes
At the Senate hearing, Dudley testified that the two bills offer “relatively modest, yet potentially powerful, changes to current rulemaking practices. If enacted, they could make regulatory decisions more transparent and accountable, leading to improve regulatory outcomes."
She added that the bills’ limit to “major rules” recognize that regulations “likely to significantly affect consumer prices, competition, productivity, innovation, the environment, public health or safety deserve greater public engagement and ex post evaluation.”
But Katzen was more cautious and laid out in her testimony a series of steps that any requirement for agencies to issue ANPR or conduct retrospective reviews should follow in order for her to be supportive. Otherwise, “it may just add an unproductive, but time consuming, step to the already extended process.”
She said any ANPR requirement should be limited to major rules, that the provisions do not impose multiple explanatory requirements on agencies and that they do not “lock the agency into a particular mind-set before the process even begins. The more the agency has to incorporate in an [ANPR], the more the agency will be invested in a particular outcome,” which is the opposite of an ANPR’s purpose.
On retrospective review, Katzen testified that such a requirement would be “salutary” but that it is important to provide flexibility for how a review is implemented. This could include requiring a final rule to have a framework identifying data and metrics it would use to measure success.
“But this should not be cast in concrete. We learn a lot with time.” She added that while periodic review can be useful, “there will likely be some (or many) situations where repeated retrospective reviews will yield greatly diminishing returns” and it “would be wasteful to continue.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/bipartisan-senate-duo-eyes-legislation-improve-rule-reviews-input

Return to headline | Return to top

TSCA News

(ACC Mentioned) Data Concerns Fuel Controversy over TSCA PV29 Risk Evaluation

May 10, 2019 | Chemical Watch

By Kelly Franklin

US NGO the Environmental Defense Fund has pointed to recent data revelations as evidence that the public’s ability to trust TSCA risk evaluations "falls flat" without access to full and unredacted copies of health and safety information.
The claim comes amid the ongoing policy battle around pigment violet 29 – one of the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation under the amended TSCA.
PV29 is relatively data-poor and, as a result, the EPA had to largely rely on voluntarily submitted data, including information in the REACH registration dossier for the substance held by Echa.
However, the way this has been handled has raised NGO concerns on how the EPA collects and determines the confidentiality of information underpinning its assessments.
And information recently released through a public records request has only added to their fears that important determinations are being made behind closed doors.Dossier changes
One claim made by the EDF relates to apparent changes of information in the public version of the REACH registration dossier for PV29.
In a 2 May blog post, the NGO’s Richard Denison claimed that summaries of two studies in the public version of the REACH dossier included significantly higher water solubility figures than the 0.01 mg/L value that the EPA used in its draft evaluation.
But viewing those summaries again on Echa’s website this month, Dr Denison’s suspicions were raised when he noticed the higher water solubility values were no longer present.
And the apparent deletions, he said, demonstrate why it is "wholly unacceptable to expect the public to rely on summaries prepared by the companies making a chemical under review, or to trust EPA’s assertion that the summaries accurately reflect the underlying studies".‘Updated continually’
In a response to Dr Denison’s blog post, Christel Musset, Echa’s director of hazard assessment, said dossiers "are updated continually for many reasons".
"Although information should not be deleted, it is, however, possible that certain outcomes of risk assessment could be changed due to new information (for example, new experimental data obtained through testing) at the disposal of the registrants."
And the American Chemistry Council told Chemical Watch: "Simply because modifications are made to submissions under REACH does not mean anything untoward has occurred; that the modifications are material; or that the modifications alter the ultimate conclusion of the evaluation that PV29 does not present an unreasonable risk."
'Simply because modifications are made to submissions under REACH, does not mean anything untoward has occurred,' the ACC
The forthcoming peer review process for PV29, it added, provides "an appropriate check on the agency’s work".
BASF – the PV29 data owner – told Chemical Watch it will "work through EPA’s public comment process to address the questions raised" on the dossier modifications.Section 4 testing authorities
Meanwhile, NGOs have also taken issue with the EPA’s reliance on voluntary data submission, which they say allows industry to ‘cherry pick’ information. They have pressed the agency instead to use its expanded authority under section 4 of the reformed TSCA to mandate testing.
Bob Sussman, counsel for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said mandatory testing is the best pathway for addressing the "woefully inadequate" data that exists on the thousands of chemicals in commerce. "EPA is shirking its responsibility" under the reformed law by failing to use its newly expanded testing authorities, he added in a March blog post.
'EPA is shirking its responsibility under the reformed law, by failing to use its newly expanded testing authorities,' Bob Sussman, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
The EPA confirmed to Chemical Watch that it has not yet used its section 4 authorities, since the law was reformed in 2016. But an agency spokesperson said one reason for this is that the agency had "all necessary data to conduct the [first ten] risk evaluations".
"If the agency identifies data needs during the prioritisation or risk evaluation process, we will use the various tools at our disposal to obtain the needed information," said the spokesperson. This includes calls for voluntary submission of data.
PV29 is an example, the spokesperson added, where the agency "successfully worked with the manufacturers and data owners to gather the data to inform" the evaluation.
But Dr Denison told Chemical Watch that mandatory tests would better ensure the accuracy of collected data.
As an example of this, he pointed to emails released under an NGO Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request between the EPA and Sun Chemical Corporation – a domestic manufacturer of PV29 – regarding the substance’s release to water.
In a 2017 September correspondence, the company estimated this at 0.6lbs/day. But according to the email exchange, there was further discussion with EPA staff over the course of several months and in December 2017, Sun Chemical submitted modified calculations which put the figure at 0.77lbs/day.
Nevertheless, the PV29 draft evaluation, published nearly a year later, continues to include the 0.6lbs/day figure.
Dr Denison said this illustrates an example where the EPA developed a risk assessment based on voluntarily submitted data, "without any ability to corroborate the information, let alone independently verify it."
The EPA should have issued an order for workplace and environmental release monitoring with specified protocols, he said, to ensure the accuracy of the data.
Sun Chemical did not respond to a request for comment by press time.‘Road to disaster’
In response to the ongoing disagreement over PV29, the ACC told Chemical Watch that the EPA is "well aware of the information it has [and] needs, and how to obtain information not readily available."
"We believe EPA will use the tools available to it under TSCA when it believes it is warranted."
The trade group also dismissed as unrealistic the concern that companies would ‘cherry pick’ data to avoid submitting information that casts a substance in an unfavourable light. It pointed out that TSCA section 8(e) already requires industry to report to the agency when it identifies evidence of significant risk.
Meanwhile, a toxicological expert, who peer reviews articles for public journals but who asked not to be identified, told Chemical Watch that NGOs’ distrust of industry study summaries are "not valid".
"The majority of studies may be funded by industry, but are performed by highly reputable, totally independent research labs," he said. Individual data statistical analysis methods are fully described before a study starts, which means that a testing lab cannot arbitrarily change how data is interpreted later on.
The data redactions in the BASF PV29 studies, for example, are the type of information that would never appear in a peer-reviewed journal article, he added.
Criticism over a study’s methodology can be valid, he said. "But [NGOs] asking for data, to then try out unvalidated and sometimes dubious quality data analysis methods, trawling for random numerical differences they can leap on to make unsubstantiated claims of toxic effects, would be a never-ending road to disaster."PV29 controversy
The US EPA released a draft TSCA risk evaluation for PV29 last November, in which it proposes to conclude the substance does not pose an unreasonable risk.
But environmental advocates disputed that much of the data underlying the assessment was withheld as confidential, and filed a Freedom of Information Act (Foia) request to compel its release.
In March, the EPA published 15 studies and redacted versions of nine others, after the data owner (BASF Colors & Effects GmbH) agreed to waive some of its confidentiality claims and provided substantiation for the remainder.
In an 18 April letter to the petitioning organisations, the EPA said this release constituted its final determination with respect to the Foia request for full access to all 24 studies.
But the petitioning NGOs have continued to protest that publishing redacted studies or summaries means it "remains impossible to evaluate whether these studies’ reported findings accurately reflect their results."
And in a 19 April letter they told the agency its approach to PV29 "has troubling implications for the transparency of future TSCA risk evaluations".
They have urged the EPA to reconsider its "unlawful withholding of health and safety data". Failure to do so "will compromise the transparency that is vital to the credibility of EPA’s risk evaluations for this substance and others that will be assessed."
https://chemicalwatch.com/77332/data-concerns-fuel-controversy-over-tsca-pv29-risk-evaluation

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

Use Care to Protect Trade Secrets, Chemical Makers Warned

May 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

Chemical makers that don’t protect sensitive business information in forms they submit to the EPA about proposed new compounds could soon find their trade secrets disclosed to the public, the agency’s top chemicals official said May 9.
Frequently, companies submitting forms to the Environmental Protection Agency about new chemicals they want to make will forget to redact all confidential business information, Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, told an agency advisory committee.
In the past, it wasn’t a problem when the EPA didn’t promptly post new chemical information online, she said.
A week or two after submitting the form for new chemicals—called a premanufacture notice or PMN—the company could realize its mistake, contact the agency, and take the action it needed to protect its trade secrets from public release, Dunn said.
More Information, Faster
But the EPA is working to make more information available about new chemicals than it has in the past and do so far more quickly, Dunn said.
Trade secrets can include specific chemical identities that could provide competitors a blueprint to duplicate, manufacturing details, and applications in the marketplace.
If a company failed to redact all information it claimed needed trade secret protection, that information may be posted on the web, Dunn said, adding that the agency will be alerting manufacturers about this possibility.
Dunn described scenarios that may arise if the EPA meets a commitment it made to Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.).
The agency promised that “stating no later than May 31” it would post online “all new PMNs, their attachments, including any health and safety studies, any modifications thereto, and all other associated information.”
The information will be posted within 45 days of the agency receiving it, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told Carper.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/oversharing-data-with-epa-may-cost-chemical-makers-trade-secrets

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Seeks CHPAC's Help With Crafting Health Risk Communication Policy

May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Lara Beaven and Maria Hegstad

EPA is asking its Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) to help with crafting a policy to ensure the agency communicates consistently about environmental and public health risks, prompting mixed reactions from committee members who say the Trump administration is still failing to take full advantage of the panel's expertise.
The agency wants “to learn from you to get this right,” Corry Schiermeyer, associate administrator for the Office of Public Affairs (OPA), told CHPAC May 9, referencing draft charge questions given to the committee. She said CHPAC's input is warranted since children in lower-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by environmental risks.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has named risk communication as his top priority, and has formed a work group within the agency to develop a policy that would institutionalize risk communication across the agency, Andrea Drinkard, a senior advisor in OPA, said. The work group has representatives from all the agency's program and regional offices, she said.
An initial survey of agency employees found they agree on the need for consistent risk communication and even the principles that should be involved in the communication, but “we tend to implement this differently,” Drinkard said.
The agency is aiming to develop a list of best practices by the end of the year that would form the basis of an agency-wide policy used to train staff in risk communication, Drinkard said. The agency wants to be better positioned, better equipped and better trained, she said.
In response to a question from a CHPAC member on whether the agency plans to produce a written policy document, the OPA officials said EPA is still determining what the final product will look like, seeking feedback from multiple stakeholders.
Some committee members appeared hesitant about taking on the risk communication charge, as least in the form EPA presented to the panel.
But CHPAC Chair Barbara Morrissey, a toxicologist with the Washington State Department of Health, urged the group to move forward with the charge, in part to avoid having yet another meeting without a formal request from the agency.
During the Obama administration, CHPAC wrote two to three substantive advice letters to EPA each year in response to agency charges. But the Trump administration has been slow to provide charge questions to the advisory panel.
At CHPAC's meeting last October, Acting Deputy Administrator Henry Darwin appeared unaware that CHPAC operates and provides advice to the administrator in response to written charge queries from the agency.
At that meeting, CHPAC members outlined a number of policy areas where they could provide advice to the agency, including Toxic Substances Control Act reform implementation, flame retardant chemicals polybrominated diphenyl ethers, changes in the mercury rule co-benefits and EPA's lead strategy.
And the committee detailed the suggested areas in a followup letter to Darwin, but the agency has yet to respond to the letter, Morrissey said at the May 9 meeting.
'Wasted' Expertise
“Risk communication is certainly something we can contribute to and value, but that's only one piece,” Joel Forman, an associate professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, told EPA Chief Financial Officer Holly Greaves at the meeting.
Forman said CHPAC has not been charged with any substantive work around scientific or policy analysis in the last few years, even though there are a number of important issues the agency is dealing with, such as setting a drinking water standard for perchlorate and addressing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
James Roberts, professor of pediatrics at the Medical University of South Carolina, echoed Forman, saying that while he is glad to see there is a risk communications work group, there is still more the committee can do.
“If the administrator is really that committed to protecting children's health, there's a lot of expertise that is just being wasted here. I'd like to see us put to work,” Roberts said.
Greaves said CHPAC's expertise “is something that many of our programs can benefit from certainly. This meeting is certainly just the first part of that process. We're going to have discussions after this at various levels. . . . I hope that we can address your concern.”
EPA officials have previously said the agency needs to have better risk communication in order to highlight environmental gains over the last 25 years that could help justify the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts. However, they have acknowledged that public concerns about the state of the environment may be making that goal difficult.
Members of the agency's National Environmental Justice Advisory Council have raised concerns that the risk communication push is an attempt to downplay risks to equity areas.
At the latest CHPAC meeting, members divided into two smaller groups to discuss the draft charge questions and risk communication generally. One of the groups said the draft questions were “basically fine” though members suggested a couple of additions, such as defining what is meant by the term risk communication. “I'm not sure everyone is on the same page,” a CHPAC member said.
A second addition would be to include information on what has been learned from other federal agencies.
The discussion also included the need to take context into account. Otherwise it just creates fear and anxiety, CHPAC members said.
In 2015, CHPAC weighed in on EPA's health advisories for cyanotoxins, saying the advisories could be improved in many ways to better protect children's health, including strengthening the estimate of water intake for children from birth to age 3 months.
One way the agency could have improved its risk communication strategy for cyanotoxins would have been to reach out to pediatricians, CHPAC members said at the May 9 meeting. One of the risks from cyanotoxins is dermal exposure from swimming in contaminated lakes, and pediatricians would likely be seeing children who developed rashes from exposure, CHPAC said.
EPA also needs to look to trusted sources to communicate some risks since the agency may not be considered a trustworthy source in some communities, CHPAC members from both subgroups said.
Other issues discussed by CHPAC members included the possibility that despite EPA's push for having a unified message, different parts of the agency might need to have different messaging. While the underlying information would be the same for everyone, it might need to be communicated in different ways to different audiences, they said.
Furthermore, EPA will need to figure out how it navigates its dual roles of being a risk assessor and a regulator, since once a risk is communicated, there is often public pressure for the agency to do something about it, CHPAC members said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-seeks-chpacs-help-crafting-health-risk-communication-policy

Return to headline | Return to top
Amazon to Boost Quality Control After Selling Toxic Kid Products

May 10, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Paul Shukovsky

Amazon.com Inc. has agreed to tighten quality control standards on its marketplace following an investigation that determined dozens of children’s school supplies and jewelry sold on the site had illegal levels of toxic metals lead and cadmium.
As part of the agreement hammered out with Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the company also agreed to pay $700,000 to the AG’s office which will be used to fund environmental protection efforts.
“Amazon is making these changes site wide,” Ferguson spokeswoman Brionna Aho told Bloomberg Environment May 9.
“Anywhere in the country, these sellers will have to provide certification to Amazon” that there products fall within the allowable limits for the metals, she added.
Supply Challenges
The agreement underscores the difficulty the world’s largest online retailer has ensuring that the independent merchants who generate more than half of its sales adhere to official safety standards.
The Seattle company contacted the purchasers and issued more than $200,000 in refunds earlier this year when it learned of the investigation. To resolve the issue, Amazon agreed to require merchants to have their products tested for toxic materials, Ferguson said in a May 9 release.
“As a parent, when I buy products for my kids, I expect them to be safe,” Ferguson said. “All retailers must ensure that their products do not pose a threat to Washington children. If they don’t, they will hear from my office.”
Both state and federal laws prohibit the sale or distribution of children’s products that contain lead or cadmium above certain levels due to health risks.
“Customer safety is Amazon’s top priority,” Amazon said in a statement. “We worked with our selling partners to verify that the school supplies and children’s jewelry in our store are safe and enhanced our processes to verify the safety of these products moving forward. We welcome ongoing collaboration with the Attorney General and other agencies to promote customer safety.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/amazon-to-boost-quality-control-after-selling-toxic-kid-products

Return to headline | Return to top
Nessel Targets 3M as Documents Indicate Firm Knew of PFAS Harms for Decades

May 10, 2019 | The Detroit News

By Beth LeBlanc

State Attorney General Dana Nessel is targeting chemical companies believed responsible for the creation and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, the "forever chemicals" threatening Michigan’s natural resources.
Among those companies that may face litigation is 3M, a Minnesota-based company whose internal documents indicate its officials knew about the potential harms of PFAS dating back decades.
Evidence obtained during the Minnesota Attorney General Office’s pursuit of legal claims against 3M opens a window into the company’s efforts to downplay concerns about PFAS. Internal memos from the company reveal concerns were raised repeatedly about the product both inside and outside 3M with little to no redress.
The 3M documents, obtained Thursday by The Detroit News through a public records request to the Minnesota Attorney General’s office, were first reported by the Detroit Free Press.
Michigan officials have been working to identify areas of PFAS contamination since 2016. In the past year and a half, the state has found 49 sites throughout the state where testing has shown elevated levels of PFAS, a class of chemicals used for decades in firefighting foam, tanneries, metal platers, Scotchgard and Teflon.
Scientists have shown associations between PFAS exposure and health risks such as thyroid disease, increased cholesterol levels and kidney and testicular cancers.
Nessel on Thursday announced her office sent out a request for bids to hire special assistant attorneys general who could “determine whether to pursue additional tort or other common-law-based causes of action” against firms that created or used the chemical.
“We intend to be as aggressive as possible,” she said. “You can absolutely expect to see something in regard to litigation against 3M and some of the other chemical manufacturers and you’re going to see it very soon.”
The company already is involved as a third-party defendant in litigation between the state of Michigan and Wolverine Worldwide, a shoe manufacturer north of Grand Rapids that used 3M chemicals on shoe products, some of which became scraps left at area dumpsites. Wolverine alleged in its court filing that 3M withheld key information about the dangers of PFAS.
In July, Republican former Gov. Rick Snyder asked GOP former Attorney General Bill Schuette to investigate suing 3M, but Schuette failed to do so before the end of his term.
Now Nessel said those responsible for the contamination will “pay for their greed.”
“Our state will spend hundreds of millions of dollars addressing these problems — costs that should not be borne by the people who live, work and play here,” said Nessel, who also issued requests for attorneys to handle civil litigation related to the state’s opioid crisis.
The tussle in Minnesota
It is not the global company’s first dust-up with a state attorney general ruffled by its environmental practices.
Last year, 3M agreed to pay the state of Minnesota $850 million to settle a lawsuit that alleged the company contaminated groundwater and damaged natural resources while disposing of chemicals.
Among the most compelling of the documents the Minnesota Attorney General's office turned up in its inquest was a 1999 letter of resignation from 3M scientist Rich Purdy, who expressed frustration with 3M's response to his concerns about the presence of PFOS in water mammals and eaglets. PFOS is one of many types of PFAS compounds.
"I have continually met roadblocks, delays, and indecision," Purdy wrote. "For weeks on end I have received assurances that my samples would be analyzed soon — never to see results."
The concerns of Purdy and others at 3M are significant because studies on fluorochemicals at that time were largely performed by the industry itself, said Rainer Lohmann, who started the University of Rhode Island's Superfund Research Center, which focuses on the sources, transport, exposure and effects of PFAS.
"If they were not published, the public at large couldn’t know," Rainer said of company research. "I think it's safe to say had 3M forwarded those early studies to the EPA things might have turned out differently.”
3M produced or used PFAS at manufacturing plants in Alabama, Minnesota, Illinois, Belgium and Germany.
It announced plans to phase out PFOS and PFOA, two PFAS substances whose risks are now best understood, in the late 1990s. In 2006, 3M reached a $1.5 million settlement with the EPA for 244 separate counts of alleged reporting violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Because health and wellness are priorities for 3M, the company works with regulators to develop "thoughtful regulation" around PFAS and has released "thousands of documents in the public domain, including hundreds of studies conducted by 3M," the company said in a statement Thursday.
"The small set of documents from the Minnesota litigation portrays an incomplete and misleading story that distorts the full record regarding 3M’s actions with respect to PFOA and PFOS, as well as who we are as a company," the statement said.
Early concerns
As early as 1975, a doctor at the University of Florida College of Medicine called 3M to inquire about potential ties between fluorocarbon carboxylic acids in the blood streams of people tested in New York and Texas and potential links to Teflon and Scotchgard, according to a memo shared among 3M employees.
One worker told his colleagues that he pleaded "ignorance” when the doctor called, but “adopted a position of scientific curiosity” and planned to connect one of the researchers involved in the New York and Texas studies with a 3M researcher to “keep scientists talking to scientists.”
“On the positive side — if it is confirmed to our satisfaction that everybody is going around with fluorocarbon surfactants in their bloodstreams with no apparent ill-effects, are there some medical possibilities that would bear looking into?” the employee wrote.
Three years later, in 1978, another memo noted that testing done on rats with three fluorochemicals revealed that the substances were toxic. But the results weren't reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because the toxicity “does not constitute a substantial risk," according to the May 10, 1978 memo.
The next year, another employee suggested chronic testing on rats to determine the potential for “long term (carcinogenic) effects” of the chemicals.
In 1981, “25 women of childbearing potential” were reassigned to a different plant to avoid exposure to fluorochemicals after 3M testing showed the chemicals affected eye development in rat fetuses. The move was made “as a precautionary step pending further tests,” a draft press statement read.
In 1988, DuPont Company officials voiced concerns to 3M regarding whether, under DuPont's own policy, they should be warning employees that PFOA is “a carcinogen in animals.”
Medical consultants contracted by 3M reassured leaders that the increased incidence in tumors found in test rats exposed to the chemical wasn’t considered “to be significant in regard to the risk assessment for humans.”
That same year, an Oakland, California, fire protection equipment company criticized 3M executives for falsely representing that their aqueous firefighting foam, AFFF, was biodegradable.
In its letter to 3M, Boots & Coots Fire & Protective Equipment said it was informed by a client that 3M’s firefighting foam was not biodegradable, a fact the client learned directly from a 3M scientist. After the disclosure, the Sacramento district office of the Corps of Engineers required Boots & Coots employees to don safety apparel while refilling foam tanks with a “a dangerous harmful liquid.”
“The ramifications of this disclosure may be felt at other job-sites controlled by the corps of engineers, Sacramento office,” the company wrote. “In addition, they may decide to forward this data to other corps of engineers offices.”
Six months after the Boots & Coots letter, scientist Eric Reiner requested the testing of AFFF’s biodegradability, noting that the company should not “perpetuate the myth” that the substances were biodegradable.
“It is probable that this misconception will eventually be discovered, and when that happens, 3M will likely be embarrassed, and we and our customers may be fined and forced to immediately withdraw products form the market,” Reiner wrote.
An 'insidious pollutant'
Eleven years later, scientist Purdy submitted his resignation in a fiery letter that berated the company for its handling of the risks associated with PFOS.
Purdy called PFOS “the most insidious pollutant since PCB,” noting that the chemical is toxic to wildlife, doesn’t break down and seems to find its ultimate home in plants and animals instead of the soil.
“This chemical is more stable than many rocks,” Purdy said.
A risk assessment Purdy performed found a more than 100% probability of PFOS’s harm to sea mammals and consistently increasing accumulation in the food chain, he wrote in his letter. The scientist said he found PFOS in the blood of eaglets whose sole source of food had been fish in area lakes.
The company waited too long to tell customers and the EPA about the full ramifications of PFOS, Purdy said. Further, employees were told not to write down their discoveries or discuss them in email because of the risk of the documents becoming public during the legal discovery process.
“We knew before May of 1998, yet 3M did not start telling customers until January of 1999,” he wrote. “I felt guilty about this and told customers I personally knew earlier.”
An undated, author-less report in documents obtained from the Minnesota Attorney General noted that 3M started monitoring employees involved in producing PFOA, the chemical used in Teflon, in 1976. The company began testing specifically for PFOA and PFOS levels in the mid-1990s as new equipment to measure the chemical was introduced.
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2019/05/09/nessel-plans-to-sue-minnesota-based-3-m-pfas-contamination/1154028001/

Return to headline | Return to top
Committee OKs PFAS Funding, Revival of Science Agency

May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM

By George Cahlink

A water contaminant on military bases would be targeted and a congressional agency focused on nonpartisan technological analysis would be revived under a pair of House spending bills approved today.
The House Appropriations Committee passed its fiscal 2020 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs and Legislative Branch bills. Both measures are expected on the House floor next month.
The $108.1 billion Military Construction-Veterans Affairs bill would provide an 8.3% increase over current spending, the largest increase proposed for any of the 12 fiscal 2020 measures. It passed 31-21 after a GOP attempt to add border wall money failed.
The legislation would provide $60 million for cleaning up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, at military bases.
The chemicals are used in industrial and commercial products — including firefighting foams used by the Defense Department — and have been increasingly linked to cancer and other health aliments.
"The issue is not limited to the Defense Department and affects many communities across the Nation," said the bill report, which said the committee is "encouraged" EPA has been evaluating the need for a maximum contaminant level for the chemical.
About $14 million in current defense spending is marked for PFAS cleanup.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairwoman of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said she expected more funding for PFAS efforts in her panel's bill and the Defense spending measure, both of which have yet to be marked up.
"It will require a whole government approach because it's everywhere," said McCollum, echoing other Democrats who are calling for stepped-up federal action on PFAS.
The legislation would also provide $140 million to address concerns about unsafe conditions in military housing, including those related to mold infestation.
The report accompanying the bill urges the Defense Department to work with private contractors to prioritize mold remediation.
Additionally, the bill would provide $2 billion in emergency aid for military facilities damaged or destroyed by Hurricanes Florence and Michael.
The $3.97 billion Legislative Branch measure would raise spending for congressional operations and agencies by 3.5% for the coming fiscal year.
Aside from covering the cost of making Capitol Hill work, the bill funds the Congressional Research Service and Government Accountability Office. It passed 28-22 with no significant amendments added.
The legislation would provide $6 million to revive the Office of Technology Assessment, a nonpartisan congressional agency dedicated to scientific research that was shuttered in a cost-cutting move in 1995.
The agency, staffed by science and technical personnel, did research on energy and environmental issues over its 23 years in existence.
"There have been several unsuccessful attempts to restore the office. During that time, it has become increasingly clear that Congress does not have adequate resources available for the in-depth, high level analysis of fast-breaking technology developments and their public policy implications," states the committee report on the bill.
Republicans, who opposed the bill over spending levels, also questioned whether the OTA would duplicate work already done by the GAO.
The legislation would also direct Capitol Hill food service providers to establish more recycling programs, make more use of biodegradable products and seek the elimination of plastic straws.
House appropriators have now approved three of their 12 annual spending bills; a spending subcommittee is set to mark up the fiscal 2020 State-Foreign Operations spending bill tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/09/stories/1060304265

Return to headline | Return to top
Lawmakers Introduce Flurry of PFAS Bills

May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Courtney Columbus

More lawmakers have added to the flurry of bills that aim to address nonstick chemicals that have contaminated drinking water.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been widely used in commercial and industrial products such as military firefighting foam for decades. PFAS have been linked to a variety of health effects, including certain cancers.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) announced today she was reviving the "PFAS Accountability Act" with co-sponsors including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).
"The last thing that Michigan families who were exposed to PFAS-contaminated water and soil need is finger pointing from our federal agencies," Stabenow said in a statement. "Our legislation will bring quicker relief for families by holding the Department of Defense and all federal agencies more accountable."
Michigan Rep. Haley Stevens (D) introduced a measure, H.R. 2605, that would list PFAS as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
H.R. 2577, by New York Rep. Antonio Delgado (D) along with several other lawmakers, titled the "PFAS Right-to-Know Act," calls for the chemicals to be included in EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.
"I have seen first-hand the impact of PFAS contamination in my district and will continue to work across the aisle to tackle this urgent issue. PFAS is a toxic chemical and ought to be treated as such," Delgado said in a statement.
"I am proud to introduce legislation today that will give us a more accurate understanding of where PFAS is being used across the country."
Rep. Harley Rouda (D-Calif.) has also floated a bill, H.R. 2570, to force PFAS manufacturers to pay a user fee. The fees would go into a trust fund that would help communities and water systems affected by contamination.
And new legislation by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) aims to prevent waste that contains PFAS from being incinerated.
House leaders are mulling ways to pass PFAS legislation (E&E Daily, May 7). The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change announced yesterday that it will hold a hearing next week on PFAS bills. There are also efforts to attach riders to spending bills (see related story).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/09/stories/1060304173

Return to headline | Return to top
N.M. Demands Closure of Air Force Lake over Contamination

May 9, 2019 | AP (In E&E News PM)

By Susan Montoya Bryan

New Mexico's top prosecutor is demanding that the Air Force close a publicly accessible lake at Holloman Air Force Base, saying today that the concentration of hazardous chemicals at the site poses a risk to public health and the environment.
In a letter obtained by the Associated Press, Attorney General Hector Balderas (D) told Air Force officials that recent sampling shows the contamination — linked to a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — is dozens of times higher than federal health advisory levels.
In the case of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, the samples showed the amounts were more than 84 times the advisory levels set by EPA.
"These sampling results exacerbate the state's concern for its citizens and the environment," Balderas wrote.
The state already is preparing to sue the Air Force over groundwater contamination at two bases, arguing that the federal government has a responsibility to clean up plumes of toxic chemicals left behind by past military firefighting activities.
Similar contamination has been found at dozens of military sites across the nation, and growing evidence that exposure can be dangerous has prompted EPA to consider setting a maximum level for the chemicals in drinking water nationwide. Currently only non-enforceable drinking water health advisories are in place.
New Mexico environmental regulators first issued a notice of violation to the Air Force in 2018 for failing to properly address the contamination at Cannon Air Force Base near Clovis. They followed up earlier this year on Holloman, saying that base had violated its state permit and had yet to respond to concerns about the pollution near Alamogordo.
Balderas set a deadline of May 16 for the Air Force to respond to his latest request.
The Air Force has repeatedly declined to comment on the state's pending litigation but argues that its response to PFAS contamination in New Mexico and elsewhere has been aggressive.
The military has provided alternative water sources for those in areas where Air Force activity likely contributed to the contamination. Officials also have said they've been working with regulators to identify and implement long-term solutions to prevent exposure. Sampling also continues.
Holloman borders Alamogordo, where 31,000 residents rely on groundwater within the Tularosa Basin. The lake is on base property and near the popular tourist destination of White Sands National Monument.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/09/stories/1060304083

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Beijing Mulls Response to Us Tariff Hikes on Chinese Goods Imports

May 10, 2019 | Platts

By Eric Yep, Maya Weber and Daisy XU

China has reiterated its intention to respond to the US tariff hike on imports of $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25% that kicked in on Friday but the lack of details about Beijing's next moves has left market participants hanging.
Crude oil futures were higher in mid-afternoon trade Friday, with July ICE Brent crude futures up 41 cents/b from Thursday's settle at $70.80/b and the NYMEX June light sweet crude contract gained 48 cents/b (0.78%) to $62.18/b.
The US-China trade talks concluded Thursday evening in Washington without a firm outcome and were scheduled to continue on Friday. The United States Trade Representative's office proceeded with increasing tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods to 25% from 10% as announced mid-week.
"China deeply regrets that it will have to take necessary countermeasures," a spokesperson for the Ministry of Commerce said on Friday, in response to the official implementation of the tariff increase, but did not give details.
"The eleventh round of China-US high-level economic and trade consultations is underway. It is hoped that the US and the Chinese side will work together and work together to resolve existing problems through cooperation and consultation," the ministry said in a statement.
Previous rounds of retaliatory tariffs by Beijing were announced well in advance of implementation with detailed lists of goods and commodities that would be impacted. Beijing's delayed response this time is a departure from its previous reactions and created uncertainty in the market, especially with regard to crude oil and LNG trade between the two countries.
"I believe that the US have missed their optimal point in these negotiations with the advantage having swung towards China. The improvement in the Chinese economy has enabled their negotiators to take a harder line in discussions, which has led to this new escalation," Chris Midgley, Global Director of Analytics, S&P Global Platts, said.
He said in the meantime US exports of LNG and oil are increasing and will continue to grow, and are likely to be subjected to high tariffs, which will make them uncompetitive into the largest energy importer, potentially putting pressure on them over other supplies from alternative origins.
"The tariffs have already impacted petrochemicals from the US with imports into China dropping significantly after being imposed with a 25% tariff," Midgley said.
"We believe that China will retaliate in kind, with $30 billion worth of tariffs on US goods. This could happen either today or tomorrow," ING Economics said in a note. It said China could also delay this tariff until Vice Premier Liu He returns to China.
"In any event, this will happen very soon," ING Economics said, adding that China could also make life more difficult for US companies operating in China, possibly by stepping into merger and acquisition deals, but it will stop short of selling US Treasuries.
The lack of offtake and equity deals by the Chinese in the LNG space has raised concerns about whether US LNG export project development could be impacted, and fall behind other regions like Russia, as China is expected to surpass Japan as the world's biggest LNG importer within a decade.
Charlie Riedl of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas said the general sentiment from his organization's members was disappointment with the current direction, and the sector was awaiting details of expected Chinese countermeasures.
In an interview Thursday afternoon, Josh Zive, a trade attorney with Bracell, said "It's now in all likelihood a question of how long [the tariffs] are in place."
"The fundamentals have not changed. We know China is willing to go pretty far but not as far as the hawks on intellectual property, and we don't know how far [the administration] will go to roll back existing tariffs" as part of a deal, he said.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/topics/the-trump-administration

Return to headline | Return to top
Facing Democratic Resistance, Interior Secretary Promotes Oil and Gas Drilling

May 10, 2019 | The Washington Post

By Juliet Eilperin

The Trump administration will calculate the climate effects of its oil, gas and coal leasing decisions, Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said in an interview Wednesday, but will not make those impacts the key factor in its final decisions.
Bernhardt, who took office a month ago, said he was committed to carrying out President Trump’s plans to expand fossil-fuel production on public lands. In March, a federal judge ruled that the federal government illegally approved two gas drilling plans in western Colorado; on Monday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management failed to account for the effect of fracking as many as 4,000 oil and gas wells in New Mexico’s Greater Chaco region.
Bernhardt, who noted that the leases in both decisions had been issued under the Obama administration, said he was confident the department could address these concerns.
“So that says to me that we have to do a better job in articulating certain things to the courts,” he said during a wide-ranging conversation in his office. “What I hope is, as an organization we learn from any error we make.”
Congressional Democrats have been pressing Bernhardt, who appeared before a House spending panel Tuesday and will testify before the House Natural Resources Committee next week, to factor climate change into the department’s decisions about energy development on public lands and in federal waters.
But he emphasized that Interior was not legally obligated to curb the nation’s carbon output, even if it had to assess the environmental effects of its leasing programs.
“The law requires us to analyze those things,” he said, referring to the greenhouse gas emissions stemming from a leasing decision. “It doesn’t say if there is an additional contribution, you should not go forward at all.”
The Trump administration has placed a hold on one of its most ambitious leasing proposals, a five-year plan for offshore drilling, after a federal judge ruled in March that the president’s order revoking a sweeping ban on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans was illegal. Bernhardt said the White House would make the ultimate decision on whether to appeal, and that he could not predict when the offshore leasing plan would be finalized.
Bernhardt is prepared to forge ahead on other deregulation efforts. He said that he expected to get a briefing on this week’s U.N. scientific report that an eighth of the world’s plants and animals are at risk of extinction, but added that Interior and the Commerce Department still planned to finalize an overhaul of endangered species regulations this year.
“We didn’t start doing them to not do them,” he said.
As he pursues the administration’s agenda, Bernhardt is likely to encounter resistance on Capitol Hill. In a phone interview Wednesday, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on interior, environment and related agencies, said that any spending bill passing the House this year would impose certain requirements on Interior.
“We will not be funding irreparable harm to the environment,” McCollum said. “Any bill we pass will include requirements for the Department of Interior to use real science, to use best practices, to protect the environment and to not to go to industry and ask them what they want, and what’s the bare minimum.”
In contrast to his predecessor, Ryan Zinke, who insulted one of the top Democrats overseeing Interior on Twitter, Bernhardt has made an effort to contact key lawmakers in recent weeks. He met privately on Tuesday with House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), and said he plans to meet with members of both parties in the months to come.
“You know, my own view is that everyone who is engaged in public service is trying to serve the public interest in the best way that they can,” he said.
Bernhardt, who started running the department in January but did not move into the secretary’s office until he was sworn in April 11, has made several changes to its decor. A stuffed polar bear stands as a sentry outside, and the skull of a moose Bernhardt shot in Alaska’s Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve sits atop the fireplace.
“I’m not somebody who would put somebody else’s stuff up,” Bernhardt said, noting that he and a friend had to carry the moose’s entire body themselves to ship it out on a small plane. “His neck meat alone was 135 pounds.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/facing-democratic-resistance-interior-secretary-promotes-oil-and-gas-drilling/2019/05/09/a9198b0e-7296-11e9-8be0-ca575670e91c_story.html?utm_term=.594ccdfe20b1

Return to headline | Return to top
5 Takeaways from Perry's Hill Appearance

May 10, 2019 | E&E Daily

By Jeremy Dillon

Energy Secretary Rick Perry appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday to defend the Department of Energy's fiscal 2020 budget request.
The appearance marked the fifth such occasion by Perry on Capitol Hill during the past two months. The hearing had a "Groundhog Day" feel with similar questions and answers on both sides of the dais regarding energy policy and funding.
But Perry did offer more than a few nuggets of new information about energy policy. Here's a collection of five items from the hearing that presented new information or highlights from his appearance:Perry sheds light on cyberattack
Perry's appearance marked the first time he has spoken in public about the denial-of-service cyberattack that plagued a Western utility in early March. It could have affected electric users in California, Utah and Wyoming (Energywire, May 2).
The attack, the first of its kind in the United States, has heightened awareness for better coordination on cybersecurity of the grid.
"The incident did not impact generation, the reliability of the grid or cause any customer outages," Perry said about the attack. "We were in contact with that utility, and they are managing the incident coordination with their firewall manufacturer."
Previous reports have indicated that the cyber disruption was not a coordinated attack similar to previous intrusions by foreign actors in electric grids such as the one in Ukraine in 2015.
Much of the blame and lessons learned, Perry said, had to do with the importance of updating and protecting firewalls when a utility learns about the problem.
"When you get a direction to put a patch on your firewall, you need to put your patch on your firewall," Perry said. "It's pretty simple. They made an error. We are trying to reiterate to the utilities, no matter what their size, is that when you get a directive to protect your firewall, you need to do it."Rush's workforce bill moving forward
Energy Subcommittee Chairman Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) used the hearing as an opportunity to press Perry about his support for DOE programs to promote job training for underserved communities in the energy field, including minorities.
Rush has legislation, H.R. 1315, would authorize nearly $1 billion in funding across five years at DOE to support the training of the next generation of clean energy workers. The legislation has a special emphasis on minorities, women and veterans.
"This is a need and a priority for members of both sides," Rush told Perry.
Perry committed to Rush he would, in a timely fashion, provide data sought by the committee about existing DOE workforce training programs and the funding surrounding those programs.
Democrats and Republicans had been far apart about how to move forward the traditionally bipartisan bill. Rush has looked to beef up the bill as he has taken over control of the Energy Subcommittee ( E&E Daily, April 11).
After the hearing, Rush told E&E News that Democrats and Republicans were back on the same page about the bill, although they needed the DOE data to firm up negotiations about how the legislation can proceed with bipartisan support. He was optimistic, however, that the bill could move through a committee markup "in the coming weeks," he told E&E News.LNG exports status: Open
Perry reaffirmed his commitment to approving liquefied natural gas exports.
When pressed whether DOE had denied any application for such exports by Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Perry insisted he would continue to approve them due to the abundance in the United States.
"I can't speak to prior administrations, but I can assure you that we have not, and if I'm still the secretary of Energy, we will not, because we have the most massive supply in the world," Perry responded to Pallone.
Pallone's concerns stemmed from the potential that export LNG could cost domestic users in the long run. But Perry said forecasts have placed the United States as one of the world's leaders in natural gas.
"We've only seen the tip of the iceberg, and that's not my quote, that's the quote of the head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, when I was at the E.U. last week, telling the Europeans that we have more gas than they can purchase," Perry said with a smile.Perry wades into state nuclear subsidies debate
Yesterday, Perry endorsed state governments looking at the potential to aid economically struggling nuclear plants through some sort of state subsidy to prevent the premature shutdown of plants.
"Having been a governor, I think it would behoove the states that have nuclear plants to look at whether or not they want to at the state level subsidize those plants," Perry said.
Perry's endorsement adds a leading federal voice to the growing list of state officials who have looked to intervene to maintain nuclear operations to ensure states can continue to meet their climate change goals.
New York, New Jersey and Illinois have all instituted some form of a financial lifeline for threatened plants in their states that reward the carbon-free benefits of the power source. Those have mainly come through a zero-emissions certificate program.
"I don't necessarily think the word subsidy is a bad term," Perry added. "I believe it's up to the people to decide do you want to have these options, this diversity of energy sources. Nuclear is, I think, one of the most important ones."Perry back to Europe
Perry also indicated he would be traveling to Europe next month.
"We are heading back over to that part of the world the first week of June," Perry told Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) in response to a question about Romania's civil nuclear technology bidding process.
Perry did not offer details about the trip, but he did mention he met with a Romanian official while in Brussels last week to discuss the export of U.S. civil nuclear energy technology.
"We are in active engagement with our allies and friends in the European theater on U.S. engagement on civil nuclear projects," Perry added. "It's incredibly important for the future of the U.S. civil nuclear industry to be engaged there."
Perry went to Europe last week as part of a business-to-business conference to promote the export of U.S. LNG to Europe.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/10/stories/1060305255

Return to headline | Return to top
Revived Proposal for New Oil, Gas Drilling in California

May 9, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)

By Brian Melley

The U.S. government moved Thursday toward allowing new oil and gas drilling on wide swaths of federal land in California that has been off-limits since environmentalists sued in 2013.
The Bureau of Land Management issued final plans for oil and gas leases on about 800,000 acres (323,755 hectares) in Central California. That comes less than a month after the agency issued a draft plan to allow drilling on more than 1 million acres (405,000 hectares) surrounding the Bakersfield area.
The move is part of the Trump administration’s broader goal to dramatically expand oil and gas development nationwide and make the U.S. energy independent. The effort, decried as a giveaway to industry and a desecration of public lands, has been frequently stalled by local opposition and court challenges.
Environmentalists who blocked the Obama administration’s previous efforts to allow new drilling by challenging its failure to account for the impact of hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — immediately criticized efforts to revive the plans.
“Trump’s new plan aims to stab oil derricks and fracking rigs into some of California’s most beautiful landscapes,” attorney Clare Lakewood of the Center for Biological Diversity said in a statement. “From Monterey to the Bay Area, the president wants to let oil companies drill and spill their way across our beloved public lands and wildlife habitat.”
Lawsuits by the center and Sierra Club forced the Bureau of Land Management to take a hard look at the environmental effects of fracking, which they said occurs in 90 percent of new wells. The technique, which blasts water, chemicals and sand underground to fracture rock to release oil and gas, has been criticized for causing seismic activity and harming water supplies.
The Bureau of Land Management said it expects that the two plans could lead to about 75 new wells drilled over the next 20 years and only a small number would involve fracking, spokeswoman Serena Baker said. Most of the areas that would be drilled are already used for oil production.
Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, an association of independent oil and gas companies, said it was pleased the process was finally nearing an end. “The Trump Administration has complied with the court orders to analyze the impacts of fracking to fix the deficiencies of the Obama plans,” she said in a statement.
The Center for Biological Diversity said the number of acres on which drilling would be open in the Bureau of Land Management’s Central Coast region nearly doubled Thursday from a draft plan by the Obama administration.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-California, a presidential candidate who recently packaged a group of congressional bills that would protect over 1 million acres of federal lands in California — including part of the Bureau of Land Management’s territory — also criticized the plan.
“This administration’s misguided plan to expand oil and gas drilling along California’s Central Coast is a direct threat to the health of the state’s environment and our fight against climate change,” Harris said in a statement. “We should be protecting our public lands and boosting the outdoor economy.”
Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/revived-proposal-for-new-oil-gas-drilling-in-california/2019/05/09/0b611ca2-72bd-11e9-9331-30bc5836f48e_story.html?utm_term=.1abc551c48ee

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Proposes Oil and Gas Development Across Central Calif.

May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Scott Streater

The Bureau of Land Management is advancing a proposal to authorize oil and natural gas leasing and development on federal lands across central California.
BLM released a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and proposed resource management plan today that includes a "preferred alternative" to open 683,000 acres of subsurface federal mineral estate for leasing.
If approved, it could lead to the first BLM lease sale in California since the first of two federal court orders blocked federal leasing activity in 2013. In legal settlements, BLM agreed to reevaluate the impacts of drilling from the Central Coast and Bakersfield field offices.
Today's final EIS is part of the effort to complete the settlement terms and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. So, too, is a separate draft supplemental EIS released last month that proposes opening more than 1 million acres in eight counties to new drilling (Energywire, April 26).
The final EIS released today analyzed six alternatives for managing oil and gas leasing in the 11 counties managed by the Central Coast Field Office. BLM chose the option opening all available federal subsurface minerals "based on the Administration's goal of strengthening energy independence and the BLM support of an all-of-the-above energy plan that includes oil and gas underlying America's public lands," the final EIS says.
The option includes "controlled surface use" stipulations designed to protect natural resources while drilling. An additional 42,400 acres of minerals would include no-surface-occupancy requirements, including areas within the 8,000-acre Joaquin Rocks area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) and the Ciervo-Panoche Natural Area.
The option also removes from leasing and development about 67,500 acres of federal minerals underneath congressionally designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas, as well as the Fort Ord National Monument and the 31,000-acre Clear Creek Serpentine ACEC.
"We have to comply with all applicable state regulations, and the operators do too. So there are a lot of protections in place," Ben Blom, BLM's Central Coast field manager, said in an interview.
The final EIS pleased industry groups.
"We're pleased that after five years, the process worked and the federal government has reaffirmed that hydraulic fracturing is a safe method of production in California," said Kara Greene, a spokeswoman for the Western States Petroleum Association in Sacramento, Calif. "We look forward to being part of the discussions to ensure we continue to safely produce affordable reliable energy to California consumers while meeting the policy needs of the state."
But the proposal has raised the ire of some environmental groups, including the Center for Biological Diversity, which was involved in the original litigation challenging drilling in the state.
"Trump's new plan aims to stab oil derricks and fracking rigs into some of California's most beautiful landscapes," Clare Lakewood, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement.
Lakewood said the final EIS proposes increasing the mineral area that's open for development by 327,000 acres over an earlier draft proposal prepared by BLM during the Obama administration.
"In California and across the country, the Trump administration is putting our communities and our climate at risk as they prioritize fossil fuel industry profits over the health and safety of our families," Monica Embrey, a Sierra Club senior campaign representative, said in a statement. "We will use every tool at our disposal to push back against this reckless proposal and protect our public lands from fracking."
The final EIS and RMP amendment will be formally published in tomorrow's Federal Register, kicking off a 30-day administrative protest period running through June 10, as well as a 60-day governor's consistency review period.
A BLM spokeswoman said a record of decision authorizing the leasing plan could be issued as early as July.
BLM estimates in the final EIS that up to 37 new oil and gas wells will be drilled in the study area in the next 20 years.
"Most of those wells would be located in areas near existing development, within 5 miles of existing active wells," Blom said.
BLM will also use the analysis in the final EIS to determine whether to approve two oil and gas leases and an additional 12 "prospective leases" within the boundaries of the field office that do not contain no-surface-occupancy requirements, as required in a legal settlement. The 14 leases had been challenged in court in 2011 and 2012.
Click here to access additional documents related to the final EIS and proposed RMP amendment.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/09/stories/1060304231

Return to headline | Return to top
EIP Seeks Stricter SO2 Air Permits, Monitoring for Texas Drilling

May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) is calling on EPA and Texas to impose stricter air permit and monitoring requirements for sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from oil and gas drilling in the sparsely populated west of the state, arguing in a new report that SO2 from drilling in the region often exceeds federal standards for the pollutant.
In the May 9 report, “A Sour Wind In West Texas,” EIP says that emissions of SO2 and hydrogen sulfide are “surging” in the Permian Basin drilling region. Drilling for oil and gas in the area has expanded dramatically in recent years thanks to hydraulic fracturing releasing “sour” natural gas containing high sulfur levels from various related equipment, EIP says, and flaring, or burning off, of excess gas releases SO2.
This is exposing residents in towns such as Midland, TX, to unhealthy levels of SO2 in excess of the 2010 national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for the pollutant set at 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour, EIP says. Many of the SO2 emissions increases are unauthorized by state air permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and are therefore unlawful, the group claims.
“Despite the excessive levels of unauthorized emissions in the Permian Basin, the region lacks enough air quality monitors to determine if the air is safe to breathe. The TCEQ’s Houston region has approximately 60 active air quality monitoring stations, while the Midland-Odessa region has three. Of these three monitors, only one measures sulfur dioxide, which is the most prevalent air pollutant in the Permian Basin,” and that lone monitor has regularly recorded SO2 levels well in excess of the NAAQS, EIP says.
EPA’s requirements for states to site SO2 monitors are triggered when certain population thresholds are exceeded for urban areas, or when a single source, such as a power plant or refinery, emits in excess of a threshold of 2000 tons per year. But in West Texas, much of the SO2 stems from hundreds of smaller sources related to drilling, the population is small and dispersed and federal requirements for monitors are hence not triggered.
To address the problem, EIP says EPA and TCEQ “should expand their air quality monitoring programs for the Permian Basin, including establishing stationary air monitors in and around Odessa.”
EPA has fallen years behind schedule in implementing the SO2 NAAQS because of extra time taken to establish monitoring networks, triggering lawsuits to force implementation and challenging the agency’s designations of “nonattainment” with the standard as either too tough or too lax.
Because setting up new monitors and gathering data takes time, EIP says “EPA should immediately conduct its own modeling to determine whether areas in the Permian Basin meet the national ambient air quality standards. EPA should also initiate the formal, public, information-gathering request and rulemaking process to gather information from the industry and the public, and to ensure all stakeholders participate in this determination."
Further, EPA and TCEQ should “strengthen air pollution control permits in the Permian Basin, including by reviewing Texas’ reliance on the less-stringent standard permits and ‘permits-by-rule’ in oil and gas production, processing, storage, and transportation. Texas should also ensure that all major sources of air pollution obtain appropriate major source permits.” Permits by rule are standardized permits that do not require detailed analysis of an individual pollution source.
TCEQ “should revise its rules and policies on unpermitted air pollution incidents, such that all unauthorized emissions over a threshold level determined by the state should be subject to automatic penalties,” EIP says.
The group also calls on EPA and Texas authorities to step up enforcement of existing permits “by investigating and prosecuting those operators in the Permian Basin who routinely violate anti-pollution rules and their permit limits.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/eip-seeks-stricter-so2-air-permits-monitoring-texas-drilling

Return to headline | Return to top
Court Rejects Key Pipeline GHG Suit But NEPA Policy Remains Vulnerable

May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

A federal court has dismissed on standing grounds a challenge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) climate review of a New York natural gas pipeline approval, effectively upholding for the first time FERC’s narrow review policy though sources say the approach remains vulnerable in a pending case over a Tennessee pipeline.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on May 9 issued an unpublished per curiam order dismissing the case, Otsego 2000, et al. v. FERC, for lack of standing.
Because the court determined the issues in the case “do not warrant a published opinion,” however, the precedent is also limited.
The court did not reach the merits of the challenge over FERC’s decision not to consider upstream and downstream greenhouse gases as “indirect” impacts in its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review of Dominion Transmission’s New Market Project to upgrade a gas pipeline network in upstate New York.
Instead, the D.C. Circuit held Otsego “failed to demonstrate Article III standing” after finding that the group, which is not a membership organization, could not show it has “organizational standing” due to lack of injury.
The standing issue arose just ahead of oral argument, when the three-judge panel issued an April 3 order directing parties to “be prepared” to discuss the issue during April 11 arguments.
During the arguments, Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges David Tatel and Roger Wilkins appeared skepticalof Otsego’s standing claims and the group’s argument that it was injured by the lack of GHG information, which impaired its purpose. The judges noted that reasoning could give any group standing to challenge any agency action.
Observers widely expected the court to toss Otsego on standing grounds, even though many considered FERC especially vulnerable in its bid to limit broad consideration of GHGs in NEPA reviews to instances where the end use of the gas is known.
That policy -- first used in the New Market project -- seeks to limit the D.C. Circuit’s precedent in a 2017 case, Sierra Club v. FERC, where the court required the commission to redo its NEPA review on climate grounds to consider downstream GHGs caused when Florida power plants burned the gas transported by a major pipeline network.
FERC established the limited GHG review policy as part of its administrative denial of rehearing of its approval of New Market. Only two parties had engaged on the relatively small project, meaning other interested groups, including the New York attorney general’s office and larger environmental groups, were unable to join the litigation but did submit amicus briefs.
Sierra Club and other Democratic-led states filed briefs on behalf of the petitioners, while oil, gas and major industry groups did so on FERC’s behalf.
Environmentalists’ loss in Otsego is the second in their effort to expand the Sierra Club holding. On Feb. 19, the D.C. Circuit issued another unpublished judgment in Appalachian Voices, et al. v. FERC, et al., that rejected environmentalists’ challenge to FERC’s approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, finding that FERC in providing an estimate of the upper bound of emissions resulting from end use combustion satisfied NEPA and that it was not required to use the social cost of carbon (SCC) to monetize damages.
Continued Vulnerability
Even so, FERC is still considered vulnerable in a related case being considered by the same three-judge panel -- Garland, Tatel and Wilkins -- Birckhead v. FERC, which challenges approval of a Tennessee pipeline where standing is not an issue.
The court has not yet ruled in that case but heard arguments the same day as Otsego.
During the Birckhead arguments, FERC lawyer Robert Solomon conceded that court’s earlier decision in Sierra Clubcould be extended to the Tennessee project because the upstream gas producers are known.
“That could be akin to the downstream situation that we have in Sierra Club,” Solomon said.
Later, FERC sought to create a clear distinction between those two cases in an April 15 letter to the D.C. Circuit, but environmentalist attorneys objected in an April 18 response asking the court to reject it as “an improper post-argument submission.”
One environmentalist attorney calls the order in Otsego “disappointing,” saying it is “unfortunate that the court did not give the parties the opportunity to brief the standing issue because had it done so, it would have seen that many of the resources that Otsego 2000 must now spend are to monitor air quality and gather information on emissions that FERC has refused to disclose. . . . Fortunately, the same issues were raised in the Birckhead v. FERC case and so the court must still confront the merits of FERC’s climate change rulings.”
FERC declined to comment on the ruling.
Analysts at ClearView Energy Partners said in a note to clients that FERC’s “win” here does not preclude another party from challenging its lack of broad GHG review in future cases, but that the dismissal does allow the first application of the new policy to stand as if it were never challenged.
“This may make it harder, but not necessarily impossible, for a different petitioner to prevail in the application of this approach (as opposed to the policy change itself) in a different case,” the firm says.
Additionally, ClearView believes the court does not favor FERC’s new “don’t ask, don’t evaluate” approach limiting GHG reviews and says the same three judges could still find in favor of Birckhead. Such a ruling may push back on FERC’s narrow policy regarding downstream emissions, though it could also focus only on the upstream emissions question.
If that is the outcome, a decision is unlikely to be quick, one observer says. “If they want to chastise FERC on the GHGs, they need a full opinion. That takes more time. The more time it takes, the more likely they flip.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-rejects-key-pipeline-ghg-suit-nepa-policy-remains-vulnerable

Return to headline | Return to top
Lotte Chemical's U.S. Ethane Cracker to Start Commercial Operations in May

May 10, 2019 | Reuters

By Jane Chung

Lotte Chemical Corp said on Friday that its U.S. ethane cracker in Louisiana is expected to commence commercial operations within May.
With the commencement of the plant, the South Korean company hopes to boost its cost competitiveness by diversifying away from mainly naphtha as a feedstock to make ethylene, a key ingredient for petrochemical products, it said in a statement.
Lotte Chemical’s U.S. ethane cracker is a joint venture with Axiall Corp, which is now merged with Westlake Corp. Lotte owns an 88 percent in the plant, while Westlake Corp holds the remainder.
South Korean petrochemicals makers including Lotte Chemical, typically use naphtha derived from crude oil as a feedstock to make ethylene. Ethane crackers use ethane gas as a feedstock and can take advantage of cheap U.S. shale gas.
Lotte’s ethane cracker in the United States can produce 1 million tonnes of ethylene a year, taking Lotte Chemical’s global ethylene output capacity to 4.5 million tonnes, the statement added.
At home, Lotte Chemical runs two naphtha crackers which have a combined ethylene production capacity of 2.2 million tonnes per year.
https://www.reuters.com/article/southkorean-lottechemical/lotte-chemicals-us-ethane-cracker-to-start-commercial-operations-in-may-idUSL3N22M0IC

Return to headline | Return to top
DOE 'Will Not' Deny Any LNG Export Applications, Perry Says

May 9, 2019 | Politico Pro

By Eric Wolff

Energy Secretary Rick Perry told a congressional panel today that the Department of Energy would not deny LNG terminal applications while he is in office.
Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) asked Perry if DOE had ever denied an LNG terminal permit.
“I can’t speak for prior administrations, but I can assure you that we have not, and if I’m still the Secretary of Energy we will not because we have the most massive supply [of gas] in the world,” Perry responded at today’s Energy subcommittee hearing on the DOE budget.
Pallone was pressing Perry on the potential for natural gas prices to rise as more of it was exported into the world market, but the Energy secretary blamed high costs on efforts from states like New York to block new natural gas pipelines.
“If the question here is there are some folks over there in the Northeast that are concerned about the availability or the cost of natural gas, it’s got a lot more to do with the inability to build a pipeline across New York, for instance, to get into the Northeast than it does with our supply,” Perry said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/doe-will-not-deny-any-lng-export-applications-perry-says-3227265

Return to headline | Return to top
Occidental Wins Battle for Anadarko as Chevron Exits Bidding

May 9, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal

By Bradley Olson and Christopher M. Matthews

Occidental Petroleum Corp. OXY -6.44% struck a $38 billion agreement to buy Anadarko Petroleum Corp. APC -3.26% after Chevron Corp. CVX 3.14% bowed out of the bidding, ending one of the most high-stakes energy-deal dramas in years.
In seeking Anadarko, Chevron and Occidental coveted prized assets in the heart of the U.S. oil boom: the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico. Occidental’s emergence as the likely victor means it is now poised to swallow a company nearly its own size as it bulks up in the region.
Chevron had agreed to purchase Anadarko for about $33 billion on April 12, but Occidental offered the oil company $38 billion on April 24 and then boosted the cash portion of its offer on Sunday. Occidental’s deal with Anadarko is expected to close in the second half of 2019.
“This exciting transaction will create a global energy leader with a world-class portfolio, proven operational capabilities and industry leading free cash flow metrics,” Occidental Chief Executive Vicki Hollub said Thursday in a written statement.
Chevron Chief Executive Michael Wirth said in an interview that his company could have outbid Occidental, but instead will take a $1 billion termination fee it negotiated as part of its earlier deal with Anadarko and return the cash to shareholders through share repurchases.
“Costs and capital discipline always matter,” Mr. Wirth said. “An increased offer would have eroded value to our shareholders.”
Shares in Chevron rose 3.1% on Thursday. Occidental’s stock fell 6.4%, while Anadarko’s shares declined 3.2%.
Occidental’s increasingly aggressive efforts to win in the contest for Anadarko—including lining up $10 billion in financial backing from Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc.and a deal to sell Anadarko’s Africa assets for $8.8 billion to French oil giant Total SA —helped Ms. Hollub outduel a much larger rival. Berkshire is set to receive shares of preferred stock in Occidental with a coupon of 8% a year, as well as options to buy additional shares.
Now, Ms. Hollub must work to win over skeptical Occidental shareholders, some of whom have said they plan to vote against the company’s board at its annual meeting on Friday.
Noah Barrett, an analyst at Janus Henderson Investors, which holds positions in all three companies, said he was encouraged by Chevron’s decision to walk away. While the outcome was good for Occidental because it eliminated the possibility of a bidding war, the company still must answer for “very expensive” Berkshire financing and its accounting for cost savings in the deal, he said.
“This really shifts the onus onto management, to Vicki and her team, to prove the merits of this deal to shareholders,” he said.
Anadarko said it has terminated the companies’ merger agreement, and the deal will go ahead as agreed on Sunday. Occidental will pay $59 in cash and 0.2934 a share in its stock to each Anadarko shareholder, for a price of $75.53 a share as of Thursday’s closing price.
Interactions between Anadarko and Occidental have been terse, including most recently on Sunday, when Ms. Hollub said in a letter to Anadarko’s board that she objected to its requests for three board seats.
Occidental must now mend relations with some frustrated shareholders, who were rankled in particular by the company’s decision to raise the cash portion of its offer, thereby avoiding a shareholder vote that would have been triggered by issuing a higher number of shares to pay for Anadarko.
Mutual-fund giant T. Rowe Price Group Inc. has said it would vote against Occidental’s board slate at the company’s annual meeting Friday, citing the cost of the Berkshire financing and Occidental’s move to avoid a shareholder vote on the deal.
Activist investor Carl Icahn also recently took a small stake in Occidental, said people familiar with the matter.
Occidental’s debt will be about two times its earnings after the deal, excluding interest, taxes and other accounting items. The company has said it wants to reduce its debt to lower than one-and-a-half times its earnings. Ms. Hollub said on a call with investors Monday that Occidental could sell pipeline company Western Midstream Partners LP, which Anadarko has a majority stake in.
Mr. Wirth had initially sought out a potential deal to help Chevron maintain its lead overExxon Mobil Corp. and other giant oil companies. He saw the potential to buy a large oil and natural-gas producer and sell off assets in the combined portfolio that were less attractive, creating a company positioned to deliver higher profit, said people familiar with his thinking.
He has even invoked the Golden State Warriors’ moves to sign top players such as Kevin Durant, even after the National Basketball Association team had already won championships, saying that great teams and companies “are always looking to get better.”
Mr. Wirth sounded a more cautious note on Thursday about future deals, saying Chevron would only consider an acquisition if it is “exceptionally good.” Without a deal, the company expects to triple production in the Permian Basin to 900,000 barrels a day of oil and gas in five years. Chevron is now the leading producer in the region, but a combined Occidental-Anadarko would emerge as the top operator postdeal. He declined to comment on negotiations.
“We prefer to do friendly deals and we prefer to negotiate them out of the limelight,” he said. “To the extent this became something other than that, that’s not the way Chevron operates.”
In the past five years, during an oil-price crash, Chevron shares have been the top performer among the biggest oil companies, including Exxon, Total, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC, with shares rising by about 17%, including reinvested dividends.
“At the end of the day, it was probably the right decision for Chevron,” said Matthew Portillo, an analyst at Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., a Houston investment bank. “Now Chevron can go and look at other assets. The chessboard for M&A activity is now completely reset.”
For Occidental, he said, acquiring Anadarko makes the company more competitive with Chevron and Exxon as they roll out significant expansions in the Permian Basin.
“That’s the door they’ve been able to open,” Mr. Portillo said.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/chevron-won-t-increase-offer-for-anadarko-11557405500?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=2

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

'The Insanity Must Stop'

May 8, 2019 | Jacksonville Business Journal

By Will Robinson

Rail customers across the country are asking federal regulators to take action after a surge in fees stemming from an industrywide policy change spearheaded by Jacksonville-based CSX Corp.
Unless the situation changes, the customers say in filings with a federal regulator, rail customers will go out of business, freight will clog highways and railroads will cease to be a viable shipment option.
The complaints focus on demurrage and accessorial charges, fines the railroads impose when a customer fails to comply with the railroads' rules governing how customers handle railcars.
"In a nutshell, the demurrage practices of both CSX and NS continue to cause our company severe harm and may eventually force us out of business," wrote Harry Shea, president of Shea Brothers Lumber Handling Inc., who said demurrage fees ate up the company's entire profit last year.
The complaints are among those that have been filed with the Surface Transportation Board, which will hold a hearing on May 22 and 23 with all Class I railroads. The hearing was originally scheduled for one day, but the volume of shipper complaints led the STB to add another day to the proceeding.
Demurrage fees spiked last year across many railroads, with CSX generating $365.7 million from the fees, the most of any railroad.
CSX CEO Jim Foote defended the increases in a February 2018 letter to the STB in which he said the fees were intended to make certain customers comply with rules that make the network more efficient for all customers.
Robert McGonigle, CEO of The Martin-Brewer Co., challenged that claim in his complaint.
"In our view, the charges no longer reflect the reasonable costs of providing service, nor do they serve the purpose of encouraging efficient use of the nation's railway assets," he wrote. "Instead, the costs appear to be – as has been seen in other industries – primarily directed to revenue enhancement."
Over the past year, the railroads have changed their rules, which customers say make fees unavoidable. Cars are only delivered on certain days of the week, rather than all week; customers only have 24 hours to unload them rather than 48; and railroads no longer provide credits that accumulate when a delay is railroad-caused.
"It is next to impossible to avoid a demurrage invoice," wrote Paul Delp, president of Landsale Warehouse Co.
The new fees are part of the industry move toward "precision railroading," an operating model first employed in the U.S. by CSX (Nasdaq: CSX). Norfolk Southern (NYSE: NS), Kansas City Southern (NYSE: KSU) and Union Pacific (NYSE: UP) have since adopted the model.
Foote told the Business Journal in April that demurrage charges were common across the logistics industry. CSX had become more serious about enforcing the rules, he said, so as to improve the efficiency and dependability of the network. He was not concerned by the STB's hearing in May.
"The only difference [in CSX demurrage] is that now, when we send a bill we expect to get paid," he said. "Customers don't like paying it. If customers don't like what railroads are doing, they have the total right to ask regulators about it."
And ask regulators, they have.
"It's easy to see why rail demurrage is one of the top complaints received by the STB," wrote Steve DeHann, CEO of International Warehouse Logistics Association. "For the railroad, it's an easy invoice. For a warehouse [it is] tracking all of the above, putting a complaint together, talking with the STB staff, talking with the railroad, providing whatever evidence is available (for some railroads there is almost none), usually negotiating a settlement.
"Then, we do it all over again with the next instance. The insanity must stop."
Demurrage fees have had severe consequences for customers. The fees ate up 61 percent of Palmer Logistics' revenue in moving large volumes of relief supplies for U.S. AID destined for Yemen, president Brett Mears said.
After Shea Brothers lost its entire 2018 profit to the fees, it began imposing its own fees on customers to try to offset the charges. That led the company to lose its third largest customer and have its second largest customer reduce volume by 75 percent.
In addition to the rule changes, demurrage fees are often wrong, customers told the STB. Covia Holdings Corp. successfully disputed $700,000 in erroneous fees in 2017, more than $1 million in 2018 and about $500,000 so far in 2019. It maintains a dedicated staff to track railroad service problems and to audit demurrages.
The responsibility of disputing demurrage fees, which are automatically invoiced, rests solely on customers, filings state.
Fees are not reciprocal, many customers said. A customer receives nothing from a railroad that is late in delivering railcars, something that happened 37 percent of the time over three months for Palmer Logistics.
The fees are leading many customers to leave rail and opt instead for truck, several customers said.
Warehouses are further accelerating this trend, DeHann said, "pushing back on rail deliveries and dissuading their customers to ship via rail, because of the adverse consequences of their business."
The rate of rail customers opting for truck "seems to be accelerating," wrote Lhoist's Neff.

"My fear is that our 16-mile Industrial Spur in Tennessee will suffer the same fate (closure and abandonment) that our facilities in Florida and Texas have seen, and that Lhoist North America will eventually be forced to abandon rail," Neff wrote. "These charges are accelerating the demise of rail shipments at an alarming rate. Once it is gone, it is gone."
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/05/08/the-insanity-must-stop-customers-of-csx-other.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

House Panel Eyes Hearing To Launch Debate On EPA’s Post-Trump Future

May 9, 2019 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves and David LaRoss

A House subcommittee is planning a June 11 hearing to get input from former EPA administrators -- two Republicans and two Democrats -- on how to reform the agency following President Donald Trump’s policy rollbacks and budget cuts, launching Congress’ debate on burgeoning questions about the future of environmental protection. According to a source with knowledge of the planned hearing, the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s panel on oversight plans to question the former EPA chiefs on how to rebuild the agency’s staffing levels and its scientific capacity, as well as the level of resources that would be needed to achieve those goals.
Slated to testify are William Reilly, who served under President George H.W. Bush; Lee Thomas, who headed the agency from 1985-89 under President Ronald Reagan; and Gina McCarthy, who was administrator during President Barack Obama’s second term. Clinton EPA chief Carol Browner has also been invited but is not yet confirmed to attend, the source says. Subcommittee staff declined to confirm or deny the hearing plan.
A Congressional hearing would provide another prominent forum for Reilly, McCarthy and Browner to continue their recent discussions on the agency’s future during an event last month at American University (AU) in Washington, D.C., last month.
And the growing debate over the agency’s future, and the future of environmental protection more generally, follows calls from EPA alumni for supporters to build a case for major reforms as soon as possible after President Donald Trump leaves office.
The source with knowledge of the hearing says members of the oversight panel expect the June 11 hearing to build on those talks.
During the three former administrators’ joint panel at the AU conference Reilly said, “I think the agency has to be reconfigured to allow it to retain” its role as the leading regulatory authority on climate change, even before considering the effects of the Trump administration’s rollbacks and structural changes at EPA.
At the same session, Browner suggested tying climate requirements to the agency’s infrastructure assistance funds, calling the widely supported program “the one thing Congress never, ever cuts in the EPA budget.”
And McCarthy said any meaningful reforms at EPA will require a budget increase after years of stagnant budgets punctuated by Republicans’ efforts to cut funding for key programs.
The AU conference, which was largely organized and attended by former EPA political and career officials, ended with a call for attendees to build a concrete agenda for opposing the Trump administration’s environmental agenda and rebuilding the agency under a future president.
“I think we need some structure, I think we need process . . . and I think we need a deadline as to when we’re going to finish this,” David Ullrich, a former EPA Region 5 deputy administrator under Obama, said during a closing panel on the alumni network’s “next steps."
The June 11 House subcommittee hearing could be the first step by Congress to get involved in that process. In particular, it would fit with Reilly’s own recommendation from the AU wrap-up session, where he called on former officials to be more vocal about the EPA’s history and its successes, as a way to push back against opponents who see the agency mainly as a drag on the economy.
“One of the very best things we have and that we do not exploit is our story,” he said. “I think the opportunity is to do something real, right away, in a new administration,”
Similarly, former EPA staffer Bonnie Bellow, who now serves as communications director for the Environmental Protection Network of agency alumni, said supporters should “speak emotionally and in a committed way about this agency and about the importance of its mission.”
Restructuring EPA
Focusing Congress’ attention on the calls for an agency overhaul could also help build momentum for former Obama EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe’s goal of enacting major changes at the agency soon after the end of the Trump administration in either 2021 or 2025.
“I think the opportunity is to do something real, right away, in a new administration,” he said at the AU event.
But what those changes could look like is still unclear, beyond Democrats’ general goal of a stronger agency with more staff and resources. Speakers at the April conference raised a host of options for how EPA could adapt to future challenges, such as climate change or the threat of emerging contaminants, as well as reversing staffing cuts and regulatory rollbacks.
Industry speakers at the AU event, including BP Regulatory Affairs Director Jim Nolan, emphasized the potential for collaborative work with firms like his, and said the agency should “incorporate many of those learnings” from collaborations into future rules, such as a potential air emission standard for methane from oil and gas operations.
Others emphasized the potential for EPA to act as a “convener” and bring together stakeholders who would then develop new approaches to environmental protection or put forward new technology that could aid environmental protection.
For instance, Maryland environment chief Ben Grumbles touted as “extremely valuable” the precedent of the multi-state Clean Water Act cleanup plan for the Chesapeake Bay, where state governments are responsible for finding ways to meet pollution-reduction targets and EPA acts as a backstop rather than the primary enforcement authority.
Others called for the agency to build on current programs like the joint EPA-state E-Enterprise initiative, which aims to streamline reporting and other requirements through technological advancements.
IBM Global Business Service Partner Kirsten Schroeder said industry would welcome an “E-Enterprise on steroids” aimed at streamlining their compliance requirements similar to what is underway for states.
And the lone current EPA official to lay out a reform agenda during the conference, Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention Chief of Staff Tom Tyler, said Congress should craft new legislation that would give the agency a direct mandate to require sustainability practices. He argued that such statutory authority would be preserved even after “the pendulum swings” in future elections.
https://insideepa.com/weekly-focus/house-panel-eyes-hearing-launch-debate-epa%E2%80%99s-post-trump-future

Return to headline | Return to top
Wheeler: Trump Admin Might 'Re-Examine' Climate Science

May 10, 2019 | E&E Climatewire

By Jean Chemnick

EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler used an overseas gathering of environment ministers this week to hint that the United States might overhaul the way it uses climate data and modeling. Five days after his assertion was included in an official document from the Group of Seven meeting in Metz, France, it remains unclear if Wheeler revealed a potential policy to reexamine climate modeling.
It's become common for the United States to have its own climate and energy paragraph in multilateral statements, and on Monday, Wheeler broke away from the six other nations on issues like the Paris Agreement, providing support for poor and climate-affected countries, and overseas investments in fossil fuels.
That much was normal. It's happened ever since President Trump took office in January 2017.
But Wheeler added something new that's raising concern among some environmentalists that the United States might be formally questioning climate science inside federal agencies.
"The United States reaffirms its commitment to re-examine comprehensive modeling that best reflects the actual state of climate science in order to inform its policy-making decisions, including comparing actual monitored climate data against the modeled climate trajectories on an on-going basis," says the U.S. portion of the communiqué.
Greens who follow the G-7 process were dismayed.
Alden Meyer, director of policy and strategy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the language "pretty troubling," and Luca Bergamaschi of the Britain-based E3G called it "a major step back."
They read Wheeler's language as an attempt to undercut a report last year by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report drew on thousands of peer-reviewed studies to warn of the importance of holding postindustrial warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Wheeler has been critical of the IPCC's conclusions and of the National Climate Assessment, a U.S. report that issued similar warnings last year. He's not alone in the Trump administration. In December, U.S. delegates to the U.N. climate talks in Katowice, Poland, joined Russia and Saudi Arabia to block language to "welcome" the IPCC's findings.
It's unclear if Wheeler meant to slight the IPCC on Monday. In fact, he joined his counterparts from France, Canada, the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany and Japan in praising the international body's work to "strengthen the science-policy interface on the environment including by providing reliable assessments of the state of knowledge in response to the requests of policy makers and build capacity to use science effectively in decision-making at all levels."
The statement leaves little to "re-examine" from the IPCC's work.
So, was he announcing an alternative climate modeling initiative, either at EPA or another federal agency?
"Currently, there are no specific efforts underway at EPA," said agency spokesman James Hewitt. He didn't respond to follow-ups about future plans or initiatives at other agencies.
Meyer and others suggested that Wheeler might be referring to plans within the White House to convene a task force within the National Security Council to undermine the scientific underpinnings of the National Climate Assessment. But that proposal — to be spearheaded by William Happer, a senior director on the National Security Council — has yet to be accepted by Trump. NSC didn't respond to inquiries (Climatewire, Feb. 21).
Myron Ebell, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said a White House meeting last week to brief the president on the Happer proposal "went well." But he said the concept remains controversial among some senior officials.
"The president is enthusiastic about setting up the Happer commission," said Ebell, who oversaw the EPA transition team before Trump's inauguration. But he noted that Wheeler would have been unlikely to reference a program that Trump has yet to bless at an international forum.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/10/stories/1060305525

Return to headline | Return to top
House Panel Advances Spending Bill with Commitment to Paris Climate Agreement

May 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

The House Appropriations Committee on Thursday advanced a spending bill that would allow the U.S. to resume contributions to a global fund that helps emerging countries deal with climate change.
The measure was approved on a 28-22 party-line vote. The House is expected to vote on the legislation next month.
The bill, backed by Democrats, removes a funding prohibition on the Green Climate Fund imposed by Republicans last year. The new legislation also prohibits the use of congressional funds to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.
President Trump in 2017 promised to pull out of the landmark international emissions accord and immediately halt contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which provides billions of dollars to help developing countries meet their Paris agreement commitments. The U.S. pledged billions of dollars during the Obama administration.
Trump’s decision to withdraw also slashed U.S. contributions to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (D) in 2017 pledged to spend up to $15 million of his own money to mitigate the lost U.S. contributions to the two areas. He has so far donated $10 million.
The climate language in the appropriations measure is similar to that of a House-passed bill from last week — the first climate bill to pass the House in nearly a decade — that would bind the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement and direct the president to determine how the country would meet its emissions goals.
That bill, known as the Climate Action Now Act, passed on a 231-190 mostly party-line vote but is unlikely to advance in the Republican-led Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has said it "will go nowhere," indicating that any climate language in an appropriations bill could face a big challenge to pass in the Senate.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/442946-house-spending-bill-tees-up-renewed-commitment-to-paris-climate

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Support for Green New Deal Plummets — Poll

May 9, 2019 | E&E News PM

By Nick Sobczyk

Republican support for the Green New Deal has plummeted over the past few months amid increased attention from the media and a GOP messaging barrage on Capitol Hill, according to a new poll.
The progressive policy plan has dominated the climate conversation in Washington, D.C., since Democrats took over the House, in part thanks to the political limelight focused on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the resolution's House sponsor.
A survey in December from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that voters were broadly supportive of the Green New Deal, including 64% of Republicans and 81% overall.
At the time, most of those polled had heard little about it, and the Green New Deal, which hadn't yet taken the form of a congressional resolution, was described to them in relatively favorable terms.
But a new survey from the two groups, conducted last month using an online platform, found that Republican support has fallen dramatically as voters learn more about it.
Just 32% of conservative Republicans said they support the idea, compared with 57% in the last poll, and 64% of moderate GOP voters offered support, compared with 75% in December.
The results are unsurprising, given the near-constant GOP attacks on what it has dubbed a "socialist" plan for the country. But they reveal just how quickly political and media machines can churn to vastly change opinion on climate change or any other policy area.
Republicans who said they've heard "a lot" about the Green New Deal were by far least likely to support it. On the flip side, Democrats who have heard "a lot" are very likely to support the idea, though Democratic support overall stayed relatively consistent compared with the December poll.
"This finding raises a key question, then, about where Republicans have learned about the Green New Deal, and how those sources of information affected their opinions," researchers wrote in an accompanying analysis.
The analysis specifically names Fox News as a source of information, and sometimes misinformation, for many Republicans with negative views of the Green New Deal.
The network, especially its conservative opinion shows, has covered Ocasio-Cortez and the Green New Deal extensively.
During the last week of March, when the Senate voted on the resolution, its prime-time shows ran more segments on the Green New Deal than CNN and MSNBC combined, according to Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog.
The survey last month found that the minority of Republicans who watch Fox News frequently are nearly 30 points more likely to have heard about the Green New Deal than Republicans who watch it less frequently and are far less likely to support it.
The pollsters suggest that their survey might fall in line with arguments that Fox News helps to drive American political polarization but with an important caveat.
"It is also possible, however, that Republicans who watch Fox News more frequently are more politically engaged than other Republicans, and thus are also more exposed to other sources of information that may have influenced their opinions about the Green New Deal," they wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/09/stories/1060304299

Return to headline | Return to top
Carbon-From-Air Success Rides on Federal Support: Report

May 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Abby Smith

The U.S. will need to suck carbon out of the air in large quantities to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century, and the technology will need significant, targeted federal support to meet the challenge, a new report says.
The federal government should pursue a multi-pronged approach to support direct air capture technologies and ensure they reach the scale at which they’ll be needed to meet national and global climate goals, the Rhodium Group, an independent research firm, says in a May 9 report.
The analysis was commissioned by Carbon180, a climate-focused advocacy group that works on carbon removal and utilization technologies.
“In pretty much every scenario we looked at, we will need a very large amount of direct air capture and storage,” John Larsen, a director at Rhodium and lead author of the report, said at a May 9 launch event.
“If we’re going to need that technology 30 years from now, we better get started today,” he added. “The U.S. needs to move to catalyze this kind of deployment by building an industry around this technology.”
More R&D Sought
The report recommends beefed-up federal funding for research and development, which has already garnered at least some bipartisan backing in Congress.
But federal spending to date has been a drop in the bucket, and it will take much more than increased funding to deploy direct air capture at a scale significant enough to begin to offset greenhouse gas emissions, the report notes.
Hundreds of millions of dollars should be spent annually on direct air capture research, much of that directed toward demonstration projects, the report says. Rhodium endorses a research program of $181 million to $240 million per year over 10 years, as recommended by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in an October 2018 report.
But for direct air capture technology to take hold, the federal government would also need to create a market for its use through policies like federal procurement standards or improved tax incentives, the report says.
1.85 Billion Metric Tons
Direct air capture technology separates carbon dioxide directly from ambient air, as opposed to removing carbon from the emissions of power plants and other facilities like other carbon capture systems.
The carbon dioxide is then stored underground or used, instead of being released into the atmosphere where it causes global warming.
According to Rhodium’s analysis, as much as 1.85 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide would need to be removed directly from the air annually to keep the U.S. on track to zero out greenhouse gas emissions by 2045.
That 1.85 billion metric tons roughly equals the amount of carbon dioxide the U.S. power sector emitted in 2016, the report says.
Zeroing out emissions would mean that the amount of greenhouse gases removed from the atmosphere would be at least equal to the amount being emitted.
‘Serve as Insurance’
Significant amounts of carbon removal—on the order of 563 million metric tons annually by 2050—would still be needed to meet the goal of removing as much carbon as is released into the environment, even in a scenario with more aggressive electrification of transportation, buildings, and industrial facilities and high amounts of carbon storage in natural carbon sinks like forests and soils.
And reaching the level of removal needed to zero out emissions could take more than 2,000 direct air capture facilities by 2050, Rhodium estimates.
Currently, there are only 11 direct air capture facilities around the world, and none is large-scale, the report notes. Just one of those plants is located in the U.S., in Alabama.

More federal research dollars and supportive policies can help bring the price of the technology down into a range where it is cost-competitive with other low-carbon solutions, the report says.
And just improving existing technology could already drive costs of direct air capture down 20% to 30%, according to Larsen.
“It’s real. It works. We’ve been operating a pilot plant since 2015,” said Lori Guetre, head of strategic business development for the Canada-based direct air capture firm Carbon Engineering Ltd. “We’re ready to commercialize this technology.”

Direct air capture is an essential component of meeting ambitious climate goals, and “can serve as insurance if other decarbonization efforts don’t deliver as planned,” the report says.
But technology-driven carbon dioxide removal options “do not offer a ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card on the hard work of decarbonization,” the report cautions.
Funding Moves
Carbon capture technologies, including direct air capture, have picked up bipartisan support in Congress.
Lawmakers in a 2018 bipartisan budget bill expanded and extended tax incentives for carbon capture in a move that could significantly boost the technology. That legislation also opened the door for direct air capture and carbon utilization projects to receive the credits.
In this Congress, several bipartisan bills are on the table to promote carbon capture.
Two of those bills—one re-introduced by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), and one unveiled recently by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)—would provide federal funding for direct air capture.
To date, direct air capture technology has received just $11 million in federal funding, or less than 1 percent of what the Energy Department has spent annually on applied energy technology research and development in the last 10 years, Rhodium says.

Any additional federal funding for direct air capture needs to focus not just on early stage research but also on demonstration projects and deployment, direct air capture analysts say.
There is “kind of a hole in the support in funding” when companies get to the stage of deploying the technology and building first plants, said Etosha Cave, founder of Opus 12, a Silicon Valley-based startup that is building technology to recycle carbon dioxide into chemicals and fuels.
Right in that middle space, where innovators are trying to bring technologies to the market, “there seems to be some missing policy,” Cave added.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/carbon-from-air-success-rides-on-federal-commitment-report-says

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested