Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 11/8/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toxicologists Endorsing Dourson's Nomination Are Birds of a Feather
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.” -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Lobby Welcomes Congressional Probe of Cancer Research Agency
Aug 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The US chemical industry is celebrating a government investigation into alleged scientific fraud within the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency. -
EPA Publishes Final TSCA Reform Inventory Rule
Aug 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Aug. 11 Federal Register its final rule that determines the universe of chemicals subject to the mandates of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which will start a six-month clock for companies to notify the agency whether their production of chemicals subjects them to the rule. -
US EPA Sets TSCA 'Inventory Reset' Rule in Motion
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published its final TSCA 'inventory reset' rule in theFederal Register, starting the clock on the statutory 180-day reporting period. -
Chemical Footprinting Strides to Become Mainstream with Walmart
Aug 11, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi, Cheri Peele, Sally Edwards and Tim Greiner
Global momentum toward chemical safety is rising as the financial and health implications of chemical mismanagement become increasingly clear. -
UK Publishes Guidance on Assessment of Waste Packaging
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Trade associations representing companies in the UK chemicals supply chain have developed guidance on the classification and assessment of waste packaging. -
Oil and Gas Industry Loses Latest Row over Obama Standards
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The oil and gas industry will not have another shot at swiftly delaying Obama-era greenhouse gas restrictions. -
U.S. LNG Export Trade Jumps 1,000% in 1Q, While Canadian NatGas Imports Increase 9%
Aug 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Natural gas sales heated up across North America in the first three months of the year, raising volumes and prices of flows between Canada, the United States and Mexico, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). -
New Reports Are Dire but May Not Change Policies
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Two major new surveys of climate science indicate that human-caused global warming is transforming the planet at a rapid pace, but they may do little to sway the policies of the Trump administration. -
Trump Has No Science Adviser. Will That Politicize Climate?
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Federal scientists might feel as if their parents are out of town. In the Trump White House, there isn't a presidential science adviser to oversee a major report on climate change. -
U.S. Emissions Probably Won't Increase under Trump, Study Says. But They Won't Fall, Either.
Aug 11, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chelsey Harvey
Carbon-cutting efforts in the United States may be more resilient to Trump administration policies than expected, according to a new study.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Toxicologists Endorsing Dourson's Nomination Are Birds of a Feather
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.” The release cited four toxicologists: Samuel M. Cohen, Jay I. Goodman, Gio Batta Gori and Kendall B. Wallace.
Far from representing a “widespread” set of endorsers, it turns out these four and Dourson constitute an exceedingly close-knit group.
My last post focused on Dourson’s incredibly high rate of publishing his papers in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that is known for its close ties to the tobacco and chemical industries. It so happens that this journal is also a key thread connecting Dourson to at least three of his endorsers:
· Dourson and Cohen both serve on the journal’s editorial board;
· Goodman is an associate editor of the journal; and
· Gori is its editor-in-chief.
What else can be said about these toxicologists who are endorsing Dourson?
Dr. Gori has a decades-long history of paid work for the tobacco industry. For details, see these sources:
· SourceWatch
· Landman and Glantz (2009), “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research,” American Journal of Public Health, January, Volume 99(1): 45–58.
· David Michaels (2008), Doubt is Their Product: How the Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford University Press, pp. 53-54.
Drs. Cohen, Goodman and Wallace, like Dourson, have for many years been paid consultants to a large range of companies and trade associations. For example:
· Based on a PubMed search, Cohen has co-authored papers published over just the past six years that were funded by the Arsenic Science Task Force and the Organic Arsenic Products Task Force, the American Chemistry Council, Sumitomo Chemical Company, a Permethrin Data Group operating under the auspices of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the International Organization of Flavor Industries, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
· Goodman has received grant money over many years from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and has also done paid work for the American Chemistry Council and Pharmacia. A PubMed search found recent papers he co-authored funded by Syngenta Crop Protection, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The Dow Chemical Company, and the American Chemistry Council.
· Wallace has done extensive work on diacetyl (the artificial popcorn butter flavoring linked to severe lung damage in workers) paid for by ConAgra. This included a paper, “Safe exposure level for diacetyl” (later retracted). Based on a PubMed search, he has done work on perfluorinated substances over a number of years for 3M Company.
All four of the toxicologists endorsing Dourson have also worked together. They are co-authors on two highly controversial 2016 papers that attack the role of science linking chemical exposures and human health effects in risk assessment and regulation, and the identification and regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. See here and here. The latter paper is published in … you guessed it, the industry’s go-to journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Like I said, it’s a very close-knit group of heavily conflicted scientists that are providing that “widespread praise” for Dourson’s nomination.
As I noted earlier about Dourson, these industry consultants have every right to make their living however they choose. And the tobacco and chemical industries have every right to hire whomever they want. But Dourson’s nomination is for a position that is supposed to serve the public’s interest, not those of the chemical industry. It simply must be asked: Who really stands to benefit if he’s confirmed? The endorsements of Dourson by this group of wholly like-minded individuals who have the same deep conflicts as Dourson himself shouldn’t count for much.
When the Trump Administration announced its intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), EPA issued a news release titled “Widespread Praise for Dr. Michael Dourson.” The release cited four toxicologists: Samuel M. Cohen, Jay I. Goodman, Gio Batta Gori and Kendall B. Wallace.
Far from representing a “widespread” set of endorsers, it turns out these four and Dourson constitute an exceedingly close-knit group.
My last post focused on Dourson’s incredibly high rate of publishing his papers in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology that is known for its close ties to the tobacco and chemical industries. It so happens that this journal is also a key thread connecting Dourson to at least three of his endorsers:
· Dourson and Cohen both serve on the journal’s editorial board;
· Goodman is an associate editor of the journal; and
· Gori is its editor-in-chief.
What else can be said about these toxicologists who are endorsing Dourson?
Dr. Gori has a decades-long history of paid work for the tobacco industry. For details, see these sources:
· SourceWatch
· Landman and Glantz (2009), “Tobacco Industry Efforts to Undermine Policy-Relevant Research,” American Journal of Public Health, January, Volume 99(1): 45–58.
· David Michaels (2008), Doubt is Their Product: How the Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health, Oxford University Press, pp. 53-54.
Drs. Cohen, Goodman and Wallace, like Dourson, have for many years been paid consultants to a large range of companies and trade associations. For example:
· Based on a PubMed search, Cohen has co-authored papers published over just the past six years that were funded by the Arsenic Science Task Force and the Organic Arsenic Products Task Force, the American Chemistry Council, Sumitomo Chemical Company, a Permethrin Data Group operating under the auspices of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association, the International Organization of Flavor Industries, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Boehringer Ingelheim.
· Goodman has received grant money over many years from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company, and has also done paid work for the American Chemistry Council and Pharmacia. A PubMed search found recent papers he co-authored funded by Syngenta Crop Protection, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, The Dow Chemical Company, and the American Chemistry Council.
· Wallace has done extensive work on diacetyl (the artificial popcorn butter flavoring linked to severe lung damage in workers) paid for by ConAgra. This included a paper, “Safe exposure level for diacetyl” (later retracted). Based on a PubMed search, he has done work on perfluorinated substances over a number of years for 3M Company.
All four of the toxicologists endorsing Dourson have also worked together. They are co-authors on two highly controversial 2016 papers that attack the role of science linking chemical exposures and human health effects in risk assessment and regulation, and the identification and regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. See here and here. The latter paper is published in … you guessed it, the industry’s go-to journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Like I said, it’s a very close-knit group of heavily conflicted scientists that are providing that “widespread praise” for Dourson’s nomination.
As I noted earlier about Dourson, these industry consultants have every right to make their living however they choose. And the tobacco and chemical industries have every right to hire whomever they want. But Dourson’s nomination is for a position that is supposed to serve the public’s interest, not those of the chemical industry. It simply must be asked: Who really stands to benefit if he’s confirmed? The endorsements of Dourson by this group of wholly like-minded individuals who have the same deep conflicts as Dourson himself shouldn’t count for much.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/08/11/toxicologists-endorsing-doursons-nomination-are-birds-of-a-feather/
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Lobby Welcomes Congressional Probe of Cancer Research Agency
Aug 11, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The US chemical industry is celebrating a government investigation into alleged scientific fraud within the World Health Organization’s (WHO) cancer research agency. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) has applauded a letter sent by Republican leaders earlier this month that seeks details about the situation from the head of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Access to full text unavailable – subscription required.
Story can be found here: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/us-chemical-lobby-welcomes-congressional-probe-of-cancer-research-agency/3007854.article
-
EPA Publishes Final TSCA Reform Inventory Rule
Aug 11, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is slated to publish in the Aug. 11 Federal Register its final rule that determines the universe of chemicals subject to the mandates of the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which will start a six-month clock for companies to notify the agency whether their production of chemicals subjects them to the rule.
The final “TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements” establishes electronic reporting requirements for chemicals manufactured in the last decade to support its prioritization of chemicals to review under the updated TSCA signed into law June 22, 2016.
“EPA is establishing the procedures regarding the manner in which such retrospective and forward-looking activity notifications must be submitted, the details of the notification requirements, exemptions from such requirements, and procedures for handling claims of confidentiality,” the notice says. “This TSCA section 8(b) rule requires electronic reporting of chemical identity from persons who manufactured a chemical substance for nonexempt commercial purpose during the 10-year time period ending on June 21, 2016.”
The final rule is one of three issued June 22 that create a new framework for assessing and managing risks of existing chemicals -- those that were on the market when TSCA was first enacted in 1976 -- which were largely grandfathered under the original TSCA.
The other two framework rules governing risk evaluation and prioritization were published in the Register July 20, and legal challenges to the regulations are expected.
Environmentalists have criticized all three rules, suggesting that changes from proposed versions issued at the end of the Obama administration could cast doubt on the effective and legal implementation of the revised TSCA under the Trump administration.
The Environmental Defense Fund's Richard Denison has threatened a lawsuit against the risk evaluation rule, faulting EPA for narrowing, from a proposed version issued in January, the range of chemical “uses” it will consider in its assessments.
While the risk evaluation rule has received the strongest criticism, Denison also has criticized provisions of the inventory update rule, which eased manufacturers' requirements to notify EPA when they activate chemicals and to transfer confidential business information claims.
The inventory rule “creates loopholes for companies that will limit the public’s ability to know what chemicals are on the market,” Denison has said.
In the notice, EPA says its final rule fulfills its statutory obligation to designate chemicals on the inventory as active or inactive in commerce and establishes a forward-looking procedural framework for companies to provide notice should they resume manufacturing or processing of substances deemed inactive.
The agency says that the rule also finalizes proposed revisions to definitions to ensure consistency with the agency's Chemical Data Reporting rule as well as with submissions of premanufacture notices. Additionally, EPA says inventory rule designations are not intended to draw conclusions on chemicals' risks, but to reach inform relevant prioritization of chemicals in commerce for future reviews.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-publishes-final-tsca-reform-inventory-rule
-
US EPA Sets TSCA 'Inventory Reset' Rule in Motion
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has published its final TSCA 'inventory reset' rule in theFederal Register, starting the clock on the statutory 180-day reporting period.
The inventory notification rule will determine the substances active in commerce during the ten-year 'lookback period', ending on 21 June 2016. Manufacturers and importers covered by the rule must report these by 7 February 2018. Processors – whose participation is voluntary – may report between now and 5 October 2018.
The text of the final rule was published on its 22 June statutory deadline, the one-year anniversary of passage of the Lautenberg Act. But the reporting period did not officially begin until today's notice.
Legal experts agree that the final rule has been streamlined versus January's proposed approach, consistent with many of industry's requests to adopt efficiencies in the process. Changes include broader reporting exemptions, decreased information to be included in notifications and a longer reporting period for downstream users.
But despite these modifications – and although there is broad agreement that there are far fewer substances active in commerce than the 85,000 on the current TSCA inventory – the exercise promises to be a heavy lift.Reporting basics
The EPA will use this retrospective reporting to designate substances on the inventory as active or inactive. This, it says, will help inform the prioritisation of chemicals for risk evaluation.
Once the list of designations is finalised, a user must submit a 'forward-looking' notification prior to the manufacture, import or process of any inactive substance.
The exercise also seeks to confirm the status of confidentiality claims by requiring manufacturers to indicate if they are seeking to maintain an existing chemical identity protection. The EPA is required to move to the public portion of the inventory any confidential substance for which it receives no requests to maintain the claim.
Reporters will have to provide chemical identity information and indicate if they seek to maintain an existing confidentiality claim. The agency removed the previously proposed requirements to report commercial activity type and date range, as it determined these are "unnecessary to achieve the objective of designating substances as active or inactive".
After the 180-day manufacturer reporting period, the EPA will publish a draft inventory "as soon as is practicable". Processors may elect to report any substances that did not get notified by upstream suppliers prior to the agency finalising the designations.
Processors may choose to forego reporting. But upon formal designation of substances, they must cease processing any inactive substance for nonexempt purposes until notifying the EPA.
Like other TSCA submissions, notifications will be made electronically through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) and Chemical Information Submission System (CISS).
An EPA spokesperson told Chemical Watch that the online reporting system will be up and running by Monday.
Exemptions
There are several reporting exemptions. These include:"excluded chemical substances", including those not listed on the inventory, those manufactured solely under a TSCA section 5(h) exemption, and naturally occurring substances;substances manufactured or processed for an exempt commercial purpose, including byproducts or impurities with no commercial purpose, substances manufactured in small quantities solely for research and development, or chemicals manufactured only for export or test marketing purposes; andsubstances for which the EPA "already has equivalent notice".
For this last exemption, the agency says there are three scenarios:substances on the interim active list, comprising those reported under the 2012 or 2016 chemical data reporting (CDR) rule. The list – published in June – includes nearly 10,000 substances;chemicals added to the inventory during the lookback period pursuant to a notice of commencement (NOC); andsubstances for which a manufacturer can product a CDX receipt demonstrating another company has already reported a substance.
However, the EPA notes that if a manufacturer wishes to maintain an existing confidential business information (CBI) claim it will need to submit a notice to that effect, even if the substance is considered exempt from reporting.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58178/us-epa-sets-tsca-inventory-reset-rule-in-motion
-
Chemical Footprinting Strides to Become Mainstream with Walmart
Aug 11, 2017 | GreenBiz
By Mark Rossi, Cheri Peele, Sally Edwards and Tim Greiner
Global momentum toward chemical safety is rising as the financial and health implications of chemical mismanagement become increasingly clear.
Witness the global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which highlight the importance of reducing and managing hazardous chemicals to meet the objectives of ensuring healthy lives, the availability of clean water, and sustainable consumption and production patterns.
The Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) initiative of investors, retailers, government agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and health care organizations aspires to support these goals through the effective management of chemicals in products and supply chains. CFP signatories include investors with over $2.3 trillion in assets under management and purchasers with over $600 billion in buying power. (Some of the authors of this piece are affiliated with the Chemical Footprint Project).
Walmart Stores is the latest signatory to the project, agreeing to offer up data related to chemicals in products it sells."CFP is making data available for benchmarking and gap analysis, which are critical for us to understand where our company and our suppliers are on the journey to more sustainable chemicals," said Zach Freeze, senior director for sustainability at Walmart. Chemicals snapshot
And it isn't alone. The results from a 2016 CFP Survey reveal how 24 companies manage chemicals in their products and supply chains. They provide a snapshot of chemical management policies and practices — beyond regulatory compliance — across a diverse set of businesses.
The CFP Survey evaluates companies and their chemical management policies and practices based on four key pillars:
1. Management strategy: the policies and strategies companies put into place to manage chemicals
2. Chemical inventory: the information companies collect on chemicals in products and supply chains
3. Footprint measurement: the baseline data companies have on chemicals of high concern to human health and the environment (CoHCs) in products and their tracking of progress to safer alternatives
4. Disclosure and verification: the sharing of information on chemicals in products with the public, disclosure of scores and responses to the CFP Survey, and steps taken to verify responses to the survey.
“Companies that excel in these indicators are the companies that use the safest chemical ingredients in their products and have the deepest knowledge of their suppliers and their chemicals management practices,” said Boma Brown-West, senior manager for consumer health at the Environmental Defense Fund.Capturing your chemical footprint
The diversity of companies participating in the CFP Survey highlights the relevance and value of chemical footprinting across the business community.
Companies participating in the 2016 CFP Survey have annual revenues over $670 billion and market cap valuations over $730 billion. They sell formulated products and articles. They range in size from small national brands to large multinational corporations. They sell apparel and footwear, building products and furnishings, household and personal care products, electronics, toys, medical devices and packaging.
Walmart is the first company to participate both as a responder by filling in the survey and a signatory, agreeing to engage its suppliers in participating in CFP.
The upshot of this evolution: For the first time ever, companies are quantitatively measuring and reporting their chemical footprint.
Companies participating in the 2016 survey are breaking new ground by demonstrating how to calculate an organization-wide chemical footprint.
In the 2016 CFP Survey, 42 percent of participating companies calculated their chemical footprints by count (number of Chemicals of High Concern, or CoHCs) or mass. The 21 percent of companies that calculated their chemical footprint by mass shipped or sold products with 631 million pounds (or 286 million kilograms) of CoHCs in 2015.
Companies reporting their chemical footprint now have clear metrics for evaluating progress to safer chemicals, including reducing the number and mass of CoHCs in products. A highlight in the 2016 CFP Survey responses is that 13 percent of reporting companies reduced their use of CoHCs in products by 416 million pounds (or 189 million kilograms) over the past two years.
Quantitative chemical footprinting is the new metric for assessing corporate performance. It will help companies in meeting the SDGs and reporting to the SASB standards, which ask companies to report on chemicals of concern by percent of revenue sales.Minding the gaps
Looking ahead, survey results can provide metrics for benchmarking chemicals management performance based on company size, type of products sold, and CFP pillar.
The 2016 survey results fall into two broad categories of companies based on type of products sold: first, companies that sell formulated products, and second, companies that sell only articles. Formulated products include liquid-based products such as cleaners, paints, personal care products and detergents. Articles are hard products such as furniture, electronics and apparel.
The two categories of companies differ significantly. Formulated product companies recognize their products contain chemicals, which they often specify in the products they sell. Governments regulate the handling, shipping, disposal and labeling of formulated products much more rigorously than with articles. Companies selling articles see their products as made from materials and may not consider the chemical content of those materials unless asked or required by customers or regulations.
Surprisingly among companies selling formulated products, small and large companies overall scored similarly — though they reached their scores by following different paths.
Large companies selling formulated products scored higher in the category of Management Strategy and Chemical Inventory, while small companies selling formulated products scored higher for Footprint Measurement and Disclosure & Verification. The large companies scored higher for developing and implementing policies, systems and procedures for safer chemicals. Yet small firms scored higher for footprinting and disclosure because many participating in CFP avoid hazardous chemicals by design and are committed to greater transparency.
Article companies scored in a more predictable fashion, with large firms scoring highest, followed by medium and then small companies. Large companies selling articles scored highest for every CFP Pillar. Medium companies selling articles scored higher than small companies for every CFP Pillar except Disclosure & Verification. Small companies selling articles are on the learning curve for how to implement environmentally sound chemical management practices.
We attribute the higher scores for large companies selling articles to their greater awareness of chemicals of high concern in their products and supply chains, for greater resources to manage chemicals of high concern (including resources for supply chain engagement as well as creating and managing databases), and for greater need to have corporate policies in place to develop and implement chemical management systems.
Small companies in particular are encouraged to tap into the technical knowledge of peers and leverage resources available from governments, universities and NGOs to offset their resource disadvantages.
Next steps
The CFP survey results reveal clear steps companies can take to improve their "sound management of chemicals" and move toward the goal of achieving sustainable consumption and production, including:
Corporate policy: establish a comprehensive chemicals policy. Inventory: know the chemicals in your company’s products and supply chains.
Measurement: quantitatively measure your company’s chemical footprint, set measurable goals, and monitor progress to these goals.
Transparency: engage the public, institutional customers, and investors in your firm’s journey to effective chemicals management by sharing publicly your CFP answers and score.
Companies taking these actions will be well on the path to the environmentally sound management of chemicals in their products and supply chains.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/chemical-footprinting-strides-become-mainstream-walmart
-
UK Publishes Guidance on Assessment of Waste Packaging
Aug 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Trade associations representing companies in the UK chemicals supply chain have developed guidance on the classification and assessment of waste packaging.
Companies that produce waste from their operations must assess and classify their wastes in accordance with the Environment Agency's technical guidance, which falls within the scope of the European waste framework Directive.
The new guidance helps companies assess whether the waste packaging should be classified as hazardous or non-hazardous.
In particular, it advises on a method for the assessment and classification of "effectively empty packaging" that has residues containing hazardous substances. This allows companies to classify such waste packaging as non-hazardous, subject to certain criteria being met.
Trade associations, which contributed to the guidance, include:
· British Coatings Federation;
· British Plastics Federation;
· Chemical Business Association; and
· Chemical Industries Association.
The European Commission has recently consulted on the interface between chemicals, products and waste legislation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58171/uk-publishes-guidance-on-assessment-of-waste-packaging
-
Oil and Gas Industry Loses Latest Row over Obama Standards
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The oil and gas industry will not have another shot at swiftly delaying Obama-era greenhouse gas restrictions.
A federal appeals court yesterday rejected industry groups' request to reconsider a July decision ordering U.S. EPA to enforce New Source Performance Standards for methane emissions from oil and gas sites.
A coalition of states and industry groups made the request last month after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's attempt to pause the methane standards for 90 days using a technical reconsideration process laid out in the Clean Air Act.
Two dozen industry groups and 11 states urged the D.C. Circuit to rehear the case en banc — before all 11 active judges (Energywire, July 28). The court rejected the request in an 8-3 decision yesterday.
Judges Brett Kavanaugh, Karen Henderson and Janice Rogers Brown, all appointees of Republican presidents, would have granted rehearing.
The industry's legal defeat came as EPA pushes another approach to delaying the standards. The agency has proposed a separate two-year stay of the rule; the public comment period for that delay closed this week (Greenwire, Aug. 9).
Asked how EPA plans to enforce the Obama-era standards in the meantime, a spokesman said this morning, "The agency is considering all available options at this time."
The American Petroleum Institute, which has led opposition to the standards, last night reiterated its position that industry should not be forced to comply with a regulation that the Trump administration is rethinking.
"It makes good business and policy sense to allow EPA to stay the rules now, and not subject businesses to on-again, off-again, requirements until EPA can reconsider the rule," a spokesman said in a statement last night.
Environmental advocates and states that have been defending the methane restrictions in court are expected to challenge the proposed two-year delay if it is finalized. For now, though, they're celebrating last night's legal win.
"In a victory for all Americans, the court has once again rejected a lawless attempt to put the lives and health of our families and communities at risk from oil and gas pollution," Environmental Defense Fund attorney Vickie Patton said in a statement. "EPA should do its job, as required by law and as critically necessary for public health, and enforce these commonsense clean air safeguards."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/11/stories/1060058675
-
U.S. LNG Export Trade Jumps 1,000% in 1Q, While Canadian NatGas Imports Increase 9%
Aug 11, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Natural gas sales heated up across North America in the first three months of the year, raising volumes and prices of flows between Canada, the United States and Mexico, according to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Canadian exports to the United States, still the continental gas trade’s biggest item, rose by 9% in 1Q2017 to 824.9 Bcf from year-ago volumes of 756.4 Bcf, the DOE’s regulation and international engagement division said.
While the United States still is a net gas importer from Canada, exports to Eastern Canada have steadily increased since the completion of the Vector Pipeline in 2000. Exports of U.S. gas across the border from Michigan to the Dawn Hub in Ontario make up the largest share of pipeline exports to Canada, according to an analysis of Energy Information Administration data. The government agency’s new August Short-Term Energy Outlook reiterated that the United States should become a net gas exporter in 2018.
The average price fetched by southbound Canadian gas at the U.S. border rose by 43% in 1Q2017 to $2.88/MMBtu from 1Q2016’s $2.01/MMBtu.
U.S. gas exporters likewise reaped gains. Pipeline deliveries of U.S. gas into Canada grew by 34% to 286.2 Bcf from 213.2 Bcf a year earlier. The border price for northbound U.S. gas rose by 45.4% to $3.30/MMBtu from $2.27/MMBtu.
U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, launched in mid-2016 and accelerating, stood out as the continental industry’s growth star.
The volume of U.S. LNG overseas shipments shot up by 1,000% year/year in 1Q2017 to 146.7 Bcf from 13.3 Bcf. The average LNG export price rose by 48% to $5.47/MMBtu from $3.71/MMBtu.
Counting a 22% gain in gas pipeline deliveries to Mexico -- 365.6 Bcf from 299.5 Bcf in 1Q2016 -- total U.S. international sales grew by 52%.
U.S. exports of all types of gas rose to 798.7 Bcf in the opening three months of this year from 526.2 Bcf in the year-ago period. The performance included a 48% gain in prices received for Mexican deliveries to $3.28/MMBtu from $2.21/MMBtu.
The strong showing in the early months of this year has poised the U.S. industry to overtake its Canadian counterpart’s long-standing stature as the world’s second-biggest gas exporter after Russia, according to the DOE scorecard.
In 1Q2017, the Canadian lead over the United States in export volumes shrank from 1Q2016 by 90% to 26 Bcf from 260.8 Bcf. Total net U.S. imports, counting LNG tanker deliveries from overseas, were only 52.7 Bcf.
Industry analysts credit the 1Q2017 rising gas trade volumes and prices to a strong heating season, the new LNG outlet for surpluses, and use of gas-fired power stations to replace coal and back up renewable windmill and solar electricity sources.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/111378-us-lng-export-trade-jumps-1000-in-1q-while-canadian-natgas-imports-increase-9
-
New Reports Are Dire but May Not Change Policies
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
Two major new surveys of climate science indicate that human-caused global warming is transforming the planet at a rapid pace, but they may do little to sway the policies of the Trump administration.
Reports that surfaced this week warned of soaring global temperatures and said it's "extremely likely" that humans are the dominant cause behind the changing climate. But President Trump and Cabinet officials with direct influence over climate policies have pushed back against mainstream science on climate change.
On Monday, The New York Times drew attention to a recent draft of the latest science undergirding the National Climate Assessment. Scientists expressed concern that political appointees in the Trump administration would seek to alter its findings, which pointed to humans as the most likely cause of warming (Climatewire, Aug. 8).
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt told the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Gazette, on Tuesday that he hadn't yet read that report. EPA is among the 13 federal agencies that must approve the report by the end of next week.
Speaking to a conservative radio host on Wednesday, Pruitt referred to climate research as "so-called settled science" and reiterated his call for a broad climate science debate. He said he wanted to start reviewing climate science by the fall.
"The American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion about this supposed threat to this country," he said. "And we need to advance that."
In another interview yesterday with a different conservative radio station, WBAP in Texas, Pruitt dismissed concerns about rising carbon dioxide levels.
People are preoccupied with CO2 emissions, he said, "because it serves political ends."
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), one of the fiercest critics of mainstream climate science in Congress and chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said the draft of the climate assessment report fails to use the most current data, particularly data related to natural causes of climate change. Smith, who has accused climate scientists of engaging in global conspiracy, called the draft misleading and said it "requires serious revision."
"Making temperature predictions far into the future has proven to be nothing more than speculation, and goes against the principles of scientific integrity," he said Tuesday in a statement.
Yesterday, another major climate report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration showed that global temperatures soared to record highs in 2016, topping 137 years of record-keeping and driving low levels of sea ice cover, glacial melting and high sea levels (E&E News PM, Aug. 10).
"When you set record after record after record, it's very extreme, and it is cause for concern," said Jessica Blunden, a NOAA climatologist and one of the report's authors. The report was produced by more than 500 contributors from dozens of countries.
EPA officials did not respond when asked if Pruitt would review the comprehensive NOAA report as part of his broader effort to analyze climate science.
The NOAA report's authors did not directly comment on whether their work has been well-received in the White House or if any political appointees have attempted to interfere with the findings.
Its diagnosis is that the Earth's climate is changing on a large scale and that the costs of such changes would outweigh the benefits, said Deke Arndt, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information.
"The report is a diagnostic report; it basically diagnoses what it happening in the climate system," he said. "Its intent is to provide intelligence" to policymakers.
NOAA researchers said their report clearly showed that carbon dioxide is the primary control for the atmosphere, an assertion that some Cabinet members have questioned.
"For long-term climate change, that is the primary driver," said Blunden of NOAA.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/11/stories/1060058679
-
Trump Has No Science Adviser. Will That Politicize Climate?
Aug 11, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Federal scientists might feel as if their parents are out of town. In the Trump White House, there isn't a presidential science adviser to oversee a major report on climate change.
For the National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated study, the fact that President Trump hasn't nominated a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief means that career staff members have been developing a draft study that affirms mainstream climate science. NOAA also released a separate report yesterday saying that 2016 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide, the third straight year of record-breaking temperatures.
The studies contradict Trump administration officials who have downplayed the effect humans have on the climate. They also contradict the president, who has called climate change a hoax. But if getting those reports into the public sphere is good news for scientists, at a time when some administration officials misstate the findings of climate research, it's of little solace.
That's partly because the Aug. 18 decision by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to either approve or reject a study that's part of the National Climate Assessment has illuminated a vacancy in the Trump administration. More than six months into his presidency, Trump still lacks a science adviser.
"Scientists are worried about it," said Neal Lane, one of President Clinton's science advisers, who is now a senior science and technology policy fellow at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. "I'm alarmed by things like this. They're important reports, and they're strategically important reports that help the government set policy. But we also have crises, and this office is deeply involved in the response."
While their roles and influence shift with every president, there are some basic functions consistent across all science advisers, former OSTP officials told E&E News. Science advisers coordinate and settle disagreements between agency heads on reports like the National Climate Assessment. They also advocate for and set science and research budget priorities, bring scientific assessments to regulatory decisions, take leading roles in crisis situations like viral outbreaks and oil spills, and tap the minds of scientists in far-ranging disciplines to present the best available information to the president.
The void at OSTP means that federal agencies, overseen by political appointees, and the White House could make regulatory and policy calls without broad, coordinated scientific input. Most of those in the understaffed OSTP, the office charged with coordinating and settling disputes between federal agencies on the climate report, are career officials waiting for direction from the administration.
"I was the highest level to which [the National Climate Assessment] went. Nobody in the West Wing even looked at it," John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, said in an interview. "Ordinarily, [a report] going to the White House would have meant going to the OSTP director. But there is no OSTP director. So who is looking at it? I have no idea."
To many in the scientific community, the open position at OSTP speaks to the Trump administration's apparent disregard for science and expert opinion. Many on the far right who constitute Trump's base see scientists and experts as an elite class that has cast them aside. The distrust of climate scientists in particular is pronounced: Just 15 percent of conservative Republicans say climate scientists "can be trusted a lot to give full and accurate info on causes of climate change," according to an October 2016 Pew Research Center poll.
Of course, selecting a science adviser who bucks the consensus on climate change that humans are driving temperatures higher wouldn't instill much trust from the science community. That the few candidates publicly mentioned — such as Princeton University physicist William Happer and Yale University computer scientist David Gelernter — have been critical of climate science has given some scientists pause.Iconoclast or convener?
The science adviser is supposed to be seen as a convener and someone who's respectful of science writ large. Those standards are difficult to attain while maintaining contrarian viewpoints, said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy.
"Having a good scientist in their field who is an iconoclast isn't very helpful in a coordinating role," Rosenberg said. "And you're not only bringing forward your view to the president."
Concerns about the Trump administration's science views came to a head this week when federal researchers sought to give The New York Times a draft of a climate science study that's part of the National Climate Assessment. The scientists told the Times they feared the Trump administration would silence that study, which was sitting at OSTP after the 13 federal agencies working on it had reviewed and commented on the findings. (An earlier version of the report was publicly available at the time of reporting, unbeknownst to the Times.)
"I can assure you that the NCA process is running smoothly and according to schedule. No deadlines have been missed, which I believe is actually a first for this thing," OSTP spokesman Ross Gillfillan said in an email.
Asked about the concerns of potential censorship portrayed by some scientists, he said, "The alarmism is overblown and unwarranted."
Added Donald Wuebbles, a former Obama OSTP official charged with leading the National Climate Assessment who is now working on it as a consultant with the U.S. Global Change Research Program: "We've seen no sign of [suppression], so we've not been talking about it."
The lights aren't completely out at OSTP, but the administration has thinned its ranks. Many officials working on climate and energy issues are no longer there, while other political and advisory staff have come aboard in recent weeks (Greenwire, Aug. 4).
Chatter about naming a science adviser has been quiet for months. Many of the people filling seats at OSTP were on loan from federal agencies and have since returned, either because their details ended or the work waned. It's not clear what staff there will bring to bear on the National Climate Assessment process, though in the past, the office has had to step in on matters such as whether to call a climate effect "very strong" or "severe" and how to characterize climate impacts that could signal for substantive policy responses.
Some have expressed concern that Trump might strip the "assistant to the president" title from the science adviser. That demotion would mean the science adviser no longer directly reports to the president like other aides, restricting the ability to deliver information to Trump.
"It probably makes the science less connected to the White House if there is no science adviser meeting with the White House," said Wuebbles, who is now an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois.
Former federal science officials saw the Trump budget proposal as a reflection of the science adviser's absence. The White House proposed gutting basic and applied research programs across the board.
The science adviser is generally viewed as the community's top advocate within the White House and often a champion of increasing research spending. The adviser works closely with the Office of Management and Budget to synthesize research and development priorities and defend them from congressional criticism. In George W. Bush's presidency, where the science adviser had a relatively weak influence on policy, annual research and development funding requests surpassed those of Obama, though with emphasis on different sectors, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
"It's only rarely that science issues, or issues with technical content, actually come up to the White House for decisions or for policy direction change, but probably the most common way they come up is in the budget process, and that's where a lot of the discussions that I have with my colleagues takes place," the late Jack Marburger, Bush's science adviser, said in a February 2005 event at the University of Colorado, Boulder.'Clearly a problem'
Regulatory decisions in the Trump administration, a number of which have gotten off to false starts for one reason or another, have also been made without input from a science adviser.
That's important because while each agency has its own scientists, they look at issues narrowly and within their jurisdiction. A scientist studying the causes of smog at U.S. EPA, for example, may lack the expertise to judge its public health effects that someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention possesses. That's also why the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has consistently consulted the science adviser when devising regulations.
"When I was at OIRA, we worked closely with OSTP on developing risk analysis guidelines," Susan Dudley, who was Bush's OIRA chief and now directs the George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center, said in an email. "They had the lead on biotech & nanotech, and convened interagency meetings on policies related to those."
Consider the climate and environmental actions that have occurred without anyone coordinating scientific efforts: delaying new ozone standard implementation (which was retracted), nixing methane emissions standards for oil and gas operations on federal land (currently held up in the courts), approving the pesticide chlorpyrifos, and overseeing the potential repeal and redrafting of the Clean Power Plan.
"It's clearly a problem because people who are not technical experts are making political judgments about science," said Kathy Jacobs, who directed the National Climate Assessment at OSTP under Obama from 2010 through 2013 and is now director of the Center for Climate Adaptation Science and Solutions. "There are consequences for people's health."
That being said, the science adviser is just one of many competing influences on the presidency. Science is taken into account alongside economic considerations when making policy. Trade-offs are sought to satisfy various political objectives, but the role of the science adviser is to ensure the president and agencies are acting on the best available information.
Marburger didn't have the "assistant to the president" title, and his office was moved several blocks away from the White House to a nongovernment building. On the flip side, Holdren had considerable input on climate change and other science priorities.
Although Marburger was criticized for having to defend Bush policies and mischaracterizations of the science on climate and other matters, he was seen as someone who genuinely respected the work of scientists. He also played an instrumental role in ameliorating disagreements between agencies and taming some of the officials who were more opposed to climate action, said Dan Walker, who was at OSTP from 2006 until 2009.
The difference between the Bush presidency and the current one is that there's no one to check political instincts with science, said Walker, who is now the associate director of multidisciplinary studies at the Center for Technology and Systems Management in the University of Maryland's civil and environmental engineering department.
"If the agencies' conclusions conflict with the administration's policy positions, there's nobody in the middle to play referee," he said. "That's a problem, because without OSTP, there is no process. But what it seems to reflect is the administration doesn't think there needs to be a process, and that policy will always trump science."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/08/11/stories/1060058678
-
U.S. Emissions Probably Won't Increase under Trump, Study Says. But They Won't Fall, Either.
Aug 11, 2017 | The Washington Post
By Chelsey Harvey
Carbon-cutting efforts in the United States may be more resilient to Trump administration policies than expected, according to a new study. But under even one term for President Trump, the nation will still fall behind on an ambitious Obama-era plan for reducing emissions over the next few decades.
Despite the Trump administration’s large-scale rollback of environmental policies, and the president’s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement, U.S. emissions are likely to remain relatively flat over the next few years, according to research published last week in the journal Climate Policy. Researchers at North Carolina State University argue that market forces are likely to bolster the expansion of clean energy and other emissions-cutting efforts, particularly in the electricity sector, against changes in federal policy.
Even so, the paper estimates that by 2050 a single Trump term could lead to the release of 12 billion more metric tons of carbon dioxide than would have been emitted under the Obama administration’s long-term plan for cutting emissions, a detailed proposal known as the Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization released at the end of President Barack Obama’s final term. If Trump is elected to a second term, his policies would release an additional 20 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s equivalent to more than half a year’s worth of carbon emissions across the globe.
The Mid-Century Strategy aimed to bring U.S. emissions down to 80 percent below their 2005 levels by the year 2050. The plan was meant to build upon the nation’s pledge under the Paris climate agreement, a short-term target of cutting U.S. emissions by 26 percent to 28 percent below their 2005 levels by the year 2025. As The Washington Post’s Chris Mooney reported in November, the Obama-era strategy’s long-term climate effects would be tantamount to the impact of suddenly removing all vehicles from U.S. roads.
But if emissions remain flat under the Trump administration, this means that any subsequent administrations that want to meet the same climate goals outlined under the Obama-era strategy would have to introduce policies that cut carbon emissions at an even faster rate than the Obama plan.
“The authors make a good case for why U.S. emissions are likely to remain flat under President Trump,” said Marc Hafstead, an environmental economist and research fellow at the nonprofit Resources for the Future, who was not involved with the analysis. “While the administration’s policies will prevent further declines in emissions in the next four to eight years, market forces and aggressive state policies — in California, for example — make it equally unlikely emissions will increase in the near term.”
The authors examined five sectors that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions — electricity, land use, buildings and infrastructure, transportation and non-carbon dioxide emissions sources such as methane — to analyze how vulnerable they may be to changes in federal climate policies. They found that, given the future outlook for U.S. coal mining, the electricity sector is likely the most stable.
Despite repeated promises from the Trump administration to revitalize the declining coal industry, the expansion of cheaper natural gas and renewables such as wind and solar is likely to prevent that from happening, the authors note. Even in the absence of the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration’s flagship effort to reduce carbon emissions from the electricity sector, “it’s hard to imagine a big coal rebound,” said Harrison Fell, an environmental economist at N.C. State and one of the new paper’s authors.
With the coal industry in decline, the authors write, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are “unlikely to increase dramatically in the near-term, and may even continue to see small declines.”
The other sectors the researchers studied may carry slightly more uncertainty, Fell said, although the analysis suggests they’re also unlikely to see steep increases in emissions over the next few years.
So far, the Trump administration has not made major changes in land-use policies, for example, and researchers suggest that “it is reasonable to assume that recent trends — modest but decreasing gains in carbon sequestration — continue in the short-term absent federal leadership.”
Trump has threatened to cut funds for federal energy efficiency programs for buildings and appliances, but those measures would need approval from Congress. The report notes that total energy consumption from buildings in the residential, commercial and industrial sectors has remained largely flat over the past decade and is unlikely to change without major federal action.
And attempts from both Congress and the Trump administration to roll back Obama-era rules aimed at reducing methane emissions have so far been unsuccessful.
As for the transportation sector, the authors do note a risk that the Trump administration may try to revise or overturn Obama-era fuel economy standards for vehicles. The Republican-controlled Congress could also target the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, which requires gasoline to contain certain percentages of biofuel. Both measures could lead to a modest increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
On the other hand, Fell said, Trump has expressed a strong interest in aggressive infrastructure projects, including road-building, which could mute the effects of the looser fuel standards.
“It’s hard to imagine that they could do big things, at least in road infrastructure, without revisiting perhaps a gasoline tax increase,” Fell said. A gasoline tax could motivate people to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and drive less, he said, reducing transportation-sector emissions.
State and local efforts could also help buffer the affects of new federal emissions policies, Fell said.
Environmental economist Hafstead noted that the Obama-era strategy “is just one potential pathway to deep decarbonization” and that there was substantial uncertainty about how the United States would ultimately meet those goals. And because we’re unsure which policies would have been key to achieving those results, Hafstead said, there’s also uncertainty over which Trump policies are likely to have the greatest effect on long-term U.S. emissions.
Still, assuming emissions do stay flat for the next four to eight years, the nation will definitely emerge from a Trump presidency behind on its former climate goals.
Meeting the Obama administration’s goals would have required an annual reduction in emissions of at least 117 million metric tons of carbon dioxide starting in 2017. After a four-year Trump term, and assuming another two-year lag for the next administration’s policies to kick into effect, meeting the same goals by 2050 would require an annual reduction of 142 million metric tons. If Trump continues those policies for a second term, the United States would need an annual reduction of 165 million metric tons of carbon dioxide under the Obama-era strategy.
In other words, the longer the hold on federal climate action lasts, the more work must be done by future administrations to meet those 2050 targets, the authors write, noting that “even a pause on an otherwise declining emissions trajectory shifts the burden to later years and increases the risk associated with uncertain climate impacts.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/08/11/u-s-emissions-probably-wont-increase-under-trump-study-says-but-they-wont-fall-either/?utm_term=.acb410c71ab3
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested