ACC AM 3/14/18

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs Threaten Chemical and Plastics Sectors

   Mar 14, 2018 | Chemistry World

   By Rebecca Trager
   
   
   The chemical and plastics industries are pushing back hard against global tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium that will take effect in the US on 23 March.
2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - March 2018

   Mar 13, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   The chemical industry is riding an upturn in the world economy and continued strength across major end-use markets such as construction, automotive and electronics.
3. (ACC Mentioned) Fighting Pollution by Saying 'No' to Plastic Straws

   Mar 14, 2018 | NBC News

   By Herb Weisbaum
   
   
   A little bite of waste multiplied by a whole lot of people, really adds up. The average American uses 584 straws a year, according to the National Parks Service. Nationwide, that’s 500 million drinking straws thrown away each year — enough straws to fill about 46,400 school buses.
4. Pruitt Issues Guidance on New Source Permitting

   Mar 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

   By Sean Reilly
   
   
   U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt took a fresh step today toward relaxing New Source Review permitting requirements by condensing the forecasting process for emission increases expected from a plant expansion or other significant modifications to a major industrial pollution source.
5. Pruitt's 'Streamlining' Guidance Could Help Facilities Avoid NSR Permitting

   Mar 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Stuart Parker
   
   
   EPA Administrator Scott has issued his second major guidance on Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permits that aims to “streamline” the process companies must go through to determine whether facilities are subject to NSR,
6. EPA Clears the Air for Polluters on U.S. Emissions Rules

   Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Eric Roston
   
   
   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a new directive that clarifies a powerful but technical facet of the Clean Air Act, completing a trifecta of high-profile changes to the way EPA oversees conventional air pollution.
7. Pruitt Eases Air Permitting Requirements

   Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

   By Alex Guillen
   
   
   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said today that his agency is changing its interpretation of a key permitting program to make it easier for companies to avoid a complicated permitting process.

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

Chemical Management News

8. Chemical Secrets Access Requirements Outlined in EPA Guidance

   Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto
   
   
   First responders and other government officials seeking companies’ confidential chemical information must prove they need that material and can keep it secret, under draft guidance the EPA released March 13.
9. EPA Is Undermining the Science That Helps Protect Us from Pollutants

   Mar 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Jennifer McPartland
   
   
   A critical government program that assesses the toxicity of chemicals to human health is now, itself, at risk.
10. A Path to Leadership: Food Packaging Product Stewardship Considerations Released

    Mar 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Tom Neltner
    
    
    Last week, we spent two days at a Chemical Watch food packaging conference with manufacturers and suppliers trying to better understand the process for bringing innovative products to market.
11. Asbestos in Cosmetics Allegations Add to Retailer Claire's Woes

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto
    
    
    The preteens that typically hunt bargain bling at Claire's Stores may come home with something they didn't intend to buy: asbestos, says a national activist coalition.
12. Fluorochemical Risks Attract Further UN Scrutiny

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto
    
    
    A frequently detected chemical released from fire-fighting foams and nonstick carpet treatments raises enough health and environmental concerns that further international controls are needed, a committee advising a global chemicals treaty has initially concluded.
13. Biocides Substance Approvals to Start including EDC Assessments

    Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Echa has asked EU member state authorities that are evaluating biocidal active substances to start including an assessment against the incoming criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
14. Clock Ticking for European Chemical Makers to Use Signup Leeway

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner
    
    
    Chemicals companies that believe they will miss the fast-approaching REACH deadline to register substances in the European Union have until March 31 to order substance tests if they want to take advantage of leeway allowed in certain situations, the European Chemicals Agency said.
15. EU-Wide Phone App to Learn from Danish Project Problems

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Tammy Lovell
    
    
    A planned EU-wide phone app to help consumers identify substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in products, will learn from problems experienced by a failing Danish project.
16. May 2018 Deadline: REACH Has 'Just Begun', Companies Told

    Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Manufacturers and importers of chemical substances have been told that May's registration deadline is not the end of REACH.
17. Chemicals Remain EU's Second Highest Product Risk

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    For a second year running, hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys and clothing, have remained the second biggest risk to health and safety on the EU and EEA market.
18. Floods Can Flush Microplastic Pollution from Rivers into the Sea

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

    By Katherine Bourzac
    
    
    Microplastic pollutants may be far more pervasive in lakes, streams, and oceans than previously estimated, according to the results of the largest survey yet of the particles in a freshwater system.

Energy News

19. Zinke: Oil and Gas Exploration off the Pacific Coast Might Not Happen

    Mar 13, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Darryl Fears
    
    
    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke expressed doubt Tuesday that oil and gas exploration will happen off the Pacific coast as part of the Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically expand offshore leasing, saying California, Oregon and Washington have “no known resources of any weight” for energy companies to extract.
20. Feds, Alaska Try to Push Pace on Alaska Refuge Oil Exploration

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By lan Kovski
    
    
    Interior Department officials and Alaska Gov. Bill Walker are looking to accelerate work to prepare for oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the focus of a fight for more than 30 years over whether any oil production should ever take place on the land.
21. Chevron Phillips CEO Credits ‘Shale Revolution’ in Ramping Up Ethane Cracker in Southeast Texas

    Mar 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis
    
    
    Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LP has introduced feedstock and begun operations of its newest ethane cracker east of Houston at the Cedar Bayou facility in Baytown.
22. North Dakota Legislative Committee Tightens Oil, Gas Rules

    Mar 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec
    
    
    The North Dakota legislature’s Administrative Rules Committee (ARC) on Monday unanimously agreed to tighten the requirements for oil and gas spills and for royalties.

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

Transportation and Infrastructure News

23. As Trump Cabinet Secretaries Head to Hill, Big Hurdles Remain on Infrastructure

    Mar 14, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Michael Laris
    
    
    As the Trump administration ramps up lobbying for its infrastructure plan, with five Cabinet secretaries making a pilgrimage to a Senate committee on Wednesday, there is bipartisan agreement that the nation should deal with worsening traffic congestion, a mountain of undone maintenance, spotty rural broadband, long-neglected water projects and more.

Environment News

24. Pompeo's Rise Puts a Climate Skeptic Atop State Department

    Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Emily Holden
    
    
    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s dramatic ouster Tuesday removes another moderate voice on international climate change policy from the Trump administration, worrying environmentalists and exciting conservatives.
25. At Climate Speech Landmark, Whitehouse Aims for Deals on Carbon

    Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Anthony Adragna
    
    
    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the Senate’s fiercest climate hawk, said he's open to a compromise that would put a fee on carbon emissions in exchange for axing some “moot” environmental regulations — if it’s structured correctly.
26. New York Seeks EPA Crackdown on Ozone From Upwind States

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By John Herzfeld
    
    
    New York regulators petitioned the EPA to take action against upwind ozone pollution from hundreds of facilities in nine states.

Industry and Association News

1. (ACC Mentioned) US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs Threaten Chemical and Plastics Sectors

   Mar 14, 2018 | Chemistry World

   By Rebecca Trager

   The chemical and plastics industries are pushing back hard against global tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminium that will take effect in the US on 23 March. For now, the tariffs – formally ordered by President Trump on 8 March – will not apply to Canada and Mexico. Other countries like Australia, which Trump called a ‘long term partner’, could also get a reprieve.

   The Plastics Industry Association (PIA), for one, is urging its members to lobby Congress. The trade group says it strongly opposes these duties on materials that are critical to plastics manufacturing, cautioning that they will devastate the plastics industry.

   Steel and aluminium products are used in the moulds and much of the machinery used to produce plastics, the PIA explained. The organisation said across-the-board tariffs on these materials could dramatically increase costs for some segments of the plastics industry. Those costs would then likely be passed down through the supply chain to other plastics companies, manufacturers, businesses and, ultimately, to consumers.

   The American Chemistry Council, which represents US chemical companies, is also opposed to these ‘costly tariffs’. The trade group emphasises that chemical companies can’t grow as quickly, or deliver the same quality products for the same price, if the facilities where those products are made suddenly become much more costly to build or maintain.Terrible timing

   ‘For a chemical manufacturing industry that has invested $185 billion (£135 billion) in new factories, expansions and restarts of facilities around the country, President Trump’s announcement comes at the worst possible time,’ the ACC said. The group added that more than half of these investment projects are still in the planning stage, and market shifts caused by tariff increases may prompt investors to do business elsewhere.

   South Africa’s Sasol said it will need nearly 53,000 tonnes of steel to complete its $11 billion complex in Lake Charles, Louisiana. That facility, which is on track to start-up this year, will have an ethane cracker that can handle 1.4 million tonnes of hydrocarbons per year, and six downstream chemical units.

   Unsurprisingly, the reaction from China to the tariffs was also critical. The China Iron and Steel Association (Cisa) said the iron and steel trade has become a major source of Sino-US trade friction in recent years. Before Trump signed off on the new tariffs, dozens of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures were unveiled on dozens of products, covering almost all major steel products, Cisa stated. The tax rate is almost ‘prohibitive’, the organisation added.

   Cisa is now calling on the Chinese government to take action on stainless, galvanised sheet and seamless pipe steel imported from the US, as well as coal, agricultural products and consumer electronics.Opening volley

   The chemical industry was already unwillingly drawn into a trade war between the US and China last month. The Chinese government issued an initial ruling that there is evidence of styrene imports from the US being ‘dumped’. This dumping charge accuses US manufacturers of selling styrene to China at unusually low prices, which is harming the nation’s own styrene industry. China’s commerce ministry announced on 14 February that it would implement anti-dumping duties of 5–11% on styrene monomers from the US, as well as South Korea and Taiwan.

   Earlier in February, China launched an anti-dumping investigation into sorghum imports from the US. According to China’s commerce ministry, imports have soared since 2013, but the price has consistently fallen hurting China’s famers.

   Meanwhile, the US is not among the 11 countries that signed a free trade agreement known as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) on 8 March. The countries partnering in the CPTPP – Canada, Australia, Brunei Darassalam, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam – are the remaining signatories of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, after Trump withdrew the US from that deal. It appears the US’s absence from the CPTPP will disadvantage the country when it comes to the large Asia-Pacific market.

   https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/us-steel-and-aluminium-tariffs-threaten-chemical-and-plastics-sectors/3008775.article
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

2. (ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - March 2018

   Mar 13, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

   The chemical industry is riding an upturn in the world economy and continued strength across major end-use markets such as construction, automotive and electronics. Another positive for the industry is a recovery in demand in the energy space - a key chemical end-market that had been out of favor for a spell. The recovery has been driven by the rebound in crude oil prices from their historic lows.

   The Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry has outperformed the broader market in a year's time. The industry has gained around 19.4% over this period, higher than the S&P 500's corresponding return of roughly 17.8%.

   Fourth-quarter earnings season had been a good one for chemical stocks. Notwithstanding a few headwinds including some lingering impacts of devastating hurricanes, chemical companies continued the earnings momentum in the December quarter. We note that a number of companies in the space - including prominent names such as Eastman Chemical Co. (EMN), Celanese Corp. (CE), PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG) and Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (APD) - produced earnings beats in the quarter.

   The outperformance was driven by solid demand across major end-markets as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.

   Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on high-growth markets (driven by megatrends) in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are struggling with weak demand and input costs pressure. These companies are also increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale through consolidations.

   Cost-cutting measures and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies should continue to reap industry-wide margin improvements in 2018. Moreover, a number of chemical makers are taking appropriate pricing actions to offset raw materials cost inflation, which should also provide margin benefits.

   Chemical makers also continue to see strong demand from construction and automotive sectors - major chemical end-use markets. The underlying trends in the housing space remain strong, backed by strong economic growth, steady buyer demand, high homebuilders' confidence and low unemployment levels.

   The automotive sector also continues its good run amid certain challenges, supported by an improving job market, rising personal income, favorable credit conditions, improved consumer confidence and impressive vehicle launches. Rising demand for profitable crossovers, sports utility vehicles and pickups are also aiding the auto industry.

   A rebound in crude oil prices has also led to a recovery in demand for chemicals in the energy space, an important end-use market. The recent uptrend in oil prices has been supported by a decline in U.S. oil stockpiles and extension of oil production cuts by OPEC and other major world producers until the end of 2018. The recovery in oil prices has also led to a favorable pricing environment for chemical products.

   U.S. Chemical Industry Set to Ride Growth Wave

   The U.S. Chemical Industry has recovered from the damaging effects of hurricanes and is set for solid growth in 2018. The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), an industry trade group, envisions national chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.7% in 2018, further accelerating to a 3.9% growth in 2019. The growth is expected to be spurred by higher demand across light vehicles and housing markets, capital investments and improved export markets.

   The trade group also expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.7% in 2018 and further gain steam with a 5.2% rise in 2019 on the heels of new capacity additions. The specialty chemicals segment is also expected to see production growth of 2.3% in 2018, per the ACC.

   Surging Capital Spending

   The United States remains an attractive investment destination for chemical investment and domestic chemical makers continue to enjoy the advantage of access to abundant and cheaper feedstocks and energy. This is driving investment in chemical production projects.

   The shale gas boom has incentivized a number of chemical companies including industry heavyweights such as BASF SE (BASFY) and LyondellBasell Industries N.V. (LYB) to invest billions of dollars to beef up capacity. According to the ACC, roughly 320 chemical projects have been already announced worth more than $185 billion, 62% of which is foreign direct investment.

   Moreover, roughly 65% of the chemical investment announced since 2010 are complete or under construction. New capacity is expected to provide a boost to chemical production as these investments come on stream.

   The ACC expects chemical industry capital spending to rise 6.3% in 2018 and 6.8% in 2019 and eventually reach $48 billion by 2022.

   Strengthening Export Markets

   The ACC sees improving export markets to contribute to solid growth of the domestic chemical industry. Strengthening export markets and increasing capital spending are driving chemical demand across key end-use markets such as light vehicles and housing. Major export markets, such as Latin America and Asia, are also expected to play a significant role in basic chemical production growth this year and the next.

   EU Chemical Sector Back in Business

   The European chemical industry has also swung back to life on the back of improving global economic sentiment and a resurgent Eurozone economy. Eurozone's recovery has been backed by a pick-up in global economic activity, declining unemployment and strengthening business and consumer confidence.

   The outlook for the European chemical industry is positive. The European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) expects chemical output in the European Union to rise 2% year over year in 2018.

   Per the CEFIC, the growth of manufacturing production across sectors such as automotive, construction, metal production and electronics in the European Union has led to higher demand for chemicals in the region. Exports of chemicals produced in European Union have also increased, particularly in Asia and Russia.

   A Few Concerns

   The chemical industry, however, faces certain headwinds. A number of chemical companies are witnessing a spike in raw material prices, exacerbated by short supply due to last year's hurricanes. Some of these companies, in their fourth-quarter earnings call, had warned of continued headwinds from elevated input costs through the first half of 2018. As such, raw material cost inflation may unfavorably impact margins of these companies.

   Chemical makers also continue to feel the pinch of depressed demand in agriculture markets. Sustained pressure on agricultural commodity prices is scuttling a meaningful recovery in this key chemical end-market.The outlook for the fertilizer and agricultural chemicals space remains cloudy due to continued weakness in crop prices, low farm income and sluggish economic conditions in certain emerging markets, including Latin America.

   Moreover, concerns regarding China's future growth remain a source of near-term uncertainty for the chemical industry. Uncertainties surrounding China - a key market for chemicals - is expected to remain an overhang on the industry in the short to medium term. Sustained overcapacity, weak private investment and high levels of corporate debt are still hurting the world's second-largest economy.

   What Zacks Industry Rank Says

   Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector (one of 16 Zacks sectors), which had a 2.6% share of total earnings for the S&P 500 in 2017. We rank all of the more than 250 industries in the 16 Zacks sectors based on the earnings outlook and fundamental strength of the constituent companies in each industry. (To learn more, visit: About Zacks Industry Rank .)

   We have three chemicals related industries - Chemical Diversified, Chemical Plastics and Chemical Specialty - at the expanded (aka "X") level. We put our X industries into two groups: the top half (industries with the best average Zacks Rank) and the bottom half (the industries with the worst average Zacks Rank). Our back-testing shows that the top 50% of the Zacks ranked industries outperforms the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1.

   The Zacks Industry Rank is #63 for Chemical Diversified (placing it at the top 25% of the 250 plus Zacks classified industries), #88 for Chemical Plastics (at top 34%) and #183 for Chemical Specialty (at bottom 29%).

   The location of these industries suggests that the general outlook for the chemical industry as a whole is leaning toward 'Positive.'

   Solid Q4 Earnings, Q1 Predictions Look Promising

   The Basic Materials sector is among the Zacks sectors that racked up the strongest gains in fourth-quarter 2017. Overall earnings for the sector climbed 45.2% while revenues spiked 21.3%. Roughly 89.5% of the sector participants posted earnings beat and around 73.7% surpassed revenue estimates.

   The Basic Materials sector is expected to continue the earnings growth momentum into first-quarter 2018. Earnings for the sector are projected to rise 42.1% in the first quarter while revenues are expected to go up 21%.

   For more details about the earnings of this sector and others, please read our Earnings Trends report.

   Valuation Looks Bit Stretched

   Going by the EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization) multiple, a preferred valuation metric for cyclical industries like chemicals, valuation for the 'Chemicals' industry looks bit stretched at the moment when compared to its own range and the broader market.

   The industry has a trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA ratio of 15.7, which is above its own average of 12.7 in the past year. Moreover, the industry compares unfavorably with the market at large, as the trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA for the S&P 500 is at 11.8. As such, there seems to be little room for an upside moving ahead.

   Final Thoughts

   While the chemical industry still faces a few headwinds, its momentum is expected to continue this year on sustained demand strength across light vehicles and construction markets, a rebound in demand in the energy place and significant shale-linked capital investment. Strategic actions including expansion of scale through acquisitions, operational efficiency improvement and continued focus on cost and productivity should help chemical makers weather the macroeconomic and industry-specific headwinds in 2018.

   The Hottest Tech Mega-Trend of All

   Last year, it generated $8 billion in global revenues. By 2020, it's predicted to blast through the roof to $47 billion. Famed investor Mark Cuban says it will produce "the world's first trillionaires," but that should still leave plenty of money for regular investors who make the right trades early.

   https://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemicals-industry-stock-outlook-march-2018-cm934394
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

3. (ACC Mentioned) Fighting Pollution by Saying 'No' to Plastic Straws

   Mar 14, 2018 | NBC News

   By Herb Weisbaum

   A little bite of waste multiplied by a whole lot of people, really adds up. The average American uses 584 straws a year, according to the National Parks Service. Nationwide, that’s 500 million drinking straws thrown away each year — enough straws to fill about 46,400 school buses.

   Environmental groups have targeted disposable drinking straws — that are not recyclable or compostable — for extinction. The ultimate goal: Prevent non-degradable plastic straws from polluting our beaches, waterways and oceans.

   With so many other pollution problems, why straws?

   “Straws are an easy thing for everybody to get started on when approaching the enormous issue of plastic pollution,” said Diana Lofflin, founder of StrawFree.org, an environmental group based in southern California.

   Lofflin said she realized something had to be done after seeing the video of a Costa Rican team removing a straw from a turtle’s nose.

   “We’re seeing more plastic in our waterways and one of the most common items we find is straws,” she said. “In fact, it's one of the top 10 items that are picked up at beach cleanups. It’s estimated that by the year 2050, there will be more plastic in the oceans than fish.”

   A GROWING MOVEMENT

   Lawmakers in Los Angeles, Davis, Malibu and San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Miami Beach and Fort Myers Beach, Fla.; and Seattle, have passed ordinances that limit or prohibit restaurants from using plastic straws.

   A ban on plastic straws for commercial use took effect in Fort Myers Beach in February. The town’s environmental specialists, who patrol the beaches, report seeing fewer straws in the sand, and most of the ones they do find are biodegradable, Town Manager Roger Hernstadt told NBC News BETTER.

   The ordinance does create penalties: $100 for a first offense, $500 for three or more citations within a year, but Hernstadt hopes education and warnings will be all that’s needed.

   “I think all the folks here understand that an attractive beach is important for them being able to draw customers, and this effort is part of making it desirable for people to come here,” he said.

   Malibu already bans the commercial use of plastic shopping bags and polystyrene food containers. A new city ordinance takes effect in June that adds plastic straws, stirrers and cutlery to the list.

   “I think this was driven by the fact that these plastic items don't biodegrade,” said Malibu Mayor Rick Mullen. “They may break down in size, but the actual plastic stays in the ecosystem and people are getting conscious about that all over the world.”

   Most restaurant owners support the ban, Mayor Mullen said, although some worry it will drive up their cost of doing business.

   “Most people here in Malibu are not fanatical environmentalists by any stretch of the imagination,” but it’s part of the city’s mission to “preserve the natural beauty and take care of the environment as much as possible,” Mullen said. “We realize that the little things we do have a big effect on the natural world.”

   Assemblyman Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), majority leader of the California legislature, has introduced a bill that would require all restaurants in the state that serve food eaten on site to provide plastic straws only when requested by the customer.

   Calderon insists his bill, AB-1884, is not a ban on plastic straws. “It is a small step towards curbing our reliance on these convenience products, which will hopefully contribute to a change in consumer attitudes and usage,” he said in a statement.THE INDUSTRY PUSHBACK: PLASTIC ISN’T THE PROBLEM

   The plastics industry acknowledges that waste management and marine debris are serious issues that require a real and lasting solution. But it would like to see the focus be on proper disposal and greater recycling, rather than banning certain products.

   “People should have the option to use products that fit their lifestyle, but it’s everyone’s responsibility to make sure these items are disposed of in a way that maximizes their value and ensures that they don’t end up where they shouldn’t,” said Ashley Stoney, director of communications for the Plastics Industry Association, in an email.

   Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, said the industry is working on new technologies that will allow “every piece of post-use plastics” to be recycled or remade into raw materials for new products.

   “We should all do our part to reduce waste by using reusable items when we can and declining straws or utensils when we don’t need them,” Russell said in a statement. “We should also keep in mind that protecting our health and hygiene is an important reason products such as straws and carryout utensils are designed to be used just once. These items often are made with plastics, because being both strong and lightweight; plastics often do a better job, with lower environmental impacts, than alternatives.”STRAWLESS IN SEATTLE

   This summer, Seattle will ban the commercial use of plastic straws, plastic stir sticks and plastic utensils. Starting July 1, any business that serves food or beverages will need to provide compostable alternatives.

   “It's great to have things diverted from garbage into the compost stream, which is what we're pushing with this,” said Becca Fong with Seattle Public Utilities. “It’s also a really good way to raise consumer awareness, to get people to think about prevention: Do they really need that straw or all of those utensils if they’re getting food to go and taking it home to eat?”

   Several hundred retailers made the switch in November as part of the “Strawless in Seattle” campaign, organized by Dune Ives, executive director of The Lonely Whale Foundation.

   “Single use plastics are pervasive in our everyday life — it's everywhere and very little of it is recyclable. We have this unnecessary waste product becoming fish food,” Ives said. “We wanted to wake people up and make them feel really powerful, that something they did would make a difference.”

   As part of its commitment to sustainable products, Seattle’s Safeco Field, home of the Mariners, does not use plastic straws, stir sticks or utensils. The ballpark won Major League Baseball’s the 2017 “Green Glove Award” for its recycling efforts. Only four percent of the waste generated there goes to the landfill, the rest is recycled or composted.

   “It was a fairly invisible kind of a change for us and it didn't affect us operationally,” said Rebecca Hale, director of public information for the Mariners. “I don't think that a lot of people even realize that the straws and the knives and the forks and all of that are going into the compost stream.”

   Hale admits that first-generation compostable utensils had some problems. For instance, spoons would melt in hot soup. But current products perform just like the non-sustainable items they replace, she said.

   WHAT CAN I DO?

   The Last Plastic Straw, which says the U.S. uses enough straws to wrap around the earth’s circumference 2.5 times each day, suggests:

   Request “no straw” at bars and restaurants.

   Encourage your favorite eateries to only provide straws on request and to use compostable or reusable options to the plastic straw.

   Share your commitment with others.

   “Basically what we are asking you to do is DO LESS: less consumption, less waste, less straws,” the site says.

   MORE RESOURCES

   The Be Straw Free campaign, run by the nonprofit recycler eco-cycle, has information for businesses that serve straws and consumer who use them, as well as the Straw Free Pledge.

   StrawFree.org sells eco-friendly bamboo straws on its website. Each one is hand-cut from locally harvested bamboo that would otherwise go to the landfill.

   Strawless Ocean, an initiative powered by Lonely Whale, has links to alternative straws and ways you can share your passion for environmental responsibility.

   https://www.nbcnews.com/better/science/fighting-pollution-avoiding-plastic-straws-ncna856296
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

4. Pruitt Issues Guidance on New Source Permitting

   Mar 13, 2018 | E&E News PM

   By Sean Reilly

   U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt took a fresh step today toward relaxing New Source Review permitting requirements by condensing the forecasting process for emission increases expected from a plant expansion or other significant modifications to a major industrial pollution source.

   The change, quickly hailed by business groups and criticized by one environmental organization, revolves around a reworking of the two-step procedure used to determine whether such an expansion triggers the requirement to obtain an NSR permit before beginning construction.

   Up to now, the first step has been to calculate whether the proposed project would by itself lead to "a significant emissions increase," Pruitt wrote in a nine-page guidance memorandum to EPA's regional offices.

   That's followed by an evaluation of whether the project would still lead to a significant pollution boost, once any other emissions increases or decreases stemming from other factors are taken into account.

   Because of inconsistencies in the handling and interpretation of the first-stage evaluation, EPA now believes the effect has been to delay some projects and keep others from moving ahead, "even though those projects would not have resulted in a significant emissions increase," Pruitt wrote.

   Under the new system, companies can also consider expected decreases in air pollution during the first step, the agency added in a news release.

   "This is an important step toward achieving better outcome based on real-world impacts," EPA air chief Bill Wehrum said in the release.

   At the American Forest and Paper Association, where a top official testified to a House subcommittee last month on the subject, President and CEO Donna Harman said in a statement that the change would allow "minor projects" with emissions below regulatory thresholds to proceed quickly, "saving mills and state regulators time and money."

   Ross Eisenberg, vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote in a blog post, "There is no good reason for the permitting process to create unnecessary obstacles for a manufacturer who wants to make efficiency upgrades or install modern pollution control equipment."

   But John Walke, clean air director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the new policy — by allowing companies to factor in emissions decreases at the first step — would make it easier for them to gain approval for expansions and other large-scale changes "even though there are significant emissions increases from the entire facility."

   He also faulted EPA for resorting to a guidance memo to make the change. In 2006, when Wehrum served as acting air chief during part of George W. Bush's administration, the agency pursued an identical shift through a proposed rulemaking that was never completed, said Walke.

   With President Trump intent on easing regulations on heavy industry, this is the third piecemeal change EPA has announced to air policy in recent months. In December, Pruitt told companies EPA would no longer challenge their pre-construction estimates of pollution increases stemming from specific projects.

   In January, Wehrum announced the end to the "once in, always in" policy, which kept "maximum achievable control technology" standards in place for factories and other industrial polluters, even when their emissions of air toxics fell below the thresholds that had originally triggered those standards.

   https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/03/13/stories/1060076233
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

5. Pruitt's 'Streamlining' Guidance Could Help Facilities Avoid NSR Permitting

   Mar 13, 2018 | Inside EPA

   By Stuart Parker

   EPA Administrator Scott has issued his second major guidance on Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permits that aims to “streamline” the process companies must go through to determine whether facilities are subject to NSR, prompting criticism from environmentalists who say it will allow firms to avoid NSR altogether.

   In the March 13 guidance memo, Pruitt notes that some provisions of the updated process could potentially help companies try to “circumvent” NSR, but says the agency will address this in another future memo.

   The guidance, sent to all 10 of EPA's regional divisions, announces a change in policy that will shorten the process for industrial facilities to determine whether full review under the NSR program is necessary. The shift allows permit applicants to at the outset consider likely emissions decreases, as well as increases, of their project -- but also allows them to define “project” broadly, increasing the scope to avoid NSR, environmentalists say.

   NSR, which applies to new and modified industrial facilities, can require installation of expensive new pollution controls if regulators determine that a “significant” emissions increase will result from a project. Prior to Pruitt's memo, companies could not consider project emissions decreases in the first NSR review step.

   In the second step, applicants would previously consider the net impact on air quality of their project and other, unrelated projects in the vicinity on total emissions and whether those triggered NSR.

   But the new memo allows applicants to avoid the second step by determining at the outset that the net impact of their project does not trigger NSR, which applies to “major” industrial sources, and instead apply for a much-less stringent “minor source” permit.

   Industry groups welcomed the change, saying more ultimately beneficial projects will proceed as a result. But environmentalists charge that it is unlawful and will result in emissions increases by allowing companies to provide data to EPA claiming their facility does not trigger NSR. Such facilities would then have eased requirements on controlling their overall emissions.

   Pruitt's first major NSR policy memo, released in December, said the agency would start deferring to companies on whether their calculations of projected emissions are accurate.

   The memo was seen as the first major step in an agency NSR overhaul led by Pruitt and EPA Office of Air & Radiation Assistant Administrator William Wehrum, who has promised to ease the regulatory burden on industry. Wehrum has said he intends to act by guidance, rather than more protracted regulation, where possible.

   The new memo reflects input from Wehrum, who in his prior tenure at the air office under the George W. Bush administration tried to ease NSR permitting through a rule change allowing project “netting.” EPA never finalized that 2006 proposal, however.

   Even where new controls are not required, the permit review process itself is costly and time-consuming, leading several industry groups to call for an overhaul of NSR as part of the Trump administration's drive to speed environmental permitting. Pruitt's memo therefore allows air permit applicants to consider both the likely emissions increases and decreases at the outset of determining whether NSR applies, rather than at the second step of the process, where the impacts of other other projects in the same area must also be considered.

   'Preventing' Projects

   Pruitt's memo says EPA's prior approach “had the practical effect of preventing certain projects from going forward and significantly delaying others, even though those projects would not have resulted in a significant emissions increase.”

   Key to determining whether emissions increases result, however, are the definitions of an emissions “unit” and of “project.”

   Pruitt in the memo says, “at the very outset of the process for determining whether NSR may be triggered, the EPA should give attention to not only whether emissions may increase from those units that are part of the project, but also whether emissions may at the same time decrease at other units that are also part of the project.”

   But Pruitt in the memo also says, “EPA recognizes that as a general matter, the source itself is responsible for defining the scope of its own 'project,' subject to the understanding that the source cannot seek to circumvent NSR by characterizing the proposed project in a way that would separate into multiple projects those activities that, by any reasonable standard, constitute a single project.”

   Further, “Subject to the understanding that it might be possible to circumvent NSR through some wholly artificial grouping of activities, the EPA does not interpret its NSR regulations as directing the agency to preclude a source from reasonably defining its proposed project broadly, to reflect multiple activities.”

    EPA “will speak more to this issue in planned upcoming action on 'project aggregation,'” Pruitt writes. Activities “aggregated” into single projects may trigger NSR by exceeding “major source” emissions thresholds, but those kept separate can avoid it. The forthcoming aggregation memo may therefore limit the scope for permit applicants to define “project” in ways that could circumvent NSR.

   One environmentalist says that the policy change to allow consideration of the projects' predicted emissions increases and decreases opens the door to abuse and emissions increases. Pruitt uses the term “project emissions accounting,” applicable to step one of the NSR process, but the source says this is simply a renaming of the “project netting” concept Wehrum previously championed.

   Because NSR step one applies to the “project,” then “the ability to define 'project' broadly widens the universe of polluting activities able to take advantage of the deregulation and amnesty in today’s memo,” the environmental source says. The memo is “grossly unlawful,” the source says.

   “Wehrum and Pruitt just change the name of 'project netting,' in a ham-handed attempt to deny that what is going on is netting inconsistent with EPA regulations. It’s a farce that will allow significant net emissions increases to escape regulatory review, public comment, and pollution control measures,” the environmentalist says.

   Industry Support

   Industry groups, however, were strongly supportive of the new memo, which they say will allow projects to proceed faster and at lower cost, including some that increase plant efficiency and lower emissions.

   American Forest & Paper Association President and CEO Donna Harman said, “emissions accounting guidelines are a long-overdue step to provide our industry and all U.S. manufacturers with a common-sense, realistic approach to air permitting.” Further, “By simply allowing increases and decreases to be counted together, minor projects with emissions below regulatory thresholds can now proceed quickly, saving mills and state regulators time and money.”

   Similarly, the American Wood Council said it “thanks EPA for beginning to reform the burdensome NSR review process and procedures. This is a winning proposal for both business and the environment.”

   The American Petroleum Institute Senior Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman said, “EPA’s practical clarification to the language in the NSR regulations is a positive step that will help reduce uncertainty in the permitting process, while protecting public health.”

   https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitts-streamlining-guidance-could-help-facilities-avoid-nsr-permitting
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

6. EPA Clears the Air for Polluters on U.S. Emissions Rules

   Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Eric Roston

   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a new directive that clarifies a powerful but technical facet of the Clean Air Act, completing a trifecta of high-profile changes to the way EPA oversees conventional air pollution.

   The March 13 action takes the form of guidance to regulated industries, which include iron and steel, paper, forestry, refiners, and manufacturing.

   Pruitt highlighted the Environmental Protection Agency's work on the Clean Air Act's New Source Review provision during an interview March 13 with Bloomberg News, stressing it is part of an effort to bring more certainty to companies.

   “Here are companies across the country that are wanting to spend, in many instances, hundreds of millions of dollars on improving outcomes at their facilities with respect to emission-controls,” Pruitt said. “And they feel like if they spend too much, it triggers new permitting responsibilities.”

   When a major polluting facility expands its capacity, the EPA requires that companies analyze whether the work will result in significant new emissions. If it does, the “New Source Review” provision requires pollution controls to help keep the air clean.

   New Guidance on Decreases

   The EPA's new guidance resolves what for many industries—for many years—has been a frustration. In short, they contend the calculations required by EPA give insufficient weight to decreases in pollution that may also result from the new construction. The new guidance allows companies to include emission decreases at the same step they calculate increases.

   The issue has been simmering for more than 15 years, since the EPA under President George W. Bush issued New Source Review recommendations in 2002. In 2006, his administration proposed something similar to the March 13 action, along with two related provisions. But it rescinded the proposal days before it left office in 2009.

   Pruitt in December issued a memo clarifying another portion of New Source Review governing how companies make projections of future emissions from an upgraded facility. A second guidance, issued in January, reversed a longstanding EPA practice that prevented facilities designated as “major sources” of pollution from being re-classified as more minor “area sources.”

   “Most businesses, most states, most individuals want to do the right thing,” Pruitt said. They care about the air they breathe, the water they drink. And that we need to see them as partners, working together to ensure good outcomes.“

   John Walke, director of clean air programs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that Pruitt's practice of issuing guidance—rather than new regulations—circumvents actual rules that can then be tried in court. Pruitt's actions ostensibly legitimizes changes long-sought by industry, through memoranda instead of rules.

   “The air will be dirtier thanks to industry taking advantage of this new kind of amnesty,” he said.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129766989&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129766989&jd=129766989
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

7. Pruitt Eases Air Permitting Requirements

   Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard

   By Alex Guillen

   EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said today that his agency is changing its interpretation of a key permitting program to make it easier for companies to avoid a complicated permitting process.

   Past policy "had the practical effect of preventing certain projects from going forward and significantly delaying others, even though those projects would not have resulted in a significant emissions increase,” Pruitt wrote in a memo today.

   Companies must obtain “pre-construction” permits from EPA before building a new source or making major changes to an existing one. A two-step process determines whether a project’s emissions are significant enough to trigger a more complicated and expensive evaluation.

   Under Pruitt's new interpretation, power plants, refineries and other major emitters can now factor in the pollution reductions associated with a major project along with its emissions increases within that first step. Projects that are calculated in that first step to not significantly increase emissions can then obtain minor source permits from states.

   But those that would significantly increase emissions must conduct a more thorough New Source Review evaluation that also could require more expensive pollution controls.

   The new interpretation makes it easier for companies to obtain the minor source permit instead of the more complicated NSR permit, and it quickly drew praise from the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers.

   EPA in December said it will ease its enforcement of the NSR permitting program and will not "second guess" industry projections.

   https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

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

Chemical Management News

8. Chemical Secrets Access Requirements Outlined in EPA Guidance

   Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

   By Pat Rizzuto

   First responders and other government officials seeking companies’ confidential chemical information must prove they need that material and can keep it secret, under draft guidance the EPA released March 13.

   The Environmental Protection Agency released three draft guidance documents explaining what state, local, and tribal governments would need to do view a wide variety of chemical details deemed confidential business information. This information can include the identity of a chemical made by particular companies.

   Keeping certain information about their chemicals out of the public's eye is crucial for the industry, companies argue, because even small details could reveal to competitors secrets about how products are made. The EPA estimates that government officials will seek that information six times a year.

   Access to information claimed confidential can be important to doctors, emergency providers, and governments confronting the problems a chemical may cause for exposed individuals, local communities, or the environment, some physicians and advocates have said for years.

   Firefighters want to know what confidential chemicals are used and stored at local facilities to prepare for fires or other emergencies. Too often they are caught unaware or provided limited information on what caused the emergency, Larry Petrick,deputy director for health and safety at the International Association of Fire Fighters, told Bloomberg Environment.

   Limited Requests Predicted

   Local governments also may seek access to confidential business information they need to enforce regulations.

   The Toxic Substances Control Act amendments of 2016 authorized designated professionals access to confidential chemical information for the first time since the original statute became law in 1976.

   Unless dealing with an emergency, the EPA will provide 15-day notice to any business affected by the release of confidential information, the agency's draft guidance says.

   The EPA will accept comment on its draft guidance documents for 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.

   The agency also sought comment March 12 on its estimates of how often states, tribes, local governments, health and medical professionals, and emergency responders will seek access to confidential information.

   Such groups are expected to seek access to that information six times a year for the next three years, the agency said. Comments on its estimate are due May 11.

   Preparing for Emergencies

   Ken Zarker, a pollution prevention manager in Washington state's Department of Ecology who has worked with a group of states that the EPA consulted with for the guidance, told Bloomberg Environment he couldn't say whether six requests annually is reasonable until he's had a chance to review the agency's proposed requirements.

   Petrick also said he needed to review the agency's guidance before determining whether six annual requests is reasonable.

   http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129766987&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129766987&jd=129766987
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

9. EPA Is Undermining the Science That Helps Protect Us from Pollutants

   Mar 13, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire

   By Jennifer McPartland

   A critical government program that assesses the toxicity of chemicals to human health is now, itself, at risk. The Trump administration is working to dismantle science at the EPA and that includes weakening or sidelining the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program — a move that would cut into protections for American families from serious health hazards posed by toxic chemicals and pollution. 

   The administration’s rhetoric about “burdensome” regulation doesn’t apply here because IRIS doesn’t issue any regulations. It’s a program of top-notch scientists charged with understanding the impacts chemicals and pollutants pose to our health.

   EPA and other federal agencies frequently use IRIS chemical assessments to determine how best to protect Americans from environmental contributors to cancer, heart disease, asthma, and other dangers. State and local governments also rely on the information developed by IRIS to protect their residents.

   As NPR recently reported, IRIS chemical assessments have been critical for people living in places like LaPlace, Louisiana, where a chemical called chloroprene has been making generations of Americans sick. Chloroprene emissions are coming from the Denka Performance Elastomer LLC chemical plant, a facility owned by DuPont until 2014.

   The IRIS assessment of chloroprene concludes that it is “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” and EPA and the people of St. Charles Parish are using the assessment to understand what levels of exposure to this chemical are hazardous. 

   So far EPA has installed additional air monitors to measure levels of chloroprene in the community — a step that will hopefully expedite restrictions to cut harmful levels of exposure. NPR reported that in some places levels of chloroprene are measuring well above EPA’s exposure limit.

   So why would such an important, non-regulatory program be at risk?  Because the facts IRIS reveals threaten the interests of certain segments of the chemical industry, which now have incredible influence over EPA’s political leadership.

   Many political appointees at EPA came directly from representing the industries they are now charged with overseeing, including the chemical industry. Under Mr. Pruitt, the agency has loosened safeguards on their former industries, delaying, cancelling or weakening rules on everything from chemicals to cars to coal.

   Some of the nominees for environmental position – such as Michael Dourson or Kathleen Harnett White – were so extreme the Senate refused to confirm them. But in many other cases, Congress has deferred to the president’s choices. And, unfortunately, the Trump EPA hasn’t imposed any real conditions or constraints on these officials to manage their conflicts of interest. The result is many decision makers went straight from advocating for companies or industries with direct financial stakes in the outcome of EPA decision — to making those decisions.

   The attack on IRIS, a program that has enjoyed strong support by the public health and scientific communities, is just one part of a larger push to undermine science at the agency.

   Last year, Administrator Scott Pruitt barred highly qualified academic scientists from EPA advisory boards by excluding any who receive grants from the agency to conduct research. The effect of this directive is to skew the panels towards industry scientists. 

   If Dow or DuPont pays you, you’re free to advise EPA — but if you get an EPA grant due to the merits of your research, you’re somehow too biased. Pruitt has also scrubbed EPA sites of important scientific information.

   On the funding front, the Senate majority posted a bill last November that called for eliminating the IRIS program and re-assigning its staff out of the scientific arm of the agency and into the regulatory toxics office — a move that will deprive other EPA offices, states, and local governments of critical lRIS expertise. Meanwhile, the president’s proposed budget would slash the entire scientific arm of the agency by nearly half. 

   These are moves that would be devastating for our efforts to protect public health. Congress should stand up for their constituents by soundly rejecting efforts to undermine science at EPA.

   Jennifer McPartland is a senior scientist in the health program at Environmental Defense Fund where she works to reduce harmful chemical exposures through policy and market-based action. McPartland is a member of the Chemical Safety for Sustainability Subcommittee of the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors.

   http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/378148-epa-is-undermining-the-science-that-helps-protect-us-from
   

   Return to headline | Return to top

10. A Path to Leadership: Food Packaging Product Stewardship Considerations Released

    Mar 13, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund

    By Tom Neltner

    Last week, we spent two days at a Chemical Watch food packaging conference with manufacturers and suppliers trying to better understand the process for bringing innovative products to market. They learned what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other countries will demand and what challenges they need to anticipate. While regulatory aspects are complicated, the attendees often talked about the difficulties of navigating requirements from companies and reacting to consumer expectations about packaging chemicals.

    These concerns were timely. On March 9, the Food Safety Alliance for Packaging (FSAP), a part of the Institute of Packaging Professionals, released “Food Packaging Product Stewardship Considerations,” a set of best practices. This marks the first public recognition by a sector of the packaging industry of the expectations and demands from food manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.

    Key Considerations

    The guidelines were developed by a working group of food company packaging experts. The goal was to provide a roadmap for packaging suppliers and producers on both quality issues and opportunities to minimize or eliminate chemicals of concern in food packaging. A key objective was to harmonize the many different lists individual companies may have. Compliance with applicable regulations is a given.

    Substances that must not be used:

    Heavy metals – cadmium, chromium VI, lead, mercury – in any packaging component including inks, pigments and colorants;

    Perfluoro and polyfluoro-compounds with 8 or more carbons to grease-proof coated paper and paperboard; and

    Polystyrene for oven or microwave applications.

    Substances that should not be used where suitable alternatives exist include:

    Ortho-phthalates in any packaging component;

    Bisphenol A-based materials in can coatings and plastic resins;

    Styrene in excess of 400 ppm (parts per million) in polystyrene resin for film or rigid structures;

    Toluene in printing ink formulations; and

    Wooden pallets treated with bromo- or chloro-phenol chemicals as wood preservatives.

    The following substances were among those whose use should be minimized:

    Perfluoro and polyfluoro compounds shorter than 8 carbons to grease-proof coated paper and paperboard;

    Natural rubber latex unless applied only to sealing areas that avoid food contact;

    Antimony from antimony-based catalysts in PET resin in excess of 300 ppm; and

    Printing solvents with a maximum residual in cured ink in excess of 20 mg/m2 of surface area and 7 mg/m2 of total combined ketones and acetones.

    In California, chemicals on the Proposition 65 list should not be used at levels where presence of the chemical must be communicated. In Europe, Substances of Very High Concern identified by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) should not be used in any packaging component.

    Recycled Materials

    The document also calls for use of recycled materials based on conditions of use. For instance, post-consumer recycled plastic should be used when a favorable opinion from FDA has been given for the specific process utilized. Recycled paper, solid board, and corrugated board should be used based on an evaluation of supplier-provided testing results using the Recycling Paper Technical protocol. Recycled solid board should not exceed a target average level of 600 ppm of mineral oil hydrocarbons in unprinted material.

    Conclusion

    EDF encourages all companies in the food supply chain—from packaging component producers to retailers—to use Food Packaging Product Stewardship Considerations to strengthen their stewardship efforts, increase transparency and better integrate legal requirements, food safety, product quality, environmental protection, and consumer interest.

    Tom Neltner, J.D., is Chemicals Policy Director and Maricel Maffini, Ph.D., Consultant
    

    http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/03/13/fsap-food-packaging-stewardship/#more-7602
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

11. Asbestos in Cosmetics Allegations Add to Retailer Claire's Woes

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto

    The preteens that typically hunt bargain bling at Claire's Stores may come home with something they didn't intend to buy: asbestos, says a national activist coalition.

    U.S. PIRG—a federation of public interest research groups—tested 15 talc-containing cosmetic products made by four companies. It found asbestos in three products, all of which were made by Claire's Stores Inc., Kara Cook-Schultz, toxics director for the federation told Bloomberg Environment. U.S. PIRG released its findings March 13.

    Claire's, a fashion accessory retail chain popular with preteens and teens, “categorically denied” the allegations.

    “We want to assure our customers that all of our products are safe and asbestos-free,” the store said in a statement provided to Bloomberg Environment.

    True or false, the claims add to the store's woes. The company faced similar allegations last year, which it also denied. Claire's is preparing to file for bankruptcy to ease its debt load, Bloomberg reported March 8.

    ‘Obsolete’ Methods: Claire's

    U.S. PIRG tested products containing talc, because asbestos—a mineral and known human carcinogen—can be present in deposits of talc, which also is a naturally occurring silicate mineral.

    A Food and Drug Administration website mentions this potential for co-contamination, and says: “FDA considers it unacceptable for cosmetic talc to be contaminated with asbestos.”

    The 15 talc-containing cosmetics U.S. PIRG tested were made by Coty Inc.'s Cover Girl, Claire's, L'Oreal, and NYX Professional Makeup, Cook-Schultz said. Asbestos was found in three of the 15 products—blush, eye shadow, and compact powder. All three were made by Claire's, she said.

    The concentrations of tremolite asbestos ranged from 84,746 fibers per gram to 153,846 fibers per gram, according to laboratory results from STAT Analysis Corp., which conducted the tests in February.

    Cook-Schultz said all the detections are too high, because the FDA says no asbestos is acceptable.

    “It also surprised me that this is such an issue in kids makeup,” Cook-Schultz said.

    The asbestos-containing makeup could increase the risk of cancer whether inhaled or applied to the skin, Sonya Kenkare, a dermatologist familiar with U.S. PIRG's results, told Bloomberg Environment.

    Claire's customers could be exposed both ways as they brush the makeup onto their faces and breathe the dust from powders, said Kenkare, who works at the Little Company of Mary Hospital in Evergreen Park, Ill.

    Company Defends Products

    According to Claire's: “The test methods that were used by STAT are obsolete and unreliable, and STAT is not certified to perform the type of testing necessary for talc-based products.”

    “Claire's has conducted extensive testing and investigation in cooperation with relevant authorities, including the FDA, Health Canada, and a number of EU enforcement agencies to demonstrate that Claire's products are asbestos-free and comply with all relevant safety regulations,” according to the company's statement. “All our powder-based cosmetics use the same base formulation, utilizing Merck certified asbestos-free talc, which is the same talc used in other well-known cosmetic brands.”

    STAT did not reply to a voice mail, email, and LinkedIn message seeking comment. The company's website says it provides five types of asbestos analysis.

    STAT also is among the laboratories accredited to conduct asbestos fiber analysis, according to a list maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The lab used two methods—polarized light microscopy (PLM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM)—to conduct its analysis, both of which are referenced by the FDA and one of which is cited by Health Canada, Cook-Schultz said.

    Policies

    U.S. PIRG wants Claire's to pull its products from its store shelves or ensure no asbestos is in them, arguing the fiber should be banned.

    Passing the Children's Product Warning Label Act of 2018, H.R. 4964, which Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) introduced on Feb. 7, would be a good first step, Cook-Schultz said. The bill has not moved since being introduced.

    The Environmental Protection Agency is assessing the risks of ongoing uses of asbestos. The agency said in its risk evaluation plans, or “scope” document, that it recognizes some imported consumer, commercial, and industrial products including brakes, insulation, and building materials may contain asbestos.

    Neither the EPA's risk evaluation plans, nor the U.S. Geological Survey, which released in January its annual summary of asbestos imports and exports, had estimates about how much asbestos may be found in such imported products.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129767000&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129767000&jd=129767000
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

12. Fluorochemical Risks Attract Further UN Scrutiny

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Pat Rizzuto

    A frequently detected chemical released from fire-fighting foams and nonstick carpet treatments raises enough health and environmental concerns that further international controls are needed, a committee advising a global chemicals treaty has initially concluded.

    The committee's draft risk profile for the fluorochemical, called perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) is open for comment through April 6 by parties to the treaty and observers such as chemical trade associations and environmental health advocates.

    The committee also invites comments through April 6 on the water treatment membrane, medical textile, and other more detailed chemical use information the panel obtained about another chemical in the class, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). That information could affect the how PFOA's health and environmental risks could be managed under the treaty.

    The Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Review Committee—which advises the Stockholm Convention on POPs—is preparing the PFOA risk management plan for the next Conference of the Parties to that convention, slated for April 29 to May 10, 2019, in Geneva. The 182 parties to the convention will decide whether to add PFOA to the list of chemicals they are working to phase down production of or eliminate altogether.

    The committee will consider the comments it receives on PFHxS as it makes a final recommendation about whether that chemical's risks need to be controlled.

    Potential Resource

    U.S. states and local governments struggling with fluorochemicals, officially called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), contamination of their drinking water and elsewhere may be interested in the toxicity, chemical use, monitoring, and other information the committee is gathering.

    Australia and Sweden, for example, provided extra information about PFHxS, according to the treaty's website.

    Historically, 3M Co. was the most likely manufacturer of PFHxS and related chemicals, the draft risk profile said. The chemical now is produced by at least one company in Italy and likely several in China, it said.

    Similar information about PFOA producers was not in that document, although it did list industry sectors—such as the automobile and medical device manufacturers—that have used chemicals or products made with PFOA.

    Of the 152 countries that worked on and signed the POPs treaty, five have failed to ratify it: Haiti, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, and the U.S.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129766994&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129766994&jd=129766994
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

13. Biocides Substance Approvals to Start including EDC Assessments

    Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Echa has asked EU member state authorities that are evaluating biocidal active substances to start including an assessment against the incoming criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).

    The request comes after the agency said six active substance approvals on two disinfectants will have to be sent back for further work, before they can get formal EU approval. Both disinfectants were backed by the March meeting of Echa's Biocidal Products Committee (BPC).

    EDC criteria from June

    After receiving BPC backing, the European Commission and member state authorities take the final decision on substance approvals.

    As this process takes a few months, the Commission will not be able to make its decisions before the EDC criteria take effect in June.

    By then an approval without an assessment against the EDC criteria will no longer be possible. As a result, the BPC will have to adopt its opinions on the two disinfectants again, says committee chair, Erik van de Plassche.

    "The opinions will be returned to Echa and we will ask the [competent authorities in the] Netherlands and UK to perform an EDC assessment. So although the opinions are adopted, the approvals might take some time," he said.

    Any other opinions adopted by the BPC in the run up to June will go through the same process; regardless of whether the substances in question are suspected of having endocrine disrupting properties or not.

    For substances that are on the BPC's agenda "very close to or after" the EDC criteria application date, Echa will ask evaluating member states to include the assessment now, Mr van de Plassche adds.

    The two disinfectants, approved by the BPC at its meeting, were:

    salicyclic acid for use in product-types two, three and four. Uses include in kitchen sponge disinfectants, teat treatments for dairy cows and surface cleaners in the drinks industry, including breweries; and

    2-phenoxyethanol for use in product-types one, two and four, where it crops up in hand and surface disinfectants, as well as in cleaners for food preparation areas.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64840/biocides-substance-approvals-to-start-including-edc-assessments
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

14. Clock Ticking for European Chemical Makers to Use Signup Leeway

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By Stephen Gardner

    Chemicals companies that believe they will miss the fast-approaching REACH deadline to register substances in the European Union have until March 31 to order substance tests if they want to take advantage of leeway allowed in certain situations, the European Chemicals Agency said.

    The REACH registration deadline—which falls on May 31—applies to companies that produce or import chemicals into the EU in annual volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons. For every relevant substance in their portfolios within the volume range, companies must have a REACH registration to continue selling in the EU. Deadlines for substances in higher volumes passed in 2010 and 2013.

    Although the May 31 deadline is immovable, incomplete registration dossiers could be accepted in some cases where companies have ordered tests to determine substances’ physicochemical, toxicological, and ecotoxicological properties but don't expect to receive the results in time.

    Partial dossiers will be accepted if companies can demonstrate they have ordered tests “in a timely manner,” said the European Chemicals Agency, which administers REACH (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 on the restriction, evaluation, and authorization of chemicals).

    This is understood to mean ordered before March 31, according to the chemicals agency. Companies wanting to benefit from the exemption also must file a notification to the agency before this date that tests have been ordered.

    REACH registration dossiers 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 substance data and registration fees.

    Labs Backed Up

    The European Chemicals Agency and REACH specialists told Bloomberg Environment that there is likely to be significant demand to use the exemption from companies that fear they won't be able to assemble the necessary substance data by May 31.

    Tests necessary for putting together REACH registration dossiers “can take six, 12, 15 months to complete,” Kevin Hoban, chief operations officer of REACH consultants H2 Compliance and spokesman for the Only Representative Organization, told Bloomberg Enviroment March 13. Under REACH, non-EU companies that require REACH registration must nominate an EU-based agent, known as an “only representative,” to act for them in the EU.

    By allowing partial dossiers, the European Chemicals Agency had taken a practical “pro-industry” approach, Hoban said.

    Large companies have already been through two REACH deadlines and will likely be well-prepared, but smaller firms could be registering for the first time and may not be aware of the extensive preparations needed for registration, Fang Zhou, head of regulation at chemical risk management firm EcoMundo told Bloomberg Environment March 13.

    “Today, there's a lot of dossiers not on track. All the labs are full and the testing delays are really long,” Zhou said. “A lot of labs will not deliver the tests on time.”

    The option to submit a partial registration dossier was available for the 2013 REACH deadline, but will be used significantly more this time, the European Chemicals Agency told Bloomberg Environment March 13.

    The agency accepted 10 applications in 2013 for leeway in filing by the deadline, most of which related to delayed testing data, it said. For the May 2018 deadline, 57 applications already were received by March 12, the chemicals agency said.

    Some Leeway Allowed

    Companies also can apply for leeway in other situations, though these are less common, according to the chemicals agency.

    Valid cases include unforeseen circumstances related to mergers or sales of companies; failure of a lead company in a group of companies registering a substance to carry out its obligations; or decisions by non-EU companies to no longer supply a substance to the EU, leaving importers scrambling to obtain a registration, the agency said.

    In cases like this, affected companies should notify the European Chemicals Agency no later than May 24, it said.

    There are still some companies—especially outside the EU—that are “simply unaware” of their obligations under REACH and the May 31 deadline will “smoke out companies that haven't paid due attention,” Hoban said.

    Fulfilling all the REACH information requirements for low-volume substances could entail a 70,000 euros ($86,840) bill and for some smaller companies, agreeing to the budget was difficult, contributing to delays, according to Zhou.

    Some non-EU companies selling limited volumes into the EU market would judge the cost not worth it, he said.

    That some companies are struggling with the May 31 deadline was “worrying,” Tatiana Santos, senior policy officer for chemicals at the European Environmental Bureau, told Bloomberg Environment March 12. The bureau is a network of 140 environmental organization based in all 28 EU member states.

    The European Chemicals Agency's reviews of registration dossiers have shown a high noncompliance rate with information requirements and the EU authorities should focus on this “instead of allowing companies to miss the regulatory deadlines,” Santos said.

    The European Chemical Industry Council, which represents large chemical producers, didn't immediately respond to a Bloomberg Environment request to comment.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129766990&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129766990&jd=129766990
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

15. EU-Wide Phone App to Learn from Danish Project Problems

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    By Tammy Lovell

    A planned EU-wide phone app to help consumers identify substances of very high concern (SVHCs) in products, will learn from problems experienced by a failing Danish project.

    Speaking at Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit in Amsterdam, Arno Biwer (pictured), senior R&T associate at Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, said the soon to be launched AskREACH project will be similar to Denmark's Tjek Kemien app, but will try to learn from its "deficiencies".

    The summit had heard that Tjek Kemien had struggled since its 2014 launch. Jakob Zeuthen, head of environment policy at the Danish Chamber of Commerce, said use of the app had plummeted.

    Designed by the Danish Consumer Council, the app allows consumers to scan the barcode on products in order to send an Article 33 request to the barcode owner.

    Under Article 33 of REACH, manufacturers must respond to a consumer's request for information on whether an article contains SVHCs above a concentration of 0.1%, free of charge and within 45 days.

    But Mr Zeuthen said there had been a lack of consumer interest in using the app. 

    The number of requests received through the app by Denmark's two largest supermarkets – Coop and Dansk Supermarked– dropped from 88 in 2016 to just 16 in 2017. So far this year the app has only been used three times.

    "This indicates clearly that consumers have turned their back on Tjek Kemien," said Mr Zeuthen.

    Some of the reasons for the lack of interest, he said, were the 45-day time period, and the fact that requests often went out of the EU, to the wrong person or were lost.Research project

    Last year, a Danish Consumer Council research project found that consumers frequently received incorrect information to Article 33 requests.

    The council sent requests for 58 articles and received the wrong information for 31% (18 articles) of these. For 5% (two articles) it received no response at all.

    "It’s not OK that 31% of the answers to the consumers were wrong," Mr Zeuthen said. "The council clearly demonstrated that retailers should focus more on finding these SVHC substances in the articles they sell."AskREACH project

    Arno Biwer said that the organisations that developed Tjek Kemien and the German ToxFox and Scan4Chem apps were involved in the AskREACH project. "So we can learn from their experience and develop an app that is supplied all around Europe, but adapted to each member state, for example, by language and specific aspects that are particularly relevant to each," he said.

    The project plans to store information on SVHCs in a database, so that Article 33 requests are dealt with automatically "with no further work for the supplier or the retailer".

    Three campaigns are planned to raise awareness about the AskREACH project. The first aimed at consumers, will launch in December this year.

    It will be followed by a campaign aimed at suppliers in April 2019 and at retailers in September 2019.

    Mr Biwer said the project is currently "in the process of technological development and starting to communicate with companies and motivating them to participate."

    AskREACH is looking for companies that are interested in testing the company database and inputting on possible improvements.

    "This an opportunity to have an impact and show early on your willingness to take care of consumer concerns," Mr Biwer said.

    The AskREACH app is due to launch in April 2019. And, Mr Biwer said a website on the project is likely to be ready "very, very soon".

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64821/eu-wide-phone-app-to-learn-from-danish-project-problems
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

16. May 2018 Deadline: REACH Has 'Just Begun', Companies Told

    Mar 14, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    Manufacturers and importers of chemical substances have been told that May's registration deadline is not the end of REACH.

    Writing in this month's Global Business Briefing, Thomas Berbner points out that companies remain responsible for the safe use of their chemical substances. Hence, he says, "there are tasks that must be continuously undertaken to ensure that the business stays compliant with REACH."

    Dr Berbner, who is director of business development – industrial chemicals – at consultancy Dr Knoell, says that companies thinking the end of REACH is in sight should "be assured, this is not the case".

    To this end, he identifies six tasks companies should carry out after the deadline:

    check the status of Siefs and consortia after 31 May. Will it still exist? If not, for how many substances has each company involved taken the lead registrant (LR) function?

    keep an eye on the status of the registration dossiers. Are they up-to-date? The status includes keeping track of new data and literature that becomes available;

    importers of mixtures may find that their products might change in composition, which may lead to different tasks. New components in a recipe may need to be registered. A change in the concentrations of existing components may require an update of a dossier as soon as the threshold tonnages are passed;

    is a company about to market new substances? Check with Echa whether there are companies that have already registered them;

    keep track of the supply chain; and

    are there substances in the portfolio that might become subject to further regulatory actions? Do you need to prepare to seek authorisation for the use of a substance or are there safer alternative substances that can be used?

    REACH does not end after 31 May, Dr Berbner says, in reality it has just begun. "So from 1 June, let us see what is ahead of us instead of looking back."

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64831/may-2018-deadline-reach-has-just-begun-companies-told
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

17. Chemicals Remain EU's Second Highest Product Risk

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical Watch

    For a second year running, hazardous chemicals in products, such as toys and clothing, have remained the second biggest risk to health and safety on the EU and EEA market.

    Risks related to chemicals comprised 22% of all notifications last year, according to a European Commission report on the EU's Rapid Alert System for dangerous products (Rapex). This was down 1% on the 2016 notifications. Chemical risk was the number one risk notified in 2015.

    Injury from use of a product again led the risk categories in 2017 at 28%.

    In total, there were 544 alerts about chemicals in products and chemicals represented the most common risk notified in:

    Cyprus;

    Czech Republic;

    Denmark;

    Estonia;

    Finland;

    Greece;

    Italy;

    Lithuania;

    the Netherlands;

    Norway;

    Romania; and

    Slovenia.

    Unlike previous years, the Commission’s latest report does not include a breakdown of which notified products contained hazardous chemicals.

    The five most notified products were:

    toys (29%);

    motor vehicles (20%);

    clothing, textiles, and fashion items (12%);

    electrical appliances and equipment (6%); and;

    childcare articles and children's equipment (5%).

    The number of notifications grew from 2,044 in 2016 to 2,201 alerts last year.

    The largest number of total Rapex notifications came from Germany with 354 alerts (16%), Spain with 222 (10%) and France with 191 alerts (9%).

    China remained the number one product country of origin, accounting for 52.4% of notifications.

    Follow-up actions

    National authorities have an obligation to follow up on the information circulated in Rapex. If they find the same product on their own market, they should take measures and send this information through the system so it is also circulated.

    They carried out 4,000 follow ups in 2017. These fell into the following categories:

    motor vehicles, 79%;

    toys, 6%;

    childcare articles and children's equipment, 3%;

    clothing, textiles and fashion items, 3%; and

    electrical appliances and equipment, 1%.

    While in the risk categories, chemicals only comprised 6% of follow ups, fire represented 10% and injuries topped the list with 72%.

    https://chemicalwatch.com/64838/chemicals-remain-eus-second-highest-product-risk
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

18. Floods Can Flush Microplastic Pollution from Rivers into the Sea

    Mar 13, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News

    By Katherine Bourzac

    Microplastic pollutants may be far more pervasive in lakes, streams, and oceans than previously estimated, according to the results of the largest survey yet of the particles in a freshwater system. The survey, conducted in the Manchester, England area, also showed that most of the plastic pollution originates in urban and suburban runoff and that extreme flooding can flush large quantities of the particles from rivers and into the sea (Nat. Geosci. 2018, DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0080-1).

    Since the early 2000s, environmental scientists have studied the potential environmental effects of plastic microfibers, beads, and other fragments in the oceans. “There’s been much less attention on the terrestrial side of microplastics,” says Jamie Woodward, a physical geographer at the University of Manchester. “There’s hardly any data at all on microplastics in river systems.” In the absence of data, researchers have estimated that about 80% of marine microplastic comes from freshwater runoff. Other scientists have proposed that most of it comes from the breakdown of large pieces of plastic trash after they reach the ocean.

    To try to get a more definitive answer on the sources of microplastics, Woodward wanted to perform a comprehensive, multiseason survey of all varieties of microplastics in an entire catchment area, which is a collection of rivers and streams that all drain into one body of water. In this case, the researchers looked at all ten of the rivers in the northwest of England that drain into the Irish Sea. Woodward and colleagues, Rachel Hurley and James Rothwell, sampled riverbed sediments at 40 sites in this densely populated area in the spring and summer of 2015.

    Back in the lab, the researchers extracted microplastics from the sediment samples and used microscopy, infrared spectroscopy, and density-based extractions to classify the particles by size, shape, and composition. The team also determined whether the microplastics were buoyant in seawater, an indication that the particles could easily travel through the oceans.

    The concentrations of different types of microplastics varied between areas in the catchment. For example, one site in the River Irwell was dominated by microbeads; downstream, microplastic fragments were prevalent. Closer to the center of the city of Manchester, microbeads dominated again. At a site on the River Tame, the team found about 517,000 particles per square meter—the highest concentration ever measured in freshwater.

    In winter 2015, the Manchester area experienced record-breaking floods. So the team went back to their 40 sites and sampled again. “There was a vast reduction in microplastic levels” after the flood, Woodward says. Based on these comparisons and extrapolating for the entire catchment area, the researchers calculated that the floods likely flushed about 17 billion buoyant microplastic particles into the ocean.

    Woodward believes that current models may be underestimating the concentration of microplastics in the world’s oceans. About half of the seawater-buoyant microplastic pieces found in the Manchester study were smaller than 300 µm wide, and would pass through the nets used for marine microplastic counting studies, he says. Also the microplastic load flushed into the ocean in just the one flooding event in England accounted for a significant portion, about 0.5%, of the estimated total number of microplastic particles in the world’s oceans, 4.85 trillion particles.

    “This is the largest study of freshwater microplastics I’ve seen so far, and it demonstrates a massive contamination,” says Martin Wagner, an environmental toxicologist at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

    Wagner says he would like to see more freshwater studies like the Manchester one, because the creatures that live in riverbed sediments can ingest these pollutants. They are not as beautiful as sea turtles, he says, but worms, waterfleas, and other creatures are ecologically important, too—and as bigger animals like fish eat the small ones, microplastics accumulate and move up the food chain. The environmental implications of this bioaccumulation are still not clear.

    Woodward says this study, though local, has international implications. “I think anywhere you’ve got people and wastewater, you will have microplastics and urban contamination hotspots,” he says. The study will also allow scientists to track the effects of the U.K.’s ban on microbeads in cosmetics, which went into effect this year. “Now we can test whether the ban is having any impact,” on reducing microplastic contamination, he says.

    https://cen.acs.org/articles/96/i12/Floods-flush-microplastic-pollution-rivers.html
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

19. Zinke: Oil and Gas Exploration off the Pacific Coast Might Not Happen

    Mar 13, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Darryl Fears

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke expressed doubt Tuesday that oil and gas exploration will happen off the Pacific coast as part of the Trump administration’s proposal to dramatically expand offshore leasing, saying California, Oregon and Washington have “no known resources of any weight” for energy companies to extract.

    Discussing the Atlantic coast while testifying before the Senate Energy Committee, the secretary similarly described Maine as a state with little recoverable oil and gas.

    Zinke stopped short of saying that the three Pacific states would be exempted from the president’s plan to offer leases on 95 percent of the outer continental shelf. But in his reply to a question from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), he acknowledged her state’s deep opposition.

    “I think I’m going to mark down Washington as opposed to drilling,” Zinke said after Cantwell asked him to extend the public comment period for the drilling proposal. It is clear “the state of Washington is deeply, passionately opposed to oil and gas drilling off the coast,” he continued, promising that will be reflected in the next draft of the plan.

    California and Oregon also are strongly against drilling off their shores, as are virtually all states along the Atlantic coast. 

    The secretary’s comments came near the end of a two-hour hearing on the Trump administration’s fiscal 2019 budget and its effect on the Interior Department. The president has proposed a cut of $2 billion to the department’s nearly $13.5 billion budget.

    Among the budget’s highlights, Zinke said, is a proposal to use revenue from new energy production projects for an infrastructure fund to deal with the National Park Service’s nearly $12 billion maintenance backlog. But doing so relies on congressional approval of legislation.

    Zinke was warmly received by Republicans on the committee, starting with Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who welcomed his efforts to open the Arctic Ocean to leases and exploration. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) congratulated the secretary for shrinking two national monuments in his state, Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears.

    “You and I have worked closely to chart a path to greater energy security, which, as you have noted, runs right through Alaska,” Murkowski said in her opening statement. “So I’d like to thank you for all that you’ve done to help Alaska and the nation this past year.”

    But Democrats ripped into Zinke, deriding his spending for travel on military planes and private aircraft while proposing to raise entrance fees at the most popular national parks, virtually eliminating the Land and Water Conservation Fund, shrinking several national monuments and risking beach economies with drilling expansion.

    “During your confirmation hearing, you mentioned Teddy Roosevelt nine times,” recalled Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “Teddy Roosevelt  understood that when you sell off or exploit public lands, you don’t get them back. Mr. Secretary, you don’t seem to understand that at all.” Wyden pointed to the nearly 2 million acres stripped from Grand Staircase and Bears Ears, and the drilling expansion.

    Zinke fired back that the land carved away from the monuments is still under various federal protections, as wilderness areas, for example. Wyden wasn’t swayed. “We talked a lot during your nomination process,” the senator said. “I said I would support your nomination, and I did. I will tell you right now, as of today, it is one of the biggest regrets in my public service.”

    Although budget cuts targeted for several Interior Department programs also came up in questions, offshore drilling took center stage. In another brief but heated exchange, Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) asked Zinke why renewable-energy projects are the only ones being cut when he has said he supports an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

    Zinke responded that solar energy requires hundreds of thousands of acres of land that lock out potential hunting and other uses and that wind “chops up birds,” explaining that windmill blades kill nearly 1.5 million birds and bats annually.

    Cortez Masto then pressed him on why he doesn’t have similar reservations about offshore drilling exploration, given its risk and cost. “Didn’t I just hear you say offshore has a low demand?” she asked.

    Zinke has exempted only Florida from the drilling proposal, saying the risk to beach tourism revenue driving the state’s economy is too great. He repeated that Florida also has a federal moratorium against oil and gas exploration that protects its coast until 2024.

    That hasn’t satisfied a bipartisan group of governors, lawmakers and attorneys general of Atlantic- and Pacific-coast states who are firmly opposed to potential drilling and the seismic testing that would precede it. Such testing, some studies say, harms mammals that rely on echolocation to associate and feed and could frighten away fish that commercial and recreation fisheries need to survive.

    Even if offshore oil and gas reserves prove to be low, a lease could lead to the exploratory seismic testing. The testing could also figure in efforts to map coastal geology.

    Zinke said seismic testing is also needed for cultivating wind energy, which conservationists prefer, and suggested that it should move forward for offshore oil and gas development. “I’m pretty confident we have oil and gas onshore to meet our country’s needs,” he said. “But we should know where oil and gas reserves are as a country.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/03/13/zinke-oil-and-gas-exploration-off-the-pacific-coast-might-not-happen/?utm_term=.b47be2ef2a6b
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

20. Feds, Alaska Try to Push Pace on Alaska Refuge Oil Exploration

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By lan Kovski

    Interior Department officials and Alaska Gov. Bill Walker are looking to accelerate work to prepare for oil leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the focus of a fight for more than 30 years over whether any oil production should ever take place on the land.

    Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt and Joseph Balash, Interior assistant secretary for land and minerals management, met March 8 and 9 with agency regional staff and business representatives in Anchorage, Alaska. Bernhardt said there that a notice on the next phase of regulatory plans for ANWR will be published in the Federal Register within weeks.

    The meetings came not long after the state administration proposed $10 million to help finance a seismic survey to find oil and gas fields in ANWR. A new seismic survey would use far better technology than the last survey, completed 33 years ago, and the data from it could encourage more companies to bid for oil leases, Andrew Mack, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, said.

    The state hopes to complete a survey next winter, Mack said.

    “I think they absolutely could complete a program during three months of winter,” Nikki Martin, president of the International Association of Geophysical Contractors, said.

    A survey is expected to cost more than $10 million, and the state is seeking corporate partners. A survey in ANWR could easily cost $20 million, possibly $30 million, Martin said.

    ‘Data is Critical’

    The first step for some companies looking to lease in ANWR will be to apply for permits to conduct seismic surveys.

    “Data before you actually drill your wells is critical,” Mack told Bloomberg Environment. There is a “voracious appetite” for data on the North Slope of Alaska, he added.

    CGG SA, Schlumberger Ltd., Geokinetics Inc., and SAExploration Holdings Inc. are some of the geophysical service companies that may conduct surveys, which are usually financed by oil companies.

    Seismic companies have been through three lean years—bad enough that Paris-based CGG, one of the biggest, filed in 2017 for a bankruptcy turnaround in the U.S. and France. CGG has acquired substantial operations over the years, including Fairweather Geophysical, which has done much work on the Alaska North Slope.

    Equipment stored at Deadhorse, Alaska, at the northern end of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, would have to be mobilized eastward in a winter exploration season on frozen permafrost when vehicles will not churn up the ground. Typically that is a three-month to four-month window.

    The higher costs of exploration in the Arctic, where conditions are tougher and environmental regulations are more restrictive, increase the importance of surveys.

    Environmental advocates oppose ANWR leasing and will be participants in public procedures involving environmental reviews and land planning for leasing, said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska regional director for the Wilderness Society.

    “We will lay out the blueprint of items that need to be addressed administratively,” she said.

    Shared Seismic Surveys

    Seismic surveys, creating vibrations that are reflected from subsurface geologic layers, can identify potential locations of oil and gas fields, although drilling is necessary to confirm the existence and amounts of hydrocarbons.

    Mack said the state has helped fund seismic work on state Arctic land in the past, starting in 2006. This time around, the data would be available for companies to look at—but not remove—in the state's Geological Materials Center, a fairly new facility.

    But, there is no assurance the state Legislature will authorize $10 million, Mack said. The state has had a more than $2 billion shortfall in each of the last few years.

    Companies Wary of Sharing

    Oil companies may not be willing to go along with a seismic survey involving the state, because that would allow competitors to look at the data for a fee, and companies prefer to keep such data proprietary.

    “It's a very competitive, confidential portion of our business,” said Kara Moriarty, president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.

    The oil companies don't like to talk about what their exploration plans are. They haven't divulged what seismic survey plans they may be contemplating on their own or taken a position on the governor's proposal, Moriarty said.

    Companies also worry about fiscal certainty, Martin said.

    Companies still don't know what the complications will be as Interior's Bureau of Land Management works on the leasing plan and an environmental impact statement.

    BLM will have to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to fulfill obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and possibly—because of polar bears—the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Martin said.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129767008&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129767008&jd=129767008
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

21. Chevron Phillips CEO Credits ‘Shale Revolution’ in Ramping Up Ethane Cracker in Southeast Texas

    Mar 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Carolyn Davis

    Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. LP has introduced feedstock and begun operations of its newest ethane cracker east of Houston at the Cedar Bayou facility in Baytown.

    At peak production, the unit is designed to produce 1.5 million metric tons/year, or 3.3 billion pounds/year, making it one of the largest crackers in the world.

    The cracker would work in conjunction with Chevron Phillips’ two polyethylene units that started up last fall in nearby Old Ocean, TX. Together, the cracker and polyethylene units form the bulk of the company’s U.S. Gulf Coast Petrochemicals Project (USGCPP) announced in 2011.

    “Construction of these world-scale assets has been ongoing since 2014 and today, we are entering a new era of growth,” said CEO Mark Lashier. “With global demand for ethylene and polyethylene poised for sustained long-term growth, the USGCPP will allow Chevron Phillips Chemical to deliver high-quality products to our customers across the country and around the globe.”

    Ethylene produced by the Cedar Bayou cracker would be used to meet the needs of the company’s derivative units, including the polyethylene units at Old Ocean, which are capable of producing products that include metallocene linear low-density polyethylene to advanced dual loop bimodal polyethylene resins.

    In addition, the ethylene would feed the company’s AlphaPlus normal alpha olefins plants.

    “Born from the shale revolution that is providing low-cost feedstock, the U.S. Gulf Coast Petrochemicals Project is the most transformational project in the history of our company,” Lashier said. “Our company and our growing employee base, the communities we call home, and the entire Gulf Coast region’s economy will benefit for decades to come as our project comes to life.”

    At peak construction, the USGCPP employed about 10,000 construction workers. Combined, it has generated 400 additional permanent jobs, according to Chevron Phillips.

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113673-chevron-phillips-ceo-credits-shale-revolution-in-ramping-up-ethane-cracker-in-southeast-texas
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

22. North Dakota Legislative Committee Tightens Oil, Gas Rules

    Mar 13, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence

    By Richard Nemec

    The North Dakota legislature’s Administrative Rules Committee (ARC) on Monday unanimously agreed to tighten the requirements for oil and gas spills and for royalties.

    The spill rules are to take effect April 1, and the royalty changes would be implemented by mid-2019.

    As part of revamping the state administrative code, the ARC embraced actions last December by the Industrial Commission (IC) to finalize oil and gas changes, which include requiring authorities to be notified about spills, site assessments and royalties.

    The three-member IC is made up of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner.

    A spokesperson for the Department of Mineral Resources, which would implement the rules, said the 43 changes would require “sundry notices for spills not responded to with adequate resources, site assessments before and after reclamation if deemed necessary by the director, and changes in royalty information statement requirements."

    The DMR director would have discretion to require site assessments before and after wellsite reclamation. Requirements also were strengthened for oil and gas metering systems, bond and transfer requirements for wells, signage on wells, as well as notifications for fires, leaks, spills or blowouts, and cleaning up incidents.

    The IC has the prerogative to impose more stringent requirements if warranted by the proximity of wells to "sensitive areas," or because of an operator’s past spill performance or “careless operating practices."

    DMR earlier this year clarified and/or updated rules for bonding, gas gathering pipelines, oil/produced water lines and facility berms.

    Meanwhile, on Monday DMR issued an incident report involving the spill of an estimated 252 bbl of oil released last Saturday in Divide County, when a recycle pipeline failed, according to a report by Slawson Exploration Co.

    "All fluid was contained within the tank diking, and a recycle line runs oil back through the heater treater if the oil does not meet specifications for sale," the DMR spokesperson said. A state inspector was on site monitoring the clean-up work.

    http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113674-north-dakota-legislative-committee-tightens-oil-gas-rules
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

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

Transportation and Infrastructure News

23. As Trump Cabinet Secretaries Head to Hill, Big Hurdles Remain on Infrastructure

    Mar 14, 2018 | The Washington Post

    By Michael Laris

    As the Trump administration ramps up lobbying for its infrastructure plan, with five Cabinet secretaries making a pilgrimage to a Senate committee on Wednesday, there is bipartisan agreement that the nation should deal with worsening traffic congestion, a mountain of undone maintenance, spotty rural broadband, long-neglected water projects and more.

    But math and politics — as well as profound disagreements over tax increases, the proper roles for the government and the private sector, and the value of environmental checks and balances — continue to be major impediments.

    The growing nature of the challenge — Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao recently cited approximately $4 trillion in infrastructure needs — has gummed up the system’s ability to solve it, outside observers said.

    “This has been going on for a long time,” said John Forrer, an associate research professor of strategic management and public policy at George Washington University. “The worse it gets, the harder it gets.”

    Political demands for spending in the short run, with immediate benefits, end up taking precedence over calls for rebuilding costly infrastructure for the long-term good, Forrer said. “The problem’s gotten so bad that the traditional solutions being offered by the individual participants won’t get at the problem anymore. . . . We’ll need to see more leadership on the issue, bringing together all sides.”

    That disconnection between aspiration and reality has been on display as opponents spar over two fundamental questions: how much construction the Trump plan would actually fund; and what to do about the looming shortfall in the nation’s Highway Trust Fund, a major source of federal infrastructure funding.

    Trump administration officials pressing for the president’s 10-year, $200 billion infrastructure initiative have concentrated their sales pitch on the contours of the plan, which they assert will prompt $1.3 trillion in state, local and private spending. The plan would give governors block grants benefiting rural areas, set aside funds for “transformative” projects and create a $100 billion incentive plan.

    Chao and the secretaries of energy, labor, agriculture and commerce are to appear before the Senate Commerce Committee on Wednesday for a hearing on the administration’s plan.

    Critics have repeatedly dismissed the administration’s proposal as a “scam,” and last week, Senate Democrats released their own infrastructure initiative, which calls for $1 trillion in federal spending. It would be paid for by undoing major elements of the Republican tax cuts passed last year, as well as ditching a tax break benefiting investment managers.

    Economists at the Penn Wharton Budget Model, citing decades of academic research, said the Trump plan would result in, at most, $30 billion in new spending on infrastructure, beyond the $200 billion in federal funds. That is because, they said, states and localities would spend less of their own money on such projects, seeking to rely on federal money instead, a common phenomenon known as substitution.

    Trump administration officials accused the Wharton economists of failing to read or understand the plan, which would require a state or locality to prove that it had created a new revenue source to be eligible for the federal incentive grants. “Just by legal and mathematical rules, it’s impossible” to have passing out $100 billion in incentive grants lead to anything but a minimum of $500 billion in total new spending, an administration official said, since the required ratio of federal to state or local spending is 4 to 1.

    The official did say that a fairer critique of the administration’s approach would be that states might not want to sign up if there is such a tight requirement that they come up with new revenue themselves. The Wharton economists, in turn, responded that other administrations have tried over decades to create airtight requirements that federal money augment, not replace, local spending, and that those efforts have routinely failed.

    A struggle over the nation’s 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal gas tax also has hovered over the administration’s plan. The tax was last increased in 1993.

    Starting early in Trump’s term, some of the president’s top advisers pushed for increasing the tax, which is not indexed to inflation and has experienced an erosion of its value.

    Trump’s budget, released last month, projected a shortfall of more than $120 billion in the Highway Trust Fund.

    Administration officials say they are cognizant of the problem but are concentrating on trying to get support for the infrastructure plan.

    An increase in the gas tax has support from some in Congress from both parties and from business groups of various stripes. But it also has vigorous opponents, particularly among conservative lawmakers, and an increase did not make it into the massive tax bill passed last year.

    In a White House meeting last month, Trump told members of Congress that he supported a 25 cent-a-gallon increase and that he would be willing to take political heat for the move.

    A White House official said she would not discuss the contents of a closed-door meeting.

    “The gas tax has its pros and cons, and that’s why the president is leading a thoughtful discussion on the right way to solve our nation’s infrastructure problems,” the official said.

    Chao has said that none of the options for paying for infrastructure are welcome or pain-free.

    “Gas tax increases can be said to be the most regressive of all user fees or taxes . . . against the most vulnerable within our society, and that’s the lower-waged worker,” Chao said. But “somehow, we’ve got to pay for $1.5 trillion” in infrastructure improvements, as called for in Trump’s plan.

    “We want to work with Congress and come to some kind of an agreement on how to pay for this new expenditure,” Chao said. “The most noteworthy item is that nothing is off the table, and this is different from in the past.”

    Michael Laris writes about the transformation of the U.S. transportation system. He previously covered government accountability and was a reporter based in Beijing.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/as-trump-cabinet-secretaries-head-to-hill-big-hurdles-remain-on-infrastructure/2018/03/13/1a18f606-26ca-11e8-b79d-f3d931db7f68_story.html?utm_term=.96dcbf831a2d

    Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News

24. Pompeo's Rise Puts a Climate Skeptic Atop State Department

    Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Emily Holden

    Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s dramatic ouster Tuesday removes another moderate voice on international climate change policy from the Trump administration, worrying environmentalists and exciting conservatives.

    Tillerson‘s announced replacement, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, shares President Donald Trump’s doubts about climate change and would be a more willing partner in the plan to pull the United States out of the Paris climate deal.

    As a Republican member of Congress representing Kansas, Pompeo slammed former President Barack Obama’s decision to join the 2015 pact, saying he was bowing “down to radical environmentalists, all the while refusing to stand up to radical Islamists.” During his confirmation hearing to lead the CIA last year, Pompeo sidestepped questions about climate change.

    Myron Ebell, the energy director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who worked in the presidential transition, said opponents of climate action see Tillerson’s leaving as an opportunity.

    “In terms of the climate debate, I would say this is very good news,” Ebell said. “Pompeo has been very skeptical of the international negotiations that led to Paris, so I’d say we’re in a stronger position today than with Tillerson there.”

    Tillerson tried to convince Trump to change his mind last year and stick with the agreement. And the State Department sent a delegation to climate talks in Bonn, Germany, last November despite Trump’s announced decision to exit the underlying Paris deal.

    Other moderates in the White House stood by Tillerson on climate change, including Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner, National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and the president’s special adviser on international energy and climate issues George David Banks. Cohn and Banks have also left the White House in recent weeks, and Kushner has seen his profile downgraded following questions about his security clearance.

    Under the terms of the Paris deal, the U.S. cannot formally exit until 2020, but it is unclear whether Pompeo would continue to participate in talks until then, including a session in Poland scheduled for the end of this year. Undersecretary for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon, the likely delegation head, plans to vacate his post, and Pompeo will pick his replacement.

    As the president’s top foreign policy adviser, Pompeo will be navigating a broad portfolio that includes evolving diplomatic relations with North Korea and consideration of a Middle East peace deal, and climate change may not be high on his radar, noted Andrew Light, a senior climate change adviser at Obama’s State Department.

    “I would say going into State, it’s not on the top of the list of problems he needs to be fixing or needs to be asserting himself on,” Light said.

    Banks, who promoted coal use on behalf of the White House at the discussions in Bonn, said there is still “consensus across the administration that the United States needs to be engaged actively in order to protect its interests, its commercial interests, including the interests of its fossil fuel industry.”

    Pompeo could also change direction on some climate programs that have continued under Trump, including USAID‘s financial support for developing countries to invest in adaptation and clean tech.

    Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said much will depend on where climate change falls on Pompeo’s list of priorities.

    “Tillerson’s stance was one of benign neglect. He didn’t spend much time on the issue. It wasn’t a priority,” Meyer said. “The question would be — would Pompeo give it much attention, and if so, in what direction?”

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/03/pompeo-for-tillerson-swap-brings-opposite-view-on-climate-to-top-of-state-411936
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

25. At Climate Speech Landmark, Whitehouse Aims for Deals on Carbon

    Mar 13, 2018 | Politico Pro

    By Anthony Adragna

    Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the Senate’s fiercest climate hawk, said he's open to a compromise that would put a fee on carbon emissions in exchange for axing some “moot” environmental regulations — if it’s structured correctly.

    In an interview with POLITICO ahead of his 200th speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday calling for action on climate change, Whitehouse said removing some pollution regulations would need to be based on the how effective a carbon fee would be.

    "Do you still need, for instance, the interstate transport rule? I don’t know," he said, referring to the regulation on pollutants like NOx and SOx that cross state lines. "But if we don’t need it because we do better through a carbon price than we do through the regulation, if it makes it a moot regulation, then I’m certainly not going to stop progress on climate change in order to regulate for regulation’s sake."

    Some green groups have been uneasy with making that sort of deal, arguing it would create a damaging precedent to erode bedrock environmental statutes.

    And despite the Trump administration's gutting of the Obama-era rules addressing climate change, Whitehouse said the growing public concern about the lack of progress on the issue, rising pressure on Congress from the business community and the rapid growth of renewable energy could change the policy discussion on the Hill.

    The last major Congressional effort to fight climate change in 2010, when a bill that would have established a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade program passed the House but died in the Senate.

    Whitehouse first took the floor on April 18, 2012 to launch his “Time to Wake Up” speeches, slamming the “continuing disgrace” of Congress' failure to act on climate change. What began as addresses he wrote mostly by himself has evolved into a fine-tuned process within his office, with each speech going through two or three drafts — and inspirations often emerging from Whitehouse's sleepless nights when he spends several hours jotting down ideas on his iPad.

    “It’s not unusual for me to either be unable to get to sleep or to wake up and not be able to get back to sleep and realize it’s because something here is bothering me," he said. "That’s the way some of the more combative ones emerge."

    Whitehouse says he understands why some of his GOP colleagues aren’t sticking out their necks on climate issues — especially since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision that allowed political money to flow largely unfettered.

    "It would be a suicide mission to try and buck the big powers that are behind the party now,” he said. Still, he said he routinely hears from GOP colleagues who privately support of his efforts, but fear a backlash if they publicly back climate change action.

    And he said corporate giants like Apple, Facebook, Pepsi and CitiGroup have failed to back up their own climate action policies with financial and advocacy muscle to pressure Congress to act.

    “They all do this great stuff and then they come here to Congress and they completely fall apart. They don’t do a damn thing. Why take on the hassle?” Whitehouse said. “I wouldn’t have gotten to 200 [speeches] if they’d shown up.”

    While he's been steadfast in advocating for a carbon fee, Whitehouse has taken a pragmatic stance behind the scenes on smaller bills he thinks offer climate benefits. He signed onto legislation boosting a carbon capture and sequestration credit that made it into a recent spending package over the objections of several environmental groups and co-sponsored another bill, S. 97 (115), boosting research and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors.

    His Democratic colleagues credit Whitehouse with keeping climate change on their political radar. He distributes weekly roundups of climate change news and has played a pivotal role in making it a regular part of caucus luncheons.

    More than 20 of those colleagues, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Tom Carper (D-Del.), will now join Whitehouse on Tuesday in urging climate action as he delivers his 200th speech.

    “He has been incredible,” Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told POLITICO. “He’s kept us focused on it. It’s made a huge difference. We are really energized by his leadership on this.”

    Republicans who oppose climate action and dismiss the science behind it say Whitehouse’s perseverance is impressive, even though they doubt he’s changed any minds.

    “I don’t think it’s accomplishing what he’d like to accomplish,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. “He’s got an issue that’s not science-based and for that reason repetition seems to work … It’s probably a good strategy on his part and it makes him happy.”

    Whitehouse disputed the idea his speeches have accomplished nothing, arguing he’s a “pilot light” to ensure lawmakers are ready to pounce when a legislative opening presents itself. And he wants to ensure that history books don’t blame climate inaction on partisanship, a failing of democracy or the quality of legislators sent to Congress.

    “When people look back at why Congress failed so catastrophically at such an obvious and important task, I want there to be a record of what was going on here and who was doing what to whom and what the real story was,” he said. “This was an old fashioned special interest, special pleading, [that was] masqueraded and deployed with relentless and merciless rigor to corrupt the operations of this place and make sure they won.”

    https://www.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/03/at-climate-speech-landmark-whitehouse-aims-for-deals-on-carbon-409974
    

    Return to headline | Return to top

26. New York Seeks EPA Crackdown on Ozone From Upwind States

    Mar 14, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report

    By John Herzfeld

    New York regulators petitioned the EPA to take action against upwind ozone pollution from hundreds of facilities in nine states.

    The March 13 petition from the Department of Environmental Conservation opened a new front in legal actions by downwind states to prevent ozone pollution drifting from the upwind states from dirtying their air beyond federal limits.

    Similar actions filed recently by Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland have targeted pollution from a handful of power plants, but the New York petition names more than 350 power plants, factories, and oil and gas operations as major ozone emitters, or those projected to produce at least 400 tons of nitrogen oxides in 2017.

    Hundreds of Companies

    The locations included a wide swath of major U.S. industrial and energy companies, including AEP, Alcoa, ArcelorMittal, Archer Daniels Midland Corp., Duke Energy, ExxonMobil, Honeywell, Lilly, NRG, PPG Industries, and U.S. Steel.

    The petition asked the Environmental Protection Agency to declare Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia in violation of a “good neighbor” provision under Section 126(b) of the Clean Air Act.

    Pollution from those states keeps New York from complying with its ozone limits for the New York City metropolitan area and the western New York region around Buffalo, New York argued.

    The requested declaration would clear the way for the EPA to require the nine states to impose “suitable” emissions controls on the named pollution sources.

    “New York is asking the EPA to require these polluters in upwind states to do their fair share and control the air pollution that is impacting our air quality,” DEC Commissioner Basil Seggos said in a statement. “Without these controls, New Yorkers will suffer not only a public health burden, but will be required to suffer the additional economic burden of forcing further controls on New York-based sources of pollution.”

    Multistate Lawsuit

    New York joined seven other states in suing the EPA in December to expand the Ozone Transport Region, a pollution-control area running along the East Coast from Maine to the District of Columbia.

    That action, challenging a November EPA rejection of a multistate petition, was aimed at pollution from most of the same states named in the latest petition.

    In May, a federal court ordered the EPA to create ozone standards for Kentucky under the good neighbor provision, acting on a Sierra Club lawsuit.

    The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, the ultimate owner of Bloomberg Environment.

    http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129766998&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129766998&jd=129766998
    

    Return to headline | Return to top