Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/12/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Threatens Retaliatory Plastics Tariffs
Apr 11, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Trade tensions between the U.S. and China have come closer to directly impacting the plastics recycling industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Groups Push for Federal Spending on Recycling
Apr 12, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The plastics and recycling industries announced a push for stronger federal investment in recycling infrastructure on April 11, saying that boosting domestic U.S. capacity is critical to deal with challenges like China's recent import ban. -
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Pruitt’s EPA Hazardous to Public Health, Children’s Brains
Apr 12, 2018 | Austin American-Statesman
By Joni Ashbrook
The Environmental Protection Agency’s top administrator, Scott Pruitt, has an outlandish ethics problem, but that’s nothing compared his terrifying attack on our health and even our children’s brains. -
(ACC Mentioned) Quote-Unquote: Touching Many Bases -- NEPA, CPP, Pruitt, Wheeler
Apr 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA’s nominated deputy administrator nears confirmation, the administration seeks to streamline NEPA and EPA permit reviews, Pruitt under the microscope and more. -
Dems Want to Delay Confirmation of Trump Pick at EPA
Apr 11, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Senate Democrats want to delay the confirmation of Andrew Wheeler to the No. 2 spot at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguing he should get more scrutiny because of the possibility that he could end up replacing Administrator Scott Pruitt. -
Ryan's Successor Likely Between Two Energy-Friendly Lawmakers
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Speaker Paul Ryan's bombshell April 11 announcement that he'll step down after the November election sets up a showdown between two Republicans who are more likely than Ryan to highlight environmental and energy issues. -
EPA Issues Six TSCA 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Findings
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for six substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs). -
US EPA Drafts Approach to Non-Animal Testing for Skin Sensitisation
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has outlined how it thinks non-animal (alternative) test methods for determining skin sensitisation should be used. -
Virginia Becomes Fourth Us State Requiring Alternative Test Methods
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
On 10 April, Virginia became the fourth US state to bar the use of animal testing if an alternative is available. It is a mandate that will probably mostly affect testing of cosmetics and household products. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Improving Chemical Assessments, Science Reviewers Say
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's program to assess toxic chemicals is becoming more transparent and efficient despite a shrinking staff, an independent scientific board said April 11. -
(ACC Mentioned) NAS Praises Chemical Research Program Targeted by Republicans
Apr 11, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The National Academies of Sciences said today an EPA chemical safety research program that Republicans and the chemicals industry have sought to eliminate has made major strides in fixing problems identified in its processes seven years ago. -
NAS Boosts Embattled Chemical-Testing Program
Apr 11, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
One of the nation's oldest and most widely respected scientific bodies today provided strong support for an endangered EPA chemical-testing program. -
US FDA Gathers Information for International Cosmetics Meeting
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is holding a public meeting to gather informaton for the upcoming 12th annual International Cooperation of Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-12). -
North Carolina Regulators Seek Court Order Against Chemours’s Fluoroether Pollution
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
To protect drinking water, North Carolina regulators are asking a state court to order Chemours to stop fluoroether pollution from its plant outside of Fayetteville. -
J&J Loses Its First Asbestos Talcum Powder Suit
Apr 12, 2018 | Kelly Franklin
By Chemical Watch
In the latest setback to Johnson and Johnson in its ongoing legal battle over talc, the personal care giant has been ordered to pay millions of dollars to a family claiming a link between cancer and talcum powder contaminated with asbestos. -
Industry 'Crying Wolf' Leads to Corporate Control of Chemicals Policy – NGO
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
"A long-running 'cry wolf' strategy from industry, claiming that chemical rules are burdensome" has resulted in a "corporate takeover of political decision making on chemicals," says Tatiana Santos at NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB). -
Trump Push to Shorten Gas Pipeline Reviews May Limit Public Input
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A push to shorten the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission environmental review timelines for natural gas pipelines could limit the public's and environmentalists’ involvement in the process, some energy specialists said. -
EPA Rejection of Interstate Air Petition Sets High Bar for Future Requests
Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's final decision rejecting a petition from Connecticut to impose emissions reduction requirements on a power plant in nearby Pennsylvania sets a high bar for other states to succeed with similar petitions asking for the agency's assistance in reducing interstate emissions... -
Google and Apple Lead the Corporate Charge Toward 100% Renewable Energy
Apr 12, 2018 | Forbes
By Silvio Marcacci
America’s technology corporate giants have led the corporate renewables procurement trend, but two of the biggest names in tech just reached a new mark: Apple and Google are now both 100% powered by renewable energy. -
Senate Considers Presidential Nominees for Surface Transportation Board
Apr 11, 2018 | Transport Topics Online
By Eleanor Lamb
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is one step closer to doubling the number of members who sit on the Surface Transportation Board. -
Trump Taps Hill Staffer, Pipeline Expert for Safety Board
Apr 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump intends to nominate Jennifer Homendy to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, the White House announced last night. -
Railroad Stakeholders Warn System Needs Billions to Get to Good State of Repair
Apr 11, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Liz Carey
Despite an increase in the amount of federal dollars devoted to railroad systems in the fiscal year 2018 spending plan for the federal government, stakeholders in the rail systems say it’s not enough to adequately repair aging systems across the country. -
Senators Eye Bipartisan Path for Carbon Capture Bill
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A bill to boost research and deployment of carbon capture technologies could have legs in the Senate, as lawmakers pledge to keep it narrowly focused and avoid political roadblocks that often challenge environmental legislation. -
Slow Turning on Environment, Energy Bills: Spring 2018 Hill Watch
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Recent congressional victories reauthorizing the EPA's Brownfields Program and extending carbon capture tax credits combined with looming midterm elections could cool any movement on big-ticket environmental and energy bills. -
This Environmental Group Is Launching Its Own Satellite to Learn More About Greenhouse Gas Leaks
Apr 11, 2018 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
When the Environmental Defense Fund told commercial space guru Tom Ingersoll that it wanted to launch a satellite to measure methane from oil and gas operations, he says his reaction was “Whoa! You guys want to do what?”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) China Threatens Retaliatory Plastics Tariffs
Apr 11, 2018 | Plastics Recycling Update
By Colin Staub
Trade tensions between the U.S. and China have come closer to directly impacting the plastics recycling industry.
China’s Ministry of Commerce on April 4 issued a list of 106 U.S. products that could be subject to a 25 percent tariff on shipments into China. The list includes various forms of PE, PET, PVC, polycarbonate and a number of plastic products.
It’s unclear whether the tariffs would apply to recovered plastic pellets shipped to China, but even if they only cover prime materials, they have a bearing on recovered plastic pricing, which is closely linked to prime plastic capacity. S&P Global Platt’s compiled a detailed analysis of the potential impacts on various prime resins.
The American Chemistry Council issued a statement noting the stifling implications the tariffs would have on the chemical industry, which has made a number of expansions in the U.S. based on market forecasts before the tariffs came into play.
“Nearly $185 billion in new chemical factories, expansions and restarts of facilities around the country are predicated on current tariff schedules, and market shifts caused by tariff increases may convince investors to do business elsewhere,” the ACC said in a release. “We strongly urge the U.S. and China to reach a productive and meaningful agreement before any of the proposed tariff schedules go into effect.”
The Plastics Industry Association also called for a halt to the trade war, noting that “these proposed tariffs are already causing global market anxieties and will disrupt the supply chains of companies large and small if they take effect.”
According to the Brookings Institute, plastics manufacturing is the largest industry by employment that’s targeted by China’s tariffs.
Trade war backdrop
The proposed chemical tariffs came as the latest episode in a brewing clash between the U.S. and China.
The U.S. in March announced it would levy tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, firing the first shot of the trade tensions.
China responded with a list of 128 products that would receive 10 or 25 percent tariffs on. The list included scrap aluminum.
Separately, U.S. officials in March released the results of a long investigation into unfair Chinese practices regarding U.S. intellectual property, particularly in the technology sector. In early April, the office of U.S. Trade Representative released a list of 1,300 Chinese products that would be subject to additional tariffs coming into the U.S. The list was based on the results of the intellectual property study.
The very next day, China announced the list of 106 additional products subject to tariffs, including chemicals, bringing the total number of products targeted by China to 234. China also criticized the U.S. list of tariffs, which would cover some $50 billion of Chinese exports to the U.S.
The U.S. responded to China’s list by floating the possibility of new tariffs covering $100 billion in Chinese exports, and China responded in turn threatening equal retaliation.
Meanwhile, both China and the U.S. have filed complaints with the World Trade Organization, which will facilitate consultations between the countries in an effort resolve the trade dispute.
The steel and aluminum tariffs initially levied by the U.S. and the retaliatory tariffs from China on 128 products have all gone into effect. All of the other tariff proposals are awaiting implementation.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2018/04/11/china-threatens-retaliatory-plastics-tariffs/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Plastics Groups Push for Federal Spending on Recycling
Apr 12, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The plastics and recycling industries announced a push for stronger federal investment in recycling infrastructure on April 11, saying that boosting domestic U.S. capacity is critical to deal with challenges like China's recent import ban.
The Plastics Industry Association, the American Chemistry Council and the Association of Plastic Recyclers joined nine other organizations in sending a letter to leaders of Congress supporting a series of financial and regulatory changes they say can boost recycling.
"We believe strongly that a federal investment targeting recycling and recycled materials is critical to America's economic success, will create jobs throughout the United States and yield environmental benefits," the groups said in an April 6 letter to the top four Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate.
The changes sought by the dozen associations and non-governmental organizations include retrofitting existing material recovery facilities to better handle flexible film and other packaging, quicker permitting of new facilities and using more recycled material in infrastructure projects.
As well, they are seeking broadened use of private activity bonds for recycling, more grants for state and local governments to expand curbside recycling and more education and training around recycling.
The groups said China's decision last year to sharply clamp down on imports of recycled plastic and other materials is a key motivator, and creates opportunities to use material that used to go to China.
"Recent decisions by China to reduce or end the importation of scrap material ... are disrupting recycling programs throughout the United States, and make it more critical that we make new investments in domestic recycling capacity," they said. "Without significant investment in such capacity, millions more tons of otherwise recoverable and recyclable material will be lost to landfills each year."
The letter noted that of the 37 million tons of U.S. recyclables exported in 2016, 16.2 million tons went to China.
It also cited 2016 EPA data that said recycling generated 757,000 jobs and $36.6 billion in wages.
"Our letter to lawmakers invites the start of a national dialogue on improving our recycling infrastructure, and jump-starting the nation's ability to collect, process and recycle more of these valuable commodities," said Scott DeFife, vice president of government affairs at the Washington-based Plastics Industry Association.
"The nation faces a critical juncture in waste management policies, and the federal government can work with state and local entities to make significant inroads with greater investments in recycling education and infrastructure," he said.
Other signatories include the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, the National Waste & Recycling Association, the Recycling Partnership and the Solid Waste Association of North America, along with the Flexible Packaging Association and the Food Service Packaging Institute.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180411/NEWS/180419971/plastics-groups-push-for-federal-spending-on-recycling
-
(ACC Mentioned) Commentary: Pruitt’s EPA Hazardous to Public Health, Children’s Brains
Apr 12, 2018 | Austin American-Statesman
By Joni Ashbrook
The Environmental Protection Agency’s top administrator, Scott Pruitt, has an outlandish ethics problem, but that’s nothing compared his terrifying attack on our health and even our children’s brains.
Accounts of Pruitt’s EPA read like a horror story. To give you a glimpse of what the EPA has been up to under Pruitt’s watch, I’ll share of few of his greatest hits.
Due to his ethics, or lack thereof, Pruitt may be out of office by the time this is printed, but either way, the damage has been done.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Pruitt met privately last year with Dow Chemical CEO, Andrew Liveris. Twenty days later, Pruitt reversed Obama’s ban on Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide. This pesticide is used on crops such as corn, wheat and apples.
Chlorpyrifos was developed as a chemical weapon before World War II. It was used in household bug sprays until 2000 when it was banned because babies exposed prenatally showed structural abnormalities in the brain linked to attention, memory, language and impulse control.
Public health and environmental groups said that regulation didn’t go far enough and filed a federal lawsuit seeking a national ban on the pesticide. So in 2015, the Obama administration announced a “zero tolerance” policy for using the chemical on food.
Pruitt is reversing that ban of the pesticide in spite of EPA scientists warning that ingesting even a minuscule amount can interfere with the brain development of fetuses and infants.
The American Academy of Pediatrics is “deeply alarmed” by Pruitt’s decision and urged him to take chlorpyrifos off the market. In a letter to Pruitt they said, “The risk to infant and children’s health and development is unambiguous.”
But Pruitt is doing exactly what the president wants. One of the first executive orders that Trump signed was to eliminate regulations, and he was tickled to give the signing pen to “Andrew” the CEO of Dow Chemical. Dow also donated a million dollars to the president’s inaugural festivities.
The New York Times brings us another hair raising tale from Pruitt’s EPA. The agency has worked for years to keep a chemical, perfluorooctanoic acid, out of our drinking water. This chemical was once used in nonstick pans and stain resistant carpets. It’s been linked to birth defects, kidney cancer, immune disorders and other serious illnesses.
President Trump appointed Nancy Beck to a high level chemical safety position in the agency. She alarmed EPA scientists when she insisted on rewriting a rule to make it harder to track the health consequences of the chemical and therefore regulate it. That was just one of a dozen rules she rewrote.
Beck was brought to the EPA straight from a five-year stint as an executive of the American Chemistry Council, the powerful lobby whose members include Dow Chemical, Monsanto and ExxonMobil. She’s the perfect person to undo all those pesky regulations that get in the way of industry’s profits.
According to Vox, Pruitt rolled back 22 regulations during his first year, but some of the biggest and most overlooked changes come by doing nothing at all. Apparently, Pruitt’s EPA is slow walking the implementation of laws and not collecting many fines from their industry pals.
Every year, 230,000 Americans die due to hazardous chemical exposures. Christine Todd Whitman, the former EPA administrator under President George W. Bush said, “You stop enforcing those regulations and that number will go way up.”
Trump wants to end “job killing” regulations, but who will suffer or die without them?
https://www.statesman.com/news/local-education/commentary-pruitt-epa-hazardous-public-health-children-brains/vBjbqGzNVHfqD46Ph8Wx6J/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Quote-Unquote: Touching Many Bases -- NEPA, CPP, Pruitt, Wheeler
Apr 11, 2018 | Inside EPA
EPA’s nominated deputy administrator nears confirmation, the administration seeks to streamline NEPA and EPA permit reviews, Pruitt under the microscope and more.
Wheeler heads for confirmation: pro and con.
Two takes on Andrew Wheeler, EPA’s deputy administrator-designate, who likely will be confirmed later this week.‘Leadership and expertise’: “His leadership and expertise . . . will help the agency continue its implementation of the 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act and help ensure sound science is at the heart of its regulatory decision making.”
-- The American Chemistry Council, in a statement.‘Overly influenced by lobbyists’: “It is critically important that the public understand Wheeler's career as a lobbyist for some of the worst actors in the energy industry. Andrew Wheeler running EPA would go far beyond having an administrator overly influenced by lobbyists -- the head of EPA would be an energy industry lobbyist.”
-- An Environmental Defense Fund comment, April 9, linking Wheeler’s confirmation to potential that he would become acting administrator should EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt step down...https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/wheeler-appears-have-votes-win-senate-confirmation
-
Dems Want to Delay Confirmation of Trump Pick at EPA
Apr 11, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Senate Democrats want to delay the confirmation of Andrew Wheeler to the No. 2 spot at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), arguing he should get more scrutiny because of the possibility that he could end up replacing Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Democratic members on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said they fear that they would be effectively confirming Wheeler as the EPA’s chief if President Trump decides to fire Pruitt.
“The circumstances regarding Mr. Wheeler have changed since we had our nomination hearing and vote with the cloud over Administrator Pruitt,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) on Wednesday. “I think it would be best advised to hold off on this vote to see if we are voting on the acting administrator or the deputy administrator.”
Pruitt has been at the center of controversy for weeks over his housing in Washington, raises to certain staffers and his travel and security detail. White House chief of staff John Kelly has reportedly pushed for his ouster.
Trump, however, has offered repeated public support for Pruitt, leading many in Washington to think his position at the EPA has stabilized in recent days. Pruitt has also won support from a number of GOP lawmakers as well as conservative voices outside Congress.
Environmental and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) vowed to go forward with the panel vote to confirm Wheeler this week.
"We’ll be voting on his confirmation this week. I expect to speak about him on the floor. I expect to support his work. I worked with him when I was new in the Senate. And I fully support the vote to confirm him to the position for which he has been nominated,” he said. Wheeler’s confirmation vote in front of the full Senate is expected this week. He would need just 50 votes to be confirmed, though that could force Vice President Pence to break a tie.
Wheeler is a lawyer and former lobbyist who specialized in energy and environmental policy. He is also a former staffer to Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the former chairman of the Environmental and Public Works Committee.
As such, he’d be seen as a capable administrator for EPA chief if necessary.
Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee panel that oversees the EPA’s budget, said Wheeler hasn’t been subject to the public or congressional scrutiny that a nominee to lead the EPA would usually be subjected to.
“Wheeler would move in and become the deputy administrator of the EPA, the No. 2 job. He’s never been vetted to be the top job. And so, we’ve got a real problem there,” said Udall, who speculated that Pruitt could be out in days.
“We hear from the White House that there are very split opinions on him. There are some people at the very top in the White House that want him to go right now,” Udall said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/382762-dems-want-to-delay-confirmation-of-trump-pick-at-epa
-
Ryan's Successor Likely Between Two Energy-Friendly Lawmakers
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
House Speaker Paul Ryan's bombshell April 11 announcement that he'll step down after the November election sets up a showdown between two Republicans who are more likely than Ryan to highlight environmental and energy issues.
Ryan's decision not to seek re-election makes for a two-man race for the top House Republican leadership post: Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was pushed aside by House conservatives in late 2015 who favored Ryan for speaker, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), who since arriving in the House a decade ago has helped rally Republican troops to roll back environmental and other federal regulations.
Both Scalise and McCarthy have low marks from the League of Conservation Voters: Scalise has a lifetime score through 2017 of 4 percent, while McCarthy's is 3 percent.
LCV's senior vice president for campaigns, Pete Maysmith, said Ryan joins 29 other Republican congressional members who have decided to retire rather than defend what he called “their toxic records at the polls.”
If Democrats can translate those retirements into Democratic victories they'll be on the verge of winning back the House, Maysmith said, which would render the McCarthy-versus-Scalise battle one for the top minority position in a Democratic-controlled House.
Vocal Regulatory Critics
Scalise is best known for being critically injured by a gunman targeting Republicans who were practicing on a Virginia baseball diamond in June 2017.
In the decade since the Louisiana Republican arrived to the House, Scalise has scaled the ranks of Republican leadership quickly, moving to the vote-counting whip position in 2014 after serving as chairman of the Republican Study Committee.
The House majority whip, a vocal climate skeptic and frequent critic, has strongly backed Louisiana's energy industries and worked to repeal a ban on exporting crude oil in 2015. He was a frequent critic on the House floor of Obama-backed cap and trade legislation, which passed the House largely over Republican objections in 2009 only to die without a vote in the Senate a year later.
Scalise also was critical of the Obama administration in the aftermath of the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill but also BP, and later sponsored a bill to direct that 80 percent of the penalties paid by the company go to a Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Fund.
“He's a rock star on our stuff, there's no question about it,” Stephen Brown, vice president of federal government affairs for Tesoro Corp., which refines and markets petroleum products, told Bloomberg News in 2016. “He's probably your go-to person for the oil and gas industry. If he can't be for it, it's not going to happen.”
McCarthy has roughly the same views on energy issues and is just as skeptical of federal regulations and what industry argues are overly burdensome and costly requirements.
One plus for McCarthy among conservatives is that he has a close relationship with President Donald Trump, who has turned to the California Republican that Trump calls “my Kevin” as a direct conduit to Republican members in the House.
But the Californian, who came to the House a year earlier than Scalise, also worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in 2016 to win passage of legislation addressing the state's water crisis.
He also was known as a long-time backer of tax incentives to encourage wind energy production, though in recent years he has also questioned the need to continue providing such support.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131585913&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131585913&jd=131585913
-
EPA Issues Six TSCA 'Not Likely to Present Unreasonable Risk' Findings
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations for six substances that were the subject of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs).
Four of the substances were found "not likely" to present an unreasonable risk due to low environmental and human health concerns.
Determinations for two fatty acid substances, meanwhile, held the same conclusion despite "low/moderate" human health hazard. These are intended to be used as an intermediate and an application coating, with several foreseeable uses including as a plasticiser, lubricant additive, viscosity adjuster, and mould release agent.
Two of the substances require they be manufactured in accordance with polymer exemption criteria. These substances are:
· generic polyurethane. It is intended for use in coatings for the oil and gas industry, and reasonably foreseen to be used as a paint and coating additive.
· generic: dicarboxylic acids, polymers with substituted poly (substituted alkendiyl) ,3-hydroxy2-(hydroxyalkyl)-2-alkylalkenoic acid, 5-substituted-1-(substituted alkyl)-1,3,3-trialkyl carbomonocyle, alkanediol, alkane-triol, alcohol blocked compounds with aminoalcohol. It is intended to be used in paint, and is reasonably foreseen to be used in adhesives and sealants.
The other two substances are:
· generic phosphinic acid, P,P-alkyl-, salt. It is a chemical intermediate for a non-halogenated flame retardant.
· 2-propenoic acid, telomers with Bu alc.-2-[(2-propen-1-yloxy)methyl]oxirane reaction products, sodium bisulfite and sodium 2-hydroxy-3-(2-propen-1-yloxy)-1-propanesulfonate (1:1), sodium salts, peroxydisulfuric acid ([(HO)S(O)2]2O2) sodium salt (1:2)-initiated. It is intended for use as a dispersant additive, and is foreseen to be used as a chelating agent.
The EPA issued the decisions between 19 and 23 March. They were the first 'not likely' findings for chemical substances since 12 December last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65938/epa-issues-six-tsca-not-likely-to-present-unreasonable-risk-findings
-
US EPA Drafts Approach to Non-Animal Testing for Skin Sensitisation
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has outlined how it thinks non-animal (alternative) test methods for determining skin sensitisation should be used.
In an interim science policy document, released on 4 April for public comment, the agency describes the methods and how they should be combined via "defined approaches" to fully negate the need for animal methods such as the local lymph node assay (LLNA).
And it has had an immediate impact on regulatory risk assessment of pesticides in the US, with the agency saying it now accepts these methods according to the test protocols described. "Given the substantial scientific evidence and international activities supporting the new methodologies for skin sensitisation testing, the EPA will begin accepting these approaches immediately under the conditions described in the draft policy document," it says in a statement.
And it might also be significant for other industrial and consumer chemical products if the agency chooses to apply it more widely.
Data requirements
The EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), which deals with these chemicals, does not have any specific data requirements, the document says. But it does receive skin sensitisation information, mostly for some chemicals in the new chemicals programme. In addition, if it suspects a new chemical could be a skin sensitiser, it may request studies or information.
Skin sensitisation is arguably the hazard endpoint for which the risk assessment community has achieved the most progress towards regulatory acceptance of non-animal methods. EU REACH registrants, for example, must use data from non-animal methods as the default option for skin sensitisation. They can only use data from animal methods as a last resort.
That progress is critical for the global cosmetics industry, which is banned from selling cosmetic products in the EU that have been tested on animals or contain ingredients that have been tested on animals.
In the US, the FDA conducts risk assessment of cosmetics products.
The consultation on the EPA document runs until 9 June.
Last month the agency published its draft strategy for promoting the development and implementation of alternative test methods under the amended TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65927/us-epa-drafts-approach-to-non-animal-testing-for-skin-sensitisation
-
Virginia Becomes Fourth Us State Requiring Alternative Test Methods
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
On 10 April, Virginia became the fourth US state to bar the use of animal testing if an alternative is available. It is a mandate that will probably mostly affect testing of cosmetics and household products.
The law, like similar ones enacted in California in 2000 and New York and New Jersey in 2007, exempts the testing of drugs and for medical research. The state laws require alternative testing if such methods have been approved by the federal agency governing the relevant product or testing mandate.
"HB 1087 applies to product sectors such as cosmetics, household products and some industrial chemicals," said Shayna McClelland, communications manager for the Humane Society of the US, which praised Virginia's action.
She said it goes further than the three earlier laws in one respect: they define available alternatives as those validated by the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (Iccvam). Virginia's definition does not include that limitation.
Federal laws
Federal laws regarding testing of cosmetics, personal care products and household products administered by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) do not specify what type of testing is required. Their regulations allow, and even encourage, the use of validated, non-animal methods.
The use of alternative methods to investigate chemical safety is a separate issue, and is the subject of an ongoing project required by the 2016 TSCA amendments.
In March, the US EPA published its draft strategy for promoting the development and implementation of alternative test methods, with the goal of reducing and eventually replacing vertebrate animal testing under TSCA.
And the agency recently issued guidelines on alternative test methods for determining skin sensitisation.
While the current laws affect testing done in the four states that enacted them, a bill (SB1049) pending in the California legislature would ban sale in the state of any cosmetic that was tested on animals.
The EU implemented a similar ban in 2013.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65940/virginia-becomes-fourth-us-state-requiring-alternative-test-methods
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Improving Chemical Assessments, Science Reviewers Say
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sylvia Carignan
The EPA's program to assess toxic chemicals is becoming more transparent and efficient despite a shrinking staff, an independent scientific board said April 11.
The National Academy of Sciences report came as the American Chemistry Council disputed adding a contaminated site to the EPA National Priorities List based on a program assessment. The council represents companies such as Occidental Chemical Corp., Velsicol Chemical LLC and Monsanto Co.
The Environmental Protection Agency's chemical toxicity assessment program has come under fire from House Republicans and the chemical industry for a lack of transparency in its assessment process. The science academy reported, though, that the program is making strides toward greater transparency and accelerating the assessment process.
The EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment runs the chemical toxicity assessment program, called the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The program is “dramatically more systematic, transparent, and scientifically defensible” than it was in a 2010 National Academies review, the April 11 report stated.
Program Changes
The EPA is making changes in the program by telling the public how it will assess chemicals and by incorporating the most recent scientific research into its decisions. House Republicans said last year the assessments take too long and that the EPA's reasoning for using particular data is unclear.
The assessments can influence EPA's decisions, standards, and regulations in multiple areas, from air, water, and chemicals to contaminated sites and waste.
The chemical toxicity assessment program analyzes the harms that chemicals could cause to human health and the doses at which those harms could manifest. The results of the program's assessments are used in setting exposure limits, cleanup targets, and other health protections by a range of groups, including the military, states, and international bodies.
The center had 37 full-time staff members working specifically on IRIS in 2007, according to the Government Accountability Office, but in February had about 30, the center's director, Tina Bahadori, said then.
EPA Staff Challenged
The National Priorities List contains the most contaminated sites in the country, also known as Superfund sites. The EPA is proposing adding a property in Grenada, Miss., to the list because of the concentrations of trichloroethylene found there.
The EPA's chemical toxicity assessment of the carcinogenic substance “is not based on the best available science,” the council argued in comments posted online April 11, and should not be used to support the site's addition to the list.
The agency has yet to decide whether the site should be on the National Priorities List.
The challenge for EPA staff is to find an efficient process that fully considers complex scientific concepts and doesn't resort to simplistic decisions, Lorenz Rhomberg, principal at Gradient Corp., an environmental consulting firm, told Bloomberg Environment.
At the same time, the agency doesn't want to open its decisions to endless debate, he said in an email.
This year's National Academies’ review is the third such evaluation of the program's progress and reforms during the past decade. The National Academies reviewed IRIS assessments in 2011 and 2014.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131585915&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131585915&jd=131585915
-
(ACC Mentioned) NAS Praises Chemical Research Program Targeted by Republicans
Apr 11, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The National Academies of Sciences said today an EPA chemical safety research program that Republicans and the chemicals industry have sought to eliminate has made major strides in fixing problems identified in its processes seven years ago.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System program was faulted by the scientific body in a 2011 report, but has since made “substantial progress” in implementing its recommendations for improvement, the National Academies said in a report.The IRIS program is one of the few independent mechanisms for analyzing health risks from toxic chemicals. It is not a regulatory program, but the scientific information it produces is used by other EPA offices to set policies and regulations.
The program is deeply unpopular with the chemicals industry, and the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have sought to slash its funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee’s fiscal 2018 spending bill for EPA would have eliminated the program entirely, with portions of its work reassigned to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, where Nancy Beck, a former top scientist for the American Chemistry Council, serves as the top political official. The final budget deal, however, maintained level funding for the program.
“The changes in the IRIS program over such a short period of time are impressive,” Jonathan Samet, dean of the Colorado School of Public Health and chair of the National Academies committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
WHAT’S NEXT: The Trump administration has requested barely half of this year’s funding for the Human Health Risk Assessment program that houses IRIS in fiscal 2019. Congressional appropriations will decide whether to continue the program, and at what funding level.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
NAS Boosts Embattled Chemical-Testing Program
Apr 11, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
One of the nation's oldest and most widely respected scientific bodies today provided strong support for an endangered EPA chemical-testing program.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine praised EPA's Integrated Risk Information System for making "substantial progress" in implementing reforms recommended in its previous reports, the most recent of which was released four years ago (Greenwire, May 6, 2014).
"The changes in the IRIS program over such a short period of time are impressive," Jonathan Samet, the chairman of the committee that wrote the report, said in a statement. The National Academies were established in 1863 by an act of Congress signed into law by President Lincoln.
"We see a substantial commitment at EPA to use systematic-review methods in conducting assessments, which are important for identifying, evaluating, and summarizing the findings from current literature and integrating the evidence available to inform decisions," said Samet, who is dean of the Colorado School of Public Health at the University of Colorado, Denver.
IRIS began evaluating chemicals that people incidentally consume or inhale in 1985. The tiny program's peer-reviewed assessments of published research are often used by state, federal and international regulators to set exposure limits for the chemicals in question, which is why it has long been the focus of industry opposition.
The National Academies' committee — made up of state regulators, industry experts and other academics — noted in the 131-page copyrighted report that it was "not asked to evaluate the overall value of the IRIS program, to recommend where IRIS should be located with the agency or to review any specific chemical assessments."
But other points in the report seemed to undercut its stated limitations. For example, the committee said the program has developed "formal and informal collaborations" with several national and international scientific groups that are helping "to position the IRIS program as a leader in advancing systemic-review methods."
It also said that current best practices "suggest that IRIS teams involved in the systemic-review process should be independent of those involved in regulatory decision-making." The committee praised the process IRIS used to re-evaluate the chemical chloroprene as well.
The latest National Academies review came at a time when IRIS, led by career EPA staffers, is under threat from political officials at the agency, the chemical industry and their allies in Congress.
A spending bill released by Senate appropriators last November even sought to zero out IRIS's annual $22 million budget and shift its 30 full-time staffers to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The top political official in that regulatory office is Nancy Beck, a former chemical industry trade group executive (Greenwire, March 19).
While the omnibus spending package passed by lawmakers last month maintained the program's funding and position within the Office of Research and Development, political leaders at EPA have begun shifting some IRIS staffers over to the chemical safety office, according to an agency source.
The loss of subject matter experts could imperil the progress the National Academies observed. As the committee's report said, improving the program's data analysis "will require sustained resources and continued capacity-building to develop a process that is ultimately transparent, is replicable, and represents the best practices for the future."
EPA didn't respond to a request for comment on the staff moves. But a spokesman said the agency "is currently reviewing the recommendations desc
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/11/stories/1060078777
-
US FDA Gathers Information for International Cosmetics Meeting
Apr 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is holding a public meeting to gather informaton for the upcoming 12th annual International Cooperation of Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR-12).
ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from Brazil, Canada, Japan, the US and the EU. It meets annually to discuss common issues on cosmetics safety, and to determine where it can find convergence of regulatory policies and practices.
Interested parties may present information on topics related to the regulation of cosmetics.
Topics addressed by the international body in recent years include:
· preservatives;
· strategies for assessing cosmetic ingredient safety;
· ISO standards;
· managing trace elements; and
· allergens.
The FDA meeting will take place 7 June at the FDA's buildings in College Park, Maryland, USA.
ICCR-12 will be held 10-12 July in Tokyo, Japan.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65935/us-fda-gathers-information-for-international-cosmetics-meeting
-
North Carolina Regulators Seek Court Order Against Chemours’s Fluoroether Pollution
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
To protect drinking water, North Carolina regulators are asking a state court to order Chemours to stop fluoroether pollution from its plant outside of Fayetteville.
If the court grants the request of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), the facility, which makes Nafion ion-transporting polymers and other fluorochemical products, could face at least a partial shutdown.
In addition to controlling air emissions and other sources of fluoroether pollution, DEQ wants Chemours to hand over information about the use of a drainage ditch at the plant that was contaminated with fluoroethers. According to the agency’s April 9 court filing, Chemours for an unknown period of time discharged industrial process wastewater into the open ditch, bypassing the facility’s wastewater treatment plant. The untreated water flowed into the Cape Fear River, DEQ says.
“It’s time for Chemours to own up to the level of contamination they have caused to the environment in and around their Fayetteville Works facility,” DEQ Secretary Michael Regan says. Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA) and other fluoroethers contaminate the Cape Fear River—which runs past the plant and supplies downstream drinking water utilities—as well as the river’s sediments. HFPO-DA is also found in groundwater beneath the plant and up to 11 km from the plant in the reverse direction of groundwater flow.
Chemours has not responded to C&EN’s requests for comment on this or other stories this year about the fluoroether pollution.
DEQ’s request to the court is a legal backstop to an April 6 warning letter the department sent to Chemours regarding the Fayetteville plant emitting to the atmosphere HFPO-DA and two related fluoroethers that hydrolyze into HFPO-DA. One of those chemicals is GenX, a surfactant used as a polymerization aid to manufacture fluoropolymers. The agency says it’s confirmed a causal link between the fluoroether emissions from the plant and HFPO-DA pollution in groundwater.
In the letter, DEQ says it will modify the company’s air pollution permit to bar emission of the fluoroethers unless Chemours demonstrates that its emissions do not end up tainting groundwater. Toxicity of HFPO-DA and other fluoroethers is unclear, but some studies suggest they could be hazardous to human health.
“The incessant fouling of the state’s natural resources by Chemours cannot be sustained under law,” DEQ Director Michael A. Abraczinskas says in the warning letter to the company.
DEQ also says the plant’s air emissions of HFPO-DA and related compounds are greater than Chemours previously reported. Last June, the company told DEQ it released about 30 kg of HFPO-DA-related compounds in 2016. In October, the company revised this 2016 figure to 269 kg. Based on measurements taken in January by a Chemours-paid contractor, DEQ calculates that the plant could release more than 1,225 kg of GenX-related fluoroethers into the air each year.
Chemours began capturing its wastewater for disposal elsewhere last year. In November, the state revoked the facility’s wastewater discharge permit for its fluorochemicals production area.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/North-Carolina-regulators-seek-court/96/i16
-
J&J Loses Its First Asbestos Talcum Powder Suit
Apr 12, 2018 | Kelly Franklin
By Chemical Watch
In the latest setback to Johnson and Johnson in its ongoing legal battle over talc, the personal care giant has been ordered to pay millions of dollars to a family claiming a link between cancer and talcum powder contaminated with asbestos.
A New Jersey court has awarded $117m in damages to Stephen Lanzo and his wife. The plaintiff said his frequent use of "asbestos-containing Johnson & Johnson talc powder products" caused him to develop mesothelioma.
Johnson & Johnson was found liable for 70% of the injury, with supplier Imerys Talc assuming the balance. The decision comprises $37 million in compensatory damages and a further $80m in punitive damages.
Juries in other states have handed down multimillion dollar awards in cases linking genital talc use to ovarian cancer, but this is the first to find for a plaintiff alleging injuries due to asbestos contamination.
The company won a similar asbestos suit last autumn, when a California jury found it was not responsible for causing the plaintiff's cancer. And plaintiffs in Seattle voluntarily dropped a mesothelioma case before it went to trial earlier this year.
Johnson & Johnson spokesperson Carol Goodrich said the company will immediately appeal the decision.
"Throughout this trial, we were prevented from presenting evidence we believe would have been important to the jury in their deliberations," she said. "We believe that once the full evidence is reviewed, this decision will be reversed."
She added that "multiple independent, non-litigation-driven scientific evaluations" have found the company's baby powder free from asbestos.
Gwen Myers, a spokesperson for Imerys Talc America, said the company also plans to appeal.
"We are disappointed by the jury's decision, but we remain confident that talc did not cause Mr Lanzo's cancer. The evidence was clear that his asbestos exposure came from a different source," she said.
Asbestos contamination
Asbestos and talc are both naturally occurring minerals that can be found in close proximity to each other in the earth.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require pre-market approval of cosmetic ingredients, but it says companies "have a legal responsibility for the safety and labelling of their products and ingredients". In order to prevent contamination with asbestos – a known carcinogen – talc mines sites must be carefully selected and the ore must be sufficiently purified, it says.
The agency has periodically responded to concerns around asbestos contamination in cosmetic-grade talc. It conducted a survey from 2009 to 2010, but found no asbestos fibres in tested talc or cosmetic products.
In February, following recent reports of asbestos contamination in children's cosmetics containing talc, Representative Debbie Dingell (D–Michigan) introduced a bill that would require warning labels unless such products have been demonstrated to be asbestos-free. The Children's Product Warning Label Act of 2018 (HR 4964) has yet to make it out of committee.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65929/jj-loses-its-first-asbestos-talcum-powder-suit
-
Industry 'Crying Wolf' Leads to Corporate Control of Chemicals Policy – NGO
Apr 11, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Warmington
"A long-running 'cry wolf' strategy from industry, claiming that chemical rules are burdensome" has resulted in a "corporate takeover of political decision making on chemicals," says Tatiana Santos at NGO the European Environmental Bureau (EEB).
Writing on the European Commission’s second REACH Review in this month's Global Business Briefing, Ms Santos welcomed the Commission's recognition that REACH's high potential to protect human health and the environment and the benefits for society outweigh the costs for the chemical industry.
However, in her view, the Review ended up being "precautionary in principle, flawed in fact". It is keener toalleviate the economic burden on producers than the health and environmental ones associated with chemicals, she says.
In contrast, Irantzu Garmendia Aguirre from the European Association of Chemical Distributors (Fecc), said her organisation was pleased some of the actions it had advocated have been taken on board in the Review. These included:
· the urgent action identified to clarify the interface between REACH and other EU legislation;
· moves towards more harmonised enforcement; and
· further simplification in relation to the information requirements in extended safety data sheets, improving their workability and quality;
There was a concern for her that the recommendation regarding the latter "goes beyond the legal requirements when exposure scenarios for mixtures are mentioned. We should not go beyond the legal text, setting requirements that are not legally compulsory," she said.
Ms Santos also noted that the Commission's evaluation acknowledges where its implementation falls short, notably non-compliance of registration dossiers; the failure of the European institutions to shift the burden of proof to industry and apply the precautionary principle; and the need to improve REACH processes, particularly evaluation, restriction and authorisation. However, she added, it remains vague on how to solve these problems.
"We need urgent action to implement the REACH principle of 'no data, no market', truly stimulate the substitution of toxic substances, identify new SVHCs, effectively shift the burden of proof to companies and improve the information on hazards and risks of chemicals in consumer products," she concluded.
https://chemicalwatch.com/65937/industry-crying-wolf-leads-to-corporate-control-of-chemicals-policy-ngo
-
Trump Push to Shorten Gas Pipeline Reviews May Limit Public Input
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
A push to shorten the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission environmental review timelines for natural gas pipelines could limit the public's and environmentalists’ involvement in the process, some energy specialists said.
FERC Chairman Kevin McIntyre signed the memorandum of understanding April 9, along with 11 other federal agencies. The memorandum, under President Donald Trump's One Federal Decision policy, aims to limit the federal environmental reviews of infrastructure projects to two years by setting permitting timetables.
Environmental groups have increased their opposition, including public protests and lawsuits against pipelines under review at FERC to account for downstream greenhouse gas emissions.
Analysts and attorneys said that speeding up environmental reviews could cut out public participation.
“If the environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act is at two years, that might adversely affect citizen participation,” Joel Eisen, who teaches energy law at the University of Richmond School of Law, told Bloomberg Environment.
For example, he said, FERC may just give the minimum amount of time for public comment at a particular stage of the project review, instead of providing more time to accommodate all perspectives.
The memorandum reiterates FERC's obligations under NEPA as the lead federal agency in charge of environmental reviews for natural gas pipelines. It directs agencies to complete their reviews within two years “to the extent consistent with applicable law.”
Thumb on Scale
The memorandum is in line with the Trump administration's push for quicker agency action, Susan Tierney, a senior adviser with the Analysis Group who was the Energy Department's assistant secretary for policy under the Clinton administration, said.
“This really appears to put a thumb on the speed and efficiency over a fulsome record,” Tierney told Bloomberg Environment. A “fulsome record” is “important because often the public finds out about projects late in the process,” she said.
Others took a different view.
The memorandum will be “important and helpful on the margins,” James Lucier, a managing director at Capital Alpha Partners LLC, a policy research firm, said. It's directed against inertia, lack of communication, and “foot-dragging” between agencies.
The memorandum implements Executive Order No. 13807, issued in August 2017, which aims to streamline infrastructure review timetables that require environmental impact statements under NEPA.
Cathy Landry, a spokeswoman for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, a trade organization representing natural gas pipelines, said the group views “better cooperation and concurrent review by participating agencies as important to the timely review of proposed pipeline projects.”
But Earthjustice said the memorandum sets arbitrary timelines that go against FERC mandates, which require a thorough review of the entire project.
The shortened time frames “run the danger of curbing public participation, which is really necessary for FERC to understand the impacts these projects could have on the ground,” Moneen Nasmith, a staff attorney at Earthjustice's New York office, told Bloomberg Environment.
Public participation is primarily accomplished using formal commenting.
Natural Gas Pipeline Reviews
Separately, FERC is currently reviewing how it issues natural gas pipeline certificates.
It is assessing the emphasis it puts on agreements signed between pipeline owners and customers—who sometimes are affiliates of the owners—versus other factors like other pipelines in the area and environmental impacts.
“I would really hope that FERC is using its intention to review its policy statement on gas pipeline certification to talk about how they will really beef up early public engagement,” Tierney said.
Likewise, Montina Cole, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Bloomberg Environment, “There's a real issue of there being a meaningful opportunity for public participation, particularly when you talk about stakeholders who lack resources.”
Shaving Off Review Times
Christine Tezak, managing director for ClearView Energy Partners LLC, an energy analysis group, predicts that FERC can shorten reviews without sacrificing public input.
FERC on average takes slightly more than two years—approximately 25 months—to issue a natural gas pipeline certificate, according to Tezak's research.
This review period starts when FERC issues a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement and ends when FERC issues the natural gas certificate, Tezak told Bloomberg Environment.
The notice of intent is issued during the informal pre-filing stage of the FERC review process before the pipeline company formally submits their application for review, which is the time frame tracked under the memorandum.
Right now, FERC starts its review clock at a later point: When a pipeline formally submits its application.
FERC takes on average 18 months to two years to approve natural gas pipelines from application submission to issuance of the natural gas certificate, Tamara Young-Allen, a FERC spokeswoman, told Bloomberg Environment.
Tezak said that if FERC were to revisit when it issues the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement, it would likely shave off a month.
She also said time could be saved between issuing an environmental impact statement and when FERC generates a final certificate.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131585916&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131585916&jd=131585916
-
EPA Rejection of Interstate Air Petition Sets High Bar for Future Requests
Apr 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA's final decision rejecting a petition from Connecticut to impose emissions reduction requirements on a power plant in nearby Pennsylvania sets a high bar for other states to succeed with similar petitions asking for the agency's assistance in reducing interstate emissions from sources located in other states that they cannot regulate.
The rejection of Connecticut's petition, signed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt April 6 ahead of its publication in the Federal Register, establishes at least three principles for winning the agency's approval of such petitions that could be hard for states to meet.
First, the agency rejects claims in comments filed on the earlier proposed rejection that it must judge petitions based on the technical support given to justify them when filed, and not rely on more recent data and developments to avoid granting permits. State and environmentalist critics of the agency say it cannot delay responses to petitions by years beyond the 60 days allowed by the air law, then claim the petitions are outdated.
“Were the EPA to act solely on the information available in the petition, that information may result in an arbitrary and unreasonable decision by the EPA, and could, for example, impose controls or emission limitations that are not appropriately tailored to the problem as it exists at the time of EPA’s final action or at the time when such controls or limitations would actually be implemented,” the agency says in the final rejection.
EPA further says that Connecticut's case ignores cost-effectiveness criteria that EPA uses to determine whether the targeted source violates the Clean Air Act's “good neighbor” provision. The provision holds that upwind states with emissions sources that have a “significant contribution” to national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) violations in downwind states must take steps to mitigate the offending pollution.
Connecticut filed its petition under section 126 of the air law, which allows states to seek direct federal limits on pollution emitted by other states. The state sought regulation of a power plant in Pennsylvania, Brunner Island, which it blames for ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions that contribute to its problems attaining and maintaining the ozone NAAQS. The plant has been coal-fired and uncontrolled for NOx until recently, when installation of a new natural gas pipeline allowed the plant to burn gas in 2017 instead, greatly reducing NOx.
Connecticut relied on the methodology established by EPA in the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) utility air trading program to justify controls on Brunner Island. CSAPR, as updated in 2016, uses a significance threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS -- here, the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb). Connecticut ties Brunner Island's emissions to ozone contributions above this threshold at several air monitors in the state.
EPA's Rejection
But EPA in the final rejection of the section 126 petition says Connecticut failed to take a further step required by the CSAPR analysis, to see whether cost-effective controls are available at the source. This step is part of the CSAPR methodology upheld by the Supreme Court. “EPA applied the same four-step framework used in previous ozone transport rulemakings, including the CSAPR Update, to evaluate whether Brunner Island significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Connecticut.”
However, “there are no further cost-effective emission reductions available at the source,” EPA says. The agency does not address potential violations of the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS, set at 70 ppb. Delaware also has a section 126 petition outstanding over the Brunner Island plant, which does cite violations of the tougher 2015 NAAQS, EPA says.
Industry critics of the state's petition argued that it cannot rely on CSAPR methods for a single source, but EPA appears not to accept that argument and to instead reject the petition's claims on other grounds.
Also, EPA rejects criticisms from states that the power plant's switch to burning gas is reversible, and EPA should require Brunner Island to keep burning gas under an “enforceable” federal action. EPA has no need to take such a step, because Connecticut has not proven its case, the agency says. The agency concedes that should it grant a section 126 petition, the action taken would indeed have to be “enforceable."
EPA rejects claims from critics that its prediction that Brunner Island will continue to use primarily natural gas is “speculative.” The agency says that in addition to the gas pipeline installation, “EPA has also relied on its finding that economic factors, including compliance with the CSAPR Update and fuel-market economics, would provide an incentive for Brunner Island to combust primarily natural gas.”
Although EPA rejected the Brunner Island petition, it is one of several petitions filed from East Coast states including New York, Maryland and Delaware seeking regulation of dozens of power plants in states further south and west, and EPA's response to Connecticut may inform its reaction to those other petitions.
While the Obama EPA granted one such petition brought by New Jersey against a power plant in Pennsylvania, the Trump EPA has yet to approve one, and is facing mounting criticism from East Coast states which say the agency is unwilling to address interstate air pollution.
EPA's decision comes after protracted litigation by Connecticut to force EPA to act on its petition, filed June 1, 2016. A federal district court ultimately issued EPA with an April 8 deadline by which to decide. Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) already threatened further legal action after EPA Feb. 22 proposed to deny the petition.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejection-interstate-air-petition-sets-high-bar-future-requests
-
Google and Apple Lead the Corporate Charge Toward 100% Renewable Energy
Apr 12, 2018 | Forbes
By Silvio Marcacci
America’s technology corporate giants have led the corporate renewables procurement trend, but two of the biggest names in tech just reached a new mark: Apple and Google are now both 100% powered by renewable energy.
That means the company behind the ubiquitous iPhone and iPad as well as the website that’s synonymous with Internet searches are now wholly powered by wind, solar, or another non-fossil fuel.
But these two tech giants aren’t alone – they’re leading an international trend among the world’s corporations to invest in renewable energy projects and sign long-term contracts for clean electricity from utilities. This trend is opening up new markets for renewable energy, leading corporate suppliers to decarbonize, and saving money on corporate bottom lines – and it isn’t slowing down anytime soon.
Getting to 100% Through Rapid Renewable Energy Growth
Google announced its accomplishment in early April, when 2017 energy use accounting confirmed the company had purchased more electricity from wind and solar projects than it had used in all operations worldwide, including its offices and 15 electricity-hungry data centers.
“For every kilowatt-hour of electricity we consumed, we purchased a kilowatt-hour of renewable energy from a wind or solar farm that was built specifically for Google,” said Google Senior Vice President Urs Hölzle. “This makes us the first public Cloud, and company of our size, to have achieved this feat.”
Google’s renewable energy supplies started with its first corporate wind energy contract in 2010, grew from 44% of total supply in 2015 to 57% in 2016, and reached 100% last year. This rapid growth has created enormous demand for new renewable energy projects – Google’s contracts to purchase 3 gigawatts (GW) of wind and solar electricity have generated more than $3 billion in new capital investment – and it buys the most renewable energy of any corporate purchaser worldwide.
Google’s 3 GW of renewable energy comes from 26 projects across the world, and it has created an outsized impact in the United States – around 2.4 GW of new U.S. wind and solar generation are directly attributable to Google’s power purchase agreements (PPAs), according to the Rocky Mountain Institute’s Business Renewables Center (BRC) deal tracker.
Not to be outdone, Apple announced a week later that its global facilities across 43 countries – all retail stores, offices, data centers, and co-located facilities – are now powered with 100% renewable energy. Like Google, Apple’s renewable energy supplies have grown rapidly from 16% in 2010 to 96% in 2016, and its data centers have been at 100% renewables since 2014.
The company now has 626 megawatts (MW) of renewable energy generation capacity online across 25 projects worldwide, added 286 MW of solar energy capacity in 2017 – the most it has added in any one year – and has 15 projects under construction.
When all existing and pending projects are online, Apple will have 1.4 GW of renewable energy capacity spread across 11 countries. “We want to put new, clean power on the grid so that we’re not sucking up all the clean energy that’s there,” said Apple VP of environment, policy, and social initiatives Lisa Jackson in an interview with Fast Company.
The World’s Biggest Companies Can’t Get Enough Renewable Energy
Google and Apple are part of a much larger trend among corporations to reduce their costs and carbon footprint through direct renewable energy purchases. More than 130of the world’s largest companies – from Anheuser-Busch InBev, to General Motors, to IKEA, to NIKE, and Wal-Mart – have committed to be 100% supplied by renewable energy through the RE100 initiative.
Renewable energy makes financial sense for corporations. Matching large-scale predictable electricity demand from facilities to long-term predictable renewable energy PPAs helps companies lock in renewable energy costs cheaper than fossil fuels while reducing financial risk from power prices that vary with commodity price swings. “It gives them stability into what they’re paying for their energy prices but it also gives them the potential to save money in the longer term,” Bloomberg New Energy Finance analyst Kyle Harrison said in 2017.
This economic equation makes even more sense for big tech companies like Google and Apple, since they maintain a large number of data centers, which consume an ever-growing amount of electricity. Google estimates a typical search requires as much power as a 60-watt light bulb uses in 17 seconds, while data centers worldwide represent an estimated 2% of the globe’s energy demand, and data traffic more than doubles every four years.
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that tech giants like Apple and Facebook led the way to a record 5.4 GW of corporate renewable energy procurement worldwide in 2017 (with 2.8 GW in the U.S.), up from 4.3 GW in 2016, according toBloomberg New Energy Finance. Corporations have signed nearly 19 GW worth of renewable energy contracts since 2008, and 76% of that total has happened since 2015.
But while large corporations may have led the way in renewable energy procurement so far, smaller companies are getting help tapping clean power from initiatives like the BRC and Renewable Energy Buyers Alliance. These groups are helping pool demand from smaller companies, connect potential corporate customers to renewable electricity suppliers, identify best practices, and help utilities understand corporate energy needs.
Corporate Demand For Renewable Energy Cleans The Supply Chain, Opens New Markets
Google and Apple have trailblazed the way to 100% corporate renewables, and they’re positioned to expand corporate renewable energy supplies even further. Both companies tout future plans to keep buying additional wind and solar to power their growing operations, and both are exploring additional ways to power their businesses with renewables.
Apple’s 100% announcement contained a key pivot to encourage its manufacturing partners to power all their Apple-related production with 100% renewables. So far, 23 of 200 suppliers have made the commitment, with 85 additional suppliers registering for Apple’s online platform that helps identify commercial viable renewable energy solutions worldwide, on the way to Apple’s 2020 goal of 4GW worth of renewable energy across its supply chain.
And while Google has not yet extended its 100% renewables commitment to its supply chain like Apple, it recently established a benchmark for 90% of its product suppliers to set emissions reduction goals.
The tech giants’ electricity demand and preference for renewable energy is also leading utilities to launch renewables-only programs, or to build new wind or solar projects. Apple has led utilities in states including Nevada and Arizona to launch new renewable energy programs, while Google has helped open up Georgia’s market to solar energy and published a white paper outlining its renewable energy procurement lessons learned.
“In regions where we can’t yet buy renewables, we’ll keep working on ways to help open the market,” said Google’s Hölzle.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/04/12/google-and-apple-lead-the-corporate-charge-toward-100-renewable-energy/#7c354ff71b23
-
Senate Considers Presidential Nominees for Surface Transportation Board
Apr 11, 2018 | Transport Topics Online
By Eleanor Lamb
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is one step closer to doubling the number of members who sit on the Surface Transportation Board.
The committee convened a hearing April 11 to consider Patrick Fuchs and Michelle Schultz to serve as members of the board. They were nominated by the president.
The STB, created by Congress in 1996, is a regulatory agency that oversees railroad rate and service issues.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the committee, said he and his colleagues will try to confirm the nominees after they have answered lawmakers’ remaining questions, which will be submitted on the record.
“We want to try and process your nominations as quickly as possible,” Thune said. “The STB plays a critical role in providing efficient rail service.”
Thune’s sense of urgency may be partially explained by the STB’s short-handedness. Although the STB is authorized to have five members, it currently has two: Chairman Ann Begeman, who has served on the board since 2011, and Vice Chairman Deb Miller, who was sworn in as a board member in 2014.
Delays in service and congestion were some of the most pressing concerns lawmakers brought before the nominees. Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said that the serious problems within the rail industry in turn affect other industries. For example, he said delayed trains carrying vehicles or automotive equipment creates a backlog for auto manufacturers, one of Michigan’s top industries.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) mentioned a particular concern for agriculture haulers, whose cargo can spoil or perish if trains are delayed. According to the Washington State Department of Agriculture, apples were the state’s highest grossing commodity in 2016, followed by milk, potatoes and cattle.
“Agriculture growers continue to see issues due to rail congestion. I want a new congestion strategy that doesn’t require pricing agriculture off of rails,” Cantwell said. “I think America knows how to grow great product, and I want it to be able to get to market.”
The STB was a branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation until a couple of years ago. The STB Reauthorization Act, signed in December 2015, established the board as a completely independent federal agency.
Fuchs, who works on the Senate Commerce Committee for Thune, helped draft the STB Reauthorization Act of 2015.
Schultz currently serves as deputy general counsel at the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, the sixth largest provider of public transportation in the country. She previously worked as a law clerk for the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
“This has given me the opportunity to have a broad-based understanding of railroad operations and the importance of the relationships the railroads share with their customers,” Schultz said. “I have also handled compliance issues at the local, state and federal levels pertaining to the construction of railroad lines and issues pertaining to interoperability.”
Thune said the committee received several letters voicing support for both Schultz and Fuchs. One came from the Rail Customer Coalition, which wrote the committee April 9 urging them to confirm the nominees as soon as possible. The coalition consists of over 70 associations representing manufacturing, agricultural and industrial shippers.
“As the increasing number of reports of service failures and skyrocketing costs demonstrate, rail customers need a fully staffed STB committed to enacting reforms that will increase access to competitive service, streamline overly-bureaucratic procedures and improve the overall effectiveness of the board,” the coalition’s letter states.
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/senate-considers-presidential-nominees-surface-transportation-board
-
Trump Taps Hill Staffer, Pipeline Expert for Safety Board
Apr 12, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Maxine Joselow
President Trump intends to nominate Jennifer Homendy to be a member of the National Transportation Safety Board, the White House announced last night.
Homendy now serves as Democratic staff director for the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials.
From 1999 to 2004, she served as a legislative representative for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Prior to that, she worked for the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO; the American Iron and Steel Institute; and the National Federation of Independent Business, according to a White House press release.
A graduate of Pennsylvania State University, she currently resides in Virginia.
Homendy would join the independent federal agency tasked with probing transportation accidents and promoting safety after two recent Amtrak crashes in South Carolina and Washington state, respectively.
NTSB also recently issued a rare rebuke to Tesla Inc. over its disclosures about an electric vehicle crash (Greenwire, April 2).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/12/stories/1060078831
-
Railroad Stakeholders Warn System Needs Billions to Get to Good State of Repair
Apr 11, 2018 | Transportation Today
By Liz Carey
Despite an increase in the amount of federal dollars devoted to railroad systems in the fiscal year 2018 spending plan for the federal government, stakeholders in the rail systems say it’s not enough to adequately repair aging systems across the country.
Throughout the April 11 U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies hearing on rail safety and infrastructure, stakeholders told the panel that the increase in funding over the FY 2017 spending plan was helpful, but not even close to what was needed to bring the nation’s rail system to a state of good repair.
According to Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), the omnibus spending bill allocated $3.1 billion to the Federal Railroad Administration, an increase of more than $1.2 billion from FY 2017. The allocation was part of more than $70 billion directed to transportation in the FY 2018 spending plan.
But billions more is needed, according to hearing witnesses, in order to bring the railroad system and infrastructure up to modern standards.
John Fry, president of Drexel University, speaking on behalf of the Northeast Corridor Coalition, said it would take more than $50 billion to bring its rail systems up to a state of good repair. And James Derwinski, the CEO and executive director for Metra Commuter Railroad in Chicago, said it would cost $1 billion a year for several years to bring the aging rail systems in that area to a state of good repair.
“We operate 1,100 pieces of equipment that pre-date Metra,” Derwinski said, noting that Metra has grown to be the largest commuter railroad in the country based on track miles. “Of the 822 bridges that we cover … half are over a century old. The oldest bridges that we pass over today date back to Grover Cleveland’s days in 1896.”
Derwinski said its locomotives have an average age of more than 20 years, but that some of its commuter cars were from the Eisenhower years.
Stephen Gardner, executive vice president of Amtrak, said that some of the systems that Amtrak travels over were built in the 1800s, like the Newkirk Viaduct near Philadelphia, first built in the 1830s, and the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnel, which opened in 1873.
“There is a huge backlog of expense in bringing these assets to a state of good repair, and every year that we defer the cost and push out those repairs, the costs grow,” Gardner said. “Between all of the owners of the various systems, we have a huge requirement to keep this incredible asset in service. We’ve done so much. And we’ve doubled the number of travelers. But the need for greater service reliability and capacity is apparent.”
Ignoring those repairs would not only cost money, but put the United States in a critical economic position should any of those systems fail.
In the Northeast Corridor, Fry said, a failure of any part of the railroad system could lead to an economic crisis.
“The Northeast Corridor accounts for 30 percent of all American jobs,” Fry said. “Seven million jobs are located within five miles of a rail system. The crumbling Northeast Corridor is simply an economic crisis waiting to happen. Work must be done before a catastrophe occurs.”
Along with that, the different railroad systems are forced to use federal funds to meet the Dec. 31, 2018 deadline for the implementation of Positive Train Control systems (PTC), required by law, that would increase safety on the railroads. PTC is a nationwide system of technologies that relays information such as speed limits, train movement, switch positions and other operational data.
Gardner said that while Amtrak was sure it would meet the deadline in implementing PTC, many other railroad systems may not.
“We have an absolute dedication to getting PTC by the end of the year,” he said. “We owe it to our passengers and employees to have a single level of safety. For those who don’t meet the PTC deadline, and there will be a few, we are prepared to cease service on them. PTC is a part of the modern rail network, and we have to be able to ensure the safety of our passengers and employees in that regard.”
Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said the issue was making sure all of the different railroad systems were able to communicate with one another.
“The one remaining challenge is interoperability,” Hamberger said. “Each railroad has different IT systems, different locomotives, and they all have to work together… The technical challenge to make sure interoperability works is to test it in the lab, and then do field testing to make sure communications between those systems can occur.”
Rep. David Price (D-NC) asked what would happen to smaller systems, or state systems, such as in North Carolina, in the event they were not able to implement PTC by the deadline.
Gardner said state partners would have to get up to speed.
“We have a subset of state partners that have their own rolling stock and that need to receive hardware and software to make them compatible with PTC systems,” he said. “At the basic level, equipment owners need to install the equipment, and then that equipment needs to be tested and certified in those instances, if we’re going to use the systems on the host’s rail side.”
But Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-CA) asked what would happen to systems that were exempt from becoming PTC compliant, or had been given an exemption on meeting the end of the year deadline.
Gardner said Amtrak would be looking at those systems to do a risk analysis to determine the safest course of action to take on those routes.
“In cases, where a carrier has not qualified for an extension, we will not be able to operate on them,” Gardner said. “But in those areas where they have received exemptions, we will have to work and see what the safest course is.”
https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/9013-railroad-stakeholders-warn-system-needs-billions-get-good-state-repair/
-
Senators Eye Bipartisan Path for Carbon Capture Bill
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A bill to boost research and deployment of carbon capture technologies could have legs in the Senate, as lawmakers pledge to keep it narrowly focused and avoid political roadblocks that often challenge environmental legislation.
The Senate is considering bipartisan legislation—introduced in March by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)—that could ease carbon capture project development.
The bill, S. 2602, aims to build on work from the same four senators extending and revising tax credits for carbon capture projects that was enacted as part of the February budget deal.
The tax credits legislation was just “one cog in the wheel,” Heitkamp said during an April 11 hearing of the Senate environment committee on the measure. “We know that we need to make sure we can commercialize the work that's being done.”
Carbon capture prevents carbon dioxide produced from power plants and other sources from entering the atmosphere and causing global warming. The process is not yet commercially viable, largely because of cost.
Carefully Crafted
Some Democratic lawmakers are raising concerns that the bill, if not carefully crafted, could break down along political lines and become a vehicle for attacks on existing climate and environmental regulations.
“We need to be very careful that we're making sure when we're talking about regulatory efficiencies, we are really talking about regulatory efficiencies,” Whitehouse said. “When that becomes a code for undoing environmental protections, I'm out.”
Barrasso, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, pledged to work with Whitehouse “to ensure any amendments to this bill are built on bipartisan consensus as we work to move it through committee, and ultimately to the president's desk.”
Barrasso told reporters after the hearing that he expects the bill could move quickly, riding on momentum built after the passage of the carbon capture tax credit extension.
Democratic Concerns
The legislation, introduced March 22, would direct the Environmental Protection Agency, through a narrow amendment to the Clean Air Act, to use existing authority beef up research and development on carbon capture technologies.
It also would take several steps to streamline permitting and reviews of carbon capture projects, as well as pipelines to transport carbon dioxide.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the environment committee's ranking member, outlined a few concerns with the bill—including that the Energy Department could be better suited to oversee carbon capture research than an “already burdened” EPA.
“Most importantly, I want to make sure that this effort is not connected with other efforts that may weaken the Clean Air Act,” he added.
Nonetheless, the bill appears to have picked up the backing of at least two additional Democrats. Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) offered verbal support for the bill at the hearing—though stressing that they shared some of Carper's concerns.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131585918&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131585918&jd=131585918
-
Slow Turning on Environment, Energy Bills: Spring 2018 Hill Watch
Apr 12, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Recent congressional victories reauthorizing the EPA's Brownfields Program and extending carbon capture tax credits combined with looming midterm elections could cool any movement on big-ticket environmental and energy bills.
With mid-term elections less than seven months away, Senate aides said there are big obstacles to maneuvering environmental and energy bills to a floor jammed full of slow-moving Trump confirmations competing with “must-pass” bills that need action in the months ahead. They include the next funding bill to keep agencies open after the current omnibus expires Sept. 30 but also defense and farm bill reauthorization measures and possibly small-bore bills on infrastructure.
That won't keep some energy-minded lawmakers from trying to move bills, including broad energy legislation (S. 1460) by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that has languished on the Senate calendar for months.
Others, including the former chairman of the Senate environment panel, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), said they'd much prefer to be on the floor helping the Trump administration roll back Obama-era regulations such as the Clean Water Rule, but they can't because Democrats have clogged the pipeline on nominees.
“The confirmations being backed up that's the main reason [legislation] is not moving as fast it should,” Inhofe told Bloomberg Environment April 10, noting that it's been six months since Trump announced his nominee for the No. 2 spot at the EPA, Andrew Wheeler.
A final Senate vote on Wheeler is expected in the days ahead.
A Victim of Success?
To some degree, there may not be much appetite for big environmental and energy bills because Congress has already moved on many bills that seemed in limbo just a few months ago. Expired renewable energy credits were extended in a Senate budget deal in February that also increased carbon capture and storage credits. A long-sought reauthorization of the EPA Brownfields Program was included in an fiscal year 2018 omnibus bill Congress passed in March.
Jim Matheson, chief executive officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, told his members April 9 that Congress has either acted or made progress on virtually every top legislative agenda item for the group, which represents not-for-profit utilities.
That doesn't mean lawmakers don't have bills they'd like to move in the months ahead, including at least three that would build on the increased carbon capture and storage incentives Congress just passed. Those include a bill (S. 2602) that would streamline permitting for carbon capture projects. The measure is backed by the chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), but also Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.).
Another bill to watch is the Satisfying Energy Needs and Saving the Environment Act (H.R. 1119), which would allow electric utilities that generate power from coal waste to comply with either air pollution emissions standards for hydrogen chloride or sulfur dioxide—but not both. The House passed the bill in March, and it has been referred to Barrasso's Senate environment panel.
But getting the bill to the Senate floor would mean overcoming the same obstacle to other Republican-led legislation designed to roll back environmental requirements—getting 60 votes to break a filibuster threat. Democrats, with an eye toward the November midterm elections and possibly retaking control of the Senate, aren't expected to agree to many of those efforts.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=131585912&vname=dennotallissues&fn=131585912&jd=131585912
-
This Environmental Group Is Launching Its Own Satellite to Learn More About Greenhouse Gas Leaks
Apr 11, 2018 | Washington Post
By Steven Mufson
When the Environmental Defense Fund told commercial space guru Tom Ingersoll that it wanted to launch a satellite to measure methane from oil and gas operations, he says his reaction was “Whoa! You guys want to do what?”
Yet that’s what the EDF is doing. It is well on its way toward raising about $40 million. It has tapped into the work of Harvard University researchers to fine tune sensors. And it has reached out to Ingersoll and others in the commercial space business to create a device that will be able to measure methane emissions on a 125-mile wide swath with pixel resolution of less than five-eighths of a mile.
EDF will also get support from TED Talks, which hopes to spur fundraising for a variety of causes through its “Audacious Project.”
he satellite will enable EDF to more accurately measure methane emissions, which account for a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. The results could be sobering. In February, EDF estimated that methane emissions from Pennsylvania’s shale oil and gas sites may be more than five times higher than what oil and gas companies reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.
The EDF analysis estimates Pennsylvania’s oil and gas operators emit more than 520,000 tons of methane a year, primarily from leaky, outdated and malfunctioning equipment. This wasted gas causes the same near-term climate pollution as 11 coal-fired power plants, and results in nearly $68 million worth of wasted energy resources, the environmental group said.
In Pennsylvania, EDF relied on peer-reviewed scientific research conducted at the state’s oil and gas sites. The state’s published methane inventory is based on data reported by operating companies. They in turn estimate emissions on the assumption that their equipment is working properly rather than how it works in reality.
The new satellite “would be the first capable of monitoring worldwide all oil and gas facilities with precision,” Fred Krupp, president of EDF, said in an interview. “It’s a very compact satellite designed to do one thing way better than anyone’s done it.”
The satellite will produce a global snapshot of 80 percent of the globe every seven days and will detect methane in concentrations of as little as two parts per billion. Ingersoll said that the satellite would use infrared spectrometers and track methane’s signature wavelengths and reflection of small packets of light, or photons.
The team of Harvard researchers including professor of atmospheric and environmental science Steven C. Wofsy has been doing similar work about the large increase in U.S. methane emissions over the past decade using existing satellite data and surface observations.
The new data will help compare actual emissions and the pledges made by companies or countries in line with the Paris agreement. While there is no Paris target, methane reductions are part of countries’ individual implementation plans.
“Twenty-five percent of the warming that the planet is experiencing right now is from man-made methane emissions, and the oil and gas industry is a significant source of those emissions,” said EDF senior vice president Mark Brownstein. “Reducing those emissions can have a material impact on slowing the rate of warming now.”
The Trump EPA has been seeking to roll back rules issued in 2016 that would limit methane emissions. In 2016, President Barack Obama, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto vowed to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sectors by 40 to 45 percent from 2012 levels by 2025.
When burned in power plants, natural gas, which is made up almost entirely of methane, releases half as much greenhouse gas as coal.
But those advantages can be offset by leaks of methane into the air because methane is a short-lived but extremely potent greenhouse gas. Though half of it vanishes in 8.3 years, EDF says it is still 84 times more powerful than carbon dioxide over 20 years. The EPA uses a broader time frame and says methane’s global warming effect is 28 to 36 times greater than carbon dioxide over the course of a century.
In recent years, EDF has been conducting 16 studies with industry and academics to produce an authoritative estimate of leaks all along the natural gas supply chain.
“There tends to be an undercounting of pieces of equipment in the field,” Brownstein said. “Certain source categories not being counted at all, such as storage tanks in the Barnett shale field. The emission factors don’t take into consideration that a significant part of emissions comes from malfunctions and failures.”
He added that “what we now know is that with technology advancing, there are ways to collect this data — actual data in the field — and be able to do it more frequently than older measurements allowed for.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/04/11/this-environmental-group-is-launching-its-own-satellite-to-learn-more-about-greenhouse-gas-leaks/?utm_term=.23ae18a19a22
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested