Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/16/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Big Risk from US Steel Tariff Is Not Higher Costs but Trade War
Mar 15, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
The number one risk to the US chemical sector from the US steel and aluminium tariffs is not the resulting actual higher construction costs, but retaliation from other countries escalating into a trade war. -
(ACC Mentioned) What Could Dampen Chemical Industry Momentum?
Mar 16, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is finding traction again after staying down for a while. Chemical makers should benefit from continued strong demand in major markets and strategic measures including expansion into high-growth markets, aggressive cost management... -
(ACC Mentioned) LYB or EMN: Which Chemical Stock to Bet on Post Q4 Earnings?
Mar 15, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry has gotten its mojo back on an upswing in the global economy and strength across major end-use markets. The highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in fourth-quarter 2017. -
(ACC Mentioned) Master Class: Why a Career Is a Series of Apprenticeships
Mar 16, 2018 | Green Biz
By Terry F. Yosie
Eleven and a half years can be a long or a short period of time, depending on your evaluation perspective. For me, it was the right length of time to serve as the World Environment Center’s president and CEO and continue a career-planning path built on adaptation and change. -
Industry Representatives Start Talks on Cross-Sector Material Declarations
Mar 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Industry representatives have held an initial discussion on how to develop a solution for collecting and sharing material data for articles – including their chemical composition – across sectors. -
Amended EU Waste Directive to Require Notification on Svhcs in Articles
Mar 15, 2018 | Chenical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A proposed amendment to Article 9 of the waste framework Directive means that suppliers will have to notify Echa of the presence of substances of concern in articles. -
EU Commission to Replace Scoel with Echa's Rac
Mar 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission intends to reassign the responsibilities of DG Employment's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel) to Echa's risk assessment committee (Rac), according to a staff working document (SWD) accompanying the second REACH review. -
‘Banning the Bag’ Won't Fix Ocean Plastic Problem, Manufacturers Say
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Each year, more than eight million metric tons of plastic ends up in oceans, endangering marine wildlife, fisheries and tourism. Unless something changes, by 2025 the oceans will hold about one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish... -
New Study Says Lead – Even at Low Levels – is Associated with Risk of Premature Death
Mar 15, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ananya Roy and Tom Neltner
This week, a team of researchers led by Dr. Bruce Lanphear published an important new study on the deadly impact of lead exposure for adults. -
Study: Lead Exposure Can Be Deadly For Adults
Mar 15, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
The danger of children's exposure to even the lowest level of lead is well known. Now, a new study finds that adults who are exposed to lead face major risks of death from heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases. -
Energy Development Debated as Interior Secretary Faces Lawmakers
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke defended his efforts to expedite energy development on federal lands as lawmakers questioned him March 15 about his agency's fiscal year 2019 budget request. -
Rover Again Ordered to Halt Work in West Virginia on Stormwater Violations
Mar 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) has ordered Rover Pipeline LLC to halt construction activities in the state due to violations of the pipeline’s water pollution control permit. -
Energy Regulator Reinstates Approval of Sabal Trail Gas Pipeline
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to find that the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline project, as mitigated, is an “environmentally acceptable” action, according to an order late March 14. -
Regulators OK Environmental Review for Disputed Oil Pipeline
Mar 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Steve Karnowski
Minnesota regulators approved the final environmental review Thursday for Enbridge Energy’s proposal to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline in northern Minnesota, setting the stage for a final decision on the disputed project in June. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Government Share Lessons Learned from Hurricane Harvey
Mar 16, 2018 | Smart Brief
By James daSilva
The Texas Gulf Coast is a region where regulators and chemical companies are familiar with each other, both because of the sheer number of facilities in the region and because of the important roles each has when it comes to disaster preparation, response and recovery. -
Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says
Mar 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Nicole Perlroth and David E. Sanger
The Trump administration accused Russia on Thursday of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will. -
Energy Department Moving on Cybersecurity, Perry Tells Congress
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Energy Secretary Rick Perry sought to assure House appropriators March 15 he is working to shore up the energy sector against cybersecurity attacks. -
Tri-Chem Industries Chemical Plant in North Texas Explodes
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
One person is injured and one is missing after a Tri-Chem Industries chemical plant in North Texas exploded and caught fire early March 15. -
(ACC Mentioned) Air Pollutant Reviews Stalled; EPA Advisers Haven't Met in Months
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Three required scientific reviews for federally regulated air pollutants are on hold due to EPA delays and Administrator Scott Pruitt's November shake-up of the external air quality science board that advises the agency. -
Calvert Doesn't See Need for WOTUS, Ozone Riders
Mar 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who oversees the panel responsible for EPA and Interior spending, told reporters today he doesn't see the need for riders on the Waters of the U.S. rule or concerning ozone limits in the emerging spending bill. -
Environmentalists Sue EPA to Force Action on San Joaquin Ozone Plan
Mar 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA to force the agency to approve or disapprove a California air quality plan aimed at attaining the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after the agency missed a statutory deadline to act. -
Green Groups Sue EPA for Correspondence with Climate Skeptic Group
Mar 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Two environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Thursday for failing to provide correspondence between the agency and a prominent group skeptical of climate change science, The Heartland Institute. -
FEMA Strips Mention of Climate Change from Its Strategic Plan
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, responsible for dealing with the effects of disasters like hurricanes and floods, has stripped the words “climate change” from the document meant to guide its actions over the next four years.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Big Risk from US Steel Tariff Is Not Higher Costs but Trade War
Mar 15, 2018 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
The number one risk to the US chemical sector from the US steel and aluminium tariffs is not the resulting actual higher construction costs, but retaliation from other countries escalating into a trade war.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) estimates a typical 1.5m tonne/year cracker in the US uses about 18,500 short tons of steel and 1,150 short tons of aluminium.
The steel component represents just around 2% of total investment costs for a new cracker using traditional input-output analysis and cost engineering data, according to the ACC.
“Our 2% estimate reflects the purchased costs of the steel – not the finished cost of the equipment, foundation, etc, which includes fabrication labour. It’s just the steel mill product – pipe, rebar, hot-rolled coil, sheet, etc,” said Kevin Swift, chief economist of the ACC.
On this basis, a 25% increase in steel costs would equate to a total increase in US chemical project construction costs of 0.5% – hardly a deal-breaker but still an incremental negative factor.
US President Trump announced on a 25% tariff on steel imports, and a 10% tariff on aluminium on 8 March but there are exemptions for Canada and Mexico, as well as certain types of steel the US needs. Thus an overall steel cost increase resulting from the tariff is likely to be well below 25%.
Before the details of the US tariff announcement were made, DowDuPont president and chief operating officer Jim Fitterling noted that very roughly 20% of the cost of the company’s $6bn in latest US Gulf Coast investments was related to steel.
However, this could include the cost of finished components or equipment made from steel. The figure was meant to be “all inclusive” regarding steel, according to a DowDuPont spokesperson.
US TARIFF COVERAGE
Trump’s presidential proclamation on steel tariffs on 8 March includes certain iron and steel ingots; semi-finished products; flat rolled products; bars and rods; wire; angles, shapes and sections; sheet piling; rails; fish plates and sole plates; and tubes, pipes and hollow profiles.
“The tariff is apparently on the steel mill products… For a fabricator of a pressure vessel, for example, if they haven’t bought the steel yet, the costs of the tariffs would be included in future purchases of steel… and the fabricator would likely pass these costs on to the purchaser of the pressure vessel – in this case the chemical company making the investment,” said the ACC’s Swift. Since the tariffs are not on chemical project equipment itself, one could expect more imports of such equipment.
“My impression is that the protectionist coverage along the steel and aluminium value chains will be spotty. Where there are openings – or at the point down the chain where the tariff coverage cuts off – I would expect to see a rise in imports of those products that use steel and aluminium as inputs, such as a piece of cracker equipment,” said Emily Sanchez, director of economics and data analytics at the ACC.
“Offshoring will be incentivised in those industries. For the same underlying reasons, the 2002 US steel tariffs incentivised the offshoring of downstream consuming industries. I don’t see why that wouldn’t be a consequence this time around,” she added.
INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE
The bigger risk is the backlash from other trading partners, and whether this escalates into a wider trade war with the US.
Thus far, the response has been muted. China has talked about not wanting a trade war, and the EU has warned about tariffs on US jeans, motorcycles and bourbon whiskey in retaliation.
It’s hard to believe the latest moves would escalate into a global trade war, but the US is likely not done with protectionist measures. The first major shot in the global trade battle has been fired. Now wait for the blowback.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/03/15/10202823/big-risk-from-us-steel-tariff-is-not-higher-costs-but-trade-war/
-
(ACC Mentioned) What Could Dampen Chemical Industry Momentum?
Mar 16, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry is finding traction again after staying down for a while. Chemical makers should benefit from continued strong demand in major markets and strategic measures including expansion into high-growth markets, aggressive cost management, acquisitions and investment on capacity expansion. However, the industry is still exposed to certain headwinds. There are a few reasons to be mindful about the chemical industry in the near term, which we have outlined below:
China Worries Persist
Fears of an economic slowdown in China -- a major market for chemicals -- is a deterrent over the short haul. The world's second-biggest economy remains hampered by persistent industrial overcapacity, weak property investment and rising corporate debt. In particular, ballooning debt levels (manifested by rising debt-to-GDP ratios) and rapid credit expansion have raised a red flag on the Chinese economy.
China's GDP expanded 6.9% in 2017, better than the Chinese government's growth target of roughly 6.5%, aided by a recovery in export. However, the country's economy is expected to lose momentum this year and faces headwinds from tighter regulations, trade tensions with the United States and a weaker consumer sector.
The Chinese government expects a slowdown in economic growth this year and sees a GDP growth of 6.5%. The expected slowdown, in part, is due to Beijing's efforts to curb risks in the financial system, reduce poverty and clean up the environment (partly through reduction in steel and coal production).
Moreover, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), its annual report on the Chinese economy, had issued a warning about the country's surging debt level that has raised risks for a potential sharp decline in growth in the medium term. The IMF projects China's growth to moderate gradually and sees GDP to grow 6.6% in 2018, further slowing to a 6.4% growth in 2019.
Capital outflow pressures, rapid credit expansion, continued reliance on stimulus measures and geopolitical uncertainties are among the key risks to the country's economic growth. As such, a sluggish Chinese economy may weigh on demand for chemicals in this significant market.
Still-Difficult Fertilizer/Agrichemical Space
Agriculture market fundamentals remain weak, and there is continuous negative sentiment among agriculture investors that can create uncertainty in the near term. Moreover, the prevailing softness in agricultural commodity pricing remains a concern for fertilizer and agricultural chemicals companies. Prices of major crops (such as corn and soybeans) remain at their multi-year lows as markets remain awash with grains.
Adding to the concerns is the expected decline in U.S. farm income in 2018. U.S. farm profits are expected to hit 12-year low this year, per the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) outlook. The USDA envisions net U.S. farm income to tumble 6.7% year over year to $59.5 billion in 2018, the lowest level since 2006.
The projected decline in profits is due to lower expected cash receipts from the sale of crop inventories as well as low crop prices. The USDA expects cash receipts for all commodities to go down 0.5% year over year to $363.1 billion in 2018. Cash receipts for crops have been forecast to dip 0.8% to $188.2 billion. The USDA also sees prices of corn and soybean to drop this year.
As such, lower anticipated farm income is likely to negatively influence farmers' nutrient-purchasing decisions this year. Lower profit is expected to lead to tightened spending by growers.
Raw Material Cost Pressure
Commodity pricing remain a concern for many U.S. chemical producers. Their ability to pass these costs on to end consumers is not always easy, given the competitive pressures in play.
A number of chemical companies including PPG Industries, Inc. (PPG), Celanese Corp. (CE) and Eastman Chemical Co. (EMN) are witnessing a spike in raw material prices, exacerbated by short supply due to hurricanes. As a result, margins of these producers may be under pressure moving ahead amid an inflationary environment. A number of chemical makers, in their December quarter earnings calls, have warned of continued headwinds from elevated input costs through first-half 2018.
Trump Trade Tariffs Pose Headwinds
While President Trump's actions toimpose heavy tariffs on steel and aluminum imports would provide more protection to the domestic producers of these metals, it poses a headwind for the U.S. chemical industry. The move is expected to hurt new chemical investment in the United States and may lead to a slowdown in growth in the domestic chemical industry. These costly tariffs are likely to push up the costs of building chemical plants that use a significant amount of steel.
According to the American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), the chemical industry has invested $185 billion in new factories, expansions and restarts of plants across the United States with more than half of these projects presently in the planning stage. The trade group has raised concerns that the hefty trade tariffs may force investors to consider doing business elsewhere.
Stocks to Get Rid of Now
As you can see, there are certain reasons to be cautious about the chemical industry. As such, it would also be a prudent choice to get rid of certain companies in the space that show weak fundamentals and carry an unfavorable Zacks Rank.
We hold a bearish view on Olin Corp. (OLN), Compass Minerals International, Inc. (CMP) and Ashland Global Holdings Inc. (ASH), each holding a Zacks Rank #5 (Strong Sell). We also suggest staying away from stocks such as Innophos Holdings, Inc. (IPHS), Innospec Inc. (IOSP) and Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. (AXTA), all carrying a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell).
(Check out our latest for a more detailed discussion on the fundamental trends.)
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/what-could-dampen-chemical-industry-momentum-cm935579
-
(ACC Mentioned) LYB or EMN: Which Chemical Stock to Bet on Post Q4 Earnings?
Mar 15, 2018 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry has gotten its mojo back on an upswing in the global economy and strength across major end-use markets. The highly cyclical industry put up a commendable performance in fourth-quarter 2017. A host of companies in the space posted better-than-expected earnings in the quarter, driven by strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions
The has outperformed the broader market in a year's time. The industry has gained around 17.5% over this period, higher than the S&P 500's corresponding return of roughly 16.4%.
While the chemical industry still faces a few headwinds, its momentum is expected to continue this year on sustained demand strength across construction and automotive markets, a rebound in demand in the energy place and significant shale-linked capital investment.
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 including Celanese Corp. and PPG Industries, Inc. are taking appropriate pricing actions to offset raw materials cost inflation, which should also provide margin benefits.
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 U.S. chemical production (excluding pharmaceuticals) to rise 3.7% in 2018. The growth is expected to be spurred by higher demand across light vehicles and housing markets, capital investments and strengthening export markets.
The European chemical industry is also back in business after remaining in a rut for a spell. The business environment for the European chemical industry has improved on the back of a resurgent Eurozone economy and improving global economic sentiment.
In this write up, we run a comparative analysis on two prominent chemical payers - LyondellBasell Industries N.V. and Eastman Chemical Company - to figure out which one is a better option for investment right now.
LyondellBasell, a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) stock, has a market capitalization of around $41.6 billion and is among the leading plastics, chemical and refining companies globally. You can see .
LyondellBasell is executing its expansion projects to leverage the U.S. natural gas liquids advantage. The company's expansion initiatives are expected to boost capacity and add to its earnings. LyondellBasell expects capital spending of roughly $2.4 billion for 2018 with roughly 55% is targeted toward profit generating growth.
LyondellBasell, last month, agreed to buy A. Schulman, Inc. , a leading supplier of high-performance plastic compounds, in a deal worth $2.25 billion. The buyout doubles the size of LyondellBasell's existing compounding business and creates a platform for future growth with reach into additional high-growth markets.
Eastman Chemical, sporting a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy), is a global chemical company boasting a broad portfolio of chemical, plastic, and fiber products with a market capitalization of $13.1 billion.
Eastman Chemical is gaining from strong growth of high-margin products in its specialty businesses and its strategic acquisitions. It remains focused on cost-cutting and productivity actions, which is helping it to offset raw material cost inflation and other cost headwinds.
Let's take a closer look at how LyondellBasell and Eastman Chemical are stacked up against each other in terms of certain key metrics.
Price Performance
Eastman Chemical's shares have rallied 36.7% over the past year while LyondellBasell's shares have gained 19.7%. While both stocks have outperformed the Zacks Chemicals Diversified industry over the same period, Eastman Chemical clearly scores above LyondellBasell.Debt-to-Equity Ratio
The debt-to-equity ratio is a good indicator of the financial well-being of a company and is a good proxy for its debt-servicing capacity. Eastman Chemical has a debt-to-equity ratio of 112.2, while the industry has debt-to-equity ratio of 34.8. In contrast, with a debt-to-equity ratio of 96.3 LyondellBasell wins this round.
Current Ratio
This metric measures the ability of a company to meet its short-term debt obligations efficiently. In other words, it is the ratio of the current level of total assets and versus the current level of liabilities. Here, LyondellBasell is a clear winner with a current ratio of 2.46, which is superior to Eastman Chemical's reading of 1.59.Valuation
Going by the EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/ Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization) multiple, a preferred valuation metric for cyclical industries like chemicals, LyondellBasell looks cheaper compared with Eastman Chemical.
Both LyondellBasell and Eastman Chemical are underpriced, with EV/EBITDA ratios of 8.6 and 11.8, respectively, compared with the industry's EV/EBITDA ratio of 17. Clearly, LyondellBasell is cheaper and scores on this front.Return on Equity (ROE)
ROE is a measure of a company's efficiency in utilizing shareholder's funds. ROE for the trailing 12-months for LyondellBasell and Eastman Chemical is 55.1% and 22%, respectively. While both stocks have scored above the industry's level of 9.4%, LyondellBasell holds an edge here.Free Cash Flow Yields
Companies with strong operations generally have high free cash flow yield, indicating that the amount of money investors are generating is more than the amount spent on the stock.
Our proprietary model shows that free cash flow yield for LyondellBasell stands at 8.5%, higher than 6.6% of Eastman Chemical.Earnings Surprise History
Eastman Chemical has outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive earnings surprise of 17.7%. On the other hand, LyondellBasell has delivered positive earnings surprises in two of the trailing four quarters while missed twice, generating an average positive earnings surprise of 2.1%.
Growth Expectations
In terms of earnings growth expectations, Eastman Chemical scores above LyondellBasell. The expected earnings per share growth rate for Eastman Chemical for the current year stands at 12.1% compared with an expected increase of 5.1% for LyondellBasell.
The Verdict
Our comparative analysis shows that Eastman Chemical holds an edge over LyondellBasell in terms of price performance, earnings surprise history and earnings growth projections. However, when considering valuation, free cash flow yields, ROE measures, current ratio and debt-to-equity ratio, LyondellBasell seems to be the preferred stock. As the scale is clearly tipped in favor of LyondellBasell, it makes a better investment proposition compared to Eastman Chemical.https://www.nasdaq.com/article/lyb-or-emn-which-chemical-stock-to-bet-on-post-q4-earnings-cm935621
-
(ACC Mentioned) Master Class: Why a Career Is a Series of Apprenticeships
Mar 16, 2018 | Green Biz
By Terry F. Yosie
Eleven and a half years can be a long or a short period of time, depending on your evaluation perspective. For me, it was the right length of time to serve as the World Environment Center’s president and CEO and continue a career-planning path built on adaptation and change.
As I enter the 40th year of my career, I look back to conclude that I really did end up with the kind of career that I thought I would have. Having grown up in a small coal mining town in western Pennsylvania — where the creeks were yellow from acid mine drainage, and the boney piles were high resulting from decades of coal extraction — I was probably predisposed to develop a career focused on environmental protection. Initially, my thinking was oriented towards becoming a lawyer but, after receiving an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at Carnegie Mellon University, I redirected my interests to research the evolution of water pollution control technology and its impact on public policy.
Here are five key principles and practices that have guided my career planning:
Choose your mentors — don’t wait for them to choose you. I was intellectually interested in learning from people whose interests evolved from the specific to the general, whose career paths transcended disciplines or institutions and who understood the power of narrative. My strategy was simple: to make myself a resource for my mentors’ success and to learn and benefit from them. My first mentor was my academic advisor at Carnegie Mellon, Joel A. Tarr. In the 1970s, he held a triple appointment in the Departments of History and Civil Engineering and the School of Urban and Public Affairs. My next mentor was former EPA Administrator William D. Ruckelshaus (who was Deputy Attorney General when fired by President Richard Nixon during the Saturday Night Massacre in 1973, and subsequently a private-sector executive before returning to EPA in 1983-85, when I worked for him). It’s also important to continue selecting new mentors at different stages of your career. Currently, my mentors are small business entrepreneurs in developing nations and millennials adept at social media.
Be honest in assessing your own capabilities and interests. I have never wanted to be an expert about anything, and my quantitative skills are limited. In contrast, I have a great respect for the deep knowledge contained in specific disciplines and look for opportunities to build coalitions of different kinds of expertise necessary to solve problems across scientific, public policy and business institutions. In practice, this requires both curiosity and discipline to stay informed about changing scientific ideas and trends, even while thinking about how the chessboard of organizational objectives and strategy continue to evolve.
Disrupt yourself. In the five senior-level positions I held between 1978 to 2018, I initiated the change in the arc of my career on four occasions. After the initial career transitions, I became even less risk-averse and more thoughtful about how each subsequent stage could fill important knowledge and experience gaps. After nearly 10 years at the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, I was interested in learning how the private sector functioned and was appointed Vice President for Health and Environment at the American Petroleum Institute, where I frequently briefed CEOs on air quality, waste management and pollution prevention, climate change and negotiating regulatory standards for cleaner fuels. After four years at API, I became interested in working in a more entrepreneurial fashion and became executive vice president of a major consulting firm for 5.5 years, followed by service as vice president of responsible care at the American Chemistry Council, where I again worked closely with CEOs to transform industrywide transparency and governance of its signature environmental, health and safety performance initiative. My positions at EPA, API and ACC also had an international portfolio, a natural precursor to leading the World Environment Center. Disrupting one’s career need not require departing an employer, as many opportunities emerge from the constantly changing needs within individual organizations.
Participate in issues larger than yourself and be true to your values. Every organization, large or small, continuously must earn society’s license to exist. Some interpret this narrowly by obeying the law, generating profits and carefully managing the execution of its literal mission. Others seek to impact society on a grander scale by addressing inequality, diversity and educational challenges or by encouraging employees to contribute talent and time to solving social problems. Each of us must make an individual decision, consistent with our personal values, on which type of organization to work for. I once left an employer sooner than I expected because its advocacy moved in a direction that I could not support. I’ll admit to perhaps being naïve at the time but, in retrospect, I made the correct decision.
Let your network assist your recruiting. Every position I’ve held resulted from my professional network. At Carnegie Mellon, one of my thesis advisors, Francis C. McMichael, served on EPA’s Science Advisory Board and knew about a staff vacancy to which I successfully applied. Former reporter David Clarke informed me of a VP-level vacancy at ACC. And former DuPont executive Paul Tebo notified me that the World Environment Center was seeking a new chief executive. Every employee has a network. Develop its potential and put it to work in your behalf. As I seek my next position, I am regularly in touch with my network members, while always trying to stimulate their thinking on major sustainability challenges.
When I accepted the WEC position in 2006, I was at a much earlier stage of understanding sustainability strategies and practices. WEC has been a great laboratory for discovery and practical implementation of sustainability thinking at all levels. I leave with even greater excitement and commitment about the possibilities for change.
As I reflect on my WEC years, there are several big challenges that, even if partially resolved, can create significant momentum to protecting our planet and society for future generations. They include:
Improving the performance of businesses that don’t seek to become market leaders.In practice, this means working with individual companies and through business federations to institute appropriate transparency and governance programs so that we really do know that commitments are being implemented and shortcomings corrected. Meanwhile, we continue to work with the top 20 percent to keep raising the performance bar through more ambitious goal setting and business transformations.
Personalizing sustainability benefits. My two grandfathers, my father and five of eight uncles all worked in the West Virginia coal mines. Many of my cousins find the sustainability language and message to be impenetrable and are, therefore, skeptical if not hostile towards it. At the same time, they support clean air, land and water. We need to be doing a much better job at explaining what we want to achieve and why our success translates into opportunities for their success. At this juncture, we’re a long way from home.
Preparing the next generation of leaders to implement sustainability. To avoid the current dilemma of having to educate leaders in catch-up mode, we need to integrate sustainable thinking much earlier in career planning so that students and mid-career managers already have mastered sustainability fundamentals and its value proposition as they ascend their respective career ladders. While there are many individually successful university and corporate sustainability initiatives and programs, the integrated whole still falls short of the sum of the parts.Correcting policy failures. Environmental sustainability policy has taken a drastic turn in the wrong direction in the United States, and threatens to do so in other countries. This development places an added burden to rethink and refresh strategies for advocating public health and environmental protection, supporting scientific and technology investments, re-committing to appointing independent and qualified scientists to advise government agencies, removing tax policies and incentives that encourage wasteful consumption of resources, and designing cost effective public policies that embody flexibility and encourage innovation. None of these things will happen without grassroots support and strong business advocacy.
I haven’t decided on my next career path at this exact moment, but you can be sure that I’ll be thinking and writing on these and other topics in the days ahead.
https://www.greenbiz.com/article/master-class-why-career-series-apprenticeships
-
Industry Representatives Start Talks on Cross-Sector Material Declarations
Mar 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Industry representatives have held an initial discussion on how to develop a solution for collecting and sharing material data for articles – including their chemical composition – across sectors.
The delegates, who met on the sidelines of Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in Amsterdam this week, agreed on the benefits of a common way of communicating information. This could facilitate the collection and sharing of material composition information; allow companies to better identify substances of very high concern (SVHCs); and ensure compliance with changes and provisions in chemical regulations around the world.
Some of the sectors represented in the closed meeting – including those from the automotive, electronic, aerospace, apparel, furniture and chemicals industries – have their own material declaration systems. But currently these do not communicate or share information between companies, despite many suppliers selling the same articles and components to multiple sectors.
Speaking at the summit on Tuesday, Mr Timo Unger, on behalf of the European Automotive Industry Association (Acea), said there are four points that need to be considered in developing a cross-industry solution. These are:
· agreement of a common data structure, whether it’s in xml format or an online tool;
· a common understanding on the level of detail to be communicated;
· agreement on data quality; and
· a common understanding of data security.
"Only if these things are harmonised across industry, can the sectors then share information with other industries' systems," he said.
ECJ ruling
The need for such a solution became particularly important, following the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) 2015 decision to apply the 0.1% threshold for notifying SVHCs in articles, to "each of the articles incorporated as a component of a complex product" rather than to the entire article.
Some industry groups have consequently expressed concern about how they will be able to comply with REACH Article 33. This requires companies to respond to a request for information if a product contains any SVHCs above a concentration of 0.1%. They must provide this free of charge and within 45 days.
Since the ECJ decision, some industry representatives have called for a review of the provision.
Cefic’s REACH director Erwin Annys told Chemical Watch: "The need for such a common standard has become particularly important, following the ECJ's 2015 decision and the Commission's circular economy package, which will include an amendment to a provision in the waste framework Directive requiring suppliers of articles to provide information pursuant to REACH Article 33." Win win
Upstream industries, including chemicals manufacturers, said Mr Unger, would be the "biggest winners" from such a solution because they currently communicate information to all those downstream. "Upstream companies are not only receiving one request for substance information in one format, but hundreds of requests in hundreds of formats."
Cefic’s Mr Annys agreed: "The European chemical industry has for many years backed the need for one common system to communicate information on chemicals up and down the supply chain."
However, he said it must be a "flexible system that has the ability to work with current industry platforms, such as the automotive industry's International Material Data System (IMDS)."
One representative from a major electronics firm - who did not want to be named - agreed that a common standard for sharing material data and chemical composition, that also allowed the continued use of current sector systems, would help several industries distribute data across the supply chain and reduce overlapping requests for information.
Mr Unger also warned that if industry did not put in place a solution, others would "define the rules".
The Commission recently said it will launch a feasibility study, to be completed by the end of 2019, on the use of different information systems. This would trace technologies and strategies which could enable relevant information to flow along article supply chains and reach recyclers.
The idea of a cross-sector communication solution was also discussed at last year’s Chemical Watch Global Business Summit.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64946/industry-representatives-start-talks-on-cross-sector-material-declarations
-
Amended EU Waste Directive to Require Notification on Svhcs in Articles
Mar 15, 2018 | Chenical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A proposed amendment to Article 9 of the waste framework Directive means that suppliers will have to notify Echa of the presence of substances of concern in articles.
The move forms part of the EU’s circular economy package to develop non-toxic material cycles so that recycled waste can be used as a major and reliable source of raw material, free from hazardous chemicals.
The amendment was added after members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted by a large majority to adopt other proposed changes to ensure a ‘progressive substitution’ of SVHCs a year ago.
Last December, the EU Council and Parliament reached a provisional agreement on the amendment to Article 9 and others. They were later endorsed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives to the Council of Ministers (Coreper) in February.
Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal in mid-April. According to Echa, the Council is then slated to formally adopt the changes by the end of July.
According to the amended Directive, member states will need to:
· promote the reduction of the content of hazardous substances in materials and products; and
· ensure any supplier of an article, as defined under REACH Article 33, provides the necessary information on the presence of substances of concern.
Echa is required to establish a database for companies to submit the data, eighteen months after the Directive enters into force. The agency must also provide access to waste treatment operators, as well as consumers upon request.
Article 33 of REACH requires suppliers of articles containing any REACH candidate list substance, in a concentration above 0.1%, to inform the next actor in their supply chain. They must also provide the information within 45 days upon request from consumers.
‘Good compromise’
The obligation for companies to notify Echa of the presence of such substances in articles is a "carefully constructed compromise", Cefic’s government affairs manager, Steven Van de Broeck, told Chemical Watch.
He added that Cefic prefers the obligation to be implemented at the European level, to avoid "member states interpreting it differently, with different requirements and having different systems in place".
"It’s a bit confusing that on the one hand it’s linked to Echa, while on the other it’s an obligations for member states," he added. Overall, he said, "it’s quite important you have a harmonised approach across the EU, otherwise you risk ending up with different kinds of notifications that could make the process quite burdensome for all parties."
Its effectiveness will depend on how it is managed, he said, adding: "The devil might be in the details of the implementation."
It is important, he said, to keep an eye on parallel discussions, such as on the interface between chemicals, products and waste. "One day they might lead to better solutions than just putting in place this obligation," Mr Van de Broeck said.
Echa database
According to Echa, the database will treat articles made in the EU and those that are imported "the same way". And it "would probably contribute to a more level playing field", Rémi Lefèvre, an Echa scientific officer, told Chemical Watch.
The database will be useful for three target groups:
· waste operators: the data will improve knowledge and help sort and distinguish waste streams and enhance contribution to the circular economy;
· consumers: could receive better information on presence of candidate list substances in articles; and
· public authorities: the data would provide information on which substances are being used in particular articles – both produced in and from outside the EU. This should help identify articles containing substances of concern and facilitate regulatory risk management measures, such as REACH restrictions.
Mr Lefèvre added that Echa "stresses" that successful database operation will depend on the quality of data submitted by article suppliers to the EU market, "and to what extent they are willing to give useful and relevant information for different potential users".
https://chemicalwatch.com/64958/amended-eu-waste-directive-to-require-notification-on-svhcs-in-articles
-
EU Commission to Replace Scoel with Echa's Rac
Mar 15, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission intends to reassign the responsibilities of DG Employment's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (Scoel) to Echa's risk assessment committee (Rac), according to a staff working document (SWD) accompanying the second REACH review.
For the past few years, the Commission has been looking into the "interplay" of REACH with EU cccupational safety and health (OSH) legislation. In particular, this work focuses on the "overlap" between OSH occupational exposure levels (OELs) and REACH's derived no-effect levels (Dnels). OELs are used in the workplace to limit exposure, while worker Dnels are mainly used to assess whether there is adequate control of risk.
After detailed discussions and reports from a joint Scoel-Rac task force, the Commission has "questioned the need to have at EU level two different committees dealing with the evaluation of the same chemicals", according to the SWD's annex 6; a review of Echa.
"Therefore, it was considered necessary to build within Rac the necessary expertise to cover the areas covered by Scoel in a very short time period and over a long time period to replace Scoel with Rac."
Echa's Rac should "reconsider its own expertise", the SWD annex recommends. Meanwhile, the agency "should allocate the necessary resources to deal with these relatively new tasks," it adds.
Industry bodies are now keen to see that Scoel's expertise is carried over into Rac. "Scoel has a longstanding and recognised expertise in recommending OEL for workers. It would be a pity if that expertise is lost," said Tony Musu, senior researcher at the European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).
"If the decision to transfer that task to Rac is confirmed, it would make sense to integrate Scoel members in Rac," he added.
A spokesperson for Cefic, the European Chemical Industry Council, said that the committee should have the right expertise in this field, "Not only chemistry, toxicology, epidemiology, and occupational medicine but also an understanding of company occupational hygiene strategies and techniques."
REACH and OSH
Differences in Rac and Scoel methodologies for deriving OELs and Dnels have "sometimes led to significant divergences, leaving downstream users confused", according to the SWD. "Stakeholders have repeatedly expressed concerns about a lack of coherence in the implementation of REACH and OSH," it adds.
One particular case illustrates this divergence. During a restriction proposal for a reprotoxic solvent N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP), Rac agreed a Dnel of 10 milligrams (mg) per cubic metre (m3) while Scoel recommended an OEL of 40 mg/m3.
In 2015, the Commission asked Rac and Scoel to form a joint task force on scientific aspects and methodologies related to chemical exposure in the workplace. In February 2017, the task force published a report on OELs and Dnels, highlighting technical differences in the methodologies used by Scoel and in the Echa guidance that Rac uses to derive exposure limits.
The report described Scoel members as having a "general preference" for good quality human data, while Rac members tend to be more wary of such data. For less data-rich substances, Rac generally uses animal data as a starting point, together with assessment factors.
The task force also compared Echa and Scoel methodologies for dermal route exposure, skin notations and dermal Dnels, and delivered its final report in December 2017.
To "avoid discrepancies", the Commission considers that Rac and Scoel methodologies need to be aligned. It had said that it would seek scientific advice from Scoel or Rac on a case-by-case basis "while a more permanent solution was being sought".
It now proposes "concrete" steps to remove overlaps between REACH and OSH legislation:
· looking into how to use REACH tools – such as exposure scenarios and safety data sheets – to enhance the effectiveness of OSH legislation;
· improving the coordination of national enforcement authorities of REACH and OSH;
· aligning methodologies to establish safe levels of exposure to chemicals in the workplace; and
· enhancing the role of Rac, to provide scientific opinions under OSH, with "social partners" also involved.
In March 2017, the Commission asked Rac to evaluate dossiers on worker exposure for carcinogens, as part of its work to set binding OELs, linked to an update of the Directive on the protection of workers from risks related to carcinogens and mutagens (CMD).
https://chemicalwatch.com/64949/eu-commission-to-replace-scoel-with-echas-rac
-
‘Banning the Bag’ Won't Fix Ocean Plastic Problem, Manufacturers Say
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Each year, more than eight million metric tons of plastic ends up in oceans, endangering marine wildlife, fisheries and tourism. Unless something changes, by 2025 the oceans will hold about one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish, according to estimates from the Ocean Conservancy.
In response, large consumer brands are announcing plans to limit the impact of plastic in the environment. But whether those plans put the focus where it should be is very much up for debate.
Environmental groups have long advocated policies that ban or limit the amount of cheap, single-use plastic in circulation. Some manufacturers, however, contend the costs of replacing plastic might ultimately lead to more pollution. They want priority to go toward building better waste collection and recycling infrastructure—particularly in the emerging economies of Southeast Asia.
“Once people have gotten used to packaged foods, they are not going to give that up just because someone in an office in New York City thinks they should,” said Jeff Wooster, global sustainability director for Dow Packaging and Specialty Plastics.
Several countries ban or tax the use of plastic bags, and in the U.S. California has banned their use, as have some cities. But that recent push ignores the potentially problematic trade-offs of developing substitute materials, Wooster said.
“We don't want to make plastic bottles or packaging heavier just because it would be easier to recycle,” he told Bloomberg Environment last week, speaking from the World Ocean Summit in Mexico. “The fact of the matter is that without plastic, we would probably end up with more waste. It would just be a different kind of material, potentially with even more problems.”
Coca-Cola, McDonald's Packaging Waste
Two of the world's largest food companies, McDonald's Corp. and Coca-Cola Co., announced initiatives in January aimed at reducing the amount of packing waste in their global operations.
McDonald's set a target to make 100 percent of its consumer packaging from “renewable, recyclable and certified materials” by 2025. It also pledged to offer recycling in all of its worldwide restaurants.
Coca-Cola, the world's largest soft drink maker, declared its goal to recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. For every bottle or can the company sells globally, it wants to take one back.
“We don't currently see a viable replacement for packaging, so the solution is very much about putting better stuff out there, and bringing it back,” said Ben Jordan, senior director of environmental policy at Coca-Cola.
Environmental activist group Greenpeace slammed Coca-Cola's plan for failing to include any reduction of single-use plastic bottles. And Greenpeace noted that 110 billion of those bottles are produced annually, about 3,500 per second.
“Instead of focusing on reducing the amount of plastic it produces, the sure-fire way to reduce ocean plastic pollution, Coca-Cola is trying to offset its huge plastic footprint by investing in a bit more recycling,” said Louise Edge, senior oceans campaigner for Greenpeace UK.
Jordan says Coca-Cola doesn't see a one-size fits all recycling approach, but plans to work with local governments, as well as to focus on initiatives such as the Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas Alliance, which holds the broad goal of reducing the amount of plastic waste leaking into the ocean annually by 50 percent by 2025.
Given China's recent decision to stop serving as the world's waste recycler, Edge said the resulting backlog shows that “we can't recycle our way out of this mess while we continue to make the mess bigger.”
Southeast Asia Waste Collection
A 2015 report by the Ocean Conservancy and McKinsey & Co. found that 60 percent of the plastic in the world's oceans entered from just five countries: China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.
Studies have shown that microscopic bits of plastic, can bioaccumulate in fish, causing liver damage and death. This is a problem not just for marine life, but also for the global fishing industry, which employs 55 million people and is valued at more than $225 billion.
In the absence of waste collection systems, plastics of low residual value, such as plastic bags or single-use bottles, tend to pile up along rivers and beaches, where they are eventually swept out to sea.
“Compared to a lot of global ocean problems this one is highly solvable,” said Emily Woglom, executive vice president at the Ocean Conservancy. “No one benefits by having an ocean filled with plastic—but we're not going fix it by doing beach cleanups alone.”
As emerging economies have more money to spend on consumer products, the historical focus on “using less,” might need to take a temporary backseat, in order to fast-track waste management investments in places where the most plastic is entering the oceans, Woglom told Bloomberg Environment.
“If that means temporarily putting more plastic into landfills in Indonesia or the Philippines, that's better than having it end up in the ocean,” she said. “Hopefully, the [environmental] movement can eventually get to a place where we have all of those things—using less and better infrastructure.”
Push for Investor Capital
The challenge to creating this new infrastructure, both in the U.S. and abroad, is money.
“People want to find a sense of agency, but the truth is there is not a lot we as individuals can do to incentivize waste management in Asia,” said Rob Kaplan, managing director of Closed Loop Partners, which invests in sustainable consumer goods.
But Kaplan said institutional investors don't have considerable experience in recycling and waste management. His fund aims to change that. With seed capital commitments from the likes of Coca-Cola, the 3M Co., and PepsiCo Inc., Closed Loop recently launched Closed Loop Ocean, a fund focusing on waste management investments in Southeast Asia.
While deploying capital in places such as Thailand and Vietnam may be more complex than investing in the U.S., Kaplan said such actions offer potentially more upside for the environment.
“You're not talking about incremental change,” he said. “In a lot of these economies, we have the opportunity to leapfrog technologies and start from a circular perspective from day one.”
And while supporting efforts to reduce waste in Europe and the U.S., Kaplan says banning things such as single-use plastic bags or straws isn't likely to make a dent in the broad goal of curbing ocean plastic.
“If people want to bring their own shopping bag to market, I think that's great,” he said. “But I think the real question is, ‘What's the next layer down?’”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872686&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872686&jd=129872686
-
New Study Says Lead – Even at Low Levels – is Associated with Risk of Premature Death
Mar 15, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Ananya Roy and Tom Neltner
This week, a team of researchers led by Dr. Bruce Lanphear published an important new study on the deadly impact of lead exposure for adults. The researchers examined data on 14,000 adults and found that an increase of 1 to 6.7 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood (5 µg/dL) was significantly associated with an increase in mortality of 37% for all-causes, 70% for cardiovascular, and 108% for ischemic heart disease. The findings remained significant even after they considered and accounted for other factors that could have explained this effect.
This research fills a gap identified by the National Toxicology Program in 2011 in our understanding of the risk of lead exposure at low levels in adults. And it goes further by providing a quantitative relationship crucial to better evaluating the potential economic benefits of various policy options.
The study also had startling estimates about how many people are hurt by lead exposure. The authors estimated that over 400,000 Americans every year die from lead related illnesses – ten times higher than previous assessments. That’s on par with deaths from smoking cigarettes.
Dr. Lanphear has a track record of shaking conventional wisdom. He was the lead author on a groundbreaking article in 2005 showing that blood lead levels (BLLs) less than 10 µg/dL were associated with a drop in children’s IQ levels AND, for a given change in BLL, the IQ loss was significantly greater at lower levels than at higher levels. In other words, lead did more harm to a child’s IQ at low levels than at higher levels. This study resulted in a fundamental reassessment of how policymakers approach lead, putting a priority on preventing even low-level exposures that were discounted earlier.
While the numbers are surprising, the idea that lead is associated with cardiovascular disease is not. Experimental studies have explained the biological mechanism. What is new is the national estimates of the impact and the quantitative relationship of harm with increasing levels of lead. Regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration need that information in order to estimate the societal benefits from various policy alternatives.
Before this study, they could only describe the benefits in qualitative terms. Now, they can quantify those benefits and greater benefits can justify more aggressive policy changes. Incorporating these new estimates in economic analyses of regulations may significantly increase the economic benefits associated with preventing lead exposure.
Federal regulatory agencies have a rigorous process of vetting significant studies like this one through peer review panels, science advisory boards, agency experts, and the Office of Management and Budget before it can be the basis of an economic analysis to support rulemaking. The agencies have a legal and ethical obligation to give serious consideration to this study and take it through the review process. The next opportunity is the EPA’s long-awaited revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule that limits lead in drinking water.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/?_ga=2.187836520.1307558659.1521047898-1549771287.1513341024
-
Study: Lead Exposure Can Be Deadly For Adults
Mar 15, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Sonya Lunder
The danger of children's exposure to even the lowest level of lead is well known. Now, a new study finds that adults who are exposed to lead face major risks of death from heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases.
The study found that each year, as many as 412,000 American adults face a greater risk of dying from cardiovascular diseases because they were exposed to elevated levels of lead during their lifetimes. That’s 10 times more than previously thought, and comparable to the risk level from smoking, which kills more than 480,000 Americans a year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The study by Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University, and his colleagues was published this week in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet. The researchers reviewed death certificates for more than 14,000 people tested for lead exposure between 1988 and 1994. They found that after roughly 20 years, people with the highest levels of lead in their blood were 70 percent more likely to have died of cardiovascular disease, and twice as likely to have died of ischaemic heart disease, than their peers with lower lead levels.
That suggests that – just as for children – there is “no apparent safe level” of lead exposure for adults, Lanphear said in an interview with The Guardian. He called the findings “troubling” but also “hopeful,” because they represent an opportunity to lower deaths from heart disease by reducing lead exposure of adults.
Blood test data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey show that adults’ lead exposure has declined in the last two decades, but the new study found increased death rates for people with lower levels of lead than previously reported. People in the highest risk group had lead levels higher than 6.7 micrograms per deciliter of blood. But more death was also seen among adults with lead levels below 5 micrograms per deciliter.
In a Lancet article accompanying the study, Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, said the findings have huge implications beyond the U.S. Landrigan, a leading expert on lead, said it’s time to pay more attention to the role of pollution in deaths from noncommunicable diseases and “thoroughly re-examine lead’s role in changing global patterns of cardiovascular disease.”
Long recognized as a grave danger to children’s neurological systems, lead is also harmful to many other parts of the body. While children exposed to small amounts of lead can suffer lifelong harm to brain development and behavior, lead exposure also causes oxidative stress, which causes cell damage that can lead to cancer, inflammation and kidney damage. Oxidative stress is also linked to high blood pressure.
Lead exposure comes from many sources. Young children can ingest dangerous amounts of lead if they live in houses with lead-based paint. An estimated 1.6 million adultsemployed in heavy industry or construction are exposed to lead on the job. Others handle lead if they hunt or fish – as lead is used in some bullets and sinkers – or if they use solder or certain craft supplies.
Today, drinking water and food are the major sources of lead exposure for older children and adults. Lead was used as a pesticide in the early 1900s, and because it doesn’t break down in soil, it is a long-term source of pollution on cropland. As a result, lead is measured in many otherwise-healthy foods like grains, milk and produce.
It can also be found in high levels in wild game meat contaminated by lead-based shot, and some imported foods, including Mexican tamarind candy and chapulines. The Environmental Defense Fund has called for stricter regulation of lead in the food supply, including lower limits on fruit juices that can pose a risk for children.
Fighting lead exposure from all sources is essential for the health of American children and adults. State and federal government agencies must take action to reduce risks from lead in paint, food, dust and soil, and fund remediation of lead-contaminated homes and industrial sites.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/03/study-lead-exposure-can-be-deadly-adults#.Wqt8OW1uZm8
-
Energy Development Debated as Interior Secretary Faces Lawmakers
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke defended his efforts to expedite energy development on federal lands as lawmakers questioned him March 15 about his agency's fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, praised what he described as an Interior Department policy of reducing a pattern of overly burdensome regulations inherited from the Obama administration.
Democrats at the committee hearing objected to those reductions as a loss of protection for land, waters, wildlife, and people. They also objected to proposed budget cuts: Interior Department funding would be cut to $11.6 billion for fiscal year 2019 under the Trump administration budget proposal, a 14 percent reduction from the 2017 enacted level of $13.5 billion.
Zinke defended the regulatory changes as an attempt to provide developers and others with “yes” or “no” decisions on projects in a reasonable amount of time.
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), ranking member of the committee, focused his own remarks on reports of travel expenses and what he saw as partisan political travel while “proposing enormous budget cuts across your department.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872703&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872703&jd=129872703
-
Rover Again Ordered to Halt Work in West Virginia on Stormwater Violations
Mar 15, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) has ordered Rover Pipeline LLC to halt construction activities in the state due to violations of the pipeline’s water pollution control permit.
Based on inspections conducted Feb. 15-22, WVDEP cited Rover for more than a dozen violations stemming from improper erosion and sediment controls during construction of its Sherwood and CGT laterals in Doddridge, Tyler and Wetzel counties, West Virginia.
In an order dated March 5, WVDEP said Rover “failed to comply with the approved Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Several erosion control devices were not in place as detailed in the SWPPP. Perimeter controls were found to be removed prior to achieving stabilization throughout the inspected area.”
Another violation accused Rover of failing “to keep a clean and orderly project. Trash and construction debris, including discarded Best Management Practices that were prematurely removed, were noted in quantity on the site, some of which were partially buried.”
WVDEP ordered Rover to install the required sediment and erosion control devices and “immediately cease and desist any further land development activity” pending inspection verifying that the pipeline is in compliance with its permit. The agency also ordered Rover to submit “a proposed plan of corrective action” within 20 days of the order.
WVDEP spokesman Jake Glance told NGI’s Shale Daily Wednesday that order remains in effect, though the company “requested and was given clearance to complete one section of borehole that would have collapsed if they stopped work.”
Last summer, Rover received a cease and desist order from WVDEP for similar stormwater violations.
Asked about the March 5 order, Rover spokeswoman Alexis Daniel said, “We continue to work with the FERC and WVDEP to resolve any outstanding concerns in a manner that ensures the complete remediation of the areas to the satisfaction of all parties. To help ensure this, we have added additional resources and environmental crews.
“We do not anticipate it impacting our in service date.”
Rover penned a letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission March 9 addressing a “Serious Violation issued by FERC for a restoration slip that occurred” along the CGT Lateral in Doddridge County.
“Although construction is almost complete, Rover has recently increased the number of environmental crews and resources on the Sherwood and CGT spread to address the areas impacted by the recent significant precipitation and freeze/thaw events that have significantly affected erosion control devices along the right-of-way, as well as to assist with the transition from winter construction to spring restoration,” Rover told the Commission.
WVDEP’s March 5 cease and desist order marks the latest setback for the 713-mile, 3.25 Bcf/d Rover project, which has repeatedly drawn scrutiny from state and federal regulators.
Last April, a roughly 2 million gallon horizontal directional drilling (HDD) fluids spill near the Tuscarawas River, cited by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA), led FERC to suspend HDD activities on the project for months. FERC opened an investigation into the incident due to tests indicating the presence of diesel fuel in the drilling mud.
Almost a year later, FERC suspended work on the project’s second Tuscarawas River HDD for about two weeks due to environmental concerns.
Meanwhile, Ohio EPA has hounded the project in pursuit of millions of dollars in civil penalties over numerous alleged environmental violations.
Originally targeting a 4Q2017 in-service date, Rover is now scheduled to enter full service during the second quarter, with the remaining sections of the project expected to come online incrementally, management for backer Energy Transfer Partners LP has said.
Rover finished bringing its Phase 1 into service at the end of last year and currently offers roughly 2 Bcf/d of capacity running east-to-west across Ohio to interconnects with the Panhandle Eastern and ANR pipelines.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/113699-rover-again-ordered-to-halt-work-in-west-virginia-on-stormwater-violations
-
Energy Regulator Reinstates Approval of Sabal Trail Gas Pipeline
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Cunningham
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission continues to find that the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline project, as mitigated, is an “environmentally acceptable” action, according to an order late March 14.
Nothing in the supplemental environmental impact statement “causes us to question our previous findings about the benefits of the” Southeast Market Pipelines Project, FERC said.
Sabal Trail is a joint venture of Spectra Energy Partners, NextEra Energy, and Duke Energy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872713&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872713&jd=129872713
-
Regulators OK Environmental Review for Disputed Oil Pipeline
Mar 16, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Steve Karnowski
Minnesota regulators approved the final environmental review Thursday for Enbridge Energy’s proposal to replace its aging Line 3 crude oil pipeline in northern Minnesota, setting the stage for a final decision on the disputed project in June.
The Public Utilities Commission voted unanimously to declare the review “adequate,” meaning it met the legal requirements, after ordering rewrites in December in four narrow areas dealing mostly with proposed route alternatives.
“You’re going to make a really important decision here in a couple months,” Brent Murcia of Youth Climate Intervenors, which opposes the project, told the commission. “You’re going to make a decision that people around the country are watching, a decision on an issue that’s drawn thousands of comments, that’s inspired people to march, camp outside, to speak out.”
Crude oil pipelines have become an increasingly contentious national issue amid concerns about tar sands oil and climate change, the threat to water supplies, and the rights of American Indians. The fight over the Dakota Access pipeline drew thousands of protesters to the Standing Rock Reservation in North Dakota, stalling work on that project for months.
Built in the 1960s, Line 3 carries crude oil from Alberta through North Dakota and Minnesota to Enbridge’s terminal in Superior, Wisconsin. Calgary-based Enbridge says the replacement, made of stronger steel, would restore its original capacity of 760,000 barrels per day and ensure reliable deliveries of crude to Midwest refineries.
Enbridge wants to replace the 282-mile stretch in Minnesota with a new 337-mile pipeline on a partially different route that would take it through the pristine Mississippi River headwaters region. Ojibwe groups oppose it because of the potential for spills in lakes where they gather wild rice.
Outside the meeting room, Theresa Diver, of Cloquet, and Lisa Morgan Ronnquist, of Duluth, served wild rice egg bake, wild blueberries and fry bread to people attending. The Ojibwe women said they wanted to highlight the danger they see to their traditional food sources.
Much of Thursday’s debate centered on a “traditional cultural properties survey” to identify significant locations along the route including Native American burial grounds and sacred sites. The PUC decided earlier the study must be completed before construction begins. The opponents failed to persuade the commission to wait for those results before approving the environmental review.
The Jobs for Minnesotans coalition of business, labor and community leaders rallied before the meeting, saying the replacement will better protect the environment, ensure the region’s energy supply and create 8,600 well-paying jobs with a total economic impact on the state of $2 billion.
Lawmakers present included Republican Minnesota House Speaker Kurt Daudt, who said Enbridge has gone to “great lengths” to meet the state’s regulatory requirements.
“Minnesota’s economy relies on a strong backbone of that sort of infrastructure,” he said. “If we continue to allow it to decline we put our economy and our environment and our people at risk.”
The next major step will be when an administrative law judge releases her report on whether the project is needed. That’s due April 23. The PUC will consider her recommendations when it decides in June whether to grant a certificate of need for the project and approve the route.
PUC Chair Nancy Lange acknowledged that whatever the commission decides, the dispute is likely to end up in court.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/regulators-ok-environmental-review-for-disputed-oil-pipeline/2018/03/15/2ef91d0e-289f-11e8-a227-fd2b009466bc_story.html?utm_term=.8b0da7ffc53b
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry, Government Share Lessons Learned from Hurricane Harvey
Mar 16, 2018 | Smart Brief
By James daSilva
The Texas Gulf Coast is a region where regulators and chemical companies are familiar with each other, both because of the sheer number of facilities in the region and because of the important roles each has when it comes to disaster preparation, response and recovery.
A recent event held at Houston Area Safety Council headquarters and organized by theAmerican Chemistry Council and Texas Chemical Council touched on the governmental and company responses to Hurricane Harvey, as well as lessons learned.
The daylong event included a morning panel featuring site managers, environmental, health and safety (EHS) officials and other executives from five chemical companies. The afternoon saw panels with federal, state and county officials, including a Coast Guard leader and the Port of Houston commissioner.
Any emergency preparedness or response along the Texas Gulf Coast must take into account land and sea, as well as the various needs of first responders, industrial facilities, residents and anyone working to support those efforts. Company executives in the morning panel discussed the unique nature of Harvey -- its heavy rain and flooding, that it affected many sites simultaneously -- while noting that employees, including contractors, were often personally affected by the storm, too.
While any storm can bring surprises, Nancy Randolph of Dow Chemical noted that planning for hurricanes is a year-round job, while Mike Zamora, ExxonMobil’s Americas director of manufacturing, pointed out that drills regularly occur at a regional and local level, not just when a storm is imminent.
Part of a chemical company’s response involves coordinating with government officials from the local level all the way up. As LyondellBasell site manager Kim Foley noted, planning out scenarios and executing them relies on interaction with local officials, whether they be ports, sheriff’s office, Coast Guard or others.
Much like scenario planning for facilities, good working relationships between companies and local officials don’t start during storms, but much sooner. Recent hurricanes have taught Chad Anderson of Huntsman that “you need to make your plans very, very early when it comes to building relationships and being a key stakeholder at the site. It’s also very good, from what we’ve seen, to test those relationships long before you actually need to use the relationships.”
Peter Greco of LyondellBasell pointed out that, from a technical standpoint, communications and information systems must be robust enough to handle any incident. This was made clear last year, he said, as “Harvey overwhelmed everything.”
A geographically specific challenge for the Texas Gulf Coast region is the sheer number of jurisdictional entities and an uncertainty about who companies need to report to beyond the immediate local jurisdiction, said David Wade of the Harris County Office of Emergency Management. Coordinators like Wade can help companies improve those efforts -- not just during an emergency situation but as an ongoing preparation and planning exercise. Because of the complexities of crisis communications, Wade said, he encourages all facilities, even smaller ones, to utilize local information-sharing systems so that everyone is in the loop.
The afternoon sessions also looked at Harvey from the port’s response, as well as legislators grappling with recovery efforts and planning for future efforts. This included Coast Guard Captain Kevin Oditt describing the challenging situation floodwaters presented to the Houston Ship Channel during Harvey from his perspective.
For the port and the Houston Ship Channel, there’s work to be done still to repair damage and and restore it to pre-storm state, much less prepare for future storms. Texas state Sen. Brandon Creighton called Harvey “the new benchmark” for these types of conversations. Meanwhile, fellow Sen. Larry Taylor called for a coastal barrier, or “spine,” to help protect the region, noting that had Harvey brought a storm surge directly up the channel, the Port of Houston could have been closed for months.
All that work will require commitment and resources, including federal funding, a point raised by both senators as well as discussed by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Creighton also emphasized the need to ensure that federal funding formulas properly compensate Texas to help the state prepare for future storms.
http://smartbrief.com/original/2018/03/industry-government-share-lessons-learned-hurricane-harvey
-
Cyberattacks Put Russian Fingers on the Switch at Power Plants, U.S. Says
Mar 15, 2018 | New York Times
By Nicole Perlroth and David E. Sanger
The Trump administration accused Russia on Thursday of engineering a series of cyberattacks that targeted American and European nuclear power plants and water and electric systems, and could have sabotaged or shut power plants off at will.
United States officials and private security firms saw the attacks as a signal by Moscow that it could disrupt the West’s critical facilities in the event of a conflict.
They said the strikes accelerated in late 2015, at the same time the Russian interference in the American election was underway. The attackers had compromised some operators in North America and Europe by spring 2017, after President Trump was inaugurated.
In the following months, according to a Department of Homeland Security report issued on Thursday, Russian hackers made their way to machines with access to critical control systems at power plants that were not identified. The hackers never went so far as to sabotage or shut down the computer systems that guide the operations of the plants.
Still, new computer screenshots released by the Department of Homeland Security on Thursday made clear that Russian state hackers had the foothold they would have needed to manipulate or shut down power plants.
“We now have evidence they’re sitting on the machines, connected to industrial control infrastructure, that allow them to effectively turn the power off or effect sabotage,” said Eric Chien, a security technology director at Symantec, a digital security firm.
“From what we can see, they were there. They have the ability to shut the power off. All that’s missing is some political motivation,” Mr. Chien said.
American intelligence agencies were aware of the attacks for the past year and a half, and the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. first issued urgent warnings to utility companies in June. On Thursday, both agencies offered new details as the Trump administration imposed sanctions against Russian individuals and organizations it accused of election meddling and “malicious cyberattacks.”
It was the first time the administration officially named Russia as the perpetrator of the assaults. And it marked the third time in recent months that the White House, departing from its usual reluctance to publicly reveal intelligence, blamed foreign government forces for attacks on infrastructure in the United States.
In December, the White House said North Korea had carried out the so-called WannaCry attack that in May paralyzed the British health system and placed ransomware in computers in schools, businesses and homes across the world. Last month, it accused Russia of being behind the NotPetya attack against Ukraine last June, the largest in a series of cyberattacks on Ukraine to date, paralyzing the country’s government agencies and financial systems.
But the penalties have been light. So far, Mr. Trump has said little to nothing about the Russian role in those attacks.
The groups that conducted the energy attacks, which are linked to Russian intelligence agencies, appear to be different from the two hacking groups that were involved in the election interference.
That would suggest that at least three separate Russian cyberoperations were underway simultaneously. One focused on stealing documents from the Democratic National Committee and other political groups. Another, by a St. Petersburg “troll farm” known as the Internet Research Agency, used social media to sow discord and division. A third effort sought to burrow into the infrastructure of American and European nations.
For years, American intelligence officials tracked a number of Russian state-sponsored hacking units as they successfully penetrated the computer networks of critical infrastructure operators across North America and Europe, including in Ukraine.
Some of the units worked inside Russia’s Federal Security Service, the K.G.B. successor known by its Russian acronym, F.S.B.; others were embedded in the Russian military intelligence agency, known as the G.R.U. Still others were made up of Russian contractors working at the behest of Moscow.
Russian cyberattacks surged last year, starting three months after Mr. Trump took office.
American officials and private cybersecurity experts uncovered a series of Russian attacks aimed at the energy, water and aviation sectors and critical manufacturing, including nuclear plants, in the United States and Europe. In its urgent report in June, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. notified operators about the attacks but stopped short of identifying Russia as the culprit.
By then, Russian spies had compromised the business networks of several American energy, water and nuclear plants, mapping out their corporate structures and computer networks.
They included that of the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation, which runs a nuclear plant near Burlington, Kan. But in that case, and those of other nuclear operators, Russian hackers had not leapt from the company’s business networks into the nuclear plant controls.
Forensic analysis suggested that Russian spies were looking for inroads — although it was not clear whether the goal was to conduct espionage or sabotage, or to trigger an explosion of some kind.
In a report made public in October, Symantec noted that a Russian hacking unit “appears to be interested in both learning how energy facilities operate and also gaining access to operational systems themselves, to the extent that the group now potentially has the ability to sabotage or gain control of these systems should it decide to do so.”
The United States sometimes does the same thing. It bored deeply into Iran’s infrastructure before the 2015 nuclear accord, placing digital “implants” in systems that would enable it to bring down power grids, command-and-control systems and other infrastructure in case a conflict broke out. The operation was code-named “Nitro Zeus,” and its revelationmade clear that getting into the critical infrastructure of adversaries is now a standard element of preparing for possible conflict.
The Russians have gone farther.
In an updated warning to utility companies on Thursday, Homeland Security officials included a screenshot taken by Russian operatives that proved they could now gain access to their victims’ critical controls.
American officials and security firms, including Symantec and CrowdStrike, believe that Russian attacks on the Ukrainian power grid in 2015 and 2016that left more than 200,000 citizens there in the dark are an ominous sign of what the Russian cyberstrikes may portend in the United States and Europe in the event of escalating hostilities.
Private security firms have tracked the Russian government assaults on Western power and energy operators — conducted alternately by groups under the names DragonFly, Energetic Bear and Berserk Bear — since 2011, when they first started targeting defense and aviation companies in the United States and Canada.
By 2013, researchers had tied the Russian hackers to hundreds of attacks on energy grid and oil and gas pipeline operators in the United States and Europe. Initially, the strikes appeared to be motivated by industrial espionage — a natural conclusion at the time, researchers said, given the importance of Russia’s oil and gas industry.
But by December 2015, the Russian hacks had taken an aggressive turn. The attacks were no longer aimed at intelligence gathering, but at potentially sabotaging or shutting down plant operations.
At Symantec, researchers discovered that Russian hackers had begun taking screenshots of the machinery used in energy and nuclear plants, and stealing detailed descriptions of how they operated — suggesting they were conducting reconnaissance for a future attack.
As the American government enacted the sanctions on Thursday, cybersecurity experts were still questioning where the Russian attacks could lead, given that the United States was sure to respond in kind.
“Russia certainly has the technical capability to do damage, as it demonstrated in the Ukraine,” said Eric Cornelius, a cybersecurity expert at Cylance, a private security firm, who previously assessed critical infrastructure threats for the Department of Homeland Security during the Obama administration.
“It is unclear what their perceived benefit would be from causing damage on U.S. soil, especially given the retaliation it would provoke,” Mr. Cornelius said.
Though a major step toward deterrence, publicly naming countries accused of cyberattacks still is unlikely to shame them into stopping. The United States is struggling to come up with proportionate responses to the wide variety of cyberespionage, vandalism and outright attacks.
Lt. Gen. Paul Nakasone, who has been nominated as director of the National Security Agency and commander of United States Cyber Command, the military’s cyberunit, said during his Senate confirmation hearing this month that countries attacking the United States so far have little to worry about.
“I would say right now they do not think much will happen to them,” General Nakasone said. He later added, “They don’t fear us.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/15/us/politics/russia-cyberattacks.html
-
Energy Department Moving on Cybersecurity, Perry Tells Congress
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Energy Secretary Rick Perry sought to assure House appropriators March 15 he is working to shore up the energy sector against cybersecurity attacks.
His assurance came as the Trump administration confirmed Russian hackers have been targeting the energy and nuclear sector.
Perry told members of a House Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee he is “not confident” the federal government is adequately protecting the U.S. from cybersecurity, though he touted the Energy Department's own efforts. Last month, the department announced it is establishing a new Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response, with a total of $96 million requested for the office in President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2019 request.
The energy secretary said it's been a year since he promised House appropriators that cybersecurity “was going to be one of our priorities [and] nothing has changed my mind” since then.
“If anything, almost on a daily basis, I realized that [cybersecurity] is more and more a high priority of this country, and obviously sector specific, for DOE and the electric grid,” he said.
The Russian attacks, outlined in an alert issued March 15 by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, was the first official confirmation by the Trump administration of cyber attacks on sectors ranging from energy and nuclear power to water treatment. The alert's title—"Russian Government Cyber Activity Targeting Energy and Other Critical Infrastructure Sectors"—left little doubt as to the origin of the attacks.
Jim Cunningham, executive director of Protect Our Power, a coalition that backs strengthening the nation's electric grid, said the department needs to take protection of the grid seriously and that regulators and the utility industry are clearly working on the issues. But he questioned whether the effort is enough.
“That's not a lot of money, $96 million,” for Energy cybersecurity, Cunningham told Bloomberg Environment.
“It was an important step” by Perry “but what we need is a focus here, a real champion to drive this issue,” he said, adding that it's unclear whether the office will have that kind of an impact.
Multi-Stage Intrusion
The March 15 alert framed the attacks as a “multi-stage intrusion campaign by Russian government cyber actors” using such tools as malware and spear phishing—where emails appear to have been sent by a trusted or familiar email address—while making efforts to gain remote access to energy sector networks.
A senior national security official told reporters the Russian campaign is “long-term and still ongoing.” Once hackers obtained access, they “collected information pertaining to industrial control systems, the systems that run our factories and our grid.”One network reportedly targeted, according to Bloomberg News, belonged to the aging Wolf Creek nuclear power facility near Burlington, Kansas. Wolf Creek is owned by Westar Energy Inc., Great Plains Energy Inc. and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative Inc.
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), a member of the energy and water appropriations panel, told Perry that Congress sees this as a threat.
“It is obviously apparent that one of the biggest threats in the nation is the state of our cybersecurity” as well as “underlying infrastructure, especially energy infrastructure,” Calvert said.
Those are “all vulnerable to a wide range of risk, stemming from both physical and cyber threats and hazards,” Calvert said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872689&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872689&jd=129872689
-
Tri-Chem Industries Chemical Plant in North Texas Explodes
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
One person is injured and one is missing after a Tri-Chem Industries chemical plant in North Texas exploded and caught fire early March 15.
The explosion and fire took place at the plant around 9:45 a.m. in Cresson, Texas, the Hood County Sheriff's office said in a news release. One person was severely burned and another person was reported missing.
Tri-Chem Industries is a manufacturer and distributor of specialty chemicals for foods, soaps, and industrial applications, according to the company website. The company and the owner of the firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration confirmed it has opened an investigation into the incident, Juan Rodriguez, deputy regional director for OSHA's Dallas region, told Bloomberg Environment.
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is assisting first responders and coordinating with Hood County, Environmental Protection Agency responders, and Fort Worth HazMat for response actions needed to address any discharges from the site and air monitoring, Brian McGovern, TCEQ spokesman, told Bloomberg Environment. After the emergency response is over, the TCEQ will coordinate any cleanup warranted through the party responsible for the cleanup. TCEQ will monitor the progress of the cleanup and ensure that any impacted area is cleaned up properly. TCEQ also may conduct an investigation to determine compliance with applicable state and federal environmental regulations.
Other federal and state agencies had not yet informed Bloomberg Environment whether they are investigating the cause of the explosion.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872696&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872696&jd=129872696
-
(ACC Mentioned) Air Pollutant Reviews Stalled; EPA Advisers Haven't Met in Months
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer Lu
Three required scientific reviews for federally regulated air pollutants are on hold due to EPA delays and Administrator Scott Pruitt's November shake-up of the external air quality science board that advises the agency.
Not only is the Environmental Protection Agency behind in giving the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) the review documents underpinning its air pollution standards that panel members evaluate independently of the agency, the board still lacks a functioning chair.
While delays could put off potentially costly regulatory requirements for industries to meet, health advocates said a lapse also could lead to disease and put lives at risk.
The committee and review panels are expected to convene about once a month, but members haven't met since September, when they discussed the last stages of their review of sulfur dioxide, an air pollutant that contributes to respiratory diseases and the formation of particulate matter.
“We could have closed that out by now,” Christopher Frey, an environmental engineering professor at North Carolina State University who chaired the committee between 2012 and 2015, told Bloomberg Environment.
The EPA is responsible for updating six air standards every five years under the Clean Air Act—carbon monoxide, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, lead, and ozone. Written into the CASAC charter is the expectation that the the board and its subgroups meet about once every four weeks, or 12 to 15 times each year.
CASAC review panels also are waiting for documents from the EPA so they can assess the standards for fine particulate matter—microscopic pollutants found in nature and formed during combustion—as well as standards for the ambient oxides of nitrogen and sulfur.
Tony Cox, who Pruitt appointed to chair CASAC in November, told Bloomberg Environment in a March 15 email he believes he has turned in all the required forms to lead the committee, but did not say when he will start working on the board.
‘A Lot More Toxic’
The clean air advisory board reviews emerging science and recommends whether six existing standards for air pollutants must be updated to protect public health. The administrator then sets the standards, which determine the extent to which emitters must control their pollution especially in areas that don't meet air quality standards.
It's not unusual for the EPA to take longer than five years to review its regulated air pollutants. The health-based standards for fine particulate matter were last reviewed by the agency in 2012.
Scientific literature published since then has associated the microscopic particles—formed from the combustion byproducts of coal-fired power plants, industrial facilities, and automobiles—with serious and sometimes fatal respiratory and heart diseases at concentrations below the current standards.
“We're finding, even in the last five years, these particles are a lot more toxic than we thought,” George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at New York University School of Medicine, told Bloomberg Environment.
“If [committee members] are not meeting and they're falling behind their deadlines, it means we're not using the latest science to evaluate whether people's health is being protected,” said Thurston, who studies how exposure to air pollution including diesel pollutants and fine particulate matter affects human health.
Based on the anticipated schedule for fine particulate matter review, the EPA should have provided the air advisory board with the first drafts of the science assessment by spring 2017 and the risk and exposure review plan by summer of 2017.
“So we're at least a year behind,” Lianne Sheppard, a CASAC member and professor of environmental and occupational health sciences at the University of Washington School of Public Health, told Bloomberg Environment
A representative for the oil and gas industry said he's less concerned about a delay in reviews because there is no need to tighten air quality standards, which would require industry to install more stringent pollution controls.
“All the easy controls have been put in place and those that aren't are more costly,” Howard Feldman, senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, told Bloomberg Environment.
Duke Energy, the Edison Electric Institute, and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers did not immediately comment.
The air quality board is also waiting for review documents from the EPA on the public welfare standards for nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides, which are set to protect the environment and plants.
‘We're Kind of on Hold’
Because science advisory board members are special government employees, they must fill out “a number of forms” including the confidential financial disclosure form, before they can begin work, Peter Thorne, the outgoing chair for the overall Science Advisory Board and professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa College of Public Health, told Bloomberg Environment.
When Cox, a Denver-based consultant with a specialization in risk analysis, received his financial disclosure form on January 4, he was asked to also fill out the subsection on supplemental ethics questions with respect to the ongoing sulfur dioxide review.
Cox has consulted for clients including oil and gas giant Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council, and tobacco company Philip Morris International.
In a series of March emails, Cox told Bloomberg Environment he didn't know why his appointment process has taken so long, but that he had received and submitted his paperwork this month.
The onboarding process takes time, but “on the order of weeks, not months,” Frey said. “Until he's processed, we're kind of on hold.”
Typically, advisory members are appointed to the chair position after they have served a term on the Science Advisory Board, Thorne said. This allows for a more seamless transition, since the new chairs already know what they're working on and their paperwork is mostly in order.
The EPA countered that reviews weren't delayed because of Cox's paperwork, but because members “are awaiting the agency to finish documents to bring to the CASAC for review,” an EPA spokesperson said in a March 13 email.
‘Usually Doesn't Take This Long’
CASAC also was about to wrap up a review for sulfur dioxide, one of the six regulated air pollutants.
The EPA is under a consent decree to sign a notice of proposal to either modify or retain the health-based sulfur dioxide standards by May 25, 2018, and sign a notice of final rulemaking no later than January 28, 2019.
After the air quality review panel last met in September 2017 to complete one of the final steps in the evaluation, the policy assessment review, panel members submitted written comments to the EPA liaison and the CASAC chair, Sheppard said.
Then the chair at the time, Ana Diez Roux, and another CASAC member's terms ended in September and Pruitt rotated a third member off the board two years before her first term was up. Pruitt also banned EPA Science Advisory Board members who receive agency grants from serving due to what the administrator considered was a conflict of interest.
This put the sulfur dioxide review comments, which are supposed to be compiled into a report to be discussed at a public teleconference scheduled by the chair and the staff liaison, in limbo.
“The normal process is to have a teleconference within two months,” Sheppard said.
“It usually doesn't take this long to complete a final review and provide our advice to the administrator,” Frey said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872685&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872685&jd=129872685
-
Calvert Doesn't See Need for WOTUS, Ozone Riders
Mar 15, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Anthony Adragna
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who oversees the panel responsible for EPA and Interior spending, told reporters today he doesn't see the need for riders on the Waters of the U.S. rule or concerning ozone limits in the emerging spending bill.
"From my perspective, [EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt’s handling that and the ozone issue also," Calvert said of a possible WOTUS provision, noting the need for policy riders is diminished "because the administration we’re dealing with now is different than the one we had in the past."
Calvert did say the fate of the riders rested with congressional leadership. Provisions included in the House-passed EPA and Interior spending bill H.R. 3354 (115) last year would have protected the EPA's move to withdraw the Waters of the U.S. regulation from legal challenges and delayed implementation of the agency's 2015 ozone standard until 2025.
More broadly, Calvert said he anticipated a vote on passage of the omnibus next week and said his portion of the package is "coming along pretty well actually" with goal of finishing work on it this weekend.
WHAT'S NEXT: Calvert said he anticipated a vote on the omnibus next week after wrapping up work on it this weekend.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Environmentalists Sue EPA to Force Action on San Joaquin Ozone Plan
Mar 15, 2018 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are suing EPA to force the agency to approve or disapprove a California air quality plan aimed at attaining the agency's 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after the agency missed a statutory deadline to act.
In its suit filed March 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the Association of Irritated Residents (AIR), a California environmental group, seeks to force EPA action on the state's plan for attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley.
The plan is required to detail measures the area will take to reduce ozone.
EPA during the George W. Bush administration set the NAAQS at 75 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the 1997 ozone standard expressed as 84 ppb, but weaker than the Obama EPA's 2015 ozone NAAQS set at 70 ppb. The San Joaquin Valley is now classified as in “extreme” nonattainment for the 2008 limit, the most serious level, and has until July 20, 2032, to attain. The valley has yet to be classified for the tougher 2015 NAAQS.
EPA missed a Dec. 19 statutory deadline to approve or disapprove California's plan for the valley, AIR says, and therefore failed to meet its “mandatory duty to act.”
Under prior administrations, EPA routinely settled such cases where it has missed a clear statutory deadline to act, but under Administrator Scott Pruitt, the agency has adopted a policy against settling such suits without the input of regulated parties, such as the state of California. Pruitt outlined the policy in a memo on “sue-and-settle” lawsuits, a term coined by industry and GOP critics of the Obama EPA, but rejected by environmentalists as a meaningless slur. Environmental groups say such cases simply seek to enforce the law.
Legal critics say the policy forces courts to rule in the cases, sometimes issuing tougher deadlines than EPA could have obtained by negotiation. However, EPA has recently shown signs of relaxing Pruitt's policy.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-sue-epa-force-action-san-joaquin-ozone-plan
-
Green Groups Sue EPA for Correspondence with Climate Skeptic Group
Mar 16, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
Two environmental organizations filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Thursday for failing to provide correspondence between the agency and a prominent group skeptical of climate change science, The Heartland Institute.
In their suit, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said the EPA failed to release public documents they each previously requested in August and October via Freedom of Information Act regarding the agency's correspondence with the Heartland Institute.
"While EPA acknowledged both requests and asked for some initial clarification, it has subsequently stopped communicating with SELC. EPA has provided vague responses to EDF’s outreach that do not indicate any expectation of near-term progress on EDF’s FOIA request," their lawsuit read.
Kym Hunter, an attorney for SELC, said their request is in the public interest.
"The public has a clear and protected right to know what the EPA is doing and with whom they are communicating, including those pushing a climate-denier agenda," she said in a statement. "EPA’s efforts to promote climate change deniers and undermine peer-reviewed science behind closed doors is not only a failure of its mission, it is illegal.”
The libertarian-leaning Heartland Institute, which describes itself as "one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks," has long been linked to climate skepticism.
Last spring, PBS found that the group disseminated packets to more than 200,000 teachers which included the organizations books, “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”
The group confirmed last July to E&E News that it had been in touch with EPA officials, who had contacted the Heartland Institute to help with identifying industry experts to sit on the "red team" for Administrator Scott Pruitt's previously proposed red team/ blue team advisory group.
Just last week, EPA blasted out a press release highlighting an op-ed written by Heartland Institute president Tim Huelskamp for The Hill titled, "Scott Pruitt is leading the EPA towards Greatness."
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/378645-green-groups-sue-epa-on-its-relationship-with-climate-skeptic-group
-
FEMA Strips Mention of Climate Change from Its Strategic Plan
Mar 16, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Christopher Flavelle
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, responsible for dealing with the effects of disasters like hurricanes and floods, has stripped the words “climate change” from the document meant to guide its actions over the next four years.
FEMA March 15 released its strategic plan for 2018-2022. It replaces a version issued under former President Barack Obama that repeatedly cited the challenges caused by a changing climate, and the need for FEMA to incorporate those risks into its long-term plans.
By contrast, the new document doesn't mention climate, global warming, sea-level rise, extreme weather, or any other terminology associated with scientific predictions of rising surface temperatures and their effects.
“Disaster costs are expected to continue to increase due to rising natural hazard risk, decaying critical infrastructure, and economic pressures that limit investments in risk resilience,” the plan states, without saying what might be causing that natural hazard risk to rise.
The document notes that hurricanes and wildfires in 2017 represented “historic disasters,” but it makes no mention of the conclusions by other federal agencies that such disasters are likely to get worse as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increases.
Brock Long, whom President Donald Trump appointed to run FEMA last year, has equivocated on whether climate change is real and man-made. “The term climate change has become such a political hot button that, I think, I keeps us from having a real dialogue,” he told Bloomberg in an interview last summer.
Officials from FEMA, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security, didn't immediately respond to a request to comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=129872711&vname=dennotallissues&fn=129872711&jd=129872711
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested