Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 21/05/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Seven Ways To Save On Food
May 21, 2018 | The Daily Star - Journal
Food is a necessity and an expense that simply cannot be avoided. -
(ACC Mentioned) Drill Pipe Market : Industry Analysis by Application Potential, Price Trends, Competitive Market Share & Forecast, 2016 – 2025
May 21, 2018 | Expert Consulting
By jui.k@gminsights.com
Global Drill Pipe Market is anticipated to grow at over 2% CAGR to surpass USD 2 billion by 2025. Growing exploration of unconventional and conventional reserves will fuel the industry growth. -
Critics and Supporters Of EPA's Transparent Science Proposal: File Comments On It, But Read It First
May 21, 2018 | Forbes
By Susan E. Dudley
EPA is seeking public comment on a proposal aimed at increasing the transparency and integrity of its regulatory science. -
Now Is the Time To Halt the EPA’s Restrictions on Science
May 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Andrew Rosenberg
If you have been following the news, I am sure you know by now that the EPA is proposing to restrict the science it will consider when developing new or revised health and safety protections. -
Ewire: Pruitt's Rule Rollbacks Arriving 'Undercooked,' Critics Say
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
As Inside EPA reported, earlier this month, there is growing evidence that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is encountering major legal and procedural hurdles in several of his attempted rollbacks of Obama-era environmental rules. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats: Top Pruitt Aide May Have Met with Industry on Hot-Button Chemicals Study
May 21, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Top House Democrats are raising concerns about a meeting between one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's top aides and representatives of the chemicals industry one day after a White House official raised alarm about a study of contaminants that has been stalled for months. -
Paper Mills As a Significant Source of PFAS Contamination, But Who’s Watching?
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Across the country, communities are grappling with how to manage contamination of drinking water by perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs), a class of chemicals widely used in consumer products, industrial processes, and firefighting foams. -
ATSDR's Risk Study Highlights EPA Struggle To Keep Up With PFAS Science
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) controversial draft risk estimates for four perflourinated chemicals highlight the struggle EPA faces to keep up with the science for this large class of persistent chemicals emerging as harmful contaminants in many states, says one environmentalist. -
Climate Pressure on Shell Is Warning to Oil Industry
May 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent
Investors are upping the ante on big oil companies over climate change, demanding they take more concrete action to help curb global warming. -
BP Signs LNG Purchase Deal With Venture Global
May 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
BP has signed a long-term agreement to purchase liquefied natural gas from Venture Global LNG once it opens its export facility in Calcasieu Pass, LA. -
Industry Eyes 'More Oomph' as White House Mulls NEPA Changes
May 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration has sought a slate of quick regulatory reforms over the past year, tweaking environmental permitting requirements everywhere from EPA to the Federal Communications Commission. -
Toxic Cloud Caused by Hawaii Volcano Lava Emerges Over Ocean
May 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By McAvoy
White plumes of acid and extremely fine shards of glass billowed into the sky over Hawaii as molten rock from Kilauea volcano poured into the ocean, creating yet another hazard from an eruption that began more than two weeks ago: A toxic steam cloud. -
Alaska Airlines Ends Use of Non-Recyclable Plastic Straws
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Alaska Airlines is phasing out single-use, non-recyclable plastic stir straws in favor of compostable versions made of white birch, the airline announced Monday.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Seven Ways To Save On Food
May 21, 2018 | The Daily Star - Journal
Food is a necessity and an expense that simply cannot be avoided.
A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans reported spending $151 on food per week.
About one in 10 said they spent $300 or more per week, and those with higher incomes tend to spend more on weekly food bills than people who earn less.
Compounding high food bills is the fact that people tend to waste food.
According to the American Chemistry Council, roughly 80 billion pounds of food are thrown out every year in the United States.
Britons throw away about seven million tons of food and drink per year, says BBC Good Food.
Saving money on food may seem challenging, but it doesn’t have to be. With some smart strategies, individuals can reduce their food budgets and still have enough to eat.
1. Store food properly. Pay attention to the correct ways to store food, including promptly refrigerating or freezing items to prevent spoiling.
2. Do your own work. Prepackaged, presliced or preportioned foods take longer for manufacturers to prepare, and those costs are passed on to consumers. Separating foods oneself and putting them into manageable portions may take a little time, but the savings for consumers could be considerable.
3. Buy in bulk when it makes sense. Bulk warehouse stores can make it easier to stock up on essentials. But they also can entice people to buy items they really do not need. Consumers should only purchase items that make fiscal sense or ones that cannot be purchased elsewhere for less. Always compare the price per weight or per unit when shopping.
4. Stock up on staples. Be on the lookout for sales on items used frequently, particularly staples that can be stored away. Watch for low prices on coffee, oils and canned goods, stocking up when such items go on sale.
5. Embrace dried and canned beans. Beans offer filling fiber and protein for relatively little cost. They also can be added to meat or vegetable recipes to bulk up dishes.
6. Plan ahead. Planning ahead can save big bucks. Peruse sales before leaving the house and spend time visiting a few different stores to save more money. Make use of store coupon apps to preload savings that can be used at checkout.
7. Explore frugal recipes. Skipping meat or other expensive items once in awhile can help reduce food bills. Save expensive items for treats, which can make you appreciate them that much more. The same concept can be used for dining out.
It is relatively easy to save money on the cost of food when consumers make a commitment to being more frugal.
http://www.dailystarjournal.com/at_home/seven-ways-to-save-on-food/article_b92c3aaa-7e70-5ebc-9e8a-c07a56eea54d.html
-
May 21, 2018 | Expert Consulting
By jui.k@gminsights.com
Global Drill Pipe Market is anticipated to grow at over 2% CAGR to surpass USD 2 billion by 2025. Growing exploration of unconventional and conventional reserves will fuel the industry growth. In January 2017, according to Barclays international drilling budget will grow about 2%, national oil company’s including Russia, Middle East plant to invest over 9%.
Directional drilling, horizontal drilling, vertical drilling, well intervention & completion, drill bit and artificial lifting are some of the important services which will stimulate the drill pipe market. Global rig count in 2016 increased by 74 platforms compared in June 2016. Canada rig count escalated by 31 rigs to 94 platforms, U.S. installed 32 rigs to 449 platforms, Argentina added 9 platforms with the existing rig counts, Norway installed 4 rigs to the existing 20 units and Mexico rig count increased by 3 units.
Request for a sample of this research report @ https://www.gminsights.com/request-sample/detail/796
Offshore was accounted for over 50% drill pipe market share in 2015 and is projected to witness a substantial growth by 2025. Growing offshore drilling activities in virgin areas will drive the business outlook. Myanmar is experiencing continuously offshore exploration and production projects. In April 2016, Total initiated 2D seismic survey in Yetagun West Block which resulted for higher returns to the company.
API grade drill pipe market was over 60% in 2015 and is estimated to grow owing to its high quality and low cost. Premium grade segment will witness a strong growth pertaining to rising offshore production, which is more suitable for deep, ultra deep water extraction subjected to its high temperature and pressure standard. Gazprom plans to produce approximately 1.1 billion cubic meter (CM) of natural gas located in Kirinskoye field at Russia. China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) has initiated exploration and production activity at Pearl River Mouth basin situated near South China sea.
U.S. drill pipe market share will witness a significant growth due to large amount of exploration and production and rising investment for untapped shale oil and gas reserves. In April 2016, American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced that U.S. chemical industries are planning to invest over USD 164 billion for affordable natural gas liquids (NGLs) and natural gas from shale formation including 40% of the spending for 264 projects expansions and new facilities and they have commissioned for investing over 55% in coming years.
Make an inquiry for purchasing this report @ https://www.gminsights.com/inquiry-before-buying/796
Saudi Arabia drill pipe market will witness a considerable growth owing to increasing demand for oil in sweltering Middle East. In 2014, crude oil, heavy fuel oil and diesel combustion was accounted over 68% of fossil fuel utilization to generate electricity.
Russia drill pipe market was over 60% in 2015 and is projected witness high growth by 2025 subjected to increasing investment in development of gas field. Deutsche Erdoel AG (DEA) plans to spend USD 1.26 billion to expand Davlin natural gas field at Norway. In 2015, Petroleum Development Oman (PDO) signed a contract with Medco Energi USD 600 million, to continue the development for 18 marginal and small oil field at southern Oman.
Key players in drill pipe market are Tenaris S.A, Hilong Group, Tejas Tubular Products, TMK Group, DP Master, National Oilwell Varco, Drill Pipe International, Vallourec S.A., Jiangyin Long Bright, Texas Steel Conversion, Superior Manufacturing and Oil Country Tubular
https://theexpertconsulting.com/drill-pipe-market-industry-analysis-by-application-potential-price-trends-competitive-market-share-forecast-2016-2025/
-
Critics and Supporters Of EPA's Transparent Science Proposal: File Comments On It, But Read It First
May 21, 2018 | Forbes
By Susan E. Dudley
EPA is seeking public comment on a proposal aimed at increasing the transparency and integrity of its regulatory science. Not surprisingly, reactions to the proposal have been swift and divided along partisan lines. Republicans generally endorsed the proposal, claiming it would end “secret science” by requiring all data to be publicly available, while Democrats expressed concern that it would prevent EPA from taking action based on the best available science.
WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, testifies during a Senate Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Capitol Hill, May 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. The Subcommittee is hearing testimony on the proposed budget estimates for FY2019 for the Environmental Protection Agency. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
The proposal is less novel than supporters or critics suggest.
The actual proposal is not as dramatic as either side would lead one to believe, however. Essentially, it requires that the studies, models, and data underlying significant regulatory decisions are “publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.” Independent validation is the essence of the scientific method, which depends on falsifiable hypotheses, data gathering, replication, dissent, and challenge.
The proposal is consistent with policies on scientific integrity espoused by previous administrations. For example, Information Quality Guidelines in place for more than 15 years have directed agencies to make studies and data supporting regulations publicly available. And in 2009, President Obama encouraged “transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking,” and affirmed that “scientific and technological information … should ordinarily be made available to the public.”
Would the policy reduce accusations of "junk science?"
Regulations intended to address public health and environmental risks depend heavily on scientific information, but they are often the subject of heated debate, involving accusations of “politicized science,” “advocacy science,” and “junk science.” While in the abstract, we all want policies to be based on the strongest available evidence, no one is immune to the temptation to spin science to advance a pre-determined policy goal. Greater transparency regarding the assumptions and policy rationales for choosing one set of assumptions or models over another would encourage more openness and constructive discussion about science and policy, improving the ultimate policy decision and probably engendering greater acceptance of that policy choice.
Would releasing information compromise personal privacy?
Critics of the proposal raise concerns that releasing this information will jeopardize individual privacy or confidentiality. These are legitimate concerns, which EPA has made an effort to address. Information about individual health characteristics and outcomes, even if not attached to names and addresses, can potentially be used to identify individuals. The proposal cites practices at other federal agencies and developments in scientific publishing that may ensure confidential or personally-identifiable information is not disclosed, but privacy experts should certainly take advantage of the comment period to weigh in on this issue. The proposal also provides for exemptions if making information publicly available would compromise privacy or confidentiality.
EPA's regulations are among the most significant.
According to government estimates, the impacts of EPA’s regulations are three times more significant than all other agencies’ rules combined. Given the importance of these estimates, documenting and making available for public review the underlying science supporting them is essential.
As President Obama’s science advisor observed, “open communication among scientists and engineers, and between these experts and the public, accelerates scientific and technological advancement, strengthens the economy, educates the Nation, and enhances democracy.” EPA’s proposal to strengthen the transparency of its regulatory science could improve the evidential basis for its regulatory policies, and thus improve regulatory outcomes by targeting resources to where they can achieve the largest benefits.
Public comment is needed.
It is unusual for an agency to provide guidelines such as these through a rulemaking rather than internal guidance, however, the transparency of this rulemaking approach is consistent with the goals of the proposal. The solicitation of public comment on various aspects of the proposed rule will increase the robustness and legitimacy of any final policy. Both critics and supporters should express their views on the public record before the comment period closes on May 30, 2018.
Susan Dudley is Director of the GW Regulatory Studies Center. From April 2007 - January 2009 Dudley served as the Administrator of OIRA in the Executive Office of the President.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susandudley/2018/05/21/critics-and-supporters-of-epas-transparent-science-proposal-file-comments-on-it-but-read-it-first/#108f818061cb
-
Now Is the Time To Halt the EPA’s Restrictions on Science
May 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Andrew Rosenberg
If you have been following the news, I am sure you know by now that the EPA is proposing to restrict the science it will consider when developing new or revised health and safety protections. It may seem like a Washington game, but this proposed rule has huge implications for all of us.
For scientists, it means that much of your work may be dismissed from impacting policy out of hand because you must adhere to research ethics policies that restrict the release of private data. Or because you can’t and shouldn’t sacrifice intellectual property rights at the whim of the EPA. For industry, it creates greater uncertainty around the always thorny issues concerning confidential business information. And, most importantly, for all of us, the proposal means that policies that protect our health and safety will not be based on the best available science because of inappropriate political interference.
So what can YOU do to fight back? Well, for all the political manipulation that we have been documenting at the EPA, the agency must still adhere to the law when making or changing regulations. That means the EPA must make a proposal public, accept public comments from all who wish to submit them, evaluate and respond to those comments, and then decide on the final version of the rule. And they are subject to challenge in federal court on all actions.
That means YOU can submit a comment into the public record that the EPA is obligated to consider. And now is the time! For this proposal, the comment period is only 30 days—and it’s already more than half over. It closes at the end of May (though requests have been made to extend it, so far with no response from the EPA).How do I make a comment?
The proposed rule is complicated and somewhat confusing. It is misnamed as an action to “strengthen transparency” in the rulemaking process, but it does no such thing. To have an impact, however, your comment needs to be specific and detailed, not just broad comments on the rule.
To help you better understand the proposed rule, we have produced a guide for commenters. The guide highlights topics for which the EPA is specifically requesting input and some of the issues you may want to consider in making your comment. It also gives you the links for submitting a comment and some suggestions for how to have the most impact.
I want to encourage scientists to submit as part of their comments examples of specific important scientific studies and evidence that are likely to be excluded if this rule is implemented. For example, the rule proposal says that studies will only be considered if all raw data, computer code, models, and other material in the study is fully publicly available.
On its face, that precludes using studies where personal confidential information is part of the “raw” data. Most Institutional Review Boards require researchers maintain confidentiality for human subjects data. Are their studies you have been involved in or rely on in your research that would be excluded a priori because of this restriction?
One of the reasons it is important to cite specific studies in the record is because that public record will be important in any future legal action. Also, our political leaders are usually not fully familiar with the scientific process. They need specific examples to inform their own views. How will your work be impacted scientists? How will community members be affected if certain public health and safety protections are not enacted based on good science?A week of collective action
A coalition of groups including 500 Women Scientists, EarthJustice, and the Public Comment Project are joining forces to mobilize as many public comments as possible during the week of May 20-26. This coordinated action—the National Week of Public Comments on EPA’s “Restricting Science” Policy—is part of the overall effort of Science Rising, which is working to defend science and its crucial role in public policy and our democracy more broadly. You can participate by sending in your comment and letting us know that you did.
This is still our government, our democracy, and our voices need to be heard.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/andrew-rosenberg/now-is-the-time-to-halt-the-epas-restrictions-on-science
-
Ewire: Pruitt's Rule Rollbacks Arriving 'Undercooked,' Critics Say
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
As Inside EPA reported, earlier this month, there is growing evidence that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is encountering major legal and procedural hurdles in several of his attempted rollbacks of Obama-era environmental rules.
Now a new report says these difficulties could “tarnish” his image as an effective deregulatory warrior for President Donald Trump.
The Washington Post brings us the details, writing that more than six major Trump EPA rollbacks are encountering snags, including a proposal to relax coal ash rules, the proposed repeal of production limits on high-emitting “glider” trucks, as well as earlier court losses over Pruitt's efforts to delay implementation of Obama rules.
“The rules are coming in undercooked,” Amit Narang of Public Citizen told the Post.
The article offers some details that Inside EPA has previously reported, including a red-line version of EPA's determination to weaken its light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas rules. That document showed significant re-writes during White House inter-agency review, including the addition of key legal language and references to supporters of the standards' comments as well as automaker criticisms of the current rules.
In addition, the Post notes that a workgroup of the agency's Scientific Advisory Board is seeking to review the underlying research for both the glider rule and the planned rollback of the vehicle efficiency rules. Those come after the workgroup previously sought to review three major EPA climate rule rollbacks.
The article also quotes Bracewell attorney Jeff Holmstead, EPA's air chief under President George W. Bush, as saying it is too early to judge the durability of Pruitt's rollbacks. “On the big rules, we still haven’t seen the final rules, and that’s where you see the record that has to justify things,” he said.
The critique is important given that Trump has stood by Pruitt through weeks of terrible headlines over allegations of ethics lapses and excessive spending. Most observers say the president continues to support Pruitt because he believes the administrator is one of the most effective deregulators in his Cabinet.
However, if that is ultimately proven incorrect, it could further jeopardize Pruitt's job security.
The regulatory “delays threaten to tarnish Pruitt’s image as an effective warrior in President Trump’s battle against federal regulations, a reputation that has so far saved the EPA administrator his job amid an array of investigations into ethical and management lapses,” the Post story says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-pruitts-rule-rollbacks-arriving-undercooked-critics-say
-
May 21, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
Top House Democrats are raising concerns about a meeting between one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's top aides and representatives of the chemicals industry one day after a White House official raised alarm about a study of contaminants that has been stalled for months.
The American Chemistry Council represents companies that could face more expensive cleanup requirements if the HHS study were finalized, and the trade group appears to have had the ear of a top EPA official when it was being discussed internally, the House Democrats said.
A meeting titled "ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort" appears on the Jan. 31 calendar for Richard Yamada, EPA's deputy assistant administrator for research and development. The calendar was obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act and cited by the Democrats in their letter to Pruitt Monday. One day earlier, Yamada and other EPA officials had received an email from the White House seeking to delay publication of the health study poised for release by HHS that would have increased warnings about certain PFAS chemicals.
ACC spokesman Jonathan Corley confirmed the meeting took place but said the study from HHS' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry was not discussed.
"Yes, we did attend the meeting. It was specifically about EPA’s cross-agency (within the agency) effort to address PFAS. ATSDR did not come up," Corley said in an email, referring to an initiative EPA launched in December.
That class of chemicals includes PFOA, which has been linked with immune disorders, thyroid disease and kidney and testicular cancers.
EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter from Democrats that was sent Monday.
"We are deeply concerned that these actions appear to indicate that politics, and potentially industry interests, are being placed before public health,” House Energy & Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and three other top Democrats on the panel wrote in the letter.
The Democrats asked Pruitt for more information about the meeting and for all communications between top political officials at EPA and chemicals manufacturers, as well as whether Nancy Beck, the top political official in EPA's chemical safety office who previously worked for ACC, received an ethics waiver to attend the meeting.
Pruitt is facing fierce criticism from Democrats and a growing number of Republicans on his aides' handling of the HHS study. He is scheduled to host a "leadership summit" on PFAS chemicals at EPA beginning Tuesday.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/05/house-democrats-top-pruitt-aide-may-have-met-with-industry-on-hot-button-chemicals-study-1263287
-
Paper Mills As a Significant Source of PFAS Contamination, But Who’s Watching?
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
Across the country, communities are grappling with how to manage contamination of drinking water by perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs), a class of chemicals widely used in consumer products, industrial processes, and firefighting foams. Concern over the chemicals grew with the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2016 release of a 70 parts per trillion (ppt) drinking water health advisory for PFOA and PFOS, two common and well-studied forms of PFASs.
One challenge to effectively evaluating the potential impacts of PFASs as well as cleaning up priority sites is that there is very little information on where these chemicals are being used. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to FDA, EDF obtained documents previously not made public that show that paper mills using PFASs may be a significant source of contamination to water and potentially to air and compost.
In the nearly 900 documents we received from FDA, we found environmental assessments in four Food Contact Substance Notifications (FCNs) submitted in 2009-2010 by two companies, Daikin America and Chemours.[1] FDA approved each notice, allowing the companies to sell their PFASs to make paper and paperboard repel oil and grease in food packaging such as pizza boxes, sandwich wrappers, and microwave popcorn bags. All four assessments based their estimates on what they called a “typical” paper mill that produces 825 tons of PFAS-coated paper per day and discharges 26 million gallons of water per day.[2]Chemours FCN 885 estimated 95 pounds/day of its PFAS[3] in the wastewater discharge at 43,000 ppt.Chemours FCN 1027 – a notification for the same PFAS – increased the amount in paper from 0.42% to 0.8% resulting in 183 pounds per day in the wastewater discharge at 83,000 ppt.Daikin FCN 933 estimated 180 pounds/day of its PFAS[4] in the wastewater discharge at 83,000 ppt.Daikin FCN 1044 estimated 225 pounds/day of a similar PFAS[5] in the wastewater discharge at 103,000 ppt.
The two companies also estimated that nine pounds of PFASs would end-up in biosolids for each pound released to water and that these materials would go to a sanitary landfill or be incinerated. There was no mention of biosolids being composted. None of the assessments considered impacts from the manufacturer of the PFASs or estimated air emissions from their uses.
From 2002 to 2016, FDA approved a total of 25 FCNs[6] for 14 unique PFASs to treat paper including the ones described above. The other PFAS manufacturers were Archroma, Asahi Glass, Solenis, and Solvay Specialty. While we do not have the environmental assessments for the other FCNs, we would expect the discharges from paper mills using these PFASs to be similar to estimates provided by Daikin America and Chemours. In addition, we would expect to find similar discharges for PFAS-treated paper used for purposes other than food, although the numbers would vary based on levels used in the final product.[7] Click here for a list of the 25 FCNs and related environmental documentsprovided by FDA.
Potential impacts of a “typical” paper mill using one of the PFASs
Each of the 14 PFASs are chemically-related to PFOA but have potentially significant differences which may affect their potential to harm people and the environment. Given the limited scientific information available on each, we are uncertain how EPA or a state would develop drinking water limits or water quality standards for them. One potential approach would be to adopt the EPA health advisory of 70 ppt or New Jersey’s recommended maximum contaminant level of 10 ppt for PFASs as a class and vary the number for individual substances when the scientific evidence is sufficient to support a change.
We do not know the location of the paper mills using any of the FDA-approved PFASs. Through an EPA permit database, we identified 269 pulp and paper mills that discharge directly to a river; 42 discharged more than 26 million gallons per day of wastewater described by the “typical” mill in Chemours’ and Daikin America’s environmental assessment.
For perspective, we looked at the rivers downstream of some of those 42 paper mills and calculated the potential impact using the estimates provided by Daikin America in its FCN 1044, the FCN with the largest numbers. We divided the estimated pounds of PFAS per day in the wastewater discharge by the average daily flow of the river at its mouth. Based on this calculation, the following are rivers that would exceed 70 ppt:Cape Fear River in North Carolina at 1,279 ppt;Merrimack River in New Hampshire and Massachusetts at 657 ppt;Chattahoochee River in Georgia and Florida at 492 ppt;Potomac River in Maryland and Virginia at 435 ppt;Wisconsin River in Wisconsin at 414 ppt;Snake River in Idaho at 91 ppt;Red River of the South in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana at 87 ppt;Mobile River in Alabama at 74 ppt; andTennessee River in Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi and Kentucky at 70 ppt.
FDA’s environmental review of PFAS
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), FDA is obligated to consider the environmental implications of its decisions to approve the use of food additives including chemicals used to make food or substances that contact food. Thanks to this legal requirement we are now learning about the environmental impact of PFAS used to make paper and paperboard resistant to oil and grease. In 1997, FDA revised its regulations to simplify the process. One substantial change was to grant categorical exclusions from the general requirement that companies conduct an environmental assessment.
For all 14 PFASs covered by the 25 FCNs, FDA concluded that they qualified for Categorical Exclusion 25.32(i). To qualify for this exclusion, the chemical must:Be less than 5% by weight in the finished food packaging material;Be expected to remain in the material through use by consumers; andNot have any extraordinary circumstances that warrant an environmental assessment.
We only received from FDA four environmental assessments and from only two companies submitted in 2009 and 2010. In the 15 PFAS FCNs that FDA received prior to 2009, the agency appears to have taken the company’s assurances that their proposed use qualified for the categorical exclusion at face value and with little investigation.
Beginning in 2009, FDA appears to have determined that an environmental assessment was required, at least for some FCNs. We don’t know what caused the change. It might have been influenced by the conclusion of FDA’s scientists in June 2007 that PFOA was a carcinogen, and the agency gave extra scrutiny to PFAS’s with similar structure. We do not know for certain why we did not get environmental assessments for the other six notices submitted after 2008.
Final thoughts and some recommendations
Given the concerns that other forms of PFAS pose similar health risks as PFOA and PFOS, and the potential levels that might be seen in rivers downstream from paper mills using any of the 14 PFASs approved by FDA, we think identifying the paper mills using these chemicals should be a priority.
If PFASs were to be designated as hazardous substances under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the facilities would be required to notify, as part of the permit renewal process, the state or municipal sewage treatment plant that they are using these chemicals. Currently, however, they are not on the list. We think EPA should take immediate action to fill this gap by listing PFASs on the CWA hazardous substances list. Such action would also impose ongoing duties for the facilities to report spills and be liable for cleanups.
We are also concerned about FDA’s process. When the agency approves an FCN, it does not make public its evaluation of the chemical or the company’s application. We only received the materials in response to FOIA. And, as we noted recently regarding flavorsapproved by FDA and later found to be carcinogenic, the agency does not systematically review its previous decisions. For FCNs, FDA could set an effective expiration date that would require companies to update the information.
These recommendations are only the start on what is needed to address the issues raised by PFASs. The insight provided by the four environmental assessments we obtained suggest that paper mills may present a significant source of PFAS. Communities across the country need to know where PFASs are being used and the environmental impact of these uses.
[1] Chemours told us that the market to treat food contact paper for its two PFASs covered by its 3 FCNs for paper never developed. Therefore, these PFASs should not be present at U.S. paper mills unless there were non-food uses.
[2] Based on our analysis of a search on EPA’s ECHO database, this facility would be larger than normal. Of 269 pulp and paper mills that discharge directly to a river, 42 release at least 26 million gallons per day of wastewater. Click here for list sorted by size of discharge.
[3] 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with 2-(diethylamino) ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2-propenoic acid and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, acetate (CAS Reg. No. 1071022-26-8)
[4] 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with 2-hydroxyethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, α-(1-oxo-2-propen-1-yl)-ω-hydroxypoly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-propenoate, sodium salt (CAS Reg. No. 1158951-86-0)
[5] 2-propenoic acid, 2-methyl-, polymer with 2-(diethylamino) ethyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, 2-propenoic acid and 3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8,8-tridecafluorooctyl 2-methyl-2-propenoate, acetate (CAS Reg. No. 1071022-26-8)
[6] FDA approved six additional FCNs from Chemours for PFASs used to make molded parts for repeat-use food contact articles such as gaskets for food processing equipment and food containers. Seven additional FCNs from Chemours, BASF, and Clariant (now Archroma) were voluntary suspended in 2011 in response to FDA concerns.
[7] Companies often use the agency’s approval of a chemical as a food contact substance as a marketing tool to promote non-food uses such as oil and water repellant textiles and packaging.
Updated February 20, 2018 to be clearer that wastewater treatment would not generate PFAS, rather for ten pounds of PFAS going from the manufacturing process into wastewater treatment, nine pounds would end up in biosolids and one pounds would be released to the river.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/05/21/pfas-paper-mills/
-
ATSDR's Risk Study Highlights EPA Struggle To Keep Up With PFAS Science
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) controversial draft risk estimates for four perflourinated chemicals highlight the struggle EPA faces to keep up with the science for this large class of persistent chemicals emerging as harmful contaminants in many states, says one environmentalist.
ATSDR's draft study, which the Trump administration has blocked in the face of opposition from EPA and the Defense Department (DOD), crafted risk estimates for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals, with two resulting in estimates stricter than EPA's and two for which EPA has yet to develop any risk estimates.
For perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), ATSDR's proposed minimal risk levels (MRLs) are between seven and 10 times stricter than EPA risk estimates underlying the agency's 2016 drinking water health advisories for those two PFAS.
ATSDR's PFOS risk level was stricter than EPA's because it sought to account for immunotoxicity risks, while ATSDR's PFOA assessment relied on a study that was issued weeks after EPA issued its May 2016 risk assessment and health advisory for the substance.
But David Andrews, a senior scientist with Environmental Working Group, which has long advocated for strict enforceable drinking water standards for PFAS, says that EPA's risk levels for PFOA and PFOS are too weak and notes that EPA has yet to assess the other two PFAS that ATSDR did -- perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) and perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).
ATSDR's draft assessment also raises questions about other chemicals in the PFAS family that are occurring in drinking water, Andrews says.
He argues that it would have been “extremely helpful” for EPA to have included an expanded suite of PFAS chemicals in its 2013-2015 unregulated contaminant monitoring (UCMR) rule -- rather than the six tested for in public drinking water systems across the country -- to better understand which PFAS are occurring where.
And he adds that given that EPA has yet to set a single enforceable drinking water standard, known as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in over two decades, the process is likely inadequate to address PFAS. Clearly there is evidence that EPA's MCL process is not working for setting these standards, he says, adding that he expects interested parties will be looking for creative solutions.
I think there will be "significant public pressure because of the number of contaminated communities and because states are moving" here, Andrews said, adding that he would "not be surprised to see efforts in Congress to push this effort forward."
But he said what is missing is any indication of a federal effort -- either an MCL for drinking water or a standard for contaminated groundwater.
3,000 Substances
The PFAS class of chemicals, used to make non-stick, non-stain and waterproof products, may contain as many as 3,000 individual substances. Their sheer numbers highlight the challenge for a growing number of regulatory authorities across the country who are trying to deal with the chemicals' presence in drinking water sources.
Areas near current and former PFAS plants, such as in Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina and West Virginia, have been particularly affected. Also struggling to address the contamination are many areas adjacent to military and other sites where firefighting foam containing PFAS was widely used.
DOD and many states are urging EPA to craft risk estimates and cleanup standards for PFAS chemicals they are finding in their jurisdictions. EPA officials, however, have cautioned that such standards will take time to complete.
But ATSDR last year crafted a draft toxicological profile for four PFAS that included draft risk values -- known as MRLs -- that are used as screening levels by public health agencies.
While ATSDR was on the verge of releasing the document for public comment earlier this year, the White House blocked the release at the request of EPA and DOD officials who were concerned that the draft proposed risk levels are stricter than EPA's for PFOA and PFOS.
According to internal emails, EPA and DOD feared a “public relations nightmare” due to ATSDR's more conservative levels, as compared to EPA's reference doses used in its 2016 health advisories for the two chemicals.
The news that the study was suppressed has sparked outrage from citizen groups and lawmakers just as EPA is set to host a national leadership summit on PFAS, with state environment commissioners and others.
While EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt May 16 told senators he wanted to see an ATSDR draft released for public comment, the agency on May 16 also added ATSDR Director Patrick Breysse to speak on a panel on “Communicating PFAS” at its May 22-23 summit, along with Michigan's environment commissioner and a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council.
ATSDR has also told Inside EPA it now is “preparing to release” the draft toxicological profile containing the four MRLs, for public comment. This would be the third public draft of the profile -- the first released in 2009, and a second one, which contained 13 PFAS, released in 2015.
PFOS Risk Level
According to draft risk levels reviewed by Inside EPA in ATSDR's August 2017 toxicological profile for the four PFAS, the agency developed MRLs to protect against “intermediate”-duration oral exposures for four PFAS. ATSDR's draft MRL for PFOS, set at 2x10^-6 milligrams/kilograms/day (mg/kg/day), relies on a 2005 rat study by D.J. Luebker and is 10 times more stringent than EPA's oral reference dose of 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day, which EPA used in its 2016 health advisory for lifetime chronic doses.
While ATSDR's dose is for intermediate exposures of between 15 and 364 days, if extrapolated, the level for chronic exposure would presumabley be the same or even lower than EPA's for chronic doses.
ATSDR's 2017 draft level is based on developmental effects, but the document indicates agency staff were also concerned about immunotoxicology risks. Available immunotoxicology studies showed risk at lower levels than the developmental studies ATSDR based its risk estimates upon, but were not deemed sufficiently data-rich to form the basis for the estimate.
To account for the concern, ATSDR added an additional uncertainty factor of 10 to the MRL to “account for the uncertainty that the immunotoxicity may be a more sensitive endpoint of PFOS toxicity than developmental toxicity,” the draft document says.
ATSDR's draft document points to several studies on immunotoxicity to support this. “The lowest administered doses associated with adverse effects were found in the immunotoxicity studies conducted by Dong et al. (2009, 2011), Guruge et al. (2009), and Peden-Adams et al. (2008),” the document says.
ATSDR's draft level provides supporting information that “EPA's health advisory didn't go far enough,” Andrews says, adding that there is a significant body of evidence to say that a safe level of exposure may be lower than EPA's.
Andrews says the inclusion of immunotoxicity data in ATSDR's draft risk levels is “very critical” because it largely mirrors what New Jersey's Drinking Water Quality Institute (DWQI) did in its scientific analysis for the chemical. This is another scientific body acknowledging the importance of immunotoxicity information, he says.
He notes that DWQI, which consists of state experts who advise regulators on drinking water standards, criticized EPA's health advisory for not factoring in immune toxicity data.
“In light of the weight of evidence for the immunotoxicity of PFOS at low levels of exposure, [the DWQI's health effects subcommittee] concludes that USEPA does not make a strong case for its decision not to choose the animal immune toxicity data for this endpoint as the basis for the PFOS Health Advisory,” DWQI says in comments last fall on EPA's health advisory.
Other entities have also supported immunotoxicity as a relevant factor, including the Department of Health and Human Services' National Toxicology Program (NTP), which in 2016 said both PFOS and PFOA are “presumed to be an immune hazard to humans."
Further, Minnesota's Department of Health in 2017 updated its reference dose for PFOS to include an additional uncertainty factor for immune system toxicity.
For PFOA, ATSDR suggests an intermediate, oral MRL of 3x10^-6 mg/kg/day, a level that is approximately seven times stricter than EPA's reference dose of 2x10^-5 mg/kg/day that it used in its 2016 health advisory. EPA translated the PFOA and PFOS reference doses into a health advisory of 70 parts per trillion in drinking water for each chemical alone or combined.
ATSDR derived its PFOA level using different studies than those EPA relied on, including a 2011 behavioral study by Onishchenko et al. and a 2016 study by Koskela et al. -- which was published after EPA published its risk assessment.
EPA could not have relied on the 2016 study ATSDR did as its health advisories were released at the same time. But Andrews says it is an important to note that “our understanding of these chemicals changes over time.” This raises the question of how EPA is incorporating such new information into its health values. While ATSDR's PFOA level may stem from newer data, he points out that at the time of EPA's health advisories, EWG raised concerns about EPA's inability to incorporate epidemiological human health studies -- of which there were many -- into setting a safe exposure level for the two PFAS.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/atsdrs-risk-study-highlights-epa-struggle-keep-pfas-science
-
Climate Pressure on Shell Is Warning to Oil Industry
May 21, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Sarah Kent
Investors are upping the ante on big oil companies over climate change, demanding they take more concrete action to help curb global warming.
The issue is set to come into focus at Royal Dutch Shell RDS.B +1.35% PLC’s annual meeting Tuesday where investors with nearly $8 trillion under management will call on the company to go beyond already ambitious plans to curb emissions, according to a copy of the statement seen by The Wall Street Journal.
The statement stops short of throwing full support behind a shareholder resolution that would require the company to set targets aligned with international efforts to limit climate change, but signals strong support among investors for further measures.
The demands represent a shift in approach from investors, who have until now largely focused on requesting more transparency around climate risk.
Pressure on big oil companies over climate change has been rising since the signing of the 2015 Paris accord, under which nearly 200 nations agreed to limit average global temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels. The Trump administration has vowed to pull out of the pact.Rising HeatPercentage of votes for environment-relatedshareholder proposals at the 250 largestpublicly traded companies in the Fortune 500.Source: Proxy MonitorNote: 2017 data is for 225 of the companies withannual meetings scheduled through end June%
2010’11’12’13’14’15’16’17051015202530
Last year, the world’s largest money manager, BlackRock Inc., supported a shareholder revolt at Exxon Mobil Corp. that called for more climate disclosure. Since then, investors with roughly $30 trillion in assets under management have signed on to a five-year effort to reduce emissions and improve transparency and governance around climate at the world’s biggest corporate polluters. Last week, investors with more than $10 trillion under management sent an open letter to the oil industry calling for more action on climate.
“We want action,” said Helena Viñes Fiestas, head of sustainability research and policy at BNP Paribas Asset Management, which signed the letter published in the Financial Times last week.
Investor efforts are already driving change. Shell has said it wants to halve its carbon footprint—including emissions caused by drivers who burn Shell fuel—by 2050.
In Tuesday’s statement, the signatories will request Shell translate that ambition into “firm medium and short term targets,” according to the copy seen by the Journal.
Some shareholders have also thrown their support behind a resolution—subject to an investor vote at the meeting Tuesday—that would require Shell to set targets. The proposal was made by Follow This, a Dutch activist shareholder group focused on pushing Shell to become a sustainable energy company.
A similar resolution from the same group last year only gained support from 6% of voting shareholders, but helped push Shell to include third-party emissions in carbon reduction plans—an unprecedented move in the industry.
Shell has urged investors to vote against this year’s resolution on the grounds that targets are too rigid and that the company has already set more ambitious goals.
The resolution isn’t expected to gain a majority vote, but it could still provide a template to pressure other companies to more action, investors said.
“It’s the right resolution at the wrong company,” said Matt Crossman, stewardship director at U.K. investment manager Rathbone Investment Management Ltd.
Members of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change are discussing whether the resolution could be used to nudge other companies toward more action, Mr. Crossman said. Members of the investor network determine whether to act on such motions on an individual basis.
“You’re seeing the emergence of the next generation of shareholder resolutions that I would imagine in time will become very mainstream requests,” said Adam Matthews, head of engagement at the Church of England’s endowment and pension fund.
The church has played a role in pushing for more disclosure on climate risk, including at Exxon last year. The U.S. company has since published a climate report and dedicated a portion of an analyst day to the subject.
Climate was also a focus at BP’s annual meeting Monday, though the company faced no special shareholder vote this year. Last month it published a report that laid out for the first time targets to lower its carbon and methane emissions.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-pressure-on-shell-is-warning-to-oil-industry-1526916287?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1
-
BP Signs LNG Purchase Deal With Venture Global
May 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
BP has signed a long-term agreement to purchase liquefied natural gas from Venture Global LNG once it opens its export facility in Calcasieu Pass, LA.
Under the 20-year agreement, BP will purchase 2 million metric tons of LNG annually upon completion of the export facility, which is slated to begin operation in 2022. The facility, expected to export 10 million metric tons of LNG a year at full capacity, is under construction on a 1,000-acre site at the intersection of the Calcasieu Ship Channel and the Gulf of Mexico.
BP is the latest energy producer to contract with Venture Global, which has also signed deals with Shell, Italy's Edison and Portugal's Galp Group. The companies have agreed to purchase a combined 6 million metric tons a year.
Rising oil prices could make this summer one of the most expensive in the past few years for road trips.Media: Travel & Leisure
Venture Global is also developing an LNG facility in Plaquemines Parish, LA on the Mississippi River roughly 30 miles south of New Orleans. The company has raised $525 million for both projects.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/BP-signs-LNG-purchase-deal-with-Venture-Global-12930960.php
-
Industry Eyes 'More Oomph' as White House Mulls NEPA Changes
May 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
The Trump administration has sought a slate of quick regulatory reforms over the past year, tweaking environmental permitting requirements everywhere from EPA to the Federal Communications Commission.
But potentially the most consequential change will be a slower burn. The White House Council on Environmental Quality is seeking to update its National Environmental Policy Act guidance, a process experts expect could take over a year.
The CEQ standards serve as the framework for NEPA permitting across the federal government. They got a minor amendment in 1986 under President Reagan, but otherwise, they've been untouched since they were first finalized in 1978.
"Anytime regulations are changed for the first time in more than 40 years — significantly changed — it's a big deal," said Fred Wagner, a partner with Venable LLP's Environmental Group who served as chief counsel for the Federal Highway Administration in the Obama administration.
"The regulations have served the community pretty well for a long time," he said, "but I think there's a general sense that updating them in light of recent statutory changes, in light of recent administrative initiatives, makes sense."
CEQ declined to comment for this story. But Ted Boling, associate director for NEPA at CEQ, said at a conference this month that changes to the regulations are just one in a range of tools CEQ is looking at to clean up what the Trump administration sees as inefficiencies in the NEPA process.
For an infrastructure project, the average time between the beginning of scoping and producing a draft environmental impact statement is two years and 10 months, Boling said at the conference, sponsored by the Environmental Law Institute.
"So what you're saying as part of the scoping process is, 'Thank you for your input on this project. We'll get back to you in maybe 2 ½ years with a draft environmental impact statement,'" Boling said. "We can do better than that."
Most projects don't require an environmental impact statement. And some of those inefficiencies come as the result of individual agency policy or staffing, rather than CEQ's regulations.
Still, delays on major projects that do require an EIS cost money year after year, Wagner said. And the two most recent major transportation bills — the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015 — provide models of what CEQ might seek to change.
CEQ might require, for example, that agencies combine the final EIS and record of decision (ROD) into a single document, a change that is already in place for certain transportation projects under MAP-21.
Currently, the law requires a 30-day cooling-off period between the two documents, but it sometimes gets extended as agencies deal with more public comments on the final EIS, Wagner said.
Another possibility would be to have one ROD document for the whole federal government, rather than one for each agency. That's a tweak President Trump has already floated with his Aug. 15, 2017, executive order and a subsequent interagency agreement signed last month (Greenwire, April 9).
Other changes based on the FAST Act and MAP-21 might be in order, but generally speaking, the regulations are sound, said Larry Liebesman, a senior adviser with Washington water resources firm Dawson & Associates who worked on the 1978 standards during his time at the Justice Department.
"I think a lot of the real objections can be addressed through fine-tuning of the existing regs," he said. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak."'A little bit more oomph'
Industry groups and environmentalists alike will get a chance to weigh in as public comments get underway in coming months, but the process will be complicated.
CEQ earlier this month submitted a draft advance notice of proposed rulemaking to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (E&E News PM, May 7). It was included in the spring Unified Agenda, though it hasn't yet been published in the Federal Register for comment.
But for those seeking to streamline the regulations, it may be difficult to find common ground with the environmental groups that will inevitably comment and possibly sue if there are any legal blips in the process.
They're looking to go in the opposite direction with reforms to CEQ's NEPA regulations, said Raul Garcia, legislative counsel with Earthjustice.
"There is very little in there, and I think there needs to be more, on how to engage communities on the ground," Garcia said.
Garcia and other environmentalists argue that it's a lack of staffing and funding — rather than statutes or regulations — that holds up the process.
"The problem is not NEPA; the problem is that you're not funding the agencies that carry out NEPA, CEQ being front and center on this," Garcia said.
Other observers point out that one of the biggest holdups in the NEPA process — litigation — would have to be addressed through statute, rather than regulations.
For CEQ, it may also be difficult to pinpoint how, exactly, it can change its regulations to fix what the administration sees as a laborious NEPA process.
The current regulations state that EIS documents "shall normally" be fewer than 150 pages, and fewer than 300 for unusually complex projects.
The wording of that guidance is nearly identical to a memo Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt issued to his agency last year (Greenwire, Sept. 6, 2017).
"It's already here, but it's just never really been enforced," Wagner said. "So the question becomes, why not? And if it's already in the regulations, what else do you have to say?"
CEQ also issued a document in 1981 titled "Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations."
The memo advises that even large complex energy projects "would require only about 12 months for the completion of the entire EIS process."
Those are just two of many examples of where critics of NEPA — namely, the transportation and energy industries — might be able to work with agencies to cut down permitting time within existing regulatory frameworks, Wagner said.
"But I think what people want to see is a little bit more oomph, for lack of a better word, in the regulations," he said.Road ahead
Environmentalists fear that even apparently reasonable changes to the NEPA regulations could be co-opted by bad-faith political forces in the Trump administration.
But for now, CEQ is without appointed political leadership, since Kathleen Hartnett White withdrew her name from consideration as its chair when it became clear that her nomination would not pass the Senate.
"Without a leader there that understands the NEPA process, that's a problem," Liebesman said.
Boling, for his part, is a well-respected career official with more than a decade of experience working under Democratic and Republican presidents. He could help fend against those in the administration that see NEPA as an "albatross," Liebesman said.
Still, the agency may have time to get a leader confirmed before the process wraps up. Each step is likely to draw a wealth of public comments.
"I think it's going to be several years before you see any revised NEPA regulations," Liebesman said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/05/21/stories/1060082271
-
Toxic Cloud Caused by Hawaii Volcano Lava Emerges Over Ocean
May 21, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
By McAvoy
White plumes of acid and extremely fine shards of glass billowed into the sky over Hawaii as molten rock from Kilauea volcano poured into the ocean, creating yet another hazard from an eruption that began more than two weeks ago: A toxic steam cloud.
Authorities on Sunday warned the public to stay away the cloud that formed by a chemical reaction when lava touched seawater.
Further upslope, lava continued gushing out of large cracks in the ground in residential neighborhoods in a rural part of the Big Island. The molten rock made rivers that bisected forests and farms as it meandered toward the coast.
The rate of sulfur dioxide gas shooting from the ground fissures tripled, leading Hawaii County to repeat warnings about air quality. At the volcano's summit, two explosive eruptions unleashed clouds of ash. Winds carried much of it toward the southwest.
Joseph Kekedi, an orchid grower who lives and works about 3 miles (5 kilometers) from where lava dropped into the sea, said the flow luckily did not head toward him. At one point, it was about a mile (asterisk)1.6 kilometers) upslope from his property in the coastal community of Kapoho.
Residents can only stay informed and be ready to get out of the way, he said.
"Here's nature reminding us again who's boss," Kekedi said.
This is your last free article.Subscribe to The Times
Scientists said the steam clouds at the spots where lava entered the ocean were laced with hydrochloric acid and fine glass particles that can irritate skin and eyes and cause breathing problems.
The lava haze called "laze" from the plume spread as far as 15 miles (24 kilometers) west of where the lava met the ocean on the Big Island's southern coast. It was just offshore and running parallel to the coast, said U.S. Geological Survey scientist Wendy Stovall.
Scientists said the acid in the plume was about as corrosive as diluted battery acid. The glass was in the form of fine glass shards. Getting hit by it might feel like being sprinkled with glitter.EDITORS’ PICKSTrump Aides Met Gulf Envoy Who Offered to Help CampaignBehind New York’s Housing Crisis: Weak Laws and Uneven RegulationThe Last Days of Time Inc.
ADVERTISEMENT
"If you're feeling stinging on your skin, go inside," Stovall said. Authorities warned that the plume could shift direction if the winds changed.
The Coast Guard said it was enforcing a safety zone extending 984 feet (300 meters) around the ocean entry point.
Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. John Bannon said in a statement Sunday that "getting too close to the lava can result in serious injury or death."
Gov. David Ige told reporters in Hilo that the state was monitoring the volcano and keeping people safe.
"Like typical eruptions and lava flows, it's really allowing Madam Pele to run its course," he said, referring to the Hawaiian goddess of volcanoes and fire.
Ige said he was thankful that the current lava flows did not pose a threat to homes and hoped it would stay that way.
On Saturday, the eruption claimed its first major injury when a man was struck in the leg by a flying piece of lava.
David Mace, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency who was helping Hawaii County respond to the disaster, did not have further details about the man's injuries or his condition.
Kilauea has burned some 40 structures, including two dozen homes, since it began erupting in people's backyards in the Leilani Estates neighborhood on May 3. About 2,000 people have evacuated their homes, including 300 who were staying in shelters.
In recent days, the lava began to move more quickly and emerge from the ground in greater volume. Scientists said that's because the lava that first erupted was magma left over from a 1955 erupted that had been stored in the ground for the past six decades.
The molten rock that began emerging over the past few days was from magma that has recently moved down the volcano's eastern flank from one or two craters that sit further upslope — the Puu Oo crater and the summit crater.
The new lava is hotter, moves faster and has spread over a wider area.
Early Monday, a small eruption occurred at the Kilauea summit, producing an ash plume that reached about 7,000 feet (2,134 meters). Officials said wind carried the ash plume to the southwest, toward the communities of Wood Valley, Pahala, Naalehu and Waiohinu.
Scientists have said they do not know how long the eruption will last. The volcano has opened more than 20 vents, including four that have merged into one large crack. It has been gushing lava high into the sky and sending a river of molten rock toward the ocean at about 300 yards (274 meters) per hour.
Hawaii tourism officials have stressed that most of the Big Island remains unaffected by the eruption and is open for business.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/05/21/us/ap-us-hawaii-volcano.html
-
Alaska Airlines Ends Use of Non-Recyclable Plastic Straws
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
Alaska Airlines is phasing out single-use, non-recyclable plastic stir straws in favor of compostable versions made of white birch, the airline announced Monday.
“Plastic is a serious issue for our planet. What’s important is continuing to move the global supply chain toward making sustainable materials accessible and affordable,” Shaunta Hyde, managing director of Alaska Airlines, said in a statement to USA Today.
Though some global airlines have made pledges to gradually reduce the use of such items, Alaska Airlines is the first in the U.S. to eliminate them altogether, according to USA Today.
In a statement detailing the change, Alaska Airlines said “plastic straws are of special concern because they cannot be recycled and they’ve been shown to kill birds and other marine life.”
After distributing roughly 22 million plastic stir straws and citrus picks on its flights and in its lounges in 2017, the airline said it hopes the transition to more sustainable versions will make a difference.
The airline also announced it will introduced non-plastic, marine-friendly drinking straws to customers who request them. Hyde added that although Alaska has yet to select a compostable alternative for those, the airline “will be using a product that is marine-friendly.”
Alaska Airlines has also partnered with environmental group Lonely Whale for the effort with straws and citrus picks.
“Plastic pollution is causing devastating marine life issues with plastic now found in the bellies of whales, turtles, and more including seabirds, of which 99 percent of all species are expected to have ingested plastic by the year 2050,” Lonely Whale executive director Dune Ives said in statement to Today in the Sky.
“The banning of single-use plastic beverage straws sets a new standard for the travel industry, and we couldn’t be happier that Alaska Airlines is the first U.S. airline to lead the charge,” Ives added in the carrier's media statement.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388611-alaska-airlines-bans-use-of-non-recyclable-plastic-straws
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested