Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 5/24/2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters, Cancer and Lobbying: The Safety Row over Flame Retardants
May 24, 2019 | The Guardian
By Jessica Glenza and Lauren Aratani
Jay Fleming is a booming Boston firefighter who has climbed the ranks since 1978. He has two engineering degrees, a no-nonsense manner and thick accent. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Increasingly Futile Quest to Lobby Against Trump's Tariffs
May 24, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Mark Niquette
Mark Maroon came to Washington three times last year to plead for relief from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and he’s planning another trip next month -- even though he doesn’t have much hope. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Gained in April
May 23, 2019 | Energy Global
By Tom Mostyn
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) rose by 0.3% in April, following a 0.3% decline in March and a 0.2% decline in February. During April, chemical output was higher across all regions. -
EPA Reminds Companies That TSCA Inventory Rule Is in Effect
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is reminding chemical manufacturers and processors that its rule requiring reporting substances to its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals in commerce remains in effect despite a federal appellate court's ruling last month remanding... -
US Water Utilities and States Want Data on PFAS Production and Use
May 23, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
US water utilities and state regulators want chemical manufacturers and processors to hand over data on past and current production and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Congress is mulling over their request. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Updating List to Help Chemical Makers Avoid Animal Tests (1)
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA plans to soon update its list of acceptable tests that don’t involve live animals like rabbits or mice which chemical makers can use to examine the toxicity of their products, an agency official said May 23. -
Upton Vows All-Out Push for PFAS Action
May 23, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Fred Upton said today bipartisan groups of lawmakers will seek to add language addressing PFAS chemicals to the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act and spending bills working their way through the House in the coming months. -
EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Rocket Fuel Regulations (1)
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is formally proposing new drinking water regulations on the chemical perchlorate, the first new drinking water regulation from the agency since the George W. Bush administration. -
EPA Proposes Perchlorate MCL But Weighs Withdrawing Determination
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA was under a judicial deadline to propose by May 28 the MCL and MCLG, following a settlement between the agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which sued the agency alleging it had missed a SDWA deadline to propose an MCL. -
On Japan’s Okinawa, U.S. Military Blamed for Contaminating Environment with Hazardous Chemical
May 24, 2019 | Washington Post
By Simon Denyer and Akiko Kashiwagi
The U.S. military on the Japanese island of Okinawa is facing claims of environmental contamination after high levels of a carcinogenic chemical were found in the rivers around a U.S. air base and in the bloodstream of local residents, according to a new study. -
More Scrutiny of Chemical Registrations Ahead, EU Agency Says
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Companies trading chemicals in the European Union may face more scrutiny over the extent of safety information they provide to regulators. -
Democratic Plan Could Spur Bigger Sale of Arctic Drilling Rights
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The U.S. government could be forced to sell more drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to satisfy a revenue requirement advanced by the House of Representatives, according to the Interior Department’s Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Joe Balash. -
EPA Could Undo or Split Obama-Era Methane Rule, Wheeler Says (1)
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is exploring how and if it should regulate the greenhouse gas methane from the oil and gas sector and will propose a plan in the next few months, agency chief Andrew Wheeler said May 23. -
U.S. Environmental Chief Blasts N.Y. Over Blocked Gas Pipelines
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
New York officials’ decisions to block pipelines through the state are forcing the Northeast U.S. to rely on natural gas imports from Russia, EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said. -
Gas Rule in the Works Since 2011 Goes to White House
May 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
A package of rules that federal pipeline safety regulators have been working on since a deadly 2010 natural gas explosion has been sent to the White House. -
Manchin Wary of Chinese Investment in Appalachia
May 23, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy Dillon
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is souring on a potential $80 billion Chinese investment in his home state's natural gas industry over fears the deal would take away domestic manufacturing and national security opportunities. -
Grijalva: 'Useful Excuse' Obscures Delay of Leasing Proposal
May 23, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) accused the Interior Department today of political motivations in its decision to delay an offshore drilling proposal, asserting the decision is aimed at "misleading coastal voters" ahead of President Trump's 2020 reelection bid. -
The Gas Lines of the ‘70s Are Gone, Replaced by Complacence
May 24, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Spencer Jakab
Remember standing in gas lines to fill your car? -
Shell Starts Production at New Appomattox Platform in the Gulf
May 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Thursday it has commenced production at its massive new Appomattox platform in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico a few months ahead of schedule. -
Western Firms Must Rethink Sourcing After Chinese Explosion, Report Urges
May 23, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
A deadly explosion at a chemical plant in China has created shortages of certain key chemicals purchased by Western firms -
Manchin, Chatterjee Mull Protections for 'Vulnerable' Grid
May 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
Cybersecurity concerns from leading energy policy lawmakers and government officials hung over the U.S. Energy Association's annual policy meeting in Washington, D.C., yesterday. -
US Withdraws Train Crew Proposal That Came After Explosions
May 24, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Brown
The Trump administration said Thursday it was withdrawing a proposal for freight trains to have at least two crew members, nullifying a safety measure drafted under President Barack Obama in response to explosions of crude oil trains in the U.S. and Canada. -
NS Doles out 58 Chemical Safety Awards
May 23, 2019 | Railway Age
By Andrew Corselli
Norfolk Southern (NS) recently awarded 58 chemical customers its 2018 Thoroughbred Chemical Safety Award, a long-standing initiative to promote safe rail-shipping practices in communities the railroad serves. -
Partisan Divides Continue to Define Select Committee Hearings
May 24, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The Select Committee on the Climate Crisis met again yesterday for what could have been a bipartisan hearing on climate resilience and adaptation. -
This Treaty Is Good for the Environment. It Might Even Be Good for Trump.
May 23, 2019 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
If President Trump is looking for ways to strengthen America’s economic competitiveness without the toxic fallout of his trade conflicts, there is a simple move he could make that would improve the trade balance, create tens of thousands of jobs, win him bipartisan praise and, as a side benefit, help save the planet. -
Amazon Rejects Climate Change Proposal
May 24, 2019 | AP (In E&E Climatewire)
By Joseph Pisani
Despite pressure from civil rights groups, activist investors and its own employees, Amazon.com Inc. said Wednesday that shareholders at an annual meeting in Seattle voted against proposals related to two major social issues: climate change and facial recognition technology.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firefighters, Cancer and Lobbying: The Safety Row over Flame Retardants
May 24, 2019 | The Guardian
By Jessica Glenza and Lauren Aratani
Jay Fleming is a booming Boston firefighter who has climbed the ranks since 1978. He has two engineering degrees, a no-nonsense manner and thick accent.
For the last seven years, he has applied his considerable wit to banning flame retardant chemicals in Massachusetts, which might sound counterintuitive to those not steeped in the byzantine logic of American chemical regulation.
“Firefighters are like the canary in the mine,” said Fleming. “If there is a problem with these chemicals, we’re going to get it,” said Fleming. “We’re exposed to the highest level.”
Fleming has watched colleagues die of cancer since he started in the department. His father was also a firefighter. He died of lung cancer in an era when few firefighters wore masks, let alone the rebreathers available today.
But now, that diagnosis feels less exotic than news his peers get – findings of kidney, bladder and thyroid cancers. The legislator who once carried the bill to ban fire retardants, former firefighter and senator Ken Donnelly, himself died of brain cancer at just 66. Fleming blames flame retardants, some of which have already been designated as likely to cause cancer and which have been found to disrupt the endocrine system, according to the National Institutes of Health.
Already, new generations of the products have been introduced since concerns were first raised about their safety, effects on the human body and persistence in the environment.
“When they started to transition to this plastic stuff [in the home], it just produced smoke that was a lot more irritating,” said Fleming. Firefighters never said to “add flame retardants, they just said address the plastics problem, because it’s killing us [from the smoke while fighting fires] … The solution to adding chemicals to the furniture was to add more chemicals to the furniture.”
Fire retardant chemicals were first proposed by tobacco companies as a solution to fires started by cigarettes in the 1970s. Rather than reformulate their products, they suggested, society could reformulate everything else.
Today, all manner of materials are treated with flame retardant chemicals, often required by law, including children’s pyjamas, upholstery for plush furniture and car seats.Advertisement
At the same time, studies have shown children exposed to flame retardants are more likely to have poorer social skills. Exposure in utero could have lower the overall IQand working memory. Some studies have shown disruption to thyroid functions and a possible link to cancer. The chemicals also bioaccumulate in the body. Flame retardants have been found at “considerable” levels in freshwaterand in midwestern bobcats.
But all this time – despite the endorsement of pediatricians, firefighters and lawmakers – Massachusetts has failed to sign a bill into law.
Opposing the bill, despite its many backers, has been the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Their member companies read like a list of American blue chips – branches of oil giants such as Chevron Philip Chemical Company and ExxonMobil, pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Eli Lilly and Company and Merck & Co, and public-facing companies such as DuPont and 3M.
The ACC told the Guardian: “Flame retardants play an important role in fire safety and are proven to be effective in preventing fires. If a fire does occur, flame retardants slow its progression and provide people extra time to escape while giving firefighters more time to respond.”
The group added that flame retardants are “especially important today as the large volume of electrical and electronic equipment in buildings and a larger volume of combustible materials can increase the potential for fire hazards”.
This winter, the ACC registered two lobbyists based out of New York to combat the flame retardant bill. Margaret Gorman and Erin DeSantis, both in-house lobbyists working in the north-east for the ACC, were joined by three lobbying firms employing 10 more lobbyists registered to work on the issue.
The Massachusetts legislature approved a fire retardant ban with bipartisan support. However, their efforts were thwarted when the Republican governor, Charlie Baker, “pocket-vetoed” the bill, letting it die without signing it.
“While I would get a sense there were people out there opposing my bill, I never knew exactly who,” said the Democratic representative Marjorie Decker, who carried the bill. There was no vocal opposition. The bill received bipartisan support. “Part of this was thinking they could end-run me.”
In an attempt to pressure the governor to sign the bill, Decker held a press conference with firefighters. It was there she found out from a reporter that the ACC had a meeting with Baker, while supporters had not.
“How amazing to be that powerful. You get a meeting with the governor, we don’t,” said Decker. His office offered them a meeting the next day – not with the governor, but his staff.
The ACC asked for a carve-out for car seats, so the materials could still be sold with flame retardants, arguing it would be better for low-income consumers.
“It’s an insult,” said Decker. “I grew up low-income, public house, poor. To suggest that lower-income families should have dangerous choices, that they think that is an economic argument they can make – it’s gross.”
In response to questions from the Guardian, the ACC praised Baker’s “pragmatic approach” in reviewing the legislation, which it said was seriously flawed and “hurriedly passed”. “The bill would have undermined overall product safety and conflicted with existing fire safety regulations while also placing an undue burden on Massachusetts businesses and consumers.”
The ACC said it supported firefighters, including support for research into improving their health.
Higher-end furniture manufacturers in particular are responding to demand from consumers to produce furniture without the chemicals. Less fire-vulnerable furniture can be achieved by specific fabric weaves, without requiring flame retardant chemicals. However, the trend has yet to reach all, and in particular leaves low-income people out.
At the same time, while one state after another has attempted to ban flame retardants, they have repeatedly failed.
Out of 16 states which tried to pass flame retardant bans between 2017 and 2019, including Massachusetts, 12 did not succeed. The ACC was registered to lobby state representatives in 10 of those 12 states.
More than 100 lobbyistsMore than 100 lobbyists
With a massive influence operation and a $123m budget, the ACC has 109 lobbyists registered at 40 statehouses across the country, including some who registered in multiple states, and 56 more lobbyists registered in Washington DC, ready to dispatch when lawmakers proposed regulations on their industry.
Although the ACC is not a household name, it is currently better financedthan well-known groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA). The ACC has a budget more than 20% bigger than the gun rights group.
But unlike the NRA, it do not appear to work with a base of public support. Instead, they are financed by some of the world’s most powerful companies, who often supply valuable jobs in politicians’ jurisdictions.
In states such as Hawaii, where lawmakers often lead the pack on legislation to reduce single-use plastics, the ACC hired eight lobbyists in the last five years. The group also monitors local jurisdictions.
“They will send a lobbyist from DC to Hawaii at the most local level of city and county to try to stop plastic bans here,” said Rafael Bergstrom, executive director of Sustainable Coastline Hawaii. Hawaii has been especially hard hit by plastic ocean debris, shards of which wash up knee-deep on the beaches of remote Hawaiian beaches.
“It’s very interesting, because where we’re trying to be very public-facing in our movement,” the ACC “hardly say anything in a public hearing”, said Bergstrom.Close to politicians and regulators
Fleming, who has testified all over the north-east, told a similar story. “They hardly ever come to the public hearings,” he said. But in Massachusetts, “they end up getting meetings with the governor’s staff”.
In 2018, the ACC lobbied the federal government on infrastructure, opioids, plastic polystyrene, cosmetics and recycling. They lobbied on the clean power plan, bills to track water contamination and on ozone standards. They lobbied on microbeads and labels, and on the budgets of the Departments of Justice, Interior, Labor, Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
In the last three months of that year, the ACC hired or contracted 56 lobbyists in Washington DC alone to work on everything from marine debris to warning labels. Their in-house Washington lobbyists, not including contractors, cost $1.9m.
They donate to politicians and lobby across a half-dozen federal agencies. In just one example of their 2018 election spending, the group spent $938,000supporting the Arizona senator Dean Heller, who lost his race, according to the Center for Responsive Politics and ProPublica.
They also maintain extremely close relationships with regulators. Regular emails fly back and forth between the ACC and the EPA, according to documents reviewed by the Guardian.
The former EPA administrator Scott Pruitt attended an ACC meeting at a luxury resort. The head of the EPA department tasked with regulating chemicals, Dr Jeff Morris, spoke at the ACC’s Washington DC conference.
The Trump administration nominated a candidate whose research has bolstered industry safety claims about flame retardants to head the EPA’s chemical safety division. Michael Dourson, a member of the ACC’s flame retardant scientific advisory board, withdrew his name from consideration after two senators said they would not support him because of his past industry connections.Explained: the toxic threat in everyday products, from toys to plastic
Read more
The ACC runs a political action committee, which last year raised $857,000 (its highest total ever). Its contributors include American current and former senior management of ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical and Chevron Phillips Chemical. That money is spent predominantly on Republicans.Advertisement
The ACC also set up the Mind the Science website targeting consumers and retailers last year. This is not to be confused with an actual grassroots group called Mind the Store, founded to get potentially dangerous chemicals out of shops. The ACC has also paid researchers, whose work later cast doubt on the dangers of flame retardants.
The ACC also works with groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council, better known as Alec. For instance, the ACC, the Plastics Industry Alliance and Alec have all worked together recently to stop plastic bag bans by widely sharing model legislation through Alec.
The ACC said its membership in Alec is no different than “similar groups like the Council of State Governments, Women in Government, the National Council of State Legislatures and the Environmental Council of the States. These organizations help facilitate the exchange of ideas across the country concerning state public policy issues.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/24/massachusetts-flame-retardants-firefighters-safety-cancer
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Increasingly Futile Quest to Lobby Against Trump's Tariffs
May 24, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Mark Niquette
Mark Maroon came to Washington three times last year to plead for relief from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, and he’s planning another trip next month -- even though he doesn’t have much hope.
Maroon doesn’t expect the administration to hold off imposing duties on $300 billion more in Chinese goods, a move that would hit products imported by Maroon’s company, which distributes specialty chemicals from its base in Ohio. With existing tariffs already costing the firm 10% of its business in lost sales, he has no choice but to make his case.
“It’s an effort in futility,” said Maroon, chief technology officer of Maroon Group LLC. “I want to be on the record, and it doesn’t hurt to try.”
U.S. trade associations and companies aren’t giving up the fight against the latest round of duties proposed by the president who calls himself “Tariff Man” as the world’s two-largest economies try to finalize a sweeping trade deal. They’re clinging to the hope -- however slim -- that the administration may spare their products, and eventually heed their warnings that the tariffs will hurt American companies and consumers.
“We’d be abdicating our responsibility if we didn’t participate, even though we do think it’s probably going to be somewhat frustrating,’’ said David French, senior vice president of government relations at the National Retail Federation. “We certainly want to help build the record that shows that this strategy is going to do a significant amount of harm.”
More Duties
Trump imposed duties on $250 billion Chinese goods last year to punish Beijing for what the U.S. sees as years of unfair trade practices. As talks faltered, he ordered this month a tariff increase to 25% from 10% on $200 billion of those products, causing businesses including Walmart Inc. to warn of increased prices for consumers. Trump also threatened duties on an additional $300 billion in goods, including toys, mobile phones and laptops. If the president follows through, U.S. tariffs would cover essentially all imports from Asian nation.
Companies have until June 17 to file written comments on the duties, and public hearings are set to begin that day in Washington.
Before the three previous rounds of U.S. tariffs, almost 500 individuals testified over 11 days, and thousands of comments were filed -- most like Maroon supporting a deal with China but opposing duties as the means to reach one. Firms and trade groups formed coalitions such as Americans for Free Trade, holding events across the U.S. to highlight how companies and suffering from the tariffs and China’s retaliation.
But it’s getting harder to hide from Trump’s tariff assault. Companies that succeeded in getting products removed from the initial lists now face the reality of having those goods hit with duties in the next round.
Trump’s tariffs have already hit $15.4 billion in chemicals and plastics, and the latest round would affect an additional $13.2 billion, according to the American Chemistry Council. U.S. chemical exports to China declined because of retaliatory duties, nearly tripling the American trade deficit for chemicals, the group said.
“This very well could be a negotiating tactic, but it also could be an end in itself -- that tariffs will stay for a long time, so we have to make our case,’’ said Ed Brzytwa, the council’s director of international trade.
Made In China
The administration has promised exemptions if companies can show inputs or products can only be obtained in China, and aren’t “strategically important” to Chinese industrial programs, or the duties would cause “severe economic harm.” Trump has tweeted that companies won’t face a tariff if they make their goods “at home in the USA.”
But of the more than 13,750 requests for exclusions from the first two lists of tariffs filed last year, final decisions have been reported on only about two-thirds, with more than half of them denied, according to data from the U.S. Trade Representative’s office.
The USTR said it expects the window for submitting exclusion requests for the $200 billion list will open around June 30 and that it will get 60,000 product-exclusion requests.
Company executives say many of their products are only made in China, or that reshoring production to the U.S. isn’t possible. Maroon Group, which has about 225 employees, has put off a planned expansion of its sales force because it lost customers who can’t pay higher prices from the duties, Maroon said.
More than half of the latest list of products targeted for tariffs by import value are technology goods, and the Consumer Technology Association is urging its members to come out in force with hopes of swaying Republicans in Congress and others close to the president, said Sage Chandler, the group’s vice president of international trade.
“You can’t just give up,’’ Chandler said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-24/the-increasingly-futile-quest-to-lobby-against-trump-s-tariffs
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Production Gained in April
May 23, 2019 | Energy Global
By Tom Mostyn
According to the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chemical Production Regional Index (US CPRI) rose by 0.3% in April, following a 0.3% decline in March and a 0.2% decline in February. During April, chemical output was higher across all regions.
Chemical production was mixed over the three-month period. There were gains in the production three-month moving average (3MMA) output trend in organic chemicals, plastic resins, adhesives, coatings, other speciality chemicals, industrial gases, synthetic dyes and pigments, crop protection chemicals, and consumer products. These gains were offset by declines in the output of synthetic rubber, fertilizers, manufactured fibres, and other inorganic chemicals.
Nearly all manufactured goods are produced using chemistry in some form. Thus, manufacturing activity is an important indicator for chemical production. On a 3MMA basis, manufacturing activity edged lower for a third straight month, by 0.3% in April. Output expanded in several chemistry-intensive manufacturing industries, including aerospace, semiconductors, oil and gas extraction, rubber products and tires.
Compared with April 2018, US chemical production was up by 2.8% on a year-over-year basis, a weaker comparison than in March. Chemical production was higher than a year ago in all regions, with the largest gains in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and West Coast regions.
The chemistry industry is one of the largest industries in the US, a US$526 billion enterprise. The manufacturing sector is the largest consumer of chemical products, and 96% of manufactured goods are touched by chemistry. CPRI was developed to track chemical production activity in seven regions of the United States. CPRI is based on information from the Federal Reserve, and as such, includes monthly revisions as published by the Federal Reserve. To smooth month-to-month fluctuations, CPRI is measured using 3MMA. Thus, the reading in April reflects production activity during February, March, and April.
https://www.energyglobal.com/downstream/petrochemicals/23052019/us-chemical-production-gained-in-april/
-
EPA Reminds Companies That TSCA Inventory Rule Is in Effect
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
EPA is reminding chemical manufacturers and processors that its rule requiring reporting substances to its Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) inventory of chemicals in commerce remains in effect despite a federal appellate court's ruling last month remanding part of the rule back to the agency, according to new notice from the toxics office.
The May 23 notice advises that “no part of the rule has been vacated and that all requirements of the rule remain in effect.” The notice was released on the toxics office's email listserv.
“Any proposed or final changes to the rule in response to the remand will be announced in the Federal Register.”
EPA's notice comes after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled April 26 in Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) v. EPA to uphold most of the challenged provisions though the three-judge panel rejected EPA's decision to drop a provision from its rule re-setting the TSCA inventory that required companies to substantiate a category of confidential business information (CBI) claims, finding its “explanation for excising that criterion was, nonsensically, a denial that it had done so."
The panel ruled that EPA's decision to drop a question related to how companies substantiate their CBI claims in cases where the identities of their chemicals could be reverse-engineered was arbitrary and capricious and remanded that portion of the rule back to EPA.
In addition, the toxics office's notice says that “[a]s part of the Agency’s response to the remand, EPA may seek to supplement its April 2019 proposed rule establishing a plan to review CBI claims for chemical identity asserted in” notice of retrospective activity forms submitted to the agency.
EPA in an April 23 Federal Register notice proposed a rule to amend its 2018 TSCA inventory update rule to address concerns raised in environmentalists' suit and elsewhere.
Specifically, the Register says “EPA is proposing substantiation requirements for manufacturers (including importers) and processors who filed [notice of activity (NOA)] Form A's with assertions that they seek to maintain CBI claims to protect the specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory.”
EPA explains in the Register that in accordance with TSCA section 8(b)(4)(C) requirements that EPA “promulgate a rule that establishes a plan to review all CBI claims to protect the specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory ... This proposed rule is a follow-on regulation to the [February 2018] Active-Inactive rule that would require substantiation of CBI claims for specific chemical identity from any reporters who asserted such a claim as part of the NOA Form A submission, but did not provide (voluntary) upfront substantiation at that time.”
The toxics office says that it “intends to provide public notice in the Federal Register and an opportunity for public comment on any future action supplementing that proposed rule,” before adding that anyone wishing to comment on the April proposed CBI review rule should do so by the June 24 deadline.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-reminds-companies-tsca-inventory-rule-effect
-
US Water Utilities and States Want Data on PFAS Production and Use
May 23, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
US water utilities and state regulators want chemical manufacturers and processors to hand over data on past and current production and use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Congress is mulling over their request.
Utilities and regulators are struggling to address PFAS contamination that scientists are detecting in ground and surface waters that supply drinking water. Some of these synthetic compounds are linked to harmful effects in the liver and to the immune system, as well as reproductive and developmental problems. Other PFAS haven’t been tested for health effects. States and utilities want to identify where PFAS pollution is coming from.
“We need to know where PFAS compounds have been produced and in what volumes,” the American Water Works Association’s executive director of government affairs, G. Tracy Mehan III, said at a May 22 hearing. “We’ve tried to get that information, but it’s not that easy,” he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
For instance, Pennsylvania filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests seeking data on PFAS manufacture and use sites but came up empty-handed, said Lisa Daniels, director of the state’s Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. She spoke at the hearing on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
Mehan pointed out that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to gather such information from industry through the federal law governing chemical production, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Employing TSCA to pinpoint potential sources of PFAS pollution for the purpose of protecting sources of drinking water would be a new, strategic use of this law.
Congress should direct the EPA to collect information from industry on the location of current and past production, import, processing, and use of individual PFAS and compile it into a report that gets updated every 2 years, Mehan told the committee.
The EPA can also use TSCA to prevent new PFAS from getting into the environment, Daniels said. Under TSCA, the agency can bar release of a novel substance into air, water, or soil as a condition of allowing a company to make and market the chemical. For instance, EPA required first DuPont and then its spin-off Chemours to capture and destroy or recycle two PFAS, both fluoroethers, as a condition for allowing their manufacture. The agency cited Chemours in February for failing to control emissions of those fluoroethers to air and water.
“Actions under TSCA are needed to reduce or eliminate the introduction of these chemicals to the environment and place the responsibility on the manufacturers and producers of PFAS,” Daniels said. Once these chemicals get into the environment, they generally end up in water, which forces drinking water utilities to bear the costly burden of PFAS removal. “We can’t just solve this as a drinking water issue,” she said.
The Environment and Public Works Committee held the hearing as it considers six bipartisan billsto address PFAS pollution. Committee Chair John Barrasso (R-WY) says he opposes some of those measures in their current form because the legislation would circumvent the federal public notice-and-comment process for regulation and bypass scientific assessment of individual PFAS by the EPA. But Barasso pledged to hammer out bipartisan legislation before 2021 to address PFAS pollution.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/US-water-utilities-states-want/97/web/2019/05
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Updating List to Help Chemical Makers Avoid Animal Tests (1)
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA plans to soon update its list of acceptable tests that don’t involve live animals like rabbits or mice which chemical makers can use to examine the toxicity of their products, an agency official said May 23.
The Environmental Protection Agency is updating the list of alternative chemical test methods it released in June 2018 to comply with the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments, said Steven Snyderman, an environmental protection specialist at the agency.
Companies don’t have to use the toxicity tests on the EPA’s list. But the list can help chemical manufacturers evaluate the safety of their compounds by using tests that meet TSCA’s criteria, the EPA says.
That means the EPA has concluded the listed tests produce scientifically “reliable” and “relevant” information about the health or ecological issues being investigated.
The tests on the EPA’s list don’t typically use animals, but in some cases rely on spineless fauna such as earthworms or water fleas.
Most Common DataThe EPA also will soon propose for public comment a process for nominating alternative tests to include on the list, Snyderman told a committee of federal agencies that discussed their efforts to increase their use of data from tests that don’t rely on animals.
That process could interest chemical manufacturers that develop in-house tests as well as academic researchers and companies, such as Genentech Inc. and Biomatrica Inc., that develop tests.
For example, Procter & Gamble Co. helped invent three non-animal skin tests that can be used to develop data for the EPA’s chemicals or pesticide programs.
Finally, the EPA is examining which traditional and new toxicity tests are most frequently used to generate TSCA information, Snyderman said.
The agency expects to release that analysis this summer, he said.
Chemical Industry EffortsThe three agency efforts should help chemical manufacturers, the American Chemistry Council said in a statement provided to Bloomberg Environment.
For example, the agency initiative to identify the most requested studies for new and existing chemicals will help companies understand where new types of tests can help in evaluating chemicals, said the council, which represents most U.S. chemical manufacturers.
Chemical companies around the world have been interested in new toxicity and exposure test methods, and ways the data they generate can be used for risk evaluation. Those are among the topics slated for discussion at a June meeting with European regulators in Italy.
(Updated with more EPA information and comments from the American Chemistry Council.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-updating-list-to-help-chemical-makers-avoid-animal-testing
-
Upton Vows All-Out Push for PFAS Action
May 23, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Fred Upton said today bipartisan groups of lawmakers will seek to add language addressing PFAS chemicals to the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act and spending bills working their way through the House in the coming months.
"We’re going to use all the tools in the toolbox to see what we can do to help our communities," Upton (R-Mich.), a senior Energy and Commerce Committee member, told POLITICO today.
Upton said the bipartisan PFAS task force, which boasts dozens of members, would be closely involved in those efforts.
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), chairman of the E&C Environment Subcommittee, told POLITICO he intends to have a legislative path forward outlined once Congress returns from its Memorial Day recess. His panel held a legislative hearing on various proposals to address the contamination crisis earlier this month.
"We’re going through all the input we received at the hearing and then determining how we’re going to package those together and which to address first and prioritize," he said.
Tonko said regulating PFAS chemicals as a class "makes sense" but said he wants to hear input from all committee members. He also said he wouldn't rule out adding language to the NDAA addressing the chemicals.
"I’ll entertain any solutions that get us to clean up these sites," Tonko said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/upton-vows-all-out-push-for-pfas-action-3316574
-
EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Rocket Fuel Regulations (1)
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA is formally proposing new drinking water regulations on the chemical perchlorate, the first new drinking water regulation from the agency since the George W. Bush administration.
Under this proposal, released May 23, all U.S. water utilities would have to ensure that their water contains no more than 56 micrograms of perchlorate per liter of water. Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel, fireworks, and some food packaging. Studies have found that consuming too much perchlorate can cause thyroid problems.
In addition, all Superfund sites contaminated with perchlorate would have to be cleaned up to the 56 micrograms standard, according to the Environmental Protection Agency proposal.
The Trump administration was under a court-ordered deadline to publicly release the standards for perchlorate before the end of this month. This deadline sprang from a lawsuit by environmentalists, Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, who argued the agency wasn’t abiding by the timelines laid out in federal drinking water law.
The 56 micrograms threshold is “jaw-droppingly high,” according to Erik Olson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. He said other states with established drinking water standards for perchlorate set their thresholds in the single digits.
Olson said this standard was set to benefit the Department of Defense and its contractors, the largest users of perchlorate.
Before the proposal can go into effect, the EPA will accept comments on the plan, then analyze those comments, a process that can take months if not years.
The EPA hasn’t established standards for a new drinking water contaminant since 2006, and hasn’t revised its standards for any previously regulated contaminant since 2013. To enact nationwide regulations, the agency must follow a multi-step process laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which often stretches over multiple presidential administrations.
(Updated to add comments form Erik Olson.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-unveils-long-awaited-rocket-fuel-regulations
-
EPA Proposes Perchlorate MCL But Weighs Withdrawing Determination
May 24, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is proposing a long-awaited health protective goal and drinking water standard for perchlorate of 56 micrograms per liter (ug/L) but is asking the public to comment on a variety of options including setting levels more and less stringent or not regulating the chemical at all in drinking water, given new information on occurrence levels.
The proposal, announced May 23, marks the first time in decades the agency has proposed an enforceable maximum contaminant level (MCL) based on a process outlined in 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). According to a pre-publication version of the proposed rule, EPA is also suggesting setting a health-based maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) at the same level of 56 ug/L. MCLGs are health protective levels that do not take into account additional factors, such as cost and feasibility, that the agency can consider when setting an MCL.
EPA was under a judicial deadline to propose by May 28 the MCL and MCLG, following a settlement between the agency and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which sued the agency alleging it had missed a SDWA deadline to propose an MCL.
If finalized, the standard would require water systems to monitor for perchlorate and report occurrences in treated water to consumers.
But the agency appears to be wavering on whether 56 ug/L is the level it should set, asking commenters to provide input on three alternative options. These would set the MCL and MCLG at 18 ug/L, 90 ug/L, or withdraw EPA’s 2011 determination to regulate perchlorate at all in drinking water, which itself was a reversal of the Bush administration’s 2008 decision to refrain from regulating the chemical. If EPA withdraws its 2011 determination, then the agency would not set either an MCLG or an MCL.
California and Massachusetts, the two states that have set MCLs for perchlorate, have standards of 5 ug/L and 2 ug/L, respectively.
EPA’s proposal is drawing criticism from both NRDC, which argues none of the levels EPA suggests would be protective of human health, and from drinking water utilities, which say a national MCL would do little to further reduce the health risks because California’s standard addressed parts of the country where some of the greatest exposure was.
The agency appears to recognize the utilities’ argument, saying the option to withdraw the regulatory determination stems from “new information that indicates that perchlorate does not occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern,” the proposal says. It notes that therefore, “there may not be a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction through a drinking water regulation.”
EPA in the proposal explains that it derived the 56 ug/L MCLG using a point of departure based on a 2 percent decrease in IQ for children of hypothyroxinemic women of childbearing age with a low iodine intake. Iodine is necessary for crucial neurodevelopment, and the fetus is dependent upon the mother for iodine.
The agency adds though that it “acknowledges the uncertainties in the derivation of the proposed (and alternative) MCLGs,” and in particular recognizes “the challenge associated with selecting the decrement of IQ that represents an adverse effect at the population level and the uncertainties in predicting the dose of perchlorate that may result in a particular IQ decrement given the absence of robust human epidemiological data directly linking perchlorate exposure to IQ decrements."
It goes on to say it is seeking comment on the alternative MCLG values of 18 ug/L -- which correlates to a one percent decrease in IQ -- and 90 ug/L -- which correlates to a three percent decrease in IQ.
As for its decision to propose an MCL at the same level as the MCLG, EPA found it to be feasible given approved analytical methods for testing perchlorate under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule had a minimum reporting level of 4 ug/L and available treatment technologies can treat to levels far below 56 ug/L, the proposal says. These treatment technologies can also achieve the lower level of 18 ug/L, it says.
EPA says it is particularly interested in receiving comment on the perchlorate monitoring and reporting requirements for public water systems and on the list of treatment technologies that would allow systems to comply, including lower cost compliance technologies for smaller systems.
The proposal also appears to rely on a biologically-based dose-response (BBDR) model to develop the MCLG, despite urgings from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) to change its approach. AWWA, which represents both municipally owned and investor-owned utilities, has repeatedly urged EPA to use a traditional algebraic formula using a 2007 risk estimate rather than a BBDR model as recommended by agency science advisers in 2013.
An AWWA source says the group questions the BDDR model’s fitness for regulatory decision-making, and notes that California’s MCL “has addressed most of the risk. Thus, there is little meaningful opportunity to reduce health risk as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act."
In contrast, NRDC says in May 23 statement that the proposal “will gravely threaten public health.”
“This is enough to make you sick--literally. As a result, millions of Americans will be at risk of exposure to dangerous levels of this toxic chemical in their drinking water,” Erik Olson, NRDC senior director for health and food, said in the statement.
“Scientists recommend a limit that is 10 to more than 50 times lower than what the agency is proposing. This is another Trump administration gift to polluters and water utilities that have lobbied to be off the hook for cleaning up the problem,” Olson said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-proposes-perchlorate-mcl-weighs-withdrawing-determination
-
On Japan’s Okinawa, U.S. Military Blamed for Contaminating Environment with Hazardous Chemical
May 24, 2019 | Washington Post
By Simon Denyer and Akiko Kashiwagi
The U.S. military on the Japanese island of Okinawa is facing claims of environmental contamination after high levels of a carcinogenic chemical were found in the rivers around a U.S. air base and in the bloodstream of local residents, according to a new study.
The controversy is inflaming an already sensitive situation for the U.S. military in Okinawa. The island is home to half the 54,000 U.S. troops in Japan and has the largest U.S. air base in the Asia-Pacific. The military presence, however, is widely unpopular.
The accusations have hit the front pages in Okinawa and been raised at a parliamentary environmental committee in Tokyo just before President Trump arrives for a state visit, although it is unlikely to be an issue either the U.S. leader nor Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will want to address.
It also mirrors wider concerns in the United States about contamination from a family of industrial chemicals known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The chemicals have a wide array of consumer and industrial uses from nonstick cookware to firefighting foam, but do not break down in the environment, and are now the target of a series of congressional bills demanding stronger action to regulate their use and decontaminate water supplies around the United States.
In Okinawa, a study by two Kyoto University professors found high concentrations of a chemical called perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in rivers passing through and around the Kadena Air Base and the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma.
PFOS is a chemical within the PFAS family, and was used by the U.S. military as an ingredient in firefighting foam for five decades until 2015, along with perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
Col. John Hutcheson, director of public affairs for U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ), said the chemicals had been used for fighting petroleum fires primarily at military and civilian airfields — and in a number of industrial processes — because they help rapidly extinguish the fire, protecting personnel and property.
“U.S. military installations in Japan are transitioning to an alternative formula of aqueous film-forming foam that is PFOS free, only contains trace amounts of PFOA, and meets military specifications for firefighting,” he said.
Regarding the accusations of environment damage, however, the spokesman declined to comment.
“We have seen press reports but have not had a chance to review the Kyoto University study, so it would be inappropriate to comment on its findings,” said Hutcheson.
The use of PFOS and PFOA is in principle prohibited in Japan, and was also phased out in the United States in recent years after studies linked them to cancer, thyroid disease, weakened childhood immunity and other health problems.
Professor Emeritus Akio Koizumi and Associate Professor Koji Harada found concentrations of PFOS at four times the national average in the bloodstream of local residents living near the U.S. bases in Okinawa, with effects on their cholesterol levels and liver functions.
Their study was conducted jointly for Kyoto University, a Kyoto medical association and a hospital in Okinawa, but has not been peer reviewed.
Koizumi and Harada said it was not clear how the contamination was affecting residents’ health, but said it was evident that tap water had been contaminated.
“The source of the contamination may be on-base compounds, and it is important for this to be strictly controlled under domestic law,” they wrote.
Tomohiro Yara, an opposition member of parliament from Okinawa and a former journalist, says he has asked Kadena Air Base for a response, but has not yet received one. “We don’t know why the substance is found in rivers outside the base, but we know it’s used within the base,” he said. “Despite that, nobody has responded. This is outrageous.”
Japan’s Environment Minister Yoshiaki Harada says it is a “serious issue” and has promised an investigation.
“To begin with, I think it is a problem for the issue not to be addressed for as long as three years,” he said in response to Yara’s question. “We as the government take the issue seriously, and will begin with an investigation.” Only after that investigation would the government talk to the U.S. military about the issue, he said.
Jiro Fukuhara, a civil engineer in the water management section at the Okinawa Prefectural Government, says the government believes there is a “high probability” the Kadena Air Base is the source of the contamination, but says local water sources are now being treated, and this has brought tap water within safe levels.
In 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a lifetime health advisory level of 70 parts per trillion for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water.
Hutcheson said the Okinawa Prefectural Enterprise Bureau provides the drinking water used at Marine Corps Air Station Futenma. “PFOS and PFOA have not been detected in drinking water on MCAS Futenma at levels above the U.S. EPA lifetime health advisory,” he said.
But Fukuhara said local authorities have been asking the Ministry of Defense to get permission from U.S. military for them to inspect the Kadena Air Base since 2016 to confirm the source of the contamination, without any luck.
Yara said it appeared that neither Japanese domestic law nor U.S. law regulating PFOS was being applied.
“That means there is no law within the base,” he said. “To the extent they are provided with the land, the airspace, and the environment by local people, they should use them properly. If they contaminated it, they should say ‘we are sorry.’”
PFAS group is sometimes known as “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down naturally and are thought to be in the bodies of nearly every American and others with long-term exposure.
PFOS and PFOA have been replaced in recent years with other PFAS with slightly different chemical compositions. But the EWG says the effects of the replacement chemicals has never been properly tested.
In a study released this month in conjunction with the Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, at Northeastern University, it found PFAS contamination at 610 locations in 43 States in the United States, including drinking water systems serving an estimated 19 million people.
In a February referendum, the people of Okinawa expressed their resounding opposition to plans to build a new U.S. military base on the island, but the results have been ignored by the Japanese government and U.S. military, who say they will press ahead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/on-japans-okinawa-us-military-blamed-for-contaminating-environment-with-hazardous-chemical/2019/05/24/ca3ba342-7c84-11e9-b1f3-b233fe5811ef_story.html?utm_term=.4e142d45d73d
-
More Scrutiny of Chemical Registrations Ahead, EU Agency Says
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Companies trading chemicals in the European Union may face more scrutiny over the extent of safety information they provide to regulators.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), which administers the EU’s REACH chemicals law, said it wants to increase fourfold the share of substance registration dossiers that it’s obliged to check, meaning companies would face a one-in-five chance of getting flagged.
Under REACH (Regulation No. 1907/2006 on the registration, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals), the Helsinki-based agency is required to check at least 5% of the registration dossiers it receives for the completeness of their substance safety and exposure information. Companies that want to sell chemicals in the EU are legally obligated to submit registration dossiers to ECHA.
But an upcoming proposed amendment to REACH will raise the share of dossiers checked to 20%, Ofelia Bercaru, a unit head in the ECHA hazard assessment division, said at an ECHA conference in Helsinki May 22. The amendment could be voted on after August.
Companies trading in lower-volume substances could feel the effects most acutely. The agency is already checking about a quarter of dossiers for high-volume substances, Bercaru said, meaning those traded in the EU in volumes greater than 1,000 metric tons a year.
Scrutiny of registration dossiers can trigger binding orders for companies to provide more information or carry out potentially expensive studies to on a substance’s safety. Companies can even have their REACH registration numbers canceled if they fail to comply with the requirements.
The EU chemicals industry has no particular position on the increase in checks, Maria Linkova-Nijs, spokeswoman for the European Chemical Industry Council, said in an email. That’s something for the chemicals agency and the European Commission to decide on, she said.
Binding Commitment
Bercaru said the commission, the EU’s executive arm, will propose an amendment that would raise the proportion of dossiers to be checked.
The amendment is needed “to make the new target legally binding on ECHA and to give legal stability and predictability to companies,” the chemicals agency said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment.
So far, the European Chemicals Agency has received about 95,000 registration dossiers from companies, covering more than 22,000 chemicals. But it’s been concerned about the quality and completeness of information on chemicals in registration dossiers.
A study issued May 21 by German environmental campaign group BUND accused companies of breaking EU law by selling substances that fall short of the requirements.
“Two thirds of the dossiers have one or more endpoints not compliant,” and a review of the implementation of REACH, completed in 2018, has shown the need to “significantly improve” evaluation, Bercaru said.
The chemicals agency and the European Commission before the end of June plan to publish an action plan on improving compliance with the data requirements, she said.
More Updates Wanted
Also in the pipeline is an amendment to REACH that would more carefully specify companies’ duty to continuously update their registration dossiers as new substance safety information becomes available.
“There is a lack of data and a lack of movement to change that; generally the rate of dossier updating is still very low,” said Mike Rasenberg, ECHA head of computational assessment, speaking at the same conference as Bercaru.
The clarification on dossier updates would be “helpful for everyone—for authorities to better assess whether a dossier needs to be updated or not and for registrants to proactively update,” said Linkova-Nijs, from the chemical industry.
The European Commission said regulatory committees of EU country representatives could vote on the REACH amendments after August.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/more-scrutiny-of-chemical-registrations-ahead-eu-agency-says
-
Democratic Plan Could Spur Bigger Sale of Arctic Drilling Rights
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The U.S. government could be forced to sell more drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in order to satisfy a revenue requirement advanced by the House of Representatives, according to the Interior Department’s Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Joe Balash.
“If we have to hit a certain threshold for sales revenue at the initial auction, then we are going to offer every acre necessary in order to achieve that goal,” Balash told reporters on the sidelines of the United States Energy Association meeting in Washington.
“I don’t think that is in the interest of the people in the area who depend on the Porcupine caribou herd, for example, or the members on the Hill who care about conservation,” Balash said.
A provision in the House Department of Interior spending bill would require bids to be high enough to ensure the government takes in at least half the amount Congress said the effort would raise as part of the 2017 tax reform law.
The Interior Department is on track to hold an auction of leases in ANWR’s coastal plain this year, Balash said, following the possible publication of a final environmental impact statement in August.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/democratic-plan-could-spur-bigger-sale-of-arctic-drilling-rights
-
EPA Could Undo or Split Obama-Era Methane Rule, Wheeler Says (1)
May 23, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
The EPA is exploring how and if it should regulate the greenhouse gas methane from the oil and gas sector and will propose a plan in the next few months, agency chief Andrew Wheeler said May 23.
The Environmental Protection Agency is weighing “whether it makes sense to separately regulate methane” when other controls already achieve methane reductions, Wheeler said at a U.S. Energy Association forum.
Also under consideration is whether “the entire oil and gas sector should be regulated as one source” or whether different pieces of the industry, such as natural gas production and processing versus transmission and storage, should be regulated separately, he added.
If the oil and gas sector is split, it isn’t clear whether methane emissions from those sources would be high enough to trigger controls under the Clean Air Act, Wheeler said.
The EPA has already taken several steps to relax the Obama administration’s 2016 standards, which set first-time limits on methane from new and modified oil and gas wells.
Methane, the main component of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas that warms the atmosphere at a rate dozens of times greater than carbon dioxide.
In October 2018, the EPA proposed several changes to the 2016 rule, including decreasing the frequency with which companies must inspect their equipment for methane leaks.
‘Keep Doing What It’s Doing’
But Wheeler’s remarks signal the EPA is forging ahead with considering removing methane as a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act, even as several oil and gas majors have in recent months publicly supported the EPA’s methane controls.
“The agency is thinking about stripping out methane from the 2016 methane rule and regulating a different emission instead,” Gretchen Watkins, president of Shell Oil Co., said during remarks at CERA Week in March. “I disagree. I want EPA to keep doing what it’s doing.”
She added she would support EPA controlling methane from existing oil and gas operations. BP Plc and Exxon Mobil Corp. have also publicly supported regulation on existing operations in recent months.
The statements from oil and gas majors are further proof that the EPA shouldn’t shy away from directly regulating methane emissions, Peter Zalzal, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Environment.
“The agency is charged with regulating dangerous, harmful pollutants,” he said. “There is incontrovertible, overwhelming scientific evidence that methane falls into that category.”
Existing Source Controls
Whether the EPA specifies methane as a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act matters because doing so triggers a requirement to control emissions both from new and modified sources, which the Obama EPA did, and from existing sources.
The EPA under Obama also had begun crafting methane controls for existing wells by asking for information from oil and gas companies on their emissions and potential controls. Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt canceled that information collection request in his first days as the agency’s chief.
Removing methane as a regulated pollutant under the Clean Air Act program has been a long-held desire of the oil and gas industry. The American Petroleum Institute, which represents more than 600 oil and gas companies, has argued the EPA should maintain a regulation focused on volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which drilling operations also emit, because VOC controls also capture methane emissions.
VOCs emitted outdoors are a precursor for the lung irritant ozone, according to the EPA.
Industry Innovation
Wheeler, though, said the EPA wasn’t “necessarily pulling back on methane” but instead taking a closer look at the regulation.
“What we want to make sure happens is that we don’t stifle the innovation on methane,” Wheeler told reporters on the sidelines of the forum. “Because a lot of companies are doing innovative things, and we want to make sure we don’t come down with a regulation that directs everybody to go in one direction when there might be other areas that are just as beneficial at reducing methane.”
Wheeler accused environmental groups of not acknowledging that methane is the companies’ product and thus industry wants to prevent leaks.
“We want to try to work more cooperatively with the regulated industry to make sure that methane emissions go down,” he said.
(Updates with additional comment throughout.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epa-could-undo-or-split-obama-era-methane-rule-wheeler-says
-
U.S. Environmental Chief Blasts N.Y. Over Blocked Gas Pipelines
May 24, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
New York officials’ decisions to block pipelines through the state are forcing the Northeast U.S. to rely on natural gas imports from Russia, EPA chief Andrew Wheeler said.
Wheeler’s remarks, delivered May 23 at a meeting of the United States Energy Association in Washington, follow the state’s decision last week to deny an water quality certification to the $1 billion Williams Cos. Northeast Supply Enhancement project.
Wheeler singled out Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), without naming him directly.
Because “we are producing fossil fuels in a more environmentally conscious manner than anywhere else in the world, I would be remiss if I did not mention the frustration we find with actions by the state of New York to deny pipelines to take U.S. natural gas into New England,” Wheeler said.
“That is subjecting the Northeast to continuing to import natural gas from Russia,” and the carbon footprint of transporting it to New England “far eclipses whatever environmental benefit the governor of New York believes he might get.”
President Donald Trump in April signed an order meant to curb state regulators’ ability to block energy projects by denying water quality certifications necessary under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/u-s-environmental-chief-blasts-n-y-over-blocked-gas-pipelines
-
Gas Rule in the Works Since 2011 Goes to White House
May 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
A package of rules that federal pipeline safety regulators have been working on since a deadly 2010 natural gas explosion has been sent to the White House.
The rules would require more inspections of pipelines in less-populated areas while removing exemptions for testing gas lines built before 1970, among other changes (Energywire, March 18, 2016).
The Trump administration's latest Unified Agenda indicates the final rule could be finished by December (Greenwire, May 22).
Both industry and safety groups had been pushing for progress on the rule, which was prompted by a gas pipeline explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, Calif. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) began work on the rule in 2011.
"When finalized, this rule will constitute the most significant enhancement to PHMSA natural gas transmission pipeline safety regulations since the federal code was promulgated in 1970," said Don Santa, CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. "We are proud to have worked for several years with a broad array of stakeholders, including safety and environmental advocates, to achieve consensus on this important rule."
The proposal had been under review in the office of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao since October 2018. PHMSA, a branch of the Transportation Department, had been hoping to get the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget in March.
The rule was formally proposed in 2016. Last year, the agency decided to split the rule (now sometimes called the "megarule") into three parts. The new rules for the country's 300,000 miles of transmission lines were placed first in line. A PHMSA advisory committee is to meet in June to discuss one of the other parts, a revision of rules on gathering pipelines (Energywire, March 4).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/24/stories/1060387137
-
Manchin Wary of Chinese Investment in Appalachia
May 23, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jeremy Dillon
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is souring on a potential $80 billion Chinese investment in his home state's natural gas industry over fears the deal would take away domestic manufacturing and national security opportunities.
The fear, Manchin told the U.S. Energy Association today during its annual policy meeting in Washington, is that China will use the investment to only export key natural gas liquids while ignoring the potential for a petrochemical build-out in the Appalachian region — costing thousands of jobs.
"If China's intent is to remove butane, propane and ethane and export it, I'm against it because then there is no storage hub, there is no new manufacturing base for us, there is no backup for the United States in term of energy policy," said Manchin, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
In a move originally hailed as a game-changing infusion into the state's industry, China Energy Investment Corp. announced in 2017 it would look to spend some $83.7 billion over the next 20 years in West Virginia through a memorandum of understanding with the state.
The investment was part of a broader trade package put forward by federal officials. At the time, Manchin celebrated the deal as China "working with us to create jobs and economic growth in our state."
China and the United States are caught in an escalating trade conflict that has seen increasing tariffs on exported goods, some of which have affected the U.S. natural gas sector. It appears the conflict has also put a pause on the Chinese West Virginia investment (Energywire, July 23, 2018).
Manchin claimed to reporters after his remarks today that a recent meeting with Chinese officials lacked needed details. That prompted him to conclude the Chinese were only interested in exporting the gas.
"No one has identified anything different than that," Manchin said. "I don't see investments in a cracker plant. I don't see investments in manufacturing."
He said, "I just don't believe that China should have a majority control of any resources. And just reciprocate it, should China be able to do in our country what we are not able to do in China?"
Manchin's stance may put even more pressure on the Department of Energy to deliver on a $1.9 billion loan guarantee application for a natural gas liquid storage hub and related infrastructure.
Energy Secretary Rick Perry has voiced support for the build-out of a petrochemical industry in the region surrounding the potential storage hub as a way to better secure the United States against adverse weather in the Gulf of Mexico while also infusing needed dollars in Appalachia (E&E News PM, Dec. 4, 2018).
A DOE report from December said the projected increased petrochemical capacity nationwide from Appalachia "will generate nearly $227 billion in revenue between 2018 and 2040."
The department has launched a series of listening sessions about the industry build-out, sending officials to West Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania to hear from state officials about the impact such a project could have on the region.
"The Appalachian region has proven gas reserves and utilizing the abundant Marcellus and Utica shale gas, working together we can revitalize, diversify and promote workforce development in the petrochemical, energy and manufacturing sectors," DOE said in a readout last week of Undersecretary of Energy Mark Menezes' visit to Pennsylvania.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/23/stories/1060386119
-
Grijalva: 'Useful Excuse' Obscures Delay of Leasing Proposal
May 23, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Jennifer Yachnin
House Natural Resources Chairman Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) accused the Interior Department today of political motivations in its decision to delay an offshore drilling proposal, asserting the decision is aimed at "misleading coastal voters" ahead of President Trump's 2020 reelection bid.
In a letter to Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, Grijalva and other Democratic leaders requested that the agency turn over documents related to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's plan for oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf — including communications involving the Republican National Committee, the White House and the Florida governor's office.
Bernhardt told the Natural Resources panel last week he isn't inclined to move ahead with the five-year plan in the wake of a March federal court decision that reinstated Obama-era prohibitions on leasing in parts of the Arctic and Atlantic oceans (E&E Daily, May 16).
But Grijalva, along with Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Select Committee on the Climate Crisis Chairwoman Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.), questioned Bernhardt's motives.
"The March 29 court case provides a useful excuse for DOI to delay the release of the Proposed Program until after the 2020 presidential election, allowing the President to avoid paying the political price at the small cost (for him) of misleading coastal voters into believing that their coastlines are safe," the lawmakers wrote.
The missive also seeks a copy of the draft of BOEM's proposed 2019-24 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, as it existed March 29.
The letter was one of three Grijalva issued to Interior today, in a series of missives intended to delve into the Trump administration's "energy dominance" policy.
Another letter, signed by Grijalva and Lowenthal, focuses on former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's decision to end the Obama-era coal leasing moratorium.
A federal judge in April ordered Interior to review that decision, and the Bureau of Land Management released a draft environmental assessment this week. A public comment period is also open until June 6 (E&E News PM, May 22).
But the Democrats are urging Interior to withdraw the environmental assessment, arguing that a full environmental impact statement is more appropriate.
"It is scientifically, logically, and legally indefensible to conclude that restarting the BLM coal leasing program would not have a significant effect on the human environment, and therefore an EIS is required under the National Environmental Policy Act," the lawmakers wrote.
The third letter seeks details about why the Trump administration added uranium to its "critical minerals" list last year, making it eligible for looser permitting standards (E&E News PM, May 21, 2018).
"The process DOI used to generate the critical minerals list was not transparent," Grijalva and Lowenthal wrote, calling the criteria previously outlined by Interior "vague factors" and "subjective."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/05/23/stories/1060386227
-
The Gas Lines of the ‘70s Are Gone, Replaced by Complacence
May 24, 2019 | Wall Street Journal
By Spencer Jakab
Remember standing in gas lines to fill your car?
The whole notion of shortages caused by events halfway around the world is starting to seem quaint in an era of surging American shale production and relative geopolitical calm. Now it is demand shocks, like Thursday’s big selloff on trade war fears, that buffet crude prices. We may have gone from being overly jumpy about price spikes to overly complacent, though. Recent events which once would have sent oil prices leaping have barely registered.
Just six years before the Iranian Revolution that sparked those shortages, the Arab Oil Embargo had started the first 1970s oil crisis. Crude prices quadrupled—the equivalent of them rising to over $200 a barrel today. In the second crisis they doubled and hit a fresh all-time high.
By the 1980s, motorists were conditioned to groan when they saw a scary headline from the Middle East, while oil traders bought first and asked questions later. Their knee-jerk reaction was usually an overreaction, but it was better to be safe than sorry when the stakes were so high for the world economy’s lifeblood.
For example, prices nearly doubled between July and October 1990 following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. Not only was Kuwait’s production suddenly offline but supply from its neighbor, top-exporter Saudi Arabia, was also threatened. On the day that allied forces began their attack the following January, traders braced for disaster. Instead, oil prices had their largest ever one-day drop, falling slightly below where they had been before Kuwait was attacked.
Lately, though, oil prices have traded in a range. Even with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries curbing supply lately, the pattern is predictable. When prices get high enough. drillers in places like West Texas see a good enough return to drill hundreds of new wells that can be producing oil in several months, not several years as was once the case. When they overdo it, investment dries up and production is cut back, sending prices back up.
Oil is still a global commodity, though. The U.S. may be headed toward becoming a net exporter of crude, but that is still less than 15% of global supply. A sudden cutoff, even for barrels not headed for our shores, increases prices for everyone.
Recently there has been a confluence of events that should at least make us nervous. In just the past several days, at least four oil tankers suffered mysterious attacks near the Strait of Hormuz, a key chokepoint for seaborne oil transport. About a fifth of global production passes through the waterway.
One alternative Saudi Arabia has is to ship crude to the Red Sea through pipelines, but a critical pumping station was hit by a drone attack that Saudi Arabia blamed on Houthi rebels from Yemen supported by regional arch-rival Iran. Last year Saudi Arabia curtailed shipments through another waterway, the Bab al-Mandeb or “gate of tears,” after attacks it also blamed on Houthis.
Meanwhile Iran, still a major exporter whose shipments President Trump would like to see squeezed to zero, is itself a flash point. The U.S. has sent vessels to the area and evacuated personnel from neighboring Iraq as talk of military action has come from both sides. U.S. oil giant Exxon Mobil recently evacuated international staff from a field in Iraq as well.
Russia, while not facing a violent threat to its prolific oil production, has an equally thorny problem. Exports through a major pipeline to Europe have been halted due to mysterious chemical contamination, making physical barrels scarce in Europe. The situation could continue for months.
Finally, once-major exporter Venezuela continues to be a basket case. In April, oil production fell to the lowest level since 2003 when they were nearly halted by a coup against former President Hugo Chávez. An abortive coup against his successor weeks ago caused barely a ripple in oil prices.
“Taken en masse, they are a symptom of an increasingly unstable setting at a time when spare oil production capacity in and outside OPEC is quite limited,” wrote energy expert Amy M. Jaffe of the Council on Foreign Relations.
After years of oil traders crying wolf at such headlines, their ability to move the crude market has faded. There is plenty of oil in storage and coming out of fields under no threat of violence. But that stored crude and those fields won’t be nearly enough if something really goes wrong.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/gas-lines-are-gone-replaced-by-complacence-11558690201?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
Shell Starts Production at New Appomattox Platform in the Gulf
May 23, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
Royal Dutch Shell said Thursday it has commenced production at its massive new Appomattox platform in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico a few months ahead of schedule.
The Appomattox - the only major platform coming online this year in the Gulf - is expected to produce 175,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day from its position about 80 miles southeast of the Louisiana coastline. It's the first large-scale production from what's known as the Gulf's Norphlet formation.
Shell made the decision to authorize and build the project back in 2015 Shell made the decision to authorize and build the project back in 2015 during the most recent oil bust. The Appomattox originally wasn't expected to start production until this fall.
Shell sees the Appomattox as a major hub to build other expansions in the region.
"That Appomattox was safely brought online ahead of schedule and far under budget is a testament to our ongoing commitment to drive down costs through efficiency improvements during execution," said Andy Brown, Shell's upstream director. "Appomattox creates a core long-term hub for Shell in the Norphlet through which we can tie back several already discovered fields as well as future discoveries."
Last year, Shell announced the Dover discovery near the Appomattox. That means the new discovery can be further drilled and developed through connections, called tiebacks, to the Appomattox to save costs, rather than build a new platform.
The Dover discovery is Shell's sixth in the Norphlet region of the Gulf.
Since the oil bust, only two other major Gulf platform projects have moved forward, including Shell's Vito project, which was authorized last year. The Vito decision is considered a sign that the long-languishing offshore sector is showing signs of life as oil prices hovered near $70 a barrel. Now, crude prices are closer to $60.
The Appomattox is named after the Virginia court house where Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered in 1865, essentially ending the Civil War. Shell sees the project as a milestone for an industry that needed to adjust its approach and make deepwater projects affordable in the lower oil price environment. The U.S. shale industry, especially West Texas' Permian Basin, is booming with its faster and cheaper projects, siphoning investment from the Gulf of Mexico.
Shell said it cut 20 percent off the price tag before approving the Appomattox in 2015. More than 20 percent in additional cuts came afterward. The Anglo-Dutch oil major declined to disclose the project costs, but said it sliced billions of dollars from the original price.
The platform hull was built in South Korea and shipped to Texas during a multiweek journey that ended in October 2017 — not long after Hurricane Harvey ravaged the area. The topside portions were built in Texas, Louisiana and Alabama and pieced together in Ingleside near Corpus Christi.
Shell owns about 79 percent of the Appomattox project. The remaining 21 percent is held by a subsidiary of the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corp., or CNOOC.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Shell-starts-production-at-new-Appomattox-13878528.php?cmpid=ffcp
-
Western Firms Must Rethink Sourcing After Chinese Explosion, Report Urges
May 23, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Michael McCoy
A deadly explosion at a chemical plant in China has created shortages of certain key chemicals purchased by Western firms. It has also prompted a call for those firms to reconsider sourcing policies that allowed them to purchase from a company that was clearly out of compliance with local safety and environmental laws.
The March 21 explosion at Jiangsu Tianjiayi Chemical, in the city of Yancheng in China’s Jiangsu Province, killed 78 people and injured more than 600. After the explosion, local officials closed all operations in the industrial park where the plant was located to assess safety conditions.
Customers started to feel the effects of the explosion soon thereafter. In its April 18 earnings report, the Swiss chemical maker Lonza said the explosion and other Chinese supply-chain disruptions were creating raw material sourcing challenges for its specialty ingredient business.
And the British Coatings Federation recently warned members that the closure of factories in the industrial park has caused “severe shortages” of ingredients such as preservatives for waterborne paints, photoinitiators for ultraviolet light–cured inks, and certain red and yellow pigments.
After the accident, China’s State Council said local authorities were lax in enforcing safety regulations at the facility. But in a new report, the Institute of Public & Environmental Affairs (IPE), a Beijing-based environmental research group, charges that Western companies also perpetuate dangerous conditions at Tianjiayi and other Chinese chemical companies by purchasing from them in spite of documented safety and environmental shortcomings.
Tianjiayi was on record with multiple serious safety and environmental violations, the report says, such as the lack of an emergency shutoff on a benzene tank.
In addition to Lonza, the IPE identified BASF, Clariant, DuPont, and Merck KGaA as likely buyers of chemicals from Tianjiayi. The group criticized them for staying silent about how they might help avert such accidents.
Tracking supply chains is difficult, the report acknowledges, and companies often use vague language to describe their relationships with suppliers.
In the case of DuPont, the IPE published data from a trade-tracking service showing roughly 50 shipments of m-phenylenediamine from Tianjiayi to DuPont between 2014 and 2019. Yet DuPont told the IPE that Tianjiayi is not a supplier, and DuPont spokesperson Megan Morris reaffirmed to C&EN that Tianjiayi “is not a primary ingredient supplier of DuPont.”
Clariant told the IPE that Tianjiayi was not a “direct supplier,” adding that “the indirect business impact is under estimation.” Clariant did not respond to C&EN’s request for clarification. The IPE credited Merck with the most constructive response, in which it acknowledged that Tianjiayi is a “tier 2” supplier through a Spanish trading firm.
https://cen.acs.org/safety/industrial-safety/Western-firms-must-rethink-sourcing/97/i21
-
Manchin, Chatterjee Mull Protections for 'Vulnerable' Grid
May 24, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Jeremy Dillon
Cybersecurity concerns from leading energy policy lawmakers and government officials hung over the U.S. Energy Association's annual policy meeting in Washington, D.C., yesterday.
Both West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Neil Chatterjee highlighted cyberthreats as a key concern during their remarks.
Manchin told reporters those concerns may even prompt some type of legislative response to set some baseline standards for the electric sector to ensure continued vigilance.
"There should be a baseline because we know the grid can be vulnerable," the senator said. "We have all been warned about it. It's common knowledge. There should be in each one of these companies and in each one of these grid systems and the PJMs of the world, they should be held responsible for the security we need.
"I have an interest as far as my committee, but as far as to having a bill right now, we are just finding out how vulnerable we are," he added.
Manchin said his time on the Intelligence Committee has shown how serious a threat cyber concerns are to the grid, noting that he received weekly briefings illuminating how exposed the grid is to cyberattacks.
"That's the most vulnerable part of our infrastructure. ... It's something that's very real," Manchin said.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) does have some set requirements for how utilities should be embracing cybersecurity protections while the Department of Energy has tried to better coordinate the private sector with best practices guidelines. But even those efforts have not prevented some intrusions into grid operations, and NERC's enforceable cybersecurity rules don't extend to smaller utilities at the distribution level.
Those standards should be seen as the floor for federal guidance, not the ceiling, Chatterjee told reporters after his remarks.
"Our adversaries are sophisticated," he said. "They are continuing and evolving in their approaches in the ways they are testing our security apparatus. Baseline is fine, NERC standards are fine, as the floor. But we've all got to remain vigilant because this is an ever-evolving threat that can't singly be addressed by standards or a baseline."
Chatterjee did not dismiss Manchin's general baseline idea out of hand but said his support would hinge on specifics of such an idea.
"It could be important," Chatterjee said. "It depends on what it looks like."
Reporter Blake Sobczak contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/05/24/stories/1060387077
-
US Withdraws Train Crew Proposal That Came After Explosions
May 24, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Matthew Brown
The Trump administration said Thursday it was withdrawing a proposal for freight trains to have at least two crew members, nullifying a safety measure drafted under President Barack Obama in response to explosions of crude oil trains in the U.S. and Canada.
A review of accident data did not support the notion that having one crew member is less safe than multi-person crews, Department of Transportation officials said. The withdrawal also seeks to pre-empt states from regulating crew sizes.
The 2016 proposal followed oil train derailments including a runaway oil train in 2013 that derailed, exploded and killed 47 people while levelling much of the town of Lac Megantic, Canada. Other derailments of trains carrying oil and ethanol have occurred in North Dakota, Oregon, Montana, Illinois, Virginia and other states.
Under Obama, regulators concluded that having two or more crew members would be worth the extra cost even if it prevented a single accident.
The rail industry, which long maintained that crew requirements were unnecessary, cheered Thursday’s move.
But a representative for a rail workers union said it would put the public at greater risk by removing a safeguard against accidents. Most trains currently operate with at least two crew members but without a government regulation there’s no guarantee that would continue indefinitely.
“If railroads would start running single person operators, there’s nobody up there to interact to make sure everything is done right,” said John Risch, legislative affairs director for SMART Transportation Division, a rail workers union.
“The government has essentially said we’re not going to provide any oversight whatsoever. Whatever the railroads want to do, they can do,” Risch said.
The Federal Railroad Administration said in a statement that the rail industry has “maintained a strong safety record in the absence of regulation on this issue.”
The statement also said a crew staffing rule would have would have been “an unnecessary obstacle” to future innovation in the industry.
Thursday’s withdrawal marks the latest rollback since President Donald Trump took office of safety rules adopted under Obama in the face of opposition from the energy and transportation industries.
The administration this month eased inspection requirements for offshore oil and gas drilling put in place after the deadly 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. And transportation officials had earlier rescinded a requirement for more advanced electronic brakes for trains hauling crude and other hazardous fuels.
Railroad company representatives said the withdrawn crew rule would have locked them into crew sizes at a time when the industry is expanding the use of new technologies such as positive train control. Those are computer-based systems that can automatically stop trains to prevent accidents caused by high speed or collisions.
“Allowing railroads the flexibility to adjust their operations to reflect the capabilities of technologies like PTC (positive train control) will help advance railroads’ mission to achieve an accident-free future,” Association of American Railroads President and CEO Ian Jefferies said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/us-withdraws-train-crew-proposal-that-came-after-explosions/2019/05/23/9c037232-7db7-11e9-b1f3-b233fe5811ef_story.html?utm_term=.6ea81b12ad54
-
NS Doles out 58 Chemical Safety Awards
May 23, 2019 | Railway Age
By Andrew Corselli
Norfolk Southern (NS) recently awarded 58 chemical customers its 2018 Thoroughbred Chemical Safety Award, a long-standing initiative to promote safe rail-shipping practices in communities the railroad serves.
To qualify for the award, a customer had to ship at least 1,000 carloads on NS and handle all shipments without a single incident. For the year, 55 corporations and three chemical plants achieved this safety record, while 14 companies safely shipped more than 4,000 carloads each.
NS established the annual safety award in 1995 to recognize customers who safely handle products that are vital to U.S. consumers and businesses but also are regulated as hazardous materials. The award winners combined to safely ship more than 265,370 carloads of regulated hazardous material over NS’s rail network in 2018.
NS awarded its following customers a 2018 Thoroughbred Chemical Safety Award: Altivia Petrochemicals; American Zinc Recycling Corp.; The Andersons Inc.; Apex Oil; Archer Daniels Midland; ArcelorMittal USA; Ascend Performance Materials Inc.; Aux Sable Liquid Products Inc.; Badger Ethanol; BP Products North America Inc.; Buckeye Partners LP; Cargill Inc.; CF Industries Sales LLC; The Chemours Company FC LLC; CHS; Covestro LLC; Crestwood Services; Didion Ethanol; The Dow Chemical Company; Eastman Chemical Company; Elbow River Marketing Ltd.; ERCO Worldwide; ExxonMobil Chemical Company; Hunt Refining Co. Inc.; Imperial Oil; The International Group Inc.; Irving Oil; Kemira Chemicals Inc.; Kemira Water Solutions Inc.; Koch Industries; Lima Refining Company; Louis Dreyfus Commodities; LSB Industries; Marathon Petroleum LP; Mark West, Evans City, Pa.; Marquis Energy LLC; Messer LLC; Methanex Corporation; NGL Energy Partners LP; Norfalco Sales, Glencore Canada Corporation; Nouryon; NOVA Chemicals Corporation; Nucor Corp.; Olin Corporation; PBF Energy; PCS Sales (USA) Inc., Lee Creek, N.C., plant; PCS Sales (USA) Inc., West Occidental, Fla., plant; Phillips 66, Hartford, Ill., plant; Plains Midstream Canada ULC; Poet Ethanol; Renewable Products Marketing; Shell Chemical; Shintech Inc.; Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy LLC; Strauss Industries; United Refining Company; Valero Energy Corporation; and Westlake Chemical.
“We are proud to recognize these valued business partners for their industry-leading safety practices,” said Ed Elkins, VP, Industrial Products. “At Norfolk Southern, serving our customers and working safely are core principles of our strategic plan, and we appreciate the shared commitment of the customers earning this safety award. Together, we work hard every day to demonstrate that rail is an efficient, reliable and safe way to transport the nation’s freight.”
https://www.railwayage.com/safety/ns-doles-out-58-chemical-safety-awards/
-
Partisan Divides Continue to Define Select Committee Hearings
May 24, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk
The Select Committee on the Climate Crisis met again yesterday for what could have been a bipartisan hearing on climate resilience and adaptation.
Instead, while witnesses underscored just how big a challenge it will be to curb rising sea levels and adapt coastal communities to a new reality, the hearing was mostly a replay of past performances where both sides remained on script.
Republicans largely filtered their views through their singular witness — Virginia state Del. Keith Hodges — while occasionally getting into debates about emission targets or climate science with other witnesses from the scientific community.
Democrats asked mostly fact-finding questions, or focused on parochial climate adaptation in their districts, without diving especially deeply into policy specifics.
And though the topic of the hearing was climate resilience, an issue that ranking member Garret Graves (R-La.) has been keen to address, discussion often turned to emission reductions and greenhouse gas pollution in India and China.
At one point, Graves sparred with one of the Democratic witnesses trying to make a point he routinely brings up: Even if the world stopped all greenhouse gas emissions right now, temperatures and seas would still continue to rise in the short term.
And as the United States gradually decreases emissions amid increases in India and China, Graves suggested it would be fruitless to have a discussion that focuses solely on slashing domestic emissions.
"We need to recognize that we're actually doing a pretty good job and we can continue on this trajectory without wrecking the U.S. economy," Graves said.
The exchange drew annoyed comments from a few Democrats, who questioned the logic of waiting on the developing world to reduce emissions in the United States. Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) called it a "nonsensical" line of thinking.
"In your work with religious leaders and people of faith in Iowa, do you ever come across the argument that as a species our moral behavior should be predicated on other people being moral first?" Casten asked Matthew Russell, executive director of Iowa Interfaith Power and Light.
"I would say no," Russell responded.
But it was Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) who best summed up the GOP attitude on adaptation and on climate change generally.
"We need to be preparing for what we know we cannot stop," he said amid a series of misleading and false claims in an attempt to prove natural variation has a greater impact on climate change than carbon emissions.
There was a general agreement in the hearing room yesterday that adaptation is necessary, particularly from members such as GOP Rep. Buddy Carter, who represents the Georgia coast.
The clash, ultimately, is over how much that kind of policy should be tied to emission reductions, but the scientists made the case that they're inextricably linked.
Rachel Cleetus, policy director for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Climate and Energy Program, highlighted a study her organization released last year showing that $1 trillion of property would be at risk for recurrent flooding by the end of the century, in a scenario with high sea-level rise.
"Our research points to a choice we face," she told the panel. "If the global community adheres to the primary goal of the Paris Agreement of keeping warming to below 2 degrees Celsius, and if land-based ice loss is limited, the U.S. could avoid up to 85% of these coastal property losses."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/05/24/stories/1060387911
-
This Treaty Is Good for the Environment. It Might Even Be Good for Trump.
May 23, 2019 | New York Times
By Editorial Board
If President Trump is looking for ways to strengthen America’s economic competitiveness without the toxic fallout of his trade conflicts, there is a simple move he could make that would improve the trade balance, create tens of thousands of jobs, win him bipartisan praise and, as a side benefit, help save the planet.
It’s time for Mr. Trump to embrace the Kigali agreement.
The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol of 1987 is, technically, a climate-change deal — possibly the most important climate-change deal that most people have never heard of. Agreed to in October 2016 by delegates from 197 nations at a conference in Kigali, Rwanda, the accord sets hard targets for the global phaseout of chemical coolants called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. HFCs lack the ozone-destroying potency of their chlorofluorocarbon predecessors, which were banned by the original 1987 treaty. But, as greenhouse gases go, they are devastating, packing 1,000 times the heat-trapping punch of carbon dioxide.
Scientists estimate that the Kigali Amendment could prevent a warming of up to 0.44 degrees Celsius by century’s end, meaningful progress in the quest to hold temperature increases to under two degrees above preindustrial levels. When the accord was announced in 2016, Secretary of State John Kerry proclaimed it “the biggest thing we can do in one giant swoop” to combat climate change.
The agreement took effect this January. So far, 72 countries have ratified it. The United States is not among them, and Mr. Trump shows no sign of submitting the deal for Senate approval.
This is hardly a shock, considering this president’s skepticism of climate change, regulation, multilateral treaties and anything that has former President Barack Obama’s fingerprints on it.
And yet, unlike many Obama-era artifacts — the Paris agreement, the Iran deal, the Dream Act, the Affordable Care Act — Mr. Trump did not immediately seek to destroy the amendment. In fact, his administration expressed support for it early on. In November 2017, the State Department said it had “initiated the process” to consider ratification.
What makes Kigali hard for the White House to write off is its support by American manufacturers. As companies like Honeywell and Carrier see it, HFCs are on their way out, and industry will have to adjust eventually. Better to put a plan into place that provides regulatory predictability and stability.
Sweeter still, domestic companies have long been working on next-generation replacements for HFCs and stand to benefit from the exploding global demand for air-conditioners and refrigerators.
Last May, 32 top executives from affected companies sent the president a letter urging ratification. Theirs was a purely economic case, laden with data aimed at Mr. Trump’s competitive instincts: projections that the deal would create 33,000 manufacturing jobs, increase exports by $5 billion and improve the balance of trade for their industries.
A trio of conservative taxpayers’ groups hit similar themes, noting that, absent ratification, American manufacturers could lose ground in foreign markets “at the cost of jobs and wealth.”
Likewise, 13 senators — all Republicans — weighed in, warning, “The failure to ratify this amendment could transfer our American advantage to other countries, including China, which have been dumping outdated products into the global marketplace and our backyard.”
China stealing America’s competitive advantage? That should be incentive enough for the president.
Despite these warnings, the agreement has failed to capture Mr. Trump’s attention. And elements of his administration — specifically, within the Environmental Protection Agency — continue to oppose ratification, largely for broader ideological reasons. As a result, the deal is stuck, and supporters are losing hope that it will be unstuck — at least by this president.
Seeking alternative routes to similar ends, interest groups are deep in talks with Congress about a legislative solution. Beyond Washington, a number of states are developing their own plans for phasing out HFCs, with California leading the way.
But industry players say state action will produce a confusing, inefficient “patchwork” solution. And the congressional path brings its own challenges, including the difficulty of moving any legislation in this polarized political climate. Last year, a bipartisan bill effectively directing the E.P.A. to adopt Kigali-like measures went nowhere. A more expansive measure is in the works. But advocates caution that, even if legislation could achieve a similar framework, a failure to ratify the accord would be a mark against American manufacturers in the global market.
The fate of the agreement remains uncertain. A State Department spokesman said only, “The administration is considering transmittal of the Kigali Amendment to the Senate for its advice and consent, but no final decision has been reached.”
Mr. Trump risks missing a big opportunity here. His administration may not have moved to kill the Kigali amendment, but it seems depressingly content to let it languish, at the expense of both American competitiveness and the health of the planet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/opinion/trump-kigali-agreement.html?searchResultPosition=2
-
Amazon Rejects Climate Change Proposal
May 24, 2019 | AP (In E&E Climatewire)
By Joseph Pisani
Despite pressure from civil rights groups, activist investors and its own employees, Amazon.com Inc. said Wednesday that shareholders at an annual meeting in Seattle voted against proposals related to two major social issues: climate change and facial recognition technology.
The climate change proposal, backed by more than 7,600 Amazon employees, pushed the company to release a detailed plan on how it will curb its use of fossil fuels that power its data centers and planes that ship its packages.
After the shareholder meeting Wednesday, the employees said they plan to continue to pressure Amazon to do more to reduce its impact on climate change. Amazon said it already has plans to release its carbon footprint later this year and has been working to cut shipping emissions.
The two proposals on facial recognition had asked Amazon to stop selling its technology to government agencies, saying that it could be used to invade people's privacy and target minorities. Amazon has defended its facial recognition technology, saying it helps law enforcement catch criminals, find missing people and prevent crime.
Amazon did not release shareholder vote totals Wednesday but said it will release them later in a government filing.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/05/24/stories/1060386649
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested