Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 27/9/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why Industry Can't Fulfill All the Potential PCR Demand
Sep 27, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
U.S. and Canadian end users could consume more of the recovered plastics generated domestically if prices and specifications meet their needs. But a handful of converging market trends are standing in the way of significant growth. -
(ACC Mentioned) Business people, Sept. 27, 2017
Sep 27, 2017 | Delaware Business Now
The Chemours Company announced that its President and CEO, Mark Vergnano, has been elected to chair the board of the National Safety Council (NSC). -
Greens, EPA Fight Over Court to Hear TSCA Challenges
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmentalists and U.S. EPA are quarreling over whether challenges to a pair of rules issued by the Trump administration under the nation's new chemicals law should be heard in federal court in California or Virginia. -
Chemical Safety Nominee Weakened Standards for ‘Popcorn Lung’ Food Additive
Sep 27, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Here's yet another dangerous chemical that Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, helped greenwash: diacetyl, a food additive linked to “popcorn lung” in food workers, a potentially fatal disease. -
EPA Delays Compliance for Obama's Formaldehyde Rule
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
U.S. EPA has given industry more time to comply with a rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from wood products. -
EU Chemical Industry Reach Fears Were Unfounded - Spain's FEIQUE
Sep 27, 2017 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
European chemical companies and trade groups alike were wrong about the potential negative consequences that the EU’s chemical regulation Reach could have in the industry, the director general at Spain’s trade group FEIQUE said on Wednesday. -
Echa's MSC Agrees on Immunotoxicity and Second Generation Eogrts for Melamine
Sep 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Melamine should be tested on a second generation (F2) of rodents, as part of an extended one-generation study (Eogrts), according to Echa's Member State Committee. The committee accepted the testing proposal on the grounds of potential consumer and professional exposure to the chemical. -
What Does Exxon's New Methane Program Mean for Climate?
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
When it comes to solving the climate conundrum, plugging leaks from oil and gas infrastructure is relatively low-hanging fruit. Paying for the workers and infrared cameras needed to detect leaks from pipelines and compressor stations is a far cheaper and simpler task than, say, sequestering carbon dioxide emissions from a power plant. -
U.S. Lawmakers Ask Facebook, Twitter for Information on Anti-Fracking Ads
Sep 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
A U.S. House committee investigating whether Russia has tried to influence U.S. public opinion on fossil fuels asked Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet on Wednesday to turn over information about Russian entities that may have bought anti-fracking advertisements. -
Dimock Residents 'Relieved' as Deal Ends Contamination Case
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A yearslong battle over water contamination in the Marcellus Shale town of Dimock, Pa., has finally reached its end — in a confidential legal settlement. -
When Polluting Is in a Company's Rational Self-Interest
Sep 27, 2017 | The Houston Chronicle
By Lydia DePillis
Harris County recently announced its intention to sue the French multinational chemical producer Arkema after volatile organic compounds exploded at its flooded plant in Crosby following Hurricane Harvey. The explosion sickened first responders with toxic fumes and exposed the surrounding area to untold amounts of contamination. -
Trump: The Climate Regulator?
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender, Zack Colman and Niina Heikkinen
President George W. Bush punted on the issue. President Obama's team tried but failed. President Trump might be the first chief executive to regulate power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why Industry Can't Fulfill All the Potential PCR Demand
Sep 27, 2017 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Jared Paben
U.S. and Canadian end users could consume more of the recovered plastics generated domestically if prices and specifications meet their needs. But a handful of converging market trends are standing in the way of significant growth.
“The barriers are not enough price advantage and not enough PCR (post-consumer resin) available that matches the specifications,” said Nina Bellucci Butler, CEO of consulting and research firm More Recycling. “Those are challenging economic issues.”
Butler was speaking during a markets-focused plenary session at the 2017 Resource Recycling Conference in Minneapolis last month. Her presentation focused on the markets for recovered plastics.
The information on domestic demand came from an industry survey sent to thousands of companies and groups. The research effort was funded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC).
The study began in January and was conducted by More Recycling and independent testing and R&D company Plastics Forming Enterprises (PFE).
“I was not able to alleviate the concern that we have a demand problem,” Butler told the audience. “Most of the companies that responded that they have demand for this material are already using it. Only about 2 percent were companies that are using only virgin right now.”
The survey showed that domestic end users of recycled plastics purchased about 48 percent of what was available in the U.S. and Canada, she said.
Economic realities are an important factor in why that number is not higher. The availability of low-cost shale gas led to a boom in the development in virgin PE production capacity, Butler noted. That increasing supply and low price of virgin PE is making it difficult for recycled PE to emerge as a lower cost option.
“We do have … good economic conditions right now so there’s demand for product,” she said. “We have some commitments for use of PCR (post-consumer resin). We have some legislation that encourages more PCR. But the low price of virgin has fundamentally affected the fundamentals of the supply-demand balance of scrap plastic.”Sorting constraints
When it comes to processing capacity and end markets, recycling realities really depend on the resin, Butler’s presentation showed. She noted that of the 5 billion pounds of plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. last year, 34 percent was PET bottles, 23 percent film, 22 percent HDPE bottles and 21 percent non-bottle rigids.
For PET and HDPE bottles, North American businesses still have the capacity to purchase and process more, although PET and HDPE reclaimers are facing challenges from lightweighting and shifts to flexible film packaging, she said.
PP is an emerging resin that has seen growing recycling rates. But for PP, as with the other plastics, the key challenge is separation to create a quality bale, Butler said.
“We have capacity to purchase HDPE, PET, PP and other resins,” Butler said. “We don’t have the capacity to take the material from the MRF (and) further segregate it so we can get those discrete resins to market.”
Recovered PS also has quite a bit of end user demand but lacks the secondary sorting capacity necessary to generate a clean stream. The industry also needs to find more efficient ways to condense expanded PS and potentially combine it with rigid PS to get it to market, Butler said.China ban effects
China’s ban is likely to do particular damage with films and non-bottle rigids, Butler said. While collection volumes have been increasing – films are now accepted at 18,000 retail drop-off locations – end markets continue to depend largely on exports.
Butler suspected that China’s restrictions on unprocessed bales could spur increased demand in China for good-quality post-consumer resin from the U.S.
“The problem, though, is that even if there’s that demand for PCR that might displace the demand that was for the non-bottle rigids, film and other unseparated materials, we still lack that infrastructure to segregate and get it to the reclaimers that might be able to produce that material,” she said.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2017/09/27/industry-cant-fulfill-potential-pcr-demand/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Business people, Sept. 27, 2017
Sep 27, 2017 | Delaware Business Now
...Chemours CEO to chair National Safety Council
The Chemours Company announced that its President and CEO, Mark Vergnano, has been elected to chair the board of the National Safety Council (NSC).
He has been a member of the NSC board for the past seven years. Vergnano also sits on the boards of the American Chemistry Council and Johnson Controls International.
Vergnano holds a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering from the University of Connecticut and master’s degree in business administration from Virginia Commonwealth University....
http://delawarebusinessnow.com/2017/09/business-people-sept-27-2017/
-
Greens, EPA Fight Over Court to Hear TSCA Challenges
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
Environmentalists and U.S. EPA are quarreling over whether challenges to a pair of rules issued by the Trump administration under the nation's new chemicals law should be heard in federal court in California or Virginia.
Earlier this month, a special panel on multidistrict litigation randomly selected the 4th and 9th U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals to hear the cases over the two rules, which guided the prioritization and risk evaluation process for chemicals.
Both EPA and greens agree that a single court should decide the fate of both rules. But they disagree on the correct venue.
EPA wants the Richmond, Va.-based 4th Circuit to decide both cases and has asked to have the case in the 9th Circuit transferred. Greens want both rules to go to the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit, which is generally thought of as the most liberal-leaning circuit in the country.
"It makes sense for one appeals court to hear the challenges to both rules at the same time," said Sarah Tallman, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an email. "It's more efficient for the courts, and it helps avoid inconsistent interpretations of the law."
Last year, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, a reform to the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. It requires EPA to conduct risk assessments of chemicals without regard to cost and to protect vulnerable populations such as children and pregnant women.
The Trump administration issued the rules in question this past June. One of them established the process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluations, while the other established the system for determining whether the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
In July, separate coalitions of environmental groups filed lawsuits in three federal circuits — the 2nd, 4th and 9th — accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully weakening the rules. The multidistrict panel, which steps in when lawsuits have been filed in two or more judicial districts, sent the case on evaluations to the 4th Circuit and the case on prioritizations to the 9th Circuit (Greenwire, Sept. 5).
But EPA wants both cases to be heard in the 4th Circuit. The agency filed a motion earlier this month to have the prioritizations case transferred to the 4th Circuit and to stay the case in the meantime. "Having the cases heard in the Fourth Circuit would be more convenient for the parties, because all counsel of record are located in Washington, D.C., or New York," the agency said in the Sept. 14 document.
EPA also argues that the 4th Circuit will be able to hear the cases more quickly because it typically takes about five months to resolve litigation. The 9th Circuit's median case time, on the other hand, is slightly more than 13 months.
Greens swiftly responded with their own motion to transfer the 4th Circuit case to the San Francisco-based appeals court. They said it is "irrelevant" that attorneys are closer to Richmond than San Francisco. And they noted that since none of the counsels of record are actually located in Richmond, the lawyers would have to travel regardless of which court is chosen.
They instead urged the courts to consider that many more parties initially filed suit in the 9th Circuit.
"We think the 9th Circuit is best suited to hear both cases since that's where the petitions to review both rules were filed first — and it's where the majority of parties filed petitions," Tallman said.
TSCA's structure means that jurisdiction fights like this can crop up from time to time.
Unlike the Clean Air Act, which gives exclusive jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for cases involving national rules, TSCA allows for filing in circuit courts where parties reside. That means there's a broad choice of forums.
Still, the jurisdiction fight over the two chemical rules is somewhat unusual.
"In a lot of cases, it just doesn't come up, because the petitioners file in a specific circuit. Assuming there is jurisdiction in that circuit, that's pretty much the end of the story," said a lawyer familiar with the litigation.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/27/stories/1060061875
-
Chemical Safety Nominee Weakened Standards for ‘Popcorn Lung’ Food Additive
Sep 27, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Scott Faber
Here's yet another dangerous chemical that Michael Dourson, President Trump's nominee to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency, helped greenwash: diacetyl, a food additive linked to “popcorn lung” in food workers, a potentially fatal disease.
As the head of TERA, the chemical industry’s go-to science-for-hire consulting firm, Dourson sought to weaken standards for diacetyl, a chemical added to food and other products for flavor and aroma. The chemical is best known for providing butter flavoring on microwave popcorn.
Diacetyl can cause “popcorn lung” or bronchiolitis obliterans in workers. The lung condition is permanent and sometimes fatal. Diacetyl can also burn the eyes, cause nose and throat soreness, and irritate the skin.
The additive also occurs naturally from roasting coffee. On Tuesday, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that workers at a coffee roastery in Madison, Wisc., had wheezing in their chests at four times the rate expected in the general population. According to USA Today, the CDC is completing additional research at 18 other coffee roasters around the country.
After the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, investigatedeight workers harmed at a microwave popcorn plant in Missouri, researchers linkedbronchiolitis obliterans to diacetyl. Not long after NIOSH issued a health alert for workers exposed to the flavoring, Dourson’s firm produced an industry-funded report arguing for a weaker safety standard on behalf of food giant ConAgra, the maker of Orville Redenbacher’s popcorn.
TERA's study for ConAgra argued for a safe level of 200 parts per billion, or ppb. A peer-reviewed scientific critique of that study found that this level was “orders of magnitude higher” than the 10 ppb recommended by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists and the 5 ppb recommended by NIOSH.
In other words, the standard Dourson’s firm recommended was 40 times weaker than that of federal scientists.
If inhaled by factory workers, diacetyl can inflame and scar the airway of the lungs, blocking air flow. The disease is irreversible and may ultimately require a lung transplant.
Dourson has a long history of seeking weaker safety standards for industry clients.
He has repeatedly sought to weaken safety standards for PFOA, a carcinogen formerly used to make Teflon, and perchlorate, a jet fuel chemical that hinders the development of babies’ brains. He's also worked to greenwash chlorpyrifos and other herbicides linked to cancer and brain damage; 1,4-dioxane, a likely carcinogen found in drinking water and cosmetics; and TCE, the cancer-causing chemical made infamous by the book and movie “A Civil Action.” Other polluters that have paid Dourson include Monsanto, Dow and the Koch brothers.
If confirmed as the EPA's assistant administrator of chemical safety and pollution prevention, Dourson would oversee the safety of chemicals he has spent his career defending.
http://www.ewg.org/planet-trump/2017/09/chemical-safety-nominee-weakened-standards-popcorn-lung-food-additive#.WcvOebIjHIU
-
EPA Delays Compliance for Obama's Formaldehyde Rule
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
U.S. EPA has given industry more time to comply with a rule limiting formaldehyde emissions from wood products.
In a Federal Register notice posted this week, EPA pushed back the compliance deadlines for formaldehyde from composite wood products, one of the last major rules issued by the Obama EPA.
The regulation took effect May 22 after EPA twice delayed its implementation — first from Feb. 27 and then from March 21.
With the new deadlines, companies won't have to comply with different pieces of the rule for several years.
Producers of laminated products, for example, won't have to comply until March 22, 2024, the notice says.
The agency said it was counting the delayed compliance dates as a "deregulatory action" under President Trump's Jan. 30 executive order on regulations, which requires that two regulations be revoked for every new one (Greenwire, Jan. 30).
The executive order also directs agency leaders to make "annual regulatory cost submissions" to the Office of Management and Budget starting in fiscal 2018, with the stipulation that the net cost of all new regulations be "no greater than zero."
EPA's move to delay the formaldehyde emissions rule comes a week before a scheduled Oct. 2 Trump speech on his regulatory agenda that will mark the start of a new fiscal year.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/09/27/stories/1060061877
-
EU Chemical Industry Reach Fears Were Unfounded - Spain's FEIQUE
Sep 27, 2017 | ICIS
By Jonathan Lopez
European chemical companies and trade groups alike were wrong about the potential negative consequences that the EU’s chemical regulation Reach could have in the industry, the director general at Spain’s trade group FEIQUE said on Wednesday.
Juan Antonio Labat (pictured) went even further and said the EU’s regulation Reach had helped the industry overall by stopping chemicals produced in less-stringent jurisdictions entering the EU.
Reach came to be the most advanced chemical regulation in the world when rolled out in 2007. FEIQUE’s Labat recognised that studies about its implementation from trade groups overstated the risks and minimised the benefits.
“We published a report stating Spain’s GDP would fall 1.5% as a consequence of Reach. Our French peers estimated the loss of national output would be at 2%. We were wrong, obviously,” said Labat.
“Moreover, Spain’s credit crisis struck soon after [Reach's implementation] and over the last 10 years the chemical industry has grown; we have the same number of companies than at the time, including small companies. Reach did not prove as harmful as we thought.”
Labat’s passionate defence of Reach is, however, uncommon among the chemical industry, with companies tending to complain about the cost of implementing Reach.
In an interview with ICIS on 25 September, the executive director at the EU’s chemical regulator, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), demanded from companies and the European trade group Cefic to “proactively engage” with the registrations process before the regulator “takes action”.
“We were wrong [about Reach]. We made fearful calculations about its consequences and, since then, I am not a friend of this type of alarmist studies forecasting doom and gloom: rather than strength, they can show weakness,” said Labat.
He went on to say that Reach had been the “best thing” occurring to European chemicals as of late because, apart from securing a safer use of chemicals, it had also acted as a “barrier” to stop non-Reach compliant chemical producers elsewhere in the world shipping product to Europe.
Specifically, he mentioned chemicals from the US, China and the Middle East.
The outright prohibition to produce and distribute hazardous chemicals is also a normal process, and chemical companies would do well to get over that.
“Not a big deal [prohibiting chemicals]. There are products that simply cannot be in the market as they are harmful to the environment and/or human health. Companies may tell you negative tales about Reach, but, as a trade group, I can say Reach has benefited the industry, on average.”
“The EU has the toughest chemical regulation in the world and that has helped to protect our production in Europe from other competitors in less-advanced jurisdictions.”
Labat said he did not oppose that small amounts of chemicals also need to go under the regulator’s watch. In 2018, Reach establishes that quantities from 1 to 100 tonnes also need to be registered.
Some chemical players in Europe are concerned the 2018 deadline could put some small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) out of business as they would not be able to face the cost implied by the registration process.
ECHA’s director general told them that, perhaps, the solution would be to rationalise their portfolio and stop producing or importing small amounts of certain chemicals to focus on their strong side of the business.
“I can feel sympathetic when a company tells me that a registration process which would cost €2m is not worthwhile, like in some solventsproducers for instance. Although we do ask for proportional costs for SMEs in 2018 – registrations should not have the same costs for small firms as for those registering large amounts,” said Labat.
“Over the last 10 years, we may have seen a few cases of companies withdrawing some products because it was not worthwhile producing it because margins were too small that any other implied costs would make it difficult. However, the number of companies in Spain – large and small – remains at the same levels [than before Reach].”
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/09/27/10147041/eu-chemical-industry-reach-fears-were-unfounded-spain-s-feique/
-
Echa's MSC Agrees on Immunotoxicity and Second Generation Eogrts for Melamine
Sep 27, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Emma Davies
Melamine should be tested on a second generation (F2) of rodents, as part of an extended one-generation study (Eogrts), according to Echa's Member State Committee. The committee accepted the testing proposal on the grounds of potential consumer and professional exposure to the chemical.
Although perhaps best known for its use in laminates such as Formica, the substance has a wide array of applications, including pigments, insulation, and fire-retardant additives in plastics, paints and paper.
A basic Eogrts only tests one generation of rodents for reproductive toxicity but there are case-by-case triggers for extending to an F2 generation, according to Echa guidance. One such trigger is significant consumer and/or professional exposure to a chemical, together with toxicity concerns.
Some registrants mistakenly assume that this relates solely to direct intended exposure, said MSC chair Watze de Wolf. However, it also covers indirect or unintended chemical exposure, such as leaching from products.
"Based on the information in the registration dossier, we did have indications of potential consumer/professional uses [of melamine-containing products] where there may be significant exposure," said Dr de Wolf.Developmental immunotoxicity
The MSC also accepted a member state's proposal for amendment (pfa) to include an Eogrts cohort to test melamine for developmental immunotoxicity (DIT). The pfa, supported by the registrant, is based on recent scientific studies suggesting that the substance may be immunotoxic.
Concerns over this first came to light following a milk scandal in China in 2008. Some unscrupulous producers added the substance to powdered milk and baby formula to elevate nitrogen levels, thus providing falsely high protein test levels. Screening of exposed children later revealed that some showed signs of possible immune effects.
In 2016, an Egyptian study by a team from Zagazig University suggested that mice exposed to melamine showed such effects, including a decrease in a subtype of white blood cells called lymphocytes.
In August 2017, US research NGO TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) called for research into whether exposure could affect memory and learning. Eogrts for organotin
Meanwhile, during a compliance check, the MSC decided against an Eogrts F2 study for an organotin compound, based on exposure information: 2-ethylhexyl 10-ethyl-4-[[2-ethylhexyl)oxy]-2-oxoethyl]thio]-4]methyl-7-methyl-7-oxo-8-oxa-3,5-dithia-4-stannatetradecanoate.
Organotin compounds are among the chemical groups targeted by NGO Greenpeace's Detox campaign. Signatories to the campaign include retailers Aldi, Coop, Lidl, Marks & Spencer, Primark and Tesco.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59547/echas-msc-agrees-on-immunotoxicity-and-second-generation-eogrts-for-melamine
-
What Does Exxon's New Methane Program Mean for Climate?
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
When it comes to solving the climate conundrum, plugging leaks from oil and gas infrastructure is relatively low-hanging fruit. Paying for the workers and infrared cameras needed to detect leaks from pipelines and compressor stations is a far cheaper and simpler task than, say, sequestering carbon dioxide emissions from a power plant.
Exxon Mobil Corp.'s move to pinch leaky pipes, announced this week, could reduce a substantial amount of pollution. But questions remain about the oil and gas sector's commitment to voluntarily preventing the potent gas from escaping at a time when federal methane rules are being targeted for reversal.
The payoff is potentially large. Methane is 105 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas during its time in the atmosphere. Scientists say curbing methane levels could slow the rate of warming and buy more time to address the wider challenges of climate change.
Still, the topic remains politically divisive. The Trump administration has attempted to roll back a series of Obama-era methane regulations, only to see its efforts hampered by the courts and Congress. U.S. EPA is now considering a two-year delay for implementing rules limiting methane emissions on new oil and gas wells. The Bureau of Land Management has similarly delayed a rule governing venting and flaring from oil and gas wells on federal land.
It was against that backdrop that Exxon Mobil announced a plan Monday to voluntarily enhance its natural gas division's leak detection and repair (LDAR) program (Energywire, Sept. 26). The move was notable on several fronts. XTO Energy Inc., Exxon's gas subsidiary, is America's leading gas producer. The company said it plans to deploy the enhanced program at new and existing wells, going a step beyond what was required by EPA regulations put in place under Obama.
Exxon's announcement also comes amid mounting efforts on the part of American natural gas producers to curb their methane emissions. Ten leading gas companies formed the ONE Future Coalition in 2014 to identify best practices for curbing methane leaks from gas infrastructure. They will begin reporting emission levels to EPA next year.
But whether those efforts represent a shift in U.S. oil and gas producers' attitudes toward climate change, and their efforts to address it, remains to be seen. Environmentalists expressed cautious optimism, saying Exxon's plan includes the measures needed to make a significant reduction in its methane emissions. Now it is up to the company to follow through on its promise, they said.
"History is something that can only be judged in hindsight, but it certainly has the makings of something we look back on in a few years and say, 'That was pretty important,'" said Mark Brownstein, a vice president specializing in energy and climate at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Industry representatives, for their part, said the move illustrates oil and gas producers' committment to reducing emissions. Taking proactive measures also insulates companies against the risk of future regulations, said Richard Hyde, executive director of the ONE Future Coalition. The group's members include Southwestern Energy Co., America's third-largest gas producer, Apache Corp. and Statoil ASA.
But the main motivator behind reducing methane leaks ultimately is money, not climate, Hyde said. Methane is the main component in natural gas, and reducing leaks creates a safer work environment, ensures product delivery and offers a higher return, he said.
"If you're a producer or any part of the value chain, that's kind of money going up in the air. So if you're reducing that, you're basically putting money back in your pocket," Hyde said. "I don't think they're [Exxon] doing it for climate change, and I don't think any of our members are necessarily doing it for climate change. You could say that's a side benefit if you want to make that argument. But that's not what our membership is doing it for."
Nevertheless, the side benefit shows signs of yielding a growing dividend, he said, noting that it helps position companies as part of the solution to the climate challenge.
"You're seeing the investor community putting a lot of pressure on public companies to show you're an environmentally sustainable company," Hyde said.
Global methane levels have risen in recent years, though the cause of the increase remains a topic of some debate. Researchers at Stanford University last year identified agriculture as the likely culprit. Others, like Cornell University professor Robert Howarth, argue that the recent spike in methane levels coincides with the boom in American oil and gas production. The matter is further complicated by varying estimates of the amount of methane emitted by the oil and gas industry.
There is more agreement on this: Curbing methane from the sector could make a significant difference in climate efforts.
"I think methane is the low-hanging fruit for climate change. CO2 is really tough," Howarth said. "We have to decarbonize the energy systems. Methane is easier to go after. It's not the whole thing. Unless we reduce CO2, we're in a lot of trouble long-term. But we can immediately slow the rate of global warming and give ourselves more time to deal with the consequences by going after methane."
He welcomed Exxon's announcement, saying, "I'm glad to see someone in the industry seeming to take the issue seriously."
The political ramifications of Exxon's move remain uncertain. Environmentalists said the oil giant's actions show that the regulations proposed under President Obama were not as onerous as their opponents made them sound.
"If XTO can do this, what prevents others from doing it?" EDF's Brownstein said.
But industry officials warned that what may be good for Exxon might not work for smaller companies that cannot afford the investment in LDAR. The Obama regulations could be the difference between shutting down marginal wells and keeping them in operation, said Neal Kirby, a spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a trade group.
"Imposing federal regulations that require costly, handpicked camera monitoring technologies removes the flexibilities needed for independent producers and will suppress the development of other approaches that could be more cost-effective and efficient," Kirby wrote in an email.
Exxon may be moving forward with its methane reduction efforts, but the battle in Washington seems set to continue.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/09/27/stories/1060061823
-
U.S. Lawmakers Ask Facebook, Twitter for Information on Anti-Fracking Ads
Sep 27, 2017 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
A U.S. House committee investigating whether Russia has tried to influence U.S. public opinion on fossil fuels asked Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet on Wednesday to turn over information about Russian entities that may have bought anti-fracking advertisements.
House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican and climate change denier, asked the CEOs of the technology companies to turn over documents by Oct. 10 that detail the involvement of Russian-based or funded entities detected on their platforms, information on ads they purchased, and any communications concerning ads advocating for "so-called green initiatives."
Smith and the Republicans on the committee that oversees U.S. scientific agencies have targeted mainstream climate change scientists, questioning their integrity and calling for eliminating federal funding for climate research. They have also accused environmental groups of colluding with Russians to push for regulations to curb fossil fuel extraction.
"The committee is concerned that divisive social media and political messages conveyed through social media have negatively affected certain energy sectors, which can depress research and development in the fossil fuel sector and expanding potential for natural gas," Smith wrote in letters to the CEOs.
The committee, which oversees U.S. scientific agencies, believes such anti-fracking ads reflect "the Russian government's concern about the impact of fracking ... on the global energy market and potential challenges to profitability" of Russian energy companies, the letter said.
The letter says Russia's meddling in the U.S. energy market has been "well documented in the public domain" and seeks information similar to what Facebook is providing to the U.S. Senate about anti-immigration propaganda and advertising.
Both parties in Washington have been stepping up scrutiny of major internet firms, and considering whether to create new disclosure rules for online political ads after Facebook revealed this month that suspected Russian trolls purchased more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on its platform during the 2016 election cycle.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations is probing whether President Donald Trump's campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election. Trump and officials from the campaign have said there was no collusion.
Smith is dismissive of local and national protests that have emerged around the country objecting to the process of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and gas because of its affect on water quality, as well as the construction of pipelines to transport fracked oil and gas.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/09/27/business/27reuters-usa-russia-fracking.html
-
Dimock Residents 'Relieved' as Deal Ends Contamination Case
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A yearslong battle over water contamination in the Marcellus Shale town of Dimock, Pa., has finally reached its end — in a confidential legal settlement.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania late last week dismissed litigation between two Dimock families and Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., the operator of several natural gas wells in the area.
In a short filing, the court noted that the case had been "amicably resolved by the parties." Lawyers are keeping the settlement details under wraps, but plaintiffs' attorney Leslie Lewis noted that the Dimock families were "relieved" by the agreement.
"The settlement is final," Lewis said in an email. "I have no comment as to any specific terms of the settlement. After nearly a decade, the plaintiffs are happy and relieved to have these past litigated matters behind them."
A Cabot spokesman said only: "The case has been settled. The matter is now closed."
The settlement is a quiet end to a fiery conflict that spanned nearly a decade and resulted in a short-lived victory for the landowners last year.
Dimock-area families first raised concerns about fouled drinking water in 2008 and 2009. They blamed nearby oil and gas operations, and their complaints of flaming tap water gained nationwide attention after they were featured in the anti-fracking film "Gasland."
U.S. EPA in 2012 concluded that hydraulic fracturing fluid was not present in Dimock water, but state investigators linked contamination to poorly constructed gas wells that leaked methane, the main component of natural gas.
Dozens of residents took Cabot to court, and the case was eventually narrowed to two families' arguments that negligent drilling activity by Cabot created a nuisance. After a three-week trial in Scranton, the families won a landmark victory, a $4.2 million jury verdict against Cabot (Energywire, March 11).
But the company quickly challenged the verdict, arguing that "undisputed" evidence shows that Dimock-area water problems pre-dated Cabot's operations in the area. Chief Magistrate Judge Martin Carlson agreed, setting aside the verdict earlier this year after finding that evidence in the case did not support the jury's conclusion.
He also found that Lewis, the families' lawyer, had made "regrettable missteps" during the trial by raising issues that had been deemed off-limits in the case and were prejudicial to Cabot. Lewis has disputed Carlson's account (Energywire, April 3).
Carlson ordered a new trial and required the two sides to first engage in settlement discussions.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/09/27/stories/1060061749
-
When Polluting Is in a Company's Rational Self-Interest
Sep 27, 2017 | The Houston Chronicle
By Lydia DePillis
Harris County recently announced its intention to sue the French multinational chemical producer Arkema after volatile organic compounds exploded at its flooded plant in Crosby following Hurricane Harvey. The explosion sickened first responders with toxic fumes and exposed the surrounding area to untold amounts of contamination.
Public officials allege that, having had ample warning about the approaching storm, the company could've taken measures to neutralize the dangers before everything went so terribly wrong. Arkema strongly disagrees, saying it took every possible precaution — but if Harris County is right, it wouldn't be the first time a company weighed the benefits of doing the right thing and decided they didn't outweigh the potential costs.
That's the conclusion of a remarkable case study just released by researchers at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business on litigation faced by another chemical giant familiar to Houstonians: DuPont.
At this point, the long-running fight over DuPont's liability for diseases caused by releases of the compound known as C8, which is used in the production of Teflon for products such as non-stick pans, have received significant public attention. The New York Times, the Huffington Post, and the Intercept have all detailed the suffering of DuPont's former workers and residents of communities on the banks of the Ohio River, into which the chemical was released for decades.
But back in the 1980s, when the company was just starting to find out about the risks of C8 — which it only stopped using in 2013 — DuPont's scientists and executives were the only ones who knew.
Reams of internal documents were revealed in the course of the 3,550-person class action lawsuit, which settled for $671 million earlier this year. Memos and meeting minutes showed that DuPont had been repeatedly warned about the potential impacts of C8 on human health, particularly pregnant women. (Later, independent scientists found probable links between C8 contamination in Ohio and West Virginia and diseases such as ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, and testicular and kidney cancer).
However, the documents also showed that ceasing the use of C8 would be costly, and the likelihood of being found out was low.
Specifically, the University of Chicago researchers used DuPont's own financial estimates to calculate that expected profits from continuing to use C8 vastly outweighed the potential cost from any damages paid as a result of litigation, given that the chances of a lawsuit succeeding were slim.
"Currently, none of the options developed are...economically attractive and would essentially put the long-term viability of this business segment on the line," read an internal memo from 1984. "From a broader corporate viewpoint, the costs are small."
In recent months, corporate screwups have gained the public's attention relatively quickly — think fake accounts at Wells Fargo, or the massive data breach at Equifax — and resulted in severe fallout, including the firing of chief executives and enormous reputational damage.
But in the case of something like environmental contamination, public relations crises aren't inevitable. It takes decades and significant financial resources to discover and prove that a particular chemical release made people sick. (It's perhaps indicative that Arkema has refused to make its chemical inventory available to the public.)
Media attention isn't usually sustainable over that kind of timeframe, beyond which executives are usually long gone anyway. That's why, in the moment, it can make perfect sense for executives to keep engaging in risky but lucrative behavior, and for shareholders to look the other way.
"This conclusion is disturbing," write the authors, law professor Roy Shapira and economist Luigi Zingales. "If the decision to pollute is not a product of incompetence or myopic fly-by-night companies, but rather a calculated, rational decision by a reputable company, perhaps socially harmful corporate behavior is more endemic and less solvable than we acknowledge."
Shapiro and Zingales do have some ideas for fixing the problem. Imposing fines for delays in disclosing harmful mistakes (or intentional wrongdoing) would lower the barriers to bringing successful legal actions. Individually prosecuting executives would make them think harder about the risk to their personal fortunes. Promoting whistleblowing and resisting gag orders on settlements would help information come to light more quickly.
Such measures would come too late for the Arkema debacle, and for the many other toxic releases that have likely resulted from the Gulf Coast's refining and petrochemical industries. But they might at least give citizens greater recourse, and down the road, shift the calculus that prompts corporations to take such risks in the first place.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/texanomics/article/When-polluting-is-in-a-company-s-rational-12232286.php
-
Sep 27, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender, Zack Colman and Niina Heikkinen
President George W. Bush punted on the issue. President Obama's team tried but failed. President Trump might be the first chief executive to regulate power plants' greenhouse gas emissions.
The Trump administration is expected to soon release its much-anticipated plans for tearing down the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. That rule would have set nationwide limits for greenhouse gases from utilities — the largest U.S. source of heat-trapping gases. But it was halted by the Supreme Court last year — well before states would have been required to write plans to comply and years before actual reductions were mandated. Trump's election was its death knell.
Sources tracking the regulation say they ultimately expect the administration to issue a dramatically scaled-back version of Obama's plan. A final rule would likely be much narrower — and could be months or even years away — but its enactment would make Trump the first president to crack down on utilities' heat-trapping emissions.
That might seem ironic, given Trump's past statements that global warming is a "hoax" and his moves to handcuff climate work at U.S. EPA and across the government.
"It will be highly ironic if that happens, but I don't think it's going to get him an award from the Sierra Club or the League of Conservation Voters," said Myron Ebell, a vocal skeptic of mainstream climate science. Trump tapped Ebell to lead his EPA transition team.
Indeed, Trump's proponents aren't preparing to hand him any trophies.
"If what we see is consistent with what the rumors have been, there will be a proposal that will be heavy on the climate change denialism [without] a lot of consideration of the scientific evidence and facts that the industry can reduce emissions," said Sean Donahue, counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
Being the first regulator of power plants' greenhouse gas emissions may not be a distinction Trump wants, either. But it could be the outcome as his administration tries to walk a fine line of showing the courts that it's meeting its Clean Air Act obligations, appeasing conservatives who want to see climate rules torn down and satisfying industry constituents who say having a rule in place would give them certainty.
"Consistent with their broader regulatory agenda, I think what's in front of them is a process of rationalizing the excesses of the Clean Power Plan to make them legally defensible and manageable by the utilities," said James Connaughton, former White House Council on Environmental Quality chairman during the George W. Bush administration.
The administration is widely expected to issue a formal plan within the next two weeks — ahead of an Oct. 7 court deadline.
Litigation over the rule in a Washington federal court is on hold for now, after the Trump administration asked for time to plan its repeal. Last month, two Democratic-appointed judges to that court signaled that they wouldn't be willing to wait forever.
Judges David Tatel and Patricia Millett noted in one paragraph that EPA in 2009 issued an "endangerment finding" determining that greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. That finding prods EPA to clamp down on industry sectors' emissions under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court's move to freeze Obama's Clean Power Plan coupled with the stalled litigation in the D.C. appeals court "has the effect of relieving EPA of its obligation to comply with that statutory duty for the indefinite future."
Lawyers tracking the case say the Trump team read that paragraph as a shot across the bow, and they're hustling to get their plans formalized before the next court-mandated status update on Oct. 7. EPA's proposal has been under White House review since June.So what's coming?
Sources tracking the rollback predict that the announcement coming soon will consist of several key parts: a legal analysis detailing why the Trump team thinks Obama's rule wasn't justified; an economic analysis showing why they think Obama overestimated benefits and downplayed costs; and a signal about what it's planning to put in place of the Clean Power Plan (if anything).
The administration is still working out some important technical details of its rollout, sources told E&E News. One pressing matter is whether to seek wide-ranging public input, or to put forward a more direct rule proposal.
One option seen as likely is to request feedback about whether and how to replace the rule.
"They'll accept comment on everything from no action to the Clean Power Plan," said one industry source. That person said the administration will encourage people to "give us your best shot" regarding what — if anything — should take the climate rule's place. That person doesn't expect EPA to put forward a preferred option.
The suggestions-box format of soliciting input might shield the administration from charges that it failed to seek broad input. But it also could stretch the regulatory process beyond a point where the administration could defend it in court should Trump serve just one term.
"It's a way to kind of test the ground before you start something. It also takes a significant amount of time," said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and natural resources policy with the National Association of Manufacturers. "If the goal is to get a rule out and finalized in this administration ... then you've got to be careful with the amount of time you're spending on different pieces on this because you're going to want to defend it."
Janet McCabe, who worked on the Clean Power Plan as Obama's EPA air chief, said in an email that the process — known as an advance notice of proposed rulemaking — can add "considerable time," six months or more, to the rulemaking process.
Some industry insiders said that while an advance notice sets a more congenial public posture, there's not much left to be learned. Ideas about how to reshape the regulation have circulated for years, even before the Clean Power Plan as written today came to fruition.
There's also a possibility that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will argue that regulations of power plants' greenhouse gas emissions should be wiped away, although that's widely seen as a long shot.
When he challenged the Obama rule in court as Oklahoma's attorney general, Pruitt was one of the leading voices for the legal argument that EPA can't regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants because it already has a standard for mercury and air toxics emission from generators — known as the 112 exclusion, referring to a section of the Clean Air Act.
Such a move could please the administration's conservative base, but that move is viewed as risky by industry because it would lead to almost certain litigation.
"Ultimately, there is a crisis of predictability and certainty," said Miles Keogh, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state environmental regulators. "In the end, the utilities will want to invest. They need to invest — the marketplace is changing."Industry's wish list
A replacement that's favored by some industries — and is seen by some as the Trump administration's favored approach — is a narrow rule requiring individual power plants to become more efficient.
At the end of the day, industry wants certainty, said Paul Cicio, president of the Industrial Energy Consumers of America. His group of heavy-electricity users — including producers of steel and aluminum — was one of the more vocal against the Obama regulation. But he thinks his members could stomach a rule that solely requires power plants to improve efficiency, saying the increase in power prices would be small.
While Cicio's group hasn't taken an official position on what it wants in a new rule, some industry groups have advocated for limited standards that would establish efficiency metrics for power plants. The Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, hasn't formally announced a stance but in the past has angled for a scaled-back version. In closed-door meetings with officials from the White House and EPA earlier this year, the heavy-hitting U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers promoted an "inside-the-fence" approach to power plant regulations (Climatewire, Aug. 1).
A group representing power companies called the Coalition for Innovative Climate Solutions has also been asking EPA to set a new rule that gives industry "regulatory certainty" and is based on "what can be achieved by individual facilities" (Climatewire, Sept. 21).
Gina McCarthy, former EPA administrator under Obama, said she's expecting Pruitt to replace the Clean Power Plan rather than expunge it.
That "may be the only rule that he actually replaces," she said during a recent interview with E&E News. "That will be very narrowly crafted ... that will still allow companies in a regulated market to get cost recovery, and you will see that challenged, and we'll see what happens in court."
McCarthy added, "We'll see what this administration proposes, but I think there's good reason to think that a narrow reading of the statute is just not sufficient from sort of meeting the obligation under the Clean Air Act, which is to continue to protect public health to the extent that the statute calls on. And I don't think that would do it. I don't think that'll drive significant reductions, and it might look even kind of silly, because if you look at it, the industry is moving at a much faster pace than that would ever require. So you'll be underpinning nothing."
Environmentalists warn that a narrower rule targeting specific plants could actually increase emissions.
"You can make things worse that way," said David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The effect of making coal-fired power plants a bit more efficient is that they become a bit more effective to run ... and they run more."Trump's foes: Bring it on
Supporters of the Obama administration's climate rule are already readying their arguments against Trump's expected moves.
Environmental lawyers say EPA is compelled to regulate carbon emissions from power plants to some degree because of the 2009 endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to humans. EPA had also set out a separate finding in 2015 as part of the new source rule for power plants, specifically stating that the facilities contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, harming human health.
"Basically they have an obligation to address pollutants that EPA has found to endanger public health. There is a fundamental failure to fulfill their duty under the statute," said Donahue, who represents EDF.
Many observers expect Pruitt to steer clear of a direct challenge to the endangerment finding, despite pressure from some conservatives.
"I don't think you're gonna see [Pruitt] challenge the endangerment finding," McCarthy told E&E. "I think it's a fool's folly to go down that road right now, and I don't think that he's a fool. I think he's very — he thinks through what he does, and he is following the path that he sort of crafted for himself before he went in there."
Still, Pruitt may try to challenge the constitutionality of the Clean Power Plan by suggesting it infringes on states' rights by altering their "energy mix," a theme that's come up in court challenges. Environmental lawyers will point to other power plant regulations on mercury and hazardous air pollutants that also impacted plants' relative competitiveness as evidence that the Clean Power Plan was well within the norm.
"EPA clearly has authority to regulate power plants directly," said Doniger of NRDC. "This is a bogus argument, this is not different than other regulations, than mercury or acid rain."
Doniger also dismissed the argument that EPA could not regulate carbon under one section of the Clean Air Act because it was already regulating hazardous pollutants under another section — the 112 exclusion. "Power plants are regulated six different ways under the Clean Air Act, that's normal," he said.
And if EPA ultimately puts forward a much more limited regulation of power plants requiring efficiency improvements at the facility level, that too will face legal challenges. The Trump administration will have to defend why it's putting forward a weaker standard and also why it's shifting course from the Obama administration's stricter rule.
"I think you'll find that the community — NRDC and the rest of the [environmental] community — are very well-prepared to take this on in multiple levels," Doniger said, including technically and legally. "[Pruitt's] going to use up a lot of time, but he's not going to succeed."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/09/27/stories/1060061769
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested