Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/20/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Billions Of Tons Of Waste Creating A 'Plastic Planet', Scientists Warn
Jul 20, 2017 | AP (In TIME Magazine)
By Seth Borenstein
Industry has made more than 9.1 billion tons of plastic since 1950 and there's enough left over to bury Manhattan under more than two miles of trash, according to a new cradle-to-grave global study. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Earth Is Heading Toward a Plastic Planet Says Ecologist
Jul 20, 2017 | Vanguard Daily
By Marivic Cabural
People must pay attention to the increasing production of plastic, which is non-biodegradable and majority end up as waste in landfills and the environment and could cause potential health problems. -
(ACC Mentioned) World Turning into Plastic Planet: Study
Jul 19, 2017 | SBS
Industry has made more than 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic since 1950 and enough is left over to bury Manhattan under more than 3km of rubbish, according to a global study. -
Exclusion Of 'Legacy' Uses From TSCA May Limit Cleanups, Critics Tell EPA
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is drawing criticism from its children's health advisors and a Region 9 official over its decision to preclude legacy uses of chemicals, such as asbestos, in finished products from review under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), bolstering criticisms from environmentalists who say they may sue the agency over its approach. -
(ACC Mentioned) Warning: Alerts Waning
Jul 20, 2017 | Chico News & Review
Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden. -
IARC Demonstrates Why Nutrition Science Is Terrible
Jul 19, 2017 | Real Clear Science
By Joseph Perrone
A “landmark” study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine discovered the fountain of youth tastes a lot like freshly brewed coffee. -
US Study: EPA's Current Tox Tests Insufficient For Low-Dose Exposures
Jul 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The US EPA's current toxicity tests are not always sufficient to predict the specific levels of exposure at which humans are affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), according to a government-funded study. -
North Carolina Governor Presses EPA on GenX Regulation
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is pressing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to take steps under several environmental statutes to address a perfluorinated chemical known as GenX that has been found in the Cape Fear River, a source of drinking water for four counties in the state. -
Fashion Brands Join Together To Develop Safer Materials
Jul 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Five fashion brands are working together with a private US-based certification and ecolabel scheme to develop certified materials for use in the supply chain. -
Addressing Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Requires An Integrated Strategy
Jul 20, 2017 | Euractiv
By Genon Jensen
The dangers of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) for human health and the environment have long been documented and the evidence keeps piling up every day, yet Europe’s approach to this challenge has been lukewarm, writes Genon Jensen. -
(ACC Mentioned) Kevin DiGregorio: WV Shale Boom A Marathon, Not A Sprint (Daily Mail)
Jul 20, 2017 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Kevin DiGregorio
A June 26 article in The Wall Street Journal has created a bit of a buzz in some circles in West Virginia. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Votes for More Energy Regulator Authority Over Pipelines
Jul 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Legislation aimed at averting pipeline approval fights akin to the battle over Keystone XL passed in the House July 19. -
Gas Lobbies for Attention as Perry Aims to Aid Coal on the Grid
Jul 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Ari Natter and Jim Polson
As Energy Secretary Rick Perry considers whether the U.S. should do more to keep coal and nuclear power plants online, natural gas producers are trying to ensure they aren't left in the dark. -
Ethylene Exports From The U.S. Planned
Jul 19, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Thanks to cheap natural gas from shale, the U.S. has become a large exporter of ethane as a feedstock for overseas ethylene makers. As U.S. chemical projects start to come on-stream later this year, the country will grow as an exporter of ethylene derivatives such as polyethylene. -
Executive Order Establishes Infrastructure Advisory Council
Jul 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Camille von Kaenel
President Trump is setting up a new advisory council on infrastructure in the Commerce Department that will tackle environmental policy, among other issues. -
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Delaying New Ozone Standards Moves Forward In Congress
Jul 19, 2017 | Houston Public Media
By Travis Bubenik
One local environmental group calls the bill an “excuse on the part of industry” to not address air quality problems more aggressively. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Approves NAAQS Delay Bill
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
The House voted July 18 largely along party lines to approve legislation overhauling the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program to make reviews less frequent and delaying implementation of EPA's strict 2015 ozone standard, clearing the path for a likely contentious Senate debate on the issue. -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Make America Sick Again’: Dems Blast Passage of Trump Admin’s Smog Bill
Jul 19, 2017 | RT
The House of Representatives has voted to pass Republican-backed legislation blocking regulations which reduce smog-causing air pollutants. The bill’s supporters say it will help job creators while opponents argue it would cost lives.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Billions Of Tons Of Waste Creating A 'Plastic Planet', Scientists Warn
Jul 20, 2017 | AP (In TIME Magazine)
By Seth Borenstein
Industry has made more than 9.1 billion tons of plastic since 1950 and there's enough left over to bury Manhattan under more than two miles of trash, according to a new cradle-to-grave global study.
Plastics don't break down like other man-made materials, so three-quarters of the stuff ends up as waste in landfills, littered on land and floating in oceans, lakes and rivers, according to the research reported in Wednesday's journal Science Advances .
"At the current rate, we are really heading toward a plastic planet," said study lead author Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "It is something we need to pay attention to."
The plastics boom started after World War II, and now plastics are everywhere. They are used in packaging like plastic bottles and consumer goods like cellphones and refrigerators. They are in pipes and other construction material. They are in cars and clothing, usually as polyester.
Study co-author Jenna Jambeck of the University of Georgia said the world first needs to know how much plastic waste there is worldwide before it can tackle the problem.
They calculated that of the 9.1 billion tons made, nearly 7 billion tons are no longer used. Only 9 percent got recycled and another 12 percent was incinerated, leaving 5.5 billion tons of plastic waste on land and in water.
Using the plastics industry own data, Geyer, Jambeck and Kara Lavender Law found that the amount of plastics made and thrown out is accelerating. In 2015, the world created 448 million tons of plastic — more than twice as much as made in 1998.
China makes the most plastic, followed by Europe and North America.
"The growth is astonishing and it doesn't look like it's slowing down soon," Geyer said.
About 35 percent of the plastic made is for packaging, like water bottles. Geyer said his figures are higher than other calculations because he includes plastics material woven into fibers like polyester clothing, including microfiber material.
An official of a U.S. trade group said the plastics industry recognizes the problem and is working to increase recycling and reduce waste.
"Plastics are used because they are efficient, they are cost effective and they do their jobs," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council , an industry association that represents manufacturers. "And if we didn't have them, the impact on the environment would be worse."
Using alternatives to plastics for packaging and consumer goods such as glass, paper or aluminum requires more energy, Russell said.
The world still makes more concrete and steel than plastic, but the big difference is that they stay longer in buildings and cars and degrade better than plastic, Geyer said. Except for what is burned, "all the plastics that we made since 1950 are still with us," he said.
"The fact that it becomes waste so quickly and that it's persistent is why it's piling up in the environment," said Chelsea Rochman, a professor of ecology at the University of Toronto. She wasn't part of the study but like other outside experts praised it for thoroughness and accuracy.
"At some point we will run out of room to put it," she said in an email. "Some may argue we already have and now it's found in every nook and cranny of our oceans."
Plastic waste in water has been shown to harm more than 600 species of marine life, said Nancy Wallace, marine debris program director for the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Whales, sea turtles, dolphins, fish and sea birds are hurt or killed, she said.
"It's a huge amount of material that we're not doing anything about," Wallace said. "We're finding plastics everywhere."
http://time.com/4865807/plastic-waste-bury-manhattan-environment/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Earth Is Heading Toward a Plastic Planet Says Ecologist
Jul 20, 2017 | Vanguard Daily
By Marivic Cabural
People must pay attention to the increasing production of plastic, which is non-biodegradable and majority end up as waste in landfills and the environment and could cause potential health problems.
The mass production of plastic started in 1950. Since then, 8.3 billion metric tons (9.1 billion tons) of the material was produced and generated 6.3 billion metric tons of plastic waste until 2015, according to the latest study published on Science Advances.
Today, we see plastics around us—the stuff is used in packaging and consumer products such as chairs, cellphones, clothes, refrigerators, toys, and many others.
The authors of the study noted that only 9% of those plastics were recycled, 12% were incinerated, and 79% were thrown in the landfills and scattered everywhere (lands, lakes, rivers, and oceans). They estimated that humanity could produce 26 billion metric tons of plastic waste by 2050 based historical data.
Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist, associate professor of environmental science at the University of California, Santa Barbara and lead of author of the study, told AP, “At the current rate, we are really heading toward a plastic planet. It is something we need to pay attention.”
In the study, Geyer and his co-authors Dr. Jenna Jambeck, an associate professor of industrial engineering at the University of Georgia and Dr. Kara Lavender Law, research professor of oceanography at Sea Education Association, wrote:
“The vast majority of monomers used to make plastics, such as ethylene and propylene, are derived from fossil hydrocarbons. None of the commonly used plastics are biodegradable. As a result, they accumulate, rather than decompose, in landfills or the natural environment. The only way to permanently eliminate plastic waste is by destructive thermal treatment, such as combustion or pyrolysis. Thus, near-permanent contamination of the natural environment with plastic waste is a growing concern.”
Plastic waste in water is hurting or killing more than 600 species of marine life including dolphins, fish, sea turtles, and whales, according to Nancy Wallace, a marine debris program director at the U.S. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
“It’s a huge amount of material that we’re not doing anything about. We’re finding plastics everywhere,” said Wallace as quoted by AP.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council said the industry is acknowledge the problem and it is working on increasing recycling and reducing waste.
Russell also pointed out, “Plastics are used because they are efficient, they are cost effective and they do their jobs. And if we didn’t have them, the impact on the environment would be worse.” He added that using glass, paper, or aluminum as alternatives to plastics for packaging and consumer product requires more energy.
https://vanguarddaily.com/earth-heading-toward-plastic-planet-says-ecologist/
-
(ACC Mentioned) World Turning into Plastic Planet: Study
Jul 19, 2017 | SBS
Industry has made more than 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic since 1950 and enough is left over to bury Manhattan under more than 3km of rubbish, according to a global study.
Plastics do not break down like other man-made materials so three-quarters of the stuff ends up as waste in landfills, littered on land and floating in oceans, lakes and rivers, according to the research reported in journal Science Advances.
"At the current rate, we are really heading toward a plastic planet," said study lead author Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
"It is something we need to pay attention to."
The plastics boom started after World War II and now plastics are everywhere.
They are used in packaging such as bottles and consumer goods such as mobile phones and refrigerators, they are in pipes and other construction materials, and in cars and clothing, usually as polyester.
Study co-author Jenna Jambeck, of the University of Georgia, said the world needed to know how much plastic waste there was before it could tackle the problem.
The study calculated that of the 8.3 billion tonnes made, nearly 6.4 billion tonnes were no longer used.
Only nine per cent was recycled and another 12 per cent was burned, leaving the rest on land and in water.
Using the plastics industry own data, Geyer, Jambeck and Kara Lavender Law found the amount of plastics made and thrown out was accelerating.
In 2015, the world created 406 million tonnes of plastic - more than twice as much as made in 1998.
China makes the most plastic, followed by Europe and North America.
The plastics industry says it is working to increase recycling and reduce waste.
"Plastics are used because they are efficient, they are cost-effective and they do their jobs," said Steve Russell, vice-president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council.
"And if we didn't have them, the impact on the environment would be worse."
Using alternatives to plastics such as glass, paper or aluminium required more energy, Russell said.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/20/world-turning-plastic-planet-study
-
Exclusion Of 'Legacy' Uses From TSCA May Limit Cleanups, Critics Tell EPA
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is drawing criticism from its children's health advisors and a Region 9 official over its decision to preclude legacy uses of chemicals, such as asbestos, in finished products from review under the new Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), bolstering criticisms from environmentalists who say they may sue the agency over its approach.
During a July 18 meeting of EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC), several panelists objected to EPA's exclusion of legacy uses from the scope of the risk evaluation rule, charging it could undermine remediation efforts and other regulatory requirements.
And an official with EPA's Region 9 who dialed in to the meeting backed the concern, suggesting EPA's determination creates inconsistencies in remediation and other requirements to address TSCA-regulated substances.
But EPA toxics officials who spoke at the meeting downplayed the concerns, saying the law did not provide EPA with authority to address legacy uses even as the officials left the door open to future case-by-case reviews of legacy uses.
EPA's stance is codified in its June 22 final risk evaluation rule that narrowed the definition of covered chemical uses from an Obama EPA proposal that included oversight of legacy uses.
The change is one of several aspects of three final TSCA implementation rules that environmentalists and some Senate Democrats have argued bend to industry demands and will weaken the effectiveness of the bipartisan reform law that former President Barack Obama signed in June 2016.
Many EPA critics are especially concerned over use of this approach in the agency's pending assessment of asbestos, one of the first 10 existing chemicals the Obama EPA selected for evaluation shortly before leaving office, a substance that has widespread legacy uses.
EPA's scoping document for its upcoming assessment of asbestos states that the agency “interprets the mandates under section 6(a)-(b) to conduct risk assessments and any corresponding risk management to focus on current and prospective uses, for which manufacture, processing, or distribution in commerce is intended, known or reasonably foreseen, rather than reaching back to evaluate the risks associated with legacy uses, associated disposal, and legacy disposal.”
But advocacy groups, such as the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO), are criticizing the scoping document as “lackluster” and promising to push to expand it.
The group's founder, Linda Reinstein, said in a July 13 interview with Inside EPA that she welcomed EPA's inclusion in the literature search a 2013 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) epidemiology study of firefighters, which ADAO urged EPA to review. The study indicates that firefighters' rate of developing mesothelioma, the deadly lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure, is twice that of the general population, according to an October 2013 NIOSH press release describing the study, which included nearly 30,000 firefighters in three cities, Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
But she said such evidence supports her point that legacy uses must be considered in EPA's pending risk evaluation. “It's very hard to give up legacy uses when firefighters are dying at twice the rate of the general population,” she said, adding that in new comments to EPA on the scoping documents, “We'll argue part of [ongoing] commerce takes in legacy” uses of asbestos. She noted that there are active industries performing asbestos abatement and disposal.
And she added that she and her colleagues are preparing to submit more evidence to EPA showing that there is not a safe level of exposure to asbestos.
Case-By-Case Review
EPA faced similar criticisms at the CHPAC meeting. Joel Forman, an associate professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York and a CHPAC member, faulted the administration's reserving the right to exclude legacy uses from TSCA oversight, noting that risks from common contaminants, such asbestos, could still be mitigated even if they are no longer produced in the United States.
And the EPA Region 9 official also pressed agency headquarters staff on the exclusion of so-called legacy uses, suggesting the policy led to inconsistent treatment of contaminants. The official said Region 9 requires schools to mitigate risks of building materials containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), a TSCA-regulated substance, but that other building materials, such as asbestos, may be present in schools and not considered an ongoing use.
“On the use and disposal point in TSCA reform” and not considering legacy issues, the official said, “I wonder how that's being parsed out.”
But Tala Henry, director of the Risk Assessment Division in EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), shrugged off any direct comparison to PCBs, saying the contaminant is a special case under the law. But Henry said the decision to exclude legacy uses generally from the scope of the TSCA prioritization and risk evaluation rules was the subject of significant debate inside the agency, including with EPA's general counsel, prior to issuance of the final rules.
“TSCA is all about the manufacturing, importing, distribution and use of chemicals,” she said. “If none of those things are occurring there's not actually a way for TSCA to deal with the potential risks, so it was decided that legacy uses,” or chemicals no longer made for a certain use, would be outside the scope of the rules.
While much of the criticism is aimed at EPA's decision to sidestep review of legacy uses of asbestos, another EPA official told the meeting that the agency still has the ability to review legacy uses on a case-by-case basis.
OPPT Director Jeff Morris suggested during the meeting that covering legacy uses would put EPA in the business of removing old sofas or attic insulation, which often contain chemicals that are no longer manufactured.
Noting that concern, Morris said that EPA's final risk evaluation rule takes a more nuanced approach. He said that in certain situations TSCA tools may allow EPA to address legacy uses, though with other uses the law may not apply, so the administration is reserving the right to exclude certain uses on a case-by-case basis.
Morris argued that conducting an in-depth analysis of certain uses and merely a screening level assessment of others will allow EPA to focus limited resources on uses of greatest concern. He also said that scoping documents for future reviews will address the depth of review that uses will receive and so stakeholders' input could help guide EPA's focus on uses of a particular chemical.
Such arguments push back against criticism environmentalists raised last month after EPA released the three “framework” rules to implement statutory changes to address “existing” chemicals under the revised TSCA. The risk evaluation and prioritization rules are slated for publication in the Federal Register July 20, beginning the time frame in which advocates could file a lawsuit challenging the rules.
In response to EPA's announcement of the rules last month, the Environmental Defense Fund's (EDF) Richard Denison argued that the Trump administration had made significant changes from draft rules issued in the waning days of the Obama administration and suggested the risk evaluation rule could be vulnerable to legal challenge.
Denison faulted the agency for narrowing the range of chemical “uses” it will consider in its assessments, arguing that “EPA's approach complicates and undermines the clear intent of Congress that EPA examine the full range of exposures to a chemical,” according to an EDF statement.
Forman and Tom Neltner, an EDF attorney who is also a CHPAC member, reiterated their opposition.
Neltner argued that EPA's determination that an already-produced product is outside the scope of TSCA is inconsistent with the revised TSCA and undermines the bipartisan effort to reform the law.
“We'll have the states and counties all doing their own regulation because EPA has chosen not to do its job,” Neltner told Henry. “Not you, but management.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/exclusion-legacy-uses-tsca-may-limit-cleanups-critics-tell-epa
-
(ACC Mentioned) Warning: Alerts Waning
Jul 20, 2017 | Chico News & Review
Nail polish and hair dye. Cleaning products. Plants and flowers for the garden.
California lawmakers have been considering new labels for them, triggering an annual conflict in the state Capitol over how much to tell people about what they buy at the store or use at work.
The bills reflect a recurring tension in the statehouse: Environmentalists and consumer advocates argue that people have a right to know what’s in everyday products, while industry lobbyists say putting too much information on a label could harm sales by creating unfounded fear. In most cases, industry wins.
Already this year, the Democratic-controlled Legislature sidelined a bill (SB 300) to label soda and other sugary drinks with warnings that they contribute to obesity, diabetes and tooth decay—a proposal lawmakers have rejected for the last few years. They also killed a different bill (SB 504) that would have added warning labels to foods containing synthetic dyes. In past years, lawmakers rejected bills to label genetically engineered foods and require ingredients to be listed on the labels of cleaning products.
“You’re fighting the manufacturers, the retailers, the chemistry industry and a long list of business groups who are probably irrelevant with the general public but are highly relevant within the Capitol,” said Richard Holober, executive director of the Consumer Federation of California, which supports more information on labels. “It’s almost always an uphill battle.”
Business groups that oppose such bills work to influence the process in ways big and small. They donate to political campaigns, hire well-connected lobbyists and provide goodies to lawmakers and their staffs.
The business groups also make persuasive arguments about the downsides of slapping products with new labels: The supply chain becomes complicated if one state requires labels different from others, label requirements create the potential for new lawsuits and consumers could become confused by label information without much context.
“If you say there’s a chemical in something, the connotation is that it’s bad, when in reality chemicals serve a number of valuable purposes,” said Michael Shaw, a lobbyist for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
“It creates concerns about the product that aren’t necessarily legitimate concerns.”
The possibility that new labels could change what people buy is exactly why these bills remain a perpetual battle in Sacramento.
Senate Bill 258 would require that cleaning products carry labels listing all ingredients and a pictogram illustrating their potential health effects. Environmentalists, health advocates and a union representing janitors support the bill, arguing that it would allow people to avoid products that may cause them harm.
“I have seen firsthand how chemicals have impacted my co-workers through breathing problems or exposure to the skin,” janitor Marvin Mugallo testified at a hearing in March.
The chemical industry, as well as groups representing manufacturers and retailers, are fighting the bill. They say disclosing ingredients could give away trade secrets and listing potentially hundreds of chemicals on a label is impractical for companies and unhelpful to consumers.
“Just because a product might contain a certain chemical, it would be inappropriate to send a message that that product may somehow be harmful to human health and the environment,” said Tim Shestek, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council.
Lawmakers killed a similar proposal last year.
Beauty products sold at the retail level already must list their ingredients. Assembly Bill 1575 would put a similar requirement on cosmetics used in beauty salons. The bill is supported by many groups that advocate for women’s health; their position is that hair stylists and nail salon workers are exposed to harsh chemicals on the job.
“At work, I often experience headaches and skin rashes that I believe may be related to the products I used. Many of my co-workers experience similar symptoms,” nail salon worker Kathy Pham testified.
The Personal Care Products Council opposes the bill, saying it already lists cosmetic ingredients on information sheets that salons are required to make available to their employees.
“Our companies often provide [this] information in multiple languages,” said Thomas Myers, a lawyer for the group.
Advocates who want to stem the ongoing decline in the population of bees proposed SB 602. Nursery shoppers would have seen a label that said, “State of California Safety Warning: May harm bees,” on plants and seed packets treated with a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids.
Those chemicals have been found in tomato plants, salvias and daisies, and remain in the plant long after the initial application, said Paul Towers, organizing director of the Pesticide Action Network, which supported the measure. Numerous agricultural groups and gardening stores opposed the bill, which was shelved.
https://www.newsreview.com/chico/warning-alerts-waning/content?oid=24674440
-
IARC Demonstrates Why Nutrition Science Is Terrible
Jul 19, 2017 | Real Clear Science
By Joseph Perrone
A “landmark” study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine discovered the fountain of youth tastes a lot like freshly brewed coffee.
After examining the diets of more than 500,000 Europeans over roughly 16 years, researchers found that increased coffee consumption was associated with a reduced risk of death from all causes. Cue the flood of headlines claiming “Coffee drinking could lead to longer life.”
If the constant flip-flopping of whether or not coffee is good for your health is giving you the jitters, you’re not alone.
In 1991, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) shamed baristas everywhere by first declaring coffee as a possible carcinogen. Then, after digging in its heels for over 25 years, the agency recently admitted that coffee doesn’t actually cause cancer. Oops?
Despite being a semi-autonomous arm of the World Health Organization, IARC is notoriously loose in issuing cancer classifications. The group claims everything from working the night shift to using a cell phone likely cause cancer in humans. Unfortunately, IARC frequently bases its decisions on studies that don’t quite capture the full picture of human health.
Take the agency’s recent tangle with red meat, for instance. In 2015, IARC concluded that red meat probably causes cancer in humans due to its weak association with colon cancer.
Yet studies show even after eating a burger-sized portion of red meat every day for a lifetime, the heaviest red meat consumers had less than a 2 percent increase in cancer likelihood. Even IARC’s own cancer database indicates that South America, home to four of the top ten meat-consuming nations, sees fewer cases of colon cancer than the global average.
Last month, Reuters further tarnished the agency’s credibility when an investigation uncovered that senior IARC scientist, Dr. Aaron Blair, may have deliberately withheld information from IARC’s review of glyphosate, the world’s leading weed killer. In a sworn deposition, Dr. Blair admitted that the agency likely would not have labeled glyphosate a probable human carcinogen if his missing data had been included.
Interestingly enough, the latest back-and-forth around coffee also comes from IARC. Four of the coffee study’s authors, including lead researcher Dr. Marc Gunter, are current IARC scientists.
Just like claims that someone’s lifelong medical history can be sidestepped with an extra morning brew or one less rib eye, the coffee evaluation should be taken with a grain of salt – or perhaps in this case, sugar.
Although researchers followed hundreds of thousands of participants for more than a decade, volunteers were only asked about coffee consumption once. Scientists can hardly claim a trend exists because of a single data point, especially since the amount of coffee people drink varies throughout their lives.
Gallup polling, for instance, indicates that consumption decreases from 3.8 cups a day to as low as 2.4 cups as the coffee drinker earns more. Yet despite drinking fewer cups, high earners typically live longer. Clearly, more factors are at play than the humble cup of Joe.
Despite not bothering to follow up on the single variable his study was supposed to evaluate, IARC’s Dr. Gunter proudly noted, “We found that higher coffee consumption was associated with a lower risk of death from any cause, and specifically for circulatory diseases, and digestive diseases.”
Similarly, if a participant only tried cigarettes once and didn’t die prematurely, this type of partial reporting would fail to capture the true dangers of smoking. Somehow, I doubt the media would be singing praises in such a scenario.
None of this is to imply that coffee is dangerous – in fact, quite the opposite is true. Even if the miracle bean turns out to be more Jack than Giant, the overwhelming body of evidence indicates that moderate coffee consumption won’t negatively impact one’s health.
But IARC’s poor research methods make it even more confusing for the average reader to pick science from pseudoscience. It’s no surprise that IARC is behind yet another poorly performed study – especially one upholding its newfound belief that a latte won’t actually make you drop dead from cancer.
Unfortunately for regular coffee drinkers – and those with a casual interest in their own health – nutrition science is regularly diluted by weak research and flashy headlines. The threat of science losing sway in the public eye is a serious concern in our time, which is why we must toss the sensationalism out with yesterday’s coffee. Fortunately, that advice isn’t rocket science.
Dr. Joseph Perrone is the Chief Science Officer at the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Center for Accountability in Science, which provides a balanced look at the science behind sensational headlines, and seeks to debunk junk science and correct public misconceptions.
http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2017/07/19/the_iarc_cant_get_its_story_straight_on_cancer_110342.html
-
US Study: EPA's Current Tox Tests Insufficient For Low-Dose Exposures
Jul 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The US EPA's current toxicity tests are not always sufficient to predict the specific levels of exposure at which humans are affected by endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), according to a government-funded study.
And this can be despite the tests clearly identifying hazards that are presumed to be of concern to humans, the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine study found.
A National Academies committee conducted systematic reviews for two groups of substances: phthalates and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs).
It reviewed the evidence that the substances caused adverse human health effects at low doses - which fall below those used in traditional toxicity testing employed by the EPA and others.
With both substance groups, the committee found it difficult to compare exposure in animal studies with that for humans. It said that this was because researchers tend to report only administered doses for animal studies. In contrast, human studies rely on measurements of the target substance, or its metabolites, in body fluids, such as serum or urine.
The committee said that pharmacokinetic data for the development of pharmacokinetic models were needed to support animal-to-human extrapolation of evidence. Such models would make it possible to infer human internal doses from biomonitoring data and animal internal doses from administered doses.An EDC strategy
EDCs are a focus for concerns about low-dose toxicity because small changes in hormone concentrations – particularly during sensitive life stages – can have lasting and significant effects.
The reviews formed part of a project to develop a strategy for the evaluation of evidence of adverse human health effects from EDCs at low doses. The aim was to show how their results can be used with other relevant data to draw conclusions about causal associations.
The report describes the strategy as having three stages: surveillance; investigation and analysis; and action.
Surveillance is about detecting ‘signals’ that raise questions about the potential low-dose toxicity of a particular chemical or methods for the detection of this more generally.
There are three types of data that should be monitored for such toxicity:data on specific chemicals;data that could have implications for toxicity test methods and best practice for EDCs; anddata on endocrine-related diseases in animals and humans.
Once signals are identified, the next step is to prioritise areas for investigation and analysis and formulate key questions to frame the issues.
The report provides four investigation and analysis options: targeted analysis of existing data; generation of new data or models; systematic review; and integration of evidence.The EU approach
Earlier this month, EU member states adopted a European Commission proposal for criteria to identify EDCs. But the paper remains controversial, with member states, NGOs and industry all critical of aspects of it.
Policy makers see agreement over how to identify EDCs as a logical first step towards a mutual understanding of how they should be treated under EU chemicals legislation.
But not everyone can afford to wait.
EDCs are ‘equivalent level of concern’ (ELoC) substances for the purposes of authorisation under REACH. Accordingly some have already found their way on to the candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs).
These include bisphenol A (BPA), as well as four phthalates: BBP, DEHP, DBP and DIBP. In all of the cases, Echa added the substance based on its reproductive toxicity but subsequently updated the entry so that it is also listed for endocrine disruption in humans.
The US committee included the four phthalates in its systematic reviews.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57728/us-study-epas-current-tox-tests-insufficient-for-low-dose-exposures
-
North Carolina Governor Presses EPA on GenX Regulation
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper (D) is pressing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to take steps under several environmental statutes to address a perfluorinated chemical known as GenX that has been found in the Cape Fear River, a source of drinking water for four counties in the state.
In a July 17 letter, he urged Pruitt to quickly complete EPA's health assessment of the substance and set a drinking water standard, revisit a 2009 enforcement order that allowed Chemours, the DuPont spinoff, to use the chemical and use authority under the new toxics law to evaluate the substance's risks.
“North Carolina residents need immediate help and long-term certainty about the safety of the water they drink,” Cooper writes “I am writing to seek your urgent action to get us answers and solutions” about GenX.
The state launched an investigation in June into discharges of GenX from a Chemours plant near Wilmington, NC, and the company agreed to cease its discharges of the chemical, which is also known as perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid and is a substitute for perfluorooctanoic acid.
This has caused the levels of GenX in the water supply to decrease dramatically, Cooper says.
“However, many questions remain about potential health effects caused by exposure to this and other emerging contaminants, and we know that only your agency can give regulatory certainty about this contaminant,” the governor writes.
The North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), working with EPA, released an updated public health goal for GenX on July 14 of 140 parts per trillion, which is “expected to be the most conservative and health protective for non-cancer effects in bottle-fed infants, pregnant women, lactating women, children and adults,” according to a DHHS press release.
EPA's assistance to the state has been helpful, Cooper says, “but we need the EPA to move more quickly to finalize its health assessment of GenX and set [a Safe Drinking Water Act] maximum contaminant level for it. These are critical steps that must take place in order for North Carolina to be able to require Chemours to limit or eliminate discharge of GenX.”
Additionally, Cooper asks EPA to revisit the 2009 consent order that allowed Chemours to begin using Gen X. The order requires Chemours to limit emissions of the chemical, but the company has said the order does not cover discharges of the chemical when it is a byproduct of other chemical processes, which is what Chemours believes happened in North Carolina.
“I ask that the EPA revisit this consent order immediately and modify it to apply to any and all release of GenX,” the governor says.
Cooper urges EPA to use its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to evaluate byproducts from other Chemours production lines, including wastewater discharge, and asks the agency to require companies to submit “multiple health studies covering several exposure methods when registering chemicals under TSCA. This will increase the public's understanding of chemical compounds introduced into our waterways. These safeguards are more important than ever as North Carolina and other states confront the presence of unregulated, emerging contaminants in our water.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/north-carolina-governor-presses-epa-genx-regulation
-
Fashion Brands Join Together To Develop Safer Materials
Jul 20, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Five fashion brands are working together with a private US-based certification and ecolabel scheme to develop certified materials for use in the supply chain.
H&M, Kering, Loomstate, Zero + Maria Cornejo and Eileen Fisher have joined the Fashion Positive Plus initiative run by the US-based Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Products Innovation Institute.
The companies are drawing up a list of commonly-used materials that will undergo a chemicals assessment by third party consultants.
The project is the first time a group of companies has collaborated to gain C2C's ecolabel for materials.
C2C verifies materials against its own standards for the circular economy across many sectors, from building materials and interior design finishes to packaging, personal care, household products, textiles and apparel.
Its certified product standard assesses a product through five quality categories:material health;material reutilisation;renewable energy and carbon management;water stewardship; andsocial fairness.
A product receives an achievement level in each category – basic, bronze, silver, gold or platinum – with the lowest achievement level representing the product’s overall mark.Material health assessment
According to C2C, the material health category assesses the extent to which the product manufacturer knows the chemical ingredients of every material in a product, and the company's efforts to move towards safer materials.
Material assessments are conducted for each homogeneous material in a product.
Each chemical in the material is first rated according to a range of hazard endpoints. The ratings are then combined with exposure scenarios covering manufacture, use and reuse to produce risk ratings for each of the chemicals. These risk ratings are then used to produce a single risk rating for the material by assigning it the worst single risk rating.
Annie Gullingsrud, C2C textiles and apparel director, told Chemical Watch the initiative differs from other programmes to reduce the use of hazardous chemicals because it goes beyond complying with lists of banned chemicals.
Although the use of such lists by Greenpeace's Detox campaign and fashion brands collective the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) group is, she said, "a great place to start", C2C's scheme assesses all chemicals that go into a product, as well as the water, social impact, energy consumption and material reuse.
Greenpeace Detox aims to phase out 11 classes of chemicals in the textile supply chain by 2020, while ZDHC is a collaboration of companies which produce standards, tools, guidance and training to help eliminate hazardous chemicals.
But Ms Gullingsrud said C2C's goal is "to go beyond reduction of bad – and provide a positive impact."
Industry pressure group Fashion for Good compared the C2C scheme with the OEKO-TEX standard 100 and found its material health criteria exceed it, but will require materials testing.
Fashion Positive Plus members are asked about their material usage and suppliers to identify building block materials such as fibres, yarns, finishings, trims, and dyes.
They decide on the most important materials to focus on from the Fashion Plus critical materials list. This identifies materials urgently needed by the fashion industry to enable circularity.
These will then be assessed and verified using the C2C Certified product standard. The materials will also be added to C2C's 'fashion positive materials collection', which currently lists 70 C2C Certified materials with apparel and fashion applications.
This summer, UK retailer C&A will be the first global retailer to launch gold level C2C certified t-shirts.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57729/fashion-brands-join-together-to-develop-safer-materials
-
Addressing Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Requires An Integrated Strategy
Jul 20, 2017 | Euractiv
By Genon Jensen
The dangers of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) for human health and the environment have long been documented and the evidence keeps piling up every day, yet Europe’s approach to this challenge has been lukewarm, writes Genon Jensen.
Genon Jensen is the Executive Director of Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).
From bisphenol A to cadmium or a whole variety of pesticides, we are all exposed to EDCs. However, as the debacle on the identification criteria of endocrine disruptors for pesticides illustrates, the European approach to this emerging challenge lacks ambition. Not only does it fail to follow the latest scientific developments, but also to acknowledge the societal demands for a transition to safer alternatives.
On 4 July, a European Commission proposal for criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals for pesticides was agreed by representatives of EU governments – the end of a four-year process.
For health and environment advocates, scientists, or public interest groups such as health professionals or non-profit insurers, these criteria have a bitter and toxic taste. Leaving aside the significant corporate lobbying interference in the process, one is struck by the health and economic burden that a lack of ambition and political will result in for society.
According to a conservative estimate, diseases arising from exposure to EDCs weigh at least €163 billion on European public health budgets.
Meanwhile, urine tests and hair samples from populations all across Europe show the presence of chemicals that should not be there in people’s bodies: for instance, a study carried out in France in 2015 found no less than 21 endocrine disruptors’ residues per women tested, including toxic chemicals that have been banned from the market.
Keeping these numbers in mind, addressing the emerging challenges posed by the exposition to endocrine disruptors across their uses (beyond pesticides, from cosmetics to food packages, or toys) based on precaution and consistency appears both an urgent and obvious need.
Unfortunately, the criteria agreed are narrow, insufficient, impractical, and they will make it very difficult – if not impossible – to prove that a pesticide is disrupting the endocrine system.
Why does this matter? Because the higher the burden of the proof and the bigger the loopholes in the identification criteria, the longer the products will remain on the market, leaving people exposed to their effects and weighing heavily on public health budgets.
What should be done now?
The battle over the identification criteria for pesticides is not completely over yet. After the summer, the European Parliament will be asked to vote on the European Commission proposal – either to sign it off or to veto it.
This is an important opportunity for MEPs to echo the existing concerns, give a voice to almost 500,000 citizens who have asked for more protective criteria without being heard. Therefore, MEPs should reject the current criteria and defend an ambitious approach that reflects the latest state of science.
Traces of endocrine disrupting chemicals are found everywhere, including in our bodies, which means that we are all concerned by their effects. The Endocrine Disruption Exchange lists about 1,300 potential EDCs, and many more suspected substances need to be investigated.
While scientists and public interest groups are doing their share to address this emerging challenge, decision-makers should have the courage to take political steps that are already available. This can start in the European Parliament with the rejection of the flawed pesticides criteria.
It is time to disrupt business as usual and put the health of the current and future generations first.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/endocrine-disruptors/opinion/addressing-endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-requires-an-integrated-strategy/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Kevin DiGregorio: WV Shale Boom A Marathon, Not A Sprint (Daily Mail)
Jul 20, 2017 | Charleston Gazette-Mail
By Kevin DiGregorio
A June 26 article in The Wall Street Journal has created a bit of a buzz in some circles in West Virginia.
The headline and subheadline say it all, perhaps. The headline? “The Shale Revolution’s Staggering Impact in Just One Word: Plastics.” And the subhead? “Petrochemicals, once simply a cheap byproduct, are powering a U.S. manufacturing boom and export bonanza.”
Of course, the article goes beyond just that. It describes a staggering investment of $185 billion for 310 new U.S. petrochemical projects with predictions of 462,000 direct and indirect manufacturing jobs brought on by the shale revolution by 2025.
So why the buzz? Because the Wall Street Journal piece never mentions West Virginia. In fact, many who are buzzing about the article take that a step further and wonder, “What is West Virginia doing to bring new petrochemical jobs to the state?”
Good question. You can rest assured that West Virginia — meaning Secretary of Commerce Woody Thrasher, the state Development Office, the Chemical Alliance Zone, the Polymer Alliance Zone, West Virginia University, MATRIC, the W.Va. Manufacturer’s Association, local economic development groups and many others — is diligently working to bring cracker plants and other new chemical and polymer facilities to the Mountain State.
You have likely heard of Braskem’s potential cracker in Wood County — which would use ethane from shale gas — and U.S. Methanol’s plans to build two methanol plants in Kanawha County — which would take advantage of methane from shale gas.
And you have likely heard of plans for a potential Appalachian Storage Hub that would enable the storage of ethane and perhaps other natural gas liquids (NGLs) along with the transportation of those chemicals from southwestern Pennsylvania down the Ohio River to Catlettsburg and along the Kanawha River into the Kanawha Valley.
What you haven’t heard are all of the other potential (and confidential) projects that many of us are working on that might lead to new facilities and high-paying STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) jobs that take advantage of methane and NGLs (ethane, propane, butane) to make various chemicals and plastics.
Of course, until announcements are made — and perhaps until steel is erected — those projects not only remain under confidential wraps, but they also remain only opportunities.
I get that, but I also know that announcements will never be made and no steel will ever be erected without those opportunities.
I also know that this is not just a one-state play. Leaders in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Kentucky have been working collaboratively on various aspects of this opportunity, most notably the Appalachian Storage Hub, to boost investments and jobs in the larger region.
In fact, that proposed private-public partnership — and its potential $10 billion investment — has gained much traction not only in the four states but also in Washington, D.C.
(And, as an aside, companies as diverse as Shell, MarkWest, and Energy Storage Ventures are already working on ethane storage and transportation projects in the region.)
But don’t think Appalachia is going unnoticed outside of the region. A more recent article, this one by CNBC — “Appalachia Joins the Race for the Multibillion-Dollar Petrochemicals Boom” — points directly to Appalachia’s promise.
Although the Appalachian slice of the $185 billion pie is small — roughly $16 billion according to the CNBC piece — current projects have brought welcome news to the region and will spur more investments and jobs.
One of those, a petrochemicals complex being built by Shell in southwestern Pennsylvania, will result in some $6 billion in new investments and as many as 600 permanent (and regional) jobs.
Another multibillion-dollar facility is under consideration by PTT Global just across from Moundsville in Ohio. And don’t discount U.S. Methanol’s smaller, but still important, investments in West Virginia.
Still, we would like an even larger slice of an ever-growing pie.
The good news is that many think that is quite possible. The American Chemistry Council recently released a report showing the potential in Appalachia, including over 100,000 jobs and almost $36 billion of petrochemical investments.
That’s a nicer slice, but admittedly, that scenario might require the buildout of the $10 billion Appalachian Storage Hub.
In the end, the thing to remember is that this shale boom we all speak of is in many ways not a boom at all, but a shale marathon. It took more than 50 years for the Gulf of Mexico region to develop into the petrochemical hub of today.
We must have patience. Shale gas will be with us for the next 50 and maybe 100 years. Things have changed dramatically in just the last five to 10 years, and they will likely change again over the next ten.
The shale boom is indeed more of a marathon than a sprint, but even then it’s not just a really long race. Instead, it’s a steeplechase marathon full of pits and hurdles that we must — and will — overcome.
Kevin DiGregorio is executive director of the Chemical Alliance Zone cazwv.com.
http://www.wvgazettemail.com/daily-mail-commentary/20170719/kevin-digregorio-wv-shale-boom-a-marathon-not-a-sprint-daily-mail
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Votes for More Energy Regulator Authority Over Pipelines
Jul 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
Legislation aimed at averting pipeline approval fights akin to the battle over Keystone XL passed in the House July 19.
The bill (H.R. 2883) would remove the White House from the cross-border pipeline regulatory process, replacing its approval authority with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The Obama administration rejected the Keystone XL pipeline, which was designed to transfer Canadian oil to the Gulf of Mexico starting in late 2015. But President Donald Trump signed off on the project just days after taking office.
Republicans railed against the Obama decision as a detriment to U.S. jobs and the fossil fuel industry. TransCanada, however, is still seeking approval from Nebraska regulators before it begins construction.
GOP Puts Trust in FERC
The legislation, which passed 254-175 would give the Energy Department approval authority for cross-border electric transmission lines, but FERC would sign off on oil and natural gas pipelines.
Those approvals would come only after environmental assessments are completed. The U.S. shares pipelines infrastructure with both Canada and Mexico.
Supporters claim the regulatory overhaul will give more certainty and objectivity to approvals, while environmental groups blasted the passage.
“[The bill] eliminates many important longstanding procedures, undermining critical environmental and economic review by abolishing the requirement that a project obtain a presidential permit and be affirmatively determined to be in the public interest,” the League of Conservation Voters said in a July 18 letter to members, also arguing that the revamp would instruct federal regulators to only assess the environmental impacts of the pipeline section that crosses the border.
“By only reviewing a small portion of these projects and essentially erasing the national interest requirement, this bill would make it almost impossible for an agency to ever deny a permit and could result in irreversible damage to our health, public safety, climate, environment, and economy,” the letter said.
Domestic FERC Deference
Meanwhile, the House also passed legislation (H.R. 2910) to require FERC and other regulators to finalize a decision on natural gas pipelines 90 days after an environmental review.
The measure also requires all federal and state agencies to show deference to the FERC review. That bill passed 248-179.
The American Chemistry Council , American Petroleum Institute, the National Ocean Industries Association and other industry groups lauded the passage. “The permitting process has become more protracted and challenging in recent years,” they said in a letter. “While the [FERC] generally acts in a timely manner on most proposed applications, roadblocks and delays are becoming far too common with other federal and state permitting agencies. We need a process that is fair, comprehensive, and ensures commonsense cooperation and timely decision-making.”
The sprawling Senate energy bill (S. 1460) includes a similar measure.
House Democrats failed to move a number of amendments on both bills that would have scaled back or modified the regulatory changes.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117057181&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=498370000&searchid=30224287&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
Gas Lobbies for Attention as Perry Aims to Aid Coal on the Grid
Jul 20, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy, Ari Natter and Jim Polson
As Energy Secretary Rick Perry considers whether the U.S. should do more to keep coal and nuclear power plants online, natural gas producers are trying to ensure they aren't left in the dark.
Lobbyists for the natural gas industry are telling the administration their fuel is just as reliable as coal or nuclear, and that gas-fueled plants have the added advantage of being able to ramp up quickly to respond to price spikes or a drop in wind speeds. The lobbying push illustrates how fulfilling President Donald Trump's pledge to save coal has downsides for other fossil fuel interests, including those closely allied with the president.
“We're not taking shots at coal and nuclear,” but it's important to “tell the whole story,” said Marty Durbin, executive vice president and chief strategy officer at the American Petroleum Institute. “We want to make sure if they go down this road, they understand” that reliability is about more than the fuel itself, he said.
API, which absorbed America's Natural Gas Alliance in 2015, released a study last month describing an array of natural gas attributes that make for a more reliable grid—including fleets that are both flexible and stable. The advocacy by API, which represents companies such as Exxon Mobil Corp., tracks similar arguments about the grid by wind, solar and battery companies.
Proponents of natural gas, which topped coal to be the primary source for electricity generation in 2016, are trying to fend off any decisions by the Energy Department to push for changes to the structure of power markets and give advantages to coal or nuclear producers. That prospect is real: FirstEnergy Corp. wants to see what moves Perry would make before a possible sale of its coal plants in competitive markets.
Coal is more reliable because that fuel sits in piles at the plants whereas natural gas must be delivered by pipelines to the facilities, coal producers say. That makes coal plants less vulnerable to disruption than those burning natural gas, its advocates argue.
Perry's Energy Department is set to release this month its assessment of the grid—a study designed to examine whether policies favoring wind and solar energy are accelerating the retirement of coal and nuclear plants viewed as providing steady, reliable “baseload” power. Perry's initial memo for the study said natural gas supplied “affordable baseload power” as well. That suggested the focus would be on how to counter the surge in renewable wind and solar power, which benefit from federal tax breaks.
Since then the coal industry began highlighting that fuel's perceived benefits over gas.
“Coal is more resilient than natural gas,” said Paul Bailey, the president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which represents coal-mining companies, utilities and railways. “We think coal-fired power plants are necessary to have a resilient electricity grid.“
Competition from cheap gas is only set to grow.
The American Gas Association, which represents gas distributors, is set to release a report July 19 showing that technically recoverable natural gas resources in the U.S. have grown to the highest level in 52 years of assessing them, said Jake Rubin, an AGA spokesman. More supply generally leads to cheaper gas.
A draft version of the study prepared by career staff at the Energy Department suggests they are taking a broad view.
“Fuel diversity does not in itself assure or improve grid reliability, and having fuel on site does not assure better grid resilience,” the draft report says. “The grid is more diverse today than ever before, despite the loss of coal and nuclear generation and greater dependence on natural gas-fired combined cycle power plants.“
Two factors are largely to blame for the financial woes of coal and nuclear plants, according to the staff draft, which was obtained by Bloomberg last week. Cheap natural gas is driving down wholesale rates for electricity, cutting the profit margins for those competing plants. In addition, demand for electricity has flattened out. The final report will reflect changes from the staff analysis, according to a department spokeswoman.
Advocates for coal say there is one important example that shows the importance of a fuel that can be stored on site: the 2014 Polar Vortex.
Soaring electricity prices during that stretch of frigid days led to record winter demand for power and depleted natural gas supplies. Wholesale power prices reached $2,205 a megawatt-hour in PJM Interconnection LLC, the largest U.S. power market, on March 4, 2014. The average PJM price that year was $63.32.
“Had it not been for coal power plants, the gas-supported generation would not have satisfied the demand that peaked that winter,” said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association, which represents Arch Coal Inc., Peabody Energy Corp., Murray Energy Corp. and other miners.
But coal was not immune from the extreme cold of the Polar Vortex. Piles of coal froze, as did control and sensor equipment necessary for operations. An assessment found that 26 percent of unplanned power plant outages then were at coal plants; natural gas accounted for 55 percent.
When baseload resources failed, wind power and demand response—with consumers turning down thermostats and conserving energy—helped save the day, said Arvin Ganesan, vice president of federal policy at Advanced Energy Economy.
“If anything, what the Polar Vortex shows is there is diversity in the electric system, and that diversity is actually helping to solve reliability problems,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117057188&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117057188&jd=117057188
-
Ethylene Exports From The U.S. Planned
Jul 19, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Enterprise and other firms are looking to build terminals to send the petrochemical building block overseasThanks to cheap natural gas from shale, the U.S. has become a large exporter of ethane as a feedstock for overseas ethylene makers. As U.S. chemical projects start to come on-stream later this year, the country will grow as an exporter of ethylene derivatives such as polyethylene.
Now, U.S. companies want to cultivate a chemical commodity that hasn’t been a steady export business: ethylene itself.
Energy services firm Enterprise Products Partners and the marine liquefied gas carrier Navigator Holdings plan to build an ethylene export terminal at Enterprise’s Morgan’s Point complex on the Houston Ship Channel in Texas.
The terminal will have the capacity to load 100 metric tons of ethylene onto ships per hour and could be expanded to 200 metric tons per hour. It will be connected to an ethylene storage facility currently under construction that can hold 270,000 metric tons of ethylene.
Last year, Enterprise opened an ethane export terminal in Morgan’s Point with the capacity to move about 550 metric tons per hour.
At the moment, the U.S. doesn’t have a lot of ethylene export capability. The only such facility is operated by Targa Resources in Galena Park, also on the Houston Ship Channel. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. exported nearly 190,000 metric tons of ethylene last year. In 2014, it exported only 3,000 metric tons.
Enterprise isn’t the only company looking to get into the ethylene export business. Odfjell Terminals is considering a facility for its Houston Ship Channel location in Seabrook, Texas.
Ethane is a model for what the ethylene export business could become. Ethane exports have become big as European chemical makers such as Ineos and SABIC look for bargains in the U.S. ethane surplus.
According to the Census Bureau, ethane exports climbed from zero in 2014 to 1.7 million metric tons last year, enough to support two large ethylene crackers. Those numbers likely include exports out of Philadelphia and pipeline exports of ethane into Canada.
A. J. Teague, Enterprise’s CEO, says his firm’s new ethylene terminal will provide “critical market diversification” by giving chemical makers options beyond converting the ethylene into polyethylene resin for export.
An ethylene terminal makes sense to Steve Lewandowski, vice president of olefins for the consulting group IHS Markit. Enterprise is already building an ethylene pipeline through Morgan’s Point, which has dock space available. The company, he says, will likely only need to invest in equipment to chill the ethylene and store it on-site.
The facility should also have customers, Lewandowski says. China is home to many companies that make ethylene derivatives but aren’t integrated with a source of ethylene. As Chinese ethylene makers build their own derivative plants, feedstock is drying up for the nonintegrated players. “There are companies getting desperate to get ethylene supply,” he says.
Lewandowski also sees a market in international companies that have an overhang of ethylene capacity in the U.S. and a deficit in Europe.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i30/Ethylene-exports-US-planned.html
-
Executive Order Establishes Infrastructure Advisory Council
Jul 20, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Camille von Kaenel
President Trump is setting up a new advisory council on infrastructure in the Commerce Department that will tackle environmental policy, among other issues.
The 15-member council will report on "funding, support, and delivery of infrastructure projects in several sectors, including surface transportation, aviation, ports and waterways, water resources, renewable energy generation, electricity transmission, broadband, pipelines, and other such sectors as determined by the Council," according to an executive order issued last night.
The members of the council, whom Trump will select, will have expertise in at least "real estate, finance, construction, communications and technology, transportation and logistics, labor, environmental policy, regional and local economic development."
The council expands the coterie of aides working out the details of Trump's vision to spur nearly $1 trillion in state, local and private spending on infrastructure, although it is unclear how it will fit with the existing initiative.
So far, White House aides DJ Gribbin and Alex Herrgott have led efforts, focusing primarily on streamlining and updating the environmental permitting process within federal agencies. Representatives from 16 agencies have been working on a legislative proposal, expected to come to Congress this fall, but have yet to agree how to pay for $200 billion in additional federal funding.
Conservative groups have seen the White House's focus on infrastructure as an opportunity to roll back environmental rules and laws, including the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/20/stories/1060057648
-
(ACC Mentioned) Bill Delaying New Ozone Standards Moves Forward In Congress
Jul 19, 2017 | Houston Public Media
By Travis Bubenik
One local environmental group calls the bill an “excuse on the part of industry” to not address air quality problems more aggressively.
A bill passed by the U.S. House could have implications for Houston’s air quality struggles, giving polluters more flexibility to meet ozone goals.
Pollution in the city’s nowhere near as bad as it was decades ago, but Houston has still regularly failed to meet federal air quality standards.
With a bill delaying new, Obama-era ozone standards now headed to the Senate, some worry the air problem will be ignored.
“It is an excuse on the part of industry to not use the billions of dollars it has to actually implement mitigations to reduce its emissions,” says Bakeyah Nelson, Executive Director of Air Alliance Houston. Environment Texas, another green group, has pointed to an uptick in high-ozone days in the past couple years.
The groups want petrochemical plants to act now, but Anna Burhop, with the industry group American Chemistry Council, says ozone standards have been changing too fast.
“From a business perspective, you don’t want to go ahead and jump into reformulating all of your products, or putting really expensive controls on your plants, when you don’t know whether that’s necessary or not,” she says.
It’s not clear how this bill, if it becomes law, would affect an ongoing lawsuit against the EPA’s own effort to delay the new ozone limits.
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2017/07/19/222428/bill-delaying-new-ozone-standards-moves-forward-in-congress/
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Approves NAAQS Delay Bill
Jul 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
The House voted July 18 largely along party lines to approve legislation overhauling the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program to make reviews less frequent and delaying implementation of EPA's strict 2015 ozone standard, clearing the path for a likely contentious Senate debate on the issue.
Lawmakers voted 229-199 to approve H.R. 806 in the face of concerted opposition from Democrats who warn the bill would gut the Clean Air Act's public health protections.
Four Democrats joined with most Republicans to approve the bill, while 11 Republicans joined with the remaining Democrats to oppose the measure.
A Senate companion bill, S. 263, is co-sponsored by West Virginia Democrat Sen. Joe Manchin, but other Senate Democrats will likely oppose the bill, casting serious doubt on its prospects.
The bill would delay by eight years the implementation of EPA's 2015 ozone NAAQS, which the Obama administration set at 70 parts per billion (ppb), stricter than the previous level of 75 ppb set by the Bush EPA in 2008, which is still in place.
A wide array of industry groups, such as the American Chemistry Council and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are backing the bill.
A key objection of Republican and industry critics of EPA is that the dual standards means states and facilities must comply with two standards at once, which they say imposes an unreasonable administrative burden.
“Unworkable timeframes included in the 2015 standard created uncertainty for our communities and job creators, and they ultimately penalized hardworking American families,” Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX), a bill co-sponsor, said in a written statement July 18.
And Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) said on the House floor that EPA's dual standards have created “confusion and duplication."
The bill would also make a series of sweeping changes to the NAAQS program. It would prohibit any ozone NAAQS review before 2025 rather than the air law's current five-year review schedule for all NAAQS.
It would also extend the compliance date for states to meet EPA's 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS. The Trump EPA has already announced a one-year implementation delay for the 2015 standard, and similar measures are currently attached as a rider to proposed House appropriations legislation for EPA.
Under H.R. 806, states' suggested designations of areas in attainment or nonattainment with the 2015 NAAQS would now be due in 2024, with EPA's final decisions on designations due in 2025, rather than October this year as currently required. And state implementation plans, outlining states' plans to attain the NAAQS, would not be due until 2026, rather than the current 2020 requirement.
The bill would further extend the NAAQS review cycle from five to 10 years for all six NAAQS, including those for ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and lead. And it would for the first time allow EPA to consider technical feasibility in setting NAAQS, among other provisions.
Democrats spoke on the House floor to reiterate past criticisms of the bill, while offering a series of unsuccessful amendments to blunt the bill's impact or stop it altogether. For example, Rep. Kathy Castor (D-FL) offered an amendment that would prevent the bill taking effect if EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee determined that it is detrimental to public health.
Democrats were scathing in their attacks on the bill, linking it to Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), for example, said that combined with the Obamacare repeal effort, the GOP is waging “an all-out assault on America's health,” that will “permanently damage the Clean Air Act.” But Republicans insisted the bill does not roll-back NAAQS protections, merely tries to ease their implementation.
Republicans who voted against the bill are Reps. Carlos Curbelo (FL), John Faso (NY), Brian Fitzpatrick (PA), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Brian Mast (FL), Bruce Poliquin (ME), David Reichert (WA), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Mark Sanford (SC), Chris Smith (NJ) and Elise Stefanik (NY). Democrats who voted for the bill are Reps. Sanford Bishop (GA), Henry Cuellar (TX), Collin Peterson (MN) and Jim Costa (CA).
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-approves-naaqs-delay-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Make America Sick Again’: Dems Blast Passage of Trump Admin’s Smog Bill
Jul 19, 2017 | RT
The House of Representatives has voted to pass Republican-backed legislation blocking regulations which reduce smog-causing air pollutants. The bill’s supporters say it will help job creators while opponents argue it would cost lives.The Ozone Standards Implementation Act of 2017, which, if signed into law, would scrap the implementation of air pollution standards for the next eight years. The guidelines were issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Barack Obama in 2015.
Those regulations reduced the allowed amount of ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to 70 ppb.
“The bill would delay lifesaving protections against ozone pollution, exposing Americans to unnecessary pollution levels that will lead to asthma attacks and premature deaths that could have been prevented,” said Harold P. Wimmer, head of the American Lung Association, one of over a dozen health organizations opposing the bill.
Wimmer called it a “direct assault” on the right of Americans to breathe healthy air.
Several pro-business groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and the US Chamber of Commerce have predictably supported the legislation.
“This bill is about listening to job creators back home,” said its primary sponsor, Representative Pete Olson (R-Texas), who represents a district that depends on the oil and gas industry.
Stricter standards approved by Obama’s EPA would force American companies to invest billions in new pollution reduction measures, according to Olson.
“This is a blueprint to Make America Sick Again,” countered Democratic Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia, mocking Donald Trump’s campaign slogan.
The EPA under the previous administration estimated that it would cost $1.4 billion to meet the stricter standards, arguing, that the benefits for public health outweighed the price.
A bill, similar to the one passed by the House Tuesday, is advancing in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Earlier in July, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the Trump administration’s 90-day suspension of Obama-era rules that limited methane and smog-forming pollutants emitted by oil and gas wells.
The court said the EPA under Trump could reconsider the rules but could not delay the date it begins.
Scott Pruitt, now the head of the EPA, previously sued the agency 14 times in his capacity as Oklahoma’s attorney general for its efforts to regulate mercury, smog and other forms of pollution.
Pruitt claimed the EPA overstepped its legal authority by saddling the fossil-fuel industry with unnecessary regulations.
https://www.rt.com/usa/396853-smog-pollution-bill-trump-epa/
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested