Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 2/7/18

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Pawlenty Quits Financial Services Roundtable
Feb 7, 2018 | Politico
By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne Levine

... The American Chemistry Council has added the S-3 Group to lobby on “infrastructure and the role of chemistry in the economy.” (The trade group recently hired Off Hill Strategies, too.)

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Court Battle on EPA's Oversight of New Chemicals Looms
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is tackling its legal requirements to boost oversight of new chemicals while making decisions quickly, and finding itself caught between irreconcilable readings of how the nation's updated chemicals law applies to these decisions.
(ACC Mentioned) Parties Seek To Join NRDC's Suit Over EPA's 'New Chemicals' Plan
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA

Industry and environmental groups are separately seeking to intervene in the Natural Resources Defense Council's suit against EPA over its new framework for reviewing new chemicals' risks, deployed in recent months as part of EPA's ongoing efforts to implement the reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Declines to Criticize Global Agency That Linked Roundup and Cancer
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

The EPA Feb. 6 stopped short of criticizing an international health assessment organization that Republicans say uses an outdated method for deciding if substances cause cancer.
GOP Lawmakers Take Aim At WHO Agency Over Roundup Ingredient
Feb 7, 2018 | Associated Press (In The Washington Post)
By Michael Biesecker

Republican lawmakers are threatening to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s cancer research program over its finding that the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup is probably carcinogenic to humans.
WHO Rebuts GOP, Media On Glyphosate Cancer Warning
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar

The World Health Organization's cancer agency is firmly defending its finding that a widely used herbicide is "probably carcinogenic" despite reports cited by key House lawmakers.
EPA, States Seek Cleanup Options Outside Superfund Program (1)
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan

Some states and the EPA are moving away from the federal Superfund program as a way to pursue cleanup at sites contaminated with ubiquitous chemicals, finding state options more efficient than federal programs.
G.H. Glatfelter Notches Win in Fox River PCB Litigation
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers

G.H. Glatfelter Co. can offset the $33 million the government says it owes for cleanup of the lower Fox River against the millions in funds already on hand, a federal court in Wisconsin ruled Feb. 5.
EU Chemicals Agency Recommends Ban on Seven Chemicals
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

BASF SE and DowDupont Inc. are just two of the many companies that could be affected by a European Chemicals Agency recommendation to phase out a widely used organic solvent from the European Union.
EU Panel to Investigate Pesticide Approvals
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner

Pesticides companies will closely watch the activities of a special committee of European Parliament lawmakers tasked with examining the European Union approval process for glyphosate and other plant protection substances.
UK Minister Offers Brexit Scraps To Parliament
Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts

UK junior environment minister Therese Coffey told a 1 February parliamentary debate on Brexit and chemical regulation that the government wants existing UK registrations, authorisations and approvals to remain valid post-Brexit.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) China Is Financing a Petrochemical Hub in Appalachia. Meet its Powerful Backers.
Feb 7, 2018 | Desmog
By Steve Horn

Over the past year, oil and gas industry plans to build a petrochemical refining and storage hub along the Ohio River have steadily gained traction.
ExxonMobil’s 1.5 Million Ton/Year Baytown Cracker Nearing Startup
Feb 7, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis

Fueled by abundant natural gas stores from the U.S. onshore, ExxonMobil Corp. said Tuesday its 1.5 million ton/year ethane cracker underway southeast of Houston is mechanically complete, with startup on track before midyear.
US Projected To Become Net Exporter Of Energy By 2022
Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green

The United States is on pace to become a net exporter of energy, according to new data released Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA).
U.S. to Become Net Exporter on Shale and Tight Oil, Natural Gas Development, EIA Says
Feb 7, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley

The United States, which has been a net energy importer since 1953, will transition to become a net exporter by 2022 or earlier, based on continued development of domestic shale and tight oil and natural gas resources, paired with modest energy consumption growth, according to a series of long-term projections released Tuesday by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
Exxon Mobil Begins Commissioning Baytown Ethane Cracker
Feb 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt

Exxon Mobil Chemical Co. is commissioning its new ethane cracker in Baytown as part of a multi-billion expansion that will dramatically boost its plastics production.
Exporting American Energy Requires Investing In Ports
Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Charles W.Zahn Jr.

The rise in the export of American crude oil, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas has been a game-changer for the United States.

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Trump To Unveil Infrastructure Plan Monday
Feb 7, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey and Nick Sobczyk

President Trump on Monday will unveil his proposal for drumming up $1.5 trillion to bolster the nation's roads, bridges and possibly energy infrastructure.
EPA Expands Categories Of Railroad Ties Exempt From Strict Waste Rules
Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven

EPA has finalized a rule to expand the types of treated railroad ties that can be burned as fuel without triggering strict hazardous waste combustion emissions requirements, making only minor changes to the categorization rule that was proposed by the Obama administration.

Environment News

California Critic Cites Climate Hypocrisy, Urges Federal Probe
Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle

California officials are downplaying the risks of climate change to bond investors while citing those same risks as the basis for a lawsuit against oil companies, according to a conservative think tank that has asked securities regulators to investigate.
EPA Leaves Gas Industrial Flare 'Emission Factor' Unchanged
Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is leaving unchanged a key “emission factor” used by regulators to estimate the air pollution emitted by industrial flares that burn excess gases from natural gas production, after finding insufficient evidence to alter the factor during a review conducted to satisfy a legal agreement with environmentalists.
Ewire: Democrats Say Carbon 'Fee' Bill Will 'Beat' Clean Power Plan
Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA

Democrats in the House and Senate are re-introducing legislation to impose a carbon “fee” on fossil fuels and most other sources of greenhouse gases, arguing the move would “beat” the Obama administration's national GHG target for 2025 and deliver more than twice the carbon reductions from the power sector than EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP).

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) Pawlenty Quits Financial Services Roundtable

Feb 7, 2018 | Politico

By Theodoric Meyer and Marianne Levine

PAWLENTY WILL LEAVE FINANCIAL SERVICES ROUNDTABLE: “Financial Services Roundtable CEO Tim Pawlenty will step down from the trade group in March amid speculation that he might campaign for another term as Minnesota's governor,” POLITICO’s Zachary Warmbrodt and Daniel Straussreport. “In a memo to the association's members obtained by POLITICO, Pawlenty said, ‘it is time for me to begin my next chapter.’ He was named head of the trade group in 2012.”
— “For months, sources familiar with the organization's operations had expected that he would run for office again after serving for two terms as Minnesota's governor and campaigning for the GOP presidential nomination. … Pawlenty plans to hold a meeting in Minneapolis next week with donors and political operatives as he considers running for governor again.” Full story.
NICK MUZIN GETS A RAISE: Here’s a foreign lobbying filing we missed earlier: Nick Muzin, whose firm, Stonington Strategies, signed Qatar as a client last summer, has gotten a raise. The Qatari government is now paying Muzin $300,000 a month, six times the $50,000 rate Muzin commanded when he was hired in August, according to Justice Department filings. The catch: The contract requires at least $150,000 per month to “be reserved for compensation of Stonington Strategies’ subcontractors, selected after written approval by the Embassy, which shall assist in performing the services required by the Agreement.” The raise took effect in November, and the contract runs through August.
— Stonington is just one of a number of pricey contracts that Qatar signed in Washington as the country scrambled to respond to an ongoing diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and their allies. But Muzin’s hiring last summer raised eyebrows among Jewish Republicans as Qatar isn’t viewed as friendly to Israel. Muzin, a former adviser to Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), is active in Jewish Republican circles. One attendee at Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer’s Rosh Hashanah in September, where Muzin’s work was a topic of conversation, wondered to PI at the time why Muzin wasn’t getting paid more for such controversial work. Muzin declined to comment.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips always welcome: mlevine@politico.com and tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow us on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer and @marianne_levine.
** A message from the Household & Commercial Products Association: CSPA is now Household & Commercial Products Association. HCPA represents the trusted brands that make our lives better—from cleaners and detergents to air fresheners and pest control, and more. We make and sell $180 billion annually of products that consumers and workers rely on every day. WATCH OUR STORY:http://politi.co/2nsmkFc **
GOTHAM WILL NO LONGER LOBBY FOR GÜLENISTS: Gotham Government Relations is splitting with the Washington Diplomacy Group, a group aligned with Fethullah Gülen, the Turkish cleric living in Pennsylvania whom the Turkish government blamed for instigating a coup there in 2016. Gotham, a New York lobbying firm that counted President Donald Trump as a client before he became president and opened a Washington office after he won, had lobbied for the Gülenist group since last spring. (The group had been known as the Washington Strategy Group but changed its name after a firm with the same name threatened legal action.) Brad Gerstman, a Gotham partner, said the decision to part ways was mutual. The Gülenist group also retains Bill Smith of Sextons Creek (a former top aide to Vice President Mike Pence who’s now a lobbyist) and the Estopinan Group.
— Gotham has signed a new client, too: Thermal Energy Partners of Austin, Texas. “We are engaged to assist expanding the use of this renewable energy source internationally as well as domestically,” Gerstman wrote in an email to PI.
NEW BUSINESS: General Motors has added Hance Scarborough to its stable of Washington lobbying firms. Kent Hance and Robert Floyd will lobby on NAFTA and autonomous vehicles for GM, among other issues, according to a disclosure filing. The automaker spent more than $8.6 million on lobbying last year and also retains the EOP Group, the Fritts Group, the Majority Group,Roberti Global, the S-3 Group, the Washington Tax & Public Policy Groupand the Williams Group.
— Other notable filings: United Airlines has hired Alignment Government Strategies. The American Chemistry Council has added the S-3 Group to lobby on “infrastructure and the role of chemistry in the economy.” (The trade group recently hired Off Hill Strategies, too.)
FARMERS AND FAMILIES FIRST LAUNCHES TV ADS TO STOP MONSANTO-BAYER MERGER: Farmers and Families First, a nonprofit that advocates for free-market policies, launched an ad campaign today to protest the proposed merger between Bayer AG and Monsanto. In an interview with PI, Farmers and Families First President Dan Conston said the nonprofit is spending “$50,000 this week to air the ad on key Fox News shows in the Washington D.C. market.” He said that the group chose Fox “to reach key decision makers from the Hill to the White House” and added that “the campaign could expand from there with additional dollars, media markets, and networks.” The European Commission has until March 5 to reach a decision on the mega-merger, first proposed in 2016. The ad, entitled “Save the Heartland,” urges Trump to block the merger, calling it “a crushing blow for America’s farmers.”
— It’s not the only group hitting the airwaves. “The American Action Networkannounced today that it's launching a $2.5 million digital ad campaign to promote the new tax law enacted last year, targeting 36 Republican-held House districts,” POLITICO’s Elena Schneider reports. Here’s the ad.
FORMER STAFFER OF KERRY’S DAUGHTER’S NONPROFIT CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL LOBBYING: “A former official at a State Department-funded global health nonprofit founded by former Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter Vanessa is facing a criminal charge that he violated federal conflict of interest law by lobbying former colleagues in government,” POLITICO’s Josh Gerstein reports. “Federal prosecutors have charged longtime anti-AIDS activist Warren ‘Buck’ Buckingham — former director of the Peace Corps’ Office of Global Health and HIV — with contacting the Peace Corps in August and September 2015 about a 'particular matter' he worked on while he worked at the agency.”
— “Buckingham left the Peace Corps in 2012, shortly after helping to approve a $2 million contract for Seed Global Health, a nonprofit that deploys doctors and nurses to developing countries in Africa. The criminal conflict-of-interest chargewas filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Washington and made public Monday. The formal charge alleges that Buckingham violated the statute ‘knowingly and willfully,' which can be a felony that carries a maximum five-year prison sentence. However, the case was filed as a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of one year in custody.” Full story.
NEXTERA SUES NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE OVER ‘COERCIVE DEMAND’: NextEra Energy, which quit the Nuclear Energy Institute last month, is now suing the trade group, POLITICO’s Darius Dixon reports. “In a lawsuit filed Friday, NextEra says that NEI has refused to let it retain access to an industry-wide nuclear personnel database called PADS through March unless the company forks over $860,000, most of which NextEra says are fees related to NEI membership. … ‘NextEra promptly notified NEI that it would not accede to this extortionate and coercive demand,’ states the complaint, filed in the District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach.” Full story.
MORE TRADE GROUP STRIFE: “Mars Inc. is planning to cut ties with the International Life Sciences Institute, a global science group that's long been criticized for being backed by the food and agriculture industries, the company confirmed Monday,” POLITICO’s Helena Bottemiller Evich reports. “Mars said it would break with ILSI as it unveiled its science policy, which was first reported by Reuters. … In the past, ILSI has questioned the science behind FDA's added sugars labeling mandate, something that Mars has long supported.” Full story.
MEET MAZONKEY: The Hill’s Ellen Mitchell has a short profile of Matt Mazonkey, a Democratic lobbyist for Airbus. “I think from the outside, people assume that there’s more folks in the [defense industry] that lean towards the right,” Mazonkey said. “And that probably is true but it’s hopefully becoming not.”
CORRECTION: PI misstated the former senator for whom Bradford Cheneyworked in Monday’s edition. He worked for Hillary Clinton while she was in the Senate and later served as chief of staff to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.).
JOBS REPORT
— Devon Kearns is now senior manager for corporate communications at Blue Shield, California. She was previously associate director of media relations at the Center for American Progress.
— Jenna Golden has launched her own sales consulting firm, Golden Strategies.She was previously head of political advertising sales at Twitter.
NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS:
None
NEW PACs:
Blue Action Political Action (Leadership PAC: Michael Fisher)
New York State Nurses Association Federal Political Action Committee (PAC)
Progress and Growth PAC (PAC)
Rust Belt Rising PAC (PAC)
NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONS:
Alignment Government Strategies: BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina
Alignment Government Strategies: International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
Alignment Government Strategies: United Airlines Inc.
Babbage Cofounder: SourceHOV
Carpi & Clay Inc.: Sacramento Regional Transit District
Clark Hill PLC: National Creditors Bar Association
Hance Scarborough: General Motors LLC
J M Burkman & Associates: DST Swiss Sales and Service Trust
J M Burkman & Associates: Pain Research Centers of America
J M Burkman & Associates: Sky Medicus
J.A.Hill Group LLC: National Graphene Association
Manatt, Phelps, and Phillips: United States Steel Corporation
New World Group Public Affairs LLC (Formerly New World Group LLC): Transparent Business
S-3 Group: American Chemistry Council Inc.
S-3 Group: PMC Hospital LLC
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP: Hikvision USA Inc.
NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS:
LB International Solutions LLC: Riad Alhasan
** A message from the Household & Commercial Products Association:Consumer Specialty Products Association has a new name: Household & Commercial Products Association. The old name was too vague. The new one makes clear we represent the manufacturers and distributors of trusted brand name products that clean, protect, maintain and disinfect homes and work environments. The organization plans to grow and focus on advocating policies to the media and at all levels of government. Our members range from family businesses to Fortune 500 companies that make and sell $180 billion of products annually. HCPA supports a common-sense business environment that promotes sound scientific reasoning, open competition, product innovation and collaboration with bipartisan policymakers and diverse stakeholders to protect and grow the 200,000 jobs that support the U.S. economy. THE HOUSEHOLD & COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION. INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS FOR HOME. WORK. LIFE.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2018/02/06/pawlenty-quits-financial-services-roundtable-095241

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

(ACC Mentioned) Court Battle on EPA's Oversight of New Chemicals Looms

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Pat Rizzuto

The EPA is tackling its legal requirements to boost oversight of new chemicals while making decisions quickly, and finding itself caught between irreconcilable readings of how the nation's updated chemicals law applies to these decisions.
Two central issues are likely to arise in one or more lawsuits challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's new chemical policies as detailed in a working approach, or “framework.” Chemical manufacturers as well as environmental, health, labor, and other groups recently commented on that framework, and discussed concerns with Bloomberg Environment.
The first of the two core issues is whether Congress substantially changed the EPA's oversight of new chemicals when it amended the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016. The second is how many uses of a new chemical the EPA must consider when it initially controls the substance. Those are questions only federal judges may be able to resolve.
Congress extensively revised the new chemicals section of TSCA, Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg Environment and wrote in a Jan. 5 blog.
Yet, in the face of industry opposition, the EPA has reversed its initial effort to reflect those changes and is pursuing new chemical policies that are “legally dubious, poorly conceived, and a major step backward in protecting health and the environment,” wrote a coalition of groups led by Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
Amended TSCA did not fundamentally alter the EPA's oversight of new chemicals, Michael Walls, vice president of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, and Karyn Schmidt, senior director of that same office, told Bloomberg Environment.
But, the EPA is making decisions so slowly that it is disrupting chemical manufacturers’ ability to serve their customers without benefiting health or environmental protection, Walls said. The chemistry council represents the lion's share of U.S. chemical manufacturers, including Eastman Chemical Co., Exxon Mobil Corp., and Honeywell International Inc.
Framework Sets Up Legal Fight
The EPA's framework for evaluating new chemicals is still in its draft stage, but the agency is already using it to guide its decisions. That has drawn lawsuits from environmental advocates.
The EPA is using the framework as a working approach to make decisions about new chemicals even as its adjusts its approaches, Nancy Beck, EPA deputy assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said during a December meeting discussing the new chemicals program.
That has prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to challenge its use in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. The court has not ruled on whether the environmental advocacy group's case will proceed.
Even if the NRDC case is dismissed as premature, Eve Gartner, an attorney with Earthjustice, said other agency decisions could create new opportunities for Earthjustice and other groups to challenge the EPA's interpretation of TSCA.
The EPA did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
Timing Controls
In addition to disagreeing about the extent to which Congress altered EPA's new chemicals oversight, nonprofit and industry groups disagree over when the updated law requires the EPA to impose controls on a new chemical's “conditions of use.
Environmental groups said the EPA must comply with the law's requirement to consider the “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen” uses of chemical before it can be sold.
Nowhere does the chemicals law give the EPA a license to “pick and choose” which uses it will base its decisions on, Gartner said.
Identifying and managing a new chemical's risks “under all conditions of use, is critical to meeting the goals of the law and to restoring the public trust that was lost under the old law,” the Environmental Working Group wrote.
The EPA framework would allow a new chemical to enter the market without controlling reasonably foreseen uses and exposures that could harm people or the environment, Denison and Gartner told Bloomberg Environment.
‘Divorcing’ Decisions
The framework does that by taking a single decision TSCA requires and “divorcing” it into separate decisions about the conditions of use for a chemical and the time to control those uses when necessary, Denison said.
A company's known and intended uses for a new chemical may not raise concerns, but the EPA's analysis could identify reasonably foreseen uses of the chemical that do, Denison said. The law is clear: The EPA must control the reasonably foreseen uses before that new chemical can enter commerce, he said.
The EPA's framework wouldn't do that, he said. Instead, it would allow a new chemical to be sold if the intended uses in that notice don't raise undue risk concerns even though reasonably foreseen uses do, Denison said.
The framework says the agency will control reasonably foreseen risks through significant new use rules (SNURs) it will later issue after approving a new chemical.
“EPA is relying on a future action to legally justify its decision” on the pre-manufacture notice (PMN), Denison said.
“That makes a mockery of the rulemaking process,” he said.
The agency cannot guarantee what will be in a final SNUR, he said. Like any regulation, SNURs are subject to public comment and revision. The EPA cannot divorce its analysis of the new chemicals uses from how it controls those, Denison said.
Binding Option
The American Chemistry Council's Walls said the law requires the EPA to control reasonably foreseen uses, but it does not require that the controls of those uses be in place at the same time it decides to let a new chemical enter commerce.
The EPA's new chemicals program has a mechanism that allows chemical makers to bind themselves to the uses, manufacturing methods, and other conditions detailed in their PMNs, Walls said. “EPA could make more use of its binding option.”
A chemical manufacturer that checks the binding option on a PMN form obliges itself to make and use its new chemicals based on the information in that form.
Historically, the EPA has used the binding option as a device preceding a consent order, the chemistry council said in its comments. But there's no reason the agency and company submitting a PMN couldn't use that option when the EPA concludes a chemical's known and intended uses would be safe, but its reasonably anticipated uses could pose an unreasonable risk, the council said.
The SNUR would follow and impose whatever controls the original manufacturer bound itself to on any other company that makes or uses the chemical, Walls said.
The chemistry council's comments describe strategies for the EPA to expand the use of the binding option without preventing the original manufacturer from using, for example, other manufacturing methods that become available and provide equal or greater health and environmental protection.
Solutions, Speed
The chemistry council's suggestion that the EPA expand its use of a binding option for PMNs is just one of many changes it urges to provide confidence in the new chemicals program.
Other changes go to the heart of chemical manufacturers’ concerns that EPA's slow pace of decision-making is harming businesses efforts to innovate and go to market in a timely way.
Producing a chemical in the quantities needed for a new market doesn't happen at the “flip of a switch,” Walls said.
The TSCA amendments bolstered the law's requirements that EPA make new chemical decisions promptly, and Walls has concerns about the pace, he said.
As the agency has wrestled with the new law's requirements, the EPA's decisions have slowed down so much that one chemistry council member had to develop its new chemical outside the United States, Walls said.
Protecting chemical manufacturers’ competitive potential is a priority, he said. The EPA hasn't commented on the pace of its decisions.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860770&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860770&jd=127860770

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Parties Seek To Join NRDC's Suit Over EPA's 'New Chemicals' Plan

Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA

Industry and environmental groups are separately seeking to intervene in the Natural Resources Defense Council's suit against EPA over its new framework for reviewing new chemicals' risks, deployed in recent months as part of EPA's ongoing efforts to implement the reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The Safer Chemicals Healthy Families (SCHF) coalition, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) filed separate requests Feb. 5 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to intervene in NRDC v. EPA.
NRDC quietly filed the suit last month to block the Trump administration's framework for reviewing new chemicals under the revised TSCA, making good on the group's threat of such a suit if the agency did not delay implementing the framework until after it had reviewed comments.
EPA officials indicated at a meeting last December that the framework was in use, though the agency set a Jan. 20 deadline for public comments on it.
The suit could be a legal test on whether the administration can proceed with its plan to drop the use of enforcement orders as an interim step in regulating new substances. Under TSCA, new chemicals are those that are not on the TSCA inventory, and so undergo EPA scrutiny before they are allowed to enter the market. Some attorneys, however, have questioned whether the suit can proceed on procedural grounds, since it challenges a framework that is not a final rule.
Now, SCHF, ACC and NAM are seeking to get involved in the suit. SCHF tells the court that “Although NRDC may seek the same outcome as SCHF, its organizational goals and membership are markedly different from those of SCHF. … SCHF speaks for a broader and more comprehensive array of interests and perspectives than NRDC.”
The industry trade associations, in their joint filing, argue that neither plaintiffs nor EPA represent their interests, and as such, the court should grant their involvement in the case.
Plaintiffs have yet to file legal arguments, but SCHF's brief reiterates long-standing charges that the proposed framework is unlawful in large part because it limits the use of TSCA section 5(e) enforcement orders they say are needed as an interim step the agency had previously used for regulating and approving the substances. They argue that TSCA mandates use of enforceable orders to ensure that premanufacture notices (PMNs) that EPA issues to allow new chemical uses do not pose unreasonable risks or inadvertently allow other uses that may pose risks.
ACC and NAM, in their brief, say that “EPA's approach to the New Chemicals Review Program is evolving as it gains experience with amended [TSCA] section 5.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/parties-seek-join-nrdcs-suit-over-epas-new-chemicals-plan

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Declines to Criticize Global Agency That Linked Roundup and Cancer

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

The EPA Feb. 6 stopped short of criticizing an international health assessment organization that Republicans say uses an outdated method for deciding if substances cause cancer.
The back-and-forth came at a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing to look into how the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) gets its money from the U.S. government.
“I'm not going to debate the transparency of IARC,” Anna Lowit, the senior science adviser for the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, told lawmakers, adding she would not criticize the Lyon, France-based IARC or question its decision-making process.
The committee has intensified its scrutiny of IARC—an agency of the World Health Organization—since the organization released an assessment, or “monograph,” in 2015 finding that glyphosate—the main ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup weedkiller—is a “probable” carcinogen.
“The monograph program is alone in its determination that glyphosate poses a cancer threat,” House Science Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, a result he said was achieved by omitting certain studies and data in their assessment.
Call for Funding Cut
In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory agencies around the world have found no link between glyphosate and cancer.
The EPA released a draft risk assessment Dec. 18, 2017, finding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. The agency will begin to take public comment on the assessment soon, Lowit said.
Lowit said the EPA has access to raw scientific data to come to its conclusions—information that IARC lacks.
House Science Committee Republicans argued for cutting funding to IARC, although the panel has no oversight of spending.
The U.S. contributed nearly $4 million to IARC for 2016 and 2017, or 7 percent of the agency's total budget, according to the IARC website. The National Institutes of Health has given IARC more than $48 million since 1985, according to the committee.
‘Weirdest Experience in 44 Years’
IARC's glyphosate classification has sparked thousands of lawsuits from cancer victims in the U.S. and labeling requirements for the herbicide in California. The American Chemistry Council last year launched a campaign to “reform” IARC by seeking to withhold funding if the agency does not change how it assesses chemicals and activities.
Criticism over IARC's practices came to a boil last year when Reuters published a pair of stories investigating the methods the agency used to come to its “probable carcinogen” finding for the ubiquitous weedkiller glyphosate. One article indicated that an epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute did not share data with IARC from a large population study of U.S. farmers that found no statistically significant link between the weedkiller and cancer.
Robert Tarone, a retired statistician with the National Cancer Institute, a division of the National Institutes of Health, told Congress Feb. 6. he faced pushback from the agency when he voiced his concerns. Tarone in 2016 submitted a paper to a scientific journal pointing out how the monograph excluded rodent studies that could have shown no association between glyphosate and cancer.
Instead of responding to the scientific criticism in the paper, IARC asked Tarone who had paid him to write the paper, he said.
“It's the weirdest experience I've had in 44 years of publishing in peer-reviewed journals,” Tarone told the panel.
The science committee has twice asked IARC Director Christopher Wild to provide witnesses for a hearing, but Wild declined, stating that “IARC is not in a position to provide witnesses for any potential hearing” in a Nov. 20 letter to the committee.
Hazard v. Risk
A chief complaint from Monsanto and the agrochemical industry is that IARC evaluates substances based on hazard, or the possibility that it will cause harm. This stands in contrast to a full risk assessment approach, which considers the different exposure levels that might or might not lead to cancer.
IARC is “stuck in a hazard classification scheme created half a century ago,” Tim Pastoor, a toxicologist who formed a science communications firm in 2015, told the panel.
Lowit of the EPA explained that EPA releases risk assessments, which build off a hazard approach but also consider the amount of glyphosate to which humans are exposed and any associated health effects.
And Jennifer Sass—a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council and the only witness chosen by Science Committee Democrats—said that the EPA must protect the breadth of the human population, including vulnerable individuals such as children and the elderly who for whatever reason may be susceptible to carcinogens.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860780&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860780&jd=127860780

Return to headline | Return to top
GOP Lawmakers Take Aim At WHO Agency Over Roundup Ingredient

Feb 7, 2018 | Associated Press (In The Washington Post)

By Michael Biesecker

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers are threatening to cut off U.S. funding for the World Health Organization’s cancer research program over its finding that the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup is probably carcinogenic to humans.
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith said Tuesday that the 2015 conclusion by the International Agency for Research on Cancer was fundamentally flawed and relied on cherry-picked science. The Texas lawmaker said he has serious concerns about anti-industry bias and a lack of transparency within the program, which is based in Lyon, France.
A separate review by the Environmental Protection Agency concluded in December that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other products, is not likely to cause cancer at typical levels of exposure.
Roundup, made by the agribusiness giant Monsanto, is the world’s most widely used weed killer and has been sprayed on corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops since the 1970s. It is also widely used on lawns and golf courses.
Monsanto also sells seeds genetically modified to produce crops that can tolerate being sprayed with glyphosate as the surrounding weeds die.
“There are real repercussions to IARC’s unsubstantiated claims, which are not backed by reliable data,” Smith said at a hearing. “Labeling requirements will drive costs up for farmers and consumers and create unjustified public fear.”
To bolster his criticism, Smith’s committee took testimony from U.S. government experts and a former pesticide industry scientist who said IARC relied on outdated methods and misinterpreted data.
IARC’s program assesses the hazard of whether chemicals can cause cancer in humans, often relying on studies where high doses were fed or injected into rats and mice to see whether they would develop tumors. The EPA’s risk assessments, which sometimes rely on industry-funded studies, look at the long-term threat pesticides and herbicides pose based on the anticipated uses and the relatively low levels of exposure expected for humans and animals.
IARC’s finding that glyphosate is likely carcinogenic triggered a wave of lawsuits over its continued use. Monsanto filed suit after California regulators sought to require a warning of the potential cancer threat on the packaging label for Roundup, a move the company said would needlessly scare away customers. Numerous agribusiness groups have also sued to try to block California’s move.
Monsanto, based in St. Louis, Missouri, said Tuesday that IARC’s findings are an outlier when compared to what scores of other studies and regulators around the world have found.
“We’re pleased that serious questions are being asked about the discredited IARC opinion and the real harm it is causing to American farmers,” said Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy.
Records compiled by the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics show Monsanto has spent heavily on federal lobbying in recent years, with more than $4.3 million in spending during 2017. The company’s executives and political action committee made about $600,000 in federal political donations during the 2016 election cycle, with the bulk of the cash going to farm-state Republicans.
Jennifer Sass, a scientist with the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, defended the IARC’s results at the congressional hearing, saying the well-respected international group was the target of a well-financed campaign by the pesticide industry seeking to discredit its findings.
“This hearing is about the ability of a public health agency to call a carcinogen a carcinogen, even if it makes a huge amount of money for a powerful corporation,” Sass said Tuesday. “Are we willing to sell out the public’s right to know about harmful chemicals in the places we work live, and play, just so that Monsanto Co. can sell more glyphosate?”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/gop-lawmakers-take-aim-at-cancer-research-group-over-roundup/2018/02/06/c9271ed8-0b7d-11e8-998c-96deb18cca19_story.html?utm_term=.3839c4792a34

Return to headline | Return to top
WHO Rebuts GOP, Media On Glyphosate Cancer Warning

Feb 7, 2018 | E&E Daily

By Corbin Hiar

The World Health Organization's cancer agency is firmly defending its finding that a widely used herbicide is "probably carcinogenic" despite reports cited by key House lawmakers.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer's unwavering stance was publicly revealed yesterday by Oregon Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, the top Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Environment Subcommittee at a full committee hearing on the controversial 2015 glyphosate evaluation.
Bonamici entered into the hearing record a series of responses IARC Director Christopher Wild has sent to the panel in recent months.
Wild specifically criticized two stories from Reuters reporter Kate Kelland that suggested the evaluation, known as a monograph, excluded key information. Both stories were cited in letters to IARC by Republican Reps. Lamar Smith of Texas and Andy Biggs of Arizona, the respective chairmen of the full committee and Environment Subcommittee.
One claimed that Aaron Blair, a U.S. National Cancer Institute epidemiologist who led the glyphosate review, excluded from the assessment forthcoming research that he knew would find no link between the herbicide and cancer (Greenwire, June 15, 2017).
That was because "IARC Monographs are based on independent scientific review of published and not on the basis of unpublished or 'secret data' unavailable publicly," Wild explained in a Nov. 20, 2017, letter.
Notably, under Chairman Smith, the Science Committee has railed against U.S. EPA regulations that are based on what he often refers to as "secret science."
"Therefore," Wild wrote, "it is false to assert that Dr. Blair was in a position to withhold critical information from IARC."
The other story from last year flagged by Science Committee leaders claimed that IARC omitted evidence that went against its conclusion that glyphosate likely causes cancer in humans and edited a draft review significantly before it was released to the public (Greenwire, Oct. 20, 2017).
But most of the differences between that draft and the final monograph "specifically relate to a review article" that litigation against Monsanto Co., which uses glyphosate in its popular Roundup herbicides, revealed was ghostwritten by the company, Wild said (E&E News PM, Oct. 12, 2017).
"The Working Group considered that information in the review article and its supplement was insufficient for independent evaluation of the individual studies and the conclusions reached by the Monsanto scientist and other author," he added. "As a result, the draft was revised."
Abbe Serphos, the global head of communications for Reuters, offered a one-line response to the errors IARC alleged: "We stand by our reporting."
Smith and Biggs had also asked Wild to provide a witness for the hearing. When they didn't immediately receive one, the lawmakers threatened to pull federal support for the agency, which has received more than $48 million from the U.S. since 1985 Greenwire, Dec. 8, 2017).
Wild politely declined their demand and instead invited them to visit him in Lyon, France, where the WHO's cancer agency is based. Then in a Jan. 11 letter, he acknowledged "the valuable support of the US National Institutes of Health" and noted that the agency is one of the most highly cited medical research organizations in the world.
It is unclear if Smith and Biggs visited IARC. The committee didn't respond to a request for comment on Wild's offer.'Shoddy' scientific methods?
In a 10-page January response that summarized and expounded on the points he made in his letters to lawmakers, Wild also preemptively rebutted many of the criticisms that Republican committee members and the witnesses they invited made of IARC yesterday.
For instance, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), the vice chairman of the full committee, slammed IARC for evaluating the carcinogenic potential of chemicals but not determining the dose at which they could cause cancer.
IARC's focus on conducting hazard rather than risk assessments is because the agency refuses to "bring their scientific methods into the modern age," Lucas said. "This kind of shoddy work is unacceptable from any scientific body, let alone one funded by the American taxpayer."
Wild, however, said last month in his response that "identifying carcinogenic hazards is a crucially important and necessary first step in risk assessment and management; it should be a 'red flag' to those charged with protecting public health." Regulators can then take immediate action to ban or label carcinogenic substances, or use the observed data to determine how much risk the substances pose.
"IARC defers risk assessment and risk management to national and international bodies, restricting itself to provision of hazard identification as a scientific foundation to those subsequent steps," Wild added.
Anna Lowit, a senior science adviser in EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs who testified yesterday, also defended her agency's draft risk assessment on glyphosate, which found that the common weedkiller doesn't cause cancer (Greenwire, Dec. 19, 2017).
The draft assessment was released as part of a registration review for Roundup that began in 2009. Lowit said EPA plans to begin accepting comments on it soon.
Roundup has been on the market since 1974. Approximately 270 million pounds are applied annually, mainly to corn and soybeans that have been genetically modified to tolerate the herbicide.
EPA's internal watchdog is currently investigating allegations that former agency official Jess Rowland colluded with Monsanto during the review process to counter suggestions it endangers human health (E&E News PM, June 7, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/02/07/stories/1060073069

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA, States Seek Cleanup Options Outside Superfund Program (1)

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Sylvia Carignan

Some states and the EPA are moving away from the federal Superfund program as a way to pursue cleanup at sites contaminated with ubiquitous chemicals, finding state options more efficient than federal programs.
State programs are tougher on poly- and perfluorinated compounds than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's core remediation program, which doesn't address them specifically. At sites contaminated with the chemicals, Vermont, for example, has found that negotiating with companies has been more efficient than pursuing enforcement.
Those compounds, part of a family of chemicals also known as PFAS, have been used to manufacture nonstick and stain-resistant coatings in clothing, fast food wrappers, carpets, and other consumer products by companies such as Arkema, DuPont, 3M, Chemours, and BASF Corp.
“We've made a conscious decision to move ahead under state authority because it's stronger than the federal options,” Elle O'Casey, spokeswoman for the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, told Bloomberg Environment.
In a list Bloomberg Environment requested from the agency, the EPA has identified at least 17 non-federal contaminated sites with PFAS. The list also includes 32 federal facilities where PFAS contamination may impact drinking water.
According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, most people in the U.S. have at least one type of PFAS in their blood, such as perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
But when concentrations are elevated, the chemicals may pose developmental risks to fetuses, and for adults, testicular and kidney cancer, liver tissue damage, immune system effects, thyroid effects, and changes in cholesterol.
Vermont Develops Own Plan
The EPA listed three Superfund sites in Vermont with PFAS contamination, including one in Bennington, where a PFAS chemical was found in residential drinking water wells.
Vermont has developed policies for negotiating with companies responsible for cleanup at PFAS-contaminated sites.
“We were able to reach a settlement for one portion of the affected areas, and we're hoping to reach a settlement for the eastern portion as well,” O'Casey told Bloomberg Environment.
The settlement option allows the state to resolve the issues with the responsible party more quickly than pursuing an enforcement option, O'Casey said.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's Superfund task force, formed last year, wants to provide the agency's regional staff with enforcement alternatives outside of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, which created and now guides the Superfund program.
Regional staff would guide states and local governments to those CERCLA alternatives as they deal with emerging contaminants like PFAS, according to a quarterly report the task force released Feb. 2.
Hazardous Substances
Three Superfund sites on the EPA's list are in New York, where the state has declared PFOA and PFOS hazardous substances.
That declaration, made in 2016, allowed the state to pursue cleanup at contaminated sites using state-level Superfund resources, instead of asking the EPA to declare them federal Superfund sites.
New York made the declaration “in the absence of federal leadership” on the chemicals, Sean Mahar, spokesman for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, told Bloomberg Environment.
EPA's List
At some Superfund sites, the discovery of PFAS has added a new challenge to the remediation process for states and the EPA.
The American Cyanamid Superfund site in Bridgewater Township, N.J., is on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's list of sites that need “immediate, intense action” on EPA's part. The site's cleanup is funded by Wyeth Holdings LLC, a subsidiary of Pfizer.
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection asked Wyeth to start testing the Superfund site's groundwater for PFOA and PFOS, and the company did so in early 2017. The tests found PFOA and other PFAS chemicals, according to Lawrence Hajna, spokesman for the New Jersey DEP.
Because the site is still under investigation, and the groundwater is not a drinking water source, the EPA and New Jersey have not yet decided whether it's necessary to clean up the PFAS contamination, David Kluesner, spokesman for the EPA's Region 2 office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Pruitt has made remediation decisions at three of the 21 sites on the “immediate, intense action” list since December. It's unclear when the administrator may release a decision on New Jersey's American Cyanamid site.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860768&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860768&jd=127860768

Return to headline | Return to top
G.H. Glatfelter Notches Win in Fox River PCB Litigation

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Steven M. Sellers

G.H. Glatfelter Co. can offset the $33 million the government says it owes for cleanup of the lower Fox River against the millions in funds already on hand, a federal court in Wisconsin ruled Feb. 5.
The ruling is a win for Glatfelter on the government's claim for cleanup costs for polychlorinated biphenyls in the river, for which Glatfelter, NCR Corp., Georgia-Pacific LLC, and other companies were ruled jointly liable in 2014. But it also complicates the last stages of litigation that has been pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin since 2010.
Fox River settlement monies deposited in two accounts maintained by the government for Superfund cleanups—one for natural resources damages response costs, another for natural resources damage assessment and restoration—must be applied by the government to reduce the potential liability of non-settling parties like Glatfelter, the court said.
The government argued that $60 million in NRDAR settlements—an account maintained by the Department of the Interior—was unavailable to reimburse EPA's response costs and therefore couldn't be used to offset Glatfelter's potential liability.
That interpretation would amount to a windfall that violated Superfund cost allocation requirements, the company said.
The court agreed with Glatfelter, holding that the governing statute requires that any “settlement” with the U.S. reduces the potential liability of non-settling parties by the amount of the settlement.
Factual questions about the about the extent of the offset must be decided at a trial, the court said.
Judge William C. Griesbach wrote the opinion.
Greenberg Traurig represented Glatfelter.
The case is United States v. NCR Corp., 2018 BL 38362, E.D. Wis., No.10-cv-910, 2/5/18.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860799&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860799&jd=127860799

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Chemicals Agency Recommends Ban on Seven Chemicals

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

BASF SE and DowDupont Inc. are just two of the many companies that could be affected by a European Chemicals Agency recommendation to phase out a widely used organic solvent from the European Union.
The substance, 1-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (known as NMP), would ultimately be banned from general use in the EU 3.5 years after its inclusion in Annex XIV of the bloc's REACH regulation, which lists substances prohibited from use, according to the agency's recommendation. Companies that apply for specific continued-use authorizations can, under certain circumstances, receive exemptions to utilize the substances.
NMP was one of seven hazardous chemicals in a European Chemicals Agency phase-out recommendation sent Feb. 5 to the European Commission, the EU's executive arm. The commission takes the formal legal decisions to phase out substances under REACH.
NMP is manufactured in, or imported into, the EU in annual volumes of up to 100,000 metric tons, according to the European Chemicals Agency database. About 35 REACH registrations for NMP have been issued to companies including BASF, Maxell Europe Limited, and different DowDupont divisions.
NMP is used in manufacturing cosmetics, pesticides, plastics, and pigments, among other uses. In the EU, the substance is classified as toxic to reproduction.
Limited-Use Substances
Dow Europe spokeswoman Sue Breach and BASF spokeswoman Ursula von Stetten told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 6 they were looking into the implications of the phase out of NMP, but were unable to comment further.
U.K.-based Maxell Europe, which makes batteries, headphones, and storage media, didn't respond to Bloomberg Environment's request for comment.
If companies seek to produce NMP if the ban is formalized, they must obtain a use-authorization which is costly and complex because a firm has to show the substance can be used safely, that there are no viable alternatives, and other requirements.
Six More
The six other substances put forward by the European Chemicals Agency for phaseout are either little used or not currently used in the EU. Among the substances are four phenolic benzotriazoles (UV-320, UV-327, UV-328 and UV-350), which have UV light absorption properties and are used in the production of plastics and adhesives.
The two other substances are the karanal group of fragrance ingredients; and 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C6-10-alkyl esters; 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, mixed decyl and hexyl and octyl diesters with 0.3 percent or greater of dihexyl phthalate, which is used to make plastic products such as hospital tubes flexible.
“We are not aware of current use levels for karanal group of fragrances,” Mohamed Temsamani, spokesman for the International Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Products, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 6.
The chemicals agency's recommendation of the seven substances was “quite uncontroversial,” and the agency and the European Commission should speed up decision-making on phasing out hazardous substances, Frida Hok, senior policy adviser with ChemSec, which campaigns for a toxics-free environment, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 6.
The phase-out recommendation is the eighth sent under REACH by the European Chemicals Agency to the commission. So far, final phase-out decisions under REACH have been made for 43 hazardous substances.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860783&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860783&jd=127860783

Return to headline | Return to top
EU Panel to Investigate Pesticide Approvals

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Stephen Gardner

Pesticides companies will closely watch the activities of a special committee of European Parliament lawmakers tasked with examining the European Union approval process for glyphosate and other plant protection substances.
Members of the European Parliament sitting in Strasbourg, France, approved the 30-member special committee Feb. 6. The committee, which will start in March, will look into how EU agencies responsible for assessing the risks posed by pesticides use scientific data, if they are correctly following the law, and if they are sufficiently independent from industry influence.
The EU has high food safety standards but “there are a number of issues concerning the authorization procedure for pesticides in the Union that need review,” said Frederique Ries, a centrist Belgian member of the European Parliament, in a Feb. 6 statement.
“Most importantly, the transparency of scientific studies and related raw data has not been guaranteed, while the relevant EU agencies lack resources to conduct research on their own,” Ries said.
Glyphosate Prompts Review
Disputes around the integrity of the EU process for risk reviews of pesticides were particularly apparent over the reauthorization of glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide. The EU agreed in November 2017 to issue a limited five-year reauthorization compared to a more typical 15-year approval period.
Glyphosate has raised fears about whether it causes cancer. In March 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer declared it a “probable carcinogen.”
But in the EU regulatory process, both the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency said it did not represent a carcinogenic threat.
Opportunity for Objectivity
The vote to approve the investigatory committee followed from a go ahead in principle given by the heads of the European Parliament's political groups in January.
At the time of the provisional approval, pesticide manufacturers welcomed the special committee as an opportunity to bring objectivity to pesticide approvals.
The industry has not changed its view since January, Anna Gatt Seretny, spokeswoman for the European Crop Protection Association, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 6. The association represents companies including DowDuPont Inc., Monsanto Co., and Syngenta AG.
The special committee would be “an excellent opportunity to propose a reform of the EU pesticide approval system” and should lead to more systematic “monitoring of effects on humans and the environment for every pesticide authorized,” Hans Muilerman, chemicals coordinator for environmental group the Pesticides Action Network Europe, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 6.
Pesticide manufacturers should pay for the ongoing monitoring of approved pesticides, he added.
The special committee's composition will be decided Feb. 8 and it will then have nine months from its first meeting in March to deliver its recommendations. The findings will be non-binding but could lead to proposals to reform the EU pesticides approval system.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860784&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860784&jd=127860784

Return to headline | Return to top
UK Minister Offers Brexit Scraps To Parliament

Feb 7, 2018 | Chemical Watch

By Geraint Roberts

UK junior environment minister Therese Coffey told a 1 February parliamentary debate on Brexit and chemical regulation that the government wants existing UK registrations, authorisations and approvals to remain valid post-Brexit. But she failed to say whether it wants British regulations to remain identical to REACH and other EU regulatory frameworks, once the transition period ends.
Ms Coffey said she did not expect to see the introduction of new approaches to risk assessment, and said the precautionary principle is "well embedded in what we do" – without categorically stating that it would remain. The environment ministry, she added, plans to consult on how it will incorporate various environmental principles and governance mechanisms.
The ministry’s forthcoming chemicals strategy, due to be produced "as we leave the EU", is unlikely to be published this year, she said, because the ministry is focusing on "implementing a smooth transition and continuing existing regulations". It has also started discussions with the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on a future chemicals framework across the UK.
Ms Coffey also gave some hints of her ministry's vision of what a post-transition UK chemicals regime might look like, saying REACH "has shown its worth" and that it is "not minded to take the US’s approach". Mentioning discussions with Brazil, Switzerland and South Korea, she said many countries are "taking a REACH-style approach but may not be replicating it in every detail".Industry concern continues
The lack of progress on any final Brexit deal continues to worry the UK chemicals sector. Announcing this week broadly positive economic results from its latest survey of 31 chemical and pharmaceutical companies, the Chemical Industries Association said almost half of the firms reported Brexit uncertainty as a concern.
A UK government cross-departmental briefing, leaked last week, will have done nothing to alleviate such fears. The briefing stated that whatever option the government chooses, the UK will be left relatively worse off, with chemicals among the sectors worst hit.
The analysis suggests that a ‘no-deal’ scenario, under which Britain reverts to WTO rules, would cut UK economic growth of eight percentage points over the next 15 years compared with current projections. Under a free trade agreement with the EU, growth would drop by five percentage points.
A Norway-style option of remaining in the single market – which has been ruled out by the prime minister – would see a two percentage point fall.
In response, Downing Street said the analysis did not cover its preferred option – an undefined "deep and special" relationship with the EU.
A workshop held by Chemical Watch, at a recent meeting of the UK environment ministry’s chemical stakeholders forum, took the temperature of UK companies' preparedness for Brexit. It found an expectation that some will consider moving production to the EU rather than bear the costs of operations remaining in the UK.
Not surprisingly, participants raised a host of questions, including:whether remaining part of the REACH framework in some way, will be agreed as part of a future UK-EU free trade agreement; andhow the regime will look if UK regulations after the transition period diverge from REACH.
In contrast, delegates reported hearing little evidence of any specific supply-chain preparations because companies lack the information to make plans. Instead, most attention is focused on meeting this year’s final REACH registration deadline.
Meanwhile, Echa has updated its Brexit Q&A webpages, revising the wording of some answers and adding new questions. For example, a new Q&A explains how a UK-based manufacturer can transfer a registration or authorisation to an OR within the EU-27 prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU without it becoming void.
Share your views in our inaugural Brexit Survey. The results will be out next month.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63756/uk-minister-offers-brexit-scraps-to-parliament

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) China Is Financing a Petrochemical Hub in Appalachia. Meet its Powerful Backers.

Feb 7, 2018 | Desmog

By Steve Horn

Over the past year, oil and gas industry plans to build a petrochemical refining and storage hub along the Ohio River have steadily gained traction. Proponents hope this potential hub, which would straddle Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, could someday rival the industrial corridor found along the Gulf Coast in Texas and Louisiana.
Those plans center around creating what is known as the Appalachian Storage Hub, which received a major boost on November 9 during a trade mission to China attended by President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. At that trade mission, also attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping, the China Energy Investment Corp. announced the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to invest $83.7 billion into the planned storage hub over 20 years. For comparison, West Virginia's gross domestic product (GDP) in 2016 was $72.9 billion.
Though called the Appalachian Storage Hub as a broad-sweeping term, in practice the hub could encompass natural gas liquids storage, a market trading index center, a key pipeline feeding epicenter, and a petrochemical refinery row. Its prospective development has been spurred by the current construction of a $6 billion petrochemical refining facility in Pennsylvania owned by Shell Oil.
The proposed hub has come under fire from grassroots groups. But this proposal also has a powerful set of backers, including West Virginia's five-member congressional delegation, the state's Governor and Secretary of Commerce, West Virginia University, the chemical industry's trade association, Shell Oil, and the Trump administration, among others.
Detractors of the planned petrochemical hub believe that its construction would buoy the oil and gas industry in its efforts to further develop drilling and hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) projects in Pennsylvania's Marcellus Shale and Ohio's Utica Shale basins.
A “major concern we have about the whole complex is that it will encourage a second or third wave of gas fracking in our region, from the Marcellus, the Utica, and the Rogersville field, which is a much deeper layer of shale gas and oil and has been recently tested and a few commercial wells have been built into it,” Robin Blakeman, project coordinator with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, recently told the radio show Between the Lines. “It’s not commercially viable yet, but we think this complex will make it commercially viable.”
However, those backing the plan say the hub could lead to much-needed job creation, positioning the multi-state region as the oil and gas industry's version of Silicon Valley and as a potential “field of dreams.”
“This project will not only transform the region, it will impact the entire country by enhancing America’s energy dominance,” said U.S. Rep. David McKinley (R-WV). “The storage hub has the potential to create thousands of jobs, attract billions in investment, invigorate Appalachia’s economy, and establish our area as a force in the petrochemical industry.”Appalachia Development Group
While the hub itself, when fully developed, would likely involve a whole host of companies, its concept and initial marketing phase has been led by a corporation named the Appalachia Development Group (ADG), which is owned by the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center (MATRIC) and the West Virginia University Innovation Corporation. The joint venture registered its website on November 10, one day after West Virginia signed the MOU with the China Energy Investment Corp.
On January 3, ADG received an invitation from the U.S. Department of Energy to apply for a $1.9 billion loan guarantee created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. (That law is perhaps best recognized for creating what is known as the “Halliburton Loophole,” which exempts the oil and gas industry from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act during horizontal drilling and fracking operations.)
In a press release announcing the DOE invite, ADG also said the hub could lead to the creation of 100,000 jobs, and received praise from U.S. Rep. McKinley, U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV), and U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV).
“I am very excited that the Department of Energy is moving forward with the Appalachia Development Group in its efforts to secure a loan to develop the Appalachian Storage Hub. I have long said that the Appalachian Storage Hub is a vital project that will help us capitalize on our state and region's abundant natural resources, growing infrastructure, and innovative spirit,” Sen. Manchin said in the statement. “I look forward to working with the Department of Energy and the Appalachian Development Group to make the Appalachian Storage Hub a reality.”
According to corporate registration forms reviewed by DeSmog, ADG incorporated several businesses in West Virginia covering many facets of the gas supply chain just two weeks after the Energy Department's loan guarantee announcement. The incorporations serve as something of a roadmap for what the visionaries behind the hub have planned in the area.
Names of the companies include Appalachia Development Group Chemical LLC, Appalachia Development Group Pipeline LLC, Appalachia Development Group Trading LLC, and Appalachia Development Group Storage LLC. All of those LLCs are incorporated in Delaware, a state which serves as a corporate tax haven in the U.S.
The trading business appears to be an attempt to create an industry hub rivaling Mont Belvieu in Texas and akin to the oil industry's hub in Cushing, Oklahoma, which serve as a pricing index for natural gas liquids and oil market traders, respectively. The Appalachian trading post would be focused on the natural gas liquids trade, according to congressional testimony given at a hearing by West Virginia University Professor Brian Anderson in August 2016 and a presentation he gave in October 2017.
The Appalachia Development Group told the outlet Natural Gas Intelligence that it hopes to raise $3.3 billion in capital for the project, or an additional $1.4 billion if it successfully lands the loan guarantee from the Energy Department.West Virginia University Incubator
At the center of pushing the ball forward on the hub has been West Virginia University (WVU), which has served as a key incubator for the Appalachia Development Group and its plans to create a major petrochemical hub in the region. Professor Anderson, listed as one of the principals on the ADG website, has led that charge at WVU.
While the WVU Innovation Corporation is part of the Appalachia Development Group joint venture, Anderson's university research has also helped boost the project's profile in the media. Anderson, who serves as the General Electric Plastics Materials Engineering Professor in chemical engineering at WVU, also directs the WVU Energy Institute.
After the announcement that the Appalachia Development Group had entered into an $83.7 billion MOU with the China Energy Investment Corp., WVU put out a press release quoting Anderson and boasting about its role in making such an investment possible.
“This is a game-changer for the state of West Virginia,” Anderson stated in the release. “By collaborating with global companies like China Energy to invest in our state through joint research, business development, and demonstration opportunities, we begin to move West Virginia forward by expanding and diversifying our state into newfound prosperity and success.”
Anderson has also spoken at a slew of industry events, making the case for the natural gas liquids storage hub. He spoke in front of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission at its annual meeting in October, at a June 2017 Appalachian Storage Hub Conference event held in Pennsylvania, and at the January 2018 winter meeting of the West Virginia Independent Oil and Gas Association (WVIOGA). At this latest event, Anderson spoke about the hub alongside Rep. McKinley and ADG CEO Steve Hedrick.
In turn, the petrochemical industry has shown its appreciation for Anderson's involvement.
In a May 2017 report titled “The Potential Economic Benefits of an Appalachian Petrochemical Industry,” the American Chemistry Council thanked Anderson for his support in preparing the paper. Its May 18 release came just nine days after the May 9 introduction of the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017, a bill supported by every member of West Virginia's congressional delegation.
American Chemistry Council members include Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC), Dow Chemical, Monsanto, and other major corporations.
WVU also houses the Appalachian Oil and Natural Gas Research Consortium, which in July 2017 released a report on the geologic potential for creating a storage hub in West Virginia. According to its acknowledgments section, that report was funded by companies such as Chevron, Dominion Energy, EQT Resources, Noble Energy, ExxonMobil subsidiary XTO Energy, and the West Virginia Oil & Natural Gas Association (WVONGA).
Though Anderson did not travel to China to sign the MOU, he did speak at a press event convened by West Virginia's Republican Governor Jim Justice just days later to discuss the deal and its implications for the state. Anderson did not respond to a request for comment for this story.Thrasher's Dual Role
Another key actor in implementing the West Virginia and China Energy MOU was the state's Secretary of Commerce Woody Thrasher, who served as the state's official representative at the signing in China.
But before Governor Justice named Thrasher as commerce secretary, he was president of his family business, The Thrasher Group. Co-founded by Woody and his father Henry, the firm provides architectural, engineering, and construction services for oil and gas field and pipeline projects, with offices in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky — all hub states.
“The Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. offers a wealth of resources important to America’s energy independence: natural gas, coal, and wind energy,” The Thrasher Group details on its website. “The development of these resources, including the emerging Marcellus Shale play, is particularly important. With five offices located in the heart of this area, we’re ready to mobilize our various energy development services to meet your needs throughout this major production area.”
The Thrasher Group has repeatedly shown interest in the business side of the Appalachian Storage Hub. For example, Andy Kincell, Thrasher's head of business development and construction services, also attended the June 2017 Appalachian Storage Hub conference where WVU's Brian Anderson gave a presentation, according to both his Twitter account and Thrasher's. Kincell also attended another event about the hub, hosted by WVU in August 2017, again according to both of their Twitter accounts.
In addition, The Thrasher Group will play host to the Emerging Opportunities Ohio River Valley Conference held in Wheeling, West Virginia.
“The Emerging Opportunities Ohio River Valley Conference will provide a comprehensive view of the once-in-a-generation industrial and commercial development,” details the conference's website. “In addition to development of cracker and petrochemical plants, experts predict the overall development will change the economic landscape.”
Appalachia Development Group CEO Steve Hedrick will present at the conference, as will WVU's Anderson and representatives from both the American Chemistry Council and the American Petroleum Institute. Thrasher Group CEOChad Riley will offer both introductory and closing remarks for the day.
Riley and Kincell did not respond to a request for comment. Hedrick and Appalachia Development Group's CFO and COO, Joe Bozada, also did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
To date, the exact details of the MOU signed between the China Energy Investment Corp. and West Virginia have yet to be made public and DeSmog could not track down a copy of the MOU online. Thrasher told the West Virginia Senate and House of Delegates’ Joint Committees on Natural Gas Development and Energy on January 9 that he expects construction of some assets within the petrochemical storage hub to begin as soon as this year.
Though Woody Thrasher has signed a blind trust legal agreement handing over day-to-day financial management of Thrasher Group and its subsidiaries, West Virginia's commerce secretary has not foregone his ownership stake in the company. According to West Virginia MetroNews, Thrasher still retains a 70 percent stake in The Thrasher Group and the blind trust agreement does not apply to any of his family or his legal dependents.
“Handing over day-to-day operations of a company that is directly affected by the official’s role or decision making isn’t effective,” Brendan Fischer, a lawyer for the Campaign Legal Center, recently told the Charleston Gazette-Mail. “If a public official maintains a financial stake in a company, the potential for a conflict remains.”
In addition, one of the blind trustees for the agreement, Marcia Broughton, is an attorney for Jackson Kelly, a firm which often represents oil and gas industry clients. Broughton is listed as one of the firm's oil and gas industry attorneys on the Jackson Kelly website and the firm is listed as a financial supporter on the website of MATRIC, one of ADG's owners.
Appalachian Development Group attorney and principal Kathy Beckett is also a former Jackson Kelly attorney, where she worked from 1997-2013, before moving to the law firm Steptoe & Johnson. Beckett, who also sits on the Board of Directorsfor the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Thrasher also decided to remain chairman of the board of directors for the WVU Alumni Association for the first half of 2017, while simultaneously serving as Secretary of Commerce, even as WVU has served as a key vehicle behind the hub's creation. He now serves as “Immediate Past Chairman,” a one-year ex-officio and non-voting role which allows him to sit on both the executive and governance committees of the alumni associaton, according to the association's constitution and bylaws.
In discussing the trust agreement with the press, Governor Justice actually referred to Thrasher's agreement not as a blind trust, but as one put “under the control of trusted colleagues.” Spokespersons for both Thrasher and Justice did not respond to requests for comment from DeSmog.Congressional Bills, Lobbying Revolving Door
The West Virginia congressional delegation, particularly Sens. Manchin and Capito and Rep. McKinley, has led the push for the Appalachian Storage Hub on Capitol Hill. Beyond the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act of 2017, members of the delegation introduced other bills to usher in the hub in 2017, including the Appalachian Energy and Manufacturing Infrastructure Revitalization Act and the Capitalizing on American Storage Potential Act.
The Infrastructure Revitalization Act calls for “an expedited permitting process for critical energy infrastructure projects relating to the establishment of a regional energy hub in Appalachia, and for other purposes.” Meanwhile, the Capitalizing on American Storage Potential Act would make sure the Department of Energy's loan guarantee program would also apply to projects such as the Appalachian Storage Hub.
Various industry players, such as the American Chemistry Council, the National Propane Gas Association, the National Association of Manufacturers, and Shell Oil have all lobbied for some or all of these bills. All of the entities lobbying for the hub's creation have benefitted in some way from government-industry revolving door relationships, according to a review by Desmog.
As a case in point, the American Chemistry Council deployed a team of lobbyists to advocate for all three of the bills, according to its federal lobbying disclosure forms. Those lobbyists included Bryan Zumwalt, who formerly served as chief legal counsel for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the chairmanship of U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and Calvin Dooley, formerly a Democratic U.S. Representative from California who now serves as president and CEO of the chemistry council.
Shell Oil, which lobbied for the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act, also has notable revolving-door connections on its lobbying team. Patricia Villarreal Tamez, prior to landing the lobbying job with Shell, worked as executive director of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, according to her LinkedIn profile. Further, Marnie Funk — a lobbyist on Shell's team pushing for the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act — formerly served as communications director for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee when it was run by U.S. Rep. Pete Domenici (R-NM).
The revolving door and campaign finance contributions may have buttressed prospects for the hub on the congressional side of things as well.
For example, the American Chemistry Council has donated $10,000 to Sen. Manchin for his 2018 re-election campaign, one of its largest 2018 election cycle contributions to-date. The council cut Manchin a $5,000 campaign contribution check on May 10, the day after he co-sponsored the Appalachian Ethane Storage Hub Study Act, according to U.S. Federal Elections Commission filings reviewed by DeSmog.
According to the research database Legistorm, Manchin's senior adviser Sarah Venuto Perez formerly served as director of federal affairs for America's Natural Gas Alliance, which has since merged with the American Petroleum Institute.
In September of last year, according to comments made by Manchin on the sidelines of a forum hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, the senator had dinner with President Trump and his chief-of-staff John Kelly. At that dinner, Manchin pitched the idea of the Appalachian petrochemical hub to Trump and Kelly, according to EnergyWire.
“He was delighted to hear about it,” Manchin told EnergyWire. “I gave it to [chief of staff] Gen. [John] Kelly. He's going to look at it and see if he can get this thing moving,”
Manchin's office did not respond to a request for comment about whether the $10,000 donation from the American Chemistry Council and Venuto Perez's past industry affiliation have influenced the senator's policy stance on the hub.
Capito serves as another case study, with her former senior legislative assistant on oil, gas, and coal policy issues, Virginia Hamisevicz, now working as vice president of governmental affairs for the National Association of Manufacturers.
During her successful first attempt at running for the U.S. Senate, Capito received $162,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry in 2014. In addition, according to forms reviewed by DeSmog, Capito's husband has $15,000-$50,000 worth of stock investments in Shell Oil, which already has a major petrochemical investment in the area.
Beyond campaign contributions, the petrochemical industry has also heaped praise on Manchin and Capito for their policy efforts.
“We applaud Senators Capito and Manchin for their commitment to realizing the exciting opportunities afforded by an energy storage hub,” said the American Chemistry Council in a June 2017 press release. “The Capitalizing American Storage Potential (CASP) Act will help expedite the development of new infrastructure in hydrocarbon-rich areas of the country and, in turn, spur new manufacturing investment and jobs.”'Nightmare Waiting to Happen'
In a January 4 blog post, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition spelled out how the Appalachian Storage Hub will likely incentivize more fracking in the region.
“More fracking for methane leads to more gas liquids used by the petrochemical companies, the more gas liquids petrochemical companies use, the more fracking will happen,” wrote the group. “What that means is our region would face the combined threats of more fracking and the petrochemical industries.”
In addition to the public health and pollution battles being fought in the Gulf's existing petrochemical corridor (also known as “Cancer Alley”), the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition also pointed to Appalachia's past experiences with the coal industry and decried a potential repeat of history.
“Haven’t we learned any lesson from what the coal industry has done, where the majority of what is produced here is exported elsewhere, and the profits made by companies from outside the region?” the group asked. “This hub of horrors is a nightmare waiting to happen … The people deserve better than false economic hope and toxic neighbors.”
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/06/fracking-appalachian-storage-hub-china

Return to headline | Return to top
ExxonMobil’s 1.5 Million Ton/Year Baytown Cracker Nearing Startup

Feb 7, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By Carolyn Davis

Fueled by abundant natural gas stores from the U.S. onshore, ExxonMobil Corp. said Tuesday its 1.5 million ton/year ethane cracker underway southeast of Houston is mechanically complete, with startup on track before midyear.
The Baytown cracker, part of ExxonMobil’s multi-billion dollar chemical expansion on the Gulf Coast, would provide ethylene feedstock for performance polyethylene lines at the Mont Belvieu natural gas liquids complex, which began production last fall.
“With the completion of the project in Baytown, we are on the verge of fully realizing one of ExxonMobil’s most significant U.S. Gulf Coast investments,” said ExxonMobil Chemical President John Verity. “Our new ethane cracker will allow us to economically meet rapidly growing demand for high-performance polyethylene products around the world while continuing to sustain economic development and create jobs for decades to come.”
The project has created an estimated 10,000-plus construction jobs and 4,000 related jobs in the Houston area since construction began in 2014. Once operational, the facility is expected to support 350 permanent jobs, $870 million/year in regional economic activity and $90 million/year in local tax revenues.
The Baytown chemical expansion project is a key component of ExxonMobil’s Growing the Gulf initiative, in which it is planning close to a dozen new or expanded projects.
In addition to the Baytown cracker, ExxonMobil and joint partner Saudi Basic Industries Corp. have proposed a petrochemical complex near Corpus Christi, TX, to include the largest capacity cracker in the world, a 1.8 million ton/year facility. A final investment decision has not been made.
“Massive new supplies of oil and natural gas have dramatically reduced energy costs and created new sources of feedstock for U.S. refining and chemical manufacturing,” ExxonMobil management noted.
Most of ExxonMobil’s planned chemical capacity investment in the Gulf Coast region is focused on supplying export markets, including Asia, with high-demand products, which should contribute to strengthening the U.S. balance of trade.
Recent changes in the U.S. corporate tax rate “also create an environment for increased future capital investments in projects such as these, and will further enhance the company’s competitiveness in global markets,” executives said.
Late last month ExxonMobil announced it would triple Permian Basin production and invest more than $50 billion in the United States over the next five years, including the $20 billion-plus earmarked for Gulf Coast petrochemical projects. CEO Darren Woods cited U.S. corporate tax reform legislation enacted in late 2017 as creating fertile ground for future capital investments.
“The U.S. chemical industry is rapidly expanding along the Gulf Coast due to abundant supplies of domestically produced natural gas, as demonstrated by the investments ExxonMobil alone is making,” Verity said. “This expansion will not only increase the nation’s existing manufacturing and export capacity, but also further stimulate economic growth and create thousands of full-time jobs.”
ExxonMobil in the past five years has contributed $2 million to the Community College Petrochemical Initiative, a training program offered by nine Houston-area community colleges to provide technical skills to high school graduates, returning military veterans and others.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113291-exxonmobils-15-million-tonyear-baytown-cracker-nearing-startup

Return to headline | Return to top
US Projected To Become Net Exporter Of Energy By 2022

Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Miranda Green

The United States is on pace to become a net exporter of energy, according to new data released Tuesday by the U.S. Energy Information Association (EIA).
The 2018 annual report on the U.S. energy outlook projects that the country will shift from mostly importing energy to primarily exporting it by 2022. The cause is the continued development of U.S. shale, oil and gas resources, as well as a bump in energy consumption, according to the report.
"The United States energy system continues to undergo an incredible transformation," said EIA Administrator Linda Capuano. "This is most obvious when one considers that the [report] shows the United States becoming a net exporter of energy during the projection period in the Reference case and in most of the sensitivity cases as well—a very different set of expectations than we imagined even five or ten years ago."
The U.S. has been a net energy importer since 1953, according to the EIA.
The study also found that economic conditions will be favorable to oil producers in the U.S., with expectations of rising oil prices to boost the industry until 2040. But EIA experts that following 2040, the industry will likely drop due to stalling technological innovations in the sector.
The report also expects that a growing push for increased energy efficiency in the U.S. will put a dent in energy demand. Additionally, the report predicts that growth in the solar sector will lead to most energy consumption past 2022 to be fueled by renewable resources and natural gas.
"Almost all of new electricity generation capacity is fueled by natural gas and renewables after 2022 in the Reference case," the report said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/372542-us-projected-to-become-net-energy-exporter-by-2022

Return to headline | Return to top
U.S. to Become Net Exporter on Shale and Tight Oil, Natural Gas Development, EIA Says

Feb 7, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

By David Bradley

The United States, which has been a net energy importer since 1953, will transition to become a net exporter by 2022 or earlier, based on continued development of domestic shale and tight oil and natural gas resources, paired with modest energy consumption growth, according to a series of long-term projections released Tuesday by the Energy Information Administration (EIA).
EIA previously reported that the United States became a natural gas exporter last year for the first time since 1957, and the International Energy Agency has projected that the country will become the largest liquefied natural gas exporter by the mid 2020s.
The reference case in EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (AEO2018) projects the United States will become a net energy exporter by 2022, with the transition occurring even earlier in some sensitivity cases that incorporate assumptions supporting larger growth in oil and natural gas production or that have higher oil prices.
The fuel mix of domestic energy consumption changes over the projection period in the reference case, with natural gas and renewables growing the most. The industrial sector would account for the most growth in gas consumption, EIA said, with significant increases also expected in the power sector as a result of the scheduled expiration of renewables tax credits in the mid-2020s.
Total U.S. energy production increases by 31% through 2050 in the reference case, led by increases in production of nonhydro renewables, natural gas and crude oil. Natural gas would account for 39% of U.S. energy production by 2050 under the reference case.
"Increased U.S. natural gas production is the result of continued development of shale gas and tight oil plays, which account for more than three-quarters of natural gas production by 2050," EIA said in the AEO2018. "Natural gas production from the shale gas and tight oil plays as a share of total U.S. natural gas production is projected to continue to grow in both share and absolute volume because of the large size of the associated resources, which extend over more than 500,000 square miles."
Continued development of the Marcellus and Utica plays is the main driver of growth in total U.S. shale gas production across most AEO2018 cases and the main source of total U.S. dry natural gas production, EIA said. Production from the Eagle Ford and Haynesville plays is a secondary source to domestic dry natural gas, though production from those plays is projected to level off after 2028.
At the same time, domestic offshore gas production is expected to remain nearly flat as production from discoveries is offset by declines in legacy fields. Coalbed methane gas output is expected to decline through 2050 because of unfavorable economic conditions for its production, EIA said.
EIA's reference case forecasts U.S. crude oil production this year will surpass the 9.6 million b/d record set in 1970 and plateau between 11.5-11.9 million b/d. "The continued development of tight oil and shale gas resources supports growth in natural gas plant liquids production, which reaches 5.0 million b/d in 2023 in the reference case -- a nearly 35% increase from the 2017 level," EIA said.
Natural gas prices in all AEO2018 cases are dependent on resource and technology assumptions, but Henry Hub prices in the reference case are 14% lower through 2050 than they were in AEO2017, because of "an estimated increase in lower-cost resources, primarily in the Permian and Appalachian basins, which support higher production levels at lower prices over the projection period."
The reference case projection assumes trend improvement in known technologies, with a view of economic and demographic trends reflecting current views of leading economic forecasters and demographers, and assumes that current laws and regulations affecting the energy sector remain unchanged throughout the projection period. The reference case also assumes gross domestic product increasing at an annual rate of 2.0% through 2050.
In addition to the reference case, AEO2018 includes energy projections through 2050 under high and low oil price cases, high and low oil and gas resource and technology cases, high and low economic growth cases, and cases assuming that the Clean Power Plan (CPP) is implemented. The Environmental Protection Agency has indicated that it plans to completely repeal the CPP by October.
Even before it was released, EIA's shale gas and tight oil projections were being questioned by some environmental groups.
"There is no doubt that the U.S. can produce substantial amounts of shale gas and tight oil over the short- and medium-term," said J. David Hughes, who authored a report for the Post Carbon Institute that was issued Monday. "Unrealistic long-term forecasts, however, are a disservice to planning a viable long-term energy strategy. The very high to extremely optimistic EIA projections impart an unjustified level of comfort for long-term energy sustainability."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113292-us-to-become-net-exporter-on-shale-and-tight-oil-natural-gas-development-eia-says

Return to headline | Return to top
Exxon Mobil Begins Commissioning Baytown Ethane Cracker

Feb 6, 2018 | Houston Chronicle

By Katherine Blunt

Exxon Mobil Chemical Co. is commissioning its new ethane cracker in Baytown as part of a multi-billion expansion that will dramatically boost its plastics production.
The massive cracker, capable of producing 1.5 million tons of ethylene per year, is expected to come online during the second quarter of the year. It will supply the company's production of polyethylene, the world's most common plastic, at its recently expanded Mont Belvieu plant.
Exxon Mobil last year transformed that polyethylene facility into one of the largest in the world by adding two production lines that nearly doubled output. The plant now has the capacity to produce 2.5 million tons annually.
The project is part of industry push to boost plastics production along the Gulf Coast amid a local petrochemical boom driven by an abundance of cheap natural gas from West Texas. U.S. producers churned out 23.4 million million tons of polyethylene capacity annually in 2016, according to S&P Global Platts, and they added more than 3 million tons of production capacity last year..
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/ExxonMobil-beings-commissioning-Baytown-ethane-12555834.php

Return to headline | Return to top
Exporting American Energy Requires Investing In Ports

Feb 7, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

By Charles W.Zahn Jr.

The rise in the export of American crude oil, petroleum products and liquefied natural gas has been a game-changer for the United States.
As President Trump recently stated in his State of Union address, the emergence of our nation as a dominant force in the global energy market is a net benefit for our economy, national security and trade deficit.
America is fast becoming a dominant force in the global energy markets. This dominance is propelled by significant increases in energy production as American companies continue to drive inefficiencies out of onshore production fields. But moving America’s energy to the demand markets is going to require more investment in infrastructure, namely pipelines and ports. Corpus Christi epitomizes this challenge.
Since the ban on the sale of U.S. crude oil abroad was lifted two years ago, Corpus Christi has emerged as the “energy port of the Americas.” In fact, the first shipment of crude oil sent abroad in 40 years sailed from Corpus Christi on Dec. 31, 2015. The significance of this event cannot be understated. The world’s balance of energy dominance is shifting back to American shores, and the Port of Corpus Christi is at the forefront of this renaissance.

Today Corpus Christi is the largest exporter of U.S. produced energy, and continues to make the necessary infrastructure investments to keep America’s energy moving. In fact, the U.S. is on pace to become a net exporter of its energy by 2023. The last time the United States was a net exporter of its energy production was 1953, nearly 70 years ago.
What this means for the U.S. is an opportunity most have not seen in our lifetime. It should be a priority to reduce our ballooning trade deficit, create more jobs, and position America as a global leader once again on the geo-political stage. We’ve now surpassed Saudi Arabia in energy production, and soon will exceed Russia.
That means more energy to our friends and trading partners around the world, safely and steadily. Reducing the trade gap is and should be an urgent priority, and our policies, investments and resources should go toward the segments of our economy that are consistently delivering results. Infrastructure and energy are the two that epitomize the Port of Corpus Christi.
In light of the goals outlined in the president’s State of the Union address, we cannot stress enough the importance of American infrastructure — including its energy ports — in fully leveraging this potential. Energy exports are one of the few positive trade stories our country has been able to tell in the last decade.
To take advantage of our natural resource abundance, it is imperative that we invest where it matters: the infrastructure that facilitates the expansion of these exports abroad.
Every four years, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) provides a comprehensive assessment of the nation’s infrastructure, and American infrastructure as a whole just received a D+ in the 2017 report card.
Ports received a C+, and they are in serious need of investment. ACSE notes, “The United States’ 926 ports are essential to the nation’s competitiveness, serving as the gateway through which 99 percent of overseas trade passes. Ports are responsible for $4.6 trillion in economic activity — roughly 26 percent of the U.S. economy.”

Only a small select few ports are eligible to be included in the federal budget, and even fewer have secured project partnership agreements with the Army Corps of Engineers. Corpus Christi checks both boxes.
Here in Corpus Christi, we have seen firsthand how infrastructure investment can lead to heightened success in the global marketplace. It is because of the unique opportunity provided by the United States’ resource wealth that the Port of Corpus Christi is currently pursuing an expansion of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel.
With oil and natural gas production projected to increase, new liquefied natural gas terminals coming online this year and a growing necessity to ensure our friends and allies are not reliant on hostile nations for fuel supply, the success of energy exports should continue to be embraced and supported.
President Trump’s focus on infrastructure and energy leadership were spot on. Increasing our energy economy and reducing our trade deficit have bipartisan support and will allow America to once again thrive. To accomplish this, they need look no further than this nation’s seaports, and Corpus Christi.
Charles W. Zahn Jr. is the chairman of the Port of Corpus Christi.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/372537-exporting-american-energy-requires-investing-in-ports

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Trump To Unveil Infrastructure Plan Monday

Feb 7, 2018 | E&E News PM

By Hannah Northey and Nick Sobczyk

President Trump on Monday will unveil his proposal for drumming up $1.5 trillion to bolster the nation's roads, bridges and possibly energy infrastructure.
A White House official confirmed the president is preparing to release his infrastructure "principles" for cutting the regulatory process while providing funding for projects in rural America. Monday also marks the day the administration is set to release its fiscal 2019 budget proposal.
The White House has been vague so far in both its discussions with Congress and plan snippets that have come out publicly, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill today made clear they're hungry for details.
"We've had a lot of undetailed things, and yet those of us who are working with the White House are making some progress but waiting for them to go ahead and come out with it," said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure. "So I think it's going to be a lot more detailed, finally."
Inhofe said he expects the plan to be "all of the above," including conventional infrastructure like roads and ports, as well as energy. Leaked versions have made clear the administration, like Hill Republicans, is focused on streamlining permitting.
A White House "discussion draft" published by The Washington Post last month included proposals to limit permitting time under the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (Greenwire, Jan. 29).
Democrats, such as Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member Tom Carper of Delaware, have said they would be open to reforms. And yet it remains unclear how far they would be willing to go, especially with environmentalists already mobilizing against the early drafts.
"We still need to do this in a bipartisan way," EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said yesterday.
Both lawmakers and the White House will face tricky footing in finding how to finance the package. White House officials in recent months haven't said whether they would support or oppose increasing the nation's federal gas tax (Climatewire, Feb. 2).
In early discussions, the White House proposed spending $200 billion to leverage somewhere between $1 trillion and $1.7 trillion in total investment, with contributions from states and the private sector.
Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota today said he expects the plan to be "pretty detailed, especially when it comes to how it's going to be financed, because that's the big question."
"I think anything at this point is possible," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/02/06/stories/1060073051

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Expands Categories Of Railroad Ties Exempt From Strict Waste Rules

Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

By Lara Beaven

EPA has finalized a rule to expand the types of treated railroad ties that can be burned as fuel without triggering strict hazardous waste combustion emissions requirements, making only minor changes to the categorization rule that was proposed by the Obama administration.
The rule, scheduled to appear in the Feb. 7 Federal Register, amends the agency's non-hazardous secondary materials (NHSM) regulations to add other treated railroad ties (OTRT) to the categorical nonwaste fuel list, allowing the materials to be burned as fuel without triggering stringent hazardous waste emissions controls.
EPA added creosote-treated railroad ties as a categorical NHSM in 2016 and is now adding three additional types of railroad ties following review of additional data from the Treated Wood Council (TWC), which represents the treated wood sector and pushed for the expansion.
The OTRT added as categorical NHSM are processed creosote-borate, copper naphthenate and copper naphthenate-borate treated railroad ties.
Under the rule, copper naphthenate-borate and/or copper naphthenate railroad ties can be combusted as non-waste fuels in units designed to burn biomass, biomass and fuel oil, or biomass and coal.
But railroad ties containing creosote, including creosote-borate or any mixtures of ties containing creosote, borate and copper naphthenate must be burned in combustion units that are designed to burn both biomass and fuel oil in order for the material to be considered a nonwaste fuel, the rule says.
In comments on the draft version of the rule, the TWC criticized the limits on where creosote-treated ties can be burned. Making ties fed to a boiler that combusts only biomass a waste while the same ties are not a waste if combusted in a boiler that can burn both biomass and fuel oil -- even if the two boilers were side-by-side at the same facility -- would create “arbitrary, capricious, and counterproductive” results, TWC said.
While EPA did not change in the final rule the conditions of when the ties are considered NHSM, the agency did add coal to the contaminant comparisons of OTRTs to traditional fuels, an issue on which EPA sought public comment.
EPA says its economic analysis of the rule will result in a cost savings from the avoided costs of Clean Air Act section 129 upgrades for facilities at OTRT to the fuel mix. The unit-level cost savings were estimated, on average, to be approximately $266,000 per year, while the industry-wide undiscounted costs savings from not having to operate under section 129 regulations when combusting these OTRTs for energy is between $3.1 million and $24 million annually over the next 20 years, EPA says. “In addition, the assessment indicated that the increased regulatory clarity associated with the action could stimulate increased product fuel use for one or more of these NHSMs, potentially resulting in upstream life cycle benefits associated with reduced extraction of selected virgin materials,” the rule says.
American Wood Council President and CEO Robert Glowinski praised the final rule in a Feb. 6 statement, saying, “Including the most common rail ties as non-waste fuels not only provides another source of renewable energy for wood products manufacturers, it diverts materials from the solid waste stream and reduces the need for landfill space while providing carbon-neutral energy that offsets fossil-fuel use.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-expands-categories-railroad-ties-exempt-strict-waste-rules

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

California Critic Cites Climate Hypocrisy, Urges Federal Probe

Feb 7, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Christopher Flavelle

California officials are downplaying the risks of climate change to bond investors while citing those same risks as the basis for a lawsuit against oil companies, according to a conservative think tank that has asked securities regulators to investigate.
The Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission, urging it to investigate a group of cities and counties in California for making contradictory claims about climate risks.
“In these lawsuits the plaintiff cities and counties apparently describe these climate risks in ways that are far different than how they described them in their own bond offerings,” says the letter, dated Feb. 1. “In our view, this inconsistency raises serious questions of municipal bond fraud.“
The accusations by CEI mark the latest twist in a legal fight that began last July, when a group of city and county governments in California filed a lawsuit against 37 oil companies for their role in global warming. The suit claimed that the companies, which include Chevron Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp., contributed to sea-level rise, and so should be forced to pay part of the cost of protecting coastal California communities against the problem.
Last month, Exxon launched a suit of its own, arguing that those same cities and counties had failed to disclose climate risks when it sold municipal bonds to investors.
San Francisco Disclosures
CEI's letter cites San Francisco, which said in the lawsuit against Exxon and other oil companies that it expects “0.3 to as much as 0.8 feet of additional sea level rise by 2030.” But when San Francisco sold $173 million in bonds in January 2017, it told investors that it was “unable to predict whether sea-level rise or other impacts of climate change or flooding from a major storm will occur, when they may occur.”
“Either the City can predict such sea-level rise, as it tells the court, or it cannot, as it tells investors,” CEI wrote to the SEC.
A spokesman for the San Francisco city attorney's office, John Cote, called the letter “deceptive,” adding that the city “has been disclosing climate change as a risk factor since at least 2014.“
He cited an October 2017 issuance that noted “substantial increases in sea level rise are projected due to climate change over the coming century” and could put critical infrastructure at risk.
“The assertion that the city does not disclose this risk factor to investors is false,” he said in an email.
No Precedent for SEC Probe
Sam Kazman, general counsel for CEI and one of the letter's authors, said in an interview that his organization is “quite skeptical” about cities’ claims that they face a threat from climate change. “I think they're quite overblown,” he said of those warnings.
Still, Kazman said, the SEC ought to investigate the “very clear inconsistency between what these entities are saying in their bond offerings and in their court filings.“
The odds of legal sanctions are slim, according to Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.
Even under President Barack Obama, the SEC took no enforcement action against cities or companies for failing to disclose climate risk, Gerrard said Feb. 5. He said that's unlikely to change under President Donald Trump, who has disputed the science of climate change.
An SEC spokesman, Ryan White, declined to comment.
Letter's Impact
But that doesn't mean the letter won't have any effect. Barbara VanScoy, head of Alpha Impact Investors, said she expects that the letter to encourage cities and investors to take climate risks more seriously. She added that cities’ financial officers also need to talk more to the staff members who work on resilience. “If offices remain siloed, nothing will change,” she said by email.
Shalini Vajjhala, a former Obama official who now advises cities on adapting to climate risks, said the charges leveled by CEI could spur those conversations across different parts of local government.
“It might create some uncomfortable conversations between the CFO's office and the offices that are focused on generating the suits against big oil companies,” Vajjhala said. “I think this is a smart move that will cause some thinking and introspection within some cities.“

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=127860790&vname=dennotallissues&fn=127860790&jd=127860790

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Leaves Gas Industrial Flare 'Emission Factor' Unchanged

Feb 7, 2018 | Inside EPA

EPA is leaving unchanged a key “emission factor” used by regulators to estimate the air pollution emitted by industrial flares that burn excess gases from natural gas production, after finding insufficient evidence to alter the factor during a review conducted to satisfy a legal agreement with environmentalists.
However, the agency is establishing some new emission factors that are designed to better assist regulators in estimating air pollution from the natural gas sector.
Following a review of several emissions factors associated with flares in the gas and chemical production industries, EPA in a Feb. 5 final “action” says that -- as it proposed last year -- it will leave an emission factor for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from “elevated” flares used in natural gas production unchanged.
The agency in a report on its decision says it reviewed the factor in line with a consent decree that settled environmentalists' lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit, Air Alliance Houston v. McCarthy, in which environmental groups sought to force an update to factors that they say are years out of date and potentially inaccurate.
Emission factors are used by air regulators and companies to estimate the emissions rates of various similar pieces of equipment, in order to compile emissions inventories, although their use is not mandatory. They are also sometimes used in writing of air permits. Inaccurate emission factors can lead to underestimation of industrial facilities' true emissions and hence lax regulation, environmentalists say.
EPA in a fact sheet to accompany its Feb. 5 action says, “the agency is not revising the VOC factor. Available data pertain to total hydrocarbon emissions (THC) and, as such, did not indicate that the existing VOC factor is flawed or outdated.”
The agency says, however, that while these data “did not allow EPA to conclude that revision to the VOC factor is necessary, they did provide information that the agency could use to develop new factors for THC emissions from enclosed ground flares. Those factors can, in turn, be used for estimating VOC emissions from enclosed ground flares.”
Therefore, “EPA established two new THC factors for enclosed ground flares at natural gas production sites.” These are expressed as 332 pounds of THC per million standard cubic feet of gas burned, or 0.335 pounds of THC per million British Thermal Units of heat input. EPA however describes the new factors as “poorly” representative of the flares.
Further, EPA also establishes four new emission factors for enclosed ground flares at chemical manufacturing processes used in ethylene and propylene production.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-leaves-gas-industrial-flare-emission-factor-unchanged

Return to headline | Return to top
Ewire: Democrats Say Carbon 'Fee' Bill Will 'Beat' Clean Power Plan

Feb 6, 2018 | Inside EPA

Democrats in the House and Senate are re-introducing legislation to impose a carbon “fee” on fossil fuels and most other sources of greenhouse gases, arguing the move would “beat” the Obama administration's national GHG target for 2025 and deliver more than twice the carbon reductions from the power sector than EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP).
The bill -- introduced Feb. 5 by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and David Cicilline (D-RI) -- would impose a $50 fee per ton of emissions starting in 2019 and increase that 2 percent annually.
The lawmakers project that the bill would generate over $2 trillion in the first decade, which would be given to workers through an $800 tax credit, as well as $10 billion in yearly grants to states to help low-income and rural areas, workers transitioning to new industries and climate adaptation efforts.
They cite analysis by Resources for the Future that the bill would cut energy-related GHGs by 36 percent from 2005 levels by 2025, allowing the country to beat Obama's emissions target set under the Paris Agreement. It would also deliver more than twice the power sector emission cuts as the CPP -- which the Trump EPA is in the process of rolling back.
Whitehouse and other lawmakers have floated similar carbon tax legislation in previous years, though the bills have not gained traction in the GOP-controlled Congress. This year's measure likely faces a similar fate, given the strong opposition to carbon controls from many elected Republicans and President Donald Trump.
However, a Feb. 5 release from the four lawmakers argues that “a growing number of prominent Republicans have come out in support” of a carbon tax, including several top officials in former Republican administrations that pitched a revenue-neutral carbon tax to Trump officials in early 2017.
Two other Democrats late last month floated a “cap-and-dividend” bill that would impose declining caps on most sources of GHG emissions, while auctioning compliance credits in quarterly auctions. Like the new Whitehouse measure, proceeds from the auctions would be returned to residents to offset higher energy costs.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested