AM ACC 8/19/2016

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

LCSA News

1. The Lautenberg Act Energizes Non-Animal Testing for Chemical Safety

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H and Aryenish Birdie, M.A.
   
   
   The United States Congress identified the minimization of animal-based toxicity tests as a priority in 2000 with the passage of the ICCVAM legislation (Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods Authorization Act), which permanently established the interagency committee under the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM)...

Chemical Management News

2. Public Access to EPA's New Chemical Decisions Welcomed

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   The Environmental Protection Agency's Web page that posts its new chemical risk conclusions provides the public some safety assurance, a chemical manufacturer said.
3. ADAO Hosts 10th Asbestos Congressional Staff Briefing

   Aug 19, 2016 | Mesothelioma.com

   Already, in 2016 great strides have been made in the effort to ban asbestos. While it’s still not completely banned yet, the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (text of the act) – with strong bipartisan support – opened the door for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban asbestos.

Energy News

4. (ACC Mentioned) Breakthrough Could Mean Sharply Lower Energy Use In Making Plastics

   Aug 18, 2016 | Houston Chronicle

   By Jordan Blum
   
   
   A new technology could dramatically reduce the costs and carbon emissions from plastics manufacturing by eliminating the need for large amounts of heat used in traditional processes, researchers from Exxon Mobil and the Georgia Institute of Technology said Thursday.
5. ExxonMobil, Georgia Tech Tout Reduced CO2, Energy Costs in Chemical Manufacturing

   Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Carolyn Davis
   
   
   ExxonMobil Corp. and the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) said a team of scientists may have broken the code to reduce the amount of energy and carbon emissions associated with making plastics.
6. Feds, Law Professors Say Judge Wrong To Block Fracking Rules

   Aug 18, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)

   By Ben Neary
   
   
   A federal judge in Wyoming was wrong to block rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal land, a group of law professors and lawyers for the federal government said in new court documents.
7. Colorado Measure to Block Anti-Frackers Makes Ballot

   Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Richard Nemec
   
   
   An oil/natural gas industry-backed measure to make it more difficult to amend Colorado's state constitution has qualified for the November ballot, the Colorado secretary of state's office said.
8. California Offshore Fracking Needs More Study: Groups

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel
   
   
   A third environmental group plans to sue federal agencies for allowing hydraulic fracturing to continue along California's coast without adequately evaluating the potential threat to blue whales and other protected species.
9. Cost of Carbon Decision Helps Clean Power Plan: Lawyers

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Andrea Vittorio
   
   
   Lawyers defending the Obama administration's plan for reducing carbon dioxide from power plants say a recent decision upholding the federal approach to carbon accounting helps their case (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, brief filed 8/17/16).
10. Energy Efficiency Can Accelerate Economic Growth

    Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council

    By David B. Goldstein
    
    
    Both political candidates claim that America needs to accelerate economic growth. This is accepted as a worthy goal by Paul Krugman, who notes that “some people I respect believe that trying to get …[the growth rate] back up should be a big goal of policy.” But Dr. Krugman then asks HOW we can do it:
11. Five Things You Need To Know Before The Clean Power Plan Oral Argument

    Aug 18, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Martha Roberts
    
    
    The Clean Power Plan oral argument is coming up soon. On September 27, attorneys will present their arguments in front of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

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

Transportation News

12. Railroads Slow To Adopt Technology That Prevents Accidents

    Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation

    By Melanie Zanona
    
    
    Railroads have been slow to adopt a technology that can prevent deadly train accidents, even though the system will eventually be required by law, according to a new report.
13. Enviros Challenge Tri-State Pipeline Permit Over Water Concerns

    Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Chris Marr
    
    
    Permits allowing construction of a 515-mile natural gas pipeline across Alabama, Florida and Georgia could face review in federal appeals court, following a petition by three environmental groups (Gulf Restoration Network Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 11th Cir., No. 16-15545, 8/17/16).

Environment News

14. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Study Touts Environmental Benefits of Plastic

    Aug 19, 2016 | Triple Pundit

    By Leon Kaye
    
    
    Plastic has increasingly become the storage and packaging material of choice, and its use has risen exponentially since it first become commonplace during the 1950s.
15. Clean Tech Leaders Try To Put A Business-Friendly Spin On Climate Change Policies

    Aug 19, 2016 | Los Angeles Times

    By Chris Megerian
    
    
    Mark Bauhaus used to make a point of avoiding Sacramento. Like other technology executives, he saw state politics as nothing more than a drag on Silicon Valley’s freewheeling innovation.
16. Responding To IG Calls, EPA Sets Deadlines For Assessing RFS' Impacts

    Aug 18, 2016 | Inside EPA

    By Jeremy Bernstein
    
    
    EPA is agreeing with calls from its Inspector General (IG) to complete a series of studies aimed at assessing the greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts of its renewable fuel standard (RFS), a move that is likely to refocus attention on the program in 2017 when Congress is expected to renew its scrutiny.
17. Analysts: Paris Climate Deal On Track For 2016 Ratification

    Aug 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whitboard

    By Sara Stefanini
    
    
    The Paris climate agreement is expected to enter into force by the end of this year, without the European Union’s ratification, according to the nonprofit institute Climate Analytics.

Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.

LCSA News

1. The Lautenberg Act Energizes Non-Animal Testing for Chemical Safety

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Kristie Sullivan, M.P.H and Aryenish Birdie, M.A.

   Kristie Sullivan is vice president for research policy at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, where she promotes the replacement of animals in science through collaboration with industry, academic and government stakeholders. She coordinates ICAPO, a coalition of NGOs providing 3Rs-relevant advice at OECD, and has given presentations and co-authored publications with industry and government scientists.

   Aryenish Birdie is the research outreach and legislative policy manager at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. She communicates with legislative offices about the importance of non-animal testing methods and strategies in toxicity testing.

   The United States Congress identified the minimization of animal-based toxicity tests as a priority in 2000 with the passage of the ICCVAM legislation (Interagency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods Authorization Act), which permanently established the interagency committee under the National Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), and which was charged with conducting activities to facilitate the acceptance of new test methods that could replace, reduce, or refine animal tests. Last month, the reduction and replacement of animal tests as national policy was furthered by the enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Lautenberg Act), which updates the Toxic Substances Control Act.

   TSCA regulates the production and distribution of chemicals in commerce, and the new law, as amended by the Lautenberg Act, substantially updates and modernizes TSCA to increase the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to protect health and the environment by directing it to prioritize, assess, and restrict chemicals in commerce or proposed for production. It provides the EPA with explicit authority to require the development of new information on any chemical substance if necessary to determine whether the manufacture and use of a chemical “does or does not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” A summary of the law is provided by the EPA at http://src.bna.com/hQ9.

   A Revolution in Toxicology

   Information on chemicals, including physicochemical properties, likelihood for environmental distribution and persistence, and expected or actual uses, is an important foundation for assessment. This information can predict potential hazards, enable comparison to similar chemicals, and direct hazard investigations based on likely exposed populations. Evidence for hazardous effects on organisms can be gathered using in vitro, in vivo, or epidemiological studies and predicted using computational methods and physicochemical characteristics of chemicals. However, given the diversity of the natural world, assessors face challenges applying data from in vivo animal studies across species: from rats to humans or from one bird species to another. Other disadvantages of in vivo toxicological tests include throughput and cost, leading to lack of coverage of all chemicals and mixtures and their potential effects on the diversity of human and wildlife populations. For this and other reasons, the Lautenberg Act restricts vertebrate animal testing and provides incentives for the development and use of non-animal methods which provide information of “equivalent or better scientific quality.”

   While the exact number of chemicals the EPA will need to assess is unknown, the agency will need to designate at least 40 high- and low-priority chemicals at first, and request enough information for thousands of other chemicals to enable prioritization and assessment decisions. Clearly, tens of thousands of chemicals cannot be tested in long-term animal tests for carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, or other important endpoints in a reasonable time frame. The Lautenberg Act directs the EPA to use a tiered testing approach, providing for the potential for the EPA to make regulatory decisions using screening-level tests. Indeed, the law is divergent from the European REACH legislation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) in that it does not prescribe a checklist of tests that must be conducted based on production volume or any other characteristic. The more flexible framework aims to ensure that the information gathered is relevant and necessary to the assessment of a chemical or chemical category. It also ensures that, as regulators become more comfortable using in vitro and in silico test methods to make regulatory decisions, use of information from such methods in place of animal tests will increase.

   Many consider the publication of the EPA-commissioned, 2007 National Academy of Sciences report “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy” a watershed moment in the evolution of regulatory toxicology. This report concluded that major change was needed to put a more protective, economical, human-relevant, and humane toxicology testing framework into place, and that such a framework would be primarily based upon suites of mechanistic and in vitro tests which would predict the “toxicity pathways” upon which a chemical may act to trigger toxicity. This screening-level assessment would be interpreted in the context of additional targeted testing using models of higher complexity (e.g., 3-dimensional tissue cultures) and capable and consistent population biomonitoring.

   Today, a true revolution in regulatory toxicology is under way. Efforts by some of the brightest minds in science seek to understand observed toxicities so they can be predicted. A fundamental shift has occurred, where the gathering of as much chemical information as possible without new animal testing is not only ideal, but standard practice. Even the language of the Lautenberg Act has been updated to reflect this shift: “data” has been replaced by “information,” a recognition that experimental data is not the only essential input for chemical assessment.

   The requirements in the Lautenberg Act, which mandate the scientifically justified reduction and replacement of vertebrate animal tests, provide fresh reinforcements to help ensure continued forward progress. Within two years, the EPA is required to publish a strategic plan to “promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods and strategies to reduce, refine, or replace vertebrate animal testing…” This plan should form the basis for testing requirements as the agency implements the law, and as the science—and the strategic plan—evolve over time.

   This is one of a couple of provisions that specifically facilitate the use of alternative methods for regulatory decisions, and the overall implementation of new science is emphasized. Another way in which the law attempts to ensure methods are not only developed, but also implemented into chemical assessment practice, is to require that any person developing information on TSCA regulated chemicals “shall first attempt to develop the information by means of an alternative test method or strategy identified by the [EPA]… before conducting new vertebrate animal testing.” This language, termed “voluntary testing,” requires companies developing information on chemicals to first check whether it can be developed without new animal testing. Figures A and B depict hypothetical scenarios demonstrating how this might be applied in practice.

   Building on Pioneering Expertise

   The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to reduce and replace the use of vertebrate animals in testing by considering existing toxicity information and alternative methods before requiring in vivo testing, and by encouraging and facilitating the use of alternative methods, cooperative testing, grouping, and “read across” by chemical maker or importer registrants.

   In fact, because of how the originally enacted TSCA was worded, the EPA already has extensive experience in using chemical structures and other characteristics to predict the toxicity of chemicals. This experience turned EPA experts into some of the early pioneers of the Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) field, leading to a number of publicly available tools that can be used to predict aquatic toxicity, carcinogenicity, and other endpoints.

   In the past decade, the EPA has again led the way in the development of high-throughput screening, exposure estimation, and computational toxicology methods. Its research arm, the Office of Research and Development, has undertaken a significant effort to optimize and characterize high-throughput approaches in the Toxicity Forecaster (ToxCast) program. ToxCast contains over 700 assays and has screened over 2,000 chemicals from a broad range of industries and has made this data publicly available via a user-friendly dashboard; this data has been used by other EPA offices and researchers throughout the world to understand toxicity mechanisms and make regulatory decisions, such as in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP21).

   One challenge in using high-throughput and mechanistic toxicity information is to understand the information in the context of our current regulatory framework. How do changes at the molecular and cellular level lead to adversity at the organism or population level? The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) concept aims to provide a framework to support linkages between toxicological information at all levels of biological organization, providing regulators with context to help interpret in vitro, in silico, epidemiological, and even clinical information. An AOP or a network of AOPs can transparently demonstrate knowledge gaps, inform Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment, provide support for species extrapolation efforts, and support decision-making with alternative methods, making efforts to build AOPs essential to the success of the Lautenberg Act. Luckily, the EPA has provided significant leadership in work led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to document and publish AOPs to improve regulatory decision-making. These efforts are laying the groundwork for the assessment of long-term endpoints—such as carcinogenicity or reproductive toxicity—with in vitro and computational methods.

   The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs is currently partnering closely with NICEATM and making headway in replacing and reducing acute “6-pack” animal toxicity tests, as outlined in a letter from OPP Director Jack Housenger to stakeholders published in March 2016. The “6-pack” refers to six endpoints which are required for most pesticide active ingredients and formulations and include acute systemic tests by the oral, dermal, and inhalation route; skin sensitization, skin irritation, and eye irritation. Because the EPA has not yet adopted the Globally Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling of Chemicals, in vitro methods for skin and eye irritation—which are required in Europe—must be reassessed according to the EPA classification system, demonstrating resource and policy barriers to adoption of new test methods.

   We encourage the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to take advantage of experiences and expertise throughout the EPA and to develop cross-agency partnerships as it attempts to efficiently implement the Lautenberg Act.

   A Shared Effort

   The agency and interested stakeholders will need to continue to dedicate significant resources to the development and validation of improved toxicological testing methods, as they are essential to the successful implementation of this new law. We are cheered to see the agency already outlining some plans for stakeholder engagement. Scientists from industry, academia, and non-governmental organizations, including ours, are already contributing to efforts to improve toxicity test methods and policies.

   Industry and regulator training opportunities are an essential component to the increased use and acceptance of non-animal alternatives. Dossier reviewers must be able to use data from new methods and approaches to make their decisions, and dossier preparers must be able to demonstrate the strategies they used to provide information that (in their view) will allow the assessor to confidently assess the chemical.

   Our organization and others have sponsored several seminars for regulators on in vitro and computational methods for skin sensitization, AOPs, and skin and eye irritation methods. We have also co-organized seminars and workshops that bring test method developers and users, registrants, and regulators together to facilitate the sharing of research and open discussion. Scientific societies, such as the American Society for Cellular and Computational Toxicology and the Society of Toxicology can provide expertise and opportunities for dialog and building common ground among stakeholders.

   Efforts to reform TSCA were often contentious, and congressional action took nearly a decade, but now that the Lautenberg Act is law the real work begins. The contributions of the public health, animal protection, environmental, toxicology, research, regulatory, and industry communities are even more important during the law's implementation. Our shared efforts to replace animal tests and protect public health and the environment by improving toxicology testing will help to ensure Sen. Frank Lautenberg's legacy lives on.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95998152&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95998152&jd=95998152
   

    

   Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

2. Public Access to EPA's New Chemical Decisions Welcomed

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   The Environmental Protection Agency's Web page that posts its new chemical risk conclusions provides the public some safety assurance, a chemical manufacturer said.
   

   “EPA's posting of its premanufacture notice determinations provides more transparency for the public. This is a good step forward for transparency and providing more information about the safety of materials that are destined for products,” Genet Garamendi, senior vice president for corporate communications, sustainability and government relations at Solazyme Inc., told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail.

   The agency reviewed two chemicals Solazyme designed for use as lubricants, lubricant ingredients or to make other chemicals, finding that the two chemicals were “not likely to present an unreasonable risk.”

   That finding is the most innocuous of the four possible determinations the EPA can select as it decides whether a new chemical can be made in or imported into the U.S. under the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182). The act, which amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, became law June 22.

   No Delay in EPA's Review of Solazyme's Chemicals

   Solazyme was pleased that the EPA reached its risk conclusion without delay even though TSCA was amended since the company filed its premanufacture notices in April and May.

   “EPA did inform us there might be delays, but we did not experience any delays,” Garamendi said.

   The EPA has announced findings for seven new chemicals since Lautenberg was enacted. Solazyme is the only manufacturer of the seven chemicals that didn't invoke confidential business information provisions in submitting its premanufacture notices to the EPA.

   Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, welcomed the public information the EPA now makes available about its new chemical decisions. More information, however, would be helpful, he wrote in a July 22 blog.

   Public Is Viewing EPA Posts

   EPA information about the amended TSCA is getting public attention, according to statistics on website usage the agency provided Bloomberg BNA.

   The Lautenberg Web page, which provides the most information, had 37,193 page views from June 22 to Aug. 16, which averages to about 664 page views per day over 56 days, the agency said.

   The new chemicals Web page had 2,455 page views from its establishment on July 22 through Aug. 16, which averages 94 page views per day over 26 days, the EPA said.

   Dan Newton, senior manager of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, or SOCMA, didn't comment on the public availability of EPA's decisions, but, unlike Solazyme, voiced concern about the time it's taking the EPA to evaluate new chemical notices.

   Trade Association Concerned by Delays

   “There is some concern mounting that EPA is not going to be able to meet its deadlines in the first year,” Newton told Bloomberg BNA by e-mail.

   “The agency has a substantial backlog,” he said.

   As of Aug. 15, the EPA was reviewing 416 premanufacture notices, an agency spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA. A total of 336 of the notices, including the seven for which the EPA has completed its analyses, were under review when President Obama signed the Lautenberg Act into law June 22, she said.

   Newton said, “We acknowledge the EPA has a new mandate regarding the review of PMNs, which understandably will take some time to adjust to.”

   Concerns Raised New Chemical Notice

   The society's members, who often make small batches of specially designed molecules, are particularly concerned about delays in one type of new chemical notice, Newton

   He referred to situations in which the EPA fully or partially exempts a new chemical from the requirement that its manufacturer submit a premanufacture notice.

   For example, a manufacturer may not have to submit a full premanufacture notice if it's making a chemical solely for test marketing.

   The amendments made to TSCA “should not affect [EPA's] ability to keep current its decisions on exemptions and exemption modifications. Unfortunately, decisions on these notices have not been updated since enactment of the new TSCA,” Newton said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95998164&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95998164&jd=95998164

    

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. ADAO Hosts 10th Asbestos Congressional Staff Briefing

   Aug 19, 2016 | Mesothelioma.com

   Already, in 2016 great strides have been made in the effort to ban asbestos. While it’s still not completely banned yet, the passage of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (text of the act) – with strong bipartisan support – opened the door for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban asbestos.

   At the forefront of these efforts are groups such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), who ensured that asbestos was addressed specifically in the Lautenberg Act. The ADAO and other organizations also participated as stakeholders in the EPA’s two-day set of public meetings to discuss the chemical review and prioritization process.

   While this progress is great, there is still a lot of work to be done! Now more than ever, it is important to keep the ball rolling to make sure that the politicians, officials, and others follow through on actually implementing a ban on asbestos. The tools are available, but they are useless unless we actually put them to use!

   One effort to make sure that progress continues is making sure that congressional representatives are aware of the dangers surrounding asbestos, its link to mesothelioma and other diseases, and related issues. With that in mind, on September 13th, the ADAO is hosting its 10th Asbestos Congressional Staff Luncheon Briefing. As with past events, these educational briefings bring the latest information about the dangers of asbestos and the critical need to implement a ban immediately.About the Event

   Asbestos takes 15,000 lives every year in the United States – and yet, this deadly substances remains legal. Earlier this year, President Obama acknowledged the damage that asbestos can do and empowered the EPA to do something about it by signing into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the first update to the Toxic Chemical Safety Act in 40 years. Now that the EPA is actively deciding the process for prioritizing its list of high-risk chemicals, we need to make sure that asbestos gets on that list.

   Therefore, the ADAO is hosting its 10th Asbestos Congressional Staff Briefing to provide senate staff members the opportunity to learn more about the dangers of asbestos, why prioritizing asbestos is critical, and what are the next steps we need to take.ADAO Briefing Details

   Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 
   Time: 12:00 – 1:00 pm 
   Where: Dirksen Senate Office Building 
   Speakers:Barry Castleman, ScDMark Catlin, American Public Health Association (APHA)Andy Igrejas, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF)Brent Kynoch, Executive Director, Environmental Information Association (EIA)Mike Mattmuller, Mesothelioma PatientLinda Reinstein, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization President/CEO/Co-FounderDaniel Rosenberg, National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

   These speakers will focus on topics related to the implementation of The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, including how to ensure that the EPA prioritizes asbestos as one of the first ten chemicals to be reviewed and regulated under the new law.

   http://www.mesothelioma.com/blog/authors/staff/adao-hosts-10th-asbestos-congressional-staff-briefing.htm#ixzz4HleHK3a0
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

4. (ACC Mentioned) Breakthrough Could Mean Sharply Lower Energy Use In Making Plastics

   Aug 18, 2016 | Houston Chronicle

   By Jordan Blum

   A new technology could dramatically reduce the costs and carbon emissions from plastics manufacturing by eliminating the need for large amounts of heat used in traditional processes, researchers from Exxon Mobil and the Georgia Institute of Technology said Thursday.

   The new system, still under development, is 50 times more energy efficient and could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 45 million tons globally per year - the equivalent emissions of 5 million U.S. homes, Exxon Mobil said. The industry also could save $2 billion annually in energy costs.

   The findings and a description of the technology, jointly developed by Exxon Mobil and Georgia Tech scientists, were published Thursday in the prominent scientific journal Science.

   The technology, which uses advanced filters to isolate the chemical components used to make plastics, is the latest example of energy companies seeking new ways to reduce carbon emissions from the fossil fuels they produce and burn as political and regulatory pressure builds on the industry. For instance, the power company NRG Energy is building a carbon capture system on its W.A. Parish coal plant south of Houston, which is scheduled to come online later this year.

   Another power generator, Exelon, and the industrial company CB&I are investing $140 million in an experimental power plant under construction in La Porte, east of Houston. The plant, expected to be completed next year, will use turbine technology that could make it easier and cheaper to separate and capture carbon dioxide created in the generation of electricity.

   The overwhelming consensus of scientists blames the burning of fossil fuels for accelerating global warming. Climate change has become a growing international concern and potent issue as extreme weather appears to occur more frequently. Former Vice President Al Gore, speaking in Houston this week, blamed climate change for the massive flooding in Louisiana and powerful storms that have recently battered Houston and other parts of the country.

   Several states are investigating whether Exxon Mobil and other energy companies misled investors and the public when they downplayed the risk of climate change years ago, even though internal research may have suggested otherwise. Exxon and the industry have denied such claims,

   Exxon Mobil and Georgia Tech's answer to cutting carbon emissions in making plastics, which use fossil fuels as feed stock, is a carbon-based membrane that can separate molecules as small as a nanometer, or one-billionth of a meter (a sheet of paper is 100,000 nanometers thick). The membrane acts as a filter to separate a chemical building block from natural gas or petroleum. The chemical, called paraxylene, is used to make plastics and polyester.

   Room temperature

   This new system can work at room temperature, unlike current industry methods that require high-energy heating processes to separate those molecules.

   "In effect, we'd be using a filter with microscopic holes to do what an enormous amount of heat and energy currently do in a chemical process similar to that found in oil refining," Mike Kerby, corporate strategic research manager at Exxon Mobil, said in a statement.

   Exxon Mobil and Georgia Tech cautioned that additional testing is still needed under more challenging conditions before the technology can be declared a success. They need to ensure the membranes can hold up during long-term industrial use and develop filters that can be standardized for commercial production. Still, the results are promising enough that Exxon Mobil is investing in the technology for potential wide-scale global implementation.

   Exxon Mobil, meanwhile, is investing several billion dollars to increase the production of ethylene and polyethylene - the world's most common plastic - at its Baytown and Mont Belvieu plants just east of Houston. The project represents Exxon Mobil's first major U.S. chemical expansion in more than 15 years, with completion slated for 2017.

   Exxon Mobil and the Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corp., a Saudi government-owned company known as SABIC, also are considering building another multibillion-dollar petrochemical complex in Texas or Louisiana.

   The petrochemical boom along the Gulf Coast is fueled by the cheap and ample amounts of natural gas and natural gas liquids extracted from U.S. shale through unconventional drilling and hydraulic fracturing. The ethane from natural gas is converted into ethylene, which is the primary building block for most plastics, and then transformed into polyethylene.

   Global goal

   The ultimate goal of U.S. plastics manufacturers is to supply much of the developing world in Asia, Africa and beyond as incomes and standards of living rise, and the countries demand more consumer goods.

   IHS, a research firm, estimates that more than 24 million metric tons of new polyethylene capacity - equivalent to one-fourth of global consumption - is coming online worldwide by 2020. About one-third of the new production, or 8 millions metric tons, will come from the U.S.

   The American Chemistry Council, a chemical industry trade group, counts more than 250 petrochemical projects that are under construction or planned across the country through 2023, creating about 70,000 jobs, including almost 16,000 in Texas. The combined cost is about $160 billion with about $50 billion of that total just in Texas.

   Companies including Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Phillips, Dow Chemical Co., BASF and LyondellBasell have multibillion-dollar expansion projects underway in areas such as Baytown, Channelview, Mont Belvieu, La Porte and Freeport. Many will be done in a year or so.

   http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Exxon-Georgia-Tech-unveil-low-carbon-technology-9171745.php
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. ExxonMobil, Georgia Tech Tout Reduced CO2, Energy Costs in Chemical Manufacturing

   Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Carolyn Davis

   ExxonMobil Corp. and the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) said a team of scientists may have broken the code to reduce the amount of energy and carbon emissions associated with making plastics.

   The research, published in the peer-reviewed Science journal, indicated that if the breakthrough were brought to industrial scale, annual global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be reduced by up to 45 million tons, equivalent to the annual energy-related CO2 emissions of about five million U.S. homes. Global energy costs might decline by up to $2 billion a year.

   Using a molecular-level filter, the new process relies on a form of reverse osmosis to separate para-xylene, a chemical building block for polyester and plastics, from complex hydrocarbon mixtures. Currently, commercial-scale processes rely on energy and heat to separate those molecules.

   "If advanced to commercial-scale application, this technology could significantly reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions associated with chemical manufacturing," said ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Co.'s Vijay Swarup, vice president of research and development.

   The research demonstrated that para-xylene may be separated from like chemical compounds, aka aromatics, by pressing them through a membrane that acts as a "high-tech sieve, similar to a filter with microscopic holes." Commercially practiced separations involve energy-intensive crystallization, or adsorption with distillation.

   Globally, the amount of energy used in conventional separation processes for aromatics is equal to about 20 average-sized power plants. Chemical plants account for about 8% of global energy demand and about 15% of the projected growth in demand to 2040, according to ExxonMobil.

   The scientists working together first developed a carbon-based membrane to separate molecules as small as a nanometer. The membrane then was incorporated into a new organic solvent reverse osmosis process, during which aromatics were pressed through the membrane, separating out para-xylene.

   Researchers were led by Georgia Tech’s Ryan Lively of the School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering and included the university's Dong-Yeun Koh, as well as ExxonMobil's Benjamin McCool and Harry Deckman.

   "In effect, we'd be using a filter with microscopic holes to do what an enormous amount of heat and energy currently do in a chemical process similar to that found in oil refining," said ExxonMobil's Mike Kerby, corporate strategic research manager.

   The carbon-based membrane is said to be about 50 times more energy efficient than the current state-of-the-art membrane separation technology. Because the new membrane is made from a commercially available polymer, ExxonMobil said it has potential for commercialization and integration into industrial chemical separation processes.

   Reverse-osmosis membranes already are used to desalinate seawater, consuming a fraction of the energy required by thermally driven processes. The newly developed organic solvent reverse osmosis process may to be the first to use reverse osmosis with carbon membranes to separate liquid hydrocarbons.

   "By applying pressure at room temperature, the membrane is able to concentrate para-xylene from a mixture at high rates and low energy consumption relative to state-of-the-art membranes," said Lively, an assistant professor at the School of Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering. "This mixture could then be fed into a conventional thermal process for finishing, which would dramatically reduce total energy input."

   The technology still faces challenges before commercialization. The membranes used in the process would need to be tested under more stressful conditions as industrial mixtures normally contain multiple organic compounds, ExxonMobil said. Researchers also have to learn to make the material consistently and demonstrate that it is able to withstand long-term industrial use.

   "The implications could be enormous in terms of the amount of energy that could be saved and the emissions reduced in chemical and product manufacturing," said McCool, an advanced research associate who co-authored the research. "Our next steps are to further the fundamental understanding in the lab to help develop a plan for pilot plant-scale demonstration and, if successful, proceed to larger scale. We continue to work the fundamental science underlying this technology for broader applications in hydrocarbon separations."

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107459-exxonmobil-georgia-tech-tout-reduced-co2-energy-costs-in-chemical-manufacturing
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. Feds, Law Professors Say Judge Wrong To Block Fracking Rules

   Aug 18, 2016 | AP (In The Washington Post)

   By Ben Neary

   CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A federal judge in Wyoming was wrong to block rules for hydraulic fracturing on federal land, a group of law professors and lawyers for the federal government said in new court documents.

   U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl of Casper ruled in June that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management lacks the authority to regulate fracking — a technique of injecting materials underground to increase energy production.

   The agency released rules last year that could require energy companies to disclose the materials they inject to free up the surrounding oil and gas. The BLM said it was acting in response to public concern that fracking could cause contamination of groundwater.

   The Obama administration filed a brief last week with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver arguing the BLM has the power to regulate fracking. John Powell, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Wyoming, declined to comment on the case Thursday.

   In the ruling, Skavdahl pointed to an article by Florida State University law professor Hannah Wiseman, saying it supported his conclusion that Congress removed fracking from federal regulation in 2005.

   Wiseman and 35 other law professors from around the country filed a brief with the appeals court Wednesday saying they disagree with the judge’s ruling and claiming it “fundamentally misinterprets the article.”

   Wiseman said it should be a slam-dunk for the BLM to get the ruling overturned.

   “The agency clearly has the authority — indeed, a duty — to regulate hydraulic fracturing under several of its enabling statutes,” she said in a statement.

   Skavdahl’s decision came in response to legal challenges to the federal rules from Wyoming, Colorado, North Dakota, Utah and the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in Utah. A number of environmental groups also joined the case to argue in favor of the rules.

   Wyoming Attorney General Peter Michael said Thursday that he has not yet reviewed the new filings. The state and others must file their responses in mid-September.

   “Obviously, we’re always confident when we’ve won below,” Michael said of the lower-court ruling.

   John Robitaille, vice president of the Petroleum Association of Wyoming, said oil and gas producers are already regulated by the state and that the BLM rules amounted to unnecessary and duplicative oversight.

   Some 90 percent of new oil and gas wells use hydraulic fracturing techniques to improve production, said Robitaille, whose group supported the state’s legal challenge.

   “The use of hydraulic fracturing ... has really opened up a lot of opportunity for our business,” he said Thursday. “And it’s something that we expect to continue well into the future.”

   https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/feds-law-professors-say-judge-wrong-to-block-fracking-rules/2016/08/18/09b9fd1a-6587-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_story.html
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Colorado Measure to Block Anti-Frackers Makes Ballot

   Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence

   By Richard Nemec

   An oil/natural gas industry-backed measure to make it more difficult to amend Colorado's state constitution has qualified for the November ballot, the Colorado secretary of state's office said.

   "Raise the Bar" is a proposal from the business sector to make it harder for activists to amend the state constitution through ballot measures. Initiative No. 96 requires that any petition for a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment be signed by at least 2% of the registered electors in each of the 35 state Senate districts.

   Backed by Gov. John Hickenlooper, a number of pro-industry coalitions, and individual oil/gas operators, Initiative 96 had 183,691 valid signatures, or 129% of what was required, according to the verification by Secretary of State Wayne Williams' office.

   "A 5% random sample of the signatures projected the number of valid signatures to be greater than 110% of the total number required for placement on the ballot," a spokesperson for Williams' office said.

   The spokesperson told NGI on Thursday that various oil/gas-related measures submitted earlier this month (see Daily GPI, Aug. 9) are still going through the verification process. Whether any of those qualify won't be known until the first week of September, he said.

   "These proposals were among the last ones turned in, so they are the last ones being verified," the spokesperson said.

   Under Initiative 96, the percentage of votes to pass any proposed constitutional amendment would be increased from a majority to at least 55% of the votes cast, unless the proposed amendment only repeals a provision of the constitution. This is the fourth citizens' initiative to be approved for the November ballot with five, including the two anti-oil/gas measures, still being reviewed.

   Hickenlooper said "this ballot measure is going to ensure that our constitution is not held captive by the whims of the day."

   "Raise-the-Bar is a much needed protection for our state constitution," said Dan Haley, CEO of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA). "Only California and Oregon have had more proposed initiatives than Colorado, and it is time to stop having [the state] be a playground for out-of-state political activists who want to test ballot initiatives and ideas at the expense of Colorado citizens."

   Backers of #96 have raised nearly $1 million through Aug. 1, including $300,000 from a business coalition, Vital for Colorado, and individual contributions from Denver-based energy firms, such as PDC Energy, HRM Resources LLC and Bill Barrett Corp, who gave $25,000, $15,000, and $10,000, respectively.

   The two oil/gas measures (No. 75 and No. 78) are strongly opposed by industry as evidenced earlier this month when PDC Energy Inc.'s CEO Bart Brookman, expressed doubts that the measures had collected enough valid signatures.

   COGA officials previously have attributed the two measures (No. 75 and No. 78) to relentless anti-oil/gas activists and "out-of-state special interests" pushing for bans on hydraulic fracturing around the nation. The secretary of state's office has a month to determine if the measures qualify for the November ballot.

   http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107455-colorado-measure-to-block-anti-frackers-makes-ballot
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

8. California Offshore Fracking Needs More Study: Groups

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Carolyn Whetzel

   A third environmental group plans to sue federal agencies for allowing hydraulic fracturing to continue along California's coast without adequately evaluating the potential threat to blue whales and other protected species.
   

   The Center for Biological Diversity filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue Aug. 17, accusing two Interior Department agencies of violating the Endangered Species Act. The claims in the notice are similar to those in a suit filed Aug. 10 by the Environmental Defense Center and Santa Barbara Channelkeeper.

   The planned lawsuit seeks to prevent approval of offshore well-stimulation treatments until a thorough analysis of their impacts on imperiled species can be completed, the group said.

   At issue is a programmatic environmental assessment on the use of offshore well-stimulation treatments, like fracking and acidizing, in federal waters off the California coast and related “finding of no significant impact” that the Bureau of Ocean Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement issued May 27.

   Consultations Sought

   The two agencies made the decision without consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife or the NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service on the risks of the activities, as required by the Endangered Species Act, the Aug. 17 notice said.

   “Every offshore frack puts California's wonderful coastal wildlife at risk from toxic chemicals or another deadly oil spill,” Kristen Monsell, the center's attorney, said in a statement. “It's disturbing to see the federal government ignore its legal responsibility to carefully consider the dangers of offshore fracking and prolonged drilling to whales, sea otters and other species struggling to survive.”

   Most of the oil and gas platforms on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf are in the Santa Barbara Channel, where endangered blue whales and humpback whales congregate at various times of the year, the notice said. The channel also is home to other listed species, including sea turtles, southern sea otters and black abalone, the notice said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95998169&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95998169&jd=95998169

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. Cost of Carbon Decision Helps Clean Power Plan: Lawyers

   Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Andrea Vittorio

   Lawyers defending the Obama administration's plan for reducing carbon dioxide from power plants say a recent decision upholding the federal approach to carbon accounting helps their case (West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, brief filed 8/17/16).
   

   At issue in both cases is whether the government can consider in its cost-benefit analysis the global impacts of carbon dioxide emissions, not just their impact on Americans.

   That's the approach the Energy Department took when it issued efficiency standards for commercial refrigeration equipment. A federal appeals court Aug. 8 agreed with the DOE's explanation that climate change involves global externalities, “meaning that carbon released in the United States affects the climate of the world” (Zero Zone, Inc. v. Dep't of Energy, 2016 BL 255907, 7th Cir., No. & 14-2334, 8/8/16).

   That reasoning “would apply equally here,” one of the attorneys defending the Environmental Protection Agency's power plant regulation, known as the Clean Power Plan, said in an Aug. 17 filing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court will hear oral arguments Sept. 27 on five issues surrounding the regulation.

   One of the arguments that states, utilities and industry associations have made against the EPA rule—which has been put on hold by the Supreme Court—is that the rule uses the “social cost of carbon” to weigh domestic costs against global benefits.

   The social cost of carbon, estimated at $36 per-ton in 2015, is meant to capture the long-term effects of climate change, including human health impacts, property damage and changes in agricultural productivity.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95998168&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95998168&jd=95998168

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. Energy Efficiency Can Accelerate Economic Growth

    Aug 18, 2016 | Natural Resources Defense Council

    By David B. Goldstein

    Both political candidates claim that America needs to accelerate economic growth. This is accepted as a worthy goal by Paul Krugman, who notes that “some people I respect believe that trying to get …[the growth rate] back up should be a big goal of policy.” But Dr. Krugman then asks HOW we can do it:

    "After all, what do we actually know how to do when it comes to economic policy?”

    He is unable to identify specific answers in the article because he is looking at the problem from 40,000 feet. If you start with your feet on the ground, however, you can see several big opportunities. One great way to accelerate economic growth is to reduce energy bills for households and businesses through a large-scale program to make our existing homes and buildings more efficient. This will employ hundreds of thousands of people, some who are working on our buildings and some with jobs created by pumping money into the economy that otherwise would have been wasted.Energy efficiency leads to bill savings

    Energy efficiency means using energy more intelligently: getting more for less. Who wouldn’t want to cut their utility bills in half if it meant increasing the level of comfort and security in their home or business? For a typical homeowner, it would mean sealing ducts, eliminating drafts, providing positive fresh air ventilation without the associated drafts of cold air in the winter or humid air in the summer, upgrading insulation, heating and cooling equipment, and in many situations replacing windows and adding solar power systems.

    Such a makeover could have sizable upfront costs - between $10,000 - $30,000 a home - but the savings for a typical house would be over $35,000. And the additional comfort and safety would be free.

    We already know how to get virtually all homes to undertake these energy makeovers, and to do it in just four years (a year for planning and three years for implementation). Some of our leading utilities have tested programs that were operated on the scale of a small community. The only challenge is to scale them up to a national level, but many utilities already have the capacity to do this. What is missing is the motivation and regulatory approval to do so.

    These successful retrofit pilot programs involved very high levels of financial incentive, but there are reasons to expect that the incentives could be reduced drastically over time.Accelerating economic growth by investing in better buildings

    These energy efficiency investments in existing homes and businesses would take the worst-performing segment of the economy—housing—and restore the levels of housing sector jobs we saw during the years preceding the housing bubble ten years ago. These would be clean energy jobs that reduce air pollution and slow climate change as well as improving people’s homes and workplaces. Many of the workers that were doing this work ten years ago can be retrained; others can learn quickly, as many agencies offer job training programs for home energy improvement workers. I have estimated that this program could produce over 300,000 new jobs, on net.

    Such a program could also be the most important new initiative to reduce climate pollution. Buildings emit almost 40 percent of the nation’s carbon pollution, so cutting this in half by 2030 would save some 20 percent. This is on top of savings from other successful programs such as appliance efficiency standards and building codes. They fit into a comprehensive program of market-based policies that address the major causes of the 2007-2009 recession, from which half of the nation has yet to emerge.

    https://www.nrdc.org/experts/david-b-goldstein/energy-efficiency-can-accelerate-economic-growth
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Five Things You Need To Know Before The Clean Power Plan Oral Argument

    Aug 18, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Martha Roberts

    The Clean Power Plan oral argument is coming up soon. On September 27, attorneys will present their arguments in front of the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

    EPA and the many supporters of the Clean Power Plan have already filed their written arguments – and so has the coalition of coal companies and their allies that are challenging the rule. (You can read all their submissions here.) And just yesterday, the D.C. Circuit released the final order on the argument’s format and duration.

    The Clean Power Plan is America’s first-ever nationwide program to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. It sets eminently achievable carbon emission targets that phase in gradually, in line with current power sector trends, while giving states and power companies tremendous flexibility to determine how best to meet these goals.

    As we approach September 27, here are five key facts to keep in mind:The Clean Power Plan has supporters across the country.

    Power companies and state and local officials in forty-one states are supporting the Clean Power Plan in court – either through their state attorney general, a local power company, or a municipality. And there are a lot more supporters as well.

    The final submitted briefs reflect a wide array of important perspectives in our society. Supporters of the Clean Power Plan in court include:Leading businesses. Power companies that produce about 10 percent of our nation’s electricity as well as prominent, iconic businesses including Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Google, IKEA, Mars, and MicrosoftStates and municipalities. 18 states and 60 cities, including major cities in states that are litigating against these protections – like Houston, Grand Rapids, and MiamiConsumers Union and other organizations addressing the economic benefits for consumers and low income ratepayers from expansive, low cost clean energy solutions41 faith communities including the National Council of Churches and the Catholic Climate CovenantNumerous renewable energy companies that are members of the Advanced Energy Economy, American Wind Energy Association, and Solar Energy Industries Association, which together represent more than 3,000 companies in the advanced energy sector, a $200 billion industry in the United States25 business associations including American Sustainable Business Council, U.S. Black Chambers, Inc., as well as state associations from West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, among othersCurrent and former members of Congress, including 36 sitting Senators and 157 sitting members of the HouseLeading public health associations such as the American Medical Association and the American Academy of PediatricsNational security experts including former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense Leon PanettaThe legal and technical foundation of the Clean Power Plan is rock solid.

    The Supreme Court has affirmed EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act three times since 2007. In American Electric Power v. Connecticut (2011), the Supreme Court specifically held that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act – the provision that underlies the Clean Power Plan – “speaks directly” to the regulation of carbon pollution from existing power plants.

    EPA exhaustively analyzed the Clean Power Plan to ensure that it was based on the best available technical information and would not compromise the affordability or reliability of our electricity supply. EPA also reviewed millions of comments, received on every aspect of the proposed version.

    A range of renowned experts have affirmed the robust legal and technical bases for the Clean Power Plan in amicus brief submissions to the D.C. Circuit, including:The Institute for Policy Integrity — represented by New York University Law Dean Emeritus Richard ReveszFormer EPA Administrators William Ruckelshaus and William Reilly, who served under Presidents Nixon, Reagan and George H.W. Bush — represented by Harvard Law School’s Jody Freeman and Richard LazarusLeon Billings and Tom Jorling — the principal drafters of the 1970 Clean Air ActFormer state energy and environmental officials — including Larry Soward, Commissioner at the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality under Texas Governor Rick PerryPremier electric grid experts, who affirmed that EPA’s approach is fully in line with on-going power sector trendsTop climate scientists, who articulated the latest research on observed and projected impacts from our changing climateThe tremendous pace of clean energy development further reinforces the Clean Power Plan’s reasonableness.

    The cost of renewable energy is falling at an extraordinary rate, spurring dramatic expansion in its use. The costof new wind power has dropped 60 percent — and the cost of new solar by 80 percent — since just 2009.

    Renewable energy is anticipated to make up approximately 63 percent of new capacity additions in 2016. In fact, the amount of new renewable energy capacity developed in the first three months of 2016 exceeded new natural gas by a factor of more than seventy to one. Almost 100 gigawatts of additional new renewable energy resources are now projected in the United States by 2020, and annual investment in energy efficiency has quadrupled in the last decade.

    America’s powerful clean energy trends further buttress the feasibility of the Clean Power Plan’s targets. But you don’t have to take our word for it — because power companies have said so themselves.

    In their Clean Power Plan filing, major power producers emphasized their strong support for the Clean Power Plan, highlighting that it “harnesses existing trends within the electricity sector” and was set “with ample margin and attention to what is practically attainable.”

    As the companies noted, both they and the power sector in general have “have successfully reduced emissions within their generation portfolios without compromising reliability and will continue to do so” under the Clean Power Plan.

    Dominion Resources, an owner of several large coal-fired power plants in the Mid-Atlantic, affirmed the feasibility of compliance in a lengthy amicus brief submitted in support of the Clean Power Plan.States and power companies are charging ahead.

    On February 9, 2016, the Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Clean Power Plan in an unprecedented order. Nonetheless, states and power companies are voluntarily moving ahead, in recognition of the tremendous value in following the Clean Power Plan’s flexible, sensible approach to achieving emissions reductions.

    More than half of states are continuing to assess planning options under the Clean Power Plan. 14 states across the country have explicitly requested that EPA continue providing information and guidance to help them make informed decisions about potential Clean Power Plan obligations as they continue moving forward. Californiadeveloped its proposed Clean Power Plan state plan in a year and released it for public comment earlier this month. State officials across the country have voiced support for sensible continued planning — as one Wyoming state legislator put it, “Wyoming should be prepared.” (See a full compilation of state statements on the Clean Power Plan here.)

    Power companies across the country have expressed similar sentiments. A representative from Mid-American Energy highlighted that they “wish” the stay hadn’t happened, because of the resulting uncertainty. American Electric Power, a major producer of coal-fired electricity, said that the Supreme Court stay “doesn’t change our focus on the diversification of our generation fleet,” and those diversification plans include more gas and renewables. Power companies are already investing in clean energy in response to the market and their customers — for these companies, any delay in planning creates needless risk and uncertainty.This record-breaking summer highlights just how urgently we need sensible climate protections.

    It’s challenging to encapsulate all the extreme weather we’ve witnessed in 2016. Just in the U.S., we’ve experienced a series of dangerous heat waves, deadly floods, and extreme storms. This week’s flooding in Louisiana is just the latest heart-rending example — with lives tragically lost and upended across the state. Yesterday, NASA announced that July 2016 was the warmest month ever in 136 years of modern record-keeping. According to the World Meteorological Organization, 2016 is firmly on track to be the warmest year yet. The Weather Channel noted all of these wild weather events from the first six months of 2016 together here, in a website on 2016’s “Weirdest Weather.” All these events are fully in line with the hotter, more extreme weather that’s predicted under a changing climate.

    Meanwhile, new research only underscores the human health costs of climate change. Mitigating the human health impacts of climate change will add to the Clean Power Plan’s substantial health benefits from reducing soot and smog pollutants. EPA estimates that once the Clean Power Plan is fully implemented, these reductions will — every year — avoid 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed workdays and schooldays.

    These climate risks and essential health benefits highlight the importance of having a mandatory framework to ensure emissions reductions. Clean energy trends are already charging ahead, but investors need the certainty that the Clean Power Plan provides — and all Americans’ health and well-being are depending on it.

    http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2016/08/18/five-things-you-need-to-know-before-the-clean-power-plan-oral-argument/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation News

12. Railroads Slow To Adopt Technology That Prevents Accidents

    Aug 17, 2016 | The Hill - Transportation

    By Melanie Zanona

    Railroads have been slow to adopt a technology that can prevent deadly train accidents, even though the system will eventually be required by law, according to a new report.
    
    Positive train control (PTC), a technology that automatically slows a train that is going over the speed limit, is currently operating along just 9 percent of freight route miles and 22 percent of passenger train route miles, according to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).

    Congress originally gave commuter and freight railroads until the end of 2015 to install the technology, which can prevent derailments, collisions and improper track switching.
    
    But as railroads struggled to meet compliance deadlines, lawmakers pushed back the PTC implementation date to at least Dec. 31, 2018.
    
    "The official deadline for positive train control may be years away, but the urgency for railroads to activate it is now," FRA Administrator Sarah Feinberg said in a press release. "FRA will continue to push railroads to stay focused on implementation and urge Congress to fund this life-saving technology."
    
    Some railroads are making substantial progress in the effort, which requires training employees, submitting a safety plan, and installing PTC technology in locomotives, track segments and radio towers.
    
    But others are lagging far behind. Some railroads haven’t installed the technology in a single locomotive, track or radio tower.
    
    The FRA report found that 34 percent of freight rail locomotives and 29 percent of passenger rail locomotives are equipped with PTC.
    
    Meanwhile, just 11 percent of track segments on freight railroads and 12 percent of track segments on passenger train railroads have been completed.
    
    Safety advocates have criticized the pace of progress, pointing to a deadly Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia last year that could have been prevented if the train operator was backstopped by PTC.
    
    But the technology is costly. Freight railroads have already kicked in more than $6.5 billion in private funding for PTC, with the industry expecting final costs to reach over $10.5 billion by the time the automated system is fully operational, according to the Association of American Railroads.
    
    “The PTC technology being installed is revolutionary and is a full-time focus of the nation’s freight railroads, which continue to work all out on PTC testing and installation and to move this complex safety system from concept to nationwide reality across the country as quickly as possible, without sacrificing safety,” said Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads.
    
    Since 2008, Congress has awarded more than $650 million in federal grants to assist passenger railroads with installing the technology. 
    
    The FRA doled out $25 million in PTC grants earlier this week and is currently accepting applications for an additional $199 million in competitive grant funding.
    
    Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has urged railroads to implement the technology ahead of the deadline, while also calling on Congress to provide additional funding.
    
    President Obama sought $1.25 billion in his fiscal 2017 budget request to help railroads install PTC systems.
    
    “Positive Train Control should be installed as quickly as possible,” Foxx said. “This is lifesaving technology available now, and railroads should continue to aggressively work to beat the deadlines Congress has put in place.”

    http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/291765-railroads-slow-to-adopt-technology-that-prevents-accidents
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Enviros Challenge Tri-State Pipeline Permit Over Water Concerns

    Aug 19, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Chris Marr

    Permits allowing construction of a 515-mile natural gas pipeline across Alabama, Florida and Georgia could face review in federal appeals court, following a petition by three environmental groups (Gulf Restoration Network Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 11th Cir., No. 16-15545, 8/17/16).
    

    The Gulf Restoration Network, Flint Riverkeeper and the Sierra Club sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 17. Their petition seeks expedited review of dredge-and-fill permits the corps issued for the planned $3 billion Sabal Trail pipeline.

    The pipeline, also previously authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is intended to deliver natural gas to Florida Power & Light and Duke Energy power plants in Florida beginning in May 2017.

    The plaintiffs allege the corps didn't require adequate mitigation efforts to minimize the risk of contaminating waterways, including those that provide drinking water for 10 million people in the area, the Sierra Club said in a news release announcing the lawsuit. The corps failed to make the mitigation plans available during the public comment period, the plaintiffs said, and five compressor stations along the pipeline will contribute to air pollution.

    “Essentially what happened is the Corps stated [FERC] addressed mitigation while FERC stated the Corps would do it. As a result, neither agency analyzed the issue and the public had no chance to review and comment on it,” said Eric Huber, managing attorney for the Sierra Club, in the Aug. 17 press release.

    Public Justice and GreenLaw represent the plaintiffs.

    Clean Water Act Permits

    A spokeswoman for the Army Corps of Engineers told Bloomberg BNA the agency wouldn't comment on pending litigation.

    The corps issued its record of decision Aug. 11, granting five permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act related to a group of proposed pipelines collectively known as the Southeast Market Pipelines Project. These include the Sabal Trail, the Hillabee Expansion and the Florida Southeast Connection.

    The largest of the three, Sabal Trail, is being built by a joint venture of Spectra Energy, Duke Energy and NextEra Energy, the parent company of Florida Power & Light.

    The pipeline companies immediately sought the go-ahead from FERC to begin construction following the corps' decision, and the Sabal Trail and FSC projects have received the OK already, according to Jim Hecker, attorney at Public Justice.

    “They've got the greenlight from FERC on two of the three components,” he told Bloomberg BNA Aug. 18. The plaintiffs were preparing to file a motion asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit to preliminarily suspend the corps' permits pending further court review, he said, in an effort to prevent construction from the beginning.

    FERC Led Environmental Review

    In its Aug. 11 decision, the corps authorized the pipeline projects to disturb streams, lakes and wetlands in the pipelines’ path—some temporarily and some permanently—while requiring certain mitigation efforts. The corps also adopted FERC's final environmental impact statement on the project, issued in December 2015.

    FERC's analysis considered concerns about the project contributing to sinkhole development, groundwater contamination, wetlands destruction, visual impacts, property value impairment and others. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also commented to FERC and the corps, writing in December 2015 that many of its earlier concerns had been satisfied, according to FERC's ordercertifying the projects in February.

    FERC's February certification also required the Sabal Trail to undergo further scrutiny from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection before starting construction.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=95998171&vname=dennotallissues&fn=95998171&jd=95998171

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

14. (ACC Mentioned) Industry Study Touts Environmental Benefits of Plastic

    Aug 19, 2016 | Triple Pundit

    By Leon Kaye

    Plastic has increasingly become the storage and packaging material of choice, and its use has risen exponentially since it first become commonplace during the 1950s. Indeed, the wide adoption of plastic has contributed to an improvement in public health, allowed cars to become lighter and more fuel-efficient, and played a critical role in emergencies with the distribution of goods including potable water. But while the plastic industry says it iscommitted to recycling, and more companies are finding innovative ways to use recycled plastic, the stubborn fact is that municipalities still struggle with the huge streams of plastic waste.

    But despite these challenges, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) insists via a sponsored report that plastic has an environmental impact far smaller than alternative materials.

    Trucost, a United Kingdom-based consultancy that describes itself as an expert in “natural capital dependency,” said it completed a full overview and life cycle assessment (LCA) that reached several significant conclusions. Among these findings were:The cost of using plastic to package consumer goods and food had an overall environmental impact almost four times less than materials such glass, tin, aluminum and paper.Plastic materials’ manufacturing and transport account for the greatest environmental costs, which could be reduced with the use of more clean energy, better packaging designs and more efficient transportation fleets.The capture of plastic waste before it reaches the world’s oceans could cut the costs of income by $2.1 billion.Increasing the recycling of plastic materials to 55 percent (currently those rates are in the signal percentage digits) and slashing landfill disposal to a rate of 10 percent could reduce their environmental costs by almost $8 billion.Plastic’s environmental advantages are not uniform across all sectors. While they have a greater benefit in the manufacturing of large goods such as furniture and automobiles, those benefits decrease as they are used in industries such as consumer electronics, food and beverages and household goods. Toy manufactures, according to this study, generate the least environmental benefit out of all sectors this study evaluated.

    Finally, the Trucost study argues that despite the downsides of plastic, its environmental costs, especially in the case of more sustainably manufactured plastic, has a far small impact than competing materials. Due largely to production, transportation and disposal costs, the environmental costs of these alternative materials soars to $533 billion. The study, in contrast, claims that all plastic carries an environmental price tag less than half that figure: $237 billion.

    But what the study dismisses is the strain plastic has imposed on municipalities tasked with the collection, recycling and disposal of this material. Trucost’s researchers suggest that improved municipal waste collection processes, especially in developing countries, could have a huge role in mitigating plastic’s environmental impact.

    Furthermore, the study does not mention extended producer responsibility (EPR) once. And why would it? Advocates for ERP say the burden of collecting, disposal and finding ways to recycle these products should be on the companies that manufacture them instead of on local governments. But food and CPG companies are not having it and instead focus on zero-waste efforts within their supply chains and operations. The two-year slump in oil prices has also hit the recycling industry hard, as there is little incentiveto recycle plastic when manufacturing it from virgin material is a far cheaper and easier option.

    Furthermore, while one can crunch the numbers and find that plastic may use less energy than other materials such as aluminum, such materials are recycled at much higher rates, with less garbage going to ever-shrinking landfill space here in the U.S. and abroad. The fact is, while only paper products and organic waste take up more landfill space than plastic, the industry infers that consumers and cities, not the industry, should find ways to reduce the streams of plastic finding their way into garbage dumps.

    Finally, while the study is based on a methodology that incorporates natural capital valuation techniques, it deserves closer scrutiny when one considers who reviewed the study before its final publication. While one reviewer was from a LCA consultancy, the rest were either from the ACC or the plastic industry. No one from a municipal agency tasked with waste collection, or any environmental group, reviewed the study or its methodology.

    The Trucost/ACC study is right in admonishing plastic manufacturers to incorporate natural capital accounting in order to gain a stronger grasp about their products’ environmental impact. But the industry could also be more proactive and work with cities and towns in developing waste diversion solutions in order to cope with society’s affinity for plastic. Whether the industry invests in more recycling programs, works with local governments to implement recycling fees or educates consumers of plastic’s impacts, the industry’s trade groups need to show more substance and progress than rely on slick public relations campaigns.

    http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/08/chemistry-industry-study-touts-environmental-benefits-plastic/
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. Clean Tech Leaders Try To Put A Business-Friendly Spin On Climate Change Policies

    Aug 19, 2016 | Los Angeles Times

    By Chris Megerian

    Mark Bauhaus used to make a point of avoiding Sacramento. Like other technology executives, he saw state politics as nothing more than a drag on Silicon Valley’s freewheeling innovation.

    Yet this month he was walking the halls of the Capitol, wearing an advocacy group’s pin on his suit jacket and holding a folder of fact sheets as he visited lawmakers to push for a new law on climate change. Although the oil industry and some manufacturers have opposed the legislation, Bauhaus and his compatriots are embracing the proposal as an opportunity.

    “Business has to stand up and say, ‘Yes, this is important,’” Bauhaus said.

    The goal is to show that support for environmental regulations extends beyond tree huggers to people who sit in corner offices and to prevent skeptical lawmakers from dismissing climate policies as “anti-business.” The coalition of supporters includes electric bus builders, biofuel producers and investors who see green cash in green energy.

    For them, legislation that would extend the state’s target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is an economic boost, not the job-killing, cost-increasing red tape that critics say it is. The proposal, Senate Bill 32, would require the state to lower emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, a stiffer target than the current goal of reaching 1990 levels by 2020.  

    Advocates say passing the legislation would send a signal that California will continue being the right place to invest in clean energy, an industry they hope will take its place in the state’s economic pantheon alongside film production, aerospace and technology.

    Debating whether to continue California’s climate programs is like asking, “Should we vote to extend Hollywood in Hollywood?” said John Cheney, a San Francisco investor.

    “It’s a huge amount of jobs,” he said. “It’s a miraculous part of the economy.”

    Not everyone feels that way. Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, which represents the state’s largest corporations, said clean energy advocates are pushing for policies that will only help themselves while driving up costs for others.

    “They’re rushing to lock in investments for their own projects, and they don’t necessarily care about the other 98% of jobs in the economy,” he said. “And we do.”

    Here are the big issues being considered by lawmakers this month »

    The state Senate already passed the legislation, but it faces a tougher battle in the Assembly, where lawmakers are more skeptical of its benefits. With the legislative session ending Aug. 31, Gov. Jerry Brown has already signaled that he’s looking further down the road to make the changes he wants, possibly through a ballot measure in 2018.

    Companies working on climate-related initiatives don’t want to wait that long, saying they must plan years into the future and need policies they can count on.

    If lawmakers delay, “you’re creating massive uncertainty in the markets,” said Rick DeGolia, a technology executive who is also a city councilman in the Bay Area town of Atherton. “You’re telling entrepreneurs to go elsewhere.”

    In an attempt to assuage lawmakers’ concerns about the effect of regulations, Environmental Entrepreneurs, an advocacy group better known as E2, tallied up 500,000 clean energy jobs in the state  and broke them down by Assembly district.

    Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove) said he’s not sold on the benefits of the legislation, which he fears would cede too much authority to unelected regulators. 

    “It is good for some businesses,” he said. “But I’m looking at the entire package of it.”

    Cooper is a leader in the so-called “moderate caucus” of Democrats who are often described as ”pro-business.” But to some advocates, that description isn’t accurate. 

    “You’ve got to look at the oil-and-gas donations,” said Maureen Blanc, director of Charge Across Town, a nonprofit that supports electric vehicles. “There’s just a really obvious trail.”

    Tipping the balance of power in the Legislature away from oil companies is a challenge. The industry put millions of dollars into advertising last year to fight a proposal to reduce gasoline use for transportation, and the Western States Petroleum Assn. has spent $14 million on lobbying since the beginning of 2015.

    Companies are pumping even more money into lawmakers’ campaigns this year.

    “Oil has been involved in California’s history for quite some time,” said Thomas Lawson, president of the California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition. “We’re new.”

    For Lawson and his allies, a key part of the debate is the low-carbon fuel standard, a state regulation that requires reducing the carbon content of gasoline by 10% by 2020. The oil industry wants to use the debate over environmental laws as leverage to undo, or at least limit, the program.

    Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Assn., said the organization supports addressing climate change but fears that the state’s policies are putting it at a “competitive disadvantage.”

    If lawmakers want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, she said, “one would hope that decision makers would do it in the most cost-effective manner.”

    CalStart, an advocacy group that supports cleaner transportation, and others are fighting to protect the low-carbon fuel standard. Because companies can earn a financial incentive for producing biofuels or charging electric vehicles, they’ve incorporated the regulation into their own business plans.

    Proterra, an electric bus company that relocated its headquarters from South Carolina to the Bay Area, is planning a new manufacturing facility in the City of Industry. When company officials pitch their buses to transit officials, they make sure to point out that the low-carbon fuel standard helps reduce operating costs.

    “That’s really one of the best selling points,” said Kent Leacock, director of government relations for Proterra, who visited the Capitol with a CalStart group recently. “There’s a lot of companies out there that are benefiting, thriving and adding jobs with policies put in place by California.”

    CR&R Inc. is building a facility in Riverside County for turning food waste into biofuel. Paul Relis, the company’s senior vice president, said he’s been reaching out to lawmakers to persuade them to protect the fuel program. He chuckled when asked about whether the regulations are good for business.

    “We think we’re a business,” Relis said. “Our people are part of the workforce of California.”

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-business-climate-change-20160819-snap-story.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. Responding To IG Calls, EPA Sets Deadlines For Assessing RFS' Impacts

    Aug 18, 2016 | Inside EPA

    By Jeremy Bernstein

    EPA is agreeing with calls from its Inspector General (IG) to complete a series of studies aimed at assessing the greenhouse gas and other environmental impacts of its renewable fuel standard (RFS), a move that is likely to refocus attention on the program in 2017 when Congress is expected to renew its scrutiny.

    In a report released Aug. 18, the IG said EPA has set deadlines for taking a series of steps aimed at better assessing the program's GHG and other potential environmental impacts, starting with a congressionally mandated triennial report that the agency says it will submit by the end of 2017.

    The agency also says by September 2018, it will have created a process for determining whether it should revisit its 2010 determinations that certain fuels meet statutory GHG thresholds.

    Finally, EPA says that by September 2024, it will meet congressionally mandated requirements to complete an anti-backsliding study on the RFS' air quality impacts and determine whether additional action is needed to mitigate any adverse air quality impacts.

    EPA's agreement to set the deadlines came in response to an IG finding that the agency had failed to conduct the studies, even though they are either statutorily mandated or the agency had publicly committed to conducting them.

    “EPA management said they have not prioritized compliance with these requirements due to competing priorities and resource constraints,” the IG said.

    The RFS, created by the 2005 and 2007 energy laws, generally sets congressionally mandated volumes of certain categories of biofuels that must be blended into the nation's liquid fuel supply.

    The program was designed to help cut GHG emissions with the lower-emitting renewable fuels while also reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

    The law sets separate mandates for volumes of cellulosic and advanced biofuels, defined by their lifecycle GHGs, and for biomass-based diesel.

    To qualify for credits under the program, cellulosic fuels must have a 60 percent smaller carbon footprint than gasoline, while advanced biofuels must have a 50 percent smaller footprint.

    But production of some low-carbon biofuels, such as cellulosic and other advanced fuels, has been slower than anticipated, forcing EPA to waive statutory targets and driving refiners and other obligated parties to purchase costly credits to make up production shortfalls.

    In addition, because most of the total renewable fuels mandate lies outside the cellulosic, advanced and biodiesel quotas, it is satisfied in practice by corn-based ethanol. Backed by some environmentalists, many refiners have also charged that because of the program's implied mandate for corn ethanol, the program results in increases in GHG emissions compared to regular gasoline, though the ethanol sector strongly disputes the charges.

    The program has also drawn other criticisms. For example, some have warned that increased use of ethanol has increased emissions of some conventional air pollution. The volumetric blend requirements have also prompted charges that the program has incentivized increased corn production, resulting in water quality and other adverse effects.

    IG Investigation

    The IG launched its investigation last October, saying it wanted to determine whether EPA complied with statutory reporting requirements and whether it had updated its lifecycle GHG analysis with findings from the National Academy of Sciences, as well as EPA's 2011 report to Congress on the program's impacts and other relevant research.

    But it found that the agency had failed to conduct mandatory requirements to present Congress with triennial reports on the program's impacts; assess potential for, and mitigate, air quality backsliding; and develop mitigation measures.

    EPA's research office said it had not provided triennial reports after its 2011 report because it needs to “accommodate competing research priorities and reductions to [its] budget.” The research office also said that the three-year reporting cycle “was too short for significant scientific advances to occur, and that they did not receive any input from Congress on the first report's utility,” the IG says.

    On the anti-backsliding efforts, EPA said that while it has advanced preliminary efforts to create the necessary models, it still has to conduct a host of research to complete the models. For example, the agency must still decide how many model runs will be used and whether the study would quantify upstream impacts on air quality, such as agricultural dust and fertilizer.

    While EPA is not required to reconsider its 2010 determination that various fuels met the congressionally mandated GHG thresholds, the agency had committed to update its determinations, the IG says.

    But the agency has not done so, though it has incorporated new science and data when it has approved new fuels as compliance pathways. For example, the agency conducted a new lifecycle GHG analysis of cottonseed oil when it proposed to approve it as a compliance pathway for either biomass-based diesel or advanced biofuel.

    However, the IG faulted these analyses, saying they are for “fuel sources (e.g. cottonseed oil) that play a minor role in meeting the current RFS volume mandates.”

    The IG says it is important that EPA update its lifecycle GHG assessments of the fuels because they can help capture the unintended consequences of RFS policy while also helping the agency meet its goal of working toward a sustainable future by considering the full lifecycle impacts of various processes and pollutants.

    While the IG in a draft version of the report called on EPA to develop criteria to revisit the original GHG threshold determinations, EPA disagreed, saying it does not believe formal criteria are needed to ascertain whether the 2010 determinations should be revisited. As a result, the IG revised its recommendation to call for EPA to “develop or identify the process it uses to assess, evaluate and actively decide whether or not to update the lifecycle GHG analyses used to make the original GHG threshold determinations.”

    EPA agreed with the revised recommendation and agreed to complete the action by September 2018. 

    http://insideepa.com/daily-news/responding-ig-calls-epa-sets-deadlines-assessing-rfs-impacts
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Analysts: Paris Climate Deal On Track For 2016 Ratification

    Aug 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whitboard

    By Sara Stefanini

    The Paris climate agreement is expected to enter into force by the end of this year, without the European Union’s ratification, according to the nonprofit institute Climate Analytics.

    Based on government statements, Climate Analytics expects 57 countries covering 59.88 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions to legally ratify the Paris agreement in 2016.

    The deal will take effect 30 days after it is ratified by at least 55 countries accounting for 55 percent of global emissions. The agreement was signed in December 2015 by 195 countries, plus the EU.

    As of Wednesday, 22 countries had already ratified the deal and at least 35 were likely to do so this year.

    That includes two of the world’s biggest emitters — China, which accounts for 20.09 percent, and the U.S., which accounts for 17.89 percent — as well as Japan (3.79 percent), Brazil (2.48 percent) and Canada (1.95 percent).

    But ratification is more complicated for the EU. It needs to be approved by the 28 national parliaments, plus the European Parliament and Council, before it is finalized.

    The European Commission is trying to speed up the process by starting the ratification procedure for the European Parliament and Council in early June, rather than waiting for national governments to ratify first. However, the EU is not expected to complete its ratification until 2017.

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
    

    Return to headline | Return to top