Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 3/6/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Cruz Stresses Need to Encourage Trade Under NAFTA
Mar 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US Senator Ted Cruz (Republican-Texas) stressed on Monday the need and benefits of using the NAFTA renegotiations to open up Mexico and Canada to more trade with the US. -
(ACC Mentioned) White House Trade Adviser Says 'No Country Exemptions' on Steel Tariffs
Mar 5, 2018 | The Africom
Markets around the globe were shaken. Action against American companies or goods would compete for attention with the National People's Congress, which the ruling Communist Party uses to showcase its economic plans. -
Pruitt Touts First-Year Accomplishments
Mar 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is touting a list of environmental accomplishments in his first year that heavily emphasizes efforts he has taken to pare back federal climate and other rules and streamline EPA processes. -
Dow Chemical Lawyer Eager to Set EPA Policy, Colleagues Say
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Peter C. Wright, the Dow Chemical Co. lawyer President Donald Trump hopes to nominate to head EPA's Superfund and waste office, is eager to set policy, his colleagues say. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Defends Proposed TSCA Fees Rule as Reasonable 'Starting Point'
Mar 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A senior EPA official is defending the agency's proposed rule for collecting fees under the revised toxics law, arguing that competing criticism from industry and environmentalists suggests the proposed fees are reasonable, while also calling the proposed rule “a starting point”... -
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Premature’ BPA Safety Stance Criticised by Endocrine Society
Mar 6, 2018 | Plastics in Packaging
The Endocrine society has expressed disappointment at the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ‘premature’ statement indicating that bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for use in food containers and packaging. -
Ohio Claims Monsanto, Pfizer Contaminated 100 Waterways With PCBs
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Monsanto and subsidiaries of Eastman Chemical Company and Pfizer contaminated more than 100 bodies of water with toxic chemicals, the state of Ohio alleged in a March 5 lawsuit. -
Minnesota Lawmakers Want Authority Over 3M Settlement Funds
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Minnesota legislators said they will push to actively oversee the $850 million that 3M Co. will pay the state after settling a lawsuit over the dumping of chemicals used in making water-resistant treatment Scotchgard. -
Review of EU Chemicals Law Could Mean Tougher Data Demands
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
BASF SE, Exxon Mobil Corp., and other companies that register chemicals under the European Union's REACH law could face pressure to update registrations and stricter information requirements, according to a review published by the European Commission March 5. -
Safety Researchers Won't Enter Fray Over Beryllium Abrasives
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal researchers are unlikely to step in to resolve a dispute over the beryllium content of glass and coal slag abrasives, a top official with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health said. -
FDA on Lead in Grape Juice: Too Late, and Way Too Little Improvement
Mar 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On March 12, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be leading the U.S. delegation in the Netherlands proposing that the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopt a maximum lead limit of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in grape juice. -
Taking on ‘Microfiber’ Pollution, a Laundry Room at a Time
Mar 6, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Patrick Whittle
The fight to keep tiny pollutants from reaching the dinner plate might start in the laundry room. -
Steel Tariffs Could Kill Pipeline Projects, Plains CEO Says
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Tariffs on all imported steel would be detrimental to pipeline projects, one company executive said during an infrastructure panel March 5. -
Zinke Defers Another Lease Sale
Mar 5, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today deferred another oil and gas lease sale — this time in his home state of Montana. -
Oil, Gas Industry Still Seeks Relaxed Carbon Capture Reporting
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The oil and gas industry is breathing new life into efforts to get Congress to relax emissions reporting rules for oil and gas operations that store carbon dioxide underground. -
Permian-Led U.S. Oil to Satisfy 80% of Global Demand for Next Five Years, Says IEA
Mar 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Oil production growth led by the United States, Brazil, Canada and Norway will keep the world well oiled through 2020, but investments are needed to boost output in the longer term, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Monday. -
Alaska Senator: Arctic Refuge Drilling Sale Could Start Next Year
Mar 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials may be able to hold the first auction for oil and natural gas drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) next year, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said Monday. -
The End of the Oil Age May Be Closer but More Uncertain: Fuel for Thought
Mar 6, 2018 | Platts
By Robert Perkins
Exactly when the world’s thirst for oil starts to ebb as a shift to cleaner, renewable energy gathers pace is increasingly occupying forecasters on both sides of the debate. -
(ACC Mentioned) Gulf Coast Needs $14 Billion Storm Barrier, Chemical Makers Say
Mar 6, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Chemical companies are pressing federal officials to spend billions of dollars on a coastal flood control system near Houston to protect petrochemical plants, oil refineries and shipping infrastructure from the next hurricane. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chem Execs Review Lessons Learned from Harvey
Mar 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
Executives at the major chemical companies with plants along the US Gulf Coast shared the lessons learned during Hurricane Harvey, explaining how they prepared for the storm and what they will do for the next one. -
EPA Defers to States on Denying Environmentalists' Air Permit Objections
Mar 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is increasingly deferring to states on denying environmentalists' petitions asking the agency to overturn state-issued Clean Air Act operating permits for industrial facilities, a policy in line with Administrator Scott Pruitt's push for “cooperative federalism”.... -
EPA Haze Decisions Face Industry Challenges
Mar 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's recent decisions on haze emissions plans for several states are facing new legal challenges, with an electric utility challenging the agency's approval of Louisiana's haze plan and a steel maker fighting EPA's denial of petitions to reconsider an Obama-era haze plan...
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senator Cruz Stresses Need to Encourage Trade Under NAFTA
Mar 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
US Senator Ted Cruz (Republican-Texas) stressed on Monday the need and benefits of using the NAFTA renegotiations to open up Mexico and Canada to more trade with the US.
Cruz made his comments on Monday during a forum held by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Texas Chemical Council.
The US, Canada and Mexico are in the midst of renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), from which US President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw.
For the US petrochemical industry, both countries are major export markets, and their importance will increase as companies start up new plants.
The renegotiations are also a good opportunity to update and modernise the trade deal, which went into effect in 1994, Cruz said.
But Cruz spent much of his time stressing the importance of international trade to the economy in Texas.
"There are about 2.2m jobs in the state of Texas that depend on international trade," Cruz said. "Texas does very well under NAFTA."
The renegotiations could help both Texas and the US if their objective is to expand international trade and to open up Mexico and Canada to more goods and services from the US, Cruz said.
"If on the other hand the objective is to erect barriers to the US market and decrease trade, that's going to hurt Texas," he said.
Such a development could represent a lost opportunity for the state.
He pointed to Mexico's recent energy reforms, which opened the country to investment from companies other than the state producer, Pemex. The NAFTA talks should further expand on this opening in the Mexican energy market.
Such a move could create more well-paying jobs in Mexico, he said. And Mexico will likely turn to companies in Texas to help develop the nation's energy resources.
Conflicting voices within the Trump administration is pulling it in different directions in regards to trade, Cruz said.
"I can tell you that I have weighed in heavily, emphatically, with the president, with the commerce secretary, with the US trade representative, with the treasury secretary, with the secretary of state, I have weighed in aggressively in support of expanding trade," he said.
More recently, Cruz said he talked to the president about NAFTA presenting an opportunity to pass further regulatory reform in the US.
This would come in the form of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny act, or REINS.
This act would require a vote from Congress before the government could adopt a regulation that would impose a cost of more than $100m on the economy, Cruz said.
Pushing through such an act would require 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster from the Democratic party, Cruz said. Right now, the act does not have that support.
One way to get around this barrier is to attach a competitiveness chapter to NAFTA that codifies regulatory reform, Cruz said. "What we could do is codify something like the REINS act."
The US could do this without seeking approval from Mexico or Canada, he said.
Plus, if the REINS act is attached to NAFTA, "under trade promotion authority, that goes to Congress on an expedited vote, up or down, at a 50-vote threshold, and it can't be filibustered", Cruz said. "And so it's a tool to get around a Democratic filibuster and enact regulatory reform that would have a profound impact in terms of continuing the economic growth that we're seeing in Texas."
In addition to NAFTA, Cruz also talked about Trump's proposal to impose tariffs on steel and aluminium. He said that the US has a lot more jobs in industries that use those metals as raw materials versus those that produce them.
"So you're looking at costs going up for industries that use those inputs and that doesn't even count what happens if other countries retaliate and start putting tariffs on our exports," Cruz said. "It's a real concern, and I don't have a magic solution for it."
Given that the US will start exporting growing amounts of polyethylene (PE) and other petrochemicals, it could be the target of retaliatory tariffs, given both the volume of those exports and the nation's cost advantage in producing those materials.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/03/05/10199612/senator-cruz-stresses-need-to-encourage-trade-under-nafta/
-
(ACC Mentioned) White House Trade Adviser Says 'No Country Exemptions' on Steel Tariffs
Mar 5, 2018 | The Africom
Markets around the globe were shaken. Action against American companies or goods would compete for attention with the National People's Congress, which the ruling Communist Party uses to showcase its economic plans.
Analysts and economists have mixed views, including that Australia could benefit in the long run if Mr Trump's move towards protectionism leads to retaliation from Europe and Asia. The policy might be made official this week.
Canada's foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland responded to Trump's declaration by noting that the tariffs could have a negative impact on national defense. It includes a call for a 7.7% tariff on aluminum and a 24% tariff on steel.
He said a 10 percent tariff on aluminum would add one cent to the cost of a can of beer, $45 to a vehicle and $20,000 to a Boeing 727 Dreamliner. "China wins when the American consumer has higher prices because of tariffs that don't affect Chinese behaviour".
Trump has said he plans to slap a 25% tariff on steel imports and 10% on aluminium next week.
Already-volatile markets swooned after Trump announced the tariffs, with the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 Index falling more than 1.3 per cent that day. One bright spot, however, is US Steel, which climbs 6%. The same two top Republican lawmakers who shepherded Trump's tax-cut achievement through Congress, Kevin Brady and Orrin Hatch, have pleaded for revisions.
Australia's major steel exporter BlueScope might also get favourable treatment because it has a substantial presence in the United States and sends steel from Port Kembla to its manufacturing plant in California.
And The American Chemistry Council - which represents companies like 3M, Procter & Gamble, DuPont and ExxonMobil - warned the tariffs could make factories more expensive, slow innovation, and have "punishing" effects.
Global stock markets, including Australia, have weakened in the wake of Mr Trump's move.
The announcement of tariffs on Thursday capped off a chaotic week at the White House, which has been bedeviled by staff departures and fierce disputes over policy.
This is because USA steel production is mainly done via the electric-arc furnace process which is less intensive in its use of iron ore and coking coal than the basic oxygen furnace process which is the process used around the rest of the world in 75% of global steel production. He said the U.S. vehicle market is not as critical for Germany as it was five or ten years ago, while China is now the number one foreign market.
Theresa May's de facto deputy has rebuked United States president Donald Trump for threatening a trade war with the European Union.
"There is always retaliation, and typically a lot of these countries single out agriculture when they do that".
Trump's threats to unleash a trade war over steel crushed any hopes of substantial progress in current talks with Canada and Mexico to rework the North American Free Trade Agreement, heightening fears for the trade deal's future.
The president of the European Union's governing body, Jean-Claude Juncker, said the 28-nation tradebloc will retaliate if Trump follows through.
The U.S. imposes a 2.5 percent tariff on the import of foreign cars and a 25 percent tariff on the import of foreign trucks and commercial vans. "It's not going to be in the best interests of anyone to begin a tradewar".
MARTIN: You know, on the other hand, this country has lost thousands of jobs in the steel industry. "No more", he wrote.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says "I believe so" when asked whether President Donald Trump will make a formal announcement this week about trade penalties on imported steel and aluminum.
"I have not heard him describe particular exemptions", Ross said.
Peter Navarro, a White House adviser with largely protectionist views on trade and author of a book entitled "Death By China", brushed off the negative effects of tariffs on United States industry.
http://theafricom.com/2018/03/05/white-house-trade-adviser-says-no-country-exemptions-on.html
-
Pruitt Touts First-Year Accomplishments
Mar 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is touting a list of environmental accomplishments in his first year that heavily emphasizes efforts he has taken to pare back federal climate and other rules and streamline EPA processes.
But the March 5 report also touts a series of pro forma actions, such as approving state air and water pollution control plans that are required by law and delisting waste sites as a result of work that was largely completed under the prior administration
The tally also includes a number of actions that were begun under the Obama administration or which the agency reluctantly took following litigation from environmentalists and states.
“We have been hard at work enacting President Donald Trump's agenda during my first year as EPA administrator,” Pruitt writes in a cover letter for the report -- EPA Year In Review 2017-2018. He touts 22 “deregulatory actions” EPA has finalized as well as the Trump administration's decision to exit the Paris climate agreement and repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) utility greenhouse gas rule.
The report does not detail those 22 final actions, but reiterates efforts that have occurred or that already underway to attack several high-profile rules or EPA policies including the CPP, 2015 Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, the “once in always in” policy under EPA's air toxics program, changes to the new source review air permitting program and others.
The report also touts EPA action on 322 Clean Air Act state implementation plans (SIPs) -- including turning one federal plan into a SIP each month since March 2017 -- as well as actions under the agency's water programs that include cutting from 120 to 60 days the time to review state water quality standards and approving 3,000 water cleanup plans known as total maximum daily loads.
Other listed actions include the elimination “substantially or entirely” of seven contaminated sites from the National Priorities list (NPL), clearing the agency's backlog of review of toxic chemicals, and obtaining $1.6 billion in administrative and civil penalties under the agency's enforcement program.
While any administrator in their first year is likely to tout a mix of final and proposed efforts, many of Pruitt's touted accomplishments omit key information or take credit for past EPA actions.
Examples include the first-year enforcement numbers and NPL site removals, both of which depend on efforts undertaken by the Obama administration. The enforcement statistics in the report also come amid broader concerns from former EPA staff that new cases have dropped sharply under Pruitt.
In another example, the accomplishments report touts as a response to local community concerns Pruitt's November 2017 decision to classify localities as in attainment with the 2015 ozone standard, omitting the fact that this occurred only after litigation by many states and environmental groups objecting to agency efforts to delay implementation of the standard. EPA has also yet to complete designations of areas out of attainment with that standard.
The report also touts EPA's efforts to “review the regulatory overreach” under its transportation programs, specifically through the reopened mid-term review of EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas standards for model years 2022-2025, as well as under the agency's proposal to repeal limits on the production of high-emitting “glider” trucks. The latter measure has drawn fire not only from environmentalists and states but also the trucking sector.
The report also touts an October directive from Pruitt to agency staff seeking an end to “sue and settle” practices that agency critics have said drive regulation. However, the actual implementation of the policy appears in doubt after EPA has begun settlement negotiations with environmentalists on studying the environmental impacts of the agency's renewable fuels standard. That suit, filed after the directive was issued, was considered a test case for how EPA might apply the directive in practice.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/pruitt-touts-first-year-accomplishments
-
Dow Chemical Lawyer Eager to Set EPA Policy, Colleagues Say
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
Peter C. Wright, the Dow Chemical Co. lawyer President Donald Trump hopes to nominate to head EPA's Superfund and waste office, is eager to set policy, his colleagues say.
“Peter's always been interested in the policy aspects of environmental law, and having an opportunity to expand more into that type of policy implementation I think would be a natural fit,” John Milner, chairman of the American Bar Association's Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources, told Bloomberg Environment.
Wright had been appointed the section's co-chair of strategic planning, a forward-looking position, Milner said.
But few details about Wright's vision for the Environmental Protection Agency are public.
In a 2016 blog post about EPA waste cleanup efforts, Wright suggested the federal government didn't need Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act programs or the Toxic Substances Control Act program for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Because most cleanups are led by states, Wright said, delegating those programs to states could simplify them.
Wright, managing counsel at Dow, would serve as assistant EPA administrator for land and emergency management. The position is subject to Senate confirmation.
The office handles the agency's contaminated land and waste programs including Superfund, brownfields, emergency cleanup, and underground storage tanks.
Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow Chemical, told Bloomberg Environment that Wright was not available for an interview.
Larry Schnapf of Schnapf LLC, an environmental law firm, said Wright is “intimately familiar with the problems of Superfund and RCRA.”
“He's going to be instrumental in carrying out the reforms,” Schnapf told Bloomberg Environment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143756&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143756&jd=129143756
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Defends Proposed TSCA Fees Rule as Reasonable 'Starting Point'
Mar 6, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
A senior EPA official is defending the agency's proposed rule for collecting fees under the revised toxics law, arguing that competing criticism from industry and environmentalists suggests the proposed fees are reasonable, while also calling the proposed rule “a starting point” that the agency is open to revising based on public input.
Mark Hartman, acting deputy director of EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), told the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) annual Global Chemical Regulations Conference in Washington, DC, March 2 that estimating EPA's costs of running aspects of its chemical review program, from which the fees are derived, is at the heart of the rule proposed last month, and that staff has done a reasonable job.
“There is a great deal of uncertainty in trying to come up with a reasonable cost estimate for something that has not been done before, but we tried to minimize that uncertainty and find a space we thought was a reasonable starting point for this effort,” Hartman said.
The proposed rule, allows EPA to collect industry fees to defray costs of a host of actions under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), including reviewing new and existing chemicals under sections 5 and 6, issuing test orders under section 4, and weighing confidential business information claims under section 14.
The proposal, which appeared in the Federal Register Feb. 26, is open for comment through April 27. EPA says it will begin collecting fees in fiscal year 2019 and will adjust the schedule for inflation every three years.
Noting media reports citing industry and environmentalist officials as faulting EPA for either “high-balling or low-balling costs,” Hartman argued that for regulators such conflicting criticism often means “you're near someplace where you belong, and I think that's where we are at this point."
While Hartman said EPA is open to public input on its proposed rule, he cautioned that lowering fees for certain chemical review actions would result in raising fees on others, noting that the law allows the agency to collect up to 25 percent of its total allowable costs of running the program, which the agency has estimated at $80 million.
“We have a specific target in mind and we're trying to find the best and most efficient way to achieve that target,” Hartman said. “Our ultimate goal is $20 million in revenue on an annual basis.”
Additionally, Hartman teed up several issues EPA is likely to face in public comments and in implementing the fees rule. Those include assessing fees on consortia of industry groups that collaborate on testing, the incentive for companies to file chemical actions soon before a final fees rule takes effect, and issuing refunds after missing statutory deadlines.
“If we fail to meet an obligation, people are entitled to a refund. That is something we are aware of and that is mentioned in the rule itself,” Hartman said, noting industry calls for EPA to clarify when fees would be refunded.
An industry attorney has told Inside EPA such refunds are legally required and that adhering to the statute would give EPA incentive to speed its process for reviewing new chemicals, which is lagging far behind.
“Obviously it's in our best interest not to be refunding money,” Hartman said. “So it's in our best interest to be meeting those deadlines on a more consistent basis.”
Conflicting Criticism
The measure proposes a methodology and two alternatives for assessing industry fees that are intended to fully recover the amount specified by law, which is 25 percent of the costs of implementing several key programs under the chemical safety law, or up to $25 million, whichever number is lower.
EPA is also seeking public input on alternative methodologies for calculating fees, and on steps it has proposed to ease burdens on processors and small businesses. For example, the agency is limiting fees on processors, and broadening a prior TSCA regulatory definition of small businesses that are eligible for reduced payments under the rule.
Environmentalists and industry have already raised conflicting criticism, with the Environmental Defense Fund arguing that EPA's proposed rule appears to underestimate costs of implementing the revised TSCA, and chemical sector attorneys saying the fees are high and that the rule fails to adequately address refunds, which could help spur a faster process for reviewing new chemicals.
Meanwhile, EPA officials, who are eager to finalize the rule and begin collecting fees are expecting implementation challenges. OPPT Director Jeff Morris told staff during a Feb. 27 meeting that money from fees could bring new hires but that he does not expect to begin receiving fees until 2020.
During the meeting, agency staff raised concerns that industry may scramble to file applications before any fee rule takes effect. And Hartman told the chemical sector that such timing issues are the agency's “biggest uncertainty” ahead.
“We would anticipate that as fees become clearer on the horizon there will be an incentive for companies to come in before the new fees kick in and that after implementation we see a lower level than” expected, he said.
At the chemical sector conference, ACC's Mike Walls reiterated industry concerns that EPA clarify how it will use fees to improve its processes.
“We recognize that if we're going to ask the agency to do more under TSCA they have to have the resources to do it and the fees rule is a primary means of getting that,” Walls said. “But those fees come with some expectations of Congress and of the industry for efficiency and effectiveness of those regulatory processes.”
Other industry officials also floated early concerns with the proposed rule. They argued that the proposed fee for substances that qualify for low volume exemptions is too high, and questioned whether certain companies could avoid fees for reviewing existing chemicals by entering the market later.
Hartman acknowledged that the proposed rule fails to address late arrivals to the market and suggested that industry provide input on how to better ensure that costs are borne fairly.
“We would like to get feedback on reasonable ways to try to anticipate that sort of thing and see if there are opportunities to dissuade it, or cover for that,” Hartman said. “But good point, right now the rule doesn't address that.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-proposed-tsca-fees-rule-reasonable-starting-point
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Premature’ BPA Safety Stance Criticised by Endocrine Society
Mar 6, 2018 | Plastics in Packaging
The Endocrine society has expressed disappointment at the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ‘premature’ statement indicating that bisphenol A (BPA) is safe for use in food containers and packaging.
The professional organisation for scientists and physicians tackling hormonal disorders stated it was too early for the FDA to assert that results of a pre-peer review draft report released by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) investigating the potential effects of BPA on the health of murine models, supports previous determinations that the chemical is not harmful.
Laura Vandenberg, speaking on behalf on the Endocrine Society, commented: “It is premature to draw conclusions based on the release of one component of a two-part report. The NTP draft report released Friday (March 2 2018) included the results of one government study with a partial data set and has yet to undergo peer review.”
The investigation was conducted by scientists at the FDA’s National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), as part of the Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity (CLARITY-BPA).
The Endocrine Society said that policymakers and regulators should reserve judgement until the final report, which will include results of research studies carried out in academic labs, is released. It added that the NCTR study did not examine some key areas of concern, such as BPA’s impact on brain development, but instead focused on how BPA affected growth, weight and tumour development.
“The endpoints studied here do not encompass the full effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, especially because the whole point of this study was to compare the NCTR’s endpoints with more sensitive effects evaluated by endocrinologists,” Vandenberg said.
“Furthermore, the NCTR’s data does not provide assurance of BPA’s safety. They found certain BPA doses are linked to a higher rate of mammary gland tumours, which is concerning.”
In regards to the results of the study, the FDA commented that the review supports its position that authorised uses of BPA in food containers and packing continue to be safe for consumers.
“Overall, the study found “minimal effects” for the BPA-dosed groups of rodents,” said Stephen Ostroff, deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at FDA. “The report did identify some areas that may merit further research, such as the increase in occurrence of mammary gland tumours at one of the five doses, in one of the groups. But the significance of these findings will be assessed through the peer review process.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) agreed that results supported the safety of BPA. “The results of the CLARITY Core study once again demonstrate that BPA is safe at the very low levels to which people are typically exposed,” said Steven Hentges, Polycarbonate/BPA global group of the ACC.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is expected to re-evaluate BPA further into 2018 with results expected in 2019.
https://plasticsinpackaging.com/online/premature-bpa-safety-stance-according-to-endocrine-society/
-
Ohio Claims Monsanto, Pfizer Contaminated 100 Waterways With PCBs
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
Monsanto and subsidiaries of Eastman Chemical Company and Pfizer contaminated more than 100 bodies of water with toxic chemicals, the state of Ohio alleged in a March 5 lawsuit.
Ohio is the first Midwestern state to follow in the footsteps of Oregon and Washington, which have each sued the companies over widespread contamination of polychlorinated biphenyl. The chemical is found in heat-resistant electrical equipment, caulk, printing ink, lubricants, and paint and been linked to cancer and diseases of the reproductive system, liver, and thyroid.
“Old Monsanto was plainly unwilling to abandon its hand-over-fist profiteering, even as its products endangered the natural environment and the lives of millions and, indeed, generations,” the state said in its complaint, filed in state court.
Ohio River and Lake Erie
The state is suing Monsanto, Solutia Inc.—which is owned by the Eastman Chemical Company, and Pharmacia LLC, which is owned by Pfizer—for damages to natural resources, including the Ohio River and basins of Lake Erie, along with damages for the monitoring and removal of the chemicals.
The monetary amount the state is seeking wasn't listed in the lawsuit, and the attorney's general office declined to comment to Bloomberg Environment on the subject.
Monsanto stopped producing PCBs more than 40 years ago, Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy said in a statement.
“Monsanto sold PCBs to many industrial and manufacturing customers, as well as the U.S. government, which put them to various uses and disposed of them in different ways. We are still reviewing this lawsuit, and we will defend ourselves aggressively,” he said.
Widespread Contamination Alleged
Washington filed a similar suit—which is pending in federal court—in 2016 alleging that PCBs caused significant harm to the state, and Oregon filed its suit in January.
Ohio's attorney general, like the other states’, claims Monsanto was aware that PCBs were harmful to humans. The complaint includes quotes from internal company memos claiming to show that doctors knew the possible damage the chemicals could cause.
The state argues that from 1929 to 1977, Monsanto sold a large volume of the chemicals to customers, retailers, and secondary manufacturers in Ohio. The chemicals then leached, leaked, and escaped containers and went into Ohio's water, soil, and air, the state said.
The chemicals are found in the basins of the state's largest rivers and Lake Erie, affecting Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland—the three large population centers in the state.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143761&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143761&jd=129143761
-
Minnesota Lawmakers Want Authority Over 3M Settlement Funds
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Joyce
Minnesota legislators said they will push to actively oversee the $850 million that 3M Co. will pay the state after settling a lawsuit over the dumping of chemicals used in making water-resistant treatment Scotchgard.
Republican lawmakers argued the Legislature needs to play an oversight role, setting up a dispute with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which insists it can spend the funds on drinking water and sustainability projects as outlined in the settlement.
“We need to make sure we set up some guardrails about this money so that the money is going to be used as it was intended,” state Rep. Dan Fabian (R) said at a March 5 House Ways and Means Committee hearing. “We need to keep a close eye on this.”
Fabian also voiced concerned over administrative costs that are expected to be retained by the agencies administering the funds.
Agency Has Plans for Funds
Kirk Koudelka, assistant commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, asserted his agency already has statutory authority to spend the money after 3M agreed to settle a $5 billion lawsuit alleging the company dumped perfluorinated and polyfluorinated (PFCs) chemical wastes at four Minnesota sites.
Committee Chairman Jim Knoblach (R) said the agreement called for the funds to be deposited in a water and sustainability fund, but that fund hasn't been established. He also questioned whether Koudelka's agency can legally receive a settlement disbursement to spend without an act of the state Legislature.
Koudelka was firm in his view his agency has existing authority to spend the money. “The framework we're using is the one set up by the legislature,” he said.
GOP Members Seek Control
State Rep. Pat Garofalo (R) labeled the agency's assertion of authority over the money “problematic.”
“Obviously there's concerns on both sides of the aisle with this view of what current statute is. This is not about PFCs, this is not about cleaning up pollution, this is about who decides who makes decisions with public money,” Garofalo said.
“I respect the fact that agencies and executive branches of both parties want to circumvent the legislature,” he said. “That sort of strategy and tactic, there's nothing new about it. But this view is problematic,” he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143772&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143772&jd=129143772
-
Review of EU Chemicals Law Could Mean Tougher Data Demands
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
BASF SE, Exxon Mobil Corp., and other companies that register chemicals under the European Union's REACH law could face pressure to update registrations and stricter information requirements, according to a review published by the European Commission March 5.
The review—which the commission, the EU's executive arm, must carry out every five years—found REACH is functioning effectively, but the law's ultimate objective of safeguarding health and the environment is hampered by “lack of compliant information in the registration dossiers.”
The commission said it would in early 2019 “make proposals for improvements” to the REACH registration process to ensure companies provide sufficient information for the assessment of the hazards and risks of the chemicals they sell. In addition, companies are not doing enough to update their registration dossiers once filed as two-thirds have yet to be updated as required. The commission said the reasons for this needs to be better understood.
REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the restriction, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals) requires chemical companies to file registration dossiers for substances they sell in the EU as a condition of access to the EU market. Registration dossiers—which must be filed for substances sold in the EU in annual volumes of one metric ton or more—must contain substance identity, hazard, and safe-use information.
The costs of assembling registration dossiers can amount to tens or even hundreds of thousands of euros, taking into account the costs of generating scientific risk information on substances and registration fees.
Close to 18,000 Registrations
As of March 2, companies had filed 68,927 registration dossiers covering 17,922 chemicals, according to the European Chemicals Agency website. REACH was a “comprehensive data generation and assessment system for chemicals” that, despite registration dossier shortcomings, had “significantly enhanced the protection of human health and the environment and promoted alternatives to animal testing,” the commission said.
The commission's review of REACH started in 2016 and should have delivered its findings by June 1, 2017. The review was a wide-ranging look at the effectiveness of REACH and included consultations and studies on the burden the law imposes on companies.
REACH cost companies up to 2.6 billion euros ($3.2 billion) for the registration dossiers filed up to mid-2013, the review said. This was more than the expected cost of 1.7 billion euros ($2.1 billion) but was small in the context of the revenues of chemicals companies and was justified by the health and environmental benefits of REACH, the review said.
The review did not suggest major changes to REACH but said some initiatives—including on the quality of information in registration dossiers—should be taken to improve its implementation.
Other measures suggested by the review cover better communication by companies of the hazards and risks of chemicals up and down their supply chains, the possible tracking of the most hazardous substances in products, and procedural changes when considering usage restrictions for hazardous chemicals.
In addition, the commission would look at relaxing the procedure for applying for a usage authorization for an otherwise banned substance when the authorization is for low-volume chemicals and compounds used for spare parts of machines that are no longer produced, the review said.
Limited Review?
The commission, however, did not propose any immediate measures, leading to accusations that the outcomes of the review were limited.
“We had hoped for more concrete actions,” Frida Hok, senior policy adviser with ChemSec, which advocates for the phaseout of toxic chemicals, told Bloomberg Environment March 5. The commission could have proposed to cancel the registration numbers of companies that don't provide adequate information in their dossiers, she said.
‘Never Been Updated’
The European Chemicals Agency, which administers REACH, has often raised information quality concerns about registration dossiers.
About two-thirds of registration dossiers “have never been updated,” which was “an indication that many companies are not in compliance with the already-existing legal obligation to keep their registration dossiers up to date,” the agency said in a statement to Bloomberg Environment March 5.
The European Chemical Industry Council told Bloomberg Environment March 5 it was studying the REACH review and could not yet comment. Three of the companies with the largest numbers of REACH registrations—BASF SE, DowDupont, and Exxon Mobil—did not respond to requests for comment March 5.
The commission's promise of measures to be proposed in early 2019 to improve the quality of information provided by companies were “too vague to reassure us that this lack of compliance will not be, again, a core issue in the next review in 2022,” Alice Bernard, a chemicals lawyer with environmental lawyers ClientEarth, said in a March 5 statement.
The commission March 5 said it was unable to provide more detail on its plans for proposals in early 2019, and if those proposals would include draft legislation to amend REACH.
Nanomaterials Left Out
One issue that could have been expected to feature in the REACH review but didn't was nanomaterials, Anthony Bochon, a senior associate with Squire Patton Boggs in Brussels, told Bloomberg Environment March 5.
Under REACH, nanomaterials are treated the same as substances at normal scale in terms of information that should be provided in registration dossiers, though dossiers should provide sufficient information to enable the safe handling of nanomaterials. But little nano-specific information has been provided in REACH registration dossiers, the European Chemicals Agency has previously said.
The European Commission proposed a regulation in October 2017 that would tighten the REACH requirements for information on nanomaterials, but this has not yet been finalized, Bochon said. Substances at nanoscale are used in cosmetics, electronics, fabrics, and other consumer products.
EU countries Belgium, Denmark, France, and Sweden have put in place national systems under which companies must declare use of nanomaterials. In each country, the requirements are different and “could be interpreted as restrictions on the free movement of goods” within the EU internal market, Bochon said.
“I would have expected something about nanomaterials” that could have clarified when EU countries could act on nanomaterials within an EU framework, Bochon said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143776&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143776&jd=129143776
-
Safety Researchers Won't Enter Fray Over Beryllium Abrasives
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal researchers are unlikely to step in to resolve a dispute over the beryllium content of glass and coal slag abrasives, a top official with the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health said.
Abrasives are used by shipbuilders and other manufacturers to prepare surfaces for painting or applying coatings, among other functions. Those derived from coal slag contain beryllium, a toxic metal regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to limit airborne exposure to workers.
Makers of glass abrasives say their products don't contain beryllium, a claim that producers of the competing coal slag alternatives dispute. A consulting firm retained by the coal slag abrasives industry published a report in January saying just the opposite—that glass abrasives contain beryllium and should be subject to OSHA exposure limits, just like their coal-slag competitors.
In response to the report, Democratic staff members on a House committee asked NIOSH to look into these competing claims and confirm if the coal slag industry's position is valid.
Science Policy
Questions about the study come as abrasives makers are jockeying for market position amid a tighter OSHA standard for beryllium (RIN:1218-AB76) issued by the Obama administration in early 2017 being implemented. OSHA's actions may influence how users of abrasives make purchasing decisions.
NIOSH “would be wasting resources” to attempt to corroborate the industry's position by conducting new bulk content analysis and comparing it with airborne samples, Frank Hearl, the institute's chief of staff, told Bloomberg Environment. Hearl said this type of examination was best left to abrasives producers.
In 1998, NIOSH studied airborne exposure levels generated by glass abrasives use, through a contract with the engineering consulting firm KTA-Tator Inc. in Pittsburgh. The glass abrasives tested in the study triggered exposure concentrations exceeding OSHA's action level, but some questions have been raised about its methodology.
NIOSH Budget Cuts
The coal slag abrasives industry, which manufactures abrasives from a byproduct of coal that contains naturally-occurring beryllium, has fought the 2017 beryllium rule, calling it unnecessary and impractical for abrasives users.
Glass abrasives—touted in a Jan. 12 Abrasives Blasting Manufacturers Alliance study as safer for workers—may actually expose them to levels above the new beryllium limits. The ABMA represents companies such as Abrasives Inc., Canam Minerals Inc., Ensio Resources Inc., Harsco Metals & Minerals, Mobile Abrasives Inc., MineralTech Gulf Coast Abrasives LLC, and US Minerals Inc.
Some Democrats and unions challenged the study, conducted by the consulting firm Exponent Inc., saying its conclusions are inaccurate because they are based on the bulk content of beryllium in the glass abrasives. The conclusions didn't consider airborne emissions that OSHA inspectors would check, they say.
Airborne Emissions Tests
Abrasives users should rely on airborne exposure tests in the workplace when making decisions about which type to use, Hearl said. The tests are a better option than relying on analyses like the Exponent test of the beryllium bulk content of glass abrasive feedstocks, he said.
But, Mark Mummert—an industrial hygienist for Harsco Corp. a producer of coal slag abrasives and a member of the ABMA—told Bloomberg Environment that NIOSH's own research showed such tests could be difficult for employers. One study of three air sampling methods in 2013 found they “are not effective in assessing employee exposures during abrasive blasting” because of high failure rates in the filters used.
In a statement to Bloomberg Environment, Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) said the agency's decision was appropriate. Scott is the ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee whose staff asked NIOSH look into the matter.
Limited Capacity
The research agency is facing $138 million in fiscal 2019 funding cuts proposed by the White House, a decline of about 40 percent from enacted fiscal 2017 levels.
It would be “a waste of NIOSH's limited resources to duplicate the coal slag industry-sponsored laboratory analysis,” Scott said, “because even if the study were conducted by a neutral party, it does nothing to inform real world risks to abrasive blasting workers from alleged beryllium in recycled glass.”
Scott said his office would work with NIOSH to “to identify credible workplace exposure data using various abrasive blasting materials, including recycled glass in industrial settings.”
Industry Pushes Broader Changes
Last year, the Trump administration proposed keeping the new exposure limits but eliminating record-keeping and medical monitoring requirements for the construction and maritime sectors.
Coal slag abrasive producers want OSHA to go further by scrapping the standard entirely for those sectors.
Makers of glass abrasives say companies can use their products without exposing workers to beryllium at levels requiring action under the new OSHA standard, while companies that make coal slag abrasives say the benefits of using glass abrasives are overstated.
In public comments filed on the proposed rule in 2015, the ABMA contended that it is difficult to test for airborne beryllium at such low levels and that OSHA had not shown that abrasives workers could develop health problems from beryllium.
The industry hopes OSHA will “take us out, and we will have this behind us,” Mummert said. That way “the entire abrasives blasting industry will not be subject to this rule, which is really not needed,” he added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143769&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143769&jd=129143769
-
FDA on Lead in Grape Juice: Too Late, and Way Too Little Improvement
Mar 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
On March 12, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be leading the U.S. delegation in the Netherlands proposing that the Codex Alimentarius Commission adopt a maximum lead limit of 40 parts per billion (ppb) in grape juice. The current limit, set by Codex in the 1980s, is 50 ppb. While a small step in the right direction, FDA’s proposal falls woefully short of adequately protecting children from lead.
For context, the 40 ppb proposed Codex limit would be 2.6 times greater than the 15 ppb lead action level established for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1991 and 8 times FDA’s limit of 5 ppb for bottled water. In addition, a child drinking a single 8-ounce serving of juice with a lead concentration of 40 ppb will be exposed to 160% of FDA’s maximum daily intake level of 6 micrograms of lead per day. This level, set in 1993, should be much lower because it does not reflect scientific discoveries of the past 25 years showing harm to children at lower levels.
The proposed limit is disturbing given the scientific consensus recognizing that NO safe level of lead in blood has been identified and analysis from EPA showing that food is currently the source of half of the lead exposure for the average 1 to 6 year old child. It is also troubling given that food manufacturers often rely on Codex standards and may use them to reassure the public and their customers that the food is “safe.”
Moreover, the U.S.-led working group of 18 countries, chaired by FDA, is making the 40 ppb proposal to the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) without conducting a scientific evaluation of:
The societal harm in terms of behavioral problems or lower IQs that is expected to result from these levels;
The sources of lead in juice that may be reduced; and
The lead levels that could be achieved with careful management.
The working group appeared to look no further than the recent levels of lead in the international grape juice market and selected 40 ppb because 97-98% of sampled products currently comply. The working group considered 30 ppb but decided that it was too restrictive, as only 94-96% of grape juice would be compliant. Eighty-five percent of the samples would comply with 20 ppb, the most “protective” level considered. Again, the human health effects of these decisions were not considered.
What is Codex, and why is it important?
Codex may be an obscure organization to most people, but its purpose is to develop uniform, internationally-adopted food standards, guidance and codes of practice that “aim at protecting consumers’ health and ensuring fair practices in the food trade.” In an increasingly global food market, countries and industry rely on Codex for guidance. As examples, the World Trade Organization (WTO) references Codex standards, and FDA’s regulations mandate that the agency review all Codex standards for possible adoption
Codex, part of the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO), is based in Rome; its members are national governments. Representatives of food manufacturers and consumer protection groups serve as observers. Codex’s CCCF develops proposals on contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants in food and relies on the Joint Food Agricultural Organization / World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for scientific advice. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service coordinates U.S. activity on Codex and posts notices and holds public hearings regarding our country’s position on Codex issues.
How did we get here?
In 2011, JECFA completed a review of its Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) level for lead that it set in the 1980s. Codex used this old level to develop maximum limits for lead for many food commodities, including fruit juice. JECFA concluded “that it was not possible to establish a new PTWI that would be considered health protective” and withdrew the level. JECFA further stated that where people had prolonged dietary exposures to higher lead levels, “measures should be taken to identify major contributing sources and foods and, if appropriate, to identify methods of reducing dietary exposure that are commensurate with the level of risk reduction.”
In response, Codex’s CCCF established a working group of 18 countries led by the U.S. and represented by FDA to develop proposals to revise the Codex lead standard for selected commodities. Lacking a safe level from JECFA, CCCF decided to set a level that is “As Low As Reasonably Achievable” (ALARA) and decided ALARA would be roughly what can be met by 95% of the global food in that commodity.
The CCCF appears not to have considered whether the products used in the analysis were grown and processed in a manner consistent with Codex’s 2004 Code of Practice for the Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods. This Code provides specific recommendations for good agricultural and manufacturing practices that countries and food producers and processors should follow. As a result, they have effectively replaced “achievable” in ALARA with “available.”
Using this approach, the U.S.-led working group developed proposals for maximum limits of lead for an array of food including milks, juice and canned fruits and vegetables. Since 2012, the working group and CCCF have been evaluating data and proposing standards that Codex has ultimately adopted, including reducing the maximum lead limit in apple juice from 50 to 30 ppb.
In a December 22, 2017 Federal Register notice and a February 5, 2018 alert, USDA provided an update on Codex activities that included a proposal to update the standards for lead in selected foods such as grape juice. I missed these announcements and a comment period since I was not tracking USDA.
What is next?
At its March 12th-14th meeting in the Netherlands, the CCCF will seek to develop consensus lead limits for commodities that have taken longer to evaluate and develop consensus around – including grape juice.
While FDA’s leadership in developing the proposal is disturbing given the evidence that has been presented to it about lead in food in the past year, the proposal is consistent with its previous proposals on fruit juices and canned fruits and vegetables. So unless there is a change in the process that considers the health implications, costs to society, or compliance with Codex’s Code of Practice to prevent and reduce lead contamination, the CCCF is likely to adopt a lead limit that will continue to put children’s health at risk.
Whatever standard Codex adopts, FDA is obligated to consider it, but it is not obligated to adopt it. Instead, it can adopt a more protective standard. We expect that FDA would adopt a substantially lower standard for food sold in the U.S. A limit of anything more than 10 ppb – the current limit of quantification using FDA’s official method – for fruit juices would be way too little improvement for children’s health.
Until FDA adopts an adequate standard, consumers need to recognize that when a food manufacturer says that they comply with FDA or international standards for lead, it does not mean the food is safe.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/05/fda-lead-grape-juice/#more-7560
-
Taking on ‘Microfiber’ Pollution, a Laundry Room at a Time
Mar 6, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Patrick Whittle
The fight to keep tiny pollutants from reaching the dinner plate might start in the laundry room.
Innovators are coming up with tools to keep tiny pieces of thread that are discharged with washing machine effluent from reaching marine life. Such “microfibers” are too small to be caught in conventional filters, so they eventually pass through sewage plants, wash out to waterways, and can be eaten or absorbed by marine animals, some later served up as seafood.
So far there are at least four products, with names such as Guppyfriend and Cora Ball, aimed at curbing microfibers.
The developers are taking the war on pollution to a microscopic level after the fight against microbeads — tiny plastic beads found in some beauty products that were banned nationally in 2015.
“Blaming industry or government won’t solve the problems,” said Alexander Nolte, co-founder of Guppyfriend, a polyamide washing bag designed to prevent tiny threads from escaping. “Buy less and better; wash less and better.”
The issue has become an increasing focus of environmental scientists seeking to find out just how harmful microfibers are to coastal ecosystems, oceans and marine life and whether they affect human health. One study from 2011, led by Australian ecotoxicologist Mark Browne, found that microfibers made up 85 percent of man-caused shoreline debris.
Exactly how much microfiber pollution exists in the environment is a subject of research and debate. The United Nations has identified microfiber pollution as a key outgrowth of the 300 million tons of plastic produced annually. And a 2016 study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology found that more than a gram of microfibers is released every time synthetic jackets are washed 7/8— and that as much as 40 percent of those microfibers eventually enter waterways.
While there’s no question microfibers are escaping into the environment, it’s unclear how harmful they are, said Chelsea Rochman, an ecology professor at the University of Toronto who plans a study at the end of the year.
One of the questions, she said, is whether the problem is the fibers themselves or dyes in them, and whether natural microfibers such as wool and cotton are less harmful than plastic microfibers.
The microfiber trappers take various forms.
Guppyfriend, the laundry bag, is sold by clothing company Patagonia for $29.75. Cora Ball retails at $29.99 and is a multicolored ball designed to bounce around the washing machine, trapping microfibers in appendages that resemble coral. Lint LUV-R costs $140 or more and is a filter that attaches to a laundry water discharge hose.
While the U.S. Census has found more than 85 percent of U.S. households have a washing machine, the items are new to the market and not familiar to most consumers. About 50,000 households use the Guppyfriend bag, Nolte said, and it might be the best known of the bunch.
Exactly how much these nascent products can help reduce microfiber pollution is not yet known, experts say, and it’s important to find out which products best succeed in reducing emissions of microfibers, Rochman said.
The inventor of the Cora Ball is the nonprofit environmental group Rozalia Project, headquartered in Granville, Vermont. Its co-founder says it had its product independently studied and found it can cut the amount of microfibers released through the wash by more than 25 percent. An independent review by a German research institute found that Guppyfriend caused textiles to shed 75 to 86 percent fewer fibers.
“This is a consumer solution for people to be part of by throwing it in their washing machine,” said Rachael Miller, co-founder of Rozalia Project.
The products serve to bring attention to a form of pollution unknown to most people, said Kirsten Kapp, a biology professor at Central Wyoming College, who has studied microfiber pollution on the Snake River in the Pacific Northwest.
“We are learning more and more every day about the risk that microfibers and microplastics have in our aquatic habitats and wildlife species,” Kapp said. “I think it’s something people should be aware of.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/taking-on-microfiber-pollution-a-laundry-room-at-a-time/2018/03/06/5e19c542-20fd-11e8-946c-9420060cb7bd_story.html?utm_term=.dd19fed84fb3
-
Steel Tariffs Could Kill Pipeline Projects, Plains CEO Says
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Tariffs on all imported steel would be detrimental to pipeline projects, one company executive said during an infrastructure panel March 5.
Plains All American Pipeline LP has about $1.8 billion worth of projects underway, Greg Armstrong, the company's chief executive officer, said during a panel discussion at CERAWeek by IHS Markit in Houston.
These projects use “quite a bit of steel,” he said, commenting on President Donald Trump's March 1 announcement to place 25 percent tariffs on all steel imports and 10 percent on aluminum. Industry needs flexibility to keep their projects alive.
Depending on the location of the project, companies use different qualities of steel. Some types of steel aren't sold domestically and some U.S. companies have a backlog of orders. If pipeline companies don't have flexibility, tariffs could kill projects, Armstrong said.
Armstrong suggested exclusions for things that aren't built domestically, such as a 26-inch pipeline manufactured only in three places, none of them in the U.S.
Can't Always Buy American
“If you can, buy American,” Armstrong said. “If you can't get what you need, you have to go somewhere else.“
The real problem with the steel industry is due to Chinese overproduction and re-shipment of Chinese steel, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said. The U.S. should work with its closest allies to address the overproduction of Chinese steel.
Sullivan supported the administration's goal, but stressed that “the way we do that really matters.” The best way to deal with that is by having close alignment with like-minded U.S. allies, Sullivan told reporters after the panel discussion.“Because this isn't just about steel today,” Sullivan said. “This is about the long term economic, geo-strategic challenges that the rise of China presents. What I worry about this approach right now is that it's having the opposite impact.”
U.S. allies face the same potential problems as the U.S. with the rise of China, Sullivan said.
Sullivan said he met with ministers from an unnamed Asian ally in the last 10 days, who admitted that the country does have trans-shipment issues, which the country plans to address. Trans-shipment refers to imports, in this case from China, that are modified and then exported.
“The sooner they publicly announce how they will address the problem, the better,” Sullivan said.
Alaska Drilling Lease Sale
Sullivan is pushing for the first lease sale in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2019 and hopes that attendees at the energy conference will participate in the lease sale, he said during the panel discussion.
Interior Department officials are visiting the refuge this week to look at ways to implement the provisions of the tax bill that allow two lease sales in the region, Sullivan said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143754&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143754&jd=129143754
-
Zinke Defers Another Lease Sale
Mar 5, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Pamela King
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today deferred another oil and gas lease sale — this time in his home state of Montana.
"After talking with residents and local, state and federal officials, we have decided to defer the oil and gas sale around Livingston #Montana @BLM_MTDKs," the secretary tweeted this afternoon.
Zinke last week announced his department would hold off on a New Mexico lease sale to allow more time for analysis of possible impacts to cultural artifacts near Chaco Canyon (Greenwire, March 2).
Interior's Bureau of Land Management had proposed to offer 109 parcels across more than 63,000 acres in Montana during a lease sale early next week.
Twenty-six parcels spanning 17,300 acres were deferred "in order to evaluate potential environmental impacts," according to a BLM press release. Livingston is about 60 miles north of Yellowstone National Park.
"Multiple use is about balance. I've always said there are places where it is appropriate to develop and where it's not," Zinke said in a statement included in the release. "This area certainly deserves more study, and appropriately we have decided to defer [these parcels]."
The delays in New Mexico and Montana allow Interior to focus on opportunities in the recreation economy in regions that are thought to offer marginal oil and gas potential, said Ashley Korenblat, CEO of Western Spirit Cycling in Utah.
"We appreciate the delay of the Livingston and Chaco Canyon oil and gas lease sales by Secretary Zinke," Korenblat said in a statement. "Many places around the west have similar multi-use challenges. The Department of Interior can optimize for both energy production and local concerns, whether they be recreation economy, cultural, or both."
Federal officials can always lease the parcels for energy extraction later, she said.
"We're not saying you can never, ever get the oil and gas," Korenblat said.
Green groups have protested the lease sales, citing cultural, community and climate concerns.
"This move by Secretary Zinke and his recent deferment of lease sales in Chaco Canyon are the result of widespread protests," said Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. "Oil and gas development has no place on our public lands if we want to meet our climate goals."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/05/stories/1060075455
-
Oil, Gas Industry Still Seeks Relaxed Carbon Capture Reporting
Mar 6, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
The oil and gas industry is breathing new life into efforts to get Congress to relax emissions reporting rules for oil and gas operations that store carbon dioxide underground.
Lawmakers were unsuccessful last month in easing the requirements in the tax bill, but the industry isn't throwing in the towel just yet, congressional aides and others say.
“Companies are still asking us to fix the provision,” Ryan Bernstein, an aide to Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), told Bloomberg Environment.
Hoeven had pushed for the industry-friendly change in reporting requirements in the tax law passed last month on behalf of companies that pump carbon dioxide underground, a process called enhanced oil recovery, which forces out oil and gas deposits.
Attempt Failed
Language in the law increased a tax credit for two types of carbon capture and storage efforts—either pumping the greenhouse gas underground into permanent storage or using it to recover oil and gas deposits—but, in the end, left emissions reporting requirements untouched, said Kurt Waltzer, who directs the Clean Air Task Force environmental group.
“Their attempt on emissions reporting failed, so it falls to current law,” he said, referring to Environmental Protection Agency reporting provisions and other requirements for oil and gas operators.
Oil and gas operators are required to report to the EPA on the carbon dioxide they inject underground for enhanced oil and gas recovery. The EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule requires facility-level reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.
Bernstein said the industry still needs regulatory tweaks to ensure that more oil and gas operations can actually take advantage of the tax credit. Without those changes, it “will only go to a very limited number of companies the way the law and regulations are structured.”
The industry isn't so much concerned with easing regulatory burdens, Bernstein said, as it is with providing oil and gas operations the “regulatory certainty” they need to actually take advantage of the credit.
A new coalition, launched in February with backing from nearly 50 groups that support incentives for carbon capture, including the ClearPath Foundation and the Bipartisan Policy Center, will “undertake a more expansive agenda” aimed at curbing reporting requirements now that the battle to boost 45Q incentives—named for their tax code provision—has been won, the group announced Feb. 23.
But Brad Crabtree, of the Great Plains Institute, a nonprofit energy organization aiding the Carbon Capture Coalition, said the newly formed group is staying clear of further debates over changing emissions reporting requirements.
“Given that this is a divisive issue, the coalition is not engaging on it,” he said.
Industry Seeks Regulatory Certainty
For enhanced oil-recovery operations, the tax credits for capturing and storing carbon dioxide were increased from $10 per metric ton to $35 per metric ton under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, signed into law Feb. 9, which sets broad funding targets for domestic and defense spending through fiscal year 2019.
The carbon capture provisions, which also raised the credit for carbon storage in geological formations from $20 per ton to $50 per ton, were taken from a bill introduced by Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) in July 2017, known as the Furthering Carbon Capture, Utilization, Technology, Underground Storage, and Reduced Emissions or FUTURE Act (S. 1535).
Companies and organizations that lobbied senators to back increased carbon capture credits as set out in the Future Act include ClearPath Foundation, Cloud Peak Energy, Denbury Resources, the Coal Utilization Research Council, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and NRG Energy, which helped develop the $1 billion Petra Nova carbon capture project southwest of Houston.
Maintaining Requirements Backed
To be eligible for tax credits, operators must provide details on each metric ton of emissions they pump underground, preventing those emissions from contributing to climate change.
Raising the 45Q credit had strong backing in the FUTURE Act from an unlikely congressional alliance on Capitol Hill—Republicans who favor more support for oil and gas operators, such as Sens. John Barrasso (Wyo.) and Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), and Democrats who view carbon capture as a tool to curb emissions and fight global warming, such as Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Brian Schatz (Hawaii).
Democrats and some environmental groups objected to the last-minute easing of reporting requirements, pointing out that the carbon capture provisions in the FUTURE Act had been painstakingly crafted and had bipartisan support from more than two-dozen senators.
Operations that inject carbon dioxide underground are required to report annual greenhouse gas data to the EPA through its Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Those sequestering the emissions in geological formations are required to implement an EPA-approved site-specific monitoring, reporting, and verification plan and report the amount of carbon dioxide they have sequestered.
The effort to ease reporting was included in a package to extend several expired tax credits for renewable energy and biodiesel that was introduced in December by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).
Those tax incentives—including increased credits for carbon capture and storage efforts—also were extended in the two-year budget agreement signed last month.
Whitehouse, the Rhode Island senator who resisted any easing of regulatory burdens for oil and gas operators, told Bloomberg Environment March 1 that Democrats hope to build on that bipartisan cooperation for other future efforts that could expand incentives for other low-carbon energy sources, including nuclear power.
“There should be compensation related to the carbon-free nature of power,” Whitehouse said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129143764&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129143764&jd=129143764
-
Permian-Led U.S. Oil to Satisfy 80% of Global Demand for Next Five Years, Says IEA
Mar 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Carolyn Davis
Oil production growth led by the United States, Brazil, Canada and Norway will keep the world well oiled through 2020, but investments are needed to boost output in the longer term, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said Monday.
Gains from the United States alone are predicted to cover 80% of global demand growth in the next three years, with Canada, Brazil and Norway covering the remaining demand, according to “Oil 2018.”
The global energy watchdog’s latest annual report was unveiled in Houston by IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol on the opening day of CERAWeek by IHS Markit.
“The United States is set to put its stamp on global oil markets for the next five years,” said Birol. “But as we’ve highlighted repeatedly, the weak global investment picture remains a source of concern. More investments will be needed to make up for declining oilfields.
“The world needs to replace 3 million b/d of declines each year, the equivalent of the North Sea, while also meeting robust demand growth.”
Global oil production capacity is forecast to grow by 6.4 million b/d and reach 107 million b/d by 2023.
“Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States leads the picture, with total liquids production reaching nearly 17 million b/d in 2023, up from 13.2 million b/d in 2017,” according to IEA. “Growth is led by the Permian Basin, where output is expected to double by 2023.”
In its flagship publication, World Energy Outlook-2017 issued last fall, IEA said resilient shale and tight resources production had cemented the United States as the biggest producer in the world.
The path to carry U.S. crude to world markets “looks clear,” driven by expansions in Texas, said researchers in the new report. Because of investments in pipelines and other infrastructure to ease the current bottlenecks, domestic crude export capacity is forecast to hit nearly 5 million b/d by 2020.
The South Texas port area anchored by Corpus Christi, home to a gaggle of proposed oil, petrochemical and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, “solidifies its position as the primary North American crude-oil outlet” over the five-year forecast, IEA said.
The Port of Corpus Christi’s strategic goals include providing surface infrastructure and services in support of maritime and industrial development. The port, a gateway to Mexico and other Latin American ports, is the fourth largest in the United States in total tonnage.
A long list of expansion projects has been proposed for the Corpus Christi region, including the newly announced Cactus II Pipeline sponsored by Plains All American Pipeline LP, which would connect Permian oil to South Texas.
Last year, ExxonMobil Corp. and Saudi partner Saudi Basic Industries Corp. agreed to develop a world-class ethane steam cracker near Corpus, which if given final approval would be able to produce 1.8 million metric tons/year of ethylene. Cheniere Energy Inc. is also advancing plans to export LNG from a new terminal near Corpus, with the first train ready in 2019.
For the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), nearly all of its growth in the next half-decade is seen coming from Middle East cartel members. OPEC member Venezuela has seen its oil production fall by more than half in the past 20 years, and declines are expected to accelerate.
“Sharply falling production in Venezuela will offset gains in Iraq, resulting in OPEC crude oil capacity growth of just 750,000 b/d by 2023,” IEA said. “Unless there is a change to the fundamentals, the effective global spare capacity cushion will fall to only 2.2% of demand by 2023, the lowest number since 2007.”
Declining oil and gas costs have helped producers, but researchers said investments outside the United States are necessary to spur supplies after 2020.
“The oil industry has yet to recover from an unprecedented two-year drop in investment in 2015-2016, and the IEA sees little-to-no increase in upstream spending outside of the United States in 2017 and 2018.”
Economic growth in Asia and a resurgent U.S. petrochemicals industry should lead to a 6.9 million b/d increase in oil demand by 2023 to 104.7 million b/d, according to the IEA.
China is forecast to remain the main engine of global demand growth. However, the country’s more stringent policies to curb air pollution may slow growth.
Meanwhile, the increasing penetration of electric buses and LNG-fueled trucks may have a bigger impact on curbing consumption of transport fuels than the electrification of passenger vehicles, IEA said.
In the United States, fuel-economy standards for passenger cars are seen curbing gasoline demand, but growth should come from the petrochemical sector, now thriving because of low-cost ethane.
“New global petrochemicals capacity will account for 25% of oil-demand growth by 2023,” according to IEA’s U.S. forecast.
Meanwhile, a new marine fuel rule with lower sulfur content that is to come into force in 2020 is creating uncertainty in the market.
IEA’s annual forecast also examines crude quality issues arising from the rapid increase in U.S. production, changing trade flows and a growing global refining capacity surplus.
“Global oil trade routes are moving East, as China and India replace the United States as top oil importers. With seaborne oil traveling longer distances, energy security, one of the IEA’s core missions, will remain as critical as ever.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113579-permian-led-us-oil-to-satisfy-80-of-global-demand-for-next-five-years-says-iea
-
Alaska Senator: Arctic Refuge Drilling Sale Could Start Next Year
Mar 6, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Trump administration officials may be able to hold the first auction for oil and natural gas drilling rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) next year, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) said Monday.
Speaking at CERAWeek, a major oil industry conference in Houston, Sullivan said he thinks the Interior Department could beat the 2021 deadline for a lease sale that was set out in last year’s GOP tax bill, though the agency has not committed to a timeline.
“It’s my hope, and this is a very aggressive timeline, that we would have the first lease sale ... to be sometime in 2019,” Sullivan told the audience.
Sullivan said Interior officials are currently in Alaska laying the groundwork for eventual drilling in the Coastal Plain area of ANWR.
He encouraged oil industry officials there to bid in the lease sales.
The tax overhaul last year opened ANWR for drilling, settling a 40-year debate over whether to drill in the refuge. It had been a priority of Alaska leaders and some Republicans for decades.
Interior must, under the tax law, hold a lease sale by 2021 and another by 2024, with at least 400,000 acres available each time.
Environmentalists have fought continuously against ANWR drilling proposals, and they plan to object at every step of the process, including over setting up sales and obtaining permits.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/376810-alaska-senator-arctic-refuge-drilling-sale-could-start-next-year
-
The End of the Oil Age May Be Closer but More Uncertain: Fuel for Thought
Mar 6, 2018 | Platts
By Robert Perkins
Exactly when the world’s thirst for oil starts to ebb as a shift to cleaner, renewable energy gathers pace is increasingly occupying forecasters on both sides of the debate.
The booming growth of renewable energy and high hopes for electric cars are seen equally as a challenge or a panacea by the producers of fossil fuels and environmental groups alike.
Last month saw the dial appear to shift in favor of the latter, however, after BP became the first Western supermajor to pinpoint an inflection point in the world’s need for oil.
Tamed by a steady surge of wind and solar power, electric cars, more frugal vehicles and curbs on some plastics, Europe’s number two producer now sees oil demand peaking in the “late 2030”. A year ago it expected oil demand to rise beyond 2040.
The actual timing of the peak is less important than the direction of travel.
Updating its influential long-term Energy Outlook, BP’s less rosy outlook for oil demand speaks volumes to the growing concerns in many quarters that the world may be on a lot faster, and potentially more traumatic, path to energy transition than previously expected.
Until now, everyone in the oil industry— with the exception of Norway’s Statoil— expected oil demand to keep growing over the next two decades, albeit at a slowing pace.
Even the International Energy Agency still believes oil demand will continue to rise through 2040.
BP’s latest report shows how far oil companies have come in their public narrative as they face a world beyond oil.
Used as a benchmark for internal planning beyond just BP, the benchmark report also informs industry executives keen to grasp both the challenges and opportunities created by the rise of alternative fuels and renewable energy.
ExxonMobil, the industry’s biggest protagonist, has doggedly stuck to a more optimistic future for oil. ExxonMobil believes that demand for oil will likely continue to grow by 19% to 117 million b/d to 2040. BP sees it topping out at 110,000 b/d, up from about 97,000 b/d currently.
ON THE DEFENSE THE DEFENSE
A marked proliferation of future energy scenarios in BP’s outlook is also telling.
Eager to avoid even a reference to “base case”, or most likely scenario, BP offers no less than six different potential future trajectories for global energy, twice the number in its previous outlook.
In addition to considering a swifter shift to renewable energies and electric vehicles, BP even provides a ‘what-if’ scenario for a world where conventional, and even hybrid cars, are banned from 2040. Importantly, all but one of the scenarios—which assumes a slower rise of natural gas—are even more pessimistic on the future of oil demand.
As disruptive technologies such as electric cars and self-driving vehicles loom large, the future energy landscape becomes harder to predict. Key players, it seems, are hedging their bets much more than in the past.
Like the IEA, however, BP is keen to dispel the popular narrative that EVs will spell the collapse of world oil demand and send future oil prices plummeting. While more now optimistic on EV penetration rates, BP sees EV’s impact on demand in 2040 (some 4.5 million b/d) by far
outstripped by growth in demand for travel which is expected to double.For its part, the IEA believes the call on peak oil is premature and the furore over the EV boom is creating a misinformed debate.
“Oil demand growth today is not driven by cars, it’s driven by trucks, planes, ships and the petrochemical industry,” the IEA’s executive
director Fatih Birol said in January. “Even if there was a big electrification of cars in the years to come, oil demand will still grow.”Birol also points to the world’s poor track record since the 1980s on weaning itself off fossil fuels to decarbonize energy supplies.
Over the last 30 years, he said, the share of fossil fuels has not fallen from 81%.AN UNPREDICTABLE DEMISE
What now seems clear is that world’s track record on fossil fuels is about to change radically. Driven mainly by policy support in China and India, BP predicts renewable energy will grow five-fold over the next two decades, accounting for more than 40% of incremental energy supply. Combined with nuclear and hydro, non-fossil fuels combined are set to provide a quarter of the world’s energy in 2040.
The future story line for oil seems clear and one tied to that of world’s original fossil fuel coal; a slow but inexorable loss of share in the global energy mix from around a third today to a quarter in 2040 when renewables and gas take precedence.
With uncertainties over the impact of upstart technologies and global policy support for alternatives fuels and cleaner air, unpredictability over when peak oil arrives seem inevitable. But BP’s latest report shows just how fast the energy industry is having to recalibrate its expectations to fit a rapidly changing world.
Asked if BP has been surprised by the surging footprint of wind and solar power in recent years, the response of its chief economist Spencer Dale response was unequivocal.
“Massively,” he replied “…If you can find anybody who hasn’t been surprised, could you let me know?…Have we learned our lesson? I think so.”
http://blogs.platts.com/2018/03/05/oil-age-end-closer-uncertain/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Gulf Coast Needs $14 Billion Storm Barrier, Chemical Makers Say
Mar 6, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Jack Kaskey
Chemical companies are pressing federal officials to spend billions of dollars on a coastal flood control system near Houston to protect petrochemical plants, oil refineries and shipping infrastructure from the next hurricane.
The coastal spine, as the project is called, is among the most important infrastructure investments needed to mitigate damage from major storms, Bob Patel, chief executive officer of LyondellBasell Industries NV, said Monday at an industry conference to discuss lessons learned from Hurricane Harvey.
The proposed system of seawalls, levies and flood gates in the Galveston, Texas, area would cost an estimated $14 billion, and would be designed to reduce flood damage similar to that seen by Hurricane Ike’s storm surge in 2008.
The flood barrier should extend from Freeport, Texas, where DowDuPont has its largest manufacturing site, to Beaumont on the upper Texas coast, where Exxon Mobil Corp. has chemical plants and refineries, said state Senator Larry Taylor, a Republican from the Houston area.National Security Risk
Protecting the oil and chemical industries is critical to the regional and national economies, said Cal Dooley, president of the American Chemistry Council, sponsor of the event. Safeguarding motor-fuel production and the Port of Houston is also a matter of national security, he said.
“You get that larger storm surge coming up there and we might not have the port shut down for a week -- it could be shut down for months,” Taylor said.
Harvey also showed the need to invest in stronger railroad infrastructure and ship channel dredging, said LyondellBasell’s Patel.
Some of the region’s infrastructure is 70 years old and needs upgrading, particularly since companies are investing tens of billions of dollars building new chemical plants in the area, said Jim Fitterling, chief operating officer of DowDuPont Co. The storm threat won’t deter the company’s Dow unit from a plan to spend another $6 billion along the Gulf Coast after spending a comparable amount in the region in recent years, he said.
“Our view is, the Gulf Coast is the chemical industry,” Fitterling said.‘Ball Is Rolling’
Because Harvey was more of a rain than a storm-surge event, it revealed problems such as low lying pumps at factories that now are being raised, Patel said.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will begin studying a coastal barrier using the most recently approved tranche of hurricane disaster funding approved by Congress, Senator Ted Cruz said.
“The ball is rolling forward,” Cruz told the gathering in Pasadena, Texas.
Local officials are seeking an $8 billion grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the project, said Hector L. Rivero, president of the Texas Chemical Council. As much as $35 million in local funds would be needed to fund annual maintenance of the barrier, he said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-05/gulf-coast-needs-14-billion-storm-barrier-chemical-makers-say
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chem Execs Review Lessons Learned from Harvey
Mar 5, 2018 | ICIS
By Al Greenwood
Executives at the major chemical companies with plants along the US Gulf Coast shared the lessons learned during Hurricane Harvey, explaining how they prepared for the storm and what they will do for the next one.
The panellists made their comments on Monday during a forum held by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Texas Chemical Council.
Hurricane Harvey was different from previous storms because much of the damage was because of water and flooding. In past hurricanes, wind caused much of the damage and disruption.
Harvey also interrupted chemical operations for a much larger part of the Gulf Coast, and those disruptions persisted longer than previous storms.
Once hurricane preparations started, the top priority for Covestro was the safety of its employees, said Jerry MacCleary, CEO of Covestro LLC, the company's North American business. Without them, Covestro cannot shut down, restart or operate its plants.
The next priorities were neighbours, first-responders, regulators, customers and shareholders, in that order, MacCleary said.
The key to keeping so many different groups informed about Covestro was having a structured system already in place, he said. Covestro had a liaison officer who acted as a gatekeeper to ensure that what the company was telling the public was done clearly and consistently. Social media proved to be effective and efficient.
Dow Chemical started daily communication between corporate and plant leadership five days before the hurricane made landfall, said Jim Fitterling, chief operating officer.
During hurricane calls, LyondellBasell CEO Bob Patel said one of his biggest challenges was resisting the urge to get involved. It was important to let the discussions proceed naturally and allow the company's leadership to lead.
"You can imagine as the CEO, you want to weigh in on every decision," Patel said. "But on the other hand, that's why you have leaders. You have to let the experts lead and do what's right."
Patel still listened in on every call, he said. This allowed him to be informed on how the company was responding to Harvey. He then relayed that information to the board.
Since Patel listened in on the call, his management did not have to give him separate briefings, he said. Instead, they could focus on Harvey.
Ken Reid, senior vice president of engineering and maintenance for BASF, said the company relied on its other plants in North America to help its Gulf Coast plants deal with the storm.
Teams of BASF employees at other sites bought hardware supplies, creating a warehouse that its storm-affected workers could use to get materials and repair their homes.
For BASF and the other companies, it was critical to provide their employees with as much help as possible so they would not have to worry about repairing flood-damaged homes or replacing their automobiles.
Dow's corporate office oversaw the provisioning of shelter, food and water so that local management could focus on issues specific to their sites, Fitterling said.
The duration of Harvey tested the limits across the board, from food needed for workers and contractors to diesel supplies, Fitterling said. Not only did the storm last longer than previous hurricanes, the flooding it caused further delayed recovery efforts.
One of the difficult decisions companies have to make during such storms was whether to shut down plants or to keep them running.
Patel compared shutting and restarting a petrochemical plant to landing and taking-off an airplane. Both are most vulnerable to accidents during those two processes.
As a result, chemical companies have to be especially deliberate before deciding to shut down a plant, Patel said.
In such cases, Patel stressed again that he allowed the leadership of the plants to decide whether the company should shut down a particular plant.
They have the best in-depth knowledge of the plants and the outside circumstances affecting their operations, he said.
If companies do decide to shut down a plant, they do it as safely as possible and then they move on, Patel said. "You don't make second decisions."
Because of the potential dangers of shutting down and restarting plants, it is sometimes safer to keep operations running through a storm, Fitterling said. Dow did this for some of its plants. For this to work, having enough rail cars was critical to keeping these operations running.
For the company's Seadrift operations, there was never a question about keeping it running, he said. "Shutting it down was the safe thing to do."
In addition to safety, companies also have to consider the degree of integration among plants before making a decision to shut down operations, he said. If enough plants are shut down, that could also shut down the gas-supply system.
Different companies often have operations at the same site, so their plans also have to be considered before shutting down, Fitterling said.
"You have to look at a lot of things, not just your own plants," Fitterling said.
Patel said, "It is not always obvious that shutting down is the safest thing to do."
Companies began applying the lessons learned from Harvey almost immediately. Shortly after Harvey, Hurricane Irma hit Puerto Rico and Florida.
BASF had operations there, so Harvey had already sharpened the company's readiness to deal with the storm, Reid said.
Further out, Patel stressed the need for more further improvements to the region's infrastructure, be it dredging the Houston Ship Channel or building the coastal spine, which would protect the region from storm surges from future hurricanes.
Rail infrastructure also needs to be bolstered, Patel said.
Fitterling said a lot of disruptions were caused by flooding to pump systems and generators, so those will be targeted to prepare for the next storm.
Drones could become more useful for future storms, Fitterling said. Dow used one to find the best route to access its Seabrook site, where many roads leading to the complex were flooded. "The drone helped us figure out how we could get to the plant."
Harvey stressed how important smaller ancillary services are for the operations of plants, Patel said. LyondellBasell now has a better inventory of these small but critical services, which should allow the company to restart operations even sooner after a storm.
Plant disruptions along the Gulf Coast can have wide-ranging effects because it is the petrochemical hub off the US, and many companies have at least one major complex in the region.
Dow Chemical has six sites in Texas and two in Louisiana, Fitterling said. In all, a third of its global footprint is in those two states.
Moreover, about 30% of the output from those Dow's sites is exported, Fitterling said.
As a result, disruptions in Texas and Louisiana can affect the world.
For Covestro, its operations in Baytown, Texas, is the company's largest manufacturing site in North America and makes up one of the company's three global sites.
For BASF, Texas is home to 10 of its sites.
Despite the Gulf Coast's vulnerability to hurricanes, this is more than offset by the region's access to low-cost feedstock, a talented and trained workforce and proximity to rail, roads and the largest ports in the US, allowing companies to export product around the world, the executives said.
"At LyondellBasell, we invest with confidence in the Gulf Coast," Patel said.
Fitterling added that proximity to other chemical companies is another strength, giving plants the ability to shift feedstock back and forth.
MacCleary said another strength for the region is the collaborative nature between the industry, the regulators, the government and the community.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/03/05/10199549/us-chem-execs-review-lessons-learned-from-harvey/
-
EPA Defers to States on Denying Environmentalists' Air Permit Objections
Mar 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is increasingly deferring to states on denying environmentalists' petitions asking the agency to overturn state-issued Clean Air Act operating permits for industrial facilities, a policy in line with Administrator Scott Pruitt's push for “cooperative federalism” but one that will likely make it harder for critics to successfully challenge permits.
Environmentalists have used petitions for EPA to object to Title V operating permits -- which are “umbrella” permits containing all emissions control mandates for a facility -- as an enforcement method that carries lower costs than litigation, or as a basis to file lawsuits over EPA's denials of such petitions. Environmentalists may have to turn more to litigation given EPA's apparent shift to giving states more deference on permits that they issue.
Under Pruitt, the agency in recent months issued landmark denials of petitions from environmentalists and also a steel producer for the agency to object to the Title V operating permits of the PacifiCorp Hunter power plant in Utah and the Big River Steel plant in Arkansas. Those denials established a Trump administration principle that EPA will not consider objections to underlying permits that are included in Title V permits, such as a prevention of significant deterioration permit that is part of the broader operating permit.
Such requirements can include new source review or related prevention of significant deterioration air permits, which environmentalists have in the past targeted, and EPA has considered, in Title V permit challenges. But the Trump EPA in the Hunter decision said it will not examine the adequacy of underlying permits.
Since the Hunter and Big River Steel decisions, most new petitions for EPA to object to state permits have focused largely on the adequacy of monitoring provisions to ensure Title V permits are respected, a narrower basis for objection. But recent EPA decisions show the agency is still rejecting permit objection petitions.
In a decision published in the Feb. 28 Federal Register, the agency denies a Nov. 20 petition by Sierra Club, in which the group asked EPA to object to the state Title V permit of the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) Gallatin Fossil Plant power plant in Sumner County, TN. Pruitt signed the decision on Jan. 30, and its publication in the Registerstarts a 60-day window for environmentalists to file a legal challenge to it.
Sierra Club in its petition seeking EPA's objection says the permit “lacks appropriate testing and monitoring conditions and terms necessary to assure compliance with the applicable requirements limiting visible emissions and particulate matter” from the plant's coal-fired units, among other failings.
But EPA in its response rejects Sierra Club's claims that the testing and monitoring terms of the permit are inadequate. The agency finds that changes introduced between proposal of the Gallatin plant's most recent permit and its finalization render some of Sierra Club's claims moot. EPA also says Sierra Club has failed to demonstrate why monitoring techniques it says are required are “applicable requirements” of the permit.
In line with the Hunter and Big River Steel decisions, EPA further rejects challenges to permit terms such as sulfur dioxide emissions limits that are included as “applicable requirements” in Title V permits.
Petition Denial
In another recent action, EPA denied a petition by environmentalists to object to the air permit of a Maryland electric utility by citing an Obama-era precedent that defers to states on decisions over enforcement provisions of air permits, as environmentalists focus on narrow, enforcement-based grounds for permit objections.
In its Jan. 17 response, EPA denies environmentalists' Feb. 3, 2017, petition to object to the Title V operating permit issued by Maryland regulators to power company Raven Power for two power plants at its Fort Smallwood Complex, MD. The site is home to the Brandon Shores and Wagner plants, firing coal, oil and natural gas. EPA published the decision in the Feb. 6 Register, and it is unclear whether the groups that filed the petition plan to sue over it.
Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, and Physicians for Social Responsibility, Chesapeake, Inc., in their petition claimed that the permit lacks required monitoring provisions, needed to ensure the plants are complying with emissions limits.
EPA's response does not dispute the ability of petitioners to challenge monitoring requirements. But Pruitt nevertheless denies environmentalists' petition, citing the Obama EPA's November 2016 decision denying a petition to object to the Title V permit of TVA's Bull Run power plant in Clinton, TN.
Environmentalists in their petition argued that continuous emissions monitoring is necessary to ensure that regulatory limits on opacity, a measure of air pollution, are not breached.
However, EPA counters that the specific circumstances of the Raven Power plants make continuous monitoring impractical, and that the state's requirement of weekly observations instead is justified.
In general, EPA advocates deferring to states' judgment on such issues, so long as they carefully document their rationale. The Bull Run decision “makes clear that whether the monitoring requirements in a permit for a particular source are adequate to assure compliance is context-specific and depend on a multi-factor assessment concerning the source’s emissions and controls as well as its permit. The permitting authority is required to explain how the monitoring requirements assure compliance, and the rationale for the monitoring requirements selected by a permitting authority must be clear and documented in the permit record,” EPA says.
The permit decisions appear to be in line with Pruitt's push for cooperative federalism, under which he wants to bolster the role of states in environmental protection -- such as enforcing the Clean Air Act, or issuing federal air permits under delegated authority. While the decisions could make it harder for environmentalists to win EPA approval of permit objections, it might also pose a high bar for companies objecting to permits.
Pending Objections
EPA's general principle of deference to states may also inform its eventual response to other petitions for permit objections filed by environmentalists recently.
In a Nov. 28 petition, Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project (EIP) ask for an objection to the Title V permit issued by Pennsylvania to the Wheelabrator Frackville Energy, Inc. power generating facility, Schuylkill County, PA. The groups again say that permit “lacks appropriate testing and monitoring conditions and terms necessary to assure compliance” with the permit's emissions limits.
And in another Nov. 28 petition, Sierra Club asks EPA to object to the Title V permit of the IGP Methanol, LLC, Gulf Coast production facility in Louisiana. Again, the group focuses on monitoring issues. “The proposed Title V Permit fails to assure that the proposed [emissions] limits are met on a continual basis at all levels of operation. Indeed, the proposed Title V Permit fails to require adequate monitoring -- or any monitoring at all -- for the vast majority of the emission units and pollutants,” Sierra Club says.
A fourth petition filed Jan. 16 by Sierra Club and EIP challenges the Title V permit issued by Texas to the Sandy Creek Energy Station, in McLennan County, TX. The petition alleges monitoring, reporting and record-keeping requirements are inadequate to enforce the permit, but also faults other aspects of the permit relating to permits by rule, arguing that certain required emission limits are absent from the Title V permit, among other failings.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defers-states-denying-environmentalists-air-permit-objections
-
EPA Haze Decisions Face Industry Challenges
Mar 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA's recent decisions on haze emissions plans for several states are facing new legal challenges, with an electric utility challenging the agency's approval of Louisiana's haze plan and a steel maker fighting EPA's denial of petitions to reconsider an Obama-era haze plan imposed on facilities in Michigan and Minnesota.
The suits are the latest in a series of challenges to various aspects of EPA's haze program, which aims to reduce air pollution from industrial sources in order to improve visibility in parks and wilderness areas.
Power company Entergy filed suit Feb. 21 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to challenge EPA's Dec. 21 rule approving a state implementation plan (SIP) for reducing regional haze in Louisiana. The case has been sealed by the court, and Entergy states no arguments against the plan in its initial filing.
However, Entergy in comments on EPA's earlier proposed version of the approval said the agency's air quality modeling supporting its decisions is very inaccurate -- yet agreed with EPA's emissions limits established under best available retrofit technology (BART), a level of emissions control that the haze program requires for some large industrial pollution sources.
In its June 19 comments, Entergy said it “agrees with EPA that Louisiana’s participation in the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) satisfies [BART] obligations for emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from Louisiana’s electric generating units.” CSAPR establishes a NOx and sulfur dioxide emissions trading program for power plants to reduce interstate air pollution.
“Entergy believes that EPA’s analysis supporting other elements of the Proposed Rule are fundamentally flawed,” and EPA's computer modeling that supports the rulemaking contains “significant defects, making the modeling far less reliable” than modeling Entergy submitted to EPA, the comments said. “The more reliable results from Entergy’s modeling clearly indicate that Entergy’s BART-eligible facilities in Louisiana should not be determined to be subject to BART. Nevertheless, Entergy agrees with the proposed BART limits for these units.”
Meanwhile, United States Steel Corp. filed a new suit against an EPA haze rule limiting emissions from taconite production facilities in Michigan and Minnesota, the third such suit the company has filed in a long-running dispute over EPA's regulation of the sector, which U.S. Steel regards as excessively stringent.
The Dec. 4 EPA rule at issue is the agency's denials of petitions for reconsideration and for stay of rules addressing regional haze requirements for the taconite industry. Taconite is an iron ore-bearing rock used in steel production.
The company filed suit Feb. 1 in the 8th Circuit over the Trump administration's denial of petitions for reconsideration of a revision to an Obama-era FIP and SIP disapproval.
But the case is now in abeyance at the request of the litigants while EPA works toward a settlement of the various cases now outstanding on the issue.
One case is Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. v. EPA, in the 8th Circuit, in which EPA is due to provide a status update April 2. In another case, U.S. Steel sued EPA in the same court over a prior revision to the EPA FIP governing taconite in the two states, in United States Steel Corporation v. Scott Pruitt, Administrator, et al.
According to U.S. Steel's new lawsuit, on “November 30, 2017, the parties notified this Court that the parties entered mediation regarding all outstanding issues between the parties regarding U.S. EPA’s regional haze regulations as they apply to U.S. Steel’s facilities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-haze-decisions-face-industry-challenges
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested