Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 2/14/2018
-
(ACC Blog) Going for the Win: Silicones in Sporting Events and Competitions
Feb 13, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
This month at the winter games, outstanding athletes from around the world are gathering in PyeongChang to compete for the gold. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Bad Are Proposed Budget Cuts at the EPA? Let Me Count the Ways
Feb 14, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Kathleen Rest
While President Trump just released a proposal that would result in deep cuts for critical science-based agencies in fiscal year 2019, Congress still must pass a spending bill that will determine funding levels for critical agencies that we rely on to advance science... -
(ACC Mentioned) City Serves as Case Study in Film Recycling Outreach
Feb 13, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Municipal programs are often short on funds, and it’s easy for recycling outreach to fall on the back burner amid budget constraints. East Hartford, Conn. recently took action on the issue by partnering with a plastics industry initiative. -
(ACC Mentioned) Coal Exec Helping Bankroll Both Manchin and His Foe
Feb 14, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Bowlin and Dylan Brown
A hometown coal tycoon's company seems to have picked sides, but energy interests are mostly holding onto their money ahead of West Virginia's Republican Senate primary. -
(ACC Mentioned Indian American CEO of LyondellBasell Bob Patel Named Chair of American Chemistry Council
Feb 14, 2018 | India West
Indian American chief executive officer of LyondellBasell Bob V. Patel Feb. 5 was named the chair of the American Chemistry Council. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ditch the Harmful Relationship and ‘Break up’ with Plastic
Feb 14, 2018 | ESI Africa
A topic removed from our core focus area, yet a critical topic around the world – Plastic. -
(ACC Mentioned) She Thought the ‘Miracle’ Mix Would Cure Her Child’s Autism. Police Say It Was Acid.
Feb 13, 2018 | Miami Herald
By Crystal Hill
She’d read about it on a Facebook group: a “miracle mineral solution” that could reportedly cure everything from AIDS to cancer, Indianapolis police said. -
(ACC Mentioned) Court Rejects Plea for Lower Duties on Water Treatment Chemical
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
Anti-dumping duties on a water treatment chemical from China will not be reduced, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 13. -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Nears Ban on Toxic Firefighting Foam (2)
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Certain toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam could be banned under a Washington state bill that is likely to end up on the governor's desk, Senate Majority Caucus Vice Chair Lisa Wellman (D) said Feb. 13. -
(ACC Mentioned) NEW NAME, SAME RIVER: Cape Fear Public Utility Authority Announces re-brand to Cape Fear Water
Feb 14, 2018 | Encore Online
The river we now call “Cape Fear” originally was known as the Sapona—a lyrical name given by our area’s natives. -
California Unveils 2018-2020 Priority Product Work Plan
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has announced that its draft 2018-2020 priority product work plan is available for public review. -
No Chemicals Bill Deal as North Carolina Lawmakers Leave Town
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina won't take aim at toxic chemicals in the water until May after the Legislature adjourned without reaching a deal to address emerging contaminants. -
State Legislatures Tackle Toxic Chemicals as Pruitt EPA Falters
Feb 13, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
State legislatures across the country are stepping up to protect public health from harmful chemicals in an effort to fill gaps in chemical protections due to inaction by the US EPA, according to an analysis of state policies by Safer States. -
Lawmakers Urge EPA to Retain Housatonic Off-Site Cleanup
Feb 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
Members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation are urging EPA to retain an off-site disposal provision in its cleanup plan for the Housatonic River after EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB)... -
EU Inspectors Find High Rate Of Chemical Law Violations
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Up to 20 percent of the toys, leather items, and other products sold on the European Union market in 2016 were found to contain excessive levels of hazardous substances that violate the bloc's chemicals law, a Feb. 13 European Chemicals Agency report said. -
BjöRn Hansen: Echa Needs to Improve Efficiency
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa's new executive director believes the agency has not been moving forward as fast as originally planned on REACH or the BPR, and this has downstream impacts on CLP. -
EU Flame Retardant Exports Banned Under Pic Amendments
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU is to ban exports of four brominated flame retardants and three other substances, under amendments made to legislation controlling the trade of very hazardous chemicals. -
Shale Output Hasn’t Grown This Fast Since Oil Was at $100
Feb 13, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Alessi
U.S. shale companies are churning out crude oil at a record pace that could overwhelm global demand and reverse the oil market’s fragile recovery, a top energy-market observer said Tuesday. -
BLM Moves to Nearly Repeal Obama-Era Venting/Flaring Rule for Public, Tribal Lands
Feb 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
The U.S. Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to replace the Obama-era Waste Prevention Rule, which governs flaring and venting of associated natural gas on public and tribal lands, with requirements similar to those... -
Greens Sue Trump over Fracking Waste in Gulf
Feb 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Three environmental groups teamed up to sue the Trump administration on Tuesday for allowing oil companies to dump leftover waste from drilling and fracking into the Gulf of Mexico. -
Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Get Closer Look in Pipeline Review (1)
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Greenhouse gas emissions will be part of the equation as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews its approval process for natural gas pipelines, the commission's Republican chairman said Feb. 13. -
America's Supertanker Terminal Set to Export Oil for First Time
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Dan Murtaugh
The flood of crude leaving the U.S. could be about to get a major boost: the nation's top imports terminal is testing one of the industry's biggest tankers to load an export cargo for the first time. -
EPA FY19 Budget Floats New Fees To Offset Cuts To Energy STAR, RMP
Feb 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is planning to seek congressional approval to collect industry fees to support the agency's popular Energy STAR program and supplement compliance assistance for facility accident and spill prevention rules, according to its fiscal year 2019 budget request... -
Infrastructure Funding in Question as Congress Starts Push
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney
Congress will kick off its legislative process on infrastructure in March, despite lingering questions and disagreements over funding among transportation leaders. -
Trump: Gut Funding for Climate Science, Boost Fossil Fuels
Feb 13, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
The Trump administration is targeting federal funding for studying and tracking climate change while boosting the continued burning of planet-warming fossil fuels. -
U.S. Intelligence Agencies Break with Trump Over Climate Threats
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
The U.S. intelligence community is at odds with the White House about threats America faces from climate change. -
EPA Sets Hearing Date for Connecticut Ozone Petition
Feb 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is complying with a court order setting steep deadlines for responding to Connecticut's petition calling for direct federal regulation of air emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant that the state blames for its ozone problems, a case that some say highlights...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Going for the Win: Silicones in Sporting Events and Competitions
Feb 13, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By American Chemistry
This month at the winter games, outstanding athletes from around the world are gathering in PyeongChang to compete for the gold. No matter the sport— from skiing to bobsledding to curling and figure skating, athletes rely on the unique properties of silicones to improve performance.
Here are just a few of the areas where silicones help support high performing athletes during the winter games:
· Clothing: Silicone finishes in clothing materials and fabrics used for sportswear make clothes soft, yet durable as well as resistant to abrasion. Skin-compatible silicone rubber renders clothing water-repellent, abrasion-resistant, elastic, fade-resistant and wrinkle-free all while keeping athletes comfortable and dry.
· Protective gear: Silicone materials in helmets, goggles, masks and face guards can help to protect athletes against the elements in sports such as bobsledding, skiing and ice skating. Special silicone gel cushions can act as shock absorbers for protective equipment, which can help to reduce the risk of injury for these athletes.
· Courses: Silicone wax formulations can be used for application on skis and snowboards to support speed and high jumps on the courses.
· Facilities: Silicone sealants fill and seal gaps used in many of the new PyeongChang arenas which enables energy efficiency operations as well as temperature maintenance in ice arenas.
The unique properties of silicones help create highly specialized materials that support athletes at sporting events and competitions around the world. Learn more about the unique properties of silicones at Silicones Benefits.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/02/going-for-the-win-silicones-in-sporting-events-and-competitions/
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Bad Are Proposed Budget Cuts at the EPA? Let Me Count the Ways
Feb 14, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists
By Kathleen Rest
While President Trump just released a proposal that would result in deep cuts for critical science-based agencies in fiscal year 2019, Congress still must pass a spending bill that will determine funding levels for critical agencies that we rely on to advance science, keep our air and water clean, and protect children’s health for the rest of this fiscal year by March 23.
Unfortunately, the proposals currently on the table for funding our government would slash the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and include harmful “poison-pill” anti-science policy riders, thereby threatening the public health and safety of everyone across the US.
The proposals to cut EPA funding and undermine the agency’s ability to implement evidence-based policies are deeply troubling given the critical role—and successful track record—of the agency. Remember the saying: you can’t argue with success? Well, that’s certainly not a saying used by the current administration, nor the appropriations committees in Congress, on this matter. There, the majority party seems to overlook the singular success of the people’s Environmental Protection Agency. (I refer to “the people’s” EPA because the agency is there first and foremost for us—to protect and preserve our health, our communities, our environment.)
Perhaps these budgeteers think the quality of the air we breathe and the water we drink simply improved on their own over time. Or that the polluters decided to ratchet down toxics in our environment out of the goodness of their hearts. Perhaps they forgot that rivers once caught fire and that really dirty air plagued our cities and communities, exacting an enormous toll on the public’s health.
Or maybe they just think our environment is clean enough. Perhaps in their zeal to help EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt “get back to basics,” they ignore the science and data that tell us otherwise. Many communities, along with health professionals, know full well that the environment is NOT clean enough. The proposed cuts by Congress (and the president) to the EPA budget—significant for an agency already underfunded and stretched thin—fail to recognize that air pollution remains a significant risk factor for cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory illness and premature death in this country. They sideline such facts as:
· More than half of all Americans—166 million people—live in counties where they are exposed to unhealthful levels of these pollutants—like ozone and particulates.
· Nearly 3.6 million children and close to 11.4 million adults with asthma live in counties of the United States that received an F for at least one pollutant.
· More than 24.8 million people with incomes meeting the federal poverty definition live in counties that received an F for at least one pollutant. Nearly 3.8 million people in poverty live in counties failing all three tests. Evidence shows that people who have low incomes may face higher risk from air pollution.
Ignorance may be bliss for some, but it sure doesn’t protect and improve the public’s health.
The good, the bad, and the ugly
There is no overarching silver lining to the EPA budget proposals coming out of Congress (or the White House)—though I suppose we could acknowledge that their proposals are not as draconian as President Trump would have liked.
There is one significant sliver of good news: Senate appropriators directed the EPA to continue reimbursing the Department of Justice for expenses incurred in litigating Superfund cases and forcing polluters to pay for cleaning sites they left contaminated with hazardous waste. This was a practice Pruitt wanted to shut down. And the bill increases the Superfund program budget slightly (by $2 million).
OK. But, these bits of good news are completely overshadowed by the BIG hit that the EPA would take in the Senate bill along with the litany of poison pill riders that would fly in the face of scientific advice. Given how long ago it now feels that the House and Senate bills came out, and given the looming March 23 deadline for Congress to pass a spending bill or pass another extension, here is a reminder of the bad and the ugly.
On the chopping block
Across-the-board cuts in the EPA budget would be bad enough, but they fall most heavily (and predictably) on some programs in the most recent proposals. No surprise that compliance and enforcement programs are a target. The House proposed a 15% cut in enforcement and a 5% cut in compliance programs within the Environmental Program and Management Account. The Senate bill cuts enforcement and compliance within the Environmental Program and Management Account by 10% each. Never mind that enforcement and compliance programs are essential for ensuring that regulated industries are abiding by our country’s science-based environmental standards—whether through assistance or sanction—and paying the price when they aren’t. (Strong enforcement also helps level the playing field for those companies that comply with environmental regulations. Violators should not get a free ride.)
Cuts to EPA enforcement and compliance programs could also mean:
· Fewer actions to protect the public, especially young children, from exposure to lead in paint. From October 2016 to September 2017, EPA filed 123 civil lead-based paint administrative actions leading to 120 settlements and three outstanding civil complaints. In fact, EPA enforcement actions have reached a 10-year low.
· Fewer cases to force reductions in harmful air emissions from petrochemical facilities
· Less company investment in pollution control equipment to reduce air pollution and to improve public health in local communities previously impacted by pollution
· Fewer actions to prevent future chemical spills and clean up past ones
· You get the picture.
EPA’s Science and Technology Account is also on the chopping block, despite the central role EPA plays in providing the research, scientific knowledge, and technologies needed to prevent and abate current pollution as well anticipate and prepare for future hazards and risks. The House bill cuts this critical function by almost 15%, while the Senate bill cuts it to a little more than 10%. This is a significant cut to this gem in our nation’s research enterprise, potentially affecting research areas critical to the health and safety of our children, our communities, and our future. These include, for example,
· Conducting cutting-edge science to inform quality standards for the water we drink and the air we breathe
· Evaluating the potential health impacts of chemicals and emerging materials, as well as enabling safer and more sustainable use of new chemicals
· Developing or jumpstarting the scientific and engineering solutions we need to manage current and future environmental risks
· Providing the science and technology needed to effectively respond to, and recover from, intentional or accidental environmental catastrophes
These cuts also put the capacity, productivity, and effectiveness of our national labs at risk, as well as the likelihood of additional job loss. (I say additional because Pruitt is already orchestrating an exodus of EPA staff and expertise through hiring freezes, buyouts, and offers of early retirement–see here and here). Among others, this cut puts the National Vehicle and Fuels Emission Laboratory at risk. That’s the one that verified and provided the data needed to prosecute Volkswagen for Dieselgate. And, speaking of diesel, the Senate bill cuts the program that provides funds to replace or retrofit older diesel vehicles by almost a third—from $65 million if FY 2017 to $40 million in FY 2018.
Work on environmental justice is another mission-critical area of the EPA. Established in 1992, EPA’s environmental justice program was established to address the disproportionate impact of environmental pollution on minority, low-income, and disenfranchised communities. The Office of Environmental Justice—though small itself—has provided leadership, support, resources, and small grants to engage and help communities create and implement local solutions to environmental justice concerns where they live. Yet instead of doubling down on this problem, the Senate bill slashes the budget of the office by 10%, which could mean:
· Less financial support for impacted environmental justice communities
· Fewer tools, resources, and opportunities for EJ community engagement in EPA policy processes and decisions
· Less technical assistance for communities to enhance their ability to better understand the science, regulations, and policies of environmental issues and EPA actions
How these cuts make America great is beyond me.
Not content with mere chopping, the Senate bill eliminates the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This is the program that assesses and evaluates the potential health risks of our exposure to chemicals in the environment. These assessments are used by federal and state regulators (and even internationally) to set exposure limits on hazardous chemicals. Easy to understand why the chemical industry and their favorites in Congress have had their sights on IRIS for quite a while (more on that here).
Now, to be fair, while totally gutting IRIS, the Senate bill transfers resources and directs the EPA to build this effort into its revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Program. The bill also calls on EPA to work closer with industry as it crafts the next generation of risk assessment methods. Should we have any confidence that this new approach will serve the public interest? Notwithstanding the fact that the IRIS program and the TSCA program have different mandates. And it’s Nancy Beck who heads the EPA’s Toxics Office. She is a former policy director at the American Chemistry Council, so just call me skeptical. And I’m being generous here.
Poison pills—those ugly riders
We can be forgiven for thinking that spending bills are all about funding. But our elected leaders can sneak or even boast about attaching anti-science, poison pill policy riders to spending bills. And the spending bill introduced in the Senate that should be clearly focused on funding public health and science-based policymaking is no exception.
Here are a few poison pills they are asking us to swallow:
· Exempt any EPA effort to withdraw the Clean Water Rule from the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This is the rule that defines which waterways are covered by the Clean Water Act. Yeah, the water we might drink fish, swim, or play in. And bypassing the EPA means the agency can withdraw the rule without any public comment. (Score 1 for Pruitt, 0 for democracy.)
· Require EPA and other agencies to continue to treat forest biomass as carbon-neutral, again sidelining science.
· Roll back the critical science-based ozone standard which results in cleaner air and healthier people.
· Prohibit agencies from requiring Clean Air Act permits to emit carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases from livestock production.
· Prevent agencies from issuing rules that require greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems.
· Endorse EPA efforts to “reshape” its workforce—another word for downsizing—that is already hollowing out the agency. This loss of experience and expertise will take decades to rebuild.
What to do? Light up those phones!
Congress has until March 23 to pass a spending bill which would fund the government for the rest of the year, so now is a key moment to let your Senators know: Any cuts to the EPA and any “poison pill” anti-science poison-pill riders are unacceptable!
Call your senators. You can reach them by calling 1-833-216-1727.
Tell them you are opposed to any cuts to the EPA budget and to harmful anti-science poison pill policy riders that prevent the agency from doing its job. Speak specifically to cuts in the EPA Science and Technology Account, the Environmental Program and Management Account (which fund enforcement and compliance), the Office of Environmental Justice, and the elimination of the IRIS program.
Call them, and then call them again. Tell them the EPA is the people’s EPA and this bill does not serve the people.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/how-bad-are-proposed-budget-cuts-at-the-epa-let-me-count-the-ways
-
(ACC Mentioned) City Serves as Case Study in Film Recycling Outreach
Feb 13, 2018 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
Municipal programs are often short on funds, and it’s easy for recycling outreach to fall on the back burner amid budget constraints. East Hartford, Conn. recently took action on the issue by partnering with a plastics industry initiative.
According to a program leader in East Hartford, the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP) can substantially boost film diversion and help shift that material from curbside carts, where it’s a contaminant, into the retail collections stream.
Marilynn Cruz-Aponte, assistant director of East Hartford’s Public Works department, described the city’s experience in a recent U.S. EPA Sustainable Materials Management webinar. East Hartford was motivated by a rising contamination rate, specifically due to improperly recycled plastic bags.
“Our recycling plant operation has been impacted by plastic film that comes through our blue bins,” Cruz-Aponte said. “We have a two-hour, daily shutdown to deal with the kind of impact. For us, our concern is that quality matters, and if we don’t nip this in the bud, or if we don’t find a way of taking a right-hand turn or a left-hand turn, that’s going to cost us in the future.”
A program of the American Chemistry Council’s Flexible Film Recycling Group, WRAP appealed to East Hartford officials, in part because it was so easy to implement, Cruz-Aponte said. It’s an established national program that employs a business-government partnership model, which has been popular in East Hartford.
“All we had to do was tap in and tweak,” she said.
The city, which has a population of about 50,000 residents, collects around 3,300 tons of recyclables per year through a curbside recycling program. Its Public Works department’s Waste Services division has a $2.5 million annual budget.Implementing the strategy
The city already had a partnership with a local supermarket chain called ShopRite, which was collecting film for recycling. That made it easier to launch the WRAP program. Cruz-Aponte met with the local business owner, explaining the WRAP initiative, the city’s interest and the expected impact. The Public Works department formed a close relationship with the business, which Cruz-Aponte said was crucial to the program’s success.
“I was able to have confidence in working with the owner, and got approval from her to have a direct working relationship with the store facilities director, for data tracking, for customer education, for hauler collection information,” Cruz-Aponte said.
Support from the city’s mayor was also critical, particularly in coordinating outreach and drawing media attention.
In the end, WRAP allowed the city to push for diversion of a new recycling stream at no cost to taxpayers.
“While it didn’t necessarily reduce tonnage significantly, it did allow the town to promote the elimination of plastic bag use in blue bins, it supported the recycling plant goals, and then it added a new initiative that refreshes the curbside recycling message in general and reminds residents to recommit to curbside diversion,” Cruz-Aponte said.
ShopRite doubled its film collections as a result of the WRAP outreach drive. Last fall, consulting and research firm More Recycling conducted an audit of the East Hartford program after it had begun. The audit found the film stream was made up mostly of plastic grocery bags. There was some contaminated film, totaling about 16 percent, but the city looked at the volume increase, without a major rise in contamination, as a big success.
“The fact that we just doubled material meant that this launch really did change behavior, and now it’s really a matter of providing deeper education about the diversity of the types of plastic that can be received at retail,” she said.
ShopRite continues to report sustained higher collection volumes since the WRAP launch, she said.
https://resource-recycling.com/recycling/2018/02/13/city-serves-case-study-film-recycling-outreach/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Coal Exec Helping Bankroll Both Manchin and His Foe
Feb 14, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Bowlin and Dylan Brown
A hometown coal tycoon's company seems to have picked sides, but energy interests are mostly holding onto their money ahead of West Virginia's Republican Senate primary.
With May 8 looming, rivals Rep. Evan Jenkins and West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey had $1.4 million and $1.1 million, respectively, to spend on Jan. 1, according to Federal Election Commission filings.
Jenkins raised a meager $203,000 in the last quarter of 2017, but nearly a third of that cash came from organizations tied to reclusive coal magnate Chris Cline.
Individuals associated with the Cline Group, subsidiary Cutlass Collieries LLC and the Cline Family Foundation donated $62,100 to Jenkins between Oct. 1 and Dec. 31.
Cline, who splits time between homes in Florida and his hometown of Beckley, W.Va., in Jenkins' House district, gave the individual maximum donation of $5,400.
Cline Group CEO Paul Vining; Cutlass Senior Vice President Anthony Webb; and Candice Kenan, director of the Clines' charity, did the same.
Cline and Vining, apparently hedging their bets, had already given the maximum to the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Joe Manchin, the man Jenkins and Morrisey are eager to unseat.
A reliable Republican donor in races nationwide, Cline has made exceptions in the past for West Virginia Democrats, including the late Sen. Robert Byrd and Jenkins' predecessor, Rep. Nick Rahall.
In the case of Manchin, that trend has spread industrywide. The former West Virginia governor's incumbent status and pro-energy record, particularly on coal, has created a substantial natural resources fundraising advantage.
New donors in the last months of 2017 included utilities FirstEnergy Corp., whose political action committee has given Manchin $10,000, and Duke Energy Corp.'s PAC, which spent $8,500.
The American Chemistry Council PAC also kicked in $5,000, for a total of $10,000 in 2017, as Manchin lobbies for a major infrastructure project to revive chemical manufacturing in his state (E&E Daily, Sept. 14, 2017).
Oil company BP PLC's PAC added $2,500 to the Democrats' war chest. Coal giants Arch Coal Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp. and their top trade group, the National Mining Association, gave a combined $8,500.
Morrisey received scant energy cash in 2017's final quarter but had previous donations from Koch Industries Inc. and Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp.
Charles Koch, the petrochemical billionaire and head of the conservative advocacy network fed by the family's money, contributed $2,700 to Morrisey's campaign in the final months of last year.
Overall, Morrisey raised $739,000 during that time, but $260,000 was a personal loan. FEC records show Morrisey has given $320,000 total to his campaign.
Outside the Cline Group, Jenkins received little in the way of energy dollars to close 2017, but he took cash from Arch and the NMA earlier in the year.
Race wild card Don Blankenship has eschewed fundraising, according to his FEC filings, which show only a $400,000 personal loan to his campaign.
The former Massey Energy Co. CEO, recently released from federal prison for mine safety violations, has paid for a deluge of campaign advertising while barnstorming the state with weekly town hall meetings.
Outlook
Manchin raised $850,000 overall during the last months of 2017, a somewhat low figure for a vulnerable incumbent but still ahead of his rivals. His war chest is also by far the deepest: $4.7 million at the end of 2017.
Manchin will need the cash. While major GOP donors have skirted the bitter primary, experts expect money to pour in once that's settled.
Republicans see Manchin as one of the most vulnerable blue incumbents this fall. President Trump won the Mountaineer State by 42 percentage points in 2016.
But observers caution that Manchin remains popular in a state that has gone deeply red. He often diverges from the national party, particularly on issues of coal and environmental regulation.
Manchin boasts a solid 52-36 approval-to-disapproval margin in a Morning Consult poll conducted Oct. 1 through Dec. 31.
Kyle Kondik, managing editor at Sabato's Crystal Ball from the University of Virginia Center for Politics, called Manchin a "modest favorite" in the fall.
"Incumbency is valuable," Kondik said. "Manchin has been around for a long time and has shown the ability to get votes from people who otherwise vote Republican."
The Cook Political Report rates the race a "toss-up."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060073831/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
Feb 14, 2018 | India West
Indian American chief executive officer of LyondellBasell Bob V. Patel Feb. 5 was named the chair of the American Chemistry Council.
"Our industry is critical to advancing solutions to many of today's most challenging global issues like enhancing food safety through lightweight and flexible packaging, protecting the purity of water supplies through stronger and more versatile pipes, and improving the safety, comfort and fuel efficiency of many of the cars and trucks on the road today," Patel said in a statement. "This is an exciting time and I am honored to help tell our story and advocate for sensible policies that encourage growth and further competitiveness around the world."
Patel became an officer of the organization in 2016 and served as vice chairman of the board and chairman of the Finance, Audit and Membership Committee. Last year he served as chairman of the Executive Committee. He was first elected to ACC's board of director's in 2015, during which time he served as a member of the executive committee.
As CEO of LyondellBasell, Patel has focused on the development and implementation of the next phase of the company's long-term growth strategy. He has overseen major capacity expansions at the company's sites in the United States, including the construction of the company's industry-leading Hyperzone high density polyethylene plant in La Porte, Texas, and the world's largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol plant in Channelview, Texas — the largest single investment in the company's history, the council said in a news release.
Under Patel's leadership, in 2018 LyondellBasell was named to Fortune Magazine's "World's Most Admired Companies" list for the first time.
Patel joined LyondellBasell in March 2010 as senior vice president, Olefins and Polyolefins – Americas, where he was one of the leaders who helped position the company to take advantage of the shale gas expansion in the U.S. He was promoted to executive vice president of Olefins and Polyolefins – Europe, Asia and International in October 2013, and appointed CEO in January 2015.
In 2015, LyondellBasell was named a Responsible Care Company of the Year by ACC for the company's outstanding achievement in health, safety and environmental performance.
"Advancing the understanding, value, and need for science- and risk-based decision-making in both the marketplace and public policy is central to our mission at ACC," said ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley in a statement.
"As chief executive of one of the world's largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies, Bob possesses the insight and expertise to drive the continued expansion and prosperity of American chemistry in a global manufacturing future. His fiscal, strategic, and operational discipline; together with his leadership, will help ensure ACC's continued success as we navigate an increasingly challenging political and regulatory environment," Dooley added.
Previously, Patel worked for Chevron Corporation and its affiliates for more than two decades.
He is a board member of the Junior Achievement of Southeast Texas, the U.S.-India Business Council and the Greater Houston Partnership. Additionally, he serves as a member of the external advisory council of the College of Engineering for The Ohio State University and a member of the dean's advisory council for the Fox School of Business at Temple University.
The Indian American ACC chair earned a bachelor of science in chemical engineering from The Ohio State University and he also holds an M.B.A. from Temple University.
http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/indian-american-ceo-of-lyondellbasell-bob-patel-named-chair-of/article_2da1426a-10fd-11e8-be97-1b3caf200e5c.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Ditch the Harmful Relationship and ‘Break up’ with Plastic
Feb 14, 2018 | ESI Africa
A topic removed from our core focus area, yet a critical topic around the world – Plastic.
ESI Africa, in support of the United Nations (UN) Environment Programme, is behind the mass ‘break up’ with plastic.
“Our love-in with disposable plastics has a toxic side effect,” Head of UN Environment Erik Solheim said about the film, Turn the Tide on Plastic.
“This Valentine’s Day we are urging people to break up with throwaway bottles, straws, utensils and bags and help turn the tide on plastic waste.”
"It's not me, it's you"What plastic is doing to the world
A UN initiative, Clean Seas: Turn the Tide on Plastic, estimates that 8 million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean every year. Adding that 60-90% of marine litter is made up of different plastic polymers.Plastic to power
In 2015, Doug Woodring, director and co-founder of Ocean Recovery Alliance, and Steve Russell, American Chemistry Council, wrote a piece (published on Live Science) that highlighted plastics-to-fuel technology development.
The duo explained: “Plastics are collected and sorted for recycling. Then the non-recycled plastics (or residuals) are shipped to a plastics-to-fuel facility, where they are heated in an oxygen-free environment, melted and vaporised into gases. The gases are then cooled and condensed into a variety of useful products. Plastics-to-fuel technologies do not involve combustion.
“Depending on the specific technology, products can include synthetic crude or refined fuels for home heating; ingredients for diesel, gasoline or kerosene; or fuel for industrial combined heat and power.”
They added: “By tapping the potential of non-recycled plastics, the US could support up to 600 plastics-to-fuel facilities and generate nearly 39,000 jobs, resulting in nearly $9 billion in economic output from plastics-to-fuel operations.
With research and development underway in the power and energy sector to convert plastic waste into a power resource, industries across the board can get on board with this global initiative and work together to 'turn the tide on plastic'.
https://www.esi-africa.com/news/ditch-harmful-relationship-break-plastic/
-
(ACC Mentioned) She Thought the ‘Miracle’ Mix Would Cure Her Child’s Autism. Police Say It Was Acid.
Feb 13, 2018 | Miami Herald
By Crystal Hill
She’d read about it on a Facebook group: a “miracle mineral solution” that could reportedly cure everything from AIDS to cancer, Indianapolis police said.
The woman, 28, told her daughter’s father she thought the mixture could help their child’s autism, police said, so she began putting drops of it in her daughter’s drink, ABC 6 reported.
But the concoction she thought would help her child was made up of hydrochloric acid and water purifying solution, police said, WIBC reported. The father called police when he found out, Saturday authorities said. Child Protective Services removed the child from the home, ABC 6 reported.
Police say she’d put the drops in her daughter’s drinks a couple of weeks ago, but had started talking about it Saturday with the child’s father, the news station said.
Hydrochloric acid is highly corrosive, meaning it damages everything it touches, and is often used to make batteries and lightbulbs, according to the American Chemistry Council. Acute oral exposure can lead to severe burns, ulceration and scarring, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine.
Sherry Quinn, president of the Applied Behavioral Center for Autism told FOX 59 it’s not uncommon for parents to seek out home remedies to cure autism.
“Taking things into their own hands is something that many parents have done out of desperation, out of hope,” Quinn said.
Behavioral Center Clinical Director Kelly Goudreau said it’s important to remember that there is no “cure” for autism, adding that any treatment should be backed by research and scientific evidence.
Police haven’t announced charges against the woman.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article199916444.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Court Rejects Plea for Lower Duties on Water Treatment Chemical
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Flood
Anti-dumping duties on a water treatment chemical from China will not be reduced, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Feb. 13.
The ruling will keep in place duties of up to 34.21 percent on Chinese chlorinated isocyanurates that entered the U.S. between 2010 and 2011. It represents a loss for Chinese producer Juancheng Kangtai Chemical Co. (“Kangtai”) and U.S. importer Arch Chemicals Inc.
The three-judge appeals panel affirmed the duty rates in a brief two-page opinion without comment.
Chlorinated isocyanurates are a type of chlorine disinfectant commonly used to kill germs and algae in pools and spas, as well as a sanitizing agent in automatic dishwasher detergents and other cleaning products, according to the American Chemistry Council . The chemical can also be used to disinfect drinking water in emergencies or when clean water is otherwise unavailable.
The Commerce Department reported that the U.S. imported an estimated $168.6 million of this chemical from China in 2013, the most recent year for which data were available.
The Commerce Department originally assigned duty rates of 38.25 percent to Kangtai and 29.91 percent for Hebei Jiheng Chemical Co. (“Jiheng”), the producer of Arch Chemical's imports. After years of litigation at the Court of International Trade, Commerce revised those rates to 34.21 percent for Kangtai and 31.22 percent for Jiheng.
Kangtai and Arch Chemicals appealed, arguing that the rates should be lowered. Among other issues, they challenged how Commerce calculated the price of certain inputs used to produce the chemical, including urea.
The case is Clearon Corp. v. United States, 2018 BL 47579, Fed. Cir., 2017-1520, 2/13/18.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219397&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=498996500&searchid=31182653&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Nears Ban on Toxic Firefighting Foam (2)
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Paul Shukovsky
Certain toxic chemicals used in firefighting foam could be banned under a Washington state bill that is likely to end up on the governor's desk, Senate Majority Caucus Vice Chair Lisa Wellman (D) said Feb. 13.
Manufacturing, selling and distributing foams containing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl, or PFAS, chemicals would end July 1, 2020, under the proposed bill, which is scheduled for a public hearing Feb. 15 in the House. The bill passed the Senate Feb. 10 with a vote of 39-8 in a chamber where Democrats hold the majority by a single vote.
“It's my sense that the fire-fighting foam bill will likely pass to the governor,” Wellman, who is a sponsor of the bill, told Bloomberg Environment. “It's kind of a no-brainer.”
The measure contains an exemption for federally mandated foams, including under Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
Firefighter Exposure
PFAS chemicals have been linked to a wide range of health problems including liver toxicity, hormone disruption, and tumors, according to a draft state Department of Health report.
That report is part of a Department of Ecology Chemical Action Plan project that is reviewing PFAS chemicals with the goal of developing public policy on the compounds, which have been found in drinking water in several locations around the state, according to Kara Steward, an ecology department manager.
“Foam use is a big deal for us at the fire training academy,” Chad Cross, assistant commander of the state's Fire Training Academy, told Bloomberg Environment. “We have been using an alternative foam” that doesn't contain PFAS.
Asked if rank-and-file firefighters or their associations have specifically flagged PFAS foam as problematic for health, he said, “In the fire service, cancer is a huge problem.” But the issue has not come up in regard to PFAS exposure, he added.
The bill that passed the Senate also contains a provision requiring manufacturers to provide written notice at the time of sale if firefighting personal protective gear, including clothing, contains PFAS compounds.
An industry spokesperson told Bloomberg Environment that the state should stop short of banning an “important fire safety tool” and instead adopt best management practices to protect the environment when using the foams.
“The ban that Washington state legislators are considering would remove firefighting foams that are uniquely effective at combatting certain types of flammable liquid fires,” Bryan Goodman, a spokesperson for the FluoroCouncil, told Bloomberg Environment in an email. “Such a ban would be shortsighted and unnecessary, particularly given that other options are available to protect the environment.”
The FluoroCouncil, which is administered by the American Chemistry Council, counts the Chemours Company LLC and Arkema France among its members.
Industry Involvement
A group of stakeholders, including manufacturer representatives, has been at the table in developing the plan, Steward told Bloomberg Environment.
That involvement, Wellman said, means the industry has been put on notice that the state is aware of drinking water contamination and other problems with the toxic compounds. Regardless of what happens with the bills, the Department of Ecology is addressing these issues, she added.
Food Packaging in Play
Wellman is less optimistic about a pair of bills moving both chambers that would study and conditionally restrict the use of PFAS chemicals in food packaging as early as 2022.
The bill, which she is sponsoring, has yet to have a floor vote just one day before a cutoff deadline that would mean the measure is dead.
The other bill, which passed Feb. 13 by a margin of 56-41, would restrict PFAS in food packaging as early as 2022. Wellman questioned whether the Senate would have time to pass it.
Goodman of the FluoroCouncil said that certain types of fluorinated chemicals are used to prevent oil and grease from seeping through food packaging such as popcorn bags, pizza boxes, and disposable plates.
“This particular bill is overly broad and would restrict the use of substances that regulators have determined do not present a risk to human health and the environment,” he said.
Goodman said lawmakers should wait for the results of a plan under development by the Washington State Departments of Ecology and Health before considering any legislation.
(Updates with comments from Goodman)
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219393&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219393&jd=128219393
-
Feb 14, 2018 | Encore Online
The river we now call “Cape Fear” originally was known as the Sapona—a lyrical name given by our area’s natives. When the Spanish explorer Giovanni de Verrazzano sighted it 492 years ago, he called it “Rio Jordan.” In 1662 English explorer William Hilton Jr. referred to it as “Charles,” after England’s king at the time. Then it was called “Clarendon,” until around 1733, when it took its current moniker, named after the deadly shoals lurking just offshore of its mouth.Long before we had words to reference the main vein of our port city, Cape Fear meandered and shifted—“changing its habitat bodily,” as Twain put it. It has closed-off old oxbows, like the one a mile up from Point Peter, and opened new ones. But it has never stopped being itself. Call it whatever, but it always has been the same river—a rose by any other name, per the Bard of Avalon.
Now, the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), which brings the river into our homes, has decided it is time for a similar action. At the January executive committee meeting and subsequent board meeting of the CFPUA, Executive Director Jim Flechtner discussed the topic of rebranding the utility to “Cape Fear Water.” The change, according to CFPUA Chief Communications Officer Peg Hall-Williams, would consist of a new name and internal changes in the organizational culture. “Branding is much more than a new logo,” she noted. “It is an organizational philosophy that unfolds with time.”
With CFPUA celebrating its 10-year anniversary in 2018, it “makes sense” to rebrand now, according to the utility. “It is a window of time that allows us to look back on our history and look forward to the future,” Hall-Williams explained. “With minimal costs associated with the rebrand, you will find our biggest investment is going to be in time. We are investing the time to become true partners, to listen to customers and respond to their changing needs.”
CFPUA is still in the process of reviewing and calculating costs, but the utility expects to implement the new brand by July 1, 2018. The decision to rebrand comes in the midst of frenzied GenX panic, that, since last summer, subsided somewhat into a steady dull ache. The toxic story (and the toxins themselves) continue to develop and burrow ever deeper into our community like a sick and twisted taproot. With the Sweeney Plant still unable to remove all of the contaminants from the water (although the concentration of GenX in the past few months of water samples have all been below the state’s health goal of 140 part per trillion), some wonder if the money spent on rebranding might not be better spent elsewhere. encore asked the utility to release a dollar amount so we might have a better understanding of what “minimal costs” meant; the utility was kind enough to cooperate.
So far they have bought two web domains for $258, and will have to file “doing business as” papers with four counties at $26 per county—or $104 total. The new logo for Cape Fear Water will be designed in-house, and once they have it, they’re planning to spend $96.80 on five new vinyl signs and $1,563.10 on magnets for the fleet of 140 trucks, at $11.17 apiece. Hall-Williams says the numbers are estimates, but they have not committed to using any of them. Overall, costs should be under $2,500.
They also sent numbers on how much the entire GenX nightmare has cost. As of press, CFPUA has spent $1,163,615.30 on expenditures related to GenX since last June, of which $978,615.30 has been footed by its consumers, the ratepayers. To fulfill all of its contracts, the utility still owes $930,700.74, which brings the total cost of this mess (so far) up to $1,773,816.04. Nominal relief was found at the end of last August in the passage of State House Bill 56, which provided the utility $185,000 for “identification and deployment of water treatment technology to remove GenX from the public water supply” and “ongoing monitoring.”
The biggest expense for the utility, $530,200, has been in contracting Black & Veatch—the Kansas-based engineering firm which initially designed the Sweeney Water Plant—to provide “engineering support services for emerging contaminants treatment studies.” $100,000 of it came from our state government. Black & Veatch have been providing monthly progress updates, available on the CFPUA website, which show details and results of the ongoing tests, using granular activated carbon filters and ion exchange resins to remove PFASes from the water. The reports continue to show “gradual breakthrough of total organic carbon and perfluoroalkyl substances, led by shorter chain per- and polyfluorinated compounds.”
In layperson’s terms, the very expensive new filters aren’t effective, especially on short-chain molecules like GenX. In fact, of the 28 chemicals currently being tested, 13 (including GenX) exhibited a “greater than 100 percent breakthrough.” The filters are releasing more of the previously absorbed short-chain chemicals back into the effluent, as new chemicals continue to filter in the water. It’s worth remembering, however, CFPUA is one of the first utilities in the U.S. to attempt targeting and removing the compounds from the water, so there’s bound to be teething pains.
Other major expenses incurred by the utility include $320,091 to state utility contractors for “bypass pumping and related services for ASR water removal,” which refers to the drainage of the storage aquifer last year.
CFPUA has racked up $276,705 in legal fees to Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey, & Leonard LLP in their case against Chemours and DuPont. Another $65,344.13 was spent hiring Eckel & Vaughan, a public-relations firm, to do damage control after the news broke in June.
(Interestingly, an NC Policy Watch article from September says Eckel & Vaughan have worked in the past as spin doctors for the American Chemistry Council, of which DuPont and Chemours are both members. Also, the brother of Albert Eckel, Brian, works at Cape Fear Commercial Real Estate with CFPUA Board Chairman Mike Brown. When asked by encore, Hall-Williams stated the PR firm was not involved in the decision to rebrand “in any way.”)
On laboratory testing of collected water samples, the utility has spent $250,760 split between Eurofins Eaton Analytical, Pace Analytical, and GE Laboratories—with most of it ($160,260) going to Eurofins. UNCW has received $64,607.88 from the utility for source water testing, all of which came from state funding.Talk about boosting the local economy.
We learned at the end of last month another spike in concentration was discovered in the Department of Environmental Quality sample of the river, which was taken December 11. It clocked in at a whopping 2,300 ppt, or nearly three and a half times the amount, which caused the initial outcry.
Chemours, to my knowledge, has not spent a single red cent or a wooden nickel to clean up the mess they made—and more so has been nothing but shady in every regard. Threats by the DEQ to revoke their permit have fallen on deaf ears, and it almost seems nothing short of a mob, equipped with torches, pitchforks, and enough dental floss to string up Mark Vergnano by his toenails from the lamppost at Market and Front, will get them to change their behavior.
No matter how brightly the brand of utility glitters, the CFPUA still sucks water from the same tube in the same river. They’re trying their best to make it clean—we have to give them that—but they can only filter what comes to them through that tube.Cape Fear Water’s new slogan bills the utility as “a water provider that people trust.” But, really, it almost doesn’t matter whether we trust Cape Fear Water or not. The real question is: Do we trust the waters of the Cape Fear, with Chemours still upstream?
http://www.encorepub.com/new-name-same-river-cape-fear-public-utility-authority-announces-re-brand-to-cape-fear-water/
-
California Unveils 2018-2020 Priority Product Work Plan
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Frank Zaworski
California's Department of Toxic Substances Control has announced that its draft 2018-2020 priority product work plan is available for public review.
The DTSC is required to issue this every three years, detailing the categories it will evaluate to identify priority products.
The 2018-2020 draft includes seven broad product categories, five of which are carryovers from the first plan of 2015-2017. Those in the latest plan include:
· beauty, personal care and hygiene products;
· cleaning products;
· household, school and workplace furnishings and décor;
· building products and materials used in construction and renovation; and
· consumable office, school and business supplies.
Newly included are food packaging and lead-acid batteries.
The DTSC specifically states that clothing products and fishing and angling equipment will not be evaluated this time. These categories and others may be looked at for inclusion in future plans.
The department will hold a public workshop on the draft on 26 February in Sacramento, California. Written comments will be accepted until 9 March.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63936/california-unveils-2018-2020-priority-product-work-plan
-
No Chemicals Bill Deal as North Carolina Lawmakers Leave Town
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew M. Ballard
North Carolina won't take aim at toxic chemicals in the water until May after the Legislature adjourned without reaching a deal to address emerging contaminants.
Although both the Senate and the House of Representatives passed measures that would boost funding to clean up GenX and other per- and polyfluorinated compounds, they are divided over how the money should be used. The issue now heads to the House Select Committee on North Carolina River Quality Feb. 21, where lawmakers will discuss a path forward before the Legislature reconvenes May 16.
The Legislature's failure to reach agreement is “disgraceful,” Noelle Talley, spokeswoman for Gov. Roy Cooper (D), said in a statement.
GenX and other per- and polyfluorinated compounds are toxic and are used to make stain resistant coatings for carpets, rain gear, fast food wrappers, and frying pans.
Discharges of those compounds of concern into the Cape Fear River have led to a state and federal investigation and several lawsuits against Chemours Co. and its past parent company DuPont. Contamination also has been found near the Chemours plant in Parkersburg, W.Va.
Rep. Ted Davis Jr. (R), chairman of the select committee, confirmed the bills would be discussed at its Feb. 21 meeting, but declined to comment on the sticking points between the chambers or how they might be resolved.
Other legislators were not immediately available for comment or declined to do so. Chemours also didn't respond to a request for comment.
Spending Divides Chambers
The House and Senate both passed bills to provide an additional $2.4 million to the Department of Environmental Quality to address unregulated contaminants, but they remain divided on what those funds should buy.
Environmental advocates favor the House language, arguing the Senate's version is too restrictive. For example, the House bill also would provide money to buy a mass spectrometer that regulators say is needed to test for unregulated chemicals, while the Senate calls for them to use existing university equipment.
The House version would allow the state environmental agency “to buy the equipment and bring in the staff that the agency has repeatedly said it needs to address the water contamination and help citizens with contaminated water,” Geoff Gisler, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Chapel Hill, N.C., told Bloomberg Environment.
The Department of Environmental Quality has also backed the House's version of the bill.
“The North Carolina Senate should consider the same bipartisan, House-passed bill,” Megan Thorpe, an agency spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13. “Anything less is unacceptable when it comes to protecting drinking water and the people of North Carolina.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219411&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219411&jd=128219411
-
State Legislatures Tackle Toxic Chemicals as Pruitt EPA Falters
Feb 13, 2018 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
State legislatures across the country are stepping up to protect public health from harmful chemicals in an effort to fill gaps in chemical protections due to inaction by the US EPA, according to an analysis of state policies by Safer States. The analysis found that at least 23 states will consider 112 policies to limit exposures to toxic chemicals, including bans on nonstick PFAS chemicals and toxic flame retardants. The analysis, including a searchable state toxics policy database, is available online at saferstates.com/bill-tracker/.
Despite an overhaul to the nation’s primary chemical safety law in 2016 that was intended to fix the broken chemical regulatory system, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has largely failed to take meaningful action to restrict toxic chemicals. For example, in the last year, the EPA rewrote a rule to make it more difficult to track the health impacts of PFOA, a chemical linked to cancer and other health effects, despite its presence in the drinking water of over 6 million Americans. The agency has also shelved plansto regulate a deadly chemical in some paint strippers despite increasing reports of fatalities associated with the use of the chemical.
“States are doing what the federal government is not: protecting the health of families by pursuing stronger protections against harmful chemicals,” said Gretchen Salter, Interim Director of Safer States. “As scientists and scientific authorities reinforce the importance of strong protective chemical policy, states are poised to continue their tradition of leadership.”
“States must deal with the real world consequences of chemical pollution. From undrinkable water to contaminated residents to huge costs of clean up, we don’t want to be left holding the bag. Preventing these problems is the best solution,” said Washington State Representative Joe Fitzgibbons (D-Burien), Chair of the state’s House Environment Committee.
A recent study by Harvard University showed that costs associated with environmental chemical exposures worldwide may exceed 10% of the global gross domestic product. “Chemicals that cause cancer and other diseases are costing us dearly, burdening our health care system and sending families into turmoil—much of which could be prevented with common sense reforms to chemical policies,” continued Ms. Salter. “States are stepping up to make sure that their residents, particularly those in low-income communities often over-burdened by pollution, no longer have to pay the price for chemical contamination.”
According to Safer State’s analysis, states will consider the following policies in 2018:
· Banning flame retardants from furniture and kids’ products. At least 15 states will consider policy to eliminate toxic flame retardants from residential furniture and children’s products. A recent warning by the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission to avoid a particularly harmful class of flame retardants called organohalogens is moving states to regulate these harmful chemicals in electronics, mattresses, children’s products, and furniture. States considering bans include: AK, CT, IA, IN, MA, MD, MN, MS, NC, NJ, NY, TN, VA, WA, and WV.
· Banning nonstick PFAS chemicals in food packaging: At least 7 states will consider policy to eliminate or reduce PFASs in food packaging. PFASs are industrial chemicals used in nonstick coatings on food packaging like microwave popcorn bags and fast food wrappers. They have been shown to cause cancer and organ damage as well as interfere with normal development and limit the efficacy of vaccines. The chemicals don’t stay in the food packaging but instead move into the food where we are exposed when we eat the food. Studies also show that when PFAS-coated food packaging is composted or landfilled, the chemicals get into the environment. States considering bans include: CA, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, and WA.
· Restricting PFAS in drinking water: At least 7 states will consider policy to limit levels of PFAS in drinking water, as well as ban the use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam, fund cleanup of contaminated drinking water, including medical monitoring and testing. Over 4 million Americans are dealing with drinking water contaminated with PFAS chemicals. Sources of contamination include chemical manufacturing plans and PFAS-containing firefighting foam used at airports and training facilities. States considering actions include: MI, NC, NH, NY, PA, VT, and WA.
· Identification and disclosure of toxic chemicals: At least 7 states will consider policy to identify chemicals of concern and/or require makers of consumer products to disclose their use of these chemicals. State disclosure laws have proven effective in providing policymakers with an understanding of how people are exposed to chemicals from products, with particular recognition of greater exposures among low-income communities and communities of color. These laws also inform consumers about their buying choices and help manufacturers identify chemicals to eliminate in their products. Disclosure bills being considered will address various product sectors including fragrance disclosure, cleaning ingredient disclosure and disclosure of toxics in children’s products including electronics. States considering actions include: AK, CA, MA, MS, NC, NY, and RI.
Since 2000, more than 35 states have passed 173 policies that establish state chemicals programs, identify, limit or ban the use of harmful chemicals in products including baby bottles, furniture, electronics, toys, cosmetics and cleaning products.
The complete analysis is available online at saferstates.org/bill-tracker/.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/state-legislatures-tackle-toxic-chemicals-as-pruitt-epa-falters/
-
Lawmakers Urge EPA to Retain Housatonic Off-Site Cleanup
Feb 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
Members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation are urging EPA to retain an off-site disposal provision in its cleanup plan for the Housatonic River after EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) called for the agency to reconsider provisions requiring off-site disposal of dredged polychlorinated (PCB) material.
In a Feb. 8 letter, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D) and Edward Markey (D) and Rep. Richard Neal (D) wrote EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt urging him to uphold the agency's "previous finding that any contaminated material removed during the cleanup must be 'shipped off-site to existing licensed facilities for disposal.'"
The letter urges EPA to maintain the $613 million cleanup as is despite a Jan. 26 EAB ruling in In re: General Electric Company that generally upheld an EPA-issued Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) permit governing the massive "Rest of River" cleanup of the GE-Pittsfield/Housatonic River site, but remanded to EPA for further consideration a requirement for off-site disposal of excavated material and a mandate for additional response actions by third parties.
The ruling rejected competing arguments from potentially responsible party General Electric (GE) and local environmental groups contesting the scope of the cleanup, except for its approval of two aspects of GE's petition.
The board granted GE's challenge to the RCRA permit provisions addressing additional response actions for Legally Permissible Future Work or Projects in Permit and its challenge to the choice of off-site over on-site disposal for contaminated sediment and soil excavated from the Rest of the River.
EAB says Region 1 “failed to exercise considered judgment in deciding that the dredged contaminated materials should be disposed off-site” because the region failed to explain why a waiver of the Toxic Substances Control Act landfill regulation was not appropriate for GE's proposed on-site disposal locations. EAB adds that EPA routinely grants such waivers and that Region 1 failed to reconcile seemingly inconsistent statements in the record.
While EAB takes no position on how EPA should resolve the issue, it offers detailed “observations" that may aid in the Region's reconsideration. For example, the order says that if Region 1 on remand continues to assert that there are issues concerning compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for two of the on-site locations, “it should either explain why 'potential' compliance issues merit consideration under the Compliance with ARARs criterion or identify actual compliance issues. Without appropriate consideration of this criterion, it is difficult for any party to meaningfully understand the basis for the Region’s determination.”
In their letter, the lawmakers argue EPA and Massachusetts "meticulously vetted" the cleanup plan. In response to GE's long-time push to store the dredged material in landfills near the river, EPA and the state have repeatedly called for off-site disposal in licensed facilities. GE's proposal for on-site storage would save the company up to $250 million, according to the lawmakers. They add no such licensed disposal facility exists in Massachusetts.
"To allow local disposal of GE's toxic waste scraped from the riverbed would be incompatible with Massachusetts state law and a complete disregard of the affected Massachusetts communities who have been plagued with this corporate pollution for far too long."
They add that EPA "should respect existing Massachusetts laws regarding toxic waste disposal, hear and respect the concerned voices of Western Massachusetts, and require that the carcinogenic PCBs be deposited in a federally licensed out-of-state disposal site."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/lawmakers-urge-epa-retain-housatonic-site-cleanup
-
EU Inspectors Find High Rate Of Chemical Law Violations
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Up to 20 percent of the toys, leather items, and other products sold on the European Union market in 2016 were found to contain excessive levels of hazardous substances that violate the bloc's chemicals law, a Feb. 13 European Chemicals Agency report said.
More than 5,600 inspections carried out that year on products subject to restrictions under the EU's REACH chemicals law turned up an average noncompliance rate of 18 percent, according to the report.
Toy Story
Phthalates in toys showed the highest rate of noncompliance at 19.6 percent—or almost one in five products.
These chemicals, restricted in the EU because they can cause reproductive problems and have endocrine disrupting properties, are used to make plastics. The noncompliance rate for phthalates was “very high” considering the restriction on the substances “has been in force for many years,” the chemicals agency report said.
Companies that produce and sell goods that do not meet REACH standards in the EU risk fines and criminal sanctions, the report said.
Out of the Frying Pan..
The product tests were done as part of a pan-European enforcement project involving authorities from 27 countries and coordinated by the chemicals agency.
The largest number of inspections (1,870) were done on items from China, with a 17 percent noncompliance rate, the report said. For products produced in the EU, 159 out of 1,616, or 10 percent, were found noncompliant with REACH restrictions.A lack of awareness of REACH might be one reason for noncompliance, and “probably many products are not tested before placing them on the market,” the agency said.
For toy manufacturers, the use of hazardous chemicals was a “general question for the sector,” Katy Hendrickson, global communications director of toy maker Hasbro Inc., told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.Hasbro's usage of phthalates complies with “applicable phthalates global laws and regulations, including the REACH regulation,” according to the company's website.
The children's building blocks produced by Denmark's LEGO Group do not contain phthalates, and the company complies with “the strictest requirements and legislation globally when it comes to toy safety,” LEGO senior communications manager Roar Rude Trangbæk told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.
Retail Responsibility
Also among violations were excessive concentrations of toxic metals in jewelry, buttons, and zippers and of the aromatic hydrocarbon toluene in paints, the European Chemicals Agency report said. Other high rates of noncompliance were found for cadmium and nickel in jewelry, and for chromium IV compounds in leather articles, for which they are used as tanning agents, the report added.
The composition of products and their chemical content is “typically an area where manufacturers are responsible,” though retailers have “an overarching duty of care” and would remove hazardous products when notified, Elisabeth von Reitzenstein, senior adviser with Independent Retail Europe, which represents smaller retailers, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.
Retailers and wholesalers require “suppliers to adhere strictly to existing product safety legislation and EU chemicals restrictions” and “cannot be held responsible for errors caused by producers, into whose manufacturing process they have not had any input,” Kinga Timaru-Kast, spokeswoman for EuroCommerce, which represents trading companies, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.
The product inspections led to a range of enforcement measures, including 149 instances of criminal prosecutions and 72 fines, according to data in the chemicals agency's report.
Enforcement Concerns
Product and usage-specific restrictions on hazardous chemicals are listed in Annex XVII of REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the restriction, evaluation and authorization of chemicals).
The annex presently includes 66 entries, some of which cover multiple chemicals. For example, the annex's entry 51 covers three phthalates, which should not be present in plastics in toys above a concentration of 0.1 percent by weight.
The European Chemicals Agency told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13 it was unable to provide specific details of companies and products found to be noncompliant.
The results of the enforcement project showed “companies must be much more proactive to ensure that all toys, jewelry, and other goods they put into consumers’ hands are safe,” while enforcement authorities should “check more strictly and regularly what's on the market,” Pelle Moos, health policy officer with the European Consumer Organization, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219394&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219394&jd=128219394
-
BjöRn Hansen: Echa Needs to Improve Efficiency
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa's new executive director believes the agency has not been moving forward as fast as originally planned on REACH or the BPR, and this has downstream impacts on CLP.
In an interview and article for Chemical Watch's Global Business Briefing, Björn Hansen (pictured), who took up the role of executive director at Echa on 1 January, said the agency also needs to improve its efficiency and focus its decision making better, both internally and when supporting the EU authorities.
It is possible, Mr Hansen said, the aims laid down when REACH was first drafted were overambitious. Industry and the agency have more work to do on making registration dossiers compliant. And in particular, they need to "learn to target the important parts of a dossier on which decisions really are dependent".
Updating dossiers
One major task, he said, will be to steer industry towards updating dossiers "not so much in order to change things in them, but to continuously monitor and follow developments on their substances. And then implement the consequences for risk management and document those in their registration update".
While unwilling to predict whether Europe will succeed in getting all relevant SVHCs onto the candidate list by the end of 2020, Mr Hansen said that, as the the current rate is about ten a year, there should be another 30 on the list by that date.
The agency can certainly help to identify priority articles, he added. "Echa stores a lot of information from industry on substances and on articles. From this, we can get some idea of where chemicals end up and group substances according to the articles or types of articles where they are used."
'Backbone of competence'
Echa cannot function in the same way as before, Mr Hansen stressed. The main contribution it can make towards raising the bar in chemicals management will come from the"backbone of competence" derived from ten years of scientific and technical implementation of chemicals legislation.
This includes communicating its technical knowledge to policy makers, notably in test method development. Echa’s learnings on REACH and the tools it uses, he added, could be useful to other countries seeking to implement legislation that, like REACH, revises the burden of proof.
"If you look at the EU and member states’ performance in the international arena, we are having a big impact because we’re very active, we’re very transparent and we’re achieving, at least partially, our objectives, and this inspires others," he said.
Over the coming months, Echa’s management board and secretariat will join Mr Hansen in developing a strategy for meeting the key challenges and setting longer-term objectives for implementing the four regulations it is responsible for. The strategy will then go out to public consultation.
Mr Hansen expects that the forthcoming REACH Review, like that of 2013, will conclude that Echa has improved since then but still has more to do. "My assumption is that … we will be asked to be more efficient in evaluation, restrictions and authorisation, and to look closer at our procedures to see where we can simplify things more," he said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63943/bjorn-hansen-echa-needs-to-improve-efficiency
-
EU Flame Retardant Exports Banned Under Pic Amendments
Feb 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
The EU is to ban exports of four brominated flame retardants and three other substances, under amendments made to legislation controlling the trade of very hazardous chemicals.
All seven substances have been included in Part 1 of Annex V of the prior informed consent Regulation (Pic) – a list of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) that are subject to export ban.
The changes, published on 6 February in the EU's Official Journal, will become effective on 1 April.
From that date, brominated flame retardants (tetra-, penta-, hexa- and heptabromodiphenyl ethers) at concentrations of 0.1% or more when produced partially or fully from recycled materials may not be exported, the Commission says.
The ban will help the EU fulfil its obligations under the 2004 UN Stockholm Convention – a global treaty to control and phase out POPs.
The substances are used in a wide array of products such as building materials, electronics and textiles.
Other substances to be banned, in accordance with the convention, are:
· the solvent hexachlorobutadiene – a possible carcinogen;
· polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCN) – a largely phased out electrical insulator; and
· the flame retardant hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD).
HBCDD, which is on the REACH authorisation list for persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) properties, was added to the Stockholm Convention in 2013. Hexachlorobutadiene and PCN were added in 2015.
Five other chemicals identified as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under REACH were added to both Part 1 and Part 2 of Annex I. This requires exporters to notify the appropriate member state authority and also obtain the explicit consent of the importing country. The substances and their SVHC properties are:
· 5-tert-butyl-2,4,6-trinitro-m-xylene (musk xylene)– vPvB (very persistent and very bioaccumulative);
· benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) – toxic for reproduction and endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC);
· diisobutyl phthalate – reprotoxic and EDC;
· diarsenic pentaoxide – carcinogenic; and
· tris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate – reprotoxic.
The Commission said the substances are subject to authorisation under REACH. However, "since no authorisations were granted, those substances are severely restricted for industrial use."
Musk xylene is a "perfume fixative" used in some cosmetics and fragrances, but has explosive and carcinogenic hazards under CLP. It has been on the REACH candidate list since 2008.
Plasticiser BBP and diaersenic pentaoxide, an arsenic compound, have been on the candidate list since 2008. Diisobutyl phthalate, another plasticiser, and flame retardant and additive plasticiser tris (2-chloroe diisobutyl phthalate thyl) phosphate were placed on the list in 2010.
Triclosan has also been added to Part 1 and Part 2 of Annex I. It is not approved for use in biocidal products, but used as a preservative and antimicrobial agent in cosmetics, drugs and natural health products.
The Pic Regulation governs the import and export of very hazardous chemicals between the EU and other countries. There are currently 22 substances in Part 1 of Annex V; and 186 chemicals in Part 1 and 87 in Part 2 of Annex 1.
https://chemicalwatch.com/63940/eu-flame-retardant-exports-banned-under-pic-amendments
-
Shale Output Hasn’t Grown This Fast Since Oil Was at $100
Feb 13, 2018 | Wall Street Journal
By Christopher Alessi
U.S. shale companies are churning out crude oil at a record pace that could overwhelm global demand and reverse the oil market’s fragile recovery, a top energy-market observer said Tuesday.
U.S. shale production is growing faster in 2018 than it did even during the boom years of $100 a barrel oil prices from 2011 to 2014, said the International Energy Agency in its closely watched monthly report. The difference this time: Oil prices are about 40% lower.
The situation is “reminiscent of the first wave of U.S. shale growth,” when a flood of American oil built up a global glut and sent prices crashing over four years ago, said the Paris-based IEA, which advises governments and corporations on energy trends.
Oil prices fell after the report’s release in Europe. Brent, the international benchmark was down 0.69% at $62.17, while U.S. prices were down 1.35% at $58.51.
Shale producers “cut costs dramatically” during the oil-industry downturn, the IEA said. They then took advantage of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel’s decision last year to cut its own output, which helped prices rise from the low $40s to over $70 a barrel in January.
Unlike countries like Russia, shale-oil companies—using techniques like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking—are able to pounce when prices rise and pull back when the market falls. They can drill wells, and then wait to complete the process until it is profitable.
Shale-oil producers had promised investors that they would focus on profits this year as prices rose and abandon the pump-at-any-cost mentality that crashed the market. But shale companies have a backlog of nearly 7,000 wells that have been drilled but not completed. That allows operators to increase production by extracting oil from the backlog rather than spending significant amounts on drilling, meaning U.S. output could rise even higher than expected.
U.S. oil output could rise as high as 11 million barrels a day by 2019, some oil-industry analysts say, rivaling that of Russia, the world’s biggest crude producer. The U.S. currently pumps over 10 million barrels a day, the most since 1970.
All the indicators that suggest continued fast growth in the U.S. are in perfect alignment,” the IEA said.
Led by U.S. shale companies, crude output from non-OPEC nations is expected to outpace the growth in oil demand in 2018, the IEA said. That is an important data point for oil traders who have been watching to see if shale production could catch up to robust demand that has been fueled by a strong global economy.
“U.S. shale is growing as sharply as it was in 2013-2014,” said Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodities analyst at SEB Markets. But the situation is different now because of the OPEC-led agreement to curb production, Mr. Schieldrop added.
OPEC and 10 other countries including Russia—whose combined output accounts for over 55% of global supply—have cut far more than the 1.8 million barrels a day they promised, according to the IEA.
The shale-oil growth will apply downward pressure on prices in the coming weeks. But as long as OPEC sticks to the deal, there won’t be a dramatic correction, Mr. Schieldrop said.
Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Khalid al-Falih, has said there is an “oversized focus” on shale production growth. “I don’t lose sleep over it,” Mr. Falih said during the World Economic Forum last month in Davos, Switzerland.
Until two weeks ago, oil prices had risen almost nonstop for over six months.
The optimistic sentiment was driven not only by OPEC but also by strong economic news, geopolitical flare-ups in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran, and supply outages in Venezuela and the U.K. Separately, oil storage levels around the world have fallen.
The IEA said commercial oil inventories in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development—a group of industrialized, oil-consuming nations, including the U.S.—fell by 55.6 million barrels in December, in the largest drop since 2011.
“The huge drop in inventories is a bullish signal,” said Giovanni Staunovo, commodities analyst at UBS Wealth Management.
But inventory levels in the U.S. have begun to rise again, after months of falling, as U.S. output rises. The IEA on Tuesday noted that as “oil price rises have come to a halt and gone into reverse…so might the decline in oil stocks, at least in the early part of this year.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-crude-output-expected-to-outpace-demand-iea-says-1518512404?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
BLM Moves to Nearly Repeal Obama-Era Venting/Flaring Rule for Public, Tribal Lands
Feb 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
The U.S. Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to replace the Obama-era Waste Prevention Rule, which governs flaring and venting of associated natural gas on public and tribal lands, with requirements similar to those that were in force prior to the rule’s adoption in 2016.
“In order to achieve energy dominance through responsible energy production, we need smart regulations not punitive regulations,” said BLM’s Joe Balash, assistant secretary for Land and Minerals Management. “We believe this proposed rule strikes that balance and will allow job growth in rural America.”
The proposed rule would eliminate duplicative regulatory requirements and re-establish long-standing requirements that the 2016 final rule sought to replace, BLM said in announcing its proposal Monday. The agency said there were concerns that the economic impact on operators was underestimated in the 2016 rule, and there was “considerable overlap” with state and federal regulations.
BLM said its proposal “would align the regulations with administration priorities on energy development, job creation and reduced compliance costs while also working more closely with existing state regulatory efforts.”
Among other things, BLM’s proposal would rescind a series of requirements of the 2016 final rule, including waste minimization plans, and requirements for well drilling, well completion and related operations, pneumatic controllers equipment, and storage vessels equipment. In addition, gas capture requirements would be revised to conform with pre-2016 policy, as would downhole well maintenance and liquids unloading requirements, and measuring and reporting volumes of gas vented and flared.
The public would have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rules once they are published in the Federal Register.
First unveiled two years ago, the venting and flaring rules would require operators to deploy equipment and processes to limit the amount of flared gas at oil wells on public and tribal lands, and to periodically inspect their wells for leaks. Operators would also be required to limit venting from storage tanks. In addition, the rules clarified when operators owed the government royalties, and they gave BLM the option of setting certain royalty rates higher than 12.5%.
When the rules were introduced, the Obama-era BLM cited a 2010 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that found flaring was costing states, tribes and federal taxpayers as much as $23 million in annual royalty revenue.
BLM in December temporarily suspended or delayed parts of the Obama-era rule until Jan. 17, 2019. At that time the agency, which outlined its plans for the rule last October, said "immediately implementing some parts of the 2016 final rule could unnecessarily burden industry as the BLM considers which parts of that rule might change." After conducting a regulatory impact analysis, BLM estimated that the rule would impose compliance costs of $114-279 million a year on the oil and natural gas industry, excluding potential cost savings for product recovery.
BLM joined with North Dakota, Texas and three energy industry groups to push back against efforts in federal district court to derail the Trump administration’s decision to postpone the compliance dates for the venting and flaring rule.
Republican lawmakers who had opposed the venting and flaring rule were quick to endorse BLM’s proposal to repeal it and said they would support the decision, which would be overseen by DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke.
“I am glad that Secretary Zinke is proposing to replace the unnecessary and costly methane rule,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY). “If left in place, the rule would have discouraged energy production and job creation in Wyoming and across the West.”
“Revising the duplicative BLM methane rule will empower greater energy production on federal lands,” said Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND). “At the same time, we continue working to build the infrastructure we need across federal, state and private lands to capture this valuable resource and reduce flaring.”
Environmental groups were equally strong in their criticism of BLM’s latest proposal. Repealing the Obama-era rules “would only serve to reward the least responsible actors in industry at a time when other companies are moving forward to tackle methane waste,” said Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp. “Gutting the rule would allow unchecked waste of natural gas, unnecessary pollution, and the loss of revenue to communities and tribes to address critical needs such as schools and roads.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113367-blm-moves-to-nearly-repeal-obama-era-ventingflaring-rule-for-public-tribal-lands
-
Greens Sue Trump over Fracking Waste in Gulf
Feb 14, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Three environmental groups teamed up to sue the Trump administration on Tuesday for allowing oil companies to dump leftover waste from drilling and fracking into the Gulf of Mexico.
The lawsuit, filed by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), Gulf Restoration Network and Louisiana Bucket Brigade, argues officials neglected to determine the potential dangers to water quality, marine life and the environment before allowing the dumping.
Specifically, the groups are challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water Act permit that allows companies to dump the waste into the Gulf. The permit was granted in September.
The groups claim officials failed to conduct a comprehensive environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
The suit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit petitioned the court to review the final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the EPA.
“The Trump administration is letting oil companies dump toxic fracking chemicals into the Gulf with no regard for the risks or the law,” Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney at the CBD, said in a statement. “That’s just unacceptable. The EPA is supposed to protect water quality, not give oil companies free rein to use our oceans as their garbage disposal.”
In a press release the group noted that the waters in the western Gulf of Mexico have the highest concentration of offshore oil and gas drilling in the country and said the EPA failed to conduct a "meaningful review" of the impacts of waste on the ecosystem.
In December, the CBD filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the administration over the permit. That notice specifically criticized the administration for not evaluating the dangers to sea turtles, whales and marine life overall before granting the permit.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/373654-greens-sue-trump-admin-over-fracking-waste-dumping-in-gulf
-
Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Get Closer Look in Pipeline Review (1)
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Greenhouse gas emissions will be part of the equation as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission reviews its approval process for natural gas pipelines, the commission's Republican chairman said Feb. 13.
The commission will assess whether it is adequately considering the impact of natural gas pipeline projects’ downstream greenhouse gas emissions, FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre said. He discussed the agency's broad assessment of its 1999 policy for how it certifies new interstate natural gas pipelines during the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ Winter Policy Summit in Washington.
He also said pipeline applicants have to demonstrate a need for the projects, based in part on “precedent agreements” signed between pipeline owners and customers, who sometimes are affiliates of the owners.
Democratic FERC Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick and environmental groups have criticized this process. LaFleur, for example, has argued that environmental concerns raised by pipeline opponents aren't being weighed as heavily as they should be in the certificate review process.
LaFleur called for the review of the pipeline approval process last fall.
“This is a very high priority for me, and I'm really glad we're going to be doing it,” she told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13.
McIntyre first announced the review in December and said it is warranted because of major changes in the shale gas market in the U.S. and an increase in gas pipeline construction.
Directed by Courts
“We have an obligation to ensure appropriate consideration of the impact of gases that are presented by a given pipeline,” McIntyre said.
He said the commission has been directed by federal courts to account for greenhouse gas emissions from pipelines.
“Are we talking about simply greenhouse gas issues raised by the flow of gas through the specific stretch of pipe that's proposed to be constructed, or should we be looking downstream to what is intended to happen or may happen to the natural gas when it reaches its market?” he asked.He said the commission will be looking all of these environmental factors as part of the review as well.
Concerns About Certification
Glick also raised concerns about FERC granting a pipeline certificate, and thus eminent domain, to companies to obtain land for their pipelines when state-level concerns exist about the impacts from using the land for that purpose.
“I'm particularly troubled by the notion when the commission in the past has issued a certificate, and did so in some respects to grant a pipeline company eminent domain so that it can go back and acquire land they weren't able to get under state statute to begin with,” he said at the meeting.
“That seems to be backwards,” he said. “I think it's very important that we be as deferential as possible to the states’ interests.”
Open Questions
McIntyre posed a series of questions at the meeting about the relationship between pipeline applicants selling their gas to affiliated companies they own or in which they have a major stake.
“Should it matter whether some of the entities signing up for precedent agreements are affiliated with firms that own the pipeline?”
“Should the regulator look askance at that situation and say, ‘That doesn't seem like a valid arm's length measure of pipeline need in the affiliated relationship?’”
“That's something we need to take into account,” he said.
While McIntyre stopped short of detailing when the agency would decide on the updates to the approval process, he said it would be a process that will be transparent and include opportunities for public comment.
Reviews Working Well, Industry Says
The current policy statement works well, Dena Wiggins, president of the Natural Gas Supply Association, which represents suppliers that produce and market natural gas, told Bloomberg Environment Feb. 13. But she said they are open the statement being reviewed.
“The fact that FERC wants to take a new look at it and see if it's working, that's part of good governance,” she said. “In concept, I don't think that anyone can criticize the efforts because it has been there for a while.”
But she said she is concerned about efforts to expand the scope of the environmental reviews to include both upstream and downstream greenhouse gas impacts.
Downstream emissions are those occurring closer to the the gas supply's end user. Raw material extraction or production are elements of the supply chain considered to be upstream.
“Although obviously we support a robust environmental review, I'm not quite sure how you look at upstream and far downstream impacts,” she said. “I think FERC has struggled with at on the downstream side when they've been asked to do that.”
(Updates with comment from a FERC commissioner, and natural gas group.)
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219389&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219389&jd=128219389
-
America's Supertanker Terminal Set to Export Oil for First Time
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Javier Blas and Dan Murtaugh
The flood of crude leaving the U.S. could be about to get a major boost: the nation's top imports terminal is testing one of the industry's biggest tankers to load an export cargo for the first time.
If the trial run signals the start of regular exports from Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, it will be a step change in America's capacity to export the burgeoning production that's roiled global oil markets. The ability to load very large crude carriers, the industry term for giant ships able to carry two million barrels, will significantly cut the cost of shipping cargoes overseas.
On its website, the terminal said it's testing a supertanker following modifications last year to allow crude exports. Shipping data tracked by Bloomberg and cargo tracking firm Kpler show the tanker is the Saudi Arabian-owned Shaden, chartered by China's largest oil trader in January.
LOOP has been a vital piece of U.S. energy infrastructure for more than 30 years, handling imports from across the world as well as gathering crude pumped from deepwater deposits in the Gulf of Mexico.
LOOP LLC moored the supertanker and “initiated its detailed test and checkout procedure,” the operator said on its website, without elaborating. The company said in July that it would seek customer interest in loading services, modifying its facilities to allow the port to operate “bi-directionally” to handle exports.
While U.S. crude has already been exported using supertankers, other ports are too shallow to allow full loadings, meaning smaller ships must shuttle multiple cargoes to the giant vessels as they wait to load offshore. LOOP, because of the depth of the waters around it, would allow the industry's largest tankers to load in one go.
Shaden is owned by the National Shipping Co. of Saudi Arabia, according to data from IHS Maritime. It left the Middle East country's biggest export terminal on about Dec. 20, delivering its cargo to the U.S. Gulf of Mexico earlier this month.
The carrier was booked last month by Unipec, China's biggest trader, charter data compiled by Bloomberg show. Unipec is a unit of China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, China's largest oil refiner. A Sinopec spokesman declined to comment.
It's unclear which grade of crude Shaden will load. LOOP is connected by a 48 inch pipeline to a storage hub at Clovelly, 25 miles inland, which normally feeds U.S. refineries.
—With assistance from Sherry Su.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219412&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219412&jd=128219412
-
EPA FY19 Budget Floats New Fees To Offset Cuts To Energy STAR, RMP
Feb 14, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is planning to seek congressional approval to collect industry fees to support the agency's popular Energy STAR program and supplement compliance assistance for facility accident and spill prevention rules, according to its fiscal year 2019 budget request, an effort that aims to offset proposed budget cuts for the programs.
It is not clear how Congress will respond to the proposal but an energy efficiency group is already strongly criticizing agency plans to create a user fee system for the popular Energy STAR product efficiency labeling program.
The Trump administration is floating the new fee programs in a FY19 budget request that would cut EPA's funding from its current $8.05 billion down to $6.1 billion. The request is more than the administration's FY18 $5.6 billion request with most of the increase boosting key programs including Superfund and water infrastructure.
The plan to cut appropriated funds in favor of fees on industry for the three programs echoes the Trump administration's failed push in the FY18 budget to offset massive cuts to the agency's vehicle and fuel-related standards and certification programs with fees on automakers, which drew strong criticism and appear to have been dropped from the administration's FY19 request.
The agency has long supplemented its pesticide review programs with industry fees and recently proposed a rule that would allow the agency to collect industry fees to support certain chemical review efforts under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act. Both of those fees programs are authorized by statute.
According to EPA's FY19 budget justification, the agency is planning to submit proposed authorizing legislation to Congress seeking approval to create three new fee programs.
“To increase compliance in industry, EPA proposes establishing two new voluntary user fees,” the FY19 request says. “These fees will enable EPA to provide compliance assistance services to both Risk Management Plan [RMP] facilities, and Facility Response Plan and Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) facilities.”
The agency adds that those two “new voluntary fee and service will provide support for facilities in complying with EPA regulations via an on-site walk-through and assistance.”
EPA is also proposing to continue its Energy STAR program by shifting to user fees for the program's certifications, while eventually eliminating all federal funding for the office.
The agency is planning a rulemaking to establish an Energy STAR fee structure, and will rely on appropriated funds until that rule is complete.
“By requesting an advance appropriation of $46 million for FY 2019, the budget provides the program the authority to use fees to operate the program in advance of collections,” EPA says. “The fees would provide for necessary expenses, including the development, operation, and maintenance of the ENERGY STAR program.”
EPA says that it is proposing fees “to better align appropriated resources to the Agency’s core mission, provide dedicated funding sources for specific activities and to better align program costs with beneficiaries.”
The fees proposal marks a change from FY18, when the administration proposed eliminating funding and essentially privatizing the efficiency-certification program, a plan that drew stiff opposition from many industry groups, lawmakers and environmentalists.
Program Integrity
But the latest proposal is also drawing opposition. In a Feb. 13 blog post, Lowell Ungar of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, charges that funding Energy STAR through industry fees poses risks.
“[R]elying on fees would still threaten the independence and the reliable funding that are essential to the great success of ENERGY STAR.”
In an interview with Inside EPA, Ungar said that the budget documents leave unanswered questions on how an Energy STAR fees program would work, including the cost of the fees and whether they would be sufficient to support the program. He also said funding Energy STAR through industry fees could raise doubts about the integrity of the program in the minds of consumers who benefit from labeling.
Like Energy STAR, EPA is also planning cuts to the RMP and SPCC programs. While floating voluntary fees to support industry compliance with the RMP program, EPA's FY19 budget justification proposes cutting funding for state and local prevention preparedness efforts from the FY18 level of $15.269 million to $10.031 million, a $5.238 million decrease.
The agency says its State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program is responsible for tasks including RMP facility inspections and providing RMP inspector training among other tasks. The budget request says the reduction in funding “reduces resources for technical support and outreach, and eliminates grant support for certified RMP inspectors.”
In exchange for the fees, EPA is seeking congressional approval to impose fees that would ensure that EPA “would conduct an on-site walk-through within one year of the accepted request and provide a report to assist RMP facilities in complying with EPA regulations,” the justification says.
But EPA does not expect the fees to increase the number of facilities it will inspect in FY19, indicating it plans to inspect 175 of the 1,900 high-risk RMP facilities, the same number as it proposed in FY18.
The fee proposal comes as EPA has significantly delayed, and intends to revise, an Obama-era final rule updating the agency's RMP program with new requirements, including mandates for hazard analysis and independent audits at certain facilities.
Similarly, for the SPCC program, EPA is proposing to cut its Oil Spill Prevention, Preparedness and Response from an FY18 level of $14,311 million to $12,273 million in FY19.
To offset those cuts, the agency also plans to ask Congress to authorize a fee program that will guarantee an on-site walk-through within one year and provide a report to assist compliance with SPCC rules as well as Facility Response Plans (FRP) requirements.
But like RMP, the agency does not expect an increase in the number of inspections. It notes that in FY17, it inspected less than 1 percent of facilities subject to SPCC requirements, as well as those that are required to develop FRP. But the agency found that 82 percent of inspected SPCC facilities and 77 percent of inspected FRP facilities “had inadequate prevention and response plans.”
For FY19, the plans to maintain inspection goals that it had set for FY18. It says it plans to inspect 410 SPCC facilities and 200 FRP facilities.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-fy19-budget-floats-new-fees-offset-cuts-energy-star-rmp
-
Infrastructure Funding in Question as Congress Starts Push
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Shaun Courtney
Congress will kick off its legislative process on infrastructure in March, despite lingering questions and disagreements over funding among transportation leaders.
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao will discuss President Donald Trump's infrastructure plan at a March 1 hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, panel Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Feb. 13 during a weekly press briefing.
Chao is also expected at the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in early March, panel Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) told Bloomberg Government.
The White House will host a bipartisan group of lawmakers from key committees Feb. 14 to discuss the administration's infrastructure principles, a senior White House official told reporters. As many as 11 House and Senate committees could be involved in drafting the legislation.
Each committee will likely draft its own section and then meld them together into one bill in the end, Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) told reporters. Thune is also a member of the Finance Committee, which would handle revenue such as a gas tax increase or other user fees.
“The administration's proposal is a good starting point,” Thune said. “I think the big question everybody has is how's it financed, how are we funding all of this?”
Funding Vs. Streamlining
Barrasso praised the administration's proposal as robust for its focus on streamlining and simplifying the permitting process.
“We need to find ways to move forward to these projects so we can build things faster, better, cheaper and smarter,” Barrasso said.
He didn't address the administration's proposal to pay for its $200 billion investment by cutting other transportation programs. Senate transportation appropriators rejected similar cuts in the fiscal 2018 budget.
Barrasso's counterpart on the panel, ranking member Tom Carper (D-Del.), questioned how effective streamlining would be when previous efforts enacted under the FAST Act are still being implemented.
“You can't build it out of thin air. So you've got to have a funding mechanism and it's not there,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), ranking member of the Senate transportation committee, told reporters. “The big hangup is the money.”
Shuster has been calling for a gas tax increase to shore up the Highway Trust Fund and get the bill bipartisan support.
“To get Democrats on board, it's about the revenues to make sure the trust fund is whole,” Shuster told Bloomberg Government.
Barrasso is opposed to a gas tax increase. Thune has expressed openness, but hasn't picked a side.
Shuster could face a challenge in the House even if he passes a bill out of committee with a gas tax increase.
The House follows the Hastert Rule, an informal “majority of the majority” rule, that would keep a bill that relies heavily on minority party votes from coming to the floor. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has given “no guarantees” of a floor vote, said Shuster, though there isn't a bill yet to negotiate over, Shuster said.
“Everything around here is a struggle,” said Shuster. “We're committed to work on it.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219390&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219390&jd=128219390
-
Trump: Gut Funding for Climate Science, Boost Fossil Fuels
Feb 13, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
The Trump administration is targeting federal funding for studying and tracking climate change while boosting the continued burning of planet-warming fossil fuels.
The White House's 2019 spending plan seeks to reduce or eliminate climate science programs across an array of federal agencies, from gutting efforts to track greenhouse gas emissions and research to eliminating funding for NASA satellites that study the impacts of climate change.
Though President Donald Trump's budget unveiled earlier this week is highly unlikely to be adopted by Congress, it is a direct indicator of just how little weight his administration is giving to the increasingly dire warnings from climate scientists about longer droughts, stronger storms and rising seas.
Trump has called climate change a "hoax" and appointed forceful advocates for increased oil, gas and coal production to lead key federal agencies overseeing environmental enforcement, energy production and public lands.
In the 160-page budget summary released by the White House, the term "climate change" is only mentioned once — in the name of a science program marked for elimination at the Environmental Protection Agency. A week after EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt suggested global warming might be beneficial to humanity, his agency issued a 47-page strategic plan for the next five years that does not include the word "climate."Continue reading the main story
Asked about the absence of climate change in the budget and the strategic plan, EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said the agency will focus on its core goals which "are designed to transform the way the agency does business and more efficiently and effectively delivers human health and environmental results."
Federal health and climate scientists predict that by the end of this century global warming will add as many 9,000 deaths a year in the U.S. because of heat, costing as much as $140 billion a year. Hot weather promotes the spread of infectious diseases, reduces work capacity, increases rates of violent crime, reduces agricultural production and worsens air quality.
Environmentalists say the deep budget cuts, if implemented, would amount to suppressing facts about global warming while turning up the Earth's thermostat by pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
"Trump's budget is a statement of his priorities, and this budget demonstrates that he could care less about protecting clean air, clean water, public health or our public lands," said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club. "This is a shameful, ideological document that represents the extent to which Trump has fully given himself over to corporate special interests above all else."
Trump's proposed budget for EPA eliminates $16.5 million in funding and 48 full-time jobs at the Global Change Research program, which develops scientific information related to climate change and its impacts on human health, the environment and the economy. Also zeroed out is $66 million for the Atmospheric Protection Program, a collection of climate-related partnerships seeking voluntarily air pollution reductions by private companies.
EPA's Atmospheric Protection Program, tasked with completing an annual U.S. inventory of greenhouse gas emissions to fulfill international climate treaty obligations would be slashed from $103 million to less than $14 million, a reduction of about 87 percent. The White House would also eliminate the Science to Achieve Results program, which provides $28 million in research grants and academic fellowships in environmental science and engineering.
At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, money for climate-related research would be cut by more than one third, to $99 million. That includes eliminating research programs to better understand the Earth climate system and research into decreases in Arctic sea ice. Trump's budget also seeks to cancel five Earth-observing satellites costing about $133 million in 2019. That includes a satellite designed to monitor Earth's carbon cycle, which is key to tracking climate change.
Meanwhile, the White House is promoting what Trump has dubbed an "energy dominance" strategy, emphasizing increased investments in oil, gas and coal. At the Department of Energy, research into new renewable energy technologies is shifting to boost research into fossil fuels.
The budget "demonstrates the administration's commitment to American energy dominance, making hard choices, and reasserting the proper role of the federal government," the White House's budget blueprint says. "In so doing, the budget emphasizes energy technologies best positioned to enable American energy independence and domestic job-growth."
The budget for the Department of Interior seeks to ramp up drilling and mining on federally owned land while repealing an Obama-era rule requiring oil and gas operations to reduce leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that traps about 25 times more heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
"The president's budget is the textbook definition of 'pennywise, pound foolish,'" said Shana Udvardy, a spokeswoman for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Natural disasters do more damage because of climate change, and 2017 was unprecedented for deadly extreme weather events."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/02/13/us/politics/ap-us-trump-climate-change.html
-
U.S. Intelligence Agencies Break with Trump Over Climate Threats
Feb 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric Roston
The U.S. intelligence community is at odds with the White House about threats America faces from climate change.
The nation's intelligence agencies are warning, in the annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, of global instability if climate change continues unabated, according to a report submitted for a Feb. 13 hearing before the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
“The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018,” the report states.
The intelligence report describes how warming temperatures will exacerbate disasters, war, shortages, economic volatility, and migration.
Citing research showing that human activities have accelerated extinctions worldwide 100 to 1000 times normal rates, the analysts write that losses “will jeopardize vital ecosystems that support critical human systems.”
Two recent policy papers from the Department of Defense carried no such alarms about the warming world, placing the military nominally in line with the president's actions and reversing a position adopted by President George W. Bush's Pentagon in 2008.
The world has warmed nearly a degree Celsius (1.8 degree Fahrenheit) in the last century, driven by industrial greenhouse gas emissions, according to the 2017 U.S. National Climate Assessment.
President Donald Trump has called global warming a “Chinese hoax” and rejected the otherwise unanimous Paris Agreement to cut carbon pollution.
In his 2019 budget released Feb. 12, he proposed to eliminate scientific, energy-related, and diplomatic efforts meant to study or address the causes or consequences of global change.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=128219408&vname=dennotallissues&fn=128219408&jd=128219408
-
EPA Sets Hearing Date for Connecticut Ozone Petition
Feb 13, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA is complying with a court order setting steep deadlines for responding to Connecticut's petition calling for direct federal regulation of air emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant that the state blames for its ozone problems, a case that some say highlights the flaws in the agency's bar on settling such cases.
In a Federal Register notice slated for publication Feb. 14, EPA says it has scheduled a public hearing for Feb. 23 in Washington, D.C., on the agency's forthcoming proposed response to Connecticut's petition. And the agency adds that it intends to issue its proposed response to the state's petition “in the near future.”
The agency's response, like the hearing, is required under a court order that rejected agency requests to respond to the petition by the end of the year.
Connecticut petitioned the agency in June 2016 to directly regulate emissions of ozone-forming nitrogen oxides from the Brunner Island, PA, power plant under Clean Air Act section 126. The provision allows such federal intervention where a state can demonstrate a significant impact from interstate emissions compromising its ability to meet national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), in this case the 2008 ozone NAAQS set at 75 parts per billion.
After EPA missed its 60-day statutory window to respond, and also failed to respond within an extended six-month deadline that the agency granted to itself, Connecticut sued the agency in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. EPA asked the court for a further extension until the end of 2018 to respond to the petition.
However, the court sided with the state, ordering EPA Feb. 7 to hold a public hearing on the matter within 30 days, and to issue a final response to the state within 60 days.
Critics say the order shows the problems inherent in EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's directive for the agency not to settle lawsuits seeking to force EPA action when the agency has missed a statutory deadline.
Speaking at an American Law Institute-Continuing Legal Education conference Feb. 9, former Justice Department environmental defense lawyer Thomas Lorenzen said the court's decision shows the problems created by Pruitt's policy barring the agency from settling so-called “sue-and-settle” lawsuits.
Pruitt prohibited the agency from reaching settlements with parties such bringing suits, which typically seek to enforce air law deadlines, unless it first solicited the input of regulated parties.
But this approach is flawed, because courts when confronted with statutory deadlines clearly missed by EPA will often enforce the letter of the law, rather than granting additional time as sought by EPA, Lorenzen said. Such lawsuits are difficult to defend and numerous, he said.
Environmentalists say the derogatory “sue-and-settle” term, coined by EPA's critics during the Obama administration, is a meaningless slur because such suits merely seek to enforce that EPA perform its mandatory duties.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-sets-hearing-date-connecticut-ozone-petition
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested