Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/13/2017
-
Hearing On Energy Infrastructure
Mar 14, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Commiteee
By Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Hearing On FAST Act Implementation
Mar 15, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
Location: 2167 Rayburn / 10:00 AM. -
Hearing On Transportation Department Oversight
Mar 16, 2017 | Houe Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
Location: 2358-A Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film & Non-Bottle Rigid Package Recycling Rates Released
Mar 12, 2017 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
The recycling of plastic wraps, bags, and other film packaging grew 34 million pounds, or 3%, in 2015 to reach a minimum of nearly 1.2 billion pounds for the year. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls For Improvements In EPA Use Of Science In Regulations
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA should provide clearer and more specific definitions for terms like 'best available science' and 'weight-of-scientific evidence'. This would improve the consistency, reliability and credibility of the regulatory decisions it makes under TSCA, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says -
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Could Become First State To Ban Foam To-Go Food Containers Statewide
Mar 10, 2017 | WJLA
By Cara Newcomer
All expanded polystyrene products used for packaging food products, including foam carriers, could be banned from all Maryland food businesses if pending legislation is passed in the General Assembly this session. -
FOIA Lawsuit Targets EPA's Glyphosate Review
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
A food safety group has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit in federal district court seeking EPA documents supporting the agency's conclusion last fall that the commonly-used herbicide glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers, documents that could support environmentalists' calls for restrictions on the substance. -
Are Your Sperm in Trouble?
Mar 11, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
... Human and animal studies suggest that a crucial culprit is a common class of chemical called endocrine disruptors, found in plastics, cosmetics, couches, pesticides and countless other products. -
Does BPA Disrupt Autophagy In The Liver?
Mar 10, 2017 | Nature
By Alan Morris
Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in the manufacture of plastic food containers and refillable drinks bottles, dysregulates authophagy-regulated lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, according to new research published in Endocrinology. -
Bernie Sanders: We Need A ‘Political Revolution’ Against Fracking
Mar 13, 2017 | The Daily Caller
By Andrew Follet
Former presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a political revolution against hydraulic fracturing during a Facebook Live with an anti-oil activist Thursday. -
Maryland House Overwhelmingly Approves Fracking Ban
Mar 10, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks
Maryland’s House of Delegates on Friday passed legislation to ban hydraulic fracturing in the state, but a major hurdle remains in the Senate, where a key lawmaker has resisted efforts to permanently prohibit the controversial gas-extraction method. -
Court Asks If Federal Position Changed in Fracking Case
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A court has asked attorneys for the Trump administration whether they want to keep fighting for Obama-era regulations of hydraulic fracturing by scores of oil and gas companies operating on federal lands (Wyoming v. Zinke, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, 3/9/17). -
Court Asks Trump DOJ To Weigh In On Fracking Rule Defense
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is asking the Trump administration whether it plans to continue defending the Obama administration's rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, teeing up the issue ahead of previously scheduled March 22 oral arguments that could be delayed due to any change in position. -
Tillerson Recuses Himself From Keystone XL Pipeline Review
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shannon Pettypiece and Nick Wadhams
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recused himself from State Department deliberations on granting a permit to TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, heading off conflict-of-interest concerns over a project he praised when he was chief of Exxon Mobil Corp. -
Opening Arctic for Drilling Is Trump Priority, Key Senator Says
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Catherine Traywick
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump is interested in opening up new coastal waters for oil and gas drilling and reversing Obama-era policies that restrict energy development in Alaska. -
Dow Chemical Nears Completion Of Freeport Expansion
Mar 10, 2017 | Fuelfix
By Jordan Blum
Dow Chemical’s multibillion-dollar expansion in Freeport is nearing completion with the crown jewel ethylene plant coming online mid-year — getting a head start on competing projects from Exxon Mobil and Chevron Phillips Chemical in Baytown. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Transportation Constraints Will Saddle Chemical Industry With Higher Costs
Mar 10, 2017 | American Shipper
By Chris Dupin
The chemical industry is projected to see increased costs due to excess inventories, larger capital expenditures, and higher operating costs, according to a study performed for the American Chemistry Council by PricewaterhouseCoopers -
Fiery Iowa Derailment Prompts Call For Quicker Replacement Of Old Cars
Mar 11, 2017 | AP (In The Chicago Tribune)
A federal safety official called on the rail industry to move faster to upgrade aging rail tankers following a fiery train derailment in rural Iowa that spilled ethanol into a creek and was still burning nearly two days after it erupted. -
(ACC Mentioned) Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding?
Mar 10, 2017 | Law Street Media
By Alec Siegel
Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. -
'God Bless' Pruitt On CO2 Reforms — Rep. Barton
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Rep. Joe Barton, the conservative Texas Republican who serves as vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants U.S. EPA to revisit the 2009 endangerment finding that underpins Obama-era carbon emissions standards. -
NAS President Pushes Back Against Pruitt's CO2 Remarks
Mar 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Marcia McNutt, the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is adding her voice to the chorus of those criticizing EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's recent comments denying that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. -
Order To Repeal Obama Climate Rule Expected Tomorrow
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to formally begin dismantling the Obama administration's signature climate change rule this week. -
Cal/EPA Chief Touts Cap-And-Trade Amid Doubts
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Amid growing doubts about the effectiveness and unintended consequences of California's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, the head of Cal/EPA is going out of his way to tout the benefits and advantages of continuing the program beyond 2020. -
How The EPA Chief Could Gut The Agency’s Climate Change Regulations
Mar 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is fueling speculation that he could try to repeal the lynchpin of the federal government’s climate change regulations. -
Carbon Dioxide Levels In Atmosphere Hit New High
Mar 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels hit a new high last year and have only continued to climb in the first two months of 2017, federal scientists reported Friday.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Hearing On Energy Infrastructure
Mar 14, 2017 | Senate Energy and Natural Resources Commiteee
By Energy and Natural Resources
-
Hearing On FAST Act Implementation
Mar 15, 2017 | House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
-
Hearing On Transportation Department Oversight
Mar 16, 2017 | Houe Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastic Film & Non-Bottle Rigid Package Recycling Rates Released
Mar 12, 2017 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
The recycling of plastic wraps, bags, and other film packaging grew 34 million pounds, or 3%, in 2015 to reach a minimum of nearly 1.2 billion pounds for the year. This marks the eleventh consecutive year of increases and the highest annual collection of plastic film since the survey began. Plastic film recycling—a category that includes flexible product wraps, bags, and commercial stretch film made primarily from polyethylene—has increased nearly 84% since the first report was issued in 2005.
Released at the Plastics Recycling Conference, the “2015 National Post-Consumer Plastic Bag & Film Recycling Report” also found that film processing in the U.S. and Canada increased 11% for the year, while exports declined by almost 4%.
“We are very pleased that plastic film recycling continues to grow,” says Steve Russell, Vice President of the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division. “America’s plastic makers are strong supporters of plastic film recycling, and due to expanding participation in our Wrap Recycling Action Program, or WRAP, we expect to see film recycling continue to rise.”
Plastic film continues to be one of the fastest growing areas of recycling. According to the EPA’s 2014 Advancing Sustainable Materials Management report, the plastic film recycling rate is 15%.
Rigids dip slightly
A separate report found that the post-consumer recycling of non-bottle rigid plastics (rigids) has grown 280% since tracking began in 2007. Rigids recycling generally held strong but dipped by 45 million pounds, or not quite 4%, to a minimum of 1.24 billion pounds in 2015. The “2015 National Post-Consumer Non-Bottle Rigid Recycling Report” also found that about 67% of the rigid plastics collected were recycled in the U.S. or Canada, with the remaining exported overseas.
Factors that contributed to the recent leveling include challenging market conditions for commodities in general, increased competition from virgin plastic materials, and weakened demand in Asia. Higher-quality bales (clean, single resin) fared better than mixed materials as they are less costly to reclaim.
“America’s plastics makers are committed to supporting continued long-term gains in plastics recycling through public policy, infrastructure improvements, and education,” says Russell. “We believe states’ recycling goals and brand-owners’ commitments to use more recycled plastics are helping to create greater stability and demand in the industry.”
The rigid plastics category includes food containers, caps, lids, tubs, and cups; bulky items such as buckets, carts, and lawn furniture; and used commercial scrap such as crates, battery casings, and drums.
As in prior years, polypropylene and high-density polyethylene comprised the two largest resins in this category, representing 41% and 33%, respectively, of total rigid plastics collected.
Both the film and rigids reports were based on an annual survey of reclaimers conducted by More Recycling (formerly Moore Recycling Associates, Inc.).
https://www.packworld.com/sustainability/recycling/plastic-film-non-bottle-rigid-package-recycling-rates-released
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Calls For Improvements In EPA Use Of Science In Regulations
Mar 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US EPA should provide clearer and more specific definitions for terms like 'best available science' and 'weight-of-scientific evidence'. This would improve the consistency, reliability and credibility of the regulatory decisions it makes under TSCA, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) says.
The comments came in a 9 March hearing before the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management. The meeting was looking at improving agency use of science in the regulatory process. A particular focus was how to improve transparency and accountability.
Nancy Beck, ACC senior director of regulatory and technical affairs said the EPA has given the impression in its proposed risk evaluation rule it believes its current scientific standards meet the congressionally mandated standards required under the revised TSCA.
"To date, EPA appears to be interpreting these scientific standards as implying that 'business as usual' is consistent with the standards," Dr Beck said. "Instead, the agency has suggested that simple reliance on existing guidelines and current practices are sufficient to meet the standards laid out in Section 26."
Dr Beck's comments largely echo testimony the ACC gave to a House committee last month.
Section 26, which focuses on the administration of the act, says the EPA should make scientific decisions "in a manner consistent with the best available science". It also directs the agency to make decisions "based on the weight of the scientific evidence", but provides no further detail.
Dr Beck outlined ways the EPA can improve how the agency uses science to draft regulations. Her recommendations for lawmakers include:improving oversight and developing quality checklists that consider already existing guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and other consensus bodies;improving peer review practices to ensure panels are composed of a diverse group of experts with the expertise necessary to review scientific analyses in a transparent and comprehensive manner; andchanging publication incentives and standards for scientific grants and funding, namely to avoid publication bias by not putting pressure on researchers to publish research with "positive results".Agency view
The EPA's draft risk evaluation rule notes that many stakeholders have expressed concern as to how the agency will apply weight-of-scientific evidence under the amended TSCA. But the draft states that the EPA is not proposing to modify this approach as part of its rule, nor is it proposing to codify it.
"This process has and will continue to evolve with changing scientific methods and innovation. Codifying a specific definition can inhibit the flexibility of the agency to quickly adopt and implement changing science," the proposal says.
It adds that, despite calls from stakeholders, further defining such terms as 'best available science' and 'sufficiency of information' would be "unnecessary and ultimately problematic". But it specifically requested that stakeholders provide information on the pros and cons of codifying these or other definitions during the proposed rule consultation.
The EPA will accept stakeholder comments on the proposed risk evaluation rule until 20 March. Statutory deadlines call for it to be final by 22 June.Legislative action
The hearing came amid a flurry of legislative activity surrounding scientific standards in the government.
Senator James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, has introduced four bills aimed at improving the regulatory rulemaking process. One of these, the Better Evaluation of Science and Technology (BEST) Act, calls for the same scientific standards found in TSCA to be used across the entire federal government.
The house also introduced two bills on 6 March that seek to promote an "open and honest" EPA, while ensuring the integrity of the agency's scientific review processes.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54368/acc-calls-for-improvements-in-epa-use-of-science-in-regulations
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Could Become First State To Ban Foam To-Go Food Containers Statewide
Mar 10, 2017 | WJLA
By Cara Newcomer
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) -- All expanded polystyrene products used for packaging food products, including foam carriers, could be banned from all Maryland food businesses if pending legislation is passed in the General Assembly this session.
The legislation, sponsored in the House by Delegate Brooke Lierman, D-Baltimore, will prohibit a person or business from selling or providing food in an expanded polystyrene food service product beginning Jan. 1, according to a Department of Legislative Services fiscal analysis. The bill, which has also been cross-filed in the state Senate, also bans the sale and use of loose fill packaging.
The fiscal analysis defines the banned material as "a product made of expanded polystyrene that is used for selling or providing food." This means the bill would ban food containers, plates, hot and cold beverage cups, meat and vegetable trays and egg cartons made of expanded polystyrene.
"Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the generic industry name for the white rigid material made by expanding polystyrene beads with steam and pressure to bond the beads together to form blocks or to shape molds," according to Universal Foam Products.
Styrofoam, a registered trademark and a type of expanded polystyrene, is not included in the bill, according to the Department of Legislative Services report. "Although foam coffee cups and plates are often referred to as `Styrofoam,' that terminology is incorrect," the fiscal analysis said. Styrofoam is generally used in industrial settings for building materials and pipe insulation, according to the report.
Lierman said in a Feb. 15 House Environment and Transportation Committee hearing that this bill is an extension of a concept that has already been enacted in some areas. Montgomery County, Prince George's County, the city of Gaithersburg and the city of Takoma Park have prohibitions on expanded polystyrene already in place.
Dr. Richard Bruno, a doctor of medicine who works at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, gave written testimony Feb. 15 in opposition to the bill, saying styrene, a chemical found in expanded polystyrene is a threat to health, waterways and ecosystems.
Delegate Al Carr, D-Montgomery, said it is important to make this a statewide ban because it is a statewide issue and the ban has been successful locally.
"Businesses and government agencies have been able to adapt and have not seen an increase in their costs," Carr said. "I have been receiving many emails from constituents in favor of the bill."
"It is important to make it a statewide ban so that the prices of alternative products go down," Lierman told the University of Maryland's Capital News Service. Lierman pointed to California, saying when businesses there made the transition to stock alternative recyclables the prices changed. "(Expanded polystyrene) is now more expensive than recyclable products in California," Lierman said.
Restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafes, supermarkets or grocery stores, vending trucks or carts, movie theaters, and business or institutional cafeterias would all be food service businesses affected by this bill, according to the fiscal analysis.
"Enacting a statewide ban on polystyrene foodservice packaging will level the playing field for businesses across the state," Nick Rudolph, President of Pigtown Main Street in Baltimore, said in his testimony to the House committee.
Dart Container Corp., a national company that manufactures cups, plates, containers, lids and straws made from such materials as expanded polystyrene foam, solid polystyrene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, paper and sugar cane, opposes the bill.
Dart employs 630 Marylanders with another 50 open positions in high-paying, rural manufacturing jobs, according Paul Poe, Government Affairs and the Environment Manager at Dart. Poe said Dart is also planning to open a third facility in the state, in Havre de Grace.
Poe specified in testimony that expanded polystyrene is recyclable and Dart has created a program to accept expanded polystyrene items and recycle them with drop-off and pick-up options.
Delegate Christopher Adams, R-Caroline, Dorchester, Talbot and Wicomico, said in the House committee meeting that Dart's stance on the bill should be considered. Since the company creates jobs for Marylanders, the state should do no harm to the company, Adams said.
"This bill is our hope for a cleaner and healthier future, to neighborhoods with less toxic trash, air and water," Claire Wayner, a high school junior at Baltimore Polytechnic Institute in Baltimore County and founding member of Baltimore Beyond Plastic, an organization created to teach students the problems with plastics like polystyrene and elevate their reactions against it, said in her Feb. 15 testimony to the House Environment and Transportation Committee.
"At Baltimore City public schools, lunch is served on polystyrene trays, and as many students are economically disadvantaged, it's not possible to refuse a lunch . when it may be your only food you'll see that day," Wayner said.
"Baltimore City schools serve daily lunch on EPS trays to 83,000 students a year," according to a Baltimore Office of Sustainability Feb. 15 letter.
"Using compostable paper trays, plates, and other containers in place of EPS would make food recovery efforts much more feasible, because users can simply place their tray and all leftover food directly into a compost container, rather than having to separate out trash and compost," the organization said in its letter.
"Around 1 percent of the trash properly disposed of and sent to landfills is expanded polystyrene, but up to 40 percent of litter found in and along water streams is expanded polystyrene," according to Lierman. "That shows the disproportionate amount of (expanded polystyrene) that is recycled and littered."
Prince George's County Department of the Environment Director Adam Ortiz told the House committee it costs $60 per ton to process expanded polystyrene food products, but when they are able to compost the alternative recyclable products, they make money.
Baltimore City, Caroline, Howard and Washington counties accept polystyrene plastics for recycling, but the rest of the Maryland jurisdictions do not, according to the analysis.
"Growing up in neighborhoods that are full of trash, it's hard to not self-identify with the image of trash," Wayner said in her testimony.
"Forcing businesses to use alternative products does not reduce litter; it simply changes in composition," Melvin Thompson, senior vice president of the Maryland Restaurant Association said in a Feb. 15 letter to the committee.
Lierman said that she understands people who litter with foam containers will probably continue to litter with alternatives, but the alternatives are better for the environment and easier to pick up than the expanded polystyrene products.
There are also health risks for consumers who use expanded polystyrene containers, according to Lierman. When expanded polystyrene is heated, it leaches styrene into the food or liquid that is in the containers, Lierman said.
"Styrene, the main ingredient in (expanded polystyrene), has been listed as a possible carcinogen by both the International Agency for Research on cancer and the National Toxicology Program since 2002," Bruno wrote in his testimony.
"The general public is exposed to 20 mg of styrene annually," according to Bruno. "This toxin has no place in our bodies, schools, restaurants or homes."
But the American Chemistry Council referred to a 2013 study completed by the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group in its Feb. 15 written testimony that said "current exposures to styrene from the use of polystyrene food contact products remain extremely low, with the estimated daily intake calculated at 6.6 micrograms per person per day."
"This is more than 10,000 times below the safety limit set by the FDA," the organization said. "The FDAs acceptable daily intake value of styrene is calculated to be 90,000 micrograms per person per day."
The fiscal analysis said the effect on small businesses and the state will be minimal. There will be an increased cost to the state of $19,300 in the 2018 fiscal year in order to conduct the education and outreach campaign, but will decrease to zero after one year.
"County health departments must enforce the bill's prohibitions and may impose a penalty of up to $250 on violators," according to the fiscal analysis. Health departments must issue a written notice of the business' or person's violation and allow three months to correct the violation before a fine can be issued.
http://wjla.com/news/local/bill-may-ban-foam-to-go-food-containers-in-maryland
-
FOIA Lawsuit Targets EPA's Glyphosate Review
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
A food safety group has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit in federal district court seeking EPA documents supporting the agency's conclusion last fall that the commonly-used herbicide glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers, documents that could support environmentalists' calls for restrictions on the substance.
In the March 9 lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. Right To Know seeks documents underlying EPA's announcement last year that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans, as well as records of communications between EPA and glyphosate producer Monsanto.
U.S. Right To Know says that it filed a FOIA request May 12 seeking documents dating back to Jan. 1, 2015 related to EPA's review of glyphosate's potential cancer risk, according to the lawsuit. While EPA received the request and said it would take several weeks to complete, the group has received no documents.
“Plaintiffs have a statutory right under FOIA to the requested records,” the group says. “EPA has no legal basis for refusing to produce these records.”
Environmentalists have long pressed EPA for stricter oversight of glyphosate, arguing that heavy use of the substance, particularly since the advent of genetically-modified crops designed to withstand glyphosate in the 1990s, poses significant ecological and human health risks.
Those calls picked up in March 2015 when the World Health Organization's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer found glyphosate probably causes cancer, a conclusion that conflicted with other risk findings, even from within the WHO.
EPA contradicted that finding in a September issue paper finding the substance is unlikely to cause human cancers.
Pesticide producers and growers contend EPA's September issue paper finding that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer is backed by overwhelming scientific evidence, and that glyphosate is vital to modern agriculture, even though some weeds have become resistant to the chemical. Industry has urged EPA to speed its Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticde Act registration review of glyphosate, which began in 2009.
The plaintiff's lawsuit notes EPA's apparent missteps in releasing its glyphosate cancer finding last year, actions that drew scrutiny from House science panel Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). Smith began investigating EPA's handling of the cancer review last spring after EPA publicly posted, then withdrew, a review containing its cancer finding.
EPA has said it released the document inadvertently. Then in September, EPA referenced the review document in an issue paper supporting a scientific advisory panel review of glyphosate's cancer question. The issue paper reiterated EPA's finding that glyphosate is not likely to cause human cancers.
In the lawsuit, U.S. Right to Know cites EPA's initial withdrawal and subsequent release of its cancer finding, and notes that “Not long after EPA’s retraction of the report, the chair of the committee that authored the report left EPA.”
U.S. Right To Know asks the court to issue an order finding EPA's failure to answer the group's FOIA unlawful and requiring EPA to provide the documents. The group says more than 205 working days have passed since EPA acknowledged receipt of the request.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/foia-lawsuit-targets-epas-glyphosate-review
-
Mar 11, 2017 | The New York Times
By Nicholas Kristof
Let’s begin with sex.
As a couple finishes its business, millions of sperm begin theirs: rushing toward an egg to fertilize it. But these days, scientists say, an increasing proportion of sperm — now about 90 percent in a typical young man — are misshapen, sometimes with two heads or two tails.
Even when properly shaped, today’s sperm are often pathetic swimmers, veering like drunks or paddling crazily in circles. Sperm counts also appear to have dropped sharply in the last 75 years, in ways that affect our ability to reproduce.
“There’s been a decrease not only in sperm numbers, but also in their quality and swimming capacity, their ability to deliver the goods,” said Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, who notes that researchers have also linked semen problems to shorter life expectancy.
Perhaps you were expecting another column about political missteps in Washington, and instead you’ve been walloped with talk of bad swimmers. Yet this isn’t just a puzzling curiosity, but is rather an urgent concern that affects reproduction, possibly even our species’ future.
Andrea Gore, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Texas at Austin and the editor of the journal Endocrinology, put it to me this way: “Semen quality and fertility in men have decreased. Not everyone who wants to reproduce will be able to. And the costs of male disorders to quality of life, and the economic burden to society, are inestimable.”
Human and animal studies suggest that a crucial culprit is a common class of chemical called endocrine disruptors, found in plastics, cosmetics, couches, pesticides and countless other products. Because of the environmental links, The New Yorker once elegantly referred to the crisis as “silent sperm,” and innumerable studies over 25 years add to the concern that the world’s sperm are in trouble.
And so are men and boys. Apparently related to the problem of declining semen quality is an increase in testicular cancer in many countries; in undescended testicles; and in a congenital malformation of the penis called hypospadias (in which the urethra exits the side or base of the penis instead of the tip). These problems are often found together and are labeled testicular dysgenesis syndrome.
There is still disagreement about the scale of the problem, and the data aren’t always reliable. But some scientists are beginning to ask, At some point, will we face a crisis in human reproduction? Might we do to ourselves what we did to bald eagles in the 1950s and 1960s?
“I think we are at a turning point,” Niels Erik Skakkebaek, a Danish fertility scholar and pioneer in this field, told me. “It is a matter of whether we can sustain ourselves.”
One recent study found that of sperm donor applicants in Hunan Province, China, 56 percent qualified in 2001 because their sperm met standards of healthiness. By 2015, only 18 percent qualified.
“The semen quality among young Chinese men has declined over a period of 15 years,” concluded the study, which involved more than 30,000 men.
Perhaps even more alarming, Canadian scientists conducted a seven-year experiment on a lake in Ontario, adding endocrine disrupting chemicals and then observing the impact on fathead minnows. The chemicals had a devastating impact on males, often turning them into intersex fish, with characteristics of both sexes but incapable of reproducing.
The crisis for male reproductive health seems to begin in utero. Male and female fetuses start pretty much the same, and then hormones drive differentiation of males from females. The problem seems to be that endocrine disrupting chemicals mimic hormones and confuse this process, interfering with the biological process of becoming male.
How should we protect ourselves? Swan said she avoids plastics as much as possible, including food or drinks that have touched plastic or been heated in plastic. She recommends eating organic to avoid pesticide residues, and avoiding Tylenol and other painkillers during pregnancy. Receipts from thermal printers, like at gas pumps and A.T.M.s, are also suspect. When in doubt, she consults guides at ewg.org/consumer-guides.
Yet this isn’t just a matter of individual action, but is also a public policy issue that affects tens of millions of people, their capacity to reproduce and their health and life expectancy.
What’s needed above all is more aggressive regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals. America has been much slower than Europe to regulate toxic chemicals, and most chemicals sold in the U.S. have never been tested for safety.
The larger question is why we allow the chemical industry — by spending $100,000 on lobbying per member of Congress — to buy its way out of effective regulation of endocrine disruptors. The industry’s deceit marks a replay of Big Tobacco’s battle against regulation of smoking.
If you doubt the stakes, look at the image with this column of a hapless sperm swimming in circles, and remember this: Our human future will only be as healthy as our sperm.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/opinion/sunday/are-your-sperm-in-trouble.html
-
Does BPA Disrupt Autophagy In The Liver?
Mar 10, 2017 | Nature
By Alan Morris
Bisphenol A (BPA), which is used in the manufacture of plastic food containers and refillable drinks bottles, dysregulates authophagy-regulated lipid metabolism in hepatocytes, according to new research published in Endocrinology.
BPA is an endocrine disruptor that is ubiquitous in our environment. Previous work has demonstrated a link between BPA and hepatic lipid deposition but the underlying mechanisms have remained unclear. “Autophagy has an important role in the regulation of lipid metabolism in the liver but studies investigating the effect of BPA on autophagy were limited,” says Qifu Li, correspo…
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required. For full story: http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nrendo.2017.27.html
-
Bernie Sanders: We Need A ‘Political Revolution’ Against Fracking
Mar 13, 2017 | The Daily Caller
By Andrew Follet
Former presidential candidate Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders called for a political revolution against hydraulic fracturing during a Facebook Live with an anti-oil activist Thursday.
Sanders and Josh Fox, the director of the “Gasland” series, blamed the fossil fuel industry, combined with a lack of activism, for the failures of the Democratic Party. The two also encouraged activists to support several ongoing anti-pipeline and fracking protests.
“I think what we have to do is be extremely smart and effective in tapping that [activist] energy,” Sanders said. “And that means among other things understanding that we can combat climate change at the local level. My city does not use any electricity that comes from fossil fuels. That movement can continue all over this country.”
Sanders continued, “we don’t need to have fracking, we can move aggressively in terms of sustainable energy and energy efficiency.” Sponsored Links by
“In terms of climate change, there is no choice but to be extremely aggressive in transforming our energy system,” Sanders said. “There is no choice for the sake of the planet.”
The Vermont Democrat and Fox explained activists needed to coordinate their angst against President Donald Trump, who is pro-fracking.
“[The science] means nothing without the activism,” Fox said. “It is like having the cure for cancer but not having any doctors. The medicine we need now is activists in the street saying we can do this [and] dispelling the myths of the fossil fuel industry.”
Fox is one of the most prominent public opponents of fracking and horizontal drilling. Fox endorsed Sanders in the Democratic primary, saying “simply put, Bernie Sanders wants to ban fracking nationwide, that’s his position.”
“The same movement on fracking exists all across this country,” Fox said. “The frackivist movement is ferocious, passionate, enthusiastic and one of the fastest growing environmental movement that’s ever happened in the United States of America.”
Fox said he and other “frackivists” successfully convinced New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo to ban fracking after years of protests.
Fracking revolutionized the U.S. energy industry over the past decade, lowering energy costs and reducing dependence on foreign oil.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/10/bernie-sanders-we-need-a-political-revolution-against-fracking/#ixzz4axk5aqjP
-
Maryland House Overwhelmingly Approves Fracking Ban
Mar 10, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Josh Hicks
Maryland’s House of Delegates on Friday passed legislation to ban hydraulic fracturing in the state, but a major hurdle remains in the Senate, where a key lawmaker has resisted efforts to permanently prohibit the controversial gas-extraction method.
The bill passed the Democratic-majority House 97 to 40, with eight Republicans supporting it.
Sen. Joan Carter Conway (D-Baltimore), who chairs the Senate committee in charge of reviewing the proposal, has said she sees little sense in trying to move the measure to Republican Gov. Larry Hogan’s desk unless both legislative chambers can approve it with veto-proof majorities, the Baltimore Sun reported Friday.
Hogan has said he supports hydraulic fracturing as long as the state implements strict safeguards for the practice, commonly known as fracking.
The 141-member House needs 85 votes to override a veto from the governor, while the 47-member Senate needs 29 votes for such action. Anti-fracking advocates say they are a few votes short of that number in the Senate.
“If Joan Carter Conway declared today that she too supports a ban, then it’s going to go to Hogan’s desk, because not only will we have her vote, but several people have said they’ll support it if she does,” said Mike Tidwell, director of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals deep underground to break up rock and release oil or natural gas.
A two-year moratorium on the practice is in effect until October. Conway has proposed a bill to extend the hold another two years and require counties to hold referendums in 2018 on whether to allow the extraction method.
Environmentalists want a permanent ban, saying no regulations can eliminate fracking’s potential to cause water contamination, air pollution and earthquakes, all of which have occurred to varying degrees in states where fracking has become common in recent years.
“Science has spoken, and we should terminate this practice here in Maryland,” said Del. Kumar P. Barve (D-Montgomery), who heads the House environmental committee.
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing say it can be done safely and that the practice would bring jobs, economic benefits and new tax revenue to Garrett and Allegany counties, where the activity is most likely to occur.
Del. Jason C. Buckel (R-Allegany) said his county needs the fracking industry. “We’re poor — we’re very, very poor,” he said. “A chance for someone to get a thirty- or forty- or fifty- or sixty-thousand-dollar-a-year job driving a truck might make a little bit of difference in that.”
Maryland’s Department of the Environment proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations last year that would bar drilling in four Maryland watersheds and require four layers of steel casing and cement around fracking wells to prevent water, gas and other fluids from migrating to other areas. Ben H. Grumbles, the state’s environmental secretary, said the rules would be among the most stringent in the nation.
Del. Wendell R. Beitzel (R-Garrett), a fracking supporter, said the state’s draft guidelines are so strict they would essentially have the same effect as prohibiting fracking in Maryland. “There’s not a gas or oil company in the world that would want to come in there and drill,” he said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-house-overwhelmingly-approves-fracking-ban-hurdles-in-senate/2017/03/10/c975f362-059f-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.35ee0a033083
-
Court Asks If Federal Position Changed in Fracking Case
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
A court has asked attorneys for the Trump administration whether they want to keep fighting for Obama-era regulations of hydraulic fracturing by scores of oil and gas companies operating on federal lands (Wyoming v. Zinke, 10th Cir., No. 16-8068, 3/9/17).
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is set to hear oral arguments March 22 on consolidated appeals by the federal government and environmental groups attempting to resurrect a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule struck down in 2016 by a district court.
The appeals court said March 9 it was concerned about the impact on the case of the change in federal administrations.
“The Federal Appellants are asked to confirm whether their position on the issues presented remain the same, or have now changed,” the court said. The court asked the federal attorneys to respond to its request by March 15.
If the Trump administration has changed its position, the court said, it would consider motions from the parties for supplemental briefings.
The BLM rule established new regulations for fracking on federal and Indian lands. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ruled the BLM had exceeded its authority in attempting to regulate the technical details of activities such as fracking.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106896155&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106896155&jd=106896155
-
Court Asks Trump DOJ To Weigh In On Fracking Rule Defense
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit is asking the Trump administration whether it plans to continue defending the Obama administration's rule regulating hydraulic fracturing on federal lands, teeing up the issue ahead of previously scheduled March 22 oral arguments that could be delayed due to any change in position.
The court in a March 9 order in the case, Wyoming, et al. v. Zinke, et al., asks the Department of Justice (DOJ) to say by March 15 whether “their position on the issues presented remain the same, or have now changed,” since President Donald Trump has taken office and has signaled a deregulatory stance, particularly on energy-related rules.
The 2015 BLM rule at issue requires oil and gas operators on public lands to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process, and sets requirements for disposing fracking wastewater and well integrity standards.
States and industry groups sued, arguing that the rule violated the 2005 energy law that exempted fracking from Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements. A district court judge vacated the BLM rule and the Obama administration appealed the vacatur to the 10th Circuit.
The court “is concerned that the briefing filed by the Federal Appellants in these cases may no longer reflect the position of the Federal Appellants,” the order says. “If the Federal Appellants have changed their position, the Court would entertain motions for supplemental briefing by the parties.”
One industry source says it is “very interesting the court did [this] on its own motion,” rather than waiting for direction from the new administration.
Attorney Paul Seby, who is representing North Dakota in the case, tells InsideEPA March 10: “Given the upcoming oral argument, my sense is that the Court rightly wants to hear directly from the new Administration whether they plan to maintain the prior administration's appeal of the District Court's decision invalidating the BLM Hydraulic Fracturing Rule or to drop the appeal, a standard practice to conserve judicial and party resources,” attorney Paul Seby, who is representing the state of North Dakota in the case, tells Inside EPA March 10
A DOJ spokesman could not be reached for comment at press time.
The 10th Circuit in a July 13 order scrapped the district court's 2015 preliminary injunction that blocked implementation of the rule, after the lower court ruled June 21 to vacate it outright. Judge Scott Skavdahl of the Wyoming federal district court called the rule an “end run” around the 2005 energy law that amended SDWA to largely bar EPA from issuing any fracking rules.
“Having explicitly removed the only source of specific federal agency authority over fracking, it defies common sense for BLM to argue that Congress intended to allow it to regulate the same activity under a general statute that says nothing about hydraulic fracturing,” Skavdahl wrote in his 27-page ruling. Though BLM did not issue the rule under SDWA, he said it “makes no sense” for BLM to argue it has authority on public lands when Congress has directly spoken to the issue and said any such regulation -- however limited -- must be done by EPA.
The ruling was a major blow to the Obama administration, which had hoped that the rule could serve as a model for states with less-effective oil and gas rules, since it allows for variances from it for states with more stringent policies.
But energy industry groups said the rule would slow energy development on public lands, while Wyoming argued that Congress in SDWA intended EPA to have sole oversight on underground injection requirements.
Proponents of the BLM rule argued that SDWA does not preclude the bureau's regulation at a 2015 congressional hearing where, Hannah Wiseman of Florida State University College of Law said, “SDWA does not address comprehensive protection of public resources.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/court-asks-trump-doj-weigh-fracking-rule-defense
-
Tillerson Recuses Himself From Keystone XL Pipeline Review
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shannon Pettypiece and Nick Wadhams
U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recused himself from State Department deliberations on granting a permit to TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline, heading off conflict-of-interest concerns over a project he praised when he was chief of Exxon Mobil Corp.
Tillerson had recused himself in February, the State Department acknowledged in a March 9 letter responding to Greenpeace USA's demand that he do so. He has “committed to full compliance with his ethics obligations,” according to the response, which was signed by the State Department's deputy legal adviser, Katherine McManus.
President Donald Trump signed an order within days of his inauguration reviving the Keystone pipeline from Canada, which President Barack Obama rejected over environmental concerns linked to high carbon emissions from Alberta oil sands production. Exxon has extensive business in Canada, including a majority stake in Imperial Oil Ltd., and owns the rights to tar sands projects that could take advantage of Keystone XL.
The State Department must approve the pipeline because it would cross an international border. In 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry, with Obama's backing, decided the pipeline wasn't in the country's national security interest because of the U.S. role as a global leader in efforts to fight climate change. A year earlier, the department concluded the pipeline wouldn't significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
No Announcement
The State Department didn't say why it hadn't announced Tillerson's recusal when it happened. Earlier in the day, Greenpeace began a campaign and petition drive demanding he not be involved in the permit process. When Trump signed the order on the Keystone permit in January, the State Department was given 60 days to make a decision, a timeline that expires in about two weeks.
As chief executive officer of Exxon, the world's largest energy company by market value, Tillerson was a vocal advocate for Keystone, saying in a 2015 speech that it would improve U.S. competitiveness and energy security.
“The delays and political machinations that have delayed the Keystone XL pipeline are the poster child for a much deeper problem hindering progress and advancement in this country,” he said in the speech, adding that the U.S. regulatory process was stifling innovation.
Greenpeace Climate Campaign Specialist Diana Best said in a statement responding to the recusal letter that Tillerson's role “might have never been transparent to the public without people flooding the lines of the Office of Government Ethics today.
“The people will have to continue to watch Trump's Cabinet of billionaires and corporate executives like hawks,” Best said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106896146&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106896146&jd=106896146
-
Opening Arctic for Drilling Is Trump Priority, Key Senator Says
Mar 13, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy and Catherine Traywick
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump is interested in opening up new coastal waters for oil and gas drilling and reversing Obama-era policies that restrict energy development in Alaska.
Both Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are weighing ways to expand opportunities to drill in Arctic waters though the changes could take years to accomplish administratively, Murkowski said in an interview on the sidelines of the CERAWeek conference in Houston.
“It's fair to say we are looking at how we might be able to—how the administration might be able to—allow for opportunities within this important area, offshore Alaska,” Murkowski said.
Murkowski, who heads the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, joined her fellow Republican senator from Alaska, Dan Sullivan, in a meeting with Trump and Zinke earlier this week to discuss the issue. Trump “clearly understood the impact of taking off-line” oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska, Murkowski said.
“What was very clear was a recognition that what Alaska has to offer is considerable, important and we need to be working to undo much of what the Obama administration did in terms of locking up these resources,” Murkowski said of her talks with Trump.
Wildlife Refuge Drilling
Among her targets: making it easier to develop parcels in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, a 23-million-acre (9.3 million hectare) region set aside 94 years ago because of its oil and gas potential, and allowing the activity in part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Any decision to open up ANWR would fall to Congress, where Murkowski and Sullivan are pushing legislation that would allow oil and gas development in as much as 2,000 acres of the refuge.
The president can set some changes into motion immediately by directing the Interior Department to rewrite a plan for selling offshore oil and gas leases over the next five years and add auctions of tracts in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans that the Obama administration left out. But wedging those sales back into the plan would require environmental analysis and public comment periods—perhaps consuming a year for the Arctic and even longer for parcels along the U.S. East Coast.
The Trump administration also is weighing how to undo an executive order that President Barack Obama used to withdraw almost all U.S. Arctic waters and underwater canyons in the Atlantic Ocean from future oil and gas leasing. Environmentalists say it would be unprecedented for any president to rescind such a designation, and the reversal would almost certainly be challenged in court.
‘Legal Scrutiny’
“You would have opponents lining up, so it must be done in a way that can survive legal challenge,” Murkowski said. Although an executive order reversing Obama's decision would be the cleanest option, she said such action isn't imminent because Zinke still needs to assemble a legal team to help craft an approach capable of withstanding legal scrutiny.
“What that requires is a good solid legal team that is walking you through the steps of the process, and right now the secretary is without a team,” Murkowski said. “I know for a fact that has been a level of frustration for Secretary Zinke. He is itching to go and is very frustrated by the fact that he doesn't have his folks in place.”
Trump has repeatedly pledged to expand U.S. energy development and remove “obstacles” holding back exploration of America's “vast untapped domestic energy reserves.”
Obscure 1953 Provision
Most federal decisions over offshore oil and gas development happen in five-year increments, through the government's schedule for selling leases. But Obama aimed to set permanent policy in 2016 when he invoked an obscure provision in a 1953 law to withdraw U.S. waters from future oil and gas leasing. The provision previously had mostly been used to permanently protect coral reefs, walrus feeding grounds, and marine sanctuaries.
Any move by Trump to undo Obama's protections is sure to draw a legal challenge, but it could take years before a lawsuit is ready to be filed, and there is scant legal precedent on the matter.
Presidents have modified decisions from predecessors to indefinitely withdraw areas from drilling, but have never rescinded them altogether. The statute doesn't include a provision for reversal. And a legal opinion from the U.S. attorney general in 1938 on similar designations under a different law said they “do not imply a power to undo.”
Whether the oil industry really wants the territory is an open question.
Shell Gives Up
While the U.S. Arctic is estimated to hold 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, energy companies have struggled to tap those resources in harsh conditions at the top of the globe. Exploration costs are high in remote Arctic waters, where work is confined to just a few months each year and there is sparse infrastructure to support the activity.
Oil major Royal Dutch Shell Plc spent more than seven years and roughly $8 billion trying to find a large stash of crude in the Chukchi Sea, which lies between Alaska and Siberia, but it ended the quest in 2015 after a test well yielded disappointing results.
Industry leaders say Arctic crude is needed to meet the world's energy needs and help keep oil flowing through the 40-year-old Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The activity also may support the development of infrastructure that could help buttress U.S. security as climate change and melting sea ice opens up new shipping routes in the Arctic Ocean.
Still, there are signs that Alaska's oil prospects may be looking up. The Spanish oil company Repsol SA on March 9 announced a 1.2 billion-barrel discovery on Alaska's North Slope, the biggest U.S. onshore oil find in three decades. That follows a 2016 announcement by closely held Caelus Energy Corp. claiming to have found at least 2 billion barrels of recoverable oil far beneath Smith Bay, in northwestern Alaska.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=106896168&vname=dennotallissues&fn=106896168&jd=106896168
-
Dow Chemical Nears Completion Of Freeport Expansion
Mar 10, 2017 | Fuelfix
By Jordan Blum
Dow Chemical’s multibillion-dollar expansion in Freeport is nearing completion with the crown jewel ethylene plant coming online mid-year — getting a head start on competing projects from Exxon Mobil and Chevron Phillips Chemical in Baytown.
“We’ll be one of the first out of the gate, so we feel pretty good about that,” said Doug May, Dow’s business president over chemicals and aromatics.
Dow’s nearly-completed, massive ethane cracker project will manufacture 1.5 million tons per year of ethylene, which is the primary building of most plastics. Dow also will bring new plastics production plants online in Freeport too. The 1.5 million tons is nearly triple the capacity of Occidental Petroleum’s ethane cracker that just started production in Ingleside.
The Exxon Mobil and Chevron Phillips ethane crackers will produce the same amount of capacity as the Dow project, but they’ve faced some delays and won’t commence production until late 2017, or even early next year as May suspects. A lot of the projects were authorized at similar times to take advantage of the cheap and ample shale gas unlocked by horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in Texas and other regions.
“Originally there was a fear we were going to have all that capacity at once,” May said. “The reality though is the world needs that capacity. But it’s going to be more spaced out than expected.”
The ethane cracker is the largest piece of Down’s more than $6 billion expansion along the Gulf Coast, mostly in Freeport and Lake Jackson, to add more ethylene, polyethylene, propylene and other plastics manufacturing. Most of the production will go toward delivering plastics to the developing world.
If anything, May said he’s also pleasantly surprised that global plastics demand remains strong in China with more potential growth in India and other developing parts of the world.
The Freeport complex south of Houston is Dow’s largest in the world; the Michigan company designed and built Lake Jackson 73 years ago to house workers when it chose rural Freeport as an operations site. Dow employs more than 6,000 people in the Greater Houston area, mostly in Freeport and Lake Jackson.
The massive ethylene cracker is expected to come online about the same time Dow completes its massive, $130 billion merger of equals with DuPont. But May emphasized Dow’s Texas operations will see little impact.
The primary goal of the merger is to create a stronger agri-chemical business to pit against Monsanto and other. When DowDuPont is formed at the end of June, the merged company will begin its process of splintering into three separate companies, including one still named Dow that would continue to own and run the Freeport complex.
The materials science business would operate under the Dow name, the agribusiness under DuPont and specialty products under a yet-to-be determined brand. The splintered Dow will eventually add nearly 1,500 DuPont workers in Texas along with DuPont’s chemicals and plastics complex in Orange near the Louisiana border.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/10/dow-chemical-nears-completion-of-freeport-expansion/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Transportation Constraints Will Saddle Chemical Industry With Higher Costs
Mar 10, 2017 | American Shipper
By Chris Dupin
The chemical industry is projected to see increased costs due to excess inventories, larger capital expenditures, and higher operating costs, according to a study performed for the American Chemistry Council by PricewaterhouseCoopers
A study performed for the American Chemistry Council (ACC) by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) said chemical manufacturing is on the verge of a renaissance, but that a resulting increase in transportation demand underscores the need to address existing transportation infrastructure issues.
“New logistical challenges could slow down the movement of new chemicals and prevent the industry from realizing the full benefits of increased production,” the PwC report said.
The ACC said, “Announced new U.S. chemical and plastics projects are expected to increase production by 53 million metric tons of new chemical output per year by 2020."
That will create a need to move an additional 270,000 rail cars, 723,000 full truck loads, and 808,000 TEUs by 2020.
PwC surveyed 68 leading chemical companies for their views on transportation and logistics challenges faced by the industry.
Mark Lustig, a principal at PwC said, “Many of the issues they raised are systemic, and will require careful planning and partnerships across both the chemical and transportation sectors in order to successfully manage this new volume.”
The report found the truck driver shortage is likely to become more acute, and longer lead times are likely to cause additional problems over the next 10 years.
In addition, the report noted that as Gulf ports become more attractive for exports, the maritime infrastructure around those ports may not be ready to support added volume, leading manufacturers to pursue suboptimal shipping routes.
"Gulf ports have generally been viewed as less than ideal facilities, primarily because the largest vessels do not call at these locations," the report said. "About 32 percent of chemical export volume is moved long distance to ports such as Los Angeles and Charleston.
"Although producers will incur a cost premium for going overland to these locations, they report receiving better and more frequent service from steamship lines," the report explained. In addition, the report estimated that "the total extra costs associated with using suboptimal routes (e.g., shipping from the West Coast instead of the Gulf) could amount to $10 billion over the next ten years."
Rail service delays are expected to double by 2025 should conditions not improve, leading to a greater demand for more rail cars to hold in-transit products.
The chemical industry is projected to see increased costs of $74 billion between 2016 and 2025 with:
• Additional inventory being held due to transportation delays, translating into a cost of $22 billion in working capital;
• Capital Expenditures expected to increase by $23 billion for equipment and infrastructure required to handle increased congestion and delays;
• And operating costs likely to increase by an additional $29 billion over a ten-year period due to logistical inefficiencies.http://www.americanshipper.com/main/news/report-transportation-constraints-will-saddle-chem-66946.aspx
-
Fiery Iowa Derailment Prompts Call For Quicker Replacement Of Old Cars
Mar 11, 2017 | AP (In The Chicago Tribune)
A federal safety official called on the rail industry to move faster to upgrade aging rail tankers following a fiery train derailment in rural Iowa that spilled ethanol into a creek and was still burning nearly two days after it erupted.
A Union Pacific train hauling 99 tankers of ethanol from a producer in Omaha, Nebraska, derailed around 1 a.m. Friday on a trestle bridge spanning Jack Creek near Graettinger, about 160 miles northwest of Des Moines. It sent off the tracks 20 tanker cars considered by federal investigators as older, less sturdy tanks set to be phased out over the next dozen years. Fifteen of them caught fire, National Transportation Safety Board member Robert Sumwalt said at a news conference Saturday evening. The train left from a plant in Superior, Iowa, heading for Texas City, Texas, he said.
The derailment in Iowa happened miles from any communities, and no one was injured. The fire occasionally sent explosions and fireballs high into the sky as highly flammable ethanol fumes poured from the ruptured tanks. NTSB officials said that some of the tankers, which carry about 25,000 gallons each, had spilled ethanol into the creek, but environmental officials don't believe it's enough to be toxic to wildlife or fish.
Iowa Natural Resources field office manager Kenneth Hessenius said Friday that checks of water downstream found no obvious signs of a spill.
Two tankers were still burning by 7 p.m. Saturday, Sumwalt said. He said the train consisted solely of an older type of car known as the DOT-111. The agency deemed that tanker a hazard as far back as 1991, noting its steel shell is too thin to resist puncture in accidents. The ends are especially vulnerable to tears from couplers that can fly up after ripping off between cars.
Sumwalt said few crude oil shippers now use the older tankers, after recent emphasis in the industry about the danger of it.
"But meanwhile, people have forgotten about the potential hazard of transporting ethanol using these cars," he said. "We would like to see the shippers accelerate their schedule to get these legacy DOT-111 tank cars out of service when transporting flammable liquids — specifically crude oil and ethanol."
There have been at least seven significant accidents involving trains hauling ethanol since 2006 that released a combined 2 million gallons of the fuel.
"God forbid this happens in a community or with people sitting in their cars waiting for the train to go by. It's not like we haven't seen that kind of tragedy before," said Karen Darch, co-chair of an Illinois-based coalition of local officials, called TRAC, that has pushed for rail safety enhancements. The group was formed after a 2009 derailment of ethanol tankers killed a woman at a crossing in Cherry Valley, Illinois. Darch is village president of neighboring Barrington, Illinois.
Even though investigators have not been able to examine the site of the Iowa derailment because of the fire, they have interviewed the derailed train's two-man crew, as well as the crew of a train that passed through the area around midday Thursday, Sumwalt said.
"Neither of these crews saw anything unusual," he said.
Nothing that would have been an obvious cause of the derailment was spotted from viewing a front-facing video taken from a camera in the derailed train's locomotive, he said.
Federal rules enacted in 2015 call for replacing or retrofitting the aging, soda can-shaped rail tankers by 2029, although most would have to come off the tracks sooner. Those that carry ethanol would have to be replaced by 2023.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/midwest/ct-iowa-train-derailment-fire-20170311-story.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Can Scott Pruitt Unravel the EPA’s Endangerment Finding?
Mar 10, 2017 | Law Street Media
By Alec Siegel
Bucking scientific consensus in the U.S. and around the world, Scott Pruitt on Thursday questioned the belief that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change. Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will soon be rolling back many of President Barack Obama’s environmental regulations, perhaps as early as next week. And now, as Pruitt publicly undermines the widely accepted dangers of carbon dioxide, some worry that he will launch an attack against the EPA’s rule that the agency is obligated to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, also known as an “endangerment finding.”
In 2009, the EPA issued this endangerment finding, which concluded that carbon dioxide, along with other greenhouse gases, is a threat to “the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The agency reviewed thousands of published studies, poring over findings from the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, among others.
Pruitt, in an interview with CNBC, undermined his own agency’s previous conclusions. “I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so, no, I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” he said, referring to the impact carbon dioxide has on global warming.
Under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, the EPA stipulated that it was a duty of the agency to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The American Chemistry Council and other groups appealed the findings to a federal circuit court in D.C. In June 2012, the court upheld the EPA’s decision. Soon after, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, and the endangerment finding has stood its ground ever since.
That is, until President Donald Trump chose Pruitt–a longtime ally of the oil and gas industry and a determined opponent of environmental regulations–to lead the EPA. In his Senate hearing in January, Pruitt was asked if he would consider revisiting the endangerment finding. “It is there, and it needs to be enforced and respected,” he said.
Despite Pruitt’s apparent promise to respect the EPA’s finding, its future standing is not guaranteed. For one, the energy industry has been lobbying the Trump Administration to construct a legal case against the endangerment finding. Pruitt, or anyone else in the administration, does not have the unilateral authority to unravel the endangerment finding, because it was upheld in court.
If Pruitt decides to heed the calls of energy lobbyists, and balk the international scientific consensus, he would need to build a science-based legal challenge to the D.C. court’s 2012 ruling. Given the body of evidence supporting the EPA’s initial finding, that carbon dioxide does indeed contribute to global warming, and is a public health threat, Pruitt would have a difficult time building a successful legal challenge. But that does not mean he won’t try.
“President Trump’s campaign commitment was to undo President Obama’s entire climate edifice,” Myron Ebell, who worked on Trump’s EPA transition team, told the New York Times. “They’re thinking through the whole thing,” he said, adding: “I do think they are looking at reopening the endangerment finding.”
https://lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/energy-environment-blog/scott-pruitt-endangerment-finding/
-
'God Bless' Pruitt On CO2 Reforms — Rep. Barton
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Rep. Joe Barton, the conservative Texas Republican who serves as vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wants U.S. EPA to revisit the 2009 endangerment finding that underpins Obama-era carbon emissions standards.
Administrator Scott Pruitt's conclusion yesterday, in a widely panned interview with CNBC, that carbon dioxide is not the main driver behind climate change encouraged Barton (Greenwire, March 9).
"I would be hopeful that they do an honest assessment of it," the congressman told reporters today. Barton called the finding promulgated by then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson "a joke," saying: "It was shoddy. It was full of half facts."
"If Administrator Pruitt wants to go back and do it right, God bless him, and I'll support him," said Barton, who would play an influential role in any House assault on greenhouse gas regulations.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), head of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on the Environment, has named Barton the point man on any effort targeting carbon dioxide as part of Shimkus' broad approach to reforming the Clean Air Act this Congress (E&E Daily, Feb. 17).
Barton and Shimkus are among the 120 House Republicans who have quietly lined up behind a bill to curtail EPA's ability to address climate change.
The "Stopping EPA Overreach Act," H.R. 637, sponsored by Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), would amend the Clean Air Act so that the "term 'air pollutant' does not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride."
Palmer's proposal would nullify EPA's regulation of carbon pollution, stating that "no Federal agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under current law" and "no attempt to regulate greenhouse gases should be undertaken without further Congressional action."
The bill is similar to a measure Palmer introduced last Congress aimed at overturning the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA that formed the basis for the agency's efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (Greenwire, Nov. 4, 2015).
Palmer told E&E News in a February interview that he was "optimistic" that the bill would move forward with President Trump in the White House.
Democrats, environmentalists, scientists and a smattering of Republican lawmakers who have expressed support for climate action condemned Pruitt's remarks over the last 24 hours. Their rebukes ranged from mild — "disconcerting and troubling," Rep. Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said today — to harsh.
Climate scientist Michael Mann, for instance, slammed Pruitt as an "anti-science, anti-environmental zealot and a thinly veiled shill for fossil fuel interests."
Greens are girding to mount a legal defense against what they call the Trump administration's "coming assault" on EPA climate policy (E&E News PM, March 7).
Legislative attempts to blunt EPA's authority over carbon would have a much slimmer chance in the Senate, where Republicans have been delayed in their attempt to pass a resolution striking down Obama-era methane regulations on the oil and gas industry.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/10/stories/1060051308
-
NAS President Pushes Back Against Pruitt's CO2 Remarks
Mar 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
Marcia McNutt, the president of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), is adding her voice to the chorus of those criticizing EPA administrator Scott Pruitt's recent comments denying that carbon dioxide is a “primary contributor” to climate change.
“The National Academy confirms that the 40% rise in CO2 in the last 40 years is the main cause of climate change,” said McNutt in a March 9 tweet.
Pruitt drew widespread criticism March 9 when he cast doubt on whether CO2 is a “primary” contributor to global warming, a statement sharply at odds with mainstream climate science.
In her tweet, McNutt -- the former head of the U.S. Geological Survey -- linked to a 2014 report, issued jointly with the Royal Society, titled Climate Change: Evidence and Causes.
According to the report's summary, “continued emissions of [GHGs] will cause further climate change, including substantial increases in global average surface temperature and important changes in regional climate. The magnitude and timing of these changes will depend on many factors, and slowdowns and accelerations in warming lasting a decade or more will continue to occur. However, long-term climate change over many decades will depend mainly on the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activities.”
McNutt also chaired a NAS panel on climate geoengineering that in 2015 urged policymakers to discuss possible new governance structures to monitor research on the riskiest climate "intervention" options, but concluded that such engineering is no substitute for dramatic GHG emissions cuts.
"Efforts to address climate change should continue to focus most heavily on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in combination with adapting to the impacts of climate change," the panel said, "because these approaches do not present poorly defined and poorly quantified risks and are at a greater state of technological readiness."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/nas-president-pushes-back-against-pruitts-co2-remarks
-
Order To Repeal Obama Climate Rule Expected Tomorrow
Mar 13, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Robin Bravender
President Trump is expected to formally begin dismantling the Obama administration's signature climate change rule this week.
The president will likely sign an "energy independence" executive order tomorrow aimed at repealing the Clean Power Plan — a rule to limit power plants' greenhouse gas emissions — according to a source close to the Trump administration late last night.
The move has been widely expected after Trump repeatedly vowed to overturn the rule. His pick to lead U.S. EPA, former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt (R), made a name for himself fighting that and other environmental rules in court.
Trump was slated to sign the order last week, but its release was pushed back. A White House spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the timing or contents of the expected directive.
In addition to the Clean Power Plan, Trump's order could also affect other rules from EPA or the Interior Department that affect energy production, according to the source close to the administration.
The White House was rumored to be considering including language to repeal the coal-leasing moratorium on federal lands, and some stakeholders speculated that the order could be even broader to direct the repeal of additional Obama administration environmental rules.
Trump is planning to sign at least one executive order later today, according to the White House. It's titled "Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch," which could mean sweeping changes for the federal government, although the White House didn't provide specifics about its plans.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/13/stories/1060051321
-
Cal/EPA Chief Touts Cap-And-Trade Amid Doubts
Mar 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Amid growing doubts about the effectiveness and unintended consequences of California's greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program, the head of Cal/EPA is going out of his way to tout the benefits and advantages of continuing the program beyond 2020.
"It is our sense . . . that the cap-and-trade program provides flexibility so that emissions reductions can be made in a way that is cost-effective and also sends important market signals that will drive innovation and investment in new technologies that will help the California economy," Cal/EPA Secretary Matt Rodriquez told members of a state Assembly budget panel during a March 8 hearing.
As reported exclusively by Inside Cal/EPA's Curt Barry, Rodriquez also commended the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) proposed GHG regulatory "scoping plan" to achieve the state's 2030 GHG target of 40 percent below 1990 levels, which features the cap-and-trade program as its centerpiece.
And he effectively endorsed California Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) call in January that lawmakers pass an "urgency" bill in 2017 by a two-thirds super-majority to extend CARB's cap-and-trade program to 2030. California law requires a two-thirds vote threshold to pass urgency measures that take effect immediately and also to implement new taxes. Such a vote would ensure that the program could not be challenged in the future as an illegal tax, officials say.
The current cap-and-trade program is being challenged by industry groups in state appellate court as an illegal tax, and a decision from the court is expected by the end of April.
Rodriquez told the lawmakers that the cap-and-trade program also "has been providing the resources that we need to reinvest in our communities, particularly in our most disadvantaged communities," through previous appropriations of auction revenue.
"To date, the state has appropriated nearly $3.4 billion from cap-and-trade auction proceeds," he said. "And while the purpose of this funding is to reduce emissions, programs using cap-and-trade funding have also been providing jobs and a variety of other economic health and environmental benefits to communities."
He added: "We're confident that with the full suite of measures proposed by [ARB] in the scoping plan, we will be able to ensure that California has the most effective policies for reaching these ambitious goals and investing in our communities. And it will be important to demonstrate California's continued commitment to fighting climate change. And that's why we look forward to working with the Legislature to have reauthorization of this important program."
But some leading Democrats in the California Legislature have said the cap-and-trade program should be reined in based on initial studies showing that pollution from industrial facilities in some disadvantaged communities have actually gone up since the program was put into place. They recently passed legislation directing CARB to adopt more direct regulations on industrial sources to reduce both GHGs and conventional air pollutants.
Additionally, environmental justice advocates have convinced CARB to delay a vote on major amendments to cap-and-trade, which could lead to the board adopting further restrictions on the use of offset credits under the program and scaling back the number of free GHG allowances that are allocated to industry sectors.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/calepa-chief-touts-cap-and-trade-amid-doubts
-
How The EPA Chief Could Gut The Agency’s Climate Change Regulations
Mar 12, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is fueling speculation that he could try to repeal the lynchpin of the federal government’s climate change regulations.
In an interview Thursday with CNBC, Scott Pruitt cast doubt on his own agency’s 2009 conclusion that greenhouse gases “endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.”
The so-called endangerment finding was the backbone of the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. Under Obama, the EPA argued that the 2009 finding compelled it to issue greenhouse gas emissions limits for sectors like cars, trucks and power plants.
But as Pruitt and President Trump look to unwind Obama’s major climate policies, the endangerment finding might be imperiled.
“You know what’s interesting about the situation with CO2, Joe, is we’ve had a Supreme Court decision in 2007 and then the endangerment finding that you’re making reference to in 2009,” Pruitt told CNBC host Joe Kernan, referring to the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts v. EPA decision — the court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and the EPA has to determine whether they should be regulated.
“Nowhere in the continuum, nowhere in the equation, has Congress spoken. The legislative branch has not addressed this issue at all,” Pruitt said.
“The decision in 2007 was not that the EPA had to regulate. The decision in 2007 was they needed to make a decision.”
Pruitt also stated that “I would not agree that [carbon dioxide is] a primary contributor to the global warming that we see,” a comment that is at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change.
His comments contrast with what he told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee at his January confirmation hearing.
“That is the law of the land,” he said of the Supreme Court ruling and the endangerment finding.
In March 2016, Trump said in a survey from the fossil fuel industry-funded American Energy Alliance that he would review the finding if elected.
Repealing the finding would undermine the basis for some of Obama’s environmental agenda and wipe out a major argument in favor of government regulation of such emissions.
But experts say rolling back the endangerment finding would be a difficult task. The EPA would have to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process — complete with notice and public comment — gather an extensive body of science to justify the change, and then face nearly certain court challenges.
“This would be a very steep climb, because what he said goes against decades of science showing that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and is warming the planet,” said Noah Sachs, a law professor a the University of Richmond and member scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform.
Neither Pruitt nor Trump has committed to a review since the inauguration. But Pruitt’s Thursday comments are stirring hopes and fears.
“I think that Administrator Pruitt’s comments are suggestive of their thinking, and eventually they will decide that it is really necessary to reopen the finding,” said Myron Ebell, an outspoken climate change skeptic who leads energy and environment policy at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. Ebell also led the transition efforts for Trump at the EPA.
“I would be hopeful that they do an honest assessment of it. The Obama endangerment finding is a joke,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
“It was shoddy, it was full of half-facts. So if Administrator Pruitt wants to go back and do it right, God bless him, and I’ll support him.”
Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the Energy Committee’s top Democrat, said he wouldn’t be surprised if Pruitt, who battled the EPA in court as Oklahoma’s attorney general, went after the finding.
“I’m convinced that Scott Pruitt was sent to EPA in order to undermine all the environmental protections and international agreements however he thinks he can accomplish things,” he said.
“I don’t think anything’s off-limits for him. I don’t think he even believes in the EPA.”
To roll the finding back, the administration would likely have to provide scientific proof that greenhouse gases do not harm the public health and welfare, or that regulatory action could not mitigate that harm.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant in the same way that particulate matter or nitrogen oxides are, since breathing it in normal amounts is not dangerous.
But the Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act had a “capacious” definition of “air pollutant,” and that due to climate change, carbon dioxide fit well within that category.
The finding has already withstood court scrutiny. A coalition of states and industry groups sued the EPA over the 2009 finding, and it was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 2012. The Supreme Court declined to take the case.
Separately, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) tried unsuccessfully to have it overturned in Congress.
“It’s impossible to compile a record that would undo the endangerment finding, because it was based on sound science,” said Joanne Spalding, the Sierra Club’s head climate attorney.
“It is based on the scientific consensus that has been building and strengthening over the years since the endangerment finding was made,” she said. “Everything points to reaffirming that finding. There is no science out there that would allow the agency to withdraw it.”
Sachs said federal courts would scrutinize the scientific backing for any withdrawal.
“In administrative law, agencies are allowed to change their minds, that’s the natural flow of politics,” he said. “But they have to support their new positions with adequate scientific evidence. And I don’t think that the EPA can do that in this case.”
The Trump administration’s allies are confident that science is on their side.
Ebell said the 2009 finding was not compliant with the Information Quality Act because it used climate models that are not reliable.
“No matter how much they talk about how much the models are improving, it’s still true that the models cannot yield predictions of the future, because the climate is a nonlinear, chaotic system,” he said.
To Barton, the scientific questions have a simple answer: Carbon dioxide is not dangerous.
“I don’t think it’s a harm to humankind. CO2 is a naturally occurring compound. I am creating it as I’m talking to you,” he said. “We’ve got to believe all those esoteric theory about what’s going to happen 100 years from now to think it is.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/323493-how-the-epa-chief-could-gut-the-agencys-climate-change-regulations
-
Carbon Dioxide Levels In Atmosphere Hit New High
Mar 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels hit a new high last year and have only continued to climb in the first two months of 2017, federal scientists reported Friday.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a U.S. observatory in Hawaii rose by 3 parts per million (ppm) to 405.1 ppm last year, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Carbon dioxide levels jumped by 3 ppm between 2015 and 2016 and have “surged” by 6 ppm over two years, a level of growth unseen in the Mauna Loa observatory’s 59-year history, NOAA said.
NOAA noted that it has already observed a carbon dioxide level topping 406 ppm this year. The agency called it “a real shock to the atmosphere.”
“The rate of CO2 growth over the last decade is 100 to 200 times faster than what the Earth experienced during the transition from the last Ice Age,” Pieter Tans, the lead scientist of NOAA's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, said in a statement.
Many scientists warned for years that carbon dioxide levels should not rise above 400 parts per million — a level 43 percent higher than pre-industrial times — if the worst of climate change was to be avoided. The global carbon dioxide average passed that mark in 2015.
The vast majority of climate scientists agree that increased greenhouse gas emissions — driven by human activity like fossil fuel consumption — are behind global climate change.
But conservative U.S. policymakers continue to dispute that consensus view, including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who this week said he “would not agree” that carbon emissions are a “primarily contributor to the global warming that we see.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/323447-carbon-dioxide-levels-in-atmosphere-hit-new-high
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested