Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 11/30/2016
-
(ACC Blog) The U.S. EPA Adds Its Voice To Plastics Recycling And Sustainability
Nov 29, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
We have a new partner in promoting a more holistic way of looking at plastics: the U.S. EPA. -
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos, Nine Other Chemicals to Get EPA Scrutiny
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Steve Gibb
Asbestos and nine other chemicals will be among the first to undergo health and environmental evaluations from the Environmental Protection Agency under recently-expanded authority to regulate chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Picks First 10 Compounds To review Under New Toxics Law
Nov 29, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA named today the first 10 chemicals whose health risks will be evaluated under the new Toxic Substances Control Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Includes Asbestos On List Of First 10 Chemicals For TSCA Risk Review
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has unveiled the first 10 chemicals already in the marketplace that it will subject to new risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including the known carcinogen asbestos on the list as well as several other chemicals for which the agency is already planning to issue proposed regulations under its new TSCA authority. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Names Asbestos To New List Of Dangerous Chemicals That May Be Banned
Nov 29, 2016 | BuzzFeed News
By Dan Vergano
The agency named 10 chemicals as hazardous, kicking off a new law aimed at increasing warnings about workplace and environmental dangers. -
EPA Lists Asbestos Among Top 10 Chemicals For TSCA Review
Nov 29, 2016 | PoliticoPro- Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The top 10 chemicals EPA has picked for review under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act includes asbestos, which became a symbol of the original TSCA’s toothlessness after the agency under President George H.W. Bush was unable to ban the carcinogenic substance. -
EPA Picks First Targets Of New Chemical Safety Regulations
Nov 30, 2016 | Forbes
By Sam Lemonick
The Environmental Protection Agency has named the first ten chemicals it will investigate using new powers granted by Congress last spring. -
(ACC Mentioend) Litigation: Industry Resists Advocates' Supplemental Argument In DSW Suit
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
Industry parties are resisting environmentalists' attempt to cite additional case law to bolster their contention that the verified recycler exclusion in EPA's definition of solid waste (DSW) rule should be eliminated, with industry arguing the decision environmentalists are seeking to cite has little bearing on the current litigation and is too “unfresh” to merit consideration. -
EU Seeks New Trade Deal to Cut Chemical Tariffs
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
The European Union plans to launch new trade negotiations next year aimed at eliminating tariffs on trade in chemical products among a select group of World Trade Organization members. -
ECJ Ruling Backs Access To Confidential Data On Chemicals
Nov 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that public interest overrides the confidentiality of company data, when it comes to access to information about chemicals. -
'Wide Chasm' And Little Time Left For Deal — House Staffer
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden
Energy legislation under consideration by congressional conferees is running out of time as lawmakers will soon have to fund the federal government, according to a key staffer on the House Natural Resources Committee. -
Pelosi, Challenger Similarly Green, But Differ on Gas Exports
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven and Dean Scott
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who enjoys strong environmental support, will face Nov. 30 longshot challenge to keep her minority leadership post from Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio), a supporter of natural gas exports -
EPA Issues New GHG Reporting Rule For Oil & Gas Sector
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Federal Register its final rule strengthening greenhouse gas reporting requirements for the oil and gas industry, starting the 60-day clock for opponents to challenge the regulation in court, though it could also face efforts by Congress and the incoming Trump administration to block it. -
U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Mexico Continue to Grow, EIA Says
Nov 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
U.S. pipeline exports of natural gas have doubled since 2009 and are expected to continue to grow in 2016, with almost all of the growth attributed to increasing exports to Mexico, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). -
Conferees Plan Meeting To Salvage Reform Bill
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
Top House and Senate conferees will meet today to try again to come to a resolution on the chambers' competing energy bills before Congress adjourns for the year. -
Can the U.S. Become an Energy Superpower in 2017?
Nov 30, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Dave Merrill and Christine Buurma
For decades, America depended on the world for energy. Today, it’s becoming a global supplier of oil and natural gas in its own right. -
House Passes Rail Safety Legislation
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The House passed bipartisan legislation yesterday to increase safety efforts concerning rail transport of hazardous materials. -
House Sends Pipeline Safety Bill to Senate for Final Signoff
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A bill to boost resources for crude oil train derailment first responders passed the House by voice vote Nov. 29, paving the way for another round of Senate action before hitting the president's desk. -
Positive Train Control Implementation Data Shows Uneven Progress: FRA
Nov 30, 2016 | Occupational Health & Safety
Third quarter 2016 data showed freight railroads now have PTC active on 12 percent of tracks, an increase from 9 percent last quarter. Passenger railroads increased by one percentage point to 23 percent, with progress seen mostly on the West Coast. -
Marking Precedent, Congress Eyes CRA To Undo Obama NEPA GHG Guide
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A key House staffer says the incoming Congress will seek to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to undo the Obama administration's guide for how agencies account for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they review federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), marking potentially the first time the law will be used to reverse a guidance document. -
Trump's Dealmaking Could Extend To Carbon Tax — Economist
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
A Harvard economist is convinced the impasse on national climate and energy policy could be busted next Congress by coupling an economywide carbon tax with a meaningful tax reform package. -
Is This the Future of Green Building Materials?
Nov 30, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons
Companies are increasingly looking for circular-economy approaches to design — and use — durable products that can be reused or recycled at end of life.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) The U.S. EPA Adds Its Voice To Plastics Recycling And Sustainability
Nov 29, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
We have a new partner in promoting a more holistic way of looking at plastics: the U.S. EPA.
On America Recycles Day (November 15), ACC’s Plastics Division and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a partnership to promote sustainable materials management (SMM) for plastics. SMM offers a systematic approach to more efficiently using and reusing materials throughout their life cycles to reduce environmental impacts and waste. Taking a SMM approach to managing and evaluating materials helps decision makers see the multiple environmental benefits plastics offer throughout their life cycles, including and beyond recycling.
ACC and the EPA will collaborate on reducing environmental impacts of plastics, decreasing the amount of plastics disposed, increasing the amount of plastic recyclables recovered, and increasing stakeholder capacity to implement SMM.
As part of its work to grow plastics recycling, the EPA is partnering with ACC’s Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP). WRAP’s goal is to increase the amount of plastic bags, wraps and flexible film packaging collected for recycling. WRAP has launched plastic film recycling campaigns in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Connecticut, and will continue to grow next year. The EPA will help to amplify WRAP messaging about where and how to recycle plastic film as the WRAP campaign continues to expand throughout the country.
EPA’s leadership on SMM has the potential to help many stakeholders think more broadly about the environmental impacts of the materials we use. We’re thrilled to be working with the Agency on this important issue.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/11/the-u-s-epa-adds-its-voice-to-plastics-recycling-and-sustainability/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Asbestos, Nine Other Chemicals to Get EPA Scrutiny
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz and Steve Gibb
Asbestos and nine other chemicals will be among the first to undergo health and environmental evaluations from the Environmental Protection Agency under recently-expanded authority to regulate chemicals.
In addition to asbestos, the EPA's list of the first 10 chemicals to be evaluated under its new Toxic Substances Control Act authority includes solvents, flame retardants and paint strippers:
• 1,4-Dioxane
• 1-Bromopropane
• Asbestos
• Carbon Tetrachloride
• Cyclic Aliphatic Bromides Cluster
• Methylene Chloride
• N-methylpyrrolidone
• Pigment Violet 29
• Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene
• Trichloroethylene
‘Victory Lap’
The inclusion of asbestos on this list, though widely expected, is notable because the EPA tried and failed to ban the highly carcinogenic insulation chemical decades ago. The agency's attempted ban, which was overturned in court, was one of the catalysts that eventually led Congress to pass an overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act earlier this year.
“It's clear asbestos needed to be on this initial list as it's the poster child for why TSCA was inadequate,” Linda Reinstein, founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, told Bloomberg BNA. “This is a victory lap as we move closer to a ban.”
Safe Until Proven Unsafe?
However, the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that represents chemical makers, warned the public not to misinterpret the significance of the EPA's action. Its Nov. 29 announcement does not represent a verdict on whether these chemicals are safe, but rather that it will be examining more closely how they affect humans and the environment, according to a statement from the council.
And the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates—which represents custom batch chemical makers—said they will be watching EPA's scoping plans for the 10 compounds. “Those will give us a better handle on EPA's implementation of the law,” SOCMA's Senior Manager of Government Relations Dan Newton said. He also encouraged companies up and down the supply chain to engage with the agency to prevent regulatory surprises down the road.
According to the new TSCA law, the EPA must complete risk evaluations for all ten of these chemicals within three years.
Depending on the results of these risk evaluations, the EPA may then be required to ban one or all of these chemicals from the marketplace.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101105684&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101105684&jd=101105684
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Picks First 10 Compounds To review Under New Toxics Law
Nov 29, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Gabriel Dunsmith
U.S. EPA named today the first 10 chemicals whose health risks will be evaluated under the new Toxic Substances Control Act.
The list includes the carcinogen trichloroethylene (TCE) — a degreaser found at hundreds of contaminated properties — and the cancer-causing mineral asbestos, which was once heavily used in building materials.
EPA's failure to ban asbestos under the 1976 TSCA was often cited as one of the shortcomings of the 40-year-old law, which required chemical regulations to be "least burdensome" to industry. While EPA did move to ban the mineral in the 1980s, a federal court gutted its ban in 1991.
The reformed TSCA, signed into law this summer by President Obama, axes the "least burdensome" requirement and requires that when EPA determines a chemical poses an "unreasonable risk," the agency mitigate the risk within two years (Greenwire, June 22).
"Under the new law, we now have the power to require safety reviews of all chemicals in the marketplace," said Jim Jones, chief of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. "We can ensure the public that we will deliver on the promise to better protect public health and the environment."
Outgoing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a vocal advocate of tight chemical guidelines and a leading TSCA reformer, lauded EPA's announcement.
"EPA made the right decision to include asbestos in the first 10 chemicals it will review under the new TSCA law," Boxer said in a statement. "Asbestos is one of the most harmful substances known to humankind, and asbestos has been the poster child for TSCA reform. Hopefully asbestos will be banned and thousands of lives will be saved."
EPA drew its 10 priority chemicals from a list of 90 high-hazard compounds determined under the agency's 2014 TSCA work plan. The agency plans to eventually review all 80 remaining chemicals identified in the plan, in addition to many of the other tens of thousands of compounds on the market.
Environmental groups largely praised the agency's move, although some seemed to lament that EPA's analyses will occur under an administration that could prove hostile to chemical regulation.
"Today's historic action by the EPA will finally begin the process of restricting the remaining sources of asbestos, which is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans," said Sonya Lunder, senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group Action Fund, in a statement. "We applaud the EPA for making banning asbestos a top priority. We expect the incoming Trump administration to uphold the EPA's commitment and honor the past, current and future victims of asbestos-triggered diseases."
Andy Igrejas, director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, also lauded EPA for including asbestos on its list. "Asbestos is a major piece of unfinished business for the agency," he said in a statement.
But Environmental Working Group Senior Vice President Scott Faber was more blunt than his counterpart, suggesting immediate action be taken to restrict the 10 compounds.
"Chemicals that are so dangerous that they have been placed on the EPA's top 10 list have no place being on the market," he said in a statement. "Consumers and workers should not have to wait five years or more for the EPA to complete reviews and regulations. Manufacturers should act now to replace these chemicals with safer alternatives."
President-elect Donald Trump, a real estate tycoon, has been an outspoken proponent of asbestos, asserting in 2012 that "the World Trade Center would never have burned down" if the Twin Towers had contained the compound (Greenwire, Nov. 10).
Environmental group Earthjustice, meanwhile, expressed dissatisfaction that EPA did not include lead in its list.
"EPA missed a vital opportunity today to regulate ongoing uses of toxic lead, which affects millions of children," said Earthjustice attorney Eve Gartner. "We were hopeful that EPA would step up under the Toxic Substances Control Act to go after this critical health hazard for communities. It is tragic that while children continue to be exposed to ongoing, unnecessary uses of lead in consumer products, EPA is not even starting the process that would phase out these uses with its new authority to regulate toxic substances."
The American Chemistry Council — the chemical industry's largest trade organization — sought to downplay the list.
"It is important to note that a chemical's inclusion in this first group of 10 chemicals does not in and of itself indicate anything about the safety of the chemical," the group said in a statement. "Its listing is simply an acknowledgment by the Agency that it plans to conduct risk evaluations on these 10 chemicals before others."
ACC also indicated it expects a Trump EPA to bring its member companies to the table when considering chemical risks.
"In order to help ensure the most credible results, it is imperative that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process," the trade group said.
ACC represents the chloralkali industry, the largest commercial consumer of asbestos in the United States.
ACC-linked companies also played a major role in TSCA reform legislation, in part by ensuring states will be unable to place further restrictions on compounds after EPA regulates them (E&E Daily, June 9).
EPA must now complete risk evaluations for its priority chemicals within three years — meaning all analyses will occur under the Trump administration.
The agency's full 10-chemical list:
· 1,4-Dioxane
· 1-Bromopropane
· Asbestos
· Carbon tetrachloride
· Cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster
· Methylene chloride
· N-methylpyrrolidone
· Pigment violet 29
· Tetrachloroethylene, also known as perchloroethylene
· Trichloroethylene
Within six months, EPA must release a scoping document for each of the 10 chemicals that details the hazards, exposure pathways, current uses and vulnerable communities the agency plans to consider in its evaluation.
The reformed legislation mandates that EPA manage at least 20 ongoing chemical risk evaluations at all times by the end of 2019.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/29/stories/1060046362
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Includes Asbestos On List Of First 10 Chemicals For TSCA Risk Review
Nov 30, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA has unveiled the first 10 chemicals already in the marketplace that it will subject to new risk reviews under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including the known carcinogen asbestos on the list as well as several other chemicals for which the agency is already planning to issue proposed regulations under its new TSCA authority.
Environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers generally welcomed the list announced Nov. 29, which includes 1,4 dioxane; 1-bromopropane; asbestos; carbon tetrachloride; cyclic aliphatic bromide cluster; methylene chloride (MC); n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP); pigment violet 29; trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PERC). But at least one advocacy group said lead should have been on the list and should be included on a future list.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) in a press release gave a more muted statement, saying it is “important to note that a chemical's inclusion in this first group of ten chemicals does not in and of itself indicate anything about the safety of the chemical,” and that restriction of the chemicals should only occur if risks are proven to exist.
The revised TSCA, which President Obama signed June 22 and which took effect that day, requires that the agency select the first 10 chemicals from the list of 90 chemicals from its 2014 update to its TSCA Work Plan. The work plan was an attempt by EPA to use authority under the prior 1976 TSCA to assess risks of existing chemicals.
Under the new version of the law, once EPA publishes its just-announced list in the Federal Register it will have six months to release a scoping document for each substance including hazard, exposure, conditions of use and susceptible subpopulation information. The agency then has three years to complete the evaluations to determine whether the chemicals “present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.”
If EPA finds that a substance poses an unreasonable risk, then the agency then has two years to take action under TSCA section 6 to restrict the chemical’s use or otherwise mitigate the risk.
The first 10 section 6 reviews EPA will conduct have been widely viewed as a critical test of the revised TSCA, given that the original statute was considered broken because of constrictive language that created legal hurdles for the agency to restrict harmful chemicals that were grandfathered under the 1976 law.
EPA under the old TSCA failed to ban asbestos, which is a known human carcinogen also linked to respiratory toxicity such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, and the non-cancer disease asbestosis, when a federal court struck down the ban under section 6 in which was considered a major failing of the old law.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 1991 ruling in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA struck down the agency's 1989 regulation banning asbestos as unreasonable. The court said the agency had not met its burden of proof to establish the chemical's risk could not be reduced by any other regulatory means. Since that ruling, the agency has never proposed a similar limit on a chemical already in commerce.
Asbestos Ban
The new law overhauls the old TSCA and takes many steps to address the legal hurdles that hindered EPA's asbestos ban, including removing language that required the agency to promulgate the "least burdensome" alternative and clarifying that EPA should not consider costs when determining whether a chemical is safe, though the agency can still consider costs when issuing section 6 risk management actions.
EPA's decision to review asbestos on the list is a win for the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, which has long called for an outright ban on asbestos and predicted its inclusion on the list.
Environmentalists are praising the list, with the Environmental Working Group in a Nov. 29 statement applauding the various regulatory steps EPA has taken to implement the new law, and noting that the list was released ahead of its mid-December projected timeline. "Chemicals that are so dangerous that they have been placed on the EPA’s top 10 list have no place being on the market,” the statement adds.
The group urges manufacturers to begin taking action now to replace the substances on the list with safer alternatives given that it could take up to five years for EPA section 6 actions to take effect.
Natural Resources Defense Council's senior attorney Daniel Rosenberg echoed that call in a separate Nov. 29 statement, saying while it is a “strong list” that “product manufacturers and retailers need not wait for EPA; they should immediately stop using these chemicals and switch to safer alternatives.”
And Environmental Defense Fund senior scientist Richard Denison said EPA's “issuance of this list in advance of the statutory deadline next month is a welcome sign of timely implementation of the new law.”
Earthjustice welcomed the list but said EPA should have included lead, and that it should add the substance for review under a future list. Earthjustice attorney Eve Gartner said, “We were hopeful that EPA would step up under the Toxic Substances Control Act to go after this critical health hazard for communities. It is tragic that while children continue to be exposed to ongoing, unnecessary uses of lead in consumer products, EPA is not even starting the process that would phase out these uses with its new authority to regulate toxic substances. We strongly urge EPA to choose lead as its next priority chemical as the process under TSCA unfolds over the next several years.”
Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin (IL) and Tom Udall (NM) -- the latter one of the authors of the Senate's version of TSCA reform -- both also praised the list and urged its implementation under President-elect Donald Trump.
EPA's outgoing toxics chief Jim Jones recently told Inside EPA that the various deadlines for regulatory action under the revised TSCA will bind the next administration into continuing implementation of the law.
'Credible Results'
Although the list is prompting broad praise from environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers, ACC's Nov. 29 statement on the 10 chemicals was more muted and called for a cautious approach to regulation.
ACC said that its expects the agency to use a tiered approach to risk review that includes an initial screening-level evaluation, followed by a more detailed evaluation to quantify potential risks only if necessary. “In order to help ensure the most credible results, it is imperative that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process, including through peer review and public comment,” the group says.
The list of 10 chemicals EPA released Nov. 29 also includes three chemicals for which EPA has already launched ruelmakings under section 6(a) of TSCA: MC; NMP and TCE.
EPA in recent months has sent three proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, proposals on MC and NMP, which went to OMB Oct. 24, and in July and September two separate draft rules to ban or restrict specified uses of TCE, one when used as a spotting agent in dry cleaning and in consumer aerosol spray degreasers and a second rule for TCE used as a vapor degreasing agent.
EPA sent the first TCE rule to OMB for pre-publication review in July and the second one to OMB in September. All three remain under review as of press time, according to OMB's website. OMB reviews generally take 90 days but can also exceed that, or take less time.
Section 26(p) in the new law grants EPA flexibility to proceed to section 6 risk management actions for chemicals for which it has completed a risk evaluation without having to revise the analysis to fit the parameters of the new law, which it has opted to do with the TCE, NMP and MC proposals.
One industry source recently told Inside EPA they are “hopeful” that Trump's electoral win gives them a “more receptive audience" to industry calls to quash the proposed section 6(a) rules. "But," the source adds, "I am not taking anything for granted."
Industry representatives met with OMB staff Oct. 31 to urge them not to clear the second of the two proposed TCE rules, the one on uses as a vapor degreasing agent.
Industry presentations at the meeting focused among other things, on language added to TSCA section 26 as part of Congress' overhaul of the law, saying the language requires that the final rules must be consistent with the scope of the completed risk assessment for the chemical.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-includes-asbestos-list-first-10-chemicals-tsca-risk-review
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Names Asbestos To New List Of Dangerous Chemicals That May Be Banned
Nov 29, 2016 | BuzzFeed News
By Dan Vergano
The agency named 10 chemicals as hazardous, kicking off a new law aimed at increasing warnings about workplace and environmental dangers.
The EPA on Tuesday named its first 10 hazardous chemicals — most notably asbestos — to a new roster of workplace or home health hazards that may result in some of the chemicals being banned.
Largely composed of industrial solvents, flame retardants, and workplace cleaners, the announcement of the new list kicks off a long-awaited overhaul of how the environmental agency regulates dangerous chemicals.
“We now have the power to require safety reviews of all chemicals in the marketplace,” EPA official Jim Jones said in a statement. A June law had required the first 10 chemicals to be named by Dec. 19.
Asbestos, a fire-resistant material that causes mesothelioma cancer, was widely expected to be on the list. Naming the chemicals to the list begins a five-year review that might lead to their ban.
According to the American Chemistry Council, “a chemical’s inclusion in this first group of ten chemicals does not in and of itself indicate anything about the safety of the chemical.”
The industry group said they expected the EPA to conduct detailed risk evaluations before making any decisions on the use of the chemicals.
“In order to help ensure the most credible results, it is imperative that EPA engage stakeholders early and often throughout the risk evaluation process, including through peer review and public comment,” the ACC said in a statement.
The 10 chemicals on the list are: Asbestos, Carbon Tetrachloride, Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster, Methylene Chloride, N-methylpyrrolidone, Pigment Violet 29, Tetrachloroethylene (also known as PERC or dry cleaning fluid), Trichloroethylene,1-4-Dioxane, and 1-Bromopropane.
“While this is an important milestone, this list is just the first 10 of 1,000 chemicals in need of urgent EPA review,” Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group said in a statement. He noted the June law also doesn’t cover cosmetics and similar consumer chemicals.
One disappointment for environmental groups was the new list did not include lead, known to be a health hazard for decades. Lead was most recently the cause of a public health disaster in Flint, Michigan, where water pipe corrosion led to its widespread diffusion in drinking water.
“It is tragic that while children continue to be exposed to ongoing, unnecessary uses of lead in consumer products, EPA is not even starting the process of phasing out these uses with its new authority to regulate toxic substances,” attorney Eve Gartner of the environmental group, Earthjustice told BuzzFeed News by email.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/danvergano/epa-tsca-reform-list?utm_term=.tkvPqDvmp#.cqEajq2gD
-
EPA Lists Asbestos Among Top 10 Chemicals For TSCA Review
Nov 29, 2016 | PoliticoPro- Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
The top 10 chemicals EPA has picked for review under the reformed Toxic Substances Control Act includes asbestos, which became a symbol of the original TSCA’s toothlessness after the agency under President George H.W. Bush was unable to ban the carcinogenic substance.
Use of asbestos has since dropped off, but a number of environmental groups and several Democrats in recent months urged EPA to make it a priority.
The list also includes carbon tetrachloride, a likely carcinogen used in solvents and spot removers; tetrachloroethylene (also known as PERC) and trichloroethylene (or TCE), potentially carcinogenic chemicals used in dry cleaning and degreasers; and Pigment Violet 29, a dye used in coatings and plastics that is believed to be toxic to aquatic life.
EPA was required under the TSCA reform law passed last summer to identify by Dec. 19 the first 10 chemicals that will undergo risk evaluation. EPA will have three years to finish studying the 10 chemicals, and any deemed a threat to human health or the environment will face mitigation requirements within two years.
EPA will continue to assess other chemicals as well, but the top 10 list was required by the law in order to jump-start the agency's work with specific deadlines.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
EPA Picks First Targets Of New Chemical Safety Regulations
Nov 30, 2016 | Forbes
By Sam Lemonick
The Environmental Protection Agency has named the first ten chemicals it will investigate using new powers granted by Congress last spring.
In May Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act, a 40-year old law intended to ensure the safety of the growing array of new chemicals being created, like dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT). The original law was written with an eye toward balancing the EPA’s regulatory responsibilities against the financial interests of the chemical industry.
Over time it became clear that the law didn’t give the EPA sufficient power to protect Americans. The amended law, which had broad support, directs the EPA to be more proactive, judging chemicals’ potential for harm before they reach the market. It also requires the EPA to start reviewing substances already out in the world, asking for a list of ten chemicals thought to be most harmful by mid-December.
The agency turned its work in early, releasing that list today. It now has three years to evaluate their risks. If the EPA decides any pose an unreasonable threat to human health or the environment, it has two years to do something about it, like banning the chemical.
Here are your top ten:
· 1,4-Dioxane
· 1-Bromopropane
· Asbestos
· Carbon Tetrachloride
· Cyclic Aliphatic Bromide Cluster
· Methylene Chloride
· N-methylpyrrolidone
· Pigment Violet 29
· Tetrachloroethylene
· Trichloroethylene
Asbestos jumps out from that list. The name actually refers to six different minerals which share the same fibrous structure. They’re fantastic insulators and fire retardants, which is why they were widely used in buildings through the mid-20th century. Asbestos dust also causes cancer and other deadly diseases, which is why they aren’t used very much anymore. But asbestos was a poster child of the original TSCA’s flaws; a court ruled in 1991 that the EPA couldn’t ban it because that could hurt manufacturers. Thanks to the revised law, EPA may now be able to take action to get rid of asbestos.
Most of the remaining chemicals are halocarbons, meaning they contain chlorine, bromine and related halogen elements. Other infamous halocarbons include chlorofluorocarbons, the aerosol ingredients that helped put a hole in the ozone layer. Halogens are highly reactive by their nature. That makes these chemicals dangerous when they start reacting with molecules in our bodies.
Tetrachloroethylene, for instance, is linked to cancer, especially in the kidneys. It’s commonly used in dry cleaning for its ability to dissolve grease and other oily molecules. Researchers think byproducts of tetrachloroethylene that form in our blood and cells might turn off a tumor suppression gene. Exposure may also increase the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. California has already moved to ban its use in dry cleaning machines.
Another halocarbon, 1-bromopropane, is used in glues that hold foam cushions together and to clean oil off metal and plastic parts in industrial settings. It’s held responsible for a number of neurological ailments, including something called “dead foot” by workers in cushion factories. Sufferers—The New York Times estimated there were as many as 140 in the US in a 2013 article—lose feeling in their lower legs. Studies on rats suggest the chemical may be breaking down the coating that protects nerves. Ironically, 1-bromopropane was developed as an alternative to chemicals harmful to the ozone layer, showing just how difficult it can be to find chemicals that are useful, safe and economical.
N-methylpyrrolidone is one chemical on the list that’s not a halocarbon, and it’s widely used in a rapidly growing industry. NMP, as it’s also known, is used to put conductive coatings on lithium ion battery electrodes. It’s also used as a paint stripper and in making some pharmaceuticals. In animal studies, NMP decreased fertility and stunted fetal growth. It’s also been connected to some birth defects and prcomplications in humans.
One omission from this first list is bisphenol A (BPA), the plastic additive whose safety drew enough public concern that most companies voluntarily stopped using it. BPA’s structural similarities to estrogen mean it has some ability to mimic the hormone’s effects in the body. But the EPA and other regulatory bodies do not consider it a threat to human health.
The law stipulates that the EPA have 20 chemicals under review by 2019 and keep at least that many active reviews going thereafter. So look for more announcements like this in a couple years.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samlemonick/2016/11/29/epa-picks-first-targets-of-new-chemical-safety-regulations/#5eceaff6100c
-
(ACC Mentioend) Litigation: Industry Resists Advocates' Supplemental Argument In DSW Suit
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
Industry parties are resisting environmentalists' attempt to cite additional case law to bolster their contention that the verified recycler exclusion in EPA's definition of solid waste (DSW) rule should be eliminated, with industry arguing the decision environmentalists are seeking to cite has little bearing on the current litigation and is too “unfresh” to merit consideration.
Industry intervenor-respondents -- which include the American Chemistry Council, the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group and a host of other entities – told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a Nov. 28 letter that a recent Supreme Court ruling "does not aid Environmental Petitioners' cause" in the DSW case.
The court heard oral argument Nov. 3 in American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, in which environmentalists and industry parties are challenging various aspects of the DSW rule. The rule sets parameters for determining when recycling of secondary hazardous materials is proper under the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act, attempting to close what the Obama EPA saw as regulatory gaps in a 2008 Bush-era rule.
In part, the rule replaces a 2008 transfer-based exclusion from the solid waste definition with the stricter verified recycler exclusion, allowing those who meet certain criteria an alternative to complying with strict hazardous waste rules.
Environmentalists Nov. 15 gave notice to the court of supplemental authorities under section 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellant Procedure that they believe are pertinent to the case. They argue that a June Supreme Court ruling in Encino Motorcars v. Navarro -- a case where the court rejected giving deference to the Labor Department on a rule related to overtime pay -- bolsters their argument that EPA likewise should not be granted deference on its decision to include the verified recycler exclusion in the DSW rule.
But the industry intervenor-respondents say in their response letter that Encino Motorcars "having been decided over four months before oral argument herein -- seems too unfresh to warrant a 28(j) letter at this late date."
Further, they dispute that the verified recycler exclusion meets the conditions set by the high court in Encino Motorcars to withhold deference to federal agencies' "reasonable" statutory interpretations where a statute is either silent or ambiguous on an issue. The industry parties say that the Supreme Court called for withholding deference "for procedural reasons only where both (1) 'a proper challenge is raised to the agency procedures,' and (2) the agency procedures are actually defective."
Environmentalists argue that the verified recycler exclusion meets those conditions because the agency failed to provide notice of the exclusion in the draft rule and failed to explain how the conditions under the exclusion could prevent the "discard" of hazardous waste that EPA identified in the rulemaking -- "paying to get rid of unwanted hazardous secondary materials."
But the industry parties say the verified recycler exclusion "was a logical outgrowth" of EPA's 2011 proposed rule, and that the agency "adequately explained its conclusion that payment for recycling services, while potentially relevant to the 'discard' inquiry, is far from determinative of 'discard.'" Therefore, "the Agency's procedures were not defective."
In addition, even if EPA were deficient in its explanation, "the fault would lie with Environmental Petitioners for failing to make their specific claim that payment must indicate 'discard' during the rulemaking," they say.
http://insideepa.com/daily-feed/litigation-industry-resists-advocates-supplemental-argument-dsw-suit
-
EU Seeks New Trade Deal to Cut Chemical Tariffs
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bryce Baschuk
The European Union plans to launch new trade negotiations next year aimed at eliminating tariffs on trade in chemical products among a select group of World Trade Organization members.
The EU's trade ambassador to the WTO said Brussels is reaching out to its trade partners to see whether there's any appetite for an accord to cut tariffs on an array of chemical goods, including petrochemicals.
A future chemicals agreement could exceed the value of the WTO's $1.3 trillion Information Technology Agreement and could benefit U.S. chemical companies like Dow Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., DuPont Co., PPG Industries, Chevron Phillips Chemical Co., and Praxair Inc.
Global exports of chemical goods reached $1.86 trillion in 2015, and the sector is responsible for 11.6 percent of all exports, according to WTO statistics.
New Plurilateral Prospects
EU Ambassador Marc Vanheukelen said Brussels would contact the incoming U.S. administration to see if there's any interest in Washington for a new chemicals deal.
“We are exploring this with the U.S.,” Vanheukelen said in a Nov. 29 press briefing in Geneva. Vanheukelen said there might also be interest from Australia, Canada, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Turkey, among others.
Over the past few years, WTO members have generally shifted toward plurilateral trade negotiations, which are forged among like-minded countries rather than the membership as a whole.
Plurilateral trade deals extend tariff concessions on a most-favored-nation basis to all WTO members once a critical mass threshold of roughly 90 percent of global trade in such products is covered.
Chinese Participation Essential
China's participation in the deal is seen as essential because Beijing is responsible for $129 billion or 9.9 percent of all global exports in chemicals, according to WTO statistics.
“If they're not on board, you may forget it,” Vanheukelen said. He acknowledged that Beijing is “pretty hesitant” because they are concerned about so-called free-riders to the deal.
Plurilateral deals are unique in that they offer tariff cuts to non-participating WTO members, or free-riders, without requiring them to provide tariff concessions of their own.
The Chinese delegation to the WTO said it “was not in a position to support new plurilaterals or sectorals” during a recent meeting of the WTO committee on market access.
MC11 Deliverable?
The WTO's previous work in the area of chemical tariffs could ideally speed the negotiating process and potentially tee up a final deal for the WTO's 2017 ministerial conference in Buenos Aires, Vanheukelen said.
There is an existing agreement on what tariff lines encompass the chemicals sector “so there need not be a discussion on product lines to be covered by a plurilateral,” Vanheukelen told Bloomberg BNA.
The U.S. and more than two-dozen WTO members are participants in the Chemical Tariff Harmonization Agreement (CTHA), which applies duties ranging from zero percent to 6.5 percent on most chemicals.
The average U.S. duty for the chemical sector is 3.5 percent, according to the office of the U.S. Trade Representative.
Since 2001, WTO members have pursued a sector-specific agreement to fully eliminate tariffs on chemicals covered by the CTHA that would include nonparticipants like Brazil, India, Mexico and Russia, among others.
As part of the Doha round negotiations, WTO members also considered proposals aimed at reducing nontariff barriers to trade in chemical products.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101105691&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101105691&jd=101105691
-
ECJ Ruling Backs Access To Confidential Data On Chemicals
Nov 30, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that public interest overrides the confidentiality of company data, when it comes to access to information about chemicals.
And although the ruling emerged in two cases specific to pesticides, it may have wider implications. “It is likely that the decision will lead to further access to information cases – not just on pesticides, but on all pieces of legislation relevant to chemicals, including REACH,” ClientEarth’s chemicals lawyer Vito Buonsante said.
The ruling means that all information from safety tests on how chemicals may affect human health or the environment “cannot be considered, in any way, confidential”, he added.
The two court cases examined if pesticides fit within the definition of emissions into the environment under the EU Aarhus Regulation – the law guaranteeing public access to environmental information held by EU authorities.
They were brought after several NGOs sought access, in 2011, to documents on authorisation for pesticides. The European Commission did not release all of the information, arguing that certain files contained confidential data.
In 2013, the NGOs brought actions to the EU’s General Court to annul the Commission's decisions. The court sided with the NGOs, and ordered the release of the documents, arguing that public interest trumped intellectual property rights. The Commission then raised an appeal with the ECJ.
The ECJ has now "set aside" the judgement of the General Court, an ECJ press release said. It said it is satisfied that the information relates "in a sufficiently direct manner" to emissions into the environment in order for it to fall within the scope of the Regulation.
It has, therefore, referred the case back to the General Court so that it can determine if the information does, in fact, relate to this.'Potentially dangerous precedent'
The European Chemical Industry Council, Cefic, says the ruling sets a "potentially dangerous precedent for the protection of confidential business information submitted by companies, for EU substance and product registrations and approvals".
The ECJ’s “extensive interpretation” of the Aarhus Regulation’s "emission clause", says the group, will make it easier for citizens, as well as industry competitors in and outside Europe, to access commercial data submitted by business to EU authorities.
And while public interest in transparency is one thing, Cefic director general Marco Mensink said, there has to be “consideration for situations where making confidential business information public exposes a company to competitive risk”.
A Cefic press release said confidentiality protection is a “fundamental part of existing EU chemicals laws, such as REACH and biocides legislation, so that competitors are prevented from accessing commercially valuable data”.
In a similar case, in September last year, the ECJ backed Echa’s right to withhold information on chemical production quantities. It ruled that the agency correctly applied the Aarhus Regulation on access to environmental information and REACH in issuing the names but not the tonnages.
https://chemicalwatch.com/51282/ecj-ruling-backs-access-to-confidential-data-on-chemicals
-
'Wide Chasm' And Little Time Left For Deal — House Staffer
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Emily Holden
Energy legislation under consideration by congressional conferees is running out of time as lawmakers will soon have to fund the federal government, according to a key staffer on the House Natural Resources Committee.
"There have been several proposals, and counterproposals, and counterproposals to the counterproposals ... without a lot of traction or agreement on some of the big pieces," said Bill Cooper, staff director for the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. "I'm not sure we can get there in this time that we have left."
Speaking to natural gas industry representatives at a monthly luncheon today, Cooper noted that Congress has until the end of next week to fund the federal government's operations, likely by passing a continuing resolution.
"Once that's done, they may hang around, but somehow I doubt it," Cooper said.
Cooper said the "chasm's pretty wide" on several portions of the energy package and joked that the areas of agreement include "a short title, definitions, maybe the table of contents."
On a more serious note, he said House and Senate conferees have consensus on some energy efficiency provisions and appliance standards.
One big sticking point, however, is the price tag.
"It's my understanding that the House thinks that some of the authorizations for the appropriations in the Senate version are a bit high," he said.
Cooper said his boss, Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), has a "huge problem" with the Senate legislation still, including an authorization for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
"As long as that's in the bill, I know my chairman won't sign the conference report," Cooper said. "So key things like that — maybe you can solve them, but not in a hurry."
With a Republican president taking office next year and GOP control of both chambers of Congress, "there may be a desire to wait and take it up in the next Congress," Cooper added.
Notably missing from the energy conference is action to speed liquefied natural gas exports, which a majority of lawmakers in both chambers have supported (E&E Daily, Nov. 18). Cooper called it "flabbergasting" that LNG exports couldn't make it into the conference.
"It's amazing that it can't seem to find its way into law," he said.
Cooper said there are three possible vehicles for the LNG export provision — the National Defense Authorization Act, the energy conference report, "if it happens," or a continuing resolution.
"Of those three, I think it's a jump ball," he said.
He told the industry group that the continuing resolution might not be "very clean."
"We're not sure if there are going to be a lot of passengers on that train," he said. "Everyone's going to be trying to get on it, including us. We have a laundry list of things we'd like to see funded as well."
As for the next Congress, Cooper said Republican lawmakers could use Congressional Review Act authority to rescind a number of late-term regulations from the Obama administration. Those include the Interior Department's rules for methane emissions on public lands and for exploratory drilling in the Arctic. U.S. EPA's standard for methane emitted from new sources in the oil and gas industry also is vulnerable to a CRA resolution, although that regulation is not under the jurisdiction of Cooper's committee.
Any regulation finalized after the end of May could fall victim to a CRA resolution. Senate Democrats could filibuster each resolution only for a shortened time, and Republicans may pass a bill next Congress to package some resolutions together (Greenwire, Nov. 17).
Cooper said his committee will also move to "streamline" the National Environmental Policy Act, with White House Council on Environmental Quality guidance on greenhouse gas emissions as a "first stop."
That guidance tells federal agencies how to consider the impacts of their work on global climate change.
"We'll want to take a look at it early on," Cooper said, adding that the schedule will be tight when the next session of Congress begins and budget hearings will start around March.
Overall, "it's early for us to set an agenda. We need to see who the secretary of the Interior is going to be, what that person's approach is going to be ... before we can really decide how we conduct our oversight," he said. Some lawmakers are expecting President-elect Donald Trump to announce an Interior pick this week, according to another staffer.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/11/29/stories/1060046360
-
Pelosi, Challenger Similarly Green, But Differ on Gas Exports
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven and Dean Scott
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who enjoys strong environmental support, will face Nov. 30 longshot challenge to keep her minority leadership post from Rep. Tim Ryan (Ohio), a supporter of natural gas exports.
Regardless of whether Ryan falls short of unseating Pelosi, Benjamin Schreiber, climate and energy director for Friends of the Earth, told Bloomberg BNA that the challenge has already had an impact. Pelosi has proposed structural leadership changes for the House Democratic Caucus, including expanding its size, changes that Ryan alleges will only shore up her leadership further.
Some environmentalists say such structural changes aren't unexpected, given Donald Trump's unexpected presidential victory and the fact that Democrats only added six House seats—well short of expectations. But one environmentalist said that this shouldn't mean a wholesale change in Democratic leadership.
“Everybody was shocked by the election and everybody's looking for heads to roll,” the environmentalist, who requested anonymity to speak freely, said. But the individual added, the Trump victory “cannot be laid at the feet of Nancy Pelosi in the House.”
Ryan isn't the first to challenge Pelosi, who has led Democrats either as minority leader or House speaker since 2003. That is the same year Ryan first came to Congress. It is widely expected that Pelosi will emerge the victor, but many will be watching how many votes Ryan siphons from the leader as a signal that it is time for change.
Energy, Environment Record
Many environmental groups are steering clear of the Democratic party leadership fight. Still, some such as the League of Conservation Voters’ senior vice president of government affairs, Tiernan Sittenfeld, made sure to highlight Pelosi's environmental record, even as they declined to pick sides.
Pelosi has a proven track record of defending and elevating the climate and broader environmental agenda as minority leader and speaker, environmentalists told Bloomberg BNA. Environmentalists praised Pelosi as a top champion of the environment, including in 2009 when as House speaker she oversaw passage of a broad climate bill that later died in the Senate.
Pelosi and Ryan's voting records are largely the same. Pelosi was awarded a slightly higher lifetime score by the League of Conservation Voters—93 percent over Ryan's 90 percent. The Heritage Foundation, which does a similar ranking but for pro-business votes, gives Ryan a slight edge for the 2015-16 Congress. Ryan scored 20 percent over Pelosi's 14 percent.
In both of these voting scorecards, the contenders voted overwhelmingly to protect President Barack Obama's climate and environment rules.
But Ryan diverges from environmentalists and Pelosi in at least one key area: exporting crude oil and liquefied natural gas. He voted in favor of bills supporting both this session. His website says gas exports could benefit northeast Ohio's economy and the nation.
Ryan has also offered few bills of his own as a sponsor that focus on energy and the environment—including one centered on addressing algal blooms in the Great Lakes—but none passed the House.
Renewable Energy, Domestic Message
Both Pelosi and Ryan have called for expanding solar and other clean energy generation. Ryan in a Nov. 27 interview on Fox News said Democrats could expand their base and hone their economic message to answer the call for more manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt. For example, Ryan asserts that boosting clean energy, such as making wind turbines, would help American manufacturing.
The role of minority leader will likely be executed similarly as past years—just without the safety net of a Democrat in the White House. Even though the minority party doesn't set the agenda, Democrats picked up six seats in the election and the minority leader could be in a place to offer members’ votes for must-pass legislation, where Democratic votes have previously been needed, he said. Those have included passing funding bills to keep the government running.
The minority leader's legislative influence will likely be seen on issues from clean energy subsidies to increasing natural gas exports, depending on who wins. William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said if Ryan comes out on top, his support for natural gas exports could offer cover for Republicans to move those bills. Many Democrats have opposed more natural gas exports in the past because it could drive up demand for domestic drilling.
Environmentalists say this would be a step in the wrong direction. “Having a minority leader who's on the wrong side of that issue would be a real detriment and certainly harmful to our efforts to fight that back,” the environmental advocate said.
Both candidates have similarly supported clean energy subsidies and could push for those to be housed in a potential infrastructure bill next year, Yeatman said. Trump has supported an all of the above energy strategy, and the subsidies could make it into a bill similar to the economic stimulus bill that Congress passed early in the Obama administration, he said. Yeatman opposes infrastructure spending as a way to create jobs.
Bully Pulpit
Political observers said that it will be equally important, if not more so, that energy and environment policy be represented on the minority leader's bully pulpit.
Schreiber said the minority leader's megaphone will be more important than ever to highlight climate change action as needed, contrary to the Trump administration's expected opposition.
This fight—which appears set to be a fierce effort by Trump and congressional Republicans to repeal Obama's climate agenda and more—will need a strong leader, the environmentalist said, and the caucus already has one.
“The bully pulpit that [the position of House Democratic leader] provides is vital to painting what's at stake,” the environmentalist told Bloomberg BNA. “I can think of no stronger champion of both the environment and the progressive agenda than Nancy Pelosi.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101105692&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101105692&jd=101105692
-
EPA Issues New GHG Reporting Rule For Oil & Gas Sector
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Federal Register its final rule strengthening greenhouse gas reporting requirements for the oil and gas industry, starting the 60-day clock for opponents to challenge the regulation in court, though it could also face efforts by Congress and the incoming Trump administration to block it.
The agency quietly finalized the regulation, the “Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule: Leak Detection Methodology Revisions and Confidentiality Determinations for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems,” just days after the election, with Administrator Gina McCarthy signing the final rule Nov. 10.
The final rule “adds new monitoring methods for detecting leaks from oil and gas equipment in the petroleum and natural gas systems source category consistent with the leak detection methods in the New Source Performance Standards for the oil and gas industry,” according to an agency fact sheet.
EPA also says the measure “adds emissions factors for leaking equipment to be used in conjunction with these monitoring methods to calculate and report greenhouse gas . . . emissions resulting from equipment leaks.”
The rule could face a potential challenge from industry groups, who had urged EPA to make the final version of the updated reporting requirements more consistent with provisions in the NSPS – which set first-time limits on the sector's emissions of the potent GHG methane – and to abandon “flawed” methodologies for estimating some emissions.
Industry had also urged the agency to delay adoption of the final rule until after the NSPS was final. EPA finalized the NSPS earlier this year, in June, and the regulation is now subject to pending legal challenges from states and industry groups.
http://insideepa.com/daily-feed/climate-epa-issues-new-ghg-reporting-rule-oil-gas-sector
-
U.S. Natural Gas Exports to Mexico Continue to Grow, EIA Says
Nov 29, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
U.S. pipeline exports of natural gas have doubled since 2009 and are expected to continue to grow in 2016, with almost all of the growth attributed to increasing exports to Mexico, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA).
In a "Today in Energy" brief issued Tuesday, the EIA said Mexico has accounted for more than half of all U.S. natural gas exports since April 2015. The agency said the United States exported 4.2 Bcf/d of natural gas via pipelines to Mexico in August, adding that through that month U.S. daily pipeline exports to Mexico are at a yearly average of 3.6 Bcf/d, a 25% increase above 2015 and 85% higher than the five-year average from 2011 through 2015.
Mexico is expanding its natural gas pipeline network to accommodate higher imports from the United States, in large part for power generation purposes.
Following sweeping energy reforms submitted by President Enrique Pena Nieto and enacted by Mexico's Congress in 2014, the country's Secretaria de Energia (SENER) launched a five-year plan to expand its natural gas transportation and storage systems in 2015. SENER modified the plan in July by changing some projects and dropping others.
Under the revised plan, SENER established the Centro Nacional de Control del Gas Natural (Cenagas) as an independent operator of Mexico's natural gas pipeline system. Last October, Cenagas signed an agreement with Mexico's national oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), to take over day-to-day operations of Pemex's natural gas pipeline network over the next year or so.
"These [natural gas] imports would help meet increasing power demand, offset declining domestic natural gas production, reduce reliance on LNG [liquefied natural gas] imports, and create new markets for natural gas in currently supply-constrained regions," the EIA said, later adding that "growth in Mexico's domestic electricity market has largely driven the country's increasing natural gas usage.
"Because of the availability and affordability of U.S. pipeline natural gas, Mexico is meeting its growing electricity demand with generation from new natural gas-fired plants."
SENER's five-year plan includes 12 pipeline and one compressor station projects. Mexico's public power utility, the Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), assigned seven strategic pipelines to private contractors between December 2014 and June 2015. Last June, the CFE awarded the Sur de Texas-Tuxpan pipeline, the largest and most expensive pipeline project, to Infraestructura Marina del Golfo, a joint venture between TransCanada Corp. and Sempra Energy Mexico unit IEnova.
"U.S. natural gas exports to Mexico are expected to continue to grow in the short term, and SENER forecasts a widening gap between domestic production and demand through the end of the decade," the EIA said. "Mexican imports of natural gas continue to outpace most projections. The 4.1 Bcf/d exported in August 2016 matched the level originally forecasted in 2013 to be reached in 2018.
"However, uncertainty in Mexican demand growth, particularly from the power generation sector as natural gas-fired capacity competes with renewables and nuclear generation, may slow the increase in Mexico's natural gas imports, leading to lower pipeline capacity utilization. Domestic natural gas production may also rebound and reduce the need for pipeline imports from the United States."
Mexico's evolving natural gas market was the topic of discussion during a webinar -- Mexico Natural Gas Infrastructure -- Drill Down Into the Market of Tomorrow With the Leaders Who Will Shape It -- hosted by NGI earlier this month.
NGI has also recently released a special report, "Inside Cenagas," detailing the growth of Mexico's natural gas infrastructure.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/108571-us-natural-gas-exports-to-mexico-continue-to-grow-eia-says
-
Conferees Plan Meeting To Salvage Reform Bill
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Geof Koss
Top House and Senate conferees will meet today to try again to come to a resolution on the chambers' competing energy bills before Congress adjourns for the year.
House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah.) told reporters last night that he spoke with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) earlier in the day.
"I was happy with those discussions, they were pleasant, they were positive," he said. "We'll see what happens when everyone is there in the same room."
Bishop signaled that aides and lawmakers had made some headway on drought and wildfire issues. "Progress yeah. Enough progress, I don't know," he said.
Earlier yesterday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) struck a pessimistic tone on the energy reform negotiations.
"I have not seen that one get solidified yet, but it still is a possibility," he told reporters. "But as of right now no."
Murkowski, who also heads the conference, said she met with Cantwell for an hour yesterday to discuss the bill and planned to spend the afternoon trying to rally support among House conferees. Murkowski said members would need to strike an agreement this week to prepare a bill for the floor.
"Hopefully we move beyond some of the inertia that we were facing right after the election where I think some House members thought that we didn't need to do one this year, we could just take it up again next year," she told E&E News.
Much of the Energy and Natural Resources panel's early focus next year will be on reviewing up to three-dozen nominees for agencies under its jurisdiction.
"It's just the process of doing that and the time that it takes," Murkowski said. "It's real easy for the House to say, 'Oh yeah, we can just start over again next year' — they don't do any of this personnel-related work."LNG exports, LWCF
Conferees have traded several offers over the last few weeks, and in a joint statement last week, Murkowski and Cantwell ticked off a list of items the House wants to punt on.
These include liquefied natural gas exports, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, sportsmen's provisions, hydropower, natural gas pipelines, biomass and critical minerals (Greenwire, Nov. 28).
The House's move to drop LNG exports from the conference mix has puzzled many observers, given that the provision has been a top priority of many Republicans for years. But some aides and lobbyists said negotiators had linked exports to LWCF.
The Senate bill would permanently reauthorize LWCF. Bishop strongly opposes the move and has called for reform. Cantwell, however, recently signaled that Senate conferees had made revisions to make the LWCF text more palatable to the House.
Bishop last night denied that LWCF and gas exports were linked in negotiations — an idea he called "stupid" — and said LWCF remains under discussion.
"They have done some things and we're still talking about it," he said of the Senate. "There has to be some significant reforms before that program goes forward at all."
House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) last night suggested that House negotiators dropped the LNG provisions because of opposition from Democrats, including House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.).
"I think what we sent over was something that both the Dems and the Republicans could support, so even though we passed [the House bill] with 276 or so votes, Frank Pallone did not support it," Upton told reporters. "And he's sitting at the table, too. And I think that's probably one of the reasons."
Including LNG exports would ultimately have caused a lot of Democrats to "walk away" from the final version, Upton said.Push to continue
Senators who have pressed the export issue for years said this week they still want to see the provisions that passed both the House and Senate reconciled into law this year.
"We need to continue to export and make it easier," Senate Republican Policy Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told E&E News this week. "We have people around the world who want to get it from us. I was at a security conference in Halifax last weekend, people want what we have in the United States to sell. And when you export energy, you export influence."
Another export supporter, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), said yesterday that the House has "taken an approach that none of these provisions should be dealt with until next year."
He said: "While we're on the same page in terms of wanting to get them done, we're thinking why not get as many of them done right now as we can."
Murkowski said House members shouldn't assume the opportunity to provide certainty on LNG exports will exist next year, despite expectations that President-elect Donald Trump will be more favorable to oil and gas development.
"It doesn't change the importance in my mind," she said. "You've got a president who we believe to be more friendly on some of these issues. We don't know who the secretary [of Energy] will be. That remains to be seen. So nope, I am not going to assume that it's all going to be fine with a new administration. I want it in and provide that level of certainty."
Should the energy bill talks collapse, a top GOP aide on the House Natural Resources Committee yesterday said exports could still hitch a ride on the defense authorization bill or the continuing spending resolution.
However, the LNG provision is likely not to be in the defense bill, which is expected to be made public today (see related story). Murkowski said that she and Cantwell both declined earlier this year to sign off on including exports language in the measure.
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who has fought to increase LNG exports for years, said last night that he was confused by the jockeying over the provision. "It defies logic to me," he told E&E News.
But one way or another, he said the export push will continue. "This is going to continue to be a priority whether we solve it now or we solve in the earlier days of the next administration," he said.
Reporters George Cahlink, Kevin Bogardus and Ariel Wittenberg contributed.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/30/stories/1060046379
-
Can the U.S. Become an Energy Superpower in 2017?
Nov 30, 2016 | Bloomberg
By Dave Merrill and Christine Buurma
For decades, America depended on the world for energy. Today, it’s becoming a global supplier of oil and natural gas in its own right. This year, for the first time ever, the U.S. started turning gas from prolific shale formations into liquefied natural gas (LNG) and sending it overseas. In 2017, the country may be exporting more of the heating fuel than it imports for the first year since the 1950s.
Refurbished pipelines and terminals will come online next year to help unleash the U.S. shale gas boom into the world. But risks still loom. It remains costly to ship U.S. gas to major consumers in Europe and Asia, and President-elect Donald Trump’s trade priorities could make U.S. LNG more expensive than supplies from other producers around the world.Caught off guard by the shale boomJust a decade ago, gas supplies from conventional wells were drying up. Major energy companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., BP Plc and Chevron Corp. were planning to spend billions on gas import terminals to offset the decline. The technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, changed everything for gas drillers, allowing them to pull the fuel out of layers of shale rock and touching off the U.S. shale revolution.
Creating a modern pipeline systemAmerica's frackers are pulling 18 billion cubic feet of gas per day from the Marcellus shale formation in the eastern U.S., more than any other domestic shale deposit. But the U.S. pipeline system was designed only to move gas from the Gulf Coast to cities in the Northeast—not the reverse.In order to get the gas to the Gulf Coast, where export terminals are being built to send the fuel overseas, pipelines are being re-engineered to flow south. Thousands of miles of bidirectional pipelines are slated to be online in 2017.
Opening the spigotAmong other sources, Cheniere Energy Inc. has contracts with several bidirectional pipelines to receive fracked gas from Marcellus. Cheniere won approval from U.S. regulators to export LNG in 2010, years ahead of competitors. Cheniere’s Sabine Pass terminal is currently the only operational export terminal in the lower 48 states. That’s about to change, though, as four more terminals are forecast to become operational by 2018 and at least a dozen more have been approved or are pending certification.
U.S. exporters have ample supply, customers may be harder to findIt’s less clear who will purchase all this U.S. gas. And energy companies are asking for permission to send even more abroad. The Department of Energy is reviewing more than two dozen applications from companies seeking to export up to 36 billion cubic feet a day, or nearly half of U.S. production, to countries that don't have trade agreements with the U.S. While markets in South America are poised to absorb some of this supply, increased competition abroad could make it tough for U.S. gas to compete farther from home.Worldwide glut
Price is another concern. Although U.S. gas at the benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana dropped to historic lows earlier this year, transportation costs make it cheaper for buyers in Japan and South Korea to import the fuel from Australia and Qatar. A Trump administration also threatens to put an end to U.S. involvement in the North American Free Trade Agreement, a step that could make U.S. exports to Mexico costlier. Without another gas price drop, future markets for U.S. LNG may be limited.
The shale revolution has undoubtedly put America on a path to becoming a global gas powerhouse. The ability to find more buyers as U.S. capacity increases at a competitive price will dictate how dominant the U.S. will become as an energy power in 2017 and beyond.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-energy-pipelines/
-
House Passes Rail Safety Legislation
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Gabriel Dunsmith
The House passed bipartisan legislation yesterday to increase safety efforts concerning rail transport of hazardous materials.
The bill, S. 546, would task the Federal Emergency Management Agency with creating the Railroad Emergency Services Preparedness, Operational Needs and Safety Evaluation (RESPONSE) Subcommittee.
The Senate passed a version of the bill in May. The House version, which cleared the chamber by voice vote, would cut the proposed subcommittee's tenure in half — to two years — but beef up rail labor and bureaucratic representation (E&E Daily, Nov. 29).
The panel would examine training, funding and preparedness efforts to bolster local emergency responses in the wake of rail accidents involving crude oil, gas products and other hazardous materials.
"Rail safety is critical to the transport of goods and services throughout our country," said Rep. Jeff Denham (R-Calif.), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials. Denham said the bill should "improve upon what is already a very safe rail network."
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said, "This is the simplest bill in the world, to be perfectly honest."
He added: "It gets all the stakeholders together to simply take a look at the current responses we have when there's a disaster relative to rail accidents. And it gets them all in one room to take a look at best practices, to figure out what they can do better, to see if resources are allocated well. It's not just Washington insiders."
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), the main sponsor, praised House action. "When disaster strikes, North Dakotans depend on their communities to pull together to subdue the flames — and as a statewide family, we know our first responders need our protection just as much as we need theirs," she said in a statement.
Heitkamp said an oil train derailment in Casselton, N.D., motivated her to introduce the proposal. "Today, we're bringing this bill one step closer to becoming law," she said, "and first responders one step closer to the resources they need to keep our communities strong and safe so they can return home to their families each night."
Roughly 30 percent of crude oil from Heitkamp's home state is transported by rail, and the senator's office expects that percentage to grow.
The bill will now return to the Senate for a final vote.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/30/stories/1060046378
-
House Sends Pipeline Safety Bill to Senate for Final Signoff
Nov 30, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
A bill to boost resources for crude oil train derailment first responders passed the House by voice vote Nov. 29, paving the way for another round of Senate action before hitting the president's desk.
The RESPONSE Act (S. 546) would create a public-private council, co-chaired by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, to review training for those first responders, which would then provide Congress recommendations on improved safety.
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), the lead sponsor on the bill, said the House changes are only “minor.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=101105697&vname=dennotallissues&fn=101105697&jd=101105697
-
Positive Train Control Implementation Data Shows Uneven Progress: FRA
Nov 30, 2016 | Occupational Health & Safety
Third quarter 2016 data showed freight railroads now have PTC active on 12 percent of tracks, an increase from 9 percent last quarter. Passenger railroads increased by one percentage point to 23 percent, with progress seen mostly on the West Coast.
The Federal Railroad Administration has released third quarter 2016 data that shows there has been uneven progress toward activating Positive Train Control nationwide. FRA said freight railroads now have PTC active on 12 percent of tracks, an increase from 9 percent last quarter. Passenger railroads increased by one percentage point to 23 percent, with progress seen mostly on the West Coast. East Coast railroads, other than SEPTA and Amtrak, "have remained relatively stagnant," the DOT agency reported.
"Passenger and freight railroads must continue their progress implementing Positive Train Control and work to beat the deadlines Congress set, because PTC saves lives," U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said.
Some freight railroads reported their own progress on implementation, possibly in response to the FRA data. Omaha, Neb.-based Union Pacific reported Nov. 28 that it has "equipped more than 3,200 locomotives, installed 4,600 computers and invested more than $2.1 billion through September 1, 2016." The company said its current estimate for PTC's total cost is about $2.9 billion; it has installed 88 percent (15,271 miles) of total route miles with PTC signal hardware; and it has installed 84 percent of the wayside antennas needed to support PTC along the company's right of way.
Norfolk Southern has reported its implementation plan is on track to meet 2018 and 2010 PTC goals. Through the third quarter of 2016, Norfolk Southern had 1,115 locomotives fully equipped and PTC capable, with 2,548 radio transmitters and 289 base station radios installed, 2,089 locomotives equipped with on-board computers, 2,159 locomotives equipped with PTC displays, and 1,294 locomotives equipped with PTC-capable event recorders. The company also reported it has trained more than 7,704 employees and supervisors on job-specific PTC material.
Since 2008, FRA has provided significant assistance, such as more than $716 million to passenger railroads, to support the implementation of PTC and creation of a PTC testbed at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colo.
"In order to achieve full PTC implementation, everyone has to do their part – railroads must make implementation a priority, and Congress must make funding for commuter railroads a priority," said FRA Administrator Sarah E. Feinberg.
https://ohsonline.com/articles/2016/11/30/positive-train-control-implementation-data-shows-uneven-progress.aspx?admgarea=news
-
Marking Precedent, Congress Eyes CRA To Undo Obama NEPA GHG Guide
Nov 29, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
A key House staffer says the incoming Congress will seek to use the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to undo the Obama administration's guide for how agencies account for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change when they review federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), marking potentially the first time the law will be used to reverse a guidance document.
If approved, such an action would likely raise the bar for any future administration to craft similar policies without congressional authorization -- a step the law mandates.
Bill Cooper, staff director for the House Natural Resources Committee's panel on energy and mineral resources and the committee's senior NEPA policy adviser, told a Nov. 29 Natural Gas Roundtable lunch that the next Congress will focus early in the new year on exercising authority under the rarely used CRA.
He cited as potential targets the White House Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) NEPA GHG guide -- along with the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule for oil and gas development on federal lands and the Department of the Interior's stream protection rule -- as major targets for disapproval.
While guidance documents such as CEQ's NEPA guide are not formally considered regulations, Cooper said that the definition of a rule under the CRA “tends to be” what follows the Administrative Procedure Act. And since CEQ sought notice and comment on proposed versions of the guide, and published it in the Federal Register, “even the CEQ GHG guidance would qualify.”
The CRA requires agencies to report final rules to Congress, which triggers a 60-legislative-day time frame to deliberate on a joint resolution of disapproval. That means in the current Congress any rule finalized after late-May qualifies for a CRA.
The law has only been used successfully only once to repeal a rule -- a Clinton-era ergonomics rule -- but its prospects are considered unusually heightened now as power transfers from a Democratic administration to a Republican one while Congress is also GOP-controlled.
In addition, resolutions of disapproval under the CRA are not subject to the 60-vote threshold in the Senate and so can clear Congress by majority votes in both chambers.
But overturning the guidance could be far-reaching, as the law says that any measure overturned by a disapproval resolution “may not be reissued in substantially the same form, and a new rule that is substantially the same as such a rule may not be issued, unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.”
Some Constraints
Cooper, who works for committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), noted some constraints on the successful use of the CRA even under this ideal scenario, including that each joint resolution of disapproval can only be used to invalidate a single rule, that rules must fall in their entirety, and that each resolution that gets to the Senate floor is subject to up to 10 hours of debate.
Despite the enthusiasm for using the CRA for widespread regulatory repeal, “it's the age-old problem of time” that will require congressional leadership to set priorities. Nonetheless, Cooper appeared hopeful, noting, “We might see more history in the making in the early part of the next Congress” and will learn if the CRA “really works.”
He also suggested that it is unclear how difficult it will be for a future administration to revisit an issue that was disapproved because the law does not define what is meant by a “substantially similar” measure.
It is also unclear how this restriction would apply to a guidance document, and especially the GHG guide -- which CEQ says only clarifies and does not expand any NEPA authority.
CEQ did not respond to a request for comment.
Cooper also predicted the 114th Congress will seek to “do something” on NEPA, which he noted is in his committee's jurisdiction.
NEPA is a procedural statute that requires agencies to disclose and consider mitigating the environmental impacts of major federally funded projects such as bridges, highways, and energy extraction and infrastructure.
CEQ in August finalized its long-pending GHG guide that imposes first-time climate change impact requirements, including that agencies consider the GHG emissions of fossil fuel extraction out to when the fuel is used.
The final guide dropped a proposed 25,000-ton-per-year threshold for triggering GHG reviews and requires that emissions be quantified rather than qualified, but it dropped language explicitly calling for consideration of upstream and downstream emissions impacts. It also included language asking agencies to consider the impact of climate on projects for adaptation purposes.
Cooper at the lunch said NEPA “certainly needs to be streamlined,” suggesting that lawmakers could approach the issue by addressing the CEQ guide on GHGs.
“Without boxing ourselves in,” the plan is to “look at the CEQ guide on GHGs as a first step. The final guidance was completed here a little while back. . . . We think it's an opportunity for us to correct a lot of wrongs, and that in and of itself should streamline the process,” Cooper said, adding “we'll take a look as a whole” to see if more streamlining would need to be done.
Critics claim reviews under NEPA delay projects. For example, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) told MSNBC Nov. 29 that GOP leadership is wary of massive infrastructure spending particularly if projects do not get built for a decade, though he did not specifically mention NEPA.
Cooper during his talk also noted that the GOP lawmakers on the House Natural Resources Committee have been frustrated that NEPA allows EPA to weigh in on all such reviews by other agencies but is not subject to the requirements itself.
As an example, he cited the 2015 Animas River spill in Colorado, where EPA and its contractors were cleaning up the Gold King mine and 3 million gallons of toxic water were released. Cooper said the spill would not have happened if EPA had been required to conduct a NEPA review of its cleanup plans, rather than being allowed to hire “a couple of guys with a backhoe” who “caused this horrible disaster.”
But since the spill, NEPA has not been amended to subject EPA to its requirements, Cooper noted, saying if the Animas River disaster is “not enough to change” the law, “I don't know what is.”
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/marking-precedent-congress-eyes-cra-undo-obama-nepa-ghg-guide
-
Trump's Dealmaking Could Extend To Carbon Tax — Economist
Nov 30, 2016 | E&E News Daily
By Hannah Hess
A Harvard economist is convinced the impasse on national climate and energy policy could be busted next Congress by coupling an economywide carbon tax with a meaningful tax reform package.
The political hurdles to what Joseph Aldy dubs "The Great Swap" are huge and obvious in the wake of the 2016 election. But Aldy, who previously served as President Obama's special assistant on energy and environment, argues that the deal is one Republicans, progressives, business and labor could back.
"A smart deal to tackle climate change could abet tax and regulatory reform — which most Republicans support — by swapping a market-based carbon tax for sectoral regulatory policies — which most Republicans oppose," Aldy writes in a new report.
Aldy contends that his approach could make GOP efforts to rewrite the tax code with lower overall rates a reality while demonstrating that Republicans are in favor of smarter environmental policy, "not simply opposed to all climate change policies."
Aldy will present the specifics of his plan this morning during a forum in Washington hosted by the Progressive Policy Institute.
Broadly, it would enact a tax on the carbon content on all fossil fuels at a rate of $25 per ton, which would increase at the rate of inflation plus 5 percent per year with revenues used to finance comprehensive tax reform, including potential reductions in the corporate and personal income tax rates.
Some revenues could finance a cash assistance program for low-income households to appease progressives. Another chunk could be set aside for assistance to coal communities and other places and industries adversely affected by climate policy as an olive branch to labor interests.
To bring the GOP and businesses on board, the plan also presents options for streamlining regulations. They range from trading away U.S. EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to formalizing a process of retrospective review of existing regulations.
Lobbyists have observed new momentum for tax reform after the GOP's electoral sweep (E&E Daily, Nov. 10). However, the obstacles to making the a carbon tax part of such a deal are many.
President-elect Donald Trump has explicitly rejected a carbon tax (E&ENews PM, May 13). He has also stated his intention to reverse the Clean Power Plan.
Aldy says the legal uncertainty that would ensue when proponents of the regulation try to slow Trump's efforts to reverse it, coupled with a patchwork of state policies, would create an "unpredictable investment climate" for the utility sector. He notes that cap-and-trade programs cover emissions from the power sector in states representing one-fourth of the U.S. population.
Another obstacle: House lawmakers. Less than six months ago, the chamber approved a resolution expressing the sense that a carbon tax would be "detrimental to the U.S. economy," with 231 Republicans and six Democrats voting "yes" (E&ENews PM, June 10).
Aldy thinks those same lawmakers might consider a carbon tax as part of comprehensive, must-pass tax reform legislation, especially if it could replace the complicated regulatory regime that Republicans rail against.
The coalition that came together to defeat a Washington ballot measure that would have imposed the first-ever statewide carbon tax is also telling. Progressives united with fossil fuel industry leaders before the election, and environmentalists warned that any policy that would trade away EPA's regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act would be "an absolute deal breaker" (Greenwire, Nov. 4).
Aldy suggests that the environmental community would be brought to the table because other efforts to slash emissions are widely predicted to fall short.
"This carbon tax would lower U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 26 percent by 2025 — consistent with our nation's pledge at the Paris climate summit last year — and more than 30 percent by 2030," he notes.
Aldy's presentation today will be followed by a panel discussion with Catrina Rorke of the R Street Institute, Senate Finance Committee senior energy and tax counsel Todd Wooten and Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/11/30/stories/1060046388
-
Is This the Future of Green Building Materials?
Nov 30, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons
Companies are increasingly looking for circular-economy approaches to design — and use — durable products that can be reused or recycled at end of life.
Noble Environmental Technologies says its technology is helping customers do this very thing: recycle their waste streams into new building materials for reuse. And it says it can partner with just about any business to help it close the loop while reduce its manufacturing costs and waste produced.
Starbucks, for example, could recycle coffee grounds and commercial waste and convert it into materials used to build stores, furniture and packaging, the company says. And Walmart could recycle all of its retail store paper and cardboard waste and convert it into home décor, furniture products, retail shelving and displays.
Noble Environmental says its building material product, called Ecor, makes these scenarios possible and profitable. It was a finalist at the annual World Economic Forum conference at Davos, recognized for enabling the circular economy, and a Dell Circular Economy People’s Choice Award nominee. The company says Ecor is the future of green building and sustainable design.
Ecor, developed in partnership with the US Department of Agriculture, is made from 100 percent recycled material. It’s made from fiber-based waste — office paper, cardboard, recycled denim and other fabrics, hemp, jute, sugar cane bagasse, corn husks, wood dust and trimmings, among others — and can be engineered into a variety of shapes for different applications. The company describes it as a sustainable alternative to wood, composites, aluminum and plastic. The product itself is also 100 percent recyclable.
“We call it a fiber alloy,” said Noble Environmental’s Jay Potter in an interview. “The fiber alloy is like your finger print. Every single company we encounter has a waste stream and that waste stream is unique to them. And every company has a need for building materials, for their own use or making into products such as furniture or something else. Whether its in their building or products, we can design a unique fiber alloy around their needs.”
Panels are priced between $3 and $24 per square foot.
Google, Whole Foods and Toms Shoes are among the companies using Ecor — Whole Food has used Ecor for signage, Google used Ecor for wavy interior panels and Toms’ for shoe hangers. The company says it will soon announce a new customer, “a leading global brewer,” that will convert its spent brewers grains, paper and cardboard waste into a range of Ecor materials, which will then be used by the brewer and its vendors to produce their retail graphics, point of purchase displays, commercial packaging and perhaps even the 6 beer bottle boxes.
Potter says they’ll announce the brewer customer before the end of the year.
“The brewery has to replace 15,000 uniforms a year, and 85 percent of those are 100 percent cotton — just wonderful fiber,” Potter said. “Unlike a pair of jeans, which someone might wear again, nobody wants a soiled uniform. It has very little opportunity for reuse. Same thing with the brewery’s off-labels. They might have little pieces of glass in it, or some glues that recyclers can’t dal with. We take any fiber that we can cobble together to make an alloy. Some of those fibers are long and strong and others are short and weak. We’re able to dial in on that fiber allow specific to the applications need.”
Potter says Noble Environmental is also in discussions with a “major European airport” about integrating Ecor-based building products for use throughout its terminal redevelopment project and will provide Ecor-based interior wall systems for use in the construction process.
The company says in addition to helping businesses reduce or eliminate their waste, using Ecor also gives them a competitive advantage. The product is lighter, which means it costs less to transport. It’s also 30 percent denser than medium density fiberboard, which means it is more durable and will last longer.
Ecor contains no toxic adhesives, additives, formaldehyde, or off-gassing and has virtually zero airborne volatile organic compounds.
Potter says it also costs less than it’s conventional counterparts. “There’s a big MDF [medium density fiberboard] project in Northern California that’s going to cost $300 million — we could build that same factory for probably $75 million.”
Another customer, sustainable building materials manufacturer 3form, partnered with Noble Environmental to develop a material finish made out of 100 percent post-consumer recycled corrugated cardboard called Elemental (pictured).
3form VP product management Azar McMaster told Environmental Leader that Elemental is offered in five standard, rusted metallic aesthetics in four of 3form’s product lines: Edge, Wovin Wall, Wave Wall, Ripple Wall.
“The environmental and economic sustainability of a material or product are of utmost importance to 3form,” McMaster said. “The Ecor material not only achieves this promise, but the creativity and spirit of the Ecor team are fantastic collaborators in the product development process.”
He says using Ecor instead of conventional materials met several of 3form’s business needs: it’s a post-consumer recycled product, it has a design-timely look of rusted, weathered metallic, and it’s easy to install, compared to using actual weathered steel.
“Whether drawn to the environmental story, or the idea of a rusted metallic aesthetic without the hassles of using an actual steel product that is cumbersome, expensive, or both, Elemental has proven to be a very exciting option for architects and designers to specify,” McMaster said.
Lux Research analyst Jerrold Wang told Environmental Leader that Ecor is a good example of a circular economy approach. “The use of waste material not only achieves sustainability but also enables low raw material cost or even negative cost,” he said.
But Lux Research doesn’t consider it an alternative to wood, composites, aluminum and plastic.
“Ecor is sustainable in terms of using urban waste, agriculture waste and forest waste,” Wang said. “But we don’t see it as an alternative to the products you listed. The modulus of rupture for Ecor is higher than some of the competing products such as medium-density fiberboard, but lower than that of aluminum products as well as many wood, composite and plastic products. Ecor is a sustainable solution, but can only compete with some of the competing products.”
Wang said Ecor has good growth potential from a product and sustainability point of view. “But the factors determining the company’s growth include a lot others. In the short-term future, the company’s growth depends on whether its management team can expand the business into the company’s target market segments.”
This circular economy approach shows promise — and potential profit — for businesses across industries. And circular economy leaders like Dell seem to agree that it is on the right track. Ecor is an example of how companies can turn their waste streams into new materials. We hope to see it and similar innovations pick up steam in the near future.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/11/30/is-this-the-future-of-green-building-materials/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested