Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 4/26/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Finish Strong First Quarter
Apr 26, 2017 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reports that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes ended the first quarter on a strong note, rising 0.6 percent in March. This follows a similar 0.6 percent gain in February. -
Anti-Consumer Lobby Gave Big to Senator Pushing Regulatory Accountability Act
Apr 26, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Jared Hayes and Scott Faber
Corporate political action committees, trade associations and individuals lobbying to gut basic consumer protections gave $3.3 million to the 2016 campaign of Sen. Rob Portman, sponsor of a bill that would effectively block new consumer protection rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA New Chemicals Programme Named a Top Regulatory Burden
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical manufacturers say the TSCA new chemicals review programme is one of the biggest regulatory burdens impeding domestic manufacturing, according to recent comments submitted to the Department of Commerce. -
Meetings Scheduled on Possible Changes to Formaldehyde Standard
Apr 26, 2017 | Floor Daily
Consistent with Executive Order 13777, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is hosting two meetings on May 1 to solicit input on regulations promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) that could be repealed, replaced, or modified to make them less burdensome. -
Asbestos Still a Public Health Problem According to CDC
Apr 26, 2017 | Legal Reader
By Jay W. Belle Isle
When you say the words “asbestos” and “mesothelioma,” the first thing to comes to many people’s minds is often “isn’t that problem about over?” Sadly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asbestos is still a big public health problem. -
Target to Phase Out Expanded Polystyrene Packaging
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
US retailer Target has vouched to eliminate expanded polystyrene (EPS) in its own brand packaging by 2022 because it is "a pain to recycle" and "a major cause of ocean plastic contamination". -
The Netherlands, Echa Mull PAHs Restriction Proposal for Recycled Rubber Crumb
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The Netherlands and Echa are exploring whether the current restriction of the content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in articles could be expanded to recycled rubber crumb used on artificial sports pitches. -
Drilling Potential Brings New Worry: Will There be Money to Map?
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
U.S. Geological Survey geologist David Houseknecht has been busy lately, fielding calls from state and federal agencies about new drilling potential in icy Alaska. -
Not Everybody in the Oil Patch Fears the Robots
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Thousands of oil and gas workers piled into downtown conference spaces here recently to hear representatives of California company Esri Inc. explain its latest breakthroughs in geographic information systems (GIS) software and technologies. -
Safety Incidents on the Rise After Decade of Decline
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Liquid pipeline accidents of all kinds have gone up over the past five years after 10 years of decline, according to industry data released this week. -
Sources: EPA's Pruitt Urged Miners to Press Trump to Exit Climate Pact
Apr 26, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia
A coal mining industry group's board of directors voted on Tuesday to press President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement — just one day after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with the group's leadership and urged them to push the issue, two sources told POLITICO. -
Trump's Already Making His Mark on Climate
Apr 26, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
President Donald Trump's aggressive rollback of the Obama administration's climate policies is already changing the trajectory of the world's efforts on global warming, with some analysts estimating it will mean billions more tons of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere during the next decade and a half. -
GOP Divisions on Pact Go Public as Decision Nears
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Partisans on both sides of the question about whether to exit the Paris climate deal made a final push over the last two days before administration principals meet at the White House tomorrow. -
Democratic AGs Fight Bill to Revamp Ozone Regulations
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Democratic state attorneys general are objecting to legislation that would rewrite key facets of the Clean Air Act and freeze implementation of U.S. EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard until the middle of the next decade. -
States, Industry Raise Implementation Concerns Over Cyanotoxins Criteria
Apr 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are raising implementation concerns about EPA's draft recreational water quality criteria for the cyanotoxins microcystins and cylindrospermopsin, including how states will use the criteria in discharge permits and monitoring for compliance, while questioning the science behind the criteria.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Specialty Chemicals Markets Finish Strong First Quarter
Apr 26, 2017 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) reports that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes ended the first quarter on a strong note, rising 0.6 percent in March. This follows a similar 0.6 percent gain in February.
Volumes have generally been moving up since May. All changes in the data are reported on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis. Of the 28 specialty chemical segments we monitor, 20 expanded in March, five markets experienced decline, and three were flat. During March, large gains (1.0 percent and over) occurred in mining chemicals and oilfield chemicals.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was up 1.9 percent on a year-over-year (Y/Y) 3MMA basis. The index stood at 106.1 percent of its average 2012 levels. This is equivalent to 7.34 billion lb. The downturn in the oil and gas sector had affected headline volumes and weakness spread to other segments. Year-earlier comparisons were negative from second quarter 2015 through second quarter 2016 but are now improving as the recovery in the oil and gas sector has engaged and is now aiding head-line volumes. On a Y/Y basis, there were gains among 19 market and functional specialty chemical segments.
Click here for information about the PBS Toronto event, May 16-18, 2017
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics, and food, among others.
Specialty chemicals differ from commodity chemicals. They may only have one or two uses, while commodities may have multiple or different applications for each chemical. Commodity chemicals make up most of the production volume in the global marketplace, while specialty chemicals make up most of the diversity in commerce at any given time, and are relatively high value with greater market growth rates.
This data is the only timely source of market trends for twenty-eight market and functional specialty chemical segments. Chemistry directly touches over ninety-six percent of all manufactured goods, and trends in these specialty chemical segments provide a detailed view of trends in manufacturing. The data also sheds light on how various consumer end-use markets are performing compared to others in the marketplace.
http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/U-S-Specialty-Chemicals-Markets-Finish-Strong-First-Quarter-04-26-2017
-
Anti-Consumer Lobby Gave Big to Senator Pushing Regulatory Accountability Act
Apr 26, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Jared Hayes and Scott Faber
Corporate political action committees, trade associations and individuals lobbying to gut basic consumer protections gave $3.3 million to the 2016 campaign of Sen. Rob Portman, sponsor of a bill that would effectively block new consumer protection rules.
Today Portman introduced the Senate version of H.R. 5, the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require endless agency studies and two layers of judicial and Congressional review before new consumer protection rules could be adopted. EWG and other opponents of the bill say that in practice, proposed rules would never be able to clear the roadblocks.
Using records from Open Secrets, EWG found trade associations, PACs and individuals linked to companies that have lobbied for H.R. 5 and other bills designed to block basic health and safety rules contributed $3.3 million to Portman’s campaign in 2016 – nearly half of all political donations to the Ohio Republican last year.
PACs and individuals tied to big oil and gas companies such as Koch Industries or big retailers such as Home Depot are among those who contributed to Portman in 2016 and also lobbied for the Regulatory Accountability Act or similar bills.
EWG identified 125 companies with associated PACs or individuals who contributed to Portman and either lobbied for so-called regulatory reform bills or are members of trade associations lobbying for these bills. The trade associations include the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Those 125 contributors represent more than one-fourth of the 470 corporate PACs and individuals who contributed to Portman’s campaign.
Under H.R. 5, the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other federal agencies proposing new rules would have to first consider an endless array of regulatory options. Then, the proposed rules would have to withstand two layers of review by judges newly charged to second-guess agency experts. Finally, any new rule would have to be approved by both the Senate and the House.
While not as sweeping as H.R. 5, the bill introduced today by Portman would serve as the basis for negotiations between the House and Senate.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/04/anti-consumer-lobby-gave-big-senator-pushing-regulatory-accountability-act
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA New Chemicals Programme Named a Top Regulatory Burden
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Chemical manufacturers say the TSCA new chemicals review programme is one of the biggest regulatory burdens impeding domestic manufacturing, according to recent comments submitted to the Department of Commerce.
The feedback came in response to a request from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross Jr, who asked American manufacturers for input on the "unnecessary burdens manufacturers face from federal permitting and regulatory requirements". This was issued at the direction of President Trump’s 24 January memo on reducing such burdens for domestic manufacturers.
In its response, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) named among the "four most burdensome regulations impacting companies" the TSCA new chemicals review programme, and the backlog for review of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) that has grown since passage of the Lautenberg Act last year.
3M agreed that the new chemicals programme is among the most onerous, and said the current delays result in a "powerful disincentive to manufacture new chemicals in the US".
It said the EPA could improve this process by "restoring clarity on information requirements and maximising use of modelling and analogue data to minimise the need for animal testing".
The ACC suggested that the agency resume the use of non-5(e) significant new use rules (Snurs) and explore alternatives ways of mitigating identified risks beyond consent orders.
TSCA proposals cause concern
Other industry groups criticised proposals introduced under the recently reformed TSCA.
The American Wood Council, for example, said the EPA’s approach under its proposed TSCA risk evaluation rule to evaluate all foreseeable uses of a chemical in commerce would lead to "overly conservative assessment for uses that have a low exposure potential".
It urged the agency to identify substances with low exposure as low priority for risk evaluation, and to rely on best available science and weight of evidence in its assessments.
Petrochemicals manufacturer Valero raised concerns with the TSCA ‘inventory reset’ proposal and the potential for substances identified as ‘inactive’ to be restricted from import. It called for clarification on enforcement of this issue.
And the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance said three proposed TSCA section 6 rules that would ban certain uses of trichloroethylene, methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) should not be adopted, as "the existing comprehensive regulatory framework adequately protects worker, consumer and public health."
"TSCA was intended as gap-filling legislation. Here there is no gap to fill," it added.
Overlapping regulations, risk assessments
Other groups urged the department to reduce regulatory overlap and "redundant" agency efforts.
The American Composites Manufacturers Association (Acma) questioned the necessity of various chemical hazard and risk assessment activities, including the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), TSCA risk evaluations, the Center for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) and the National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens (NTP RoC).
"Many of these redundant programmes could be profitably eliminated and the resource savings invested in improving the quality, reliability and timeliness of a well-managed and properly focused chemical risk assessment programme," it said.
The plastics industry trade group PLASTICS urged collaboration and communication between federal, state and agencies in countries such as Canada to reduce overlap.
Additional issues, suggestions
In addition to concerns with the new TSCA, industry groups pointed to a wide array of regulatory schemes, under several agencies, as sources of frustration.
The Motor Equipment Manufacturers Association (Mema) and electronics trade group IPC both named the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) conflict minerals reporting rule among the most burdensome regulatory requirements for domestic manufacturers.
Mema also said that recent changes to the standard for occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica were "not necessary and the rule does not provide any additional safety benefit".
The American Petroleum Institute (API) called for "balanced" representation on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) from industry, which it says has often been excluded due to financial conflicts of interest. "We recommend that the SAB Office reconsider how it views a balanced panel and be encouraged to evaluate fairly the full suite of candidates interested in serving in this capacity."
A diverse coalition of trade groups – comprising the American Home Furnishings Alliance, the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association, the International Wood Products Associations, the Recreational Vehicle Industry Association, the National Retail Federation and the Retail Industry Leaders Association – called on the Trump administration to "substantially improve or eliminate" theEPA’s formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products.
The new regulation will "severely disrupt the supply chain for US businesses manufacturing and selling" a wide variety of products, it said.
The costs and burdens associated with the EPA’s nanomaterials reporting rule were flagged up by several groups, including the American Coatings Association (ACA) and the Nanomanufacturing Association (NMA).
The Steel Manufacturers Association and the Specialty Steel Industry of North America questioned the utility of information the steel industry is required to furnish under the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule. They said it was "difficult to see the purpose" of the requirement.
And the ACC named aspects of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Osha) 2012 Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) among the industry’s biggest regulatory burdens. It took particular issue with the requirement that threshold limit values set by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) must be included in safety data sheets (SDSs).
"Federal agencies should not require the use of what are essentially de facto private standards without notice and comment," said the ACC’s comments.
It also urged the department to evaluate other instances when agencies refer to "private sector standards or other mechanisms that have not been subject to broad stakeholder input and comment", such as the EPA’s recommendation for federal purchasers to use schemes like Cradle to Cradle and the Living Building Challenge.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55418/tsca-new-chemicals-programme-named-a-top-regulatory-burden
-
Meetings Scheduled on Possible Changes to Formaldehyde Standard
Apr 26, 2017 | Floor Daily
Consistent with Executive Order 13777, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is hosting two meetings on May 1 to solicit input on regulations promulgated under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) that could be repealed, replaced, or modified to make them less burdensome.
On February 24, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing the Regulatory Agenda. The Executive Order (EO) establishes the “policy of the United States to alleviate unnecessary regulatory burdens placed on the American people.” Among other things, it requires each agency to create a Regulatory Reform Task Force to evaluate existing regulations and to identify regulations that should be repealed, replaced, or modified.
OCSPP is holding two public meetings (both of which the public is invited to participate in person or via teleconference) on May 1 so that we can listen and learn from those directly impacted by our regulations.
The first meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m, and will address regulations promulgated under TSCA Subchapters I (Control of Toxic Substances), II (Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response), VI (Formaldehyde Standards for Composite Wood Products), as well as EPCRA Subchapter II §11023 (Toxic chemical release forms), commonly referred to as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). These are regulations addressing chemical risk review and reduction programs including new and existing chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, mercury and formaldehyde, as well as regulations implementing the TRI.
The second meeting will be held from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and will address regulations promulgated under TSCA Subchapter IV (Lead Exposure Reduction). These regulations address implementation of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, Lead Abatement Program, Residential Lead-based Paint Disclosure Rule, and Residential Hazard Standards for Lead in Paint, Dust and Soil.
Interested parties are invited to provide input on these actions during the public meeting/teleconference or by submitting written comments to the EPA-wide docket using docket number: EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190. The docket, which is accessible through www.regulations.gov, will remain open through May 15. OCSPP will give equal consideration to input provided through either of these methods.
For questions about this process, please contact Darlene Leonard at leonard.darlene@epa.gov. For more information about this effort, please visit https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/regulatory-reform.
Persons interested in attending the meeting on TSCA Subchapters I, II and VI, and EPCRA Subchapter II §11023, either in person or remotely, may register at https://tsca-tri.eventbrite.com.
Those interested in participating in the meeting on TSCA Subchapter IV, either in person or remotely, may register at https://tsca-pb.eventbrite.com.
http://www.floordaily.net/flooring-news/hpva-offers-meeting-on-possible-formaldehyde-standard-changes
-
Asbestos Still a Public Health Problem According to CDC
Apr 26, 2017 | Legal Reader
By Jay W. Belle Isle
When you say the words “asbestos” and “mesothelioma,” the first thing to comes to many people’s minds is often “isn’t that problem about over?” Sadly, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), asbestos is still a big public health problem. In fact, mesothelioma and asbestosis, along with other asbestos-related conditions, are still killing thousands of Americans each year.
The CDC report showed 45,221 mesothelioma deaths between 1999 and 2015, even with heavy regulation of the material by various federal agencies. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) began regulating asbestos exposure limits in 1971. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) became involved, developing standards for the construction industry. These standards covered issues such as proper handling of asbestos-containing materials, and inspecting, renovating, and demolishing buildings containing these materials. The materials include paint, shingles, vinyl tiles, roofing and insulation.
Throughout the 1970s, the EPA issued several bans on asbestos-containing materials. The agency was joined in 1977 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which issued a ban on “asbestos in artificial fireplace embers and wall patching compounds.” The EPA issued a ban under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of “most asbestos-containing products” in 1989. One would have thought that was the beginning of the end of the problem. One would be wrong.
According to the regulatory history of asbestos bans published by the EPA, “…in 1991, this rule was vacated and remanded by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result, most of the original ban on the manufacture, importation, processing, or distribution in commerce for the majority of the asbestos-containing products originally covered in the 1989 final rule was overturned.”
In other words, Americans’ safety was sent almost back to square one. The EPA history in the above link also provides a list of products that are no longer banned due to that ruling, as well as a list of products that are still banned.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the CDC) provides an excellent educational site on asbestos exposure. Key points from that site include:
“Today, the populations most heavily exposed to asbestos are those in construction trades.
In the past, pipe fitters, shipyard workers, military workers, automobile mechanics, and people in many other occupations were also exposed.
In the past, household contacts of asbestos workers were exposed to asbestos dust carried home on workers’ skin and clothing.
People in homes and buildings with loose, crumbling, or disturbed asbestos materials can be exposed to asbestos.
During renovations or asbestos abatement, asbestos materials should be encapsulated or removed by trained and certified asbestos contractors.
Asbestos embedded in intact solid materials poses little risk of exposure as long as it remains intact and undisturbed.
Natural outcroppings of asbestos can lead to human exposure in a number of ways.
Natural and technological disasters can lead to asbestos exposure.”
Given that mesothelioma may not appear for 20 to 70 years after exposure, the CDC notes that the biggest increase in asbestos-related deaths is in those 85 years of age and over. The Center also found that there was an overall reduction in deaths in the 35 to 65 year age range. The most frightening discovery, however, is the fact that there are people under 55 years of age who are dying of asbestos-related diseases. This is so even with the federal regulations that survived the Fifth Circuit’s 1991 ruling.
This latest group of people dealing with asbestos-related disease, often called the “third wave”, was exposed to asbestos largely through building renovations and demolitions. Historically, the “first wave” included asbestos miners and manufacturers and the “second wave” was those in the trades, such as shipbuilders and pipe fitters.
The CDC report states that there seems to have been a decline in asbestos on worksites from 1979 to 2003. However, “20 percent of air samples collected in the construction industry in 2003 for compliance purposes exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit [for asbestos].” This is disturbing.
Even more disturbing is information contained in a report on the CDC’s findings published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on April 11. The report states that “Asbestos production stopped in the United States in 2002, but it is imported into the country to produce chemicals used in manufacturing common items such as soap, fertilizers, and alkaline batteries.” According to the U.S. Geological Survey, over 350 metric tons of asbestos were used in the U.S. in 2015.
The CDC researchers write that “[t]he continuing occurrence of malignant mesothelioma deaths underscores the need for maintaining asbestos exposure prevention efforts and for ongoing surveillance.” It remains to be seen how much of that will actually happen given the pro-business/anti-safety thrust of the current administration.
Those who fight for people harmed by asbestos also deal with this uncertainty on a daily basis. Asbestos attorney Justinian Lane said, “It’s unfortunate that this administration either doesn’t know, or doesn’t care that asbestos is still killing American workers. Over 150 of my firm’s asbestos clients have died in the past three years. I’m sure their families would be happy to explain to the science-literate members of this administration that, despite what bought-and-paid-for lobbyists may say, asbestos really is deadly.”
The EPA has published guidelines for consumers on identifying asbestos-containing products and getting them safely removed when undertaking a renovation project.
http://www.legalreader.com/asbestos-still-a-public-health-problem/
-
Target to Phase Out Expanded Polystyrene Packaging
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
US retailer Target has vouched to eliminate expanded polystyrene (EPS) in its own brand packaging by 2022 because it is "a pain to recycle" and "a major cause of ocean plastic contamination".
The company will work with its suppliers to find environmentally sustainable alternatives to EPS, taking into account the performance, cost and availability of materials.
The move comes after pressure from shareholder advocacy group As You Sow, which filed a shareholder proposal in February asking the company to phase out polystyrene in its products because of marine pollution concerns. The group withdrew the proposal shortly before Target announced its new policy.
As You Sow filed similar shareholder proposals with Amazon and Walmart. And it has asked McDonald's to phase out polystyrene foam cups globally. The company mostly switched to paper cups in 2013 but still uses the material in some locations.
The reason for As You Sow's concern is polystyrene packaging's major contribution to marine pollution. It is rarely recycled and easily swept into waterways, where it breaks down into small pellets which marine animals ingest and often die from.
A recent report by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation named replacing polystyrene and EPS, along with PVC, a priority in the fight against increasing ocean plastic contamination.
Human health concerns
NGOs Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) praised Target's decision to move away from EPS. SCHF said the material is "an environmental and human health nightmare. Its manufacture exposes workers and communities to styrene, a known carcinogen."
The US EPA has not formally classified styrene as carcinogenic. But California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed it as such under Proposition 65.
SCHF hopes Target will expand its policy to tackle other packaging materials of concern, such as BPA and highly fluorinated chemicals.
EDF said the retail chain's initiative "provides a real demonstration of its pledge to tackle chemicals of concern up the supply chain".
The group had also applauded Target's chemicals policy, which includes plans to phase out phthalates, NPEs, parabens, formaldehyde and formaldehyde-donors from formulated products the store sells by 2020. This will include beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning products.
Target has also committed to phasing out perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) and flame retardants from textiles – including clothing, carpets and upholstered furniture – by 2022.
Its pledge to phase out EPS is one of five sustainable packaging goals. The others concern increasing its use of recyclable materials, and sustainable sourcing of paper-based packaging.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55425/target-to-phase-out-expanded-polystyrene-packaging
-
The Netherlands, Echa Mull PAHs Restriction Proposal for Recycled Rubber Crumb
Apr 26, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The Netherlands and Echa are exploring whether the current restriction of the content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in articles could be expanded to recycled rubber crumb used on artificial sports pitches.
The agency and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) have conducted separate studies, which concluded that the crumb poses a low health risk.
However, in its study report, Echa says that if the concentration of PAHs would be as high as the generic limit defined in REACH for mixtures supplied to the general public, the level of concern "would not be low". It added that changes to REACH should be considered.
"The current applicable limit value is not seen as protective enough, even though current concentration levels do not seem to pose much of a problem," Jochem van der Waals, senior policy adviser at the Dutch ministry of infrastructure and environment, told Chemical Watch. He said the Netherlands and Echa are discussing a draft restriction proposal.
Recycled rubber granules are regarded as mixtures. REACH restrictions that apply to this type in Annex XVII are found in:
entry five on benzene – limited to less than 0.1% by weight; and
entries 28-30 on carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic (CMR) substances (categories 1A and 1B).
At the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) in March, several EU and EEA member states supported the idea of a draft restriction proposal, including Belgium, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden.
The Danish EPA and the Austrian environment ministry told Chemical Watch they also support this approach.
Chemical Watch understands a follow-up discussion on the subject could take place at the next Caracal meeting in June.
In the US, the EPA and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are seeking to gather data for two studies on crumb rubber used in synthetic turf fields.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55434/the-netherlands-echa-mull-pahs-restriction-proposal-for-recycled-rubber-crumb
-
Drilling Potential Brings New Worry: Will There be Money to Map?
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Brittany Patterson
U.S. Geological Survey geologist David Houseknecht has been busy lately, fielding calls from state and federal agencies about new drilling potential in icy Alaska.
A recent spate of major oil and gas discoveries from companies operating in the federally managed National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and on state lands has bolstered hope for a drilling renaissance in the state.
"This has a huge bearing on not only federal lands, but also state lands in terms of the potential," Houseknecht said.
A fight could be brewing if the Interior Department, whose agencies manage the petroleum reserve, capitalizes on drilling interests or relax federal standards to facilitate current and future oil finds, including those on or touching the outer continental shelf.
"That will be a new challenge for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management under the new administration, whether or not to open areas like that," Houseknecht said. "I would anticipate contentious discussions being held in the Department of the Interior and elsewhere downtown this year."
Those discussions kick off in earnest this week.
In a nod to the industry, President Trump is expected to sign an executive order Friday that triggers a review of offshore waters currently off-limits to drilling. Supporters are hopeful the order will undo a December decision made by President Obama to permanently withdraw most of the U.S. Arctic from energy development. The administration will also likely direct the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) to review its recently released offshore oil and gas leasing plan covering 2017 through 2022. The final five-year plan did not offer lease sales in the Atlantic or Arctic.
On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly said he would open more public lands to energy development. Offshore energy industry groups have pressed the president to loosen restrictions. Early this month, Republican Alaskan Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan introduced a bill requiring Interior to hold at least three lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and the Cook Inlet during each five-year planning period and calling for Obama's Arctic ban to be overturned.
During a recent Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Murkowski touted the great energy-producing potential of her state.
Enviros vow a fight
Last month, Denver-based Armstrong Energy announced a 1.4-billion-barrel oil find on state lands. ConocoPhillips Co. has discovered at least 300 million barrels of recoverable oil at its new Willow oil field located within the NPR-A.
When Caelus Energy LLC estimated its Smith Bay discovery, located north of the NPR-A in state waters, could contain 2.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, Houseknecht said he was floored. Although the wells are located on state lands, developing the oil would require construction of commercial facilities and a pipeline across protected reserve lands (Energywire, March 3).
The federal government estimates there are at least 26 billion barrels of oil in Alaska's Chukchi and Beaufort seas alone. In 2010, the USGS downgraded the NPR-A's undiscovered oil reserves from 10.6 billion to 896 million barrels, although Houseknecht said in light of the new discoveries his team is likely going to conduct an updated assessment soon.
Environmental groups have indicated they will fight Trump's coming order, especially any attempt to circumvent Obama's use of one authority, Section 12(a), under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to withdraw unleased lands on the outer continental shelf (Climatewire, April 5). Obama placed the entire Chukchi Sea and a "significant portion" of the Beaufort Sea, as well as 31 underwater canyons in the Atlantic, under permanent protection.
"I think a review would show that drilling in the areas that are now withdrawn from recent eligibility was very risky, incredibly expensive, highly time consuming and completely unnecessary for Americans' energy needs," said Niel Lawrence, Alaska director and senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The best thing we could do to try and craft a strong energy policy for the U.S. is to take these areas off the table."
The extremely costly nature of oil exploration in Alaska has not gone unnoticed by industry.
Ahead: 'A lot of big decisions'
Last year, Royal Dutch Shell PLC relinquished all but one of its federal offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea after spending more than $7 billion in Alaska exploration that yielded no significant oil discoveries. ConocoPhillips and others have also given up their federal leases. In a recent interview with Morning Consult, Joe Naylor, vice president of policy, government and public affairs for Chevron Corp., said increased access to the oil reserves off Alaska's coast wouldn't affect the oil giant as it has "zero activity" there.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said in an email the company is also currently not pursuing deepwater exploration, "but exploration will remain a key component of the company's growth strategy."
"We feel it is always important to advocate for access to resources, including those on the outer continental shelf," he said.
For Houseknecht, regardless of where federal policy is headed, the recent Alaskan discoveries show the importance of mapping undiscovered areas and redoing those assessments when new information becomes available. That philosophy is not represented in Trump's first budget proposal. USGS would receive about $900 million, its lowest level of funding since fiscal 2002.
Houseknecht's team of scientists, engineers and geologists use data from exploratory wells, but mostly from seismic surveys to peer deep into the frozen earth and waters. In the late 1970s and early '80s, USGS sent geologists all across the NPR-A to drill exploratory wells and search for oil. These days, the budget does not even allow Houseknecht the opportunity to get up to Alaska every year. In mapping undiscovered oil and gas in Alaska, USGS relies on surveys donated by industry.
Still, the recent discoveries have invigorated the geologist who said each new discovery provides the team with invaluable information, even if it comes with additional policy challenges.
"There's huge potential offshore that has been revealed by all of this information, and that's going to be a very sensitive issue because it's close to shore, it's shallow water, and it's relatively shallow drilling," Houseknecht said. "There are going to be a lot of big decisions facing the administration in terms of whether to reopen the offshore to exploration in areas of high potential, but those areas commonly have subsistence and environmental issues associated with them."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/26/stories/1060053576
-
Not Everybody in the Oil Patch Fears the Robots
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
Thousands of oil and gas workers piled into downtown conference spaces here recently to hear representatives of California company Esri Inc. explain its latest breakthroughs in geographic information systems (GIS) software and technologies.
Using sophisticated multimedia presentations, California's tech workers walked the Texas oil-field hands through geospatial data management, processing and analysis. New smart apps are available, they showed, to enable real-time communication and data sharing between field operations staff, maintenance workers on location and company dispatchers in Houston or beyond. Using digital tablets, automation will allow one worker to keep an eye on dozens of wells at a time, some promised, while routine visual inspections can be done by drones or other technologies, other Esri employees explained.
The transition to a digital oil field has been long discussed but is late in actual arrival. However, the oil and gas industry appears to be finally embracing automation, robotics, digital technologies and even quasi-artificial intelligence applications, experts say, as oil companies race to stay profitable at $50-per-barrel crude. Industry insiders say this steady push toward labor-saving technologies is happening not to destroy oil and gas jobs but rather to retain and create them.
This burgeoning enthusiasm for technology runs counter to the rising fear of robots and automation in the United States now popularized in mass media and even in academia.
Authors warn darkly of millions of jobs to be lost to technology. Yet oil and gas industry consultants warn instead that the sector faces severe future workforce shortages. They say technology will be necessary not only to fill the gap but to recruit and train the next generation of oil and gas workers replacing retiring veterans with decades of experience.
Robotics "would be a big job creator here," said David Brower, president of Houston-based Astro Technology Inc. "We have a really high vision of seeing high tech integrated into the oil and gas world."
Brower is collaborating with engineers to design and build a robot to be used for inspecting offshore pipelines and subsea equipment. The idea is to have the robot at the bottom of the ocean more or less permanently, saving oil companies the millions of dollars they would otherwise spend on mobilizing a ship with a crew to deploy a remote operated vehicle. ROV operators may be pushed out, he admits, but jobs would be gained in manufacturing and maintenance of these machines.
"We think the robots will live underwater for, like, four to six months and then will come up for maintenance and then go back down, but our goal is to make these things low cost enough that they'll almost be like throwing away a laptop computer," Brower explained during an interview at his office.
For Esri, encouraging broader use of GIS technology in the industry through its ArcGIS platform enhances per-worker productivity, lowering costs for companies. Oil and gas is expanding its use of GIS technology to such an extent that next fall, Texas A&M University plans to launch an online Master of Science program in GIS technology specifically for the oil and gas workforce. It took some time for the university to come around, but it's catching up quickly, said Texas A&M geography professor Andrew Klein.
"A lot of their data has a spatial attribute, right?" Klein explained at the sidelines of the recent industry GIS conference. "So location is very important in an industry like oil and gas because your well is somewhere, your assets are in another place, and if you're dealing with spatial data, you are going to have to use GIS or some other geospatial technology to handle that work."
Michael Train, executive president of Emerson Automation Solutions, thinks future oil field work will be less analog, more digital. His business suffered from the oil price crash, as did the oil companies. But with rigs returning to the oil patch, so are his clients. They are demanding cost-saving solutions, so Emerson is offering technologies that make new and existing workers capable of doing more with less, raising their productivity.
"We have folks in pickup trucks driving around and doing things in some cases the very old-fashioned way, and I think now it's OK to have a little bit of instrumentation, a little bit of automation," Train said. "It's not going to be wrenches. It's going to be iPads or tablets."
A job creator
Oil booms are followed by busts, and post-bust adjustments see activity levels recovering, but generally with a smaller workforce. Experts say many laid-off oil workers will refuse to come back to the industry, scared off by the boom-bust cycle.
Recruiting new workers also poses challenges as the industry is faced with a younger generation with different expectations. A recent report by workforce analysts at Accenture warns that 2 percent of college graduates view oil and gas as a viable employment option.
Even during the shale oil boom, companies became adept at drilling more wells in less time and producing larger volumes of crude with smaller crews. Enhanced operational efficiencies and the application of more sand, water and horizontal wells are all combining to help U.S. shale oil come roaring back to life, even with oil prices at half what they were during the boom times. Even though payrolls are now rising, industry watchers agree that total employment will not return to the level it was at during the shale oil boom (Energywire, April 13).
Next comes technology. And technology proponents insist it will prove, in the long run, to be a net jobs creator, not destroyer, keeping U.S. shale oil and gas competitive against cheaper locales.
"Automation is going to help create a better playing field, and it's going to help lower the break-even costs on these projects, so there will be more projects," Train argues.
Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), addresses the widespread fear of robots and automation now common in the United States in a recent article published in National Review.
He attributes the growing trend of blaming technology for job losses to pundits' desire to absolve globalization and trade for the decimation of the U.S. manufacturing workforce over the past two decades, "never mind that foreign mercantilist trade practices, not computers, were responsible for more than half the manufacturing jobs lost in the 2000s."
There has been no robot revolution in U.S. manufacturing responsible for the contraction in U.S. manufacturing employment, as Atkinson points out. Numerous studies time mass manufacturing layoffs with trade liberalization and show that four dominant factors lay behind the trend: offshoring, outsourcing, import competition and the 2009 recession.
Companies and whole industries turn to technology to enhance productivity, enabling more production at lower costs while boosting workers' skills, Atkinson argues. Investments in labor-saving devices pay off in the long run, he says.
"That is why, over the last century, there has always been a negative, not positive, relationship between productivity growth and unemployment rates," Atkinson says, using as an analogy typewriters and their transformation of office work. "In other words, higher productivity meant lower unemployment as it spurred more spending and more rational exuberance. The future will be no different, unless we smash the machines."
Atkinson's argument is closer to attitudes found in other developed-world manufacturing powerhouses, like Japan. There, public opinion has not turned against technology as companies' investments in robots and software have enabled Japan to retain much more manufacturing work as a percentage of its workforce: roughly 15 percent compared with 8 percent or less in the United States. Japan is now a leading exporter of industrial robotics.
At the 2017 CERAWeek by IHS Markit, a popular energy industry forum, Siemens AG President and CEO Joe Kaeser provided the view from Germany during a discussion on the "promise and peril" of technology. He argued in favor of promise and pleaded with oil and gas executives in attendance to embrace technology, not fear it. Siemens is gearing up to preach the virtues of automation in oil and gas again at the forthcoming Offshore Technology Conference in Houston. The company is planning "Digital Dialogues," according to a spokesperson, where officials will discuss Siemens' offerings ranging "from automated process analysis to seamless data integration, remote monitoring, preemptive maintenance, and simulated training."
Train at Emerson is advising his oil and gas customers to "open themselves for change" as new technologies come to the fore. He isn't alone.
Andy Bennett, vice president for infrastructure at Schneider Electric SE, said he's been keeping busy making a similar sales pitch. Schneider Electric manufactures control and safety systems for offshore platforms.
"We're really thinking about automation requirements in parallel with the electrical infrastructure," Bennett explained, "effectively taking all of those devices and allowing them to communicate with a centralized decisionmaking platform."
Bennett's company is also talking up its virtual reality technology and how it can be employed to train new and existing workers or to even walk field hands through a specific maintenance program, logging and uploading the work instantaneously to company databases back at the office.
Schneider Electric also sees a labor crunch ahead for oil and gas. Bennett said his company is working on technologies to address the issue and keep companies humming with fewer workers and at $50-per-barrel crude.
"As you take all those interconnected devices and you start to not just think about automation but then extrapolation with that price, then you can make better asset decisions," he said. "One outcome is that you need less human interaction when you're running that facility."
For Emerson, other solutions include multiphase meters common overseas but slower to catch on in the United States, said Laura Schafer, an upstream oil and gas marketing director at the company. The technology allows field workers to manage more facilities simultaneously, she explained.
"Certainly as we automate more, we enable one person to cover more wells," Schafer said. "Instead of covering 20 wells for one, get that up to 40, and the only way you can do that is with more instrumentation and more information right to the hand."
Recruiting millennials
Schafer also insists that embracing high-tech solutions is critical to recruiting new workers, especially from a population that has grown up with tablets, smartphones and other internet-connected devices.
A former offshore platform worker herself, Schafer explained the drudgery of being stuck out to sea for six-week stints, away from family and friends. It's a tough sell to skilled college graduates who have other options, she argued, so Emerson is nudging companies toward testing technologies to limit the need for humans to serve such long stretches offshore.
"We're just now starting to see customers start to test that sort of technology, because some have shared that it's going to save them 40 or 50 percent on some of the capex of their facilities," she said.
In a new study by Accenture Strategy, analysts urge oil and gas companies to look for ways to use advanced technologies not only to address future staffing shortages but to make the work more appealing for the next generation. Factoring in baby boomer retirements, the blowback from mass layoffs during the most recent oil price bust and emerging industries, authors of the report predict a shortage of 12,500 to 25,000 "petrotechnical professionals" by 2025. The analysts think the industry needs up to 12,000 data scientists "immediately."
"New technologies can play an essential role in attracting and developing digitally curious talent," Accenture Strategy says. "Digital platforms, cloud-based collaboration tools, and peer-developed training that is delivered via streaming video can create more engaging, satisfying work environments and accelerate workforce productivity."
Brower at Astro Technology makes the safety argument for new technology and is pushing companies he works with to take lessons from aerospace.
"Oil and gas is more brute force versus finesse in aerospace," he explained. "Brute force has got its place, it really does, but finesse is what really keeps you out of trouble, and you have to have some level of sophistication, and the oil companies are starting to come around to that."
Finesse solutions Brower is selling include ultra-sophisticated, fiber-optic sensors that can be attached to pipelines and give workers hundreds of miles away instant readings on temperature, pressure and vibration, detecting signs of potential problems long before they arise. Robot divers with near-human hand dexterity will come next, he hopes.
Cheap oil and changing labor patterns are moving the industry closer to his way of thinking, Brower believes. "We're starting to get a lot of headway," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/26/stories/1060053561
-
Safety Incidents on the Rise After Decade of Decline
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Liquid pipeline accidents of all kinds have gone up over the past five years after 10 years of decline, according to industry data released this week.
A safety report published jointly by the American Petroleum Institute and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines says total incidents and those incidents that impact the public or environment both went through a decadelong decline that ended five to seven years ago.
Total liquid pipeline incidents reached a low in 2010 with 127 incidents that year. The following three years saw around 145 accidents each, and 2014 through 2017 saw accidents totaling in the 170s per year, the data show. The data do not reflect natural gas incidents, but include crude oil, refined products like diesel and gasoline, and natural gas liquids.
The industry groups note that most pipeline accidents are quite small and take place within operator facilities. Of greater concern are the often larger incidents that take place in public areas. Such accidents that impact the public or environment saw a similar gradual decline from a high of 114 incidents in 2004 to a low of 67 in 2011, before jumping back into the 100s in 2013. Last year, there were 104 liquid pipeline incidents that affected the public or environment, the groups report.
In their discussion of the data, API and AOPL do not attempt to explain the jump in safety problems seen over the past few years, though in a statement on the report API said pipelines "are one of the safest and most efficient ways to transport liquid energy."
John Stoody, the Association of Oil Pipe Lines' vice president for government and public relations, said there is not a single, overarching explanation for the shift.
"We've seen a variety of different factors cause incidents in recent years," Stoody said by email, pointing to issues with welding and corrosion, impacts from landslides and lightning, and damage by third parties as just some of the problems. Stoody said a new industry-backed safety management system aims to tie together a variety of programs to address the issues under one holistic plan.
"Other industries like nuclear, aviation and refining have seen safety performance improvements. We all believe we will, too," Stoody said.
Reaching out
Aside from the industry's safety management challenges, pipeline operators have also faced increasing public opposition in recent years, as evidenced by the groundswell of opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline. That project by Energy Transfer Partners LP was approved after President Trump took office, and oil has since begun flowing through the pipeline, though legal challenges continue (Energywire, April 11).
The industry groups' report says operators plan to amp up public outreach over the next three years to increase their local-level support, in a clear effort to catch up to the public opinion challenge.
"Engaging stakeholders about the benefits and safety of pipelines is vital to building public confidence in the communities where pipelines operate or are planned for construction," wrote the industry groups in their report.
The groups said sharing information about the industry's "safety record and the multiple proactive and preventative safety efforts taken by operators" will be important to boost support for projects.
The two groups plan to use social media and outreach to conventional media to promote their safety message, the document says. They will also expand training programs for pipeline owners and operators that address working with landowners and explaining the public benefits of pipelines. Other outreach programs the industry plans to promote address emergency response, eminent domain use, damage prevention and the "call before you dig" program, and leak detection.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/04/26/stories/1060053574
-
Sources: EPA's Pruitt Urged Miners to Press Trump to Exit Climate Pact
Apr 26, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Andrew Restuccia
A coal mining industry group's board of directors voted on Tuesday to press President Donald Trump to withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement — just one day after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt met with the group's leadership and urged them to push the issue, two sources told POLITICO.
Pruitt personally attended a meeting of the National Mining Association's executive committee on Monday to lay out his concerns with the Paris accord, and called for the group to publicly support pulling out, according to one source.
Trump has often aligned himself with coal miners, promising to revive the industry that has suffered sharp job losses over the past decade as the U.S. appetite for the energy source has waned. Just last month, Trump went to the EPA's headquarters with a group of coal miners to sign an executive order rolling back President Barack Obama's regulation curbing carbon emissions from power plants.
Pruitt has emerged in recent weeks as one of the administration's leading critics of the 2015 Paris deal, calling it a "bad deal for America" in a recent interview. An EPA spokesman confirmed Pruitt attended the NMA meeting, saying that he "discussed the problems with the Paris agreement.”
The NMA board's decision is the latest evidence of the split within the coal industry over the Paris deal. Several major coal companies have signaled their openness to the U.S. remaining in the Paris agreement if the White House can negotiate more global support for technology that would reduce the carbon footprint of coal.
But other coal companies, including Murray Energy, which is led by Trump supporter Robert Murray, are vociferously opposed to the accord, which has won the backing of nearly 200 nations.
The NMA vote was 26-5, with some members abstaining, according to one source.
The NMA board's decision to weigh in raises the stakes in the behind-the-scenes standoff within the White House over the international climate accord. Several White House aides, including senior adviser Jared Kushner, are said to be in favor of remaining in the agreement, while chief strategist Steve Bannon supports withdrawing.
White House aides who want to remain in the pact have sought to build support among energy companies in recent weeks. But several Republicans and industry groups have launched a counter-offensive to increase momentum for exiting the agreement. Sen. John Barrasso distributed a document arguing for leaving the Paris agreement at a Tuesday policy lunch with Senate Republicans.
Trump's top advisers are set to meet on Thursday in hopes of making a formal recommendation to President Donald Trump. Trump is expected to decide whether to stick with the accord before the G-7 summit at the end of May.
NMA is still writing its statement urging a Paris withdrawal and it's unclear when it will be sent to the White House, one source said. A National Mining Association spokesperson declined to comment.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/sources-national-mining-association-votes-to-call-on-trump-to-withdraw-from-paris-deal-155828
-
Trump's Already Making His Mark on Climate
Apr 26, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Eric Wolff
President Donald Trump's aggressive rollback of the Obama administration's climate policies is already changing the trajectory of the world's efforts on global warming, with some analysts estimating it will mean billions more tons of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere during the next decade and a half.
It could be one of the most durable legacies of his young presidency — regardless of whether Trump decides to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.
Trump has spent much of his first 100 days in office launching a series of efforts to undo former President Barack Obama’s domestic climate policies, seeking to ease pollution limits on power plants, vehicle tailpipes, coal mining, and oil and gas wells. And while Democrats and environmental groups promise fierce resistance, analysts say Trump’s efforts could bring an effective halt to U.S. efforts to cut the carbon pollution that scientists blame for warming the planet.
"This is an experiment we can only run once, and then it’s too late," said Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer. "We were in a lot of trouble with climate change already. This only makes it more risky. It's hard to quantify how much it matters, but it makes attainment of a difficult-to-achieve target more or less impossible."
The United States is the world’s second-largest carbon polluter, but its greenhouse gas output has slid sharply in the past decade — a trend driven partly by increases in energy efficiency and a shift from coal to natural gas as a power source. Obama had pledged to continue those reductions in the coming decade to meet U.S. commitments in the 2015 Paris agreement, in which nearly 200 nations made non-binding promises to cut their carbon pollution. Hillary Clinton had promised even steeper reductions.
Trump, in contrast, has vowed to reverse Obama’s policies, lift restrictions on the energy industry and “save our wonderful coal miners” — pledges that helped him win fossil fuel-producing swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio.
And his actions will have a real-world effect, based on POLITICO's analysis of estimates from the Democratic-leaning consultant Rhodium Group and the World Resources Institute. Instead of falling, Rhodium's projection estimated that Trump’s policies, if fully implemented, will cause U.S. carbon pollution to continue more or less at current levels. That means that by 2025, according to POLITICO's analysis, the U.S. would be pumping 900 more megatons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year than under Obama's most ambitious target.
That extra U.S. carbon would exceed the annual output of Germany, one of the world’s top greenhouse gas polluters. That would be enough to increase the world’s annual carbon emissions by almost 2 percent, Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said — at a time when climate researchers say the world urgently needs to accelerate its cuts.
Through 2030, the cumulative gap between the Trump and Obama policies could exceed 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, based on Rhodium's estimates.
In other words, Trump’s domestic actions on energy would be his real contribution to global climate policy — a fact obscured by the noisy political fight on whether the U.S. should withdraw from Paris. The figures don’t even account for the possibility that a U.S. retreat on climate efforts would cause other major polluters, such as China and India, to pull back on their commitments.
"If you’re going after the Clean Power Plan and going after everything else and all the other rules, then whether or not you stay in Paris appears to be symbolic from the perspective of U.S. emissions," said Andrew Light, a fellow at the World Resources Institute who worked for the State Department under Obama.
Rhodium based its analysis on a March 28 executive order in which Trump directed his agencies to take the first steps toward reversing some of Obama's most significant climate actions, including regulations on coal miners, oil and gas drillers, and thousands of power plants.
Trump and his appointees have made no secret of their disdain for Obama’s attempts to rally the world on climate change, an issue the president has labeled a Chinese-inspired “hoax” that's wiped out American jobs. White House budget director Mick Mulvaney dismissed climate programs last month as “a waste of your money,” telling reporters that “we’re not spending money on that anymore.”
Mulvaney was defending Trump’s proposal for a 31-percent budget cut for the Environmental Protection Agency, whose carbon regulations on the power, auto, coal, oil and gas industries had provided the heart of Obama’s climate policies.
Among other steps to erase Obama's climate legacy, Trump has ordered the EPA to begin unwinding Obama’s 2015 regulations on greenhouse gases from power plants, moved toward easing the agency’s vehicle fuel-efficiency requirements and signed off on Congress’ repeal of stream-pollution restrictions that had threatened to hinder some coal mining activity. He is also due to take steps this week toward opening up vast new offshore regions for oil and gas production — a sharp break from the limits Obama imposed late in his second term.
More quietly, the administration has postponed Energy Department efficiency standards for commercial and consumer appliances such as freezers and boilers, withheld grants for research into next-generation energy technologies, and ordered the government to revise a metric called the “social cost of carbon” that seeks to factor the impacts of climate change into regulatory actions. Administration lawyers have also persuaded appellate judges to postpone rulings on several Obama-era rules facing industry challenges, giving Trump’s agencies more time to pull them back for reworking.
Rhodium's analysis of the effect of Trump’s executive order comes with plenty of caveats: It assumes that cities and states will fail to fill the gap in federal policy, and that a climate advocate will not take over the White House in 2020. It also does not allow for faster-than-expected advances in renewable energy technologies — notably battery storage — that could accelerate the shift to wind and solar power.
But Rhodium also doesn't include other measures that Trump could take, such as reneging on a 2016 treaty to limit the production of potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons. That agreement by itself could forestall 0.5 degrees Celsius in global warming during this century, according to U.N. estimates. The Paris agreement is meant to prevent the rise in average global temperatures from exceeding 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Rhodium’s partners include Trevor Houser, who was a top outside adviser to the Clinton campaign on energy issues.
Climate researchers say the world is so close to a tipping point that any backsliding would be dangerous.
For example, carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere have been hovering above 405 parts per million since November, the highest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — significantly higher than the 350-parts-per-million level that some leading climate researchers say the world needs to move back to. The estimated change in emissions allowed by Trump's executive order would add 2 parts per million in the next 20 years, according to a rough estimate by Pieter Tans, chief of the Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases Group at the NOAA Earth Science Research Laboratory.
Put another way, those extra emissions alone would move the world 4 percent closer to 450 parts per million — the point at which the world still has a better-than-50-percent chance of stabilizing global temperatures, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Failing to stabilize temperatures would could mean intensifying extreme weather events at "unprecedented levels," the OECD says. It could also move the world to a point where temperature and emissions feedback loops make changes in the world's climate change irreversible.
"Thus far, we human beings have mostly controlled climate change through emissions of greenhouse gases," Tans said in an email. "Continuing on this path will likely lead to uncontrolled and potentially very large emissions of [carbon dioxide] and [methane] from the melting of permafrost in the Arctic, to name one plausible feedback effect."
Still, some advocates for deep cuts in carbon emissions, such as Mann, hold out hope that Obama's policies will prove difficult to uproot. They’re counting on the courts and resistant federal staffers to stall Trump's plans.
“Bureaucracy can be both a good and bad thing, depending on the circumstances," Mann said in an email. “In this case, I think it may save us.
"Were Democrats to win back one or both houses of Congress in the mid-terms less than two years away, I think that much of the damage could almost certainly be mitigated," he added.
Skeptics of Obama’s policies argue that the U.S. would absorb most of the pain of the Paris agreement while countries such as China and India — the world’s biggest and fourth-biggest carbon polluters, respectively — would get off easy. Both countries are expected to produce more carbon dioxide in 2030 than they did in 2015.
"The Obama administration made really ambitious commitments in Paris with no clear way to get there under current regulations," said Robert Dillon, an energy expert with the American Council for Capital Formation, who contends that Trump's decision to ease off on Obama’s carbon rules puts the U.S. on a level playing field.
“Any time you have a concern where you're tying one hand behind your back to compete in the global market, there are legitimate concerns about how the country remains competitive and improves the standard of living for American families," he added.
Meanwhile, Trump’s rollback puts pressure on other countries to decide how to respond. The U.S. already butted heads with other G-7 nations this month when Energy Secretary Rick Perry's insistence that the Paris agreement should not be mentioned scuttled a joint communique.
Some foreign leaders are choosing to be optimistic, for now.
"I don't see the world backing off," Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin told reporters last week in Washington. Instead she expressed concern about the next stage of the Paris agreement, which calls for nations to further cut their greenhouse gases.
"We are concerned that some might point to the U.S. and say, 'We don't have to raise ambitions now if the U.S. is not going to take part of this,'" she said. "And the U.S., of course, has a great responsibility for the historic emissions. That makes it a really bad chase to the bottom."
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/04/trumps-already-making-his-mark-on-climate-155671
-
GOP Divisions on Pact Go Public as Decision Nears
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Partisans on both sides of the question about whether to exit the Paris climate deal made a final push over the last two days before administration principals meet at the White House tomorrow.
Conservative groups, GOP congressmen, business leaders and liberal attorneys general are all making their views known in hopes of influencing the cadre of administration officials who tomorrow may narrow the field of options for President Trump.
There has been speculation that the meeting — which was postponed from last week after becoming widely publicized — was canceled because it highlights a significant area of discord within the administration. Top Cabinet members and White House staff differ on whether it would be wise for the president to make good on his campaign promise to "cancel" U.S. participation in Paris.
But Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who served on Trump's transition and is now cautiously urging him to consider remaining in the deal, said debate of this kind is how the president "processes."
"I think it's great that the president allows people close to him to express their very strong opinions, even while they're different," he said. "To the swamp it appears chaotic, because it's so out of the ordinary, but I think as people watch it they're going to find it to be quite refreshing."
Cramer will release a letter today with about eight GOP House colleagues urging Trump to reverse course on Paris, but only if he swaps the Obama-era emissions reduction commitment for a weaker one and takes other steps to shore up domestic industries.
He spearheaded a panel yesterday in a House office building where conservatives and industry advocates sparred over remaining in the deal, which nearly 200 countries agreed to in 2015 outside the French capital.
Most members of the panel argued that sticking with the agreement could yield practical and diplomatic dividends for the new administration on issues unrelated to climate change.
The underlying U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change includes almost the entire world, they noted, while the Paris deal has gained more than 140 parties in less than two years. The framework and agreement have become world energy forums, and participation gives the United States a platform for advancing domestic energy interests, including for coal.
"One cannot belittle the importance of being at the table," said Jeff Merrifield, a former Nuclear Regulatory Commission commissioner. "I think it's very important for the president of the United States and folks that are representing him to be there to defend our interests. If we don't do that, if we simply withdraw from the accord, we're ceding the field to Russia, to China and to the folks in Europe."
Cramer and others have said the United States should only remain a party if the Trump administration scraps his predecessor's commitment to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 — a level they say would impede growth.
But Christopher Horner, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the panel's sole proponent of withdrawing from Paris, argued that the agreement's language bars countries from revising their commitments to be less ambitious. If the United States stays in the deal but diminishes its commitment, it will experience nearly as much blowback internationally as if it left, and criticism would resurface every five years when countries are asked to issue new commitments, he said.
"Keep your promise, President Trump," Horner said.
The agreement does not include a legally binding obstacle to a country's revising down its commitments.
Cramer compared Paris to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which Trump has moved to renegotiate. But he added that exiting the climate deal would be even easier because it's "brand new" and "not accepted" by the Senate.
Horner, bolstered by fellow CEI fellows Myron Ebell and Marlo Lewis in the audience, argued that continued adherence to Paris would hamstring the new administration's efforts to roll back Obama-era standards by handing environmental litigants added ammunition when they sue to preserve, for example, U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"And you don't believe that staying in Paris puts the U.S. stamp on affirming that there is this terrible peril from carbon dioxide?" he asked.
But Scott Segal of Bracewell LLP said referencing U.S. obligations to Paris in the past did not help the Obama administration convince the Supreme Court not to stay the power plant rule, and he predicted future litigants would meet the same answer if they tried to use it as an argument.
"We have no trouble dismantling the Clean Power Plan and reforming the Clean Air Act just because we stay in Paris. In fact, Paris can give us additional credibility," said Segal.
Scrapping Obama-era rules, he said, would give the Trump team better leverage in Paris. Segal argued that those cautious of international controls on emissions should have more faith in the current occupant of the White House.
"A Trump-appointed negotiating team that decamps to address the problems of the Paris accord would generate a much different-looking document," he said. "I think we can get a better deal out of it if we allow this administration to do what this administration does."
The battle lines are also drawn within the administration, where some officials, like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, have voiced support for staying in, while others, like EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, have argued against it. But the balance within the administration seems weighted to the pro-Paris camp, while industry advocates are also lining up on both sides of the question.
Companies including BP PLC, DuPont, Google and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. signed a letter today urging Trump to stay in the Paris Agreement. It was organized by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. But the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, which represents large manufacturers, argued in a letter of its own Monday that carbon restrictions of any kind would disadvantage its members.
And a group of Democratic state attorneys general argued in a letter that dismantling Paris would kill a high point of U.S. multilateral leadership.
"The United States showed exemplary leadership in the years-long effort to secure the Paris Agreement, and our nation should continue to lead by fulfilling its promise to abide by and implement this historic accord," they wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/04/26/stories/1060053596
-
Democratic AGs Fight Bill to Revamp Ozone Regulations
Apr 26, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Democratic state attorneys general are objecting to legislation that would rewrite key facets of the Clean Air Act and freeze implementation of U.S. EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard until the middle of the next decade.
Ozone pollution "remains a serious and persistent problem for our nation, posing a particular risk to the health of children, the elderly and the sick," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) and 15 colleagues from other states and the District of Columbia wrote lawmakers today.
They urged opposition to H.R. 806 and S. 263, companion bills awaiting action in the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, respectively.
The legislation would push back EPA's attainment designations for the 70-parts-per-billion ozone standard, currently set for this fall, until 2025. Among other changes, it would also permanently alter the Clean Air Act's timetable for reviewing the standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria pollutants" from once every five years to once every decade.
Supporters of the legislation note that EPA rarely, if ever, meets the five-year schedule. They also say that states should be given more time to meet the previous 75 ppb ozone standard, set in 2008, particularly since EPA only issued formal implementation guidance two years ago.
But Schneiderman and the other attorneys general said today that the tighter 70 ppb standard is expected to eventually prevent hundreds of premature deaths each year, along with resulting in other health-related savings valued at billions of dollars by 2025, according to an EPA analysis. The implementation delay proposed in the legislation would postpone "the life-saving benefits of attaining clean air," they wrote. Stretching out the broader review cycle, they added, would "undermine" existing health and welfare protections.
H.R. 806, sponsored by Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas), got a hearing in March from the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment (E&E Daily, March 23). The Senate EPW panel has so far scheduled no action on S. 263, introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).
Today's letters were addressed to leaders of both committees, along with other key lawmakers.
Besides Schneiderman, signers included attorneys general representing states with chronic ozone problems, including Xavier Becerra (D) of California, George Jepsen (D) of Connecticut and Matthew Denn (D) of Delaware.
Ozone, the prime ingredient in smog, is a lung irritant produced by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight.
Some of the same states are also backing the 70 ppb standard in court against legal challenges from industry groups and Republican attorneys general from other states. Earlier this month, in response to an EPA request, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed to an open-ended hold on further proceedings in the litigation while the Trump administration reviews its position (Greenwire, April 12).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/04/26/stories/1060053620
-
States, Industry Raise Implementation Concerns Over Cyanotoxins Criteria
Apr 26, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State regulators and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) are raising implementation concerns about EPA's draft recreational water quality criteria for the cyanotoxins microcystins and cylindrospermopsin, including how states will use the criteria in discharge permits and monitoring for compliance, while questioning the science behind the criteria.
In comments filed recently with EPA, some states say they support the concept of the Clean Water Act (CWA) criteria, at least for use in swimming and similar advisories, but that they need more information from EPA about how these criteria may relate to potential numeric nutrient criteria.
And some states, like Iowa, say in their comments on the Obama administration's proposed criteria that the proposed criteria are overly protective and unrealistic.
In contrast, POTWs use many of the same implementation concerns to urge EPA not to finalize the criteria, with the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) telling the agency in its comments that it should instead focus on addressing the causal variables of cyanobacteria blooms that produce toxins and move forward with guidance for states on implementing swimming advisories.
Environmental groups generally support the draft criteria, although some say they should be even more stringent to better protect sensitive subpopulations.
EPA released in December the risk-based concentrations intended to protect human health while swimming or participating in other activities on the water, as part of ongoing efforts to address the threat of harmful algal blooms (HABs). If finalized, states can consider adopting these criteria into their water quality standards or use the values as the basis of swimming advisories for public notification purposes at beaches, EPA says in a fact sheet accompanying the draft criteria.
EPA is recommending concentrations of 4 micrograms per liter (ug/L) for microcystins and 8 ug/L for cylindrospermopsin, with the agency noting recreational exposure to microcystins has the potential to result in liver toxicity and cylindrospermopsin can cause kidney toxicity. The criteria are based on overall exposure to children at the 90th percentile, and are considered "noncancer" health effects, as the agency says it has inadequate information for assessing the "carcinogenic potential" of cyanotoxins.
The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), which represents state water regulators, tells EPA in its comments that it supports EPA's efforts to address HABs but the group still has questions and concerns regarding implementation, monitoring, and the science behind the criteria and advisory values.
States want to know how a state would include protection from cyanotoxins in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit; how a state would calculate a waterbody cleanup plan, known as a total maximum daily load, for cyanotoxins; and what would constitute an "exceedence" in the context of cyanotoxins.
"Cost of criteria implementation is also a concern for states and there appears to be a disconnect between states and EPA on this issue," ACWA says. Additionally, many states do not currently have mechanisms in place to adequately sample for the toxin levels specified by EPA and/or lack enough lab capacity to increase the amount of samples analyzed, the group says.
ACWA acknowledges that EPA has presented much of the science behind the criteria to ACWA members but says states "need EPA to provide additional explanation of the science behind the studies used to generate the criteria/advisory numbers so that states can better understand what underlies this policy decision."
States want to view the numbers and models EPA developed to better understand how EPA's microcystins and cylindrospermopsin levels relate to nitrogen and phosphorous, particularly how they may link to potential numeric nutrient criteria, ACWA says.
States' Comments
Several individual states also weighed in on the criteria, with some states saying they would only use the information for swimming advisories, some saying the criteria are too burdensome and others urging the agency to make them more stringent.
In joint March 8 comments from Iowa's departments of natural resources, agriculture, and health, the state says the departments "believe fundamental issues need to be addressed regarding the proposed protection levels, which may have been developed using a flawed approach. We also believe the proposed criteria create an artificially stringent standard resulting in unclear, and potentially unnecessary, burdens placed on states to implement them."
EPA should "not finalize this draft until the science and implementation concerns have been adequately addressed and consider repurposing this effort outside the purview of Section 304(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act," Iowa says.
The Georgia Environmental Protection Division says in March 20 comments that due to implementation concerns, it does not plan on adopting ambient water quality criteria for the cyanotoxins, but would consider using the recommended guidance for swim advisories.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency in March 20 comments says that because "many environmental factors can contribute to harmful algal blooms, establishing CWA 303(c) standards and potential CWA 303(d) listing for watersheds based on toxin levels is problematic for Ohio's regulators and regulated communities. Therefore, while Ohio EPA supports continued research efforts and sound policy to diminish harmful algal blooms in Ohio's waters, we do not support establishing cyanotoxin criteria under CWA 303(c) at this time."
New York's State conservation and health departments in undated comments "strongly recommend that USEPA revise the proposed criteria and supplemental guidance to be consistent with New York State's approach, which uses a blended approach of both qualitative and quantitative information in which public notification and beach closures are based on the observance of a bloom or measured toxin concentrations." This policy prohibits swimming and wading when an apparent cyanobacteria bloom is present at a bathing beach regardless of toxin concentrations.
California is one of the few states to have developed health-based surface water concentrations for microcystins and cylindrospermaopsin. And in Feb. 27 comments, its Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) says EPA's water ingestion rate of 0.33 liters per day (L/day) is "very conservative, but defensible." But OEHHA disagrees with the uncertainty factor EPA uses to estimate a no observable adverse effect level for microcystin, saying that instead of using an uncertainty factor of 3, the agency should use an uncertainty factor of 10.
Dischargers' Concerns
Wastewater dischargers, in their comments, urge EPA not to finalize the criteria, raising concerns about the ability of the criteria to address the problem the agency is seeking to solve.
EPA should not adopt ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) for cyanotoxins because of the implications they will have for CWA permittees, including POTWs, none of which actually discharge cyanotoxins, NACWA says in its comments. "Permit limits for cyanotoxins are illogical and establishing AWQC for cyanotoxins will not help to reduce or eliminate cyanotoxins in the environment or the potential for cyanotoxin presence instream."
And in March 17 comments on behalf of over 50 municipal wastewater dischargers, Hall & Associates calls on EPA to withdraw the proposed criteria because "no information is provided to show widespread use impairment even though cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins are ubiquitous."
"Moreover, this entire endeavor represents a back-door attempt by the Agency to impose numeric criteria on nitrogen and phosphorus throughout the nation," the firm says. "Instead of veiling this objective by establishing criteria for naturally occurring conditions, EPA should explain to the public how it intends to relate cyanotoxin concentration to nitrogen and phosphorus load in a manner that is scientifically defensible, without significant overprotection that does not bankrupt the nation with excessive wastewater treatment requirements."
The American Water Works Association (AWWA), which represents drinking water utilities, also questions the criteria, saying in March 14 comments, "we believe that EPA has not conducted all of the necessary analysis to assure that these criteria will protect public health, be implementable and be economically viable."
While AWWA says it has repeatedly urged EPA to utilize its CWA authority to protect public health through measures that protect drinking water supplies, "[t]he public record for this proposal does not demonstrate how the proposed criteria will meet their objective, what situations would be impacted, nor the cost consequences, particularly given ongoing efforts to implement numeric nutrient criteria."
AWWA notes that EPA's values for the draft recreational exposure criteria as well as the existing health advisories for drinking water have concentration levels substantially lower than the World Health Organization and Australia.
"In order for EPA's conclusions to be credible when departing from established thresholds from other respected agencies, EPA should describe clearly the differences in methodology and data used and why the results are not similar, and should consider better aligning its methodology with those of other respected organizations, especially to the extent that these other organizations have already evaluated the underlying toxicological and exposure data," AWWA says.
The drinking water group also recommends additional discussion about analytical and detection methods, saying AWWA has found that there is considerable variability in the results among different analytical methods or even the same method at different laboratories for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin.
Echoing states, AWWA questions how CWA mechanisms would work for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. "For example, although it is well known that nutrients contribute to cyanobacterial blooms, in most cases it is not known precisely what level of nutrients will result in a bloom, and what factors will promote cyanotoxins production and release during a bloom. Similar nutrient loads in different years often result in different occurrences. These uncertainties do not mean that no action should be taken, but rather that these implementation issues should be explored fully and transparently working with partners prior to finalizing this report."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-industry-raise-implementation-concerns-over-cyanotoxins-criteria
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested