Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/23/18
-
Hearing on EPA Budget
Apr 26, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Offshore Drilling
Apr 26, 2018 | Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Location: 1324 Longworth / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Infrastructure
Apr 25, 2018 | Small Business Committee
Location: 2360 Rayburn / 11:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Internal Emails Show How EPA Officials Lobby For Their Former Employers
Apr 20, 2018 | Mother Jones
By Megan Jula
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to implement a controversial policy that would drastically limit the scientific research that the agency uses to write environmental rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Ways Dangerous EPA Leadership Puts Our Planet at Risk
Apr 22, 2018 | Care2
By Judy Molland
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, poses a serious threat to the environment and public health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Science Says: Amount of Straws, Plastic Pollution Is Huge
Apr 20, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
Cities and nations are looking at banning plastic straws and stirrers in hopes of addressing the world's plastic pollution problem. The problem is so large, though, that scientists say that's not nearly enough. -
(ACC Mentioned) Piloting a Plastics Pollution Revolution
Apr 22, 2018 | OZY
By Robert Earle Howells
Anyone who traffics in the realm of depressing news can readily look to the world’s oceans and the trillions of bits of plastic and fishing debris floating therein. -
(ACC Mentioned) Baltimore Mayor Signs Bill Banning Plastic Foam Containers
Apr 20, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Courtney Columbus
Baltimore businesses have 18 months to stop using carryout containers made from polystyrene foam. -
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Vermont is set for May 5
Apr 20, 2018 | Brattleboro Reformer
By Bob Audette
The first Saturday in May is the date for the annual Green Up Day in Vermont. -
(ACC Mentioned) Working with Nanotechnology
Apr 22, 2018 | Safety+Health magazine
By Joe Bush
Nanomaterials can be found in missiles, satellites and airplanes, as well as more everyday items such as sunscreens, soaps, sporting goods, batteries and furniture. -
Pruitt to Face Heat on the Hill This Week
Apr 23, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus, Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's fate might hinge on how he performs at double-header hearings on Capitol Hill this week. -
Pruitt Moving Again to Change the Way EPA Uses Science
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is taking another step toward changing how the agency uses science. -
Earth Day 2018: Pollution From Plastic Is Drastic
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marissa Horn
“Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.” You've seen those words above trash cans in your workplace, or on kids’ television shows teaching future generations about how we can close the loop on recycling plastic and other materials. -
EPA Floats 'Secret Science' Ban Rule, Signaling Possible Internal Fixes
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA has sent for White House review a proposed rule to increase the transparency of regulatory science, advancing Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial efforts to ban the use of “secret science” in a move that suggests officials have addressed at least some internal concerns that such a policy could violate statutory protections of medical privacy and trade secrets. -
EPA Lead Paint, Soil Standards Need Work by June: Adviser
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't conducted extensive reviews of its lead paint and lead-in-soil standards, which a federal court has ordered it to either update or justify by June, an agency adviser said April 19. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Chloroform Study Plan Raises Queries Over Reach Of IRIS Reviews
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Introducing their plan to science advisors last September, Bahadori's presentation slides explained that chloroform has a "small evidence base" and the plan is to conduct a "targeted update to address Agency need." -
Shaheen, Rounds Float Bill to Register Contaminated Troops
Apr 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) have introduced a bill to get service members information about the health effects of the toxic chemicals long used in military firefighting foam. -
(ACC Mentioned) NGL Storage Hub Stops Appalachia 'Crime'
Apr 22, 2018 | Kallanish Energy
Not separating liquids from the natural gas stream pulled from the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky for lack of a market and storage capacity is like “cooking breakfast with $100 bills.” -
Keep It in the Ground Groups Call for Fracking Bans Even as Natural Gas Reduces Emissions
Apr 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Seth Whitehead
Earth Day is coming up on Sunday, and environmentalists have much cause for celebration this year when it comes to U.S. emissions reductions. -
Fracking Pushes Concentrating Solar Power Growth Overseas
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Concentrating solar-thermal power plants will remain in low demand in the U.S. for the foreseeable future as companies such as SolarReserve LLC develop new plants overseas, according to industry analysts. -
Pipelines Should Be Able to Charge Producers More: Regulator
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Texas's oil and gas regulator wants pipeline operators to be allowed to charge market rates, not those set by the state, to help ease bottlenecks that threaten growth in the biggest U.S. shale field. -
EPA Considers Expanding Self-Audit Program
Apr 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
EPA may expand an existing self-audit program to the oil and gas industry, the agency's enforcement chief said today. -
BLM to Prepare ANWR EIS for Potential Oil, Natural Gas Development
Apr 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Kicking off what is expected to be a long and arduous process, the Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Friday launched a comment period and said it plans to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support future oil and natural gas leasing within a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). -
CSB Asks Appellate Court to Back Broad Subpoena on 'Potential' Releases
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's (CSB) is asking a federal appellate court to grant it broad power to subpoena documents related to “potential” releases at facilities where it is investigating industrial incidents, a move that a major refiner is resisting, charging it amounts to an unlawful expansion of the board's powers. -
(ACC Mentioned) Frank Bures: The Last Straw for Earth Day
Apr 22, 2018 | Winona Daily News
By Frank A. Bures
It’s Earth Day again. Shouldn’t every day be Earth Day? -
(ACC Mentioned) Kentucky Ranks Low in Study of Environmentally Friendly States
Apr 22, 2018 | WKMS
By Becca Schimmel
A new study ranks Kentucky the third least environmentally-friendly state in the nation. -
Bloomberg pledges $4.5M to fulfill US commitment to Paris accord
Apr 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) said on Sunday that he would cut a check for $4.5 million to fulfill the United States's financial commitment to the Paris climate accord. -
Trump in Earth Day Message Notes Need for 'Market-Driven Economy' to Protect Environment
Apr 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
President Trump marked Earth Day on Sunday by renewing his vow to undo "unnecessary and harmful regulations," and insisting that a "market-driven economy is essential to protecting" the environment.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Apr 26, 2018 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
Witness: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
-
Apr 26, 2018 | Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
-
Apr 25, 2018 | Small Business Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Internal Emails Show How EPA Officials Lobby For Their Former Employers
Apr 20, 2018 | Mother Jones
By Megan Jula
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to implement a controversial policy that would drastically limit the scientific research that the agency uses to write environmental rules. While environmental activists are concerned the change could undermine EPA rules on air pollution and other regulations, newly released EPA emails reveal they aren’t alone in their worries. An EPA political appointee who previously worked for the chemical industry’s lead lobbying group said the so-called secret science policy would be too “burdensome” on the industry, and suggested changes to limit impacts on industry data.
Currently, EPA regulators can rely on non-public scientific data when crafting new rules. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has called this research “secret science,” and last month he announced plans to end this long-standing policy. On Thursday, the EPA submitted a proposed policy titled “Strengthening Transparency and Validity in Regulatory Science” to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which has 90 days to review it. If that office signs off, the EPA could announce an official directive.
Nancy Beck, the top political appointee at the EPA’s chemical office, expressed worries about the proposed transparency policy, according to emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) from a Freedom of Information Act request and shared with Mother Jones. Beck came to the agency after working as an executive at the American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry’s top lobbying group. Within the EPA, there is already fear that Beck is shaping policies on hazardous chemicals based on industry, not public health, interests.
After seeing a draft of the not-yet-public EPA policy, Beck emailed Richard Yamada, the top political appointee in the Office of Research and Development, who is leading the creation of Pruitt’s new directive. “Such a requirement would be incredibly burdensome, not practical,” she wrote to Yamada in late January. Companies spend “millions of dollars to do these studies” and the data “will be extremely valuable, extremely high quality, and NOT published,” she said. “The directive needs to be revised,” Beck concluded. “Let me know what more you may need from me to facilitate a change.”
Yamada wrote back to say that her email was helpful and that he “didn’t know about the intricacies” of the review process for confidential business information. “We will need to thread this one real tight!” he wrote.
Yamada is a former staffer for House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a congressman who has repeatedly tried and failed to pass a so-called Secret Science Act, which would require the EPA to make public all data used as the basis for new regulations. Pruitt implemented another policy last year, backed by Smith, that prevents EPA-funded scientists from serving on agency advisory boards.
The emails obtained by UCS indicate Smith met with Pruitt in January, and that Pruitt’s staff had heard his pitch that the EPA “internally implement” his secret science legislation.
Critics have voiced concern that Pruitt’s proposed rule is a Trojan Horse that would in fact handicap the scientific process. “Secret science is not an accurate description,” says Yogin Kothari, a lobbyist with the UCS’s Center for Science and Democracy. “This is really about restricting science.”
EPA spokeswoman Liz Bowman said in a statement to E&E News on Thursday that the policy is not yet final and that “these discussions are part of the deliberative process; the policy is still being developed.”
But Kothari says the emails emphasize that this development process at the EPA is driven by political appointees, rather than a deliberative process to improve scientific research.
“This is how they can best inject politics into the EPA’s decision making,” he says. “It’s not just about Scott Pruitt and his ethics scandals, it’s also the folks he brought in who are doing what they can to carry the water for industry, or their previous employers.”
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2018/04/internal-emails-show-how-epa-officials-lobby-for-their-former-employers/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 10 Ways Dangerous EPA Leadership Puts Our Planet at Risk
Apr 22, 2018 | Care2
By Judy Molland
Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, poses a serious threat to the environment and public health.
It’s really very simple: Instead of ensuring that the EPA accomplishes its mission — namely, protecting the environment – Pruitt has chosen to defend the very people responsible for polluting the Earth.
Apparently Pruitt wants to turn back the clock to before 1970, when President Richard Nixon created the EPA.
Here are ten ways EPA leadership under the Trump administration is ruthlessly putting our planet at risk.1. SLASHING THE BUDGET
Pruitt and Trump planned a reckless attack on environmental protections by proposing to cut the EPA’s budget by 25 percent for the current year. Thankfully, in the final spending bill that emerged from Congress last month, the EPA received a $763 million increase, instead of a cut.
But guess what? Still determined to wreak havoc on our environment, the evil pair are back, asking for a 23 percent cut for the 2019 fiscal year.2. BRINGING IN FOSSIL FUEL ADVOCATES
During Pruitt’s first year in office, over 700 EPA employees either quit or took early retirement. Even worse, Pruitt has either not tried to replace them or he has brought in representatives of the big polluters. Here’s a sampling, as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) reports:
Bill Wehrum, a Washington attorney who has represented fossil fuel and chemical companies, now heads the clean air and radiation office.
Nancy Beck, who oversees chemical safety and pollution prevention, spent the previous five years as an executive with the American Chemistry Council, the industry’s lobbying unit.
Erik Baptist, former senior counsel at the American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s lobbying association, is now senior deputy general counsel for the EPA.3. DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE
Pruitt has ensured that the phrase “climate change” does not appear on the EPA’s website. He was also behind Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change — even while every other country in the world has signed on and committed to pursuing cleaner, more sustainable energy sources.
Now Pruitt has taken a weird turn by suggesting that everything might be just fine, even if the planet is warming. If you had any doubt, climate change is decidedly not fine: The World Health Organization estimates that 250,000 people will die each year between 2030 and 2050 from related effects.4. REPEALING THE CLEAN POWER PLAN
The Clean Power Plan, created under President Obama, was intended to cut carbon emissions at their largest source: dirty power plants. These facilities are responsible for around 40 percent of the total U.S. carbon footprint.
The goal was to reduce emissions by 32 percent by 2030, with each state having options as to how best to proceed. But Pruitt is working to get eliminate this plan, so that his cronies in the fossil fuel industry can keep lining their deep pockets. 5. ENDANGERING CHILD HEALTH
Rejecting his own agency’s scientific recommendations, Pruitt continued to approve the use of the toxic pesticide chlorpyrifos on crops last year. This chemical has been linked to an increased risk of behavioral problems and learning disabilities in children — and, asCare2 reported here, several farm workers fell ill after inhaling this toxic substance. 6. CONTINUING TO ENDANGER PUBLIC HEALTH
Among many more examples of evil Pruitt behavior, this one stands out: The EPA administrator has refused to enforce a proposed ban on methylene chloride, a lethal solvent found in paint strippers that has been linked to around 60 deaths. 7. ABANDONING IMPORTANT RESEARCH
Earlier this year, we learned that the EPA plans to eliminate its National Center for Environmental Research, which funds research into the effects of chemical exposure on both adults and children.
“These programs have been so successful in advancing our scientific understanding and our ability to address the ways that environmental chemicals can impact children’s health,” said Tracey Woodruff, a former senior scientist and policy adviser at the EPA under the Clinton and Bush administrations.
But hey, it’s only children’s health that’s at stake, right?8. ROLLING BACK GAS MILEAGE STANDARDS.
In 2012 the Obama administration proposed rules that would nearly double the gas mileage we get from our cars by 2025. But Pruitt is working to abandon those rules.
He stated:
These standards are costly for automakers and the American people. We will work with our partners at DOT to take a fresh look to determine if this approach is realistic.
Never mind the 300,000 jobs where people are working to make cleaner cars that are more efficient.9. ENSURING DIRTY WATER
Pruitt is also working to repeal — or at least weaken – the Clean Water Rule. Doing so could mean that one in three Americans lose access to clean drinking water. Once again, the EPA boss is pandering to the fossil fuel industry and Big Ag while putting vulnerable ecosystems and communities at risk. As John Rumpler, senior attorney with Environment America, said, “Repealing the Clean Water Rule turns the mission of the EPA on its head.”
And that’s clearly what Pruitt aims to do.10. ALLOWING POWER COMPANIES TO POLLUTE
Last year Pruitt placed an indefinite hold on safeguards established in 2015 to limit water pollution from electric power plants. So now these companies can continue to discharge any amount of toxic pollutants — such as lead, mercury and arsenic — into waterways, risking both food and drinking water supplies.
Scott Pruitt’s dangerous policy decisions are putting the Earth at risk. It’s pretty clear that on any environmental issue, if the Obama administration took action to improve the planet and public health, Pruitt will either delay, weaken or eliminate those safeguards.
https://www.care2.com/causes/10-ways-dangerous-epa-leadership-puts-our-planet-at-risk.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Science Says: Amount of Straws, Plastic Pollution Is Huge
Apr 20, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Seth Borenstein
Cities and nations are looking at banning plastic straws and stirrers in hopes of addressing the world's plastic pollution problem. The problem is so large, though, that scientists say that's not nearly enough.
Australian scientists Denise Hardesty and Chris Wilcox estimate, using trash collected on U.S. coastlines during cleanups over five years, that there are nearly 7.5 million plastic straws lying around America's shorelines. They figure that means 437 million to 8.3 billion plastic straws are on the entire world's coastlines.
But that huge number suddenly seems small when you look at all the plastic trash bobbing around oceans. University of Georgia environmental engineering professor Jenna Jambeck calculates that nearly 9 million tons (8 million metric tons) end up in the world's oceans and coastlines each year, as of 2010, according to her 2015 study in the journal Science .
That's just in and near oceans. Each year more than 35 million tons (31.9 million metric tons) of plastic pollution are produced around Earth and about a quarter of that ends up around the water.
"For every pound of tuna we're taking out of the ocean, we're putting two pounds of plastic in the ocean," says ocean scientist Sherry Lippiatt, California regional coordinator for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's marine debris program.
Seabirds can ingest as much as 8 percent of their body weight in plastic, which for humans "is equivalent to the average woman having the weight of two babies in her stomach," says Hardesty of Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.
Organizers of Earth Day, which is Sunday, have proclaimed ending plastics pollution this year's theme. And following in the footsteps of several U.S. cities such as Seattle and Miami Beach, British Prime Minister Theresa May in April called on the nations of the British commonwealth to consider banning plastic straws, coffee stirrers and plastic swabs with cotton on the end.
McDonald's will test paper straws in some U.K. locations next month and keep all straws behind the counter, so customers have to ask for them. "Together with our customers we can do our bit for the environment and use fewer straws," says Paul Pomroy, who runs the fast-food company's U.K. business.
The issue of straws and marine animals got more heated after a 2015 viral video showing rescuers removing a straw from a sea turtle's nose in graphic and bloody detail.
But a ban may be a bit of a straw man in the discussions about plastics pollution. Straws make up about 4 percent of the plastic trash by piece, but far less by weight.
Straws on average weigh so little — about one sixty-seventh of an ounce or .42 grams — that all those billions of straws add up to only about 2,000 tons of the nearly 9 million tons of plastic waste that yearly hits the waters.
"Bans can play a role," says oceanographer Kara Lavendar Law, a co-author with Jambeck of the 2015 Science study. "We are not going to solve the problem by banning straws."
Scientists say that unless you are disabled or a small child, plastic straws are generally unnecessary and a ban is start and good symbol. These items that people use for a few minutes but "are sticking round for our lifetime and longer," Lippiatt says.
Marcus Eriksen, an environmental scientist who co-founded the advocacy group 5 Gyres, says working on bans of straws and plastic bags would bring noticeable change. He calls plastic bags, cups and straws that break down in smaller but still harmful pieces the "smog of microplastics."
"Our cities are horizontal smokestacks pumping out this smog into the seas," Eriksen says. "One goal for advocacy organizations is to make that single-use culture taboo, the same way smoking in public is taboo."
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council, said people can reduce waste by not taking straws, but "in many cases these plastics provide sanitary conditions for food, beverages and personal care."
The key to solving marine litter, Russell says, is "in investing in systems to capture land-based waste and investing in infrastructure to convert used plastics into valuable products."
Even though Jambeck spends her life measuring and working on the growing problem of waste pollution, she's optimistic.
"We can do this," Jambeck says. "I have faith in humans."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/20/science/ap-us-sci-science-says-plastics-pollution.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Piloting a Plastics Pollution Revolution
Apr 22, 2018 | OZY
By Robert Earle Howells
Anyone who traffics in the realm of depressing news can readily look to the world’s oceans and the trillions of bits of plastic and fishing debris floating therein. To wit, the so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch, aka the North Pacific Gyre, which popped up in the news again last month —1.8 trillion pieces of plastic swirling around in the ocean. It’s a mass three times the size of France — and growing.
Anna Cummins, co-founder and global strategy director of 5 Gyres, a Los Angeles–based nonprofit devoted to solving the crisis of plastics pollution, definitely traffics in a realm where the news is mostly bleak. As the name of her organization suggests, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not alone out there. It’s just one of five major subtropical gyres where ocean currents trap the plastic flotsam of a use-it-and-dump-it world. Cummins’ mission for the past 10 years has been to alert the world to what a god-awful and dangerous mess it has created, and to stop the flow of plastics from source to sea.
“We’ve been a little bit asleep at the wheel,” she says, speaking in a global first-person plural. “We need to get woke.”
For Cummins — and her 5 Gyres cofounder and husband, Marcus Eriksen — waking the world extends beyond citing shocking statistics and preachy polemics that could tend to impose guilt or despair. She shows, more than tells. The ingenious central conceit of 5 Gyres has been the staging of expeditions to ocean gyres and the Great Lakes, where scientists, paying passengers (i.e., donors), filmmakers and media see the crisis firsthand. Call them aversion voyages.
“We started them [in 2010] because there was no data or research in other oceans [besides the North Pacific],” says Cummins. “Then we realized that there’s a lot of power in seeing the issue firsthand. People go back and tell their friends, their local councils: ‘I’ve been there. I’ve seen this with my own eyes.’”
The voyages have spawned international awareness — with images circulating of plastic garbage swirling hundreds of miles from land, plastics-strewn beaches, creatures caught in discarded fishing nets and dissected fish bellies spewing out plastic bits — and several other organizations have rallied to the cause.
The results? A lot of scientific data and some baby steps. Campaigns against plastic straws, foam cups and plastic coffee lids, and single-use plastics of all stripes. A fair amount of consciousness-raising.
But one expedition — to the Great Lakes in 2012 — brought about a major success after the 5 Gyres team found more plastics in the water than in any ocean gyre. Most were tiny, perfectly symmetrical microparticles. Says Cummins: “‘Oh my goodness,’ we realized — ‘those are the microbeads from our personal care stuff.’” Indeed, a single tube of exfoliating facial scrub can contain more than 330,000 plastic microbeads, and billions of such particles were finding their way into the environment daily. 5 Gyres rallied a number of other nonprofits and activists, and two years later, President Barack Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act, prohibiting the addition of plastic beads in the manufacture of cleaning and personal care products.
Cummins sailed on several early expeditions (there have been 17) until the birth of her daughter, Avani, now 6. When I first met Cummins, she was pregnant with Avani and had bicycled to our appointment — all spunk and zeal. Today she manifests the poise and well-honed messaging that befits a TED talker and veteran storyteller.
In one presentation, she recounts a voyage when she saw “tiny lanternfish at the base of our food chain surface at night to feed — normally on plankton, but we’ve contaminated the surface of our oceans so much that they’re now feeding on plastics.” When she does deploy statistics, it’s to deft effect: “Five point two five trillion particles of plastic … 269,000 metric tons of plastic, most smaller than a grain of rice. We’ve turned our oceans into a plastic smog.”
Which is to say Anna Cummins’ zeal has not diminished with motherhood. “I definitely feel an added urgency,” she says, “thinking about what [Avani’s] future will be. She’s so little and vulnerable. I feel such empathy for the children of the world.”
That combination of eco-warrior and motherliness suits her for a role she seems to have grown, or fallen, into: ambassador at large for the anti-plastics movement. As with the microbead campaign, she coordinates frequently with other nonprofits, which in turn sing her praises: “She’s been great to work with,” says Emily Jeffers, staff attorney for the Center for Biodiversity. “Very generous in sharing information with others who are fighting plastic pollution.” Adds Kate Melges, oceans campaigner for Greenpeace: “Anna … brings an issue that is so vast and far away for so many much closer and makes it more tangible.” Even an occasional foe joins the chorus. Steven Russell, vice president for plastics at the American Chemistry Council, calls her “tenacious and respectful, always willing to listen. I think she’s extremely effective.”
But might those diplomatic instincts hinder her effectiveness as an advocate? It’s a concern raised by Stiv Wilson, associate director of 5 Gyres from 2009 to 2015. He’s now director of campaigns at the Story of Stuff Project. “Anna is pretty objective and diplomatic,” says Wilson, “so she’s seen as a safe convener between more radical sides and industry sides. It’s easy to convene panels, have lunch and deal with people on a human level. But you can be taken advantage of. The [plastics] industry plays people. On the other hand, you get to stay in the room.”
Still, Wilson considers her “a great voice for this movement” and credits her for “teaching me not to yell so loud that people can’t hear me.”
Recently, Cummins has been turning her gaze inland, to the source, rather than the result, of plastics pollution. “We’ve spent most our time showing how plastics get into the food chain, into fish, into our bodies. We haven’t been showing so much where it comes from.” Which is to say, oil extraction and the burgeoning uses of plastics.
As if on cue, our interview is interrupted by a delivery. “Oh, it’s the camel stomach,” Cummins says. “Marcus found it in Dubai. Huge wads of plastic were wadded together — like 40 pounds — lodged in the camel’s stomach cavity.”
If a camel can ingest 40 pounds of plastic far from an ocean gyre, it’s clear that Anna Cummins and 5 Gyres will have plenty of fodder for their crusade, by land or sea.
https://www.ozy.com/rising-stars/piloting-a-plastics-pollution-revolution/86020
-
(ACC Mentioned) Baltimore Mayor Signs Bill Banning Plastic Foam Containers
Apr 20, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By Courtney Columbus
Baltimore businesses have 18 months to stop using carryout containers made from polystyrene foam.
After that window, businesses will face $1,000 fines for violations. The bill signed Thursday by Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh also prohibits restaurants and other food vendors from using cups, plates, dishes, bowls and trays or any similar items made from this material.
Cia Carter owns Miss Carter's Kitchen, a soul food restaurant in Baltimore that uses foam containers for takeout. Carter supports the new law even though she'll have to switch to a different kind of container.
"It'll just be friendlier to the environment. I think it's a positive thing," she said.
The City Council unanimously passed the measure last month after Councilman John Bullock introduced it. Versions that previously failed had offered businesses just three months to phase out the containers.
Some local restaurants and Baltimore leaders have already been taking measures to cut back on the material.
Sandy Lawler, the Baltimore farmers market and food and beverage manager at the Baltimore Office of Promotion and the Arts, said that for the past three years, vendors' contracts have prohibited them from using polystyrene foam.
"It may be a few pennies out of each of your sales, but the long-term (benefit) is the health of the bay, and the health of your neighbors," she said. "It gets picked up easily by the wind, it lands in the bay, and it just doesn't break down."
The American Chemistry Council expressed disappointment about the new law, saying it would raise costs and wouldn't improve the quality of life in the city.
"Baltimore would be well served with a renewed focus on recycling and composting initiatives and litter control," Mike Levy, senior director of the council's Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, said in a statement.
The Restaurant Association of Maryland also spoke out against the law. "The polystyrene foam ban will significantly increase the cost of disposable foodservice products without any measurable environmental benefit," the association said in a statement.
Cities including San Francisco, Washington and Portland, Oregon, also have banned businesses from using foam food containers. In Maryland, Prince George's County and Montgomery County began prohibiting businesses from using these containers in 2016. A bill that would have enacted a statewide ban failed to make it through the General Assembly this year.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/04/20/us/ap-us-foam-containers-ban.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Green Up Day Vermont is set for May 5
Apr 20, 2018 | Brattleboro Reformer
By Bob Audette
The first Saturday in May is the date for the annual Green Up Day in Vermont.
A Vermont tradition since 1970, Green Up Day is a state wide event that brings together more than 22,000 volunteers who remove litter from roadsides and public spaces.
"The fact this is a grass-roots event
really adds to the excitement," said Melanie Phelps, Green Up Vermont's state coordinator.
Robin Rieske, the Brattleboro coordinator, said there are no designated spots for this year's Green Up Day. That's part of the excitement, she said — volunteers can focus on areas that concern them the most.
"We encourage people to go to areas that aren't normally taken care of by the town," she said.
Green Up bags will be available May 5 from 8 a.m. to noon at four locations in Brattleboro — Brattleboro Subaru, the West Brattleboro Fire Station, the Brattleboro Food Co-op and at the corner of Elm and Elliot streets, in the building that housed the former Restless Rooster.
Bags will also be available at Brown and Roberts, and the chamber office on Main Street, Rieske said.
Rieske reminded volunteers who might pick up trash in advance of May 5 that the town won't be picking up those bags, and they might sit until the state's Agency of Transportation crews pick up the bags on Green Up Day.
Burton Car Wash on Putney Road will host its annual car wash in support of Green Up Day, from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., with a portion of proceeds going to the event. WTSA will be hosting a live remote broadcast at Burton from 11 a.m to 1 p.m. as well.
In addition, the Valley Lions, West River Valley Thrive, and Community and Community Hope & Action will be hosting activities for the West River Valley towns in Townshend on May 5, including a pig roast from noon to 3 p.m. on the Common, prepared by Jim Westbrook of Cherry Rail Farm in Williamsville and donated by Creatin' Business Small Business Consulting. A vegetarian option will be provided.
"Next year is the Valley Lions' 50th anniversary," said incoming president, Shelly Huber. "We have a lot of new members and were are becoming more active in visible ways. Green Up Day is part of our mission to serve in our capacity for the environment."
Also new this year, Code for BTV has created an app for Green Up Day, which enables the coordination of clean-up groups and allows volunteers to pinpoint where they are working and where they are leaving full bags. To download the app for Android or iPhone, visit www.codeforbtv.org.
Vermont Coffee Company is Green Up's official coffee sponsor again this year and is providing coffee to all towns that request it for their Green Up Day event.
Bags will also be available in all the other towns in Windham County. To learn more, visit www.greenupvermont.org.
The first Green Up Day was launched in 1970 by Governor Deane Davis. Since 1979, the non-profit organization Green Up Vermont has been responsible for carrying on the tradition of Green Up Day. The 2018 Green Up Day sponsors include Casella Waste Systems, Nokian Tires, Subaru of New England, Co-operative Insurance Companies, National Life Group Foundation, Eternity, WCAX, American Chemistry Council, Beverage Association of Vermont, Cabot Creamery Cooperative, JaniTech, Union Mutual of Vermont, UVM Health Network, VAST, VELCO, Vermont Gas, People's United Bank, The Burlington Free Press, Concept 2, New Chapter, Rutland Regional Medical Center, Ski Vermont, Skinny Pancake, Swish White River, The Alchemist, Vermont Coffee Company, Vermont Mutual Insurance Group, and Washington Electric Co-op.http://www.reformer.com/stories/green-up-day-vermont-is-set-for-may-5,537720
-
(ACC Mentioned) Working with Nanotechnology
Apr 22, 2018 | Safety+Health magazine
By Joe Bush
Nanomaterials can be found in missiles, satellites and airplanes, as well as more everyday items such as sunscreens, soaps, sporting goods, batteries and furniture.
But what are they exactly?
Nanomaterials – materials that have at least one dimension (height, width or length) that is smaller than 100 nanometers – are chemical substances whose microscopic size gives them properties they don’t possess in their larger form. These properties are used in numerous commercial products to strengthen them, make them weigh less, or keep them colder or hotter. Naturally occurring nanomaterials include soot and volcanic ash.
So recent is the commercial use of nanomaterials – approximately the turn of the century – that data on their long-term health effects and guidance for worker safety is limited.
What is known are the potential hazards of the bulk versions of nanomaterials. However, the materials’ properties and their potential to enter human bodies change when they’re in microscopic form. Further, some nanomaterials aren’t simply smaller versions of the bulk material – they’re engineered.
In 2012, Raymond David, then the manager of toxicology for BASF Corp., which states on its website that it uses nanotechnology “to develop new products and improve existing ones,” spoke at a workshop sponsored by the American Chemistry Council’s Nanotechnology Panel. In his presentation, David said, “It is not practical to wait for [the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists], NIOSH or any other national body to develop [occupational exposure limit] values – and may not be applicable for a broad range of nanomaterials. Each company needs to press forward with a system on its own.”
This void of knowledge to ensure the safety and health of those who work with or near nanomaterials drives the research of NIOSH, occupational health academia and corporations. Their approach to worker safety is for employers and employees to proceed with utmost caution until more is known about health effects, exposure limits and protection processes.
Right here, right now
A 2011 study funded by the National Science Foundation looked at nanotechnology 10 years into the future and estimated that 6 million nanotechnology workers will be needed worldwide by 2020. About 2 million of those jobs are expected to be in the United States. The predicted rise in the number of workers adds urgency to the research needed to protect them.
In the United States, NIOSH has taken the lead on this quest, headed by Chuck Geraci, the agency’s associate director for nanotechnology. One of the 20 agencies in the 18-year-old federal National Nanotechnology Initiative, NIOSH – through its Nanotechnology Research Center – has a field studies team that provides free onsite assessments of labs and manufacturing facilities; produces guidance materials for employers and employees; and collaborates with agencies, academia and private organizations on research.
On Jan. 31, NIOSH included nanotechnology as one of six objectives in its National Occupational Research Agenda for Manufacturing: “Examine emerging risks from new technologies and explore ways in which new technologies can advance occupational safety and health in manufacturing.”
NORAs identify the knowledge and actions needed to pinpoint occupational risk factors to stimulate innovative research and workplace interventions to help prevent avoidable negative health outcomes for workers.
“There’s never any debate about how quickly nanotechnology or nanoscale-materials science has evolved in the last 10 years,” Geraci said. “People continue to refer to it as the fourth industrial revolution – and it really is. That’s the challenging part – it’s moving very, very fast. So, the question is, are we keeping up with understanding the health and the safety or the environmental impact of all that?
“It’s been a real challenge, but what I continue to say is, the good news is the health and safety professionals are working right out front with the people developing the science to try to answer those questions. Unlike some of the history of other materials in the past, like asbestos or vinyl chloride or various other chemical contaminants, we’re not asking questions after we find disease or injury or illness. We’re right out front doing the toxicology as these materials are being developed, so we won’t be sitting down 20 years from now saying, ‘Gee, I wish we had looked at this.’”
In 2017, the World Health Organization released the first guidelines on protecting workers from the potential effects of nanomaterials. The guidelines stress:Taking a precautionary approachUsing the Hierarchy of ControlsGrouping nanomaterials by toxicity, fibrous characteristics and granular biopersistenceEducating and training workers on nanomaterialsInvolving workers in each aspect of assessment and control
In March, NIOSH published four documents to help employers safeguard their workers who handle nanomaterials:
Workplace Design Solutions: Protecting Workers during Nanomaterial Reactor Operations
Workplace Design Solutions: Protecting Workers during the Handling of Nanomaterials
Workplace Design Solutions: Protecting Workers during Intermediate and Downstream Processing of Nanomaterials
Controlling Health Hazards When Working with Nanomaterials: Questions to Ask Before You Start
“Researching, developing and utilizing these nano properties is at the heart of new technology, just as worker safety is at the heart of what we do at NIOSH,” agency Director John Howard said. “The information contained in these new workplace design solution documents provide employers with strategic steps toward making sure their employees stay safe while handling nanomaterials.”
Looking ahead
NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center states the case for its mission on its “Burden, Need and Impact” webpage: “While it is too early to identify the exact burden of [engineered nanomaterials] to workers, it is reasonable to assume that health effects from exposure to engineered nanoparticles could be similar to ultrafine air pollution or other dusts and fumes that cause pulmonary and cardiovascular effects. Some engineered nanoparticles appear to be 10 to 100 times more reactive or potent than their bulk counterparts, so one would expect a commensurate increase in burden for a given exposure.”
The website further states that, “Based on these developing trends, burden in terms of morbidity and mortality has the potential to be large, significant and costly. Failure to develop the technology responsibly, including worker protection, may ultimately place a burden on capital, entrepreneurial investment and ultimate benefit to society.”
NIOSH’s Nanotechnology Research Center has identified research goals for the next five years as well as 10 critical topic areas: toxicity and internal dose, risk assessment, epidemiology and surveillance, engineering controls and personal protective equipment, measurement methods, exposure assessment, fire and explosion safety, recommendations and guidance, global collaborations, and applications.
Established in 2004, the Nanotechnology Research Center has published more than 1,300 papers, and its 2017 paper on an engineered nanomaterial – multi-walled carbon nanotubes – and its toxicology at different stages of its life cycle was the first of its kind. It appeared in the American Chemistry Council’s journal Nano Letters. Simply put, if a nanomaterial is more or less hazardous at different steps in its manufacturing cycle, employers can adjust worker protection accordingly.
“It was a very important step for NIOSH to take to help quantify and frame the discussion of hazard and risk at different stages of the life cycle of these materials as they continue to grow in their use in commerce,” Geraci said. “That’s probably one of the big shifts we’ve seen in some of our basic research in toxicology.”
Out of the lab
Joe Sprengard Jr. is co-founder and CEO of Cincinnati-based General Nano, a manufacturer of Veelo, a material made from engineered carbon nanotubes. The material then is formed into sheets, film, tape and coating for use in airplanes, satellites and missiles. Boeing named General Nano its 2015 technology supplier of the year.
Veelo is a classic example of the value of nanomaterials. For instance, the use of carbon nanotubes in Veelo Shield, used on data cables, reduces the weight of the cables by up to 40 percent.
Sprengard is not a scientist. He’s a businessman. He knows that the potential health hazards of nanomaterials are being studied, and said he is happy to make use of that expertise to keep safe the 70 or so workers who are hands-on with the materials used to produce Veelo products.
NIOSH field studies team representatives have visited General Nano and the company it contracts to handle carbon nanotubes, NanoSperse. The NIOSH team helped General Nano make safety upgrades to the chemical vapor deposition reactor it bought to make carbon nanotubes. Workers wore NIOSH measuring devices over multiple days to test for airborne particulates.
“We don’t wake up every day with the responsibility of measuring nanomaterials,” Sprengard said, “so the most important thing we can do is maintain great relationships with the government entities that monitor that and regulate that and counsel folks like us on best practices, then take those best practices and apply them. In terms of the right protocols, we would never have the resources of the federal government to really get the depth of quality of information to really help us administer those.”
Nanomaterials are most dangerous in powder form, so workers wear coats, respirators, glasses and gloves, Sprengard said. Once the nanomaterials securely are mixed into the end product, workers only need to wear glasses, coats and gloves. As NIOSH and others study nanomaterials’ varying risks along the manufacturing process, organizations can adjust protections consistent with their unique materials and processes.
Sprengard’s advice is clear: Leverage the knowledge of the experts in this rapidly evolving area of materials and worker safety science. “That’s why NIOSH was there, from handling of powdered material to the point of dispersing it to the point of forming sheet material, so we knew what exposure risks were there and how to address them,” he said. “We have overprotected, not underprotected, because that’s just the right thing to do.”
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16883-nanotechnology
-
Pruitt to Face Heat on the Hill This Week
Apr 23, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Kevin Bogardus, Geof Koss and Kellie Lunney
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's fate might hinge on how he performs at double-header hearings on Capitol Hill this week.
On Thursday, the embattled EPA chief will appear at two different hearings ostensibly to discuss President Trump's fiscal 2019 budget proposal for the agency.
He will appear before the House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee in the morning and then before the House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee in the afternoon.
Allegations of exorbitant spending and misuse of his Cabinet-level power have engulfed Pruitt ever since news broke last month that he signed a condo lease linked to a lobbyist whose firm's clients have business before EPA. It has also now emerged that the lobbyist did have contact with the agency, even meeting with Pruitt, despite his earlier statements that he never lobbied EPA over the past year (see related story).
The hearings will be lawmakers' first opportunity to question Pruitt in public since many of the charges that have grabbed national headlines broke, sparking a push to remove him from EPA.
At least a dozen Democrats who sit on one of the two subcommittees have already signed onto a resolution calling for Pruitt to resign. Although only a few Republicans have said Pruitt should leave EPA, several are expected to have tough questions for the administrator at the hearings as well.
Asked if this week's hearing was supposed to be on EPA's budget, Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, joked, "Oh, but it's not limited to a budget discussion — is it?"
Walden told E&E News that his committee staff has "been in contact with the EPA at various levels and ways to inquire [for] information about the allegations."
"He'll have a perfect opportunity to answer member's questions. He serves at the pleasure of the president and he has done a lot of good work as the EPA administrator and tackled some big issues from cleaning up the Portland Harbor, putting that on a faster track, to others," Walden said.
"I think he has made a lot of good improvements and changes on policy, but he is going to have to answer these other questions," he added.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, said last week that Pruitt will be asked about his "unforced errors" when running EPA.
"He's coming before the subcommittee to answer questions," Shimkus said. "There'll be policy questions, but I bet there'll be a lot of questions raised about what a lot of us are calling unforced errors."
Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas), who sits on the Environment Subcommittee, said, "I haven't seen at the point that it has impacted his ability to do his job. I think we need to drill into the allegations and see what really has happened and hasn't. If the allegations are true, they are troubling, and we should expect higher of any person in public office."
Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that is hosting Pruitt this week, also said he didn't see a reason for Pruitt to leave EPA.
"I don't believe there is any reason for him to leave. We have hearings going on, we'll see what the outcome of that is. At this point, there's no reason I see for him to leave," Calvert said.
Marc Short, the White House's legislative affairs director, also said yesterday that the administrator has Trump's confidence.
"Right now, Scott Pruitt is doing a great job at EPA, and we are excited to have him there," Short said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, expected Republicans will speak out against Pruitt like their counterparts have across the aisle.
"In private conversations that I've had with my GOP colleagues there is not just disappointment with Mr. Pruitt on any number of levels but disdain," Carper said. "I think eventually they will. I think they'll find their voices. Maybe sooner rather than later."
More Republicans may become vocal in their opposition to Pruitt. One House GOP member said yesterday that Pruitt should exit EPA.
"Yes EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt should resign. Wrong fit from start for agency dedicated to protecting our environment," said Rep. Frank LoBiondo (R-N.J.) in a tweet. LoBiondo is retiring from Congress after this year's midterm elections.Dems are taking a stand
The hearings come as Democrats continue to call for Pruitt to resign or be fired on a daily basis.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), the ranking member on the Appropriations subcommittee that funds EPA, said last week that a nonbinding resolution introduced in both chambers expressing "no confidence" in Pruitt has already gained a record number of co-sponsors from previous such measures.
"That's a pretty strong statement," he told E&E News. The Senate measure, S.Res. 473, as of Friday had 38 co-sponsors, while the House version, H.Res. 834, offered by Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), had 134.
"This shows the passion that people have for believing it's time for him to go," Udall said.
While Democrats are looking for opportunities to force a vote on the measure in the Senate, Udall conceded "it's going to be hard," given GOP control of the chamber.
"The important point is taking a stand," he said. "We think his behavior is outrageous and he's got to go."Next stop: The Senate
After this week's hearings, Pruitt will likely be back on Capitol Hill to meet with senators.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chairwoman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds EPA, said last week she is in the process of figuring out when Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Pruitt will appear before her panel to testify on the administration's fiscal 2019 budget proposal.
"We've got to move really quickly," said the Alaska Republican.
Murkowski did not offer specific dates but indicated that things could ramp up in late spring.
"We're expected to be finishing things up in another month or so," she said. "We're not going to have anything next week, but after we get back, we're going to be busy."
The House and Senate are scheduled to be out for a district and state work period from April 30 to May 4.
Asked to comment about the ethics controversies swirling around Pruitt, Murkowski said the Trump administration has "got a decision to make with the administrator in terms of whether or not he has the support of the president."
She added that "all of these issues distract, detract from [Pruitt's] ability to do the job and we've got a lot that we're expecting" from EPA.
Murkowski was talking to reporters in a Senate subway car last Thursday during a ride between the Capitol and her office in the Hart Senate Office Building.
Carper happened to be in the same car and agreed with Murkowski's comments about Pruitt and EPA.
"I'm Tom Carper, and I approve this message," he quipped. "That's all I'm saying."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/04/23/stories/1060079759
-
Pruitt Moving Again to Change the Way EPA Uses Science
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is taking another step toward changing how the agency uses science.
The White House Office of Management and Budget is reviewing a proposal that aims to strengthen the “transparency and validity” of the science the Environmental Protection Agency uses to support its regulatory decisions, according to the office's website. OMB's review, typically one of the final steps before a proposal is released for public review, started April 19.
There are no details on what's included in the proposal, but Pruitt told Bloomberg News in March that the EPA should rely on science that is “very objective, very transparent, and very open.” He raised concern about third-party research where the underlying data isn't public.
“That's not right,” Pruitt said in March. “The methodology and data need to be a part of the official record—the rulemaking—so that you and others can look at it and say, ‘Was it wisely done?’”
Researchers and environmental advocates told Bloomberg Environment that such a policy could severely limit the data the agency considers when it regulates everything from drinking water and air quality to pesticides. Some EPA staff agree: The agency in 2017 told the Congressional Budget Office that similar open data requirements would limit usable studies by 95 percent.
“The policy is still being developed,” EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman said in an April 20 statement emailed to Bloomberg Environment. “It's important to recognize that Administrator Pruitt believes all Americans deserve transparency, with regard to the science and data that's underpinning regulatory decisions being made by this Agency.”
Pruitt's goal is similar to that in legislation (H.R. 1430) that House Science and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) introduced, which would require the EPA to base its regulatory decisions on data that's publicly available and substantially reproducible.
Last year, Pruitt barred scientists who receive EPA grants from serving on agency advisory panels, citing conflicts of interest. That policy affected many members of the EPA's advisory panels, including a panel that reviews the science backing national air quality standards, who either left or had to relinquish their grants.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132552359&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132552359&jd=132552359
-
Earth Day 2018: Pollution From Plastic Is Drastic
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Marissa Horn
“Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.” You've seen those words above trash cans in your workplace, or on kids’ television shows teaching future generations about how we can close the loop on recycling plastic and other materials.
Organizers of Earth Day—April 22—chose this year to focus on plastic materials, which are a problem because of their “un-biodegradable nature,” according to the Earth Day Network. Only 12 percent of those materials are recycled; more than three-quarters end up in landfills.
Towns, cities, and entire countries have taken steps to increase the recycling of plastic, or have just outright banned the product. China also took steps to ban importing recyclables Jan. 1, leaving tens of thousands of tons of recyclables to be diverted to U.S. landfills in recent months as the reality of the new ban on certain types of imported waste takes hold.
Companies also are joining in on the movement to recycle more. McDonald's and Coca-Cola both announced initiatives in January aimed at reducing the amount of packing waste in their global operations.
McDonald's set a target to make 100 percent of its consumer packaging from “renewable, recyclable, and certified materials” by 2025, while Coca-Cola declared its goal to recycle the equivalent of 100 percent of its packaging by 2030. For every bottle or can the company sells globally, it wants to take one back.
Let's take a look back at the first few months of 2018 to see what countries and companies are doing to make a difference—good or bad—in the realm of recycling plastic.
1. U.S. Recycling Woes Pile Up as China Escalates Ban
China has been by far the largest market for U.S scrap exports and its crackdown—now several months old—has both U.S. and global waste collectors scrambling to find new markets for their recyclables to avoid disrupting curbside collection services.
2. Quebec to Help Recyclers Hit by Chinese Import Limits
Quebec will lend a financial hand to beleaguered recycling centers hit by recent Chinese rule changes that are reorganizing the global trade in recycled goods.
3. ‘Banning the Bag’ Won't Fix Ocean Plastic Problem, Manufacturers Say
Each year, more than 8 million metric tons of plastic end up in oceans, endangering marine wildlife, fisheries, and tourism. Unless something changes, by 2025 the oceans will hold about one ton of plastic for every three tons of finfish, according to estimates from the Ocean Conservancy.
4. EU Pushes Drinking Water Updates as Counter to Plastic Bottles
Water suppliers faced a host of new pollution limits as the European Union mulled plans to promote public access to free tap water as a means of discouraging single-use bottles.
Bottles of Vittel water move along a production line at bottling plant.
5. Mexican City's Plastic Bag Ban a Start, But Won't Solve Problem
A plastic bag ban that took effect April 1 in the northern Mexican city of Queretaro got a thumbs up from environmentalists, but some question whether it actually does much to help the environment.
An scavenger classifies refuse in front of a pile of compacted bales of plastic bottles at the ‘Bordo Poniente’ garbage dump in Mexico City.
6. Microplastics in EU Products Under Regulatory Microscope
Tiny plastic particles intentionally added to products sold in the European Union are under the regulatory microscope as the bloc's chemicals agency seeks data and comment on their use in cosmetics, detergents, paints, and other items.
Cosmetics are displayed at a pharmacy in Paris Nov. 27, 2017.
7. Plastics Industry Opposes Patchwork of Rules as Bag Bans Expand
The plastics manufacturing industry and environmental activists don't want plastic bags to go to waste, but they disagree on the steps needed to ensure that the material doesn't end up in landfills or the ocean after one use.
A pedestrian carries a single-use plastic bag while shopping in Los Angeles on June 24, 2014.
8. Keep Trash Out of Anacostia River, Court Tells D.C., Maryland
Maryland and Washington will need a new plan to prevent trash from entering the Anacostia River if they are to comply with the Clean Water Act.
Stairs to a floating dock are seen along the Anacostia River on May 16, 2016, in Washington.
9. Australian Recyclers Feeling Crushed by China's New Rules
Australia's recycling industry is in crisis mode and faces uncertainty as China's tough new restrictions on imports of recyclables disrupt their business model.
A bulldozer moves garbage in a landfill cell at the Melbourne Regional Landfill site, operated by at Cleanaway Waste Management Ltd., the nation's largest garbage company, in Ravenhall, Victoria, Australia, on June 14, 2017.
10. Olympic Athletes Going for Gold—But Not at Green Ice Rinks
And now for something that uses plastic—not in bags, but on ice. Organizers of the Winter Games in South Korea set a goal of becoming the first zero-emissions event in Olympics history. But the refrigerants that were used in the Pyeongchang ice arenas are some of the most potent climate-warming chemicals on the market.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132552382&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132552382&jd=132552382
-
EPA Floats 'Secret Science' Ban Rule, Signaling Possible Internal Fixes
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
EPA has sent for White House review a proposed rule to increase the transparency of regulatory science, advancing Administrator Scott Pruitt's controversial efforts to ban the use of “secret science” in a move that suggests officials have addressed at least some internal concerns that such a policy could violate statutory protections of medical privacy and trade secrets.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received the proposed rule, Strengthening Transparency and Validity in Regulatory Science, on April 19, according to OMB's website.
White House interagency review typically takes 90 days, although it can take less or more time depending on the complexity of a regulation and other factors.
Stephanie Tai, a former DOJ attorney and current University of Wisconsin law professor, said during the American Bar Association's Section of Energy, Environment and Resources spring conference in Orlando, FL, April 20 that EPA's decision to pursue a rulemaking rather than issuing a directive -- as Pruitt has previously indicated -- will speed up the process of trying to implement the policy change.
Issuing a directive would set off a lawsuit over whether it is a legislative rule, and just doing a rule avoids that first stage of litigation, she said. “This [will] just make everything happen sooner," by starting off litigation with arguments on the merits instead of whether it can be done through guidance.
EPA announced last month that “Pruitt will soon end his agency’s use of 'secret science' to craft regulations,” and that the policy would mirror legislation long championed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), the retiring chairman of the House science committee.
The bill directs the agency to use the “best available science” in all its actions, but bars the agency from using any studies that cannot be released publicly online “in a manner that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.”
But agency watchers have said such a policy change would face legal and implementation controversies as soon as it is released.
For example, Dave Owen, a professor of environmental law at the University of California Hastings law school, has said, “If a statute mandates reliance on 'the best available science,' and EPA declines to use the best available science just because the researchers are unwilling to breach the confidentiality of their subjects, that’s a pretty clear statutory violation.”
And a leaked EPA staff analysis warned last year that Smith's bill would even "prevent implementation" of the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), while also failing to protect confidential business information (CBI) and limiting its use in EPA chemical, pesticide and other decisions.
Internal EPA Emails
Now, EPA emails obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and first reported by Politico, show that Nancy Beck, the top political appointee in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, shared concerns with other EPA colleagues about the need to exempt some studies from a secret science directive because it would limit the agency's ability to approve new pesticides and industrial chemicals.
It is unclear how EPA's proposal may have changed from initial drafts that one knowledgeable source has said was exactly like Smith's bill since “there were a lot of questions about what it would mean,” and how it would be implemented.
But there have been indications that the agency may be softening the strict approach that Pruitt had suggested. For example, White House regulatory chief Neomi Rao told Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) earlier this month that her staff was working with EPA on the issue as the agency sought to find a “balance” between using the “best” data and data that is publicly available.
Rao also said she would not support agencies changing their procedures in ways that prevent them from using the best available evidence when making these decisions.
Smith's bill, H.R. 1430, passed the House last year on a largely party-line vote, but was strongly opposed by environmentalists and numerous non-partisan scientific and engineering associations, as well as Democrats. They argued it would bar the agency from using many high-quality studies because it cannot release the data underlying studies that include personal medical records, does not have copyright or other permissions to disclose, or that contain trade secret information.
A former agency staffer told Inside EPA last month that such a policy “would remove a good chunk of the human health data” EPA has long considered in many of its human health-based decisions, such as chemicals assessed by the agency's Integrated Risk Information System.
Beck in one email outlines potential problems for pesticide registrations and re-registrations as well as TSCA risk evaluations if the Smith-type approach is finalized as drafted.
“The directive needs to be revised. Without change it will jeopardize our entire pesticide registration/re-registration review process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations,” Beck writes.
She explains that pesticide registrations require a huge amount of data, which cost companies millions of dollars to produce, to be submitted to EPA. “Guideline studies of this type are never put in journal publications -- there is no audience for them,” she writes, adding that therefore in the eyes of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the studies are not considered published even though they “are very high quality standardized studies.”
While the studies are generally submitted to EPA as CBI, this can be waived for a large majority of them and the data can be made available if requested, Beck says.
Making data available is very different than requiring studies be published, a requirement that would be incredibly burdensome and not practical because “you would need to create a whole new arm of the publishing industry to publish these types of studies that nobody is interested in. Note these full study reports are often hundreds of pages (they include extremely robust documentation) each. Nobody is interested in publishing these (nor having journal peer review conducted on them).”
The requirement for published studies will also be a problem for TSCA, Beck says, where for thousands of existing chemicals companies have conducted similar guideline studies to obtain European Union registration.
“Similar to my comments above, the studies get shared with [the European Chemicals Agency] but there is no incentive for anyone, anywhere, to publish them. It is likely that when we do TSCA risk evaluations, companies will provide us with these studies as CBI (to protect the costs/money they spent to do the testing -- it's a competitiveness issue). These data will be extremely valuable, extremely high quality, and NOT published.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-floats-secret-science-ban-rule-signaling-possible-internal-fixes
-
EPA Lead Paint, Soil Standards Need Work by June: Adviser
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency hasn't conducted extensive reviews of its lead paint and lead-in-soil standards, which a federal court has ordered it to either update or justify by June, an agency adviser said April 19.
“It's tough to see how it will get those [paint and soil] standards done by June,” the adviser, Tom Neltner, told the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.
The EPA said in an emailed statement that “we intend to meet the court's deadline.” This could, however, mean no adjustment to the standards.
For dust, the EPA appears to be on track, according to Neltner, a specialist on lead issues who is the chemicals policy director with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.
Neltner said the agency is in good shape to make a determination on dust before meeting a court-ordered June deadline to keep or revise its lead standards. The dust limits determine when a property has been sufficiently cleaned up.
Neltner briefed the CHPAC committee on the agency's efforts to respond to a letter the panel sent to the agency last year.
Among other actions, the committee urged the EPA to update its 2001 lead paint, dust, and soil standards (RIN:2070-AC63) for homes and facilities where children spend time. Lead is a known neurotoxin that affects IQ, behavior, and development.
Court Ruling
After the committee sent the letter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Dec. 27, 2017, rulied in Community Voice v. EPA that the agency must review its standards, and either update them or explain why they are sufficient.
The court said both the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act impose a duty on the agency to keeps its standards updated.
The lawsuit that prompted the ruling was brought by a coalition of environmental and health groups that had previously petitioned the agency to update its lead standards.
The EPA doesn't appear to dispute the record those petitioners developed that showed “according to modern scientific understanding, neither the dust-lead hazard standard nor the lead-based paint standard are sufficient to protect children,” the court said.
The court-ordered deadline for the agency to keep its current standards or propose new ones is June 22, and final standards would need to be set by Dec. 27.
Goals of Standards
The goal of the standards is to prevent children from having excessive exposures to lead.
The standards define how much lead must be in paint for it to be called “lead paint.” If, for example, a home has lead paint, that means the seller must notify the purchaser of that and professional renovators must take special precautions when disturbing the paint.
The standards also define concentrations of lead-contaminated dust and soil that would be hazardous across a range of waste sites.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132552386&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132552386&jd=132552386
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA's Chloroform Study Plan Raises Queries Over Reach Of IRIS Reviews
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Introducing their plan to science advisors last September, Bahadori's presentation slides explained that chloroform has a "small evidence base" and the plan is to conduct a "targeted update to address Agency need." EPA's Superfund, air and Region 4 offices expressed a specific need for an inhalation reference value for chloroform, the documents say.
The Superfund and Region 4 offices are finding chloroform as a contaminant at industrial cleanup sites, "many of which experience chloroform vapor intrusion," so the offices need risk-based screening and cleanup levels for the chemical, the chloroform plans state. The air office adds that chloroform is classified by the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and that it is "is mandated under CAA to periodically conduct risk and technology reviews (RTRs) for HAPs in which up-to-date toxicity values are needed to evaluate residual risk."
But researchers at the University of California San Francisco's (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment question a number of the choices outlined in EPA's draft protocol.
The UCSF researchers are leaders in the nascent field of applying systematic review methodology to environmental health and risk analyses topics. The UCSF team published its own systematic review approach for environmental health issues, known as the Navigation Guide, in 2011.
"This is the first attempt from IRIS to conduct a formal systematic review in its chemical assessment process, including the pre-publication of a documented and publicly available protocol that guides each step of the assessment," the UCSF researchers write in their March 2 comments. "Unfortunately, as it is currently written, this protocol is not a sound systematic review of the current scientific evidence on chloroform carcinogenicity."
The UCSF researchers also argue that IRIS should abandon its plan to develop a new reference concentration (RfC) for chloroform, arguing that doing so is contrary to recommendations in several recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reports.
EPA proposed doing so based on a 2001 analysis the program did of chloroform's mode of action (MOA), or biological understanding of how a chemical causes disease. EPA concluded that chloroform's MOA "is likely carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure only under high-exposure conditions..." Based on this MOA analysis, the reference dose (RfD), or the greatest amount EPA estimates can be consumed daily for a lifetime without experiencing adverse non-cancer health effects, "was determined to be protective with respect to cancer." The RfD is analogous to the RfC, for oral exposures rather than inhalation.
Inhalation Cancer Risk
In the case of chloroform, EPA is proposing to take the rare step of calculating an RfC to protect against inhalation cancer risk -- an approach the UCSF team criticizes because this type of risk estimate provides risk managers less information than the traditional approach used to craft risk estimates to protect against cancer.
"The RfD/RfC is not an actual estimate of risk, nor does it provide information about the potential risk at various exposure estimates. EPA IRIS acknowledge this in the chloroform protocol, stating: 'Reference values are not predictive risk values; that is, they provide no information about risks at higher or lower exposure levels.' … This raises serious concerns regarding the utility of this assessment; for instance, the EPA cannot conduct a benefits analysis using solely the RfD/RfC because there is no accompanying dose-response information. We strongly encourage EPA to incorporate the recommendations of recent NAS reports and utilize alternative available analytical methods to develop quantified estimates of risk that can be of use to both risk managers and decision-makers."
The UCSF researchers take issue with EPA's apparent intent to work from its 2001 review of chloroform's MOA. The protocol appears to suggest that IRIS staff will work from this 2001 evaluation, an approach that the UCSF researchers argue unduly narrows the scope of the systematic review.
"This analysis is now 17 years out of date and some of the scientific peer reviewers raised significant concerns about the evaluation," the researchers write. "We anticipate that a systematic review of the original literature would provide a more clarifying evaluation of the science … but as it is currently written the protocol is clearly biased towards assuming that the threshold assumption still holds true. This is not appropriate, and we strongly encourage EPA IRIS to re-write the protocol to clearly state that the update will review the scientific evidence and determine the validity of the 2001 MOA analysis."
The Defense Department (DOD) in its March 2 comments, also questions EPA's apparent decision to work from the 2001 MOA analysis. "What is the rationale for not updating the MOA analysis?" DOD asks. "Should the mechanistic data from 2001 to present be screened to ensure that this analysis is still valid?"
DOD, interestingly, also questions EPA's decision to focus the assessment on human health risks from inhaling chloroform, while deciding not to pursue oral exposure risks -- an example of the portfolio approach that Bahadori has touted as a way to speed the IRIS system. But DOD writes, "We note that the approach to only consider inhalation studies differs from previous IRIS assessments. It is clear from the explanation that inhalation data is more relevant than oral data, but there may be arguments that all data should be considered regardless of exposure route. Please clarify the rationale for only including inhalation data."
'Threshold Carcinogen'
The chemical industry trade association, American Chemistry Council (ACC), also addresses the MOA issue, noting that "Chloroform has a well-established MoA as a threshold carcinogen, as stated in the IRIS Assessment Plan for chloroform and throughout the Protocol."
ACC expresses lack of clarity in how EPA will consider MOA studies published since 2001, and urges EPA to clarify. "New studies should be reviewed to determine whether conclusions drawn regarding MoA are similar (i.e., support a threshold). If so, there is no need to further review these studies regarding the MoA. If not, a more rigorous review may be necessary."
ACC also urges EPA to evaluate the quality of the studies included in its systematic reviews, suggesting, for example, "it is critical that the protocol acknowledge that cross-sectional and ecological studies should not be considered as informative as other types of epidemiology study designs, and that other factors may render controlled exposure, cohort, or case-control studies more or less informative to the evaluation of chloroform and other chemicals."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epas-chloroform-study-plan-raises-queries-over-reach-iris-reviews
-
Shaheen, Rounds Float Bill to Register Contaminated Troops
Apr 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) have introduced a bill to get service members information about the health effects of the toxic chemicals long used in military firefighting foam.
The "PFAS Registry Act" would create a database for veterans and members of the military with health problems that they believe to be from per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemical water contamination.
The Department of Veterans Affairs would be required to update them on resources for treating potential health effects and the latest scientific developments.
"This bipartisan bill will build on the progress made in Congress to prioritize a response to emerging contaminants in drinking water supplies in New Hampshire and across the country," Shaheen said in a statement.
PFAS chemicals are present in a wide range of commercial products. But in recent years, two chemicals in the group — perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — have gained national attention for contaminating drinking water near military bases around the country.
EPA issued a health advisory for PFOS and PFOA in 2016, but they are not formally regulated by the federal government, and the military is still grappling with how to clean them up (Greenwire, Jan. 31, 2017).
Shaheen and other lawmakers have generally addressed the issue in bits and pieces, using add-ons to appropriations and authorization bills to address specific contaminated sites.
Shaheen attached another measure requiring a health impact study of PFAS chemicals to the fiscal 2018 defense authorization bill. The study was funded in the omnibus spending bill that passed last month.
With the fiscal 2019 authorization process gearing up, Shaheen and Rounds could again look to the defense bill as a vehicle.
"Congress has an important role to play to ensure that Americans have safe drinking water," Shaheen said. "Too many people, particularly service members and veterans who are in environments that have higher exposure to these chemicals, have been left wondering about the potential health impact of PFAS-contaminated water. That's unacceptable."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/20/stories/1060079717
-
(ACC Mentioned) NGL Storage Hub Stops Appalachia 'Crime'
Apr 22, 2018 | Kallanish Energy
Not separating liquids from the natural gas stream pulled from the Marcellus and Utica Shale plays in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky for lack of a market and storage capacity is like “cooking breakfast with $100 bills.”
“It really is a crime,” according to Brian J. Anderson, director of the WVU Energy Institute at West Virginia University. Anderson was part of a three-person panel discussing natural gas liquids storage in the Appalachian Basin at the recent Special Institute on Petrochemicals, presented by the Energy & Mineral Law Foundation, held in Pittsburgh.
With Shell Chemical hard at work raising iron and installing hundreds of miles of pipe to construct its ethane cracker roughly 35 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, underground storage for natural gas liquids is considered the petrochemical industry’s “next big thing” in Appalachia.
Anderson told the audience, comprised primarily of attorneys involved in energy, the basin is producing roughly 400,000 barrels per day of ethane, with the Shell cracker needing roughly 100,000 BPD of the liquid when it comes online in the 2022 timeframe.
Intermediate storage of NGLs is necessary since produced volumes typically exceed the pipeline takeaway capacity and processing capacity. Large volumes of NGLs are typically stored as a pressurized liquid in underground caverns, according to Anderson and Steven B. Hedrick, president and CEO of the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research and Innovation Center (MATRIC).
“Through 2040, there will be growth in the volume of NGLs, Hedrick said. “The lowest priced ethane on Earth is in Appalachia.”
Both Anderson and Hedrick are involved in the Appalachian Storage Hub, or ASH, a multi-billion-dollar NGL hub project that is expected to be built along the Ohio River.
Hedrick is CEO of the Appalachian Development Group, which is heading up the massive project, including securing public and private funding.
“It’s like building the International Space Station below ground,” according to Anderson.
The storage hub received a huge monetary boost just days into 2018, when it received approval for the first of two application phases for a $1.9 billion U.S. Department of Energy loan.
“We’re also talking with people around the world to secure a $1.4 billion equity pool, Hedrick told the Energy & Mineral Law Foundation audience.
“We also have name-brand companies that are interested in doing the work (constructing the storage hub),” Hedrick said.
The trade association American Chemistry Council has projected the storage hub could attract up to $36 billion in new chemical and plastics industry investment, and create 100,000 new jobs in the basin.
http://www.kallanishenergy.com/2018/04/22/ngl-storage-hub-stops-appalachia-crime/
-
Keep It in the Ground Groups Call for Fracking Bans Even as Natural Gas Reduces Emissions
Apr 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Seth Whitehead
Earth Day is coming up on Sunday, and environmentalists have much cause for celebration this year when it comes to U.S. emissions reductions.
The latest Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data show U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined 13 percent since 2005, while overall greenhouse gas emissions are at their lowest levels since 1992. EPA data also show emissions of three air pollutants responsible for millions of deaths worldwide — sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter — have also plummeted since 2005.
The environmental movement has been striving to achieve these kinds of reductions ever since the first Earth Day debuted way back in 1970. But ironically, if the “keep it in the ground” groups behind many of Sunday’s Earth Day events had their druthers, the fuel largely responsible for these emission declines would be eliminated altogether.
Numerous reputable third party experts — including the International Energy Agency (IEA), U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) and even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — agree that increased use of clean burning natural gas deserves the bulk of the credit for America’s declining emissions. Still, “keep it in the ground” activists continue to not only call for fracking bans, but the elimination of fossil fuel use altogether.
This extreme agenda is simply not supported by the science.
Bolstered by fuel switching to natural gas in the power sector, the United States has led all major industrialized countries in carbon reductions this century. The EIA released a report late last year that shows natural gas has prevented over 2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted since 2005, noting that natural gas’ share of power sector related carbon reductions is 72 percent greater than renewables and other non-carbon sources during that time-span.
IEA stated plainly last year that, “The U.S. power sector has led the world in cutting CO2 emissions since 2008, thanks largely to natural gas…”
Many extreme voices in the environmental movement argue that methane emissions from natural gas development effectively negate the obvious carbon reductions from natural gas. But the latest EPA data show that natural gas systems methane emissions have declined 3.5 percent since 2005, while overall methane emissions have declined as well.
In other words, natural gas’ climate benefits are crystal clear. And its contribution to reducing deadly air pollution is just as significant.
IEA has noted that air pollution is responsible for 6.5 million deaths annually, identifying sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and fine particulate matter as the three pollutants “responsible for the most widespread impacts…”
Fortunately, the United States has some of the lowest death rates from air pollution in the world, which can be traced directly to the fact that all three of these pollutants have declined dramatically since the shale gas revolution began.
Natural gas emits far less nitrogen oxide than other traditional fuels, and emits virtually no sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter. This prompted Stanford University physicist Richard Muller to state in 2013 that, “Shale gas is a wonderful gift that has arrived just in time. It can not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but also reduce a deadly pollution known as PM2.5 that is currently killing over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world.”
The shale gas revolution has also allowed the United States to grow its economy while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions — an unprecedented trend — and to do so without government intervention. While countries such as Germany have struggled to reduce emissions even with government-mandated renewable energy targets, the United States is leading the world in carbon reductions despite not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, failing to pass cap-and-trade legislation and repealing the Clean Power Plan. United Nations Energy Programme Chief Erik Solheim has even said, “In all likelihood, the United States will live up to its Paris commitment, not because of the White House, but because of the private sector.”
The fact that natural gas is reducing greenhouse gas emissions and literally saving lives would seem to be a development worth celebrating on Earth Day. The fact that the “keep it in the ground” movement will likely do the opposite shows how extreme and misguided that movement truly is.
Seth Whitehead is team lead of Energy In Depth, an education, research and public outreach campaign sponsored by the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/384161-keep-it-in-the-ground-groups-call-for-fracking-bans-even-as
-
Fracking Pushes Concentrating Solar Power Growth Overseas
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Concentrating solar-thermal power plants will remain in low demand in the U.S. for the foreseeable future as companies such as SolarReserve LLC develop new plants overseas, according to industry analysts.
One of the factors: Hydraulic fracturing.
“The U.S. is a different market than the rest of the world because we have a whole lot of cheap natural gas from fracking,” SolarReserve CEO Kevin Smith told Bloomberg Environment.
Despite that outlook, the Energy Department is promoting research on this type of solar power, which uses mirrors that focus solar energy on a tower, heating liquids to make electricity from steam. The department announced $86 million in funding for concentrating solar research and development since September, including $24 million announced April 17.
Today's U.S. market heavily favors solar photovoltaics—the kind of technology featured in rooftop solar panels.
Most large solar-thermal development will occur overseas where the plants more effectively compete with power plants using natural gas and other fuels, Mark Mehos, National Renewable Energy Laboratory thermal systems group manager, told Bloomberg Environment.
New concentrating solar power, or CSP, plants are being developed in South Africa, the Middle East, Chile and Australia, where natural gas is scarce and expensive. About 6 percent of U.S. solar power comes from solar thermal plants, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
‘Tough Slog’
The global concentrating solar power market is expected to grow by 12.7 percent by 2025, Scott Sklar, president of the Stella Group Ltd., a clean energy policy firm, told Bloomberg Environment.
But growth will be a “tough slog” for solar-thermal in the U.S., John Rogers, a senior energy analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Bloomberg Environment.
“It has a tough road ahead if you just look at the incredible cost reductions that PV has achieved,” he said. “It's not clear how CSP gets those cost reductions.”
Concentrating solar-thermal power plants use thousands of mirrors called heliostats that focus solar energy on a central tower containing water or molten salt, heating the liquid and turning an electric turbine with steam.
In some plants, the liquid stores the sun's energy as heat, enabling the plant to generate electricity steadily all night or whenever it is needed and serving a similar purpose as a natural gas power plant.
Storage Less Cost-Effective
“Photovoltaic prices are very low,” Smith said. “We don't see any more CSP [concentrating solar power] projects built unless they have substantial energy storage.”
Solar power plants using photovoltaic panels need to use large batteries to store the electricity generated with the panels so the power can be used when needed, or when the sun isn't shining. But batteries that provide power for many hours at at time are expensive today.
“CSP—it can run for a long period of time, approaching a baseload plant,” Mehos said. “You can build a big battery, but it becomes less cost-effective above six or eight hours.”
Storage to Drive Market
The need for energy storage to provide a steady stream of renewable energy onto the electric power grid will drive new solar-thermal development in the long term, especially in South Africa, Chile, China. and Australia, Smith said.
SolarReserve, which operates one solar-thermal plant in Nevada, is developing new solar-thermal power plants in South Africa and Australia.
“There's a lot more demand for storage in international markets,” Smith said. “The U.S. might be a few years away before we see a resurgence.”
Advancements in solar-thermal technology will likely focus on new materials that can store solar energy at higher temperatures and generate electricity for longer periods of time, he said.
Rogers said Energy Department investments in solar-thermal research are important so cost reductions can be found.
NREL is researching new ways to use molten salt, carbon dioxide, and other gases to store solar energy more efficiently, Mehos said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132552355&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132552355&jd=132552355
-
Pipelines Should Be Able to Charge Producers More: Regulator
Apr 23, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Texas's oil and gas regulator wants pipeline operators to be allowed to charge market rates, not those set by the state, to help ease bottlenecks that threaten growth in the biggest U.S. shale field.
The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates the state's oil and gas industry, currently sets the prices many pipeline operators can charge producers. Allowing them to charge more would encourage new investment, Commissioner Ryan Sitton said in an interview.
“One of the things the Railroad Commission can do to actually help more pipelines get constructed is to allow market rates,” he said. “If that allows for a greater return, pipeline companies are going to build more pipelines.”
Pipeline Construction Falling Behind
Production from the Permian Basin has grown so fast that pipeline construction has failed to keep up, both for oil and associated gas, and is likely to stay that way until late 2019. That's threatening to boost costs for producers who may have to move oil to customers by truck or rail, which is more expensive. If the costs get too high, they may slow or defer production.
Sitton, one of three commission members, said his proposal would only boost construction in the future, providing a longer-term benefit.
“There's no short-term fix to get this problem resolved,” he said. “I think we're going to be in a pipeline constrained environment for a while.”
The amount of production over pipeline capacity could grow to about 900,000 barrels a day in the year ahead, an “unprecedented amount” in North America, according to Samir Kayande, a director at RS Energy Group in Calgary.
In Texas, typically pipelines are privately owned and can negotiate freely with producers. But the commission can arbitrate on pricing when there's a dispute, allowing pipeline companies to charge rates that reimburse costs and ensure a limited return on capital, such as 8 percent to 12 percent.
Historically, “the commission as a whole has been hesitant to let market rates play out,” Sitton said. The Permian “is a very competitive environment and I don't see why we should even get into the business of setting rates. Let them compete for rates.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=132552367&vname=dennotallissues&fn=132552367&jd=132552367
-
EPA Considers Expanding Self-Audit Program
Apr 20, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Mike Lee
EPA may expand an existing self-audit program to the oil and gas industry, the agency's enforcement chief said today.
EPA already has a "new owner audit policy" effort that allows buyers of industrial facilities to inspect them and self-report regulatory violations, in exchange for a chance at reducing their penalties.
The agency is working on including the oil and gas industry, which is going through a period of mergers and acquisitions, Susan Bodine, assistant administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said during a panel discussion at the EarthX festival here.
"One of our strategic goals is to have facilities come into compliance more quickly. Having them do it themselves is the quickest way," Bodine said in an interview on the sidelines of the conference.
The agency is using a 2016 agreement with Range Resources Corp. as a template.
Including oil and gas into the self-audit scheme falls in line with Administrator Scott Pruitt's goals of streamlining regulation while boosting domestic energy production.
The policy change is still under consideration, and a final decision hasn't been made, Bodine said, adding that it was difficult to determine when the review process would be complete.
Range, a drilling company based in Fort Worth, bought the drilling rights to 220,000 acres in the Terryville field in Louisiana in September 2016.
Attorneys for the company began assessing whether the property complied with EPA's air emissions regulations under the Clean Air Act. They soon discovered that "noncompliance at its newly-acquired facilities was fairly widespread," according to a case study prepared by Range's attorneys.
The company self-reported problems at 390 facilities to EPA and asked to be considered under the new owner program. EPA ultimately agreed and settled with Range for a "substantial penalty reduction," Bodine said.
It took a substantial amount of the agency's resources to negotiate the deal, Bodine said, so it makes sense to use the case as a model agreement for other companies.
She was asked whether expanding the policy would create an incentive for companies to cut corners on regulatory compliance, since some companies might assume they could sell an oil and gas property and allow the new owner to bring it into compliance.
If that happened, Bodine said, "they would be breaking the law."
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/04/20/stories/1060079719
-
BLM to Prepare ANWR EIS for Potential Oil, Natural Gas Development
Apr 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Kicking off what is expected to be a long and arduous process, the Department of Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on Friday launched a comment period and said it plans to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to support future oil and natural gas leasing within a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
In a notice filed in Friday's Federal Register, BLM said it has begun a 60-day public comment period over opening part of the coastal plain of ANWR, aka the 1002 Area, to leasing. Public scoping meetings are to be held in Anchorage and Fairbanks, as well as Arctic Village, Kaktovik and Utqiagvik, which is more commonly known as Barrow. Additional meetings may be scheduled if there is enough community interest.
The EIS is the next step in a decades-long saga to open part of the 1002 Area to leasing. A breakthrough came last December, when Republican lawmakers successfully pushed a $1.5 trillion comprehensive tax reform bill through Congress. The bill included a policy rider, submitted by Alaska's all-GOP contingent, for a leasing program.
Under the tax law provision, BLM must conduct at least two lease sales by December 2024. Each sale must have at least 400,000 acres available for lease. The 1002 Area covers 1.5 million acres, while ANWR covers 19 million acres in total.
"We welcome this scoping announcement and the DOI's continued work to implement our legislation opening the coastal plain to responsible energy development," said Alaska Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan and Rep. Don Young. "We appreciate the DOI following the law, planning multiple public meetings with Alaskans, and moving forward on this important program to help ensure the energy and economic security of our nation."
Gov. Bill Walker, an independent, also lauded the move. "Opening the 1002 Area of ANWR to oil leasing is a historic opportunity for Alaska. This is an important priority for my administration, given the potential for significant new revenues from lease sales and production."
Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) CEO Kara Moriarty called BLM's notice "the first step in a very long process..."Alaskans have long supported leasing and responsible development in the coastal plain which was set aside for oil and gas development. We are encouraged that DOI wants to hear from Alaskans across the state about this important issue. AOGA looks forward to participating in this public process."
Conversely, Democrats and environmental groups blasted the decision. Center for American Progress spokesman Matt Lee-Ashley took aim at DOI Secretary Ryan Zinke and his deputy, David Bernhardt, a former lobbyist whose client list included the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
"The Trump administration's headlong rush to drill America's last great wilderness is reckless and wrong," Lee-Ashley said. "By putting the fate of ANWR in the hands of former oil industry lobbyist David Bernhardt, [Zinke] has made clear that this rushed environmental review process will be nothing more than a kangaroo court. The administration's shortcuts to sell out the Arctic refuge are legally risky and are sure to add another stain to Zinke's shameful anti-conservation record."
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, led eight Democratic counterparts in expressing concern over what was characterized as "needless haste" in advancing a drilling program in the 1002 Area.
"This rush is especially egregious because it has clearly been stated in the press that the goal of this timeline is to meet the purely political deadline of holding a lease sale within this presidential term," Grijalva and the Democrats wrote in a letter to Zinke on Thursday. "Playing politics with our nation's most important and irreplaceable public lands is irresponsible, and this effort is wholly incompatible with your responsibility to move forward in a way that is compatible with protecting the wilderness and wildlife values of the refuge and the needs of the Gwich'in people."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114111-blm-to-prepare-anwr-eis-for-potential-oil-natural-gas-development
-
CSB Asks Appellate Court to Back Broad Subpoena on 'Potential' Releases
Apr 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Rebecca Rainey
The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board's (CSB) is asking a federal appellate court to grant it broad power to subpoena documents related to “potential” releases at facilities where it is investigating industrial incidents, a move that a major refiner is resisting, charging it amounts to an unlawful expansion of the board's powers.
Justice Department lawyers earlier this month asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to review a district court order that rejected portions of the board's request to enforce a broad administrative subpoena seeking information from an ExxonMobil refinery in Torrance, CA, that CSB is investigating.
The district court had denied CSB's request to enforce the subpoena, finding that the requested documents could not “reasonably considered relevant” to CSB's investigation into the company.
CSB began an investigation into the ExxonMobil facility after a February 2015 blast at the company's Torrance, CA, facility that injured four workers and sparked renewed national attention to refinery safety.
The 2015 blast was the result of a hydrocarbon release from the refinery’s fluid catalytic cracker unit into its electrostatic precipitator, with the hydrocarbons igniting inside the precipitator causing the unit to explode.
CSB deployed a team to the explosion site after receiving significant criticism from lawmakers about the agency's earlier lack of capacity to investigate the Torrance incident, which hospitalized four workers and covered the surrounding residential neighborhoods with catalyst dust, was the third explosion in the Torrance refinery’s history at the time.
The board, which has power to investigate industrial incidents and recommend changes, subsequently issued seven subpoenas seeking evidence.
But in May 2017, DOJ petitioned the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California seeking to require ExxonMobil to provide the CSB with documents “relevant to the Board's investigation” into the February explosion at the California facility.
CSB argued that that Exxon has not fully complied with six of the seven subpoenas issued by the Board and has “impeded and delayed” the Board’s investigation.
At oral argument, CSB argued that subparagraph (C)(ii) of the agency's enabling statute provides the agency additional authority to subpoena documents unrelated to any chemical release.
Subparagraph C allows the CSB to “issue periodic reports to the Congress, Federal, State and local agencies . . . recommending measures to reduce the likelihood or the consequences of accidental releases and proposing corrective steps to make chemical production, processing, handling and storage as safe and free from risk of injury as is possible.”
'Potential Releases'
However, ExxonMobil argues that CSB's outstanding subpoena requests are overreaching. They say the Board is seeking information after the incident occurred regarding modified hydrofluoric acid (MHC) and hydrofluoric acid (HV), and that the subpoenas are unenforceable, because CSB lacks jurisdiction to request documents relating to “potential releases” and that the requests were “well beyond” the scope of the February 2015 investigation.
“CSB has persisted in seeking information relating to HF and MHF. CSB's true intentions for doing so are clear: CSB wants to access documents about the use of MHF at the Torrance Refinery for purposes of issuing a hazard study,” ExxonMobil argued.
In its ruling, the district court partially granted DOJ's petition, concluding that CSB had been granted authority to investigate the February 2015 accidental release, but also that its subpoena authority “is limited to seeking information relevant to that investigation,” the November order says.
The court referenced 9th Circuit precedent in EEOC v. Federal Exp. Corp., which held that in the context of administrative subpoenas, "[r]elevancy is determined in terms of the investigation rather than in terms of penitentiary relevance."
"Moreover, the relevancy requirement is 'not especially constraining.' The term 'relevant' is 'generously construed' to 'afford the [agency] access to virtually any material that might cast light on [the matter under investigation]."
But the district court said that even when using the 9th Circuit's “generous” standard, it still was not convinced that CSB had the right to the data.
“While many of the requests seek evidence that is relevant under this generous standard, some of the request seek information with such attenuated connections to the February 2015 release that they cannot reasonably be considered relevant even under the most liberal relevance standard,” the district court said.
As a result, the Court found that 29 request were enforceable, 24 requests were unenforceable, and one request was enforceable in part.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/csb-asks-appellate-court-back-broad-subpoena-potential-releases
-
(ACC Mentioned) Frank Bures: The Last Straw for Earth Day
Apr 22, 2018 | Winona Daily News
By Frank A. Bures
It’s Earth Day again. Shouldn’t every day be Earth Day?
It’s hard to know what to choose to discuss on this day, but plastic straw pollution seems to be quite timely. Plastic straws suck, mechanically and environmentally, when we use them. They are part of a larger picture, but they are symbolic of all the single-use plastic we discard.
Some data about plastic straws from the National Park Service and a group called Be Straw Free estimates Americans use and throw 500 million a day, or 1.6 straws per person. That’s enough to wrap around the earth 2.5 times, or fill 46,400 school buses, or fill Yankee Stadium nine times a year. They are the 11th-most-found ocean trash item.
Eighty percent of ocean debris is from land, and 80 to 90 percent is plastic. More than 8 million tons of plastic trash goes into oceans per year. It’s like emptying a garbage truck of plastic into the ocean every minute. At this rate, by 2050 there will be more plastic than marine life in our oceans. The equivalent of five grocery bags of plastic trash for every foot of ocean coastline is washed into the oceans annually. This debris affects ocean life adversely. Just Google “removing straws from sea turtles” for one example.
Plastic straws don’t break down; they break apart or degrade in maybe 200 years. Other plastics can last even longer, according to estimates. In general they break into microplastics, which find their way into our food chain and water supplies via the oceans and edible critters that have eaten them. They are in about 83 percent of global drinking water sources tested, and 33 percent of shellfish examined.
Plastic straws were made of polystyrene, which became brittle and broke, and sank into your soda pop. Now they are more polypropylene, which floats and is more durable. The history of straws goes back to 3,000 B.C., when straws were used by Sumerians to drink beer (more mannerly than our current guzzling?). One found in a tomb was gold, inlaid with a precious stone, not likely a single-use slurper. Argentinians made them to drink mate, a type of tea.
In the 1800s, rye grass straw became fashionable because it was soft and cheap, but it became mush in your milkshake. Marvin C. Stone patented the first paper straw in 1888 after he wound paper around a pencil to fashion a tube for his mint julep. The flexible bend in straws was introduced in 1937. Plastic straws found favor in the 1960s when everything plastic began to substitute for glass bottles, plates, straws, etc. We were told it wouldn’t litter or puncture tires like broken glass, and we could toss it and forget it — until now we can’t.
Polystyrene is a number 5 in the little plastic recycling triangle symbol. Most places can’t recycle it. If some gets into single source recycling bins, it may spoil the entire load. A process to expand it with air was developed in 1941 by Dow Chemical to produce the brand Styrofoam. We all know these as the white boxes ubiquitously used for take home restaurant food. These may be losing favor as they can never be recycled.
There is some hope emerging (not from the current EPA). The Last Plastic Straw.org is a project from the Plastic Pollution Coalition to ban all plastic straws. You can find them on a computer, and take a pledge to refuse plastic straws. There was a national Skip the Straw Day on Feb. 23, 2018, and also in the prior year. Shouldn’t that be every day? A One Less Straw campaign was begun a few years ago by a brother and sister, ages 8 and 7, who are still active in it.
Seattle, Wash., will be banning plastic straws in July, assisted by the campaign Strawless Ocean from the Lonely Whale environment group. Milo Cress in 2011 at age 9 originated the Be Straw Free campaign, which is still viable.
As expected, the industry is fighting back against losing money and sales. The American Chemistry Council, a plastics trade group, has convinced Florida, Missouri, Indiana, Arizona and Wisconsin so far to ban bans on plastic bags. A true “straw man argument” for plastic. Yet, Taiwan has voted to ban single-use plastic straws, cups, utensils and bags by 2030. Plastic straws go in 2019. McDonald’s in the United Kingdom just announced a phase-out of plastic straws in their restaurants. France voted in 2016 to eliminate plastic plates, cups and utensils by 2020.
There are alternatives in straws made out of glass, metal, paper, bamboo, etc. We have a supply of cleaned plastic straws to hand to the cutest grandkids in the world (ours) when they visit, as well as dozens of table settings of plastic utensils that I retrieved for reuse. In a few instances straws are needed, for bedfast folks, stroke victims, etc.
I hope this column will help you decide you‘ve used your “last straw.”
Frank A. Bures is a semi-retired dermatologist in Winona.
http://www.winonadailynews.com/news/local/frank-bures-the-last-straw-for-earth-day/article_f86d254b-ba9e-5fb9-b460-818dcd61b3db.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Kentucky Ranks Low in Study of Environmentally Friendly States
Apr 22, 2018 | WKMS
By Becca Schimmel
A new study ranks Kentucky the third least environmentally-friendly state in the nation.
Vermont was ranked the most environmentally friendly, with West Virginia coming in last.
The WalletHub study compared states across three key factors--environmental quality, eco-friendly behaviors, and climate-change contributions. Kentucky ranked 48th overall, and last in the category of environmental quality.
That ranking was determined by looking at solid waste per-capita, air, water and soil quality. Eco-friendly behaviors considered in the study include each state’s renewable energy usage, energy and gas consumption, and daily water usage.
WalletHub used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, American Chemistry Council, Natural Resources Defense Council and others. Tennessee came in 23rd in the overall rankings, with Indiana 42nd.
http://wkms.org/post/kentucky-ranks-low-study-environmentally-friendly-states
-
Bloomberg pledges $4.5M to fulfill US commitment to Paris accord
Apr 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) said on Sunday that he would cut a check for $4.5 million to fulfill the United States's financial commitment to the Paris climate accord.
"America made a commitment and as an American if the government's not going to do it, we all have responsibility," Bloomberg said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
"I'm able to do it," he continued. "So, yes, I'm going to send them a check for the monies that America had promised to the organization as though they got it from the federal government."
Asked if he planned to help fund the Paris climate agreement's mission next year, Bloomberg said that he hopes President Trump changes his mind on the accord by then.
"He's been known to change his mind. That is true," Bloomberg said. "But he should change his mind and say look, there really is a problem here. America is part of the problem. America is a big part of the solution and we should go in and help the world stop a potential disaster."
The Paris agreement, struck under the Obama administration, committed 195 countries to reducing carbon emissions in an effort to slow climate change.
But Trump announced last year that he would withdraw from that deal, which he has said places unfair burdens on the U.S. and allows countries like China and India to expand their use of fossil fuels.
Bloomberg has been among the most vocal advocates for the Paris agreement. He and California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) are leading a coalition of U.S. states, cities, businesses and universities that have vowed to meet America's commitments under the agreement.
http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/384329-bloomberg-pledges-45-million-to-fulfill-us-commitment-to-paris
-
Trump in Earth Day Message Notes Need for 'Market-Driven Economy' to Protect Environment
Apr 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Max Greenwood
President Trump marked Earth Day on Sunday by renewing his vow to undo "unnecessary and harmful regulations," and insisting that a "market-driven economy is essential to protecting" the environment.
"We know that it is impossible for humans to flourish without clean air, land, and water," Trump said in a statement released by the White House. "We also know that a strong, market-driven economy is essential to protecting these resources."
"For this reason, my Administration is dedicated to removing unnecessary and harmful regulations that restrain economic growth and make it more difficult for local communities to prosper and to choose the best solutions for their environment."
Since taking office, Trump has sought to undo federal environmental regulations that he has deemed harmful to U.S. economic growth. Critics, however, have blasted the regulatory reversals as harmful to the environment.
Trump rejected that criticism on Sunday, saying that his administration's focus on economic growth only bolsters environmental protections.
"Already, we are making great economic progress in concert with — not in opposition to — protecting our environment," he said.
Last June, Trump also announced that he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, which sought to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.
That agreement, Trump argued, put the U.S. at an economic disadvantage while allowing countries like China and India to continue their use of fossil fuels. He has said that he will consider rejoining the agreement if he can work out better terms for the U.S.
In fact, the Paris accord allows each individual country to set its own goals for reducing carbon emissions and does not contain a formal mechanism for enforcing those commitments.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/384335-trump-in-earth-day-message-notes-need-for-market-driven-economy-to
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested