Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 6/20/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Let's Not Take Sides: No One Supports Ocean Pollution
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
We can add the G7 group of industrial nations to the list of organizations pushing for improving plastics recycling and reducing production of single-use plastics. -
(ACC Mentioned) JP Mascaro & Sons to Participate in MRFF Pilot
Jun 20, 2018 | Recycling Today
By DeAnne Toto
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) research program has partnered with Audubon, Pennsylvania-based J.P. Mascaro & Sons Inc. to pilot single-stream curbside recycling of flexible plastic packaging (FPP). -
Inhofe: Pruitt Got 'Wake-Up Call' After Showing 'Questionable Judgment'
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Alexander Bolton
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt probably showed “questionable judgment” at times in decisions that have drawn ethical scrutiny, but argued that such scandals are likely behind him. -
Career Staff Warned Cuts Would Cripple Research Office
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA career officials warned the Trump administration last year that its proposed staffing changes and budget shortfalls could undermine the agency's scientific research, documents show. -
US Senators Demand Release of Controversial PFAS Report
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A US Senate committee has ordered the release of controversial toxicological profiles for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
HHS Releases Chemical Assessment Trump Officials Sought to Delay
Jun 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The Department of Health and Human Services today released the draft report on the health effects of nonstick chemicals after a wave of bipartisan calls to issue the document that that Trump administration officials sought to delay earlier this year. -
Federal Study Sounds Alarm on Non-Stick Materials
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration has released a politically charged toxicology report about nonstick chemicals showing they can endanger human health at significantly lower levels than EPA has previously called safe. -
National Academies Forms Flame Retardant Committee
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The National Academies has appointed a new committee to assess potential chronic health hazards, posed by organohalogen flame retardants. -
Campaigners Secure Third Paint Stripper Victory with Home Depot
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
NGO campaigners are celebrating the latest "nail in the coffin" for paint strippers containing methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), following news that the world’s largest home improvement retailer, Home Depot, will no longer sell them. -
Incentives Needed to Trigger REACH Dossier Updates – Hansen
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton and Clelia Oziel
REACH "lacks clear incentives" for companies to update registration dossiers, Echa head Bjorn Hansen told delegates at last week’s conference on the second Review of the Regulation. -
Grandparents’ Expossure to Plastic Chemical Can Cause Autism in Children
Jun 20, 2018 | Times Now
Your exposure to a plastic chemical can affect the communications skills of your grandchildren, says a study on mice that found a link between early exposure to the chemical and the risk of autism. -
Shell's Ethane Pipeline for Pennsylvania Cracker Slated for 2020 Commissioning
Jun 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Pipeline Company LP now expects to begin construction on its Falcon Ethane Pipeline System in 2019 and be finished with it by the end of the year, a company executive overseeing the project told an industry conference in Pittsburgh on Tuesday. -
Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development Drives US Energy and National Security
Jun 20, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Jim Webb & Jim Nicholson
Energy is the driving force for growth and quality of life in every nation, large and small. -
The Biggest U.S. Oil Patch Is Near Its Limit
Jun 20, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Javier Blas
The biggest U.S. shale region will have to shut wells within four months because there aren’t enough pipelines to get the oil to customers, the head of one of the industry’s largest producers said. -
Study: U.S. Natural Gas Production to Surge 60% in 20 Years
Jun 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The U.S. shale boom kicked off with natural gas a decade ago, and dry gas production is expected to keep surging by another 60 percent during the next 20 years, according to a new report Wednesday. -
How the U.S. Avoided Isolation in Global Energy Talks
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration appears to have won a small skirmish in the global war over climate politics. -
Panel Approves Bill to Streamline Oil and Gas NEPA Reviews
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A House panel today advanced one of four bills that aim to boost onshore energy independence and expedite the oil and gas permitting process, despite robust pushback from Democrats. -
Trump Rescinds Obama Policy Protecting Oceans
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is repealing a controversial executive order drafted by former President Obama that was meant to protect the Great Lakes and the oceans bordering the United States. -
Amtrak and BNSF Partnership Enables 'First Activation of PTC on Host-Owned Territory'.
Jun 20, 2018 | SmartRail World
Ahead of the end-of-year deadline for the US safety system that will bypass remove human-error to improve rail network safety, positive train control (PTC), the country’s largest passenger operator has teamed up the largest freight operator, to begin its implementation. -
Lawsuit Challenges Permit Guidance
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Sierra Club is contesting a fresh EPA attempt to make it easier for businesses to show that proposed new plants or expansions of existing facilities will not significantly affect air quality when they are applying for air permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program. -
Ewire: Bipartisan Group Forms to Push Carbon Tax
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Bipartisan supporters of a revenue-neutral carbon tax have launched a new political committee to push the policy amid steep resistance from Republican lawmakers, with news reports saying that the group could receive funding from several major energy companies.
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) Let's Not Take Sides: No One Supports Ocean Pollution
Jun 20, 2018 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
We can add the G7 group of industrial nations to the list of organizations pushing for improving plastics recycling and reducing production of single-use plastics.
Five of the G7 member nations signed a non-binding Ocean Plastics Charter on June 9, after a meeting in Quebec. While the United States and Japan did not sign, they haven't spoken out against it. Even the footnote apparently added by the United States notes that it "strongly supports healthy oceans, seas and resilient coastal communities."
Put it this way: Politicians are smart enough to know not to come out in favor of polluting oceans.
The bottom line for plastics processors is simple: Product bans are now mainstream. Globally, that's obvious. All sorts of plastics bans are sweeping Europe and the United Kingdom, and they may be spreading. Just a few weeks ago, on June 5, World Environment Day, the United Nations environment agency released a report saying bans and taxes on single-use plastics can be effective for combating plastic litter.
In the United States, bans used to be a fringe issue, proposed in a handful of environmentally active cities and counties. Now they're popping up everywhere, and we'll be seeing more in the coming years.
It's interesting that the plastics industry and the governmental leaders pushing for bans sound so much alike. Both sides are saying that plastics play an important role in the economy. Both acknowledge that there's a major problem with plastics in the environment, that it's rapidly getting worse and that action is needed right away.
Both say they want to make decisions based on science. Both talk about the importance of bolstering plastics recycling, improving waste management and educating the public.
Both sides have even established goals that sound pretty similar, too. The G7 charter calls for recycling and reuse of 55 percent of plastics packaging by 2030 and 100 percent recovery of all plastics by 2040. The American Chemistry Council's plastics division wants to reuse, recycle or recover all plastics packaging by 2040.
Everyone seems to want what's best for the environment. So where's the debate, exactly? The tough part will be the details. Do we get to those goals through voluntary measures and more recycling? Or through product bans and producer responsibility?
If we all take a step back and look at the big picture, does it matter? I think the recipe that would work best takes some ingredients from each approach.
A final word goes to all the plastics industry readers who don't make single-use plastics, so they may think this debate doesn't apply to you. Think again. You can and should be involved.
At a minimum, make sure your company is a member of Operation Clean Sweep. Environmental groups are watching to see which plastics factories are discharging excessive plastics into waterways. If you're not being a good steward, you will eventually be targeted.
If you can do more, set a "zero net waste" goal. Get involved in local beach or waterway cleanups. Work with designers to make sure the products you make are easy to recycle. Work with recyclers to make sure you're recycling all your scrap and using recycled content when you can. Check out the Plastics Industry Association's "This Is Plastics" website for information and advice.
Don't let this become an industry vs. environment debate because that isn't necessary; everyone is on the same side. The plastics industry is full of environmentalists who are proud of what they manufacture and want to leave the world a better place.
The leaders of the United States and Japan may not completely comprehend that yet, but they'll come around.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180620/BLOG01/180629993/lets-not-take-sides-no-one-supports-ocean-pollution
-
(ACC Mentioned) JP Mascaro & Sons to Participate in MRFF Pilot
Jun 20, 2018 | Recycling Today
By DeAnne Toto
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) research program has partnered with Audubon, Pennsylvania-based J.P. Mascaro & Sons Inc. to pilot single-stream curbside recycling of flexible plastic packaging (FPP). The company’s TotalRecycle material recovery facility (MRF) in Berks County, Pennsylvania, will process the material, demonstrating the technical and economic feasibility of recycling FPP from residential single-stream recycling programs.
MRFF is a project of the Foundation for Chemistry Research and Initiatives, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization established by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington. Its members include The Procter & Gamble Co., Target, The Dow Chemical Co., PepsiCo, Nestlé USA, Nestlé Purina PetCare, Amcor, ACC, Flexible Packaging Association, LyondellBasell Industries, The Plastics Industry Association, Sealed Air, SC Johnson, the Canadian Plastics Industry Association and the Association of Plastic Recyclers. Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. also recently joined the program, according to the ACC.
“Our MRFF collaborative is excited to partner with J.P. Mascaro and demonstrate the recyclability of flexible plastic packaging,” says Steve Sikra, MRFF chairperson and associate director of global research and development for Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati. “We are all committed to the success of this program and look forward to adding recycled flexible packaging into the circular economy.
Sikra adds, “As a side benefit, we expect to see the quality of J.P.’s other recycling streams improve as the flexible plastics are processed.”
FPP—which includes films,wraps, bags and pouches—is not widely recycled today; however, it is a growing fraction of the packaging stream because of its light weight and ability to provide enhanced product performance and protection. According to Resource Recycling Systems (RRS), Ann Arbor, Michigan, the recycling system consultancy which conducts the MRFF research program, 12 billion pounds of the material is introduced into the market for consumer use every year, and it is the fastest growing form of packaging.
RRS estimates TotalRecycle will produce 3,100 tons per year of high-quality postconsumer FPP feedstock for various end market uses that are being tested.
The pilot is expected to generate data to help inform municipalities and the recycling industry on the most efficient and economical ways to recycle FPP. This will turn used FPP materials, typically destined for disposal, into a bale that can be sold to a variety of end markets, the ACC says.
Mascaro Director Of Sustainability and TotalRecycle General Manager Joseph P. Mascaro says, “Our company is thrilled to partner with the MRFF partners on this project. We are confident that the pilot will be successful and will generate industry data to show FPP generators, municipalities and the recycling industry that FPP can be efficiently and economically recycled and marketed instead of being landfilled.”
Van Dyk Recycling Solutions, Stamford, Connecticut, will add equipment in the form of optical sorters to Mascaro’s TotalRecycle facility that will target FPP and direct the material out of the single-stream material flow, the ACC says.
The pilot program will begin in late 2018 with the installation of the sorting equipment, according to the association. After an internal testing period, TotalRecycle will begin accepting FPP for recycling from the municipal residents it serves. From equipment order to acceptance of FPP in curbside carts, the pilot program is expected to last two years’ time, the ACC adds.
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/mrff-selects-mrf-for-pilot-fpp-recovery-study/
-
Inhofe: Pruitt Got 'Wake-Up Call' After Showing 'Questionable Judgment'
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Alexander Bolton
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) told reporters Wednesday that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt probably showed “questionable judgment” at times in decisions that have drawn ethical scrutiny, but argued that such scandals are likely behind him.
“There are probably times when he displayed questionable judgment,” said Inhofe, who met with Pruitt, a longtime friend from Oklahoma, Tuesday evening.
But the senior Republican senator added that Pruitt has gotten the message that he needs to be more cautious.
“He’s had a wake-up call,” he added. “He came into Washington without knowing Washington.”
Inhofe, an influential voice on environmental and regulatory issues within the GOP conference, said he requested the meeting with Pruitt because of doubts he was starting to have about the EPA administrator after a wave of ethics allegations.
Inhofe said Wednesday morning that Pruitt explained away the various allegations to his satisfaction and predicted that he will be more careful in the future.
The Oklahoma Republican suggested that Pruitt got tripped up with various ethics charges because he naively didn’t know how some decisions, such as the around-the-clock security detail Pruitt requested or the $43,000 sound-proof booth he had built in his office, would be received.
Inhofe defended Pruitt as the victim of attacks initiated by disgruntled former employees, magnified by liberal groups funded by Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer and covered by a hostile liberal media.
Inhofe said Steyer is a man "with unlimited funds and willing to use these unlimited funds to do anything that would spread the extreme liberal agenda."
“The things that he did are things that the media doesn’t approve of and most of the media is liberal,” he added.
Inhofe also said he went over most of the ethics allegations against Pruitt at the meeting and felt his concerns were settled by Pruitt’s explanations.
“I’m a little embarrassed that I was starting to doubt him,” he said.
He said Pruitt answered his questions “to my satisfaction.”
Inhofe characterized the ethics allegations against Pruitt mostly as “misrepresentation.”
“Most of the accusations, by most I mean two-thirds or so, have come from disgruntled employees who are no longer there anymore,” he said.
Inhofe requested the meeting after Laura Ingraham, a prominent conservative talk-show host, tweeted last week that Pruitt was becoming a drag on President Trump and should be removed from his position.
During an interview with Ingraham last week, Inhofe suggested he might pressure Pruitt to step down if ethics charges keep popping up.
“Every day something new comes up,” Inhofe said. “I have taken the position that if that doesn’t stop, I am going to … be in a position where I am going to be forced to say ‘Scott, you are not doing your job.' ”
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/393212-inhofe-pruitt-got-wake-up-call-after-showing-poor-judgment
-
Career Staff Warned Cuts Would Cripple Research Office
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA career officials warned the Trump administration last year that its proposed staffing changes and budget shortfalls could undermine the agency's scientific research, documents show.
As political appointees began assembling a strategic plan to guide the agency through 2022, staffers in the Office of Research and Development alerted them to risks facing their programs.
The most serious risk — in terms of both its likelihood of happening and the extent of its potential impact — was that ORD would be unable to maintain a "sustainable workforce," says the undated draft assessment staffers had to provide to EPA's Office of Program Accountability and Resource Management by Aug. 2, 2017.
Obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, each of the document's seven pages includes the header "Do not distribute: Internal and deliberative."
The closely held assessment indicates there was a "very high" chance that ORD would be unable to keep enough qualified employees in "mission critical positions ... to meet the needs of the research and assessment effort and the product production schedules required by the Agency and other clients."
A particular concern the staffers highlighted is that political leaders might allow the agency's Title 42 authority, which allows EPA to hire highly qualified scientists at salaries above the federal pay scale, to expire next year. The damage done by that outcome would be "high," ORD staffers predicted.
ORD comprises six research programs that "identify the most pressing environmental health research needs with input from EPA offices, partners and stakeholders," the agency's webpage says. These include centers focused on assessing toxic chemicals, measuring pollutants' impacts on public health and engineering better waste cleanups.
Tina Bahadori, a Title 42 employee who leads ORD's National Center for Environmental Assessment, said on Feb. 1 that her program was already suffering from "significant attrition."
Referring to her staff scientists, Bahadori told a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine panel, "Believe me, I've shackled and imprisoned them, but they are still going."
Yet when EPA issued its five-year plan later that month, the section to which ORD had contributed included only one strategic measure: "increase the number of research products meeting customer needs." Its plan for achieving that goal included no mention of the agency's workforce challenges.
Instead, staffing problems were described as an "emerging" issue for EPA. "Recruiting and maintaining a strong workforce with appropriate scientific and technical skillsets are also critical to EPA's research effort," the plan said.
Meanwhile, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has repeatedly called on the Republican-controlled Congress to slash his agency's budget and downsize the workforce — requests lawmakers have largely ignored.
The same day the strategic plan was released, Pruitt proposed a budget for this year that would shrink EPA's budget by about 23 percent to $6.15 billion and staff from about 14,000 to 12,250 (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
ORD staffers' draft risk assessment shows they also had concerns about the Trump administration's budget-cutting and Pruitt's plan to reshape EPA.
"Reductions and uncertainty in funding levels means ORD is at risk of lacking adequate budget levels to adequately fund and implement research programs," the document said.
"The advent of reorganizations put at risk ORD's ability to maintain continuous expert staffing, program management, and support for program offices," the risk assessment said. Efforts that could be harmed include the agency's research on toxic chemicals, human health and air quality.
Staffers determined that those risks, which also weren't addressed in the strategic plan or budget request, could also have "high" impacts on ORD.
EPA leadership's decision to disregard the ORD recommendations is further proof that "there is a fundamental disdain for career recommendations," according to a staffer familiar with the 2017 assessment. "And they have remained focused on their objective to shrink the agency, reduce its impact and cripple any opportunity for future empowerment."
EPA didn't respond to a request for comment about the differences between the draft document and the agency's plan and budget.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085211
-
US Senators Demand Release of Controversial PFAS Report
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
A US Senate committee has ordered the release of controversial toxicological profiles for four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs).
The demand comes in a report accompanying a fiscal 2019 spending bill, approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee on 14 June. It directs the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) to release its analyses within 15 days of the final approval of the EPA's 2019 spending plan.
Adoption of the plan is unlikely to occur before the autumn, so the instruction may end up having little practical effect. Nevertheless it does amount to a public statement.
A row erupted after the public release of internal EPA documents showed that the ATSDR assessments propose safe exposure levels for PFASs significantly below the EPA's non-enforceable drinking water guidelines. In internal agency emails, officials called this a "public relations nightmare" and NGOs have claimed the Trump administration is blocking release of the assessments.
The Senate committee not only demands release of the study, but also asks for a report "identifying any changes made" to the toxicology profiles after 30 January.Spending bill
The Senate spending bill would continue current funding for the US EPA and its programmes in chemical research and management, differing only slightly from legislation approved earlier by the HouseAppropriations Committee.
Both bills reject Trump administration proposals for huge spending cuts. They provide the same $92.5m for the "toxics risk review and prevention" funding category as in fiscal 2017 and 2018.
The senators instruct the EPA to follow lawmakers' 2018 order to continue operating the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme under the Office of Research and Development. The House bill does not mention IRIS, and so the programme appears to be safe.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67864/us-senators-demand-release-of-controversial-pfas-report
-
HHS Releases Chemical Assessment Trump Officials Sought to Delay
Jun 20, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Annie Snider
The Department of Health and Human Services today released the draft report on the health effects of nonstick chemicals after a wave of bipartisan calls to issue the document that that Trump administration officials sought to delay earlier this year.
The 852-page scientific assessment of PFAS chemicals was posted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry today and details how people are exposed to the chemicals, and the health risks that they pose for populations ranging from infants and breastfeeding mothers to adult males. It finds that the chemicals can pose risks to the most vulnerable populations at levels lower than what EPA said was safe in its 2016 health advisory for two chemicals, PFOA and PFOS.
The assessment is a draft report, and still needs to receive public comment before it can be finalized.
POLITICO reported last month that the draft assessment drew pushback from Trump administration officials and political leaders, including EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson. One White House official said it posed a “public relations nightmare.” One of the major sources of PFAS contamination is from firefighting foam used by the military that has made its way into groundwater.
Both Democrats and Republicans had pressed the administration to release the report on the dangers of the chemicals, which have been found in water supplies across the country.
WHAT’S NEXT: EPA is hosting its first community meeting on PFAS in New Hampshire next week.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Federal Study Sounds Alarm on Non-Stick Materials
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
The Trump administration has released a politically charged toxicology report about nonstick chemicals showing they can endanger human health at significantly lower levels than EPA has previously called safe.
The draft report from the Department of Health and Human Services' Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is a toxicological profile of four types of stain- and water-resistant chemicals.
It finds that so-called "minimum risk levels" for the toxins should be seven to 10 times lower than standards set by EPA in 2016.
The lowest level included in the ATSDR report is 12 parts per trillion in drinking water, which is over 80 percent below the current maximum safe level EPA has advised for two types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
By contrast, the 2016 EPA voluntary health advisory for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) warned that exposure to the chemicals at levels above 70 parts per trillion could be dangerous.
The report's release follows mounting congressional pressure from both sides of the aisle after news surfaced last month that a White House official in January had warned that releasing the report would be a "potential public relations nightmare" (E&E Daily, May 15).
Just last week, senators offered an amendment to a Pentagon spending bill that would require the Trump administration to publish the toxicology report within seven days of the bill's passage.
The amendment was drafted by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), and was co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Ohio Sens. Rob Portman (R) and Sherrod Brown (D).
House lawmakers in May also sent a letter to EPA and the White House in May demanding the report's release.
Today, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.) said of the report's release: "It's about time."
"It was outrageous, and a violation of the trust we place in our public officials, that for months, the administration held back publication of this report," she said.
Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) called the report's findings "deeply concerning because it demonstrates that PFAS chemicals are more dangerous to human health than the EPA has previously acknowledged."
He urged the Trump administration to "address PFAS contamination with more urgency."
"We must ensure that families and veterans exposed to these dangerous chemicals receive the health care and clean-up resources they need," he said in a statement.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085217
-
National Academies Forms Flame Retardant Committee
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The National Academies has appointed a new committee to assess potential chronic health hazards, posed by organohalogen flame retardants.
Its findings will ultimately inform a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) assessment of the risk that additive, nonpolymeric organohalogen flame retardants (OFRs) pose to human health from four consumer products categories.
These are: children's products, upholstered residential furniture, mattresses and the external casings of electronics devices.
The CPSC’s work on the products comes after its September decision to grant an NGO petition to begin a rulemaking that could see OFRs banned from these applications.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is tasked with producing a hazard assessment plan that the CPSC-convened Chronic Advisory Panel (CHAP) will use when completing its risk assessment.
The committee’s provisional slate – pending a public comment period and final approval by the National Academies – comprises:
David Dorman (chair) – professor of toxicology, North Carolina State University;
Hugh Barton – associate research fellow, Pfizer, Inc;
Karen Blackburn – Victor Mills Society research fellow, The Procter and Gamble Co;
John Bucher – senior scientist, National Toxicology Program (NTP);
Julie Daniels – professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill;
Jennifer Freeman – associate professor, School of Health Sciences at Purdue University;
Kamel Mansouri – lead computational chemist, Integrated Laboratory Systems;
Carmen Messerlian – research scientist, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health;
David Reif – associate professor, North Carolina State University;
Gina Solomon – principal investigator, Public Health Institute; and
Chihae Yang – chief scientific officer, Altamira LLC.
Comments on the committee appointments are being accepted for 20 days, following the original posting of membership.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67894/national-academies-forms-flame-retardant-committee
-
Campaigners Secure Third Paint Stripper Victory with Home Depot
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
NGO campaigners are celebrating the latest "nail in the coffin" for paint strippers containing methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), following news that the world’s largest home improvement retailer, Home Depot, will no longer sell them.
In recent weeks, retail giants Lowe’s and Sherwin-Williams have pledged to phase out the sale of the products by the year’s end. This week, Home Depot announced plans to do the same.
"To build upon our strategy to maintain continual improvement in health and environmental safety for products, we have added many alternative chemical paint removers, and will phase out paint removal products that contain methylene chloride and N-Methylpyrrolidone (NMP) by the end of 2018," says the store’s website.
Mike Schade, Mind the Store campaign director at Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said that the action means "the time for hazardous paint strippers is over".
He urged the retailers which continue to stock these products – including Menards, Walmart and Ace Hardware – to phase out the products’ sales by the end of the year.
Canadian NGO Environmental Defence similarly called for Canadian Tire and Home Hardware to follow suit.
Mike Belliveau, executive director of NGO, the Environmental Health Strategy Center, also urged the US EPA to take action on the two solvents in order to "sweep up the laggards".
The agency announced last month that it will finalise a rule on methylene chloride, after its proposal to ban or restrict methylene chloride and NMP in paint strippers appeared to be shelved last year.
But thus far, it has not indicated a timeline for this final rule, nor whether it will address NMP.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67874/campaigners-secure-third-paint-stripper-victory-with-home-depot
-
Incentives Needed to Trigger REACH Dossier Updates – Hansen
Jun 20, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton and Clelia Oziel
REACH "lacks clear incentives" for companies to update registration dossiers, Echa head Bjorn Hansen told delegates at last week’s conference on the second Review of the Regulation.
Top of the 16 actions the European Commission has set in order to improve implementation of REACH is to "encourage" companies to perform updates.
Speaking at the event, Karmenu Vella, Commissioner for environment, maritime affairs and fisheries said that "in too many cases, compliance is far too low. We need to find out why, so I have asked my services to work closely with Echa and industry to see where the problems lie." If the EU wants to be a world leader, he added, "completeness is a fundamental requirement".
Echa needs to work on the "types of incentives we are able to find to trigger or provoke" this action, Mr Hansen said.
There is also some debate around the functionality of REACH Article 22, regarding updates to registration dossiers. "In my view Article 22 [...] is very clear," he said, but questions remain about the terminology and knowing what ‘update without undue delay’ means, he added.
His comments come almost a year since former Echa head Geert Dancet told the European Parliament's Environment Committee (Envi) that industry is wrongly interpreting this Article.
The agency’s director of evaluation, Leena Ylä-Mononen, told delegates that Echa is "actively engaged" in discussions with the Commission and member states about how to clarify the rules in Article 22. She asked whether an implementing act could help, in addition to having strong enforcement in member states.
Only the minority of dossiers have been updated, she said. Ms Ylä-Mononen added that the "serious gaps" prevent authorities from being able to conclude that substances are safely managed.
Following the passing of the final REACH registration deadline on 31 May, the next big challenge for industry as a whole is how to change this "passive" situation to make industry "more proactive".
Jochem van der Waals, senior policy adviser at the Dutch ministry of infrastructure and environment, said "stronger" incentives are needed to fill data gaps. Regulators, he added, need to "seriously consider" an implementing regulation. This would help clarify how and when to update a dossier.
Karsten Mueller, head of European chemical regulations at BASF, asked how often updates are expected to happen – "I would presume not once a year or every second year probably."
He added that regulators need to talk "fair and objectively" about the issue and should not "use catchy numbers and then try to find a solution to the situation". General criticisms, he added, "don’t help industry because we don’t know where to start". There is a good foundation, Mr Mueller added, and "we can fix it" by good communication and priority setting.‘Less carrots’
Tatiana Santos, senior policy officer at the European Environmental Bureau, said that for industry "there are too many incentives not to comply" with updating obligations. Enforcement, transparency and market access – "these are the best incentives to force companies to give the right data."
She suggested Echa increase the rate of compliance checks and make periodic updates mandatory.
The idea was proposed in a report commissioned by the agency and published in September. It said new regulatory measures are needed to ensure that companies update their dossiers at fixed regular intervals, for example, every three years.
There is a certain "softness" on enforcement, Ms Santos added. "It is time to move from soft measures, guidance and advice to getting serious". There are many tools that could be used, she said, such as ‘naming and shaming’. "Overall it is important that we give less carrots and more sticks."
Mr Dancet dismissed the ‘naming and shaming’ concept last year. He said the approach was not the best way forward and can "create anger" and "bring about legal challenges".
NGOs met with Echa senior officials in June last year to discuss non-compliant registration dossiers and other concerns over the functioning of REACH, but failed to nail down agreement on how to tackle them.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67889/incentives-needed-to-trigger-reach-dossier-updates-hansen
-
Grandparents’ Expossure to Plastic Chemical Can Cause Autism in Children
Jun 20, 2018 | Times Now
Your exposure to a plastic chemical can affect the communications skills of your grandchildren, says a study on mice that found a link between early exposure to the chemical and the risk of autism. Bisphenol A is an endocrine-disrupting chemical used in consumer products such as water bottles, dental composites among others and is known to affect the crucial stages of development. The study, published in the journal PLOS One, showed that mice pups whose grandparents were exposed to BPA, demonstrated different vocalisation patterns.
"There are potential concerns that developmental exposure to BPA might increase an infant's risk for autism spectrum disorder," said Cheryl Rosenfeld, Professor at the University of Missouri in the US. "Crying is the infant's earliest communication form and changes in crying vocalisation patterns might provide the earliest diagnostic tool for autism. Thus, it is important to determine whether multigenerational exposure to BPA can alter pup vocalisation patterns," Rosenfeld added. Read - Five effective yoga poses for children with autism spectrum disorder
For the study, researchers exposed female and male mice to one of three diets. One contained BPA; the second contained concentrations of ethinyl estradiol (EE), another endocrine disruptor; and the third was free of endocrine disruptors.
The pups were placed on an endocrine disruptor-free diet when they were weaned and throughout their lifespan. Finally, the vocalisation patterns of the third generation of mice, which also were not directly exposed to BPA or EE, were examined.
The grandpups were tested in "recording boxes" in isolation and away from their home-cages.
Vocalisations were measured for duration, as well as patterns or "syllables", which represent phrases that pups emit when calling their parents for care and were then measured against pups that were not exposed to BPA or EE.
The results showed that during postnatal periods, BPA and EE exposed second-generation pups demonstrated augmented vocalisation responses, indicating that they are in distress.
Such effects might also be attributed to multigenerational exposure to BPA and EE and suggest that even from early postnatal life grandoffspring whose grandparents were exposed to these endocrine disruptors are showing mental distress, the researchers said.
The study could also have ties to human communication deficits as seen in people with autism or other neurobehavioural disorders.
http://www.timesnownews.com/health/article/grandparents-expossure-to-plastic-chemical-can-cause-autism-in-children/243121
-
Shell's Ethane Pipeline for Pennsylvania Cracker Slated for 2020 Commissioning
Jun 20, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Shell Pipeline Company LP now expects to begin construction on its Falcon Ethane Pipeline System in 2019 and be finished with it by the end of the year, a company executive overseeing the project told an industry conference in Pittsburgh on Tuesday.
The Falcon Ethane system would feed Shell Chemical Appalachia LLC’s multi-billion dollar cracker that is currently under construction. Shell Pipeline first began acquiring rights-of-way for the project about two years ago and construction was initially expected to begin this year.
Major Projects Manager Doug Scott said that while preliminary studies on the system began in 2016 at about the time Shell made a final investment decision to move forward with the cracker, the route wasn’t actually finalized until 2017, when permit applications were submitted to various regulatory agencies later in the year.
“2018 has been a very busy year,” Scott said during remarks he made before the Northeast U.S. Petrochemical Construction conference. “We completed detailed design, which allowed us to procure all of our major equipment, all of the pipe, and we anticipate getting our permits in the next few months, which will allow us to do right-of-way preparation in the fourth quarter.”
The 97.5 mile, two-leg system would run south in western Pennsylvania to pick-up ethane from MarkWest Energy Partners LP’s Houston Processing and Fractionation facility in Washington County. It would also stretch west into Ohio, where it would pick up ethane produced in that state and in West Virginia at MarkWest’s Cadiz Complex in Harrison County, OH, and from Utica East Ohio’s nearby Harrison Hub fractionation plant in Scio, OH. Scott added that the pipeline would mostly be 12-inch diameter.
It would have a capacity of about 100,000 b/d, which would match the cracker that’s being built in Beaver County, about 30 miles northwest of Pittsburgh. Another Shell executive spoke at the conference on Monday and said the cracker is on track, with start-up set for the early 2020s.
Scott said the Falcon Ethane system should be finished by the end of 2019 and ready for commissioning in 1Q2020. There would be no pumps or compressors on the lines, as the source points have enough pressure to transport ethane all the way to what Shell calls “the junction” where the two-leg system meets near the cracker plant, he said. Scott also boasted that the company did not have to resort to using eminent domain and was able to secure all of its easements in private negotiations with corporations and landowners.
Once completed, Scott said the Falcon Ethane system would be monitored from a control center in Houston, with a five-person staff in Pennsylvania to help with those operations and the frequent ground and aerial surveys that will be conducted as part of ongoing monitoring.
Ten natural gas producers have signed 10-20 year ethane supply agreements to anchor shell’s cracker. Ethane is a major part of the gas stream in Appalachia, accounting for a large share of the typical barrel of natural gas liquids there. As dry gas takeaway continues to grow, and as more outlets come online for NGLs such as Shell’s cracker, those volumes continue to rise.
Glenn Koch, vice president of engineering and construction at Williams, who oversees expansion projects for the midstreamer in the Northeast, said his firm expects Appalachian NGLs to continue increasing in the coming years. Williams anticipates that NGL production in the basin will go from about 535,000 b/d last year to 840,000 b/d in 2022.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114784-shells-ethane-pipeline-for-pennsylvania-cracker-slated-for-2020-commissioning
-
Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development Drives US Energy and National Security
Jun 20, 2018 | Real Clear Energy
By Jim Webb & Jim Nicholson
Energy is the driving force for growth and quality of life in every nation, large and small. National security depends on it. Wars have been fought over it. A nation cannot reach or sustain its potential without large-scale access to it. Domestic energy production fills these needs and is a key contributor to a healthy economy. And there are few levers more powerful for a nation’s international position than energy independence.
America’s strategic position has improved in recent years due to an “all-of-the-above” energy policy. But we remain vulnerable in an expanding global economy marked by ever-growing energy needs and potentially troublesome energy alliances, such as Russia’s recent accord with OPEC, that have the potential to manipulate the flow of oil.
It is also undeniable that for the foreseeable future, oil and natural gas will be the greatest drivers of the world’s economies. Here at home, oil and gas are expected to generate over 60 percent of America’s energy for at least the next 30 years, even with the welcome use of renewables continuing to be on the rise.
That said, it is time to correct an oversight in America’s move toward an "all-of-the-above" energy policy: the unnecessarily restrictive approach to the exploration and safe development of oil and natural gas resources that lie offshore.
Offshore oil production is growing around the world, accounting for 25 percent of the world’s crude supply of around 99 million barrels a day. Just in recent years, major offshore discoveries have occurred in Brazil, Guyana, the North Sea, Cyprus, and Mexico. At the same time, due to environmental concerns in the past, our national policies have failed to adjust to the significant advances in exploration, drilling technology, and safety measures that would allow us to conduct research and safely explore and develop all of our existing domestic oil and natural gas resources — including those that lie offshore.
As an example, 94 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the United States is currently off-limits to offshore exploration and development. The last time a lease auction was held in the U.S. areas of the Atlantic Ocean was 1984. Just imagine the gains in exploration techniques, drilling technology, and overall safety that have been made since then. It has been more than three decades since we have had the opportunity even to explore and analyze what resources lie in these areas.
The administration’s recent announcement of a National Offshore Leasing Plan to explore and develop the OCS gives us an opportunity to debate and decide how offshore drilling can contribute to our energy future. This is why we have come together to co-chair a newly launched bipartisan coalition — Explore Offshore — dedicated to advancing the responsible exploration and development of offshore oil and natural gas resources through always advancing technologies.
This diverse coalition is made up of community organizations, associations, businesses, and local leaders in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida who support increased access to American oil and natural gas.
Currently, the United States is one of the only countries along the Atlantic that is not actively exploring for energy in those waters. Nations both near and far, many with fewer resources and far less stringent environmental regulations, are adopting policies that allow them to proceed with offshore development. But the United States remains at a standstill.
This has very serious implications. As the Washington Post opined earlier this year, “As long as the economy requires oil, it must come from somewhere, and better the United States than a country with much weaker environmental oversight.” In fact, because of current U.S. policy, major energy investments are moving to countries like Mexico, where regulations could lag even farther behind ours. Over the last four years, as we have debated whether to open up carefully selected new areas for exploration on our side of the Gulf of Mexico, Mexico has leased over 20 million new acres on its side. The country's total acreage leased in the Gulf is now over 30 million acres, double that of the U.S.’s 14.7 million.
As our demand for reliable and affordable energy continues to grow, the long-term question is, whether we will have the national foresight and courage to attain our energy independence. Oil and gas production requires years of research, negotiations, and planning. In the United States, our strict environmental and safety policies have improved significantly even in just the past few years, with the industry incorporating the most advanced safety systems, including infrared gas detection sensors, fiber optics, remote monitoring, and drones to ensure safety around the clock. This cannot be said for other countries with far less regard for such concerns and procedures.
We both have military backgrounds. One of us was Secretary of the Navy, the other Secretary of Veterans Affairs. We both saw extensive combat in Vietnam. And we both strongly agree that a nation must first be energy secure in order to be truly secure.
Offshore energy production will greatly benefit American workers, veterans, and the U.S. economy. It is estimated that opening up the entire Atlantic OCS could support nearly 265,000 new higher paying jobs, $22 billion per year in private investment, and generate almost $6 billion in new revenue for the government within 20 years of initial lease sales. Jobs in the oil and natural gas exploration and development fields come with an average salary of $116,000 — more than double the national average. These jobs, which do not require college degrees, provide important opportunities for our fellow Americans, including veterans who are reentering the work force at a very fast rate. A recent study also found that nearly 40 percent of the estimated 1.9 million job opportunities projected in the oil, natural gas, and petrochemical industries by 2035 will be filled by women and minorities.
This is a much-needed, commonsense step for America’s energy future. America must make safe and full use of all of its energy resources for our economy and for our national security — and much of that energy is offshore.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/06/20/offshore_oil_and_natural_gas_development_drives_us_energy_and_national_security.html
-
The Biggest U.S. Oil Patch Is Near Its Limit
Jun 20, 2018 | Bloomberg
By Javier Blas
The biggest U.S. shale region will have to shut wells within four months because there aren’t enough pipelines to get the oil to customers, the head of one of the industry’s largest producers said.
The worsening bottleneck in the Permian region that straddles west Texas and New Mexico offers an unexpected fillip to OPEC and other oil producers outside the U.S., who’ve seen rampant production from America’s shale producers grab market share.
"We will reach capacity in the next 3 to 4 months," Scott Sheffield, the chairman of Pioneer Natural Resources Co. said in an interview at an OPEC conference in Vienna. "Some companies will have to shut in production, some companies will move rigs away, and some companies will be able to continue growing because they have firm transportation."
His comments are the strongest indication yet that the growth in the red-hot shale region is about to slow down soon due to a lack of pipeline capacity. The problem has grown so bad that oil companies have been forced to load crude on to trucks and drive it hundreds of miles to pipelines in other parts of the state.
The Permian is growing at 800,0000 barrels a day annually and production currently stands at 3.3 million barrels a day, said Sheffield, who first drilled wells in the region in 1979 and is considered one of the architects of the shale revolution. Total pipeline capacity is 3.6 million barrels, so the region will reach capacity in the next three to four months and the bottleneck isn’t likely to ease for at least a year, he added.
Permian production could remain flat for the next year because of pipeline restraints, Sheffield told a session of the OPEC conference.
"The market has been assuming a straight line production growth from the US but infrastructure constraints mean that’s clearly not going to be the case," said Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd. "At a time when outages are rising the US is not going to fill the gap either."
The lack of pipeline capacity will continue to cause severe dislocation in U.S. oil markets, Sheffield said. Benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude at Midland in the Permian is likely to trade at a $25-a-barrel discount to price at the industry’s hub in Cushing, Oklahoma, he said.
The Permian region is accounting for nearly half of the growth in U.S. oil production. America pumped almost 10.5 million barrels a day in March, up 1.4 million barrels a day from a year, according to government data. The annual growth rate is larger than the production of OPEC nations such as Libya.
The warning about shut-ins comes as some small companies move oil rigs away from the Permian into other shale basins that still have pipeline capacity. Oil services companies have also started to reduce the number of fracking crews they offer to drillers.
Pipelines are being built to get more oil out of the Permian, but shipments are likely to be constrained until at least 2019, Sheffield said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/shale-giant-says-permian-oil-faces-shut-ins-on-pipeline-shortage
-
Study: U.S. Natural Gas Production to Surge 60% in 20 Years
Jun 20, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The U.S. shale boom kicked off with natural gas a decade ago, and dry gas production is expected to keep surging by another 60 percent during the next 20 years, according to a new report Wednesday.
While much of the shale focus is now on oil production in West Texas, it all started with natural gas production. And that growth isn't showing any signs of dissipating. U.S. natural gas production already has jumped by about 60 percent in just over a decade and is now poised to replicate that feat over the next 20 years, according to the IHS Markit research firm report.
The U.S. was churning out about 50 billion cubic feet of gas a day through conventional production means before the boom, and that has since skyrocketed to an estimated record of more than 81 billion cubic feet daily this year - a 10 percent hike from 2017 - according to the U.S. Energy Department. The U.S. is by far the global leader in gas production.
A 60 percent spike from 2017 levels would calculate to about 118 billion cubic feet a day by the end of 2037.
Calling shale gas anything but a veritable revolution is a big understatement, said Dan Yergin, IHS Markit vice chairman and the report's co-author.
"It represents a dramatic and largely unanticipated turnaround that dramatically changed both markets and long-term thinking about energy," Yergin added. "The profound and ongoing impacts on the industry, energy markets, the wider economy and the U.S. position in the world continue to unfold."
The shale boom has reshaped the nation's electric grid, fueled a petrochemical boom along the Gulf Coast and created a burgeoning U.S. industry in liquefied natural gas exports. Of course, the shale oil surge wouldn't have happened without the horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques used to triggered the shale gas revolution.
And the record shale oil production is only amplifying the natural gas statistics because there's a lot of associated natural gas found in many of the oil wells in West Texas' Permian Basin and other regions. That's largely why Texas leads the nation in natural gas production as well as oil.
In terms of the electric grid, natural gas-fired power has become the nation's leading source of electricity in a grid where growth was once dominated by coal and nuclear power. Natural gas is responsible for about one-third of all U.S. electricity now and that should grow to about 50 percent by 2040, according to the IHS Markit report.
Because the U.S. can only consume so much natural gas, much more of it will be exported in liquefied form. LNG exports are jumping from an average of 1.9 billion cubic feet a day last year to about 3 billion cubic feet this year. That should jump to more than 5 billion cubic feet a day next year as new projects come online along the Texas and Louisiana coastlines, according to the Energy Department.
IHS Markit predicts that U.S. LNG exports will grow to at least 10 billion cubic feet daily in five years.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Study-U-S-natural-gas-production-to-surge-60-13010336.php
-
How the U.S. Avoided Isolation in Global Energy Talks
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The Trump administration appears to have won a small skirmish in the global war over climate politics.
When Energy Secretary Rick Perry and other energy ministers from major countries wrapped up a Group of 20 ministerial in Barlioche, Argentina, last week, the closing communiqué didn't single out the United States as the only nation to reject the Paris climate agreement. That was viewed as a minor coup for the United States, and some sources who attended the talks say it happened despite the best efforts of the European Union to marginalize the Trump administration for its climate policies.
By teaming up with the other nations on the takeaway message from the talks, the United States avoided being isolated as it was last year, said the sources who attended.
During the 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, leaders opted for a "G-19 plus 1" communiqué that appeared to show nations from France to Saudi Arabia standing shoulder to shoulder on everything from the 2015 Paris climate deal to the endorsement of a low-carbon energy transition. The United States had its own paragraph, however, rejecting the Paris deal and touting plans to help unnamed countries "use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently."
Following the Hamburg talks, some in the White House bristled at press reports that the summit had exposed that the United States had limited global influence on climate and energy issues. President Trump's then-adviser on international energy and climate issues and a negotiator for that text, George David Banks, said at the time that countries like Saudi Arabia had expressed interest in backing the fossil fuel language. The conventional wisdom this year was that the U.S. team hoped to avoid being isolated again.
It's unclear whether the energy ministers' cooperation last week shows a mellowing of world anger a year out from Trump's decision to exit the Paris accord, or whether Perry and White House energy adviser Wells Griffith managed to find a negotiating sweet spot in a diverse group of nations. The G-20 includes not only E.U. nations with aggressive climate policies but also countries that are more dependent on fossil fuels, like Saudi Arabia, India, Russia and China.
"The G-20 is not the G-7," said Banks. While the smaller club of developed countries — which met the previous week in Canada — is stocked with the world's most vocal climate advocates, developing countries included in the G-20 are more in line with the current U.S. administration on energy issues, he said.
And while Trump took a decidedly nonconciliatory tone at the Group of Seven talks in Quebec, ultimately withdrawing retroactively from the communiqué, Perry and Wells made concessions in Barlioche.
In remarks obtained by E&E News from a closed-door session with G-20 energy ministers and representatives on Friday, Perry expressed frustration that "significant concessions" made by the United States over the previous two days of talks hadn't yet delivered consensus.
He charged "that a small community" was standing in the way of consensus, despite "days of significant concessions by all parties."
That "small community" he referred to was the European Union, and in particular representatives from Germany and France as well as E.U. officials. Italy and the United Kingdom are also members of the body, and although they're seen to have backed their European colleagues' call to elevate Paris in the final statement, they're said to have played a less aggressive role in negotiations.Spats over Paris, punctuation
Some sources who attended the talks last week said the E.U. representatives pushed a similar "G-19 plus 1" format there when the United States balked at language explicitly linking countries' energy policies to Paris Agreement implementation and elevating the long-term goal of the Paris Agreement to keep postindustrial warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.
In closed-door meetings apparently requested by the European Union on Thursday, representatives from that bloc faced off with U.S. negotiators over differences in language. Argentine officials overseeing the talks participated in the meeting, together with a handful of observer countries including Canada, Brazil and Japan, a source told E&E News.
The Argentine officials made forging consensus the priority for this year's G-20 process, and last week, Energy and Mining Minister Juan José Aranguren and his team played referees — searching for language that acknowledged the efforts many members were making to implement the Paris accord while avoiding an all-out endorsement of the deal that would have isolated the United States.
A private summary of the negotiations obtained by E&E News includes this Argentine proposal: "We acknowledge the linkage between country-driven energy transitions that provide affordable and reliable energy and the efforts of those countries doing so to implement the Paris Agreement goals."
But E.U. officials countered by requesting stronger language. Rather than "doing so," countries were "committed to doing so" because of their "unwavering determination to implement and achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement."
The summary showed that the United States proposed and the Europeans counterproposed. At one point, a semicolon-versus-period dispute threatened to blow up the whole process. At each step, the Europeans pushed for more prominent and plentiful references to Paris, more language to show how it's driving energy "transitions," and a more prominent place to tout German Chancellor Angela Merkel's climate and energy plan from last year's talks.
In the end, though, this year's final communiqué references the Paris accord only once. That sentence takes note of the role energy "transitions" can play in delivering emissions reductions "for those countries that are determined to implement the Paris Agreement," but the language was sparer than some European offerings. And, importantly, it didn't make the United States a footnote.
Some sources say that non-E.U. countries became frustrated with the European focus on Paris.
But German energy chief Thorsten Herdan claimed the inclusion of the word "determined" in the communiqué as a major victory at a post-conference press briefing. And the fact that Perry signed off on a joint statement that mentioned Paris without bashing it was cited by some as a departure from past Trump administration positions. The communiqué Trump signed at last year's G-20 in Hamburg reiterated U.S. plans to "immediately cease the implementation of its current nationally-determined contribution" and stated a "strong commitment to an approach that lowers emissions while supporting economic growth and improving energy security needs."
It's possible that credit for the document is due to Aranguren and his team, who had more to gain from delivering consensus than from pitting world powers against each other. It's a line the Argentines will have to hold at the leader-level meeting in November, which is expected to include Trump.
Alden Meyer, strategic director for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that despite the communiqué, the United States is still "the odd one out" on climate change.
"The fact remains that all 19 of the other G-20 governments are committed to the irreversibility of Paris ... and the need for a transition to a low-carbon economy, and I don't anticipate any change in that positioning at the leaders' summit in November," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085163
-
Panel Approves Bill to Streamline Oil and Gas NEPA Reviews
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kellie Lunney
A House panel today advanced one of four bills that aim to boost onshore energy independence and expedite the oil and gas permitting process, despite robust pushback from Democrats.
The Natural Resources Committee reported out 22 to 18 on a party-line vote legislation (H.R. 6106) that would attempt to streamline oil and gas permitting by amending the 2005 Energy Policy Act to clarify "the authorized categorical exclusions and authorize additional categorical exclusions" within the process. Other bills were punted due to time.
Democrats unsuccessfully offered several last-minute amendments that would have prevented waivers to the National Environmental Policy Act process, particularly if there were disproportionate or significant environmental impacts on low-income and minority communities.
Republicans argued that the language was redundant because the projects in question already had been through the NEPA process, and including more exceptions would create additional red tape.
"This is existing stuff" that already has gone through the process, said Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah).
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), the bill's sponsor, offered a technical amendment the panel passed.
Pearce said his "Common Sense Permitting Act" would help the Bureau of Land Management get a handle on its permitting backlog and help his district — which he noted was low-income with a large community of color — to create high-paying jobs for residents and increase revenue for the state.
But ranking member Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) said the suite of bills under consideration were "not well-intentioned" or "well-written."
Today's markup was "not about fixing real problems," said the Arizona Democrat, because "when the oil industry asks Republicans to jump, they ask, 'How high?'"
A House vote scheduled during the markup caused Bishop to adjourn proceedings before the panel had a chance to vote on three other onshore energy bills expected for consideration today: the "Ending Duplicative Permitting Act" (H.R. 6107), the "Removing Barriers to Energy Independence Act" (H.R. 6087) and the "Streamlining Permitting Efficiency in Energy Development (SPEED) Act" (H.R. 6088).
Committee aides said the panel will take up the outstanding bills at a later date (E&E Daily, June 18).
Lawmakers this morning started debating the "SPEED Act," which would amend the Mineral Leasing Act to address projects with a small environmental footprint. Sponsored by Rep. John Curtis, it seeks to expedite the permit process to "create new economic development opportunities in rural communities across the district," the Utah Republican said.
Curtis offered a technical amendment that passed. The committee rejected in an 18-to-21 vote a measure from Grijalva that would have required oil and gas companies to disclose how much money executives are earning as a result of the 2017 tax reform law compared to nonexecutive employees.
Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), in opposing Grijalva's amendment, said it wasn't germane to the underlying bill, arguing that it's not in the Interior secretary's purview to regulate the salaries of oil companies.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085227
-
Trump Rescinds Obama Policy Protecting Oceans
Jun 20, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is repealing a controversial executive order drafted by former President Obama that was meant to protect the Great Lakes and the oceans bordering the United States.
In his own executive order signed late Tuesday, Trump put a new emphasis on industries that use the oceans, particularly oil and natural gas drilling, while also mentioning environmental stewardship.
“Ocean industries employ millions of Americans and support a strong national economy,” the new order states, mentioning energy production, the military, freight transportation and other industries.
“This order maintains and enhances these and other benefits to the Nation through improved public access to marine data and information, efficient interagency coordination on ocean-related matters, and engagement with marine industries, the science and technology community, and other ocean stakeholders,” it states.
The order encourages more drilling and other industrial uses of the oceans and Great Lakes.
The order stands in contrast to Obama’s policy, which focused heavily on conservation and climate change. His policy was written in 2010, shortly after the deadly BP Deepwater Horizon offshore drilling explosion and 87-day oil spill.
“America's stewardship of the ocean, our coasts, and the Great Lakes is intrinsically linked to environmental sustainability, human health and well-being, national prosperity, adaptation to climate and other environmental changes, social justice, international diplomacy, and national and homeland security,” Obama's order stated.
It established a federal council with the responsibility to oversee various programs and decisions that could impact the oceans or Great Lakes.
That angered Republicans and industry, who are cheering Trump’s rescission.
“Today’s announcement of President Trump repealing and replacing the bureaucratic, overreaching policy created under the previous administration puts our country’s ocean policy back on the right track,” said Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
“President Trump’s action will help the health of our oceans and ensure local communities impacted by ocean policy have a seat at the table.”
The National Ocean Industries Association, which represents companies involving in offshore drilling and offshore wind, said Obama’s policy “caused consternation, uncertainty and concern for the offshore energy industry and other ocean stakeholders.”
“This renewed broad vision will hopefully encourage productive partnerships, recognizing a wide variety of ocean uses, all leading to increased economic, environmental and energy security for America through job creation, economic activity, and energy development,” Randall Luthi, the group’s president, said in a statement.
Conservation groups slammed Trump’s move, saying it puts the nation’s waterways at risk.
“With the action today eliminating the National Ocean Policy, President Trump is trying to wash his hands of responsibility for the real and urgent threats facing America’s coastal communities — namely, the impacts of climate change,” said Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for energy and environment at the Center for American Progress.
“In the absence of a president who is willing to lead, it is now more important than ever that coastal governors, tribal leaders, state legislatures, and local communities take up the mantle of leadership and work together to defend and restore the health of America’s oceans.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/393213-trump-rescinds-obamas-policy-on-protecting-oceans
-
Amtrak and BNSF Partnership Enables 'First Activation of PTC on Host-Owned Territory'.
Jun 20, 2018 | SmartRail World
Ahead of the end-of-year deadline for the US safety system that will bypass remove human-error to improve rail network safety, positive train control (PTC), the country’s largest passenger operator has teamed up the largest freight operator, to begin its implementation. Amtrak’s work with BNSF will see the communication-based safety system rolled out across several of the freight company’s subdivisions and is significant due to the fact that it is the first activation of PTC on host-owned territory used by Amtrak.
Amtrak said that despite achieving the milestone, there was still work ahead to fully equip the US network to “activate PTC and make the national railroad network safer”.
BNSF said that it has in some case exceeded the requirements placed on them by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), providing the requisite infrastructure that enables Amtrak to operate on its network. “We have partnered with them on the federal mandate and in some cases beyond the federal mandate to install PTC on subdivisions not required of BNSF,” said Chris Matthews, BNSF assistant vice president of network control systems.
The challenge ahead for other railroad companies dotted across North America to implement fully operational PTC technology is significant and requires a great deal of work. In January, SmartRail World reported on the concern that the US Transport Secretary, Elaine Chao, had about whether operators would meet the 2018 deadline that had already been pushed back. Secretary Chao issued a forceful reminder at the time when she said: “It is expected that your organisation it taking all possible measures to ensure that it will meet the requirements specified by Congress.”
Where PTC isn’t working there is an expectation in the industry that operators will be given alternative implementation dates. That’s not the case for all, however, and Amtrak has said that it will suspend services on some routes that aren’t protected by PTC and may seek alternative modes of service until they are.
In further news to the BNSF-Amtrak partnership, a week after the initial announcement BNSF requested a two-year extension to the end-of 2018 deadline set by the FRA. Placing the blame with interoperability delays, BNSF said that despite already using PTC on part of its network they would require more time to fine-tune the safety system and to overcome technical problems.
https://www.smartrailworld.com/amtrak-bnsf-partnership-enables-first-activation-ptc-host-owned-territory
-
Lawsuit Challenges Permit Guidance
Jun 20, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The Sierra Club is contesting a fresh EPA attempt to make it easier for businesses to show that proposed new plants or expansions of existing facilities will not significantly affect air quality when they are applying for air permits under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program.
The organization filed the petition for review Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The lawsuit comes two months after EPA issued the guidance assigning values for "significant impact levels" (SILs) for ozone and fine particulates (E&E News PM, April 18).
Regulators can use the SILs in determining whether a proposed pollution source would cause or contribute to air quality violations under the program.
While the petition does not spell out the grounds for the suit, the Sierra Club had previously challenged an Obama-era rule related to SILs that EPA later acknowledged was flawed. The D.C. Circuit in 2013 agreed to the agency's request to remand some parts of the rule.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits, part of EPA's New Source Review program, apply to pollution sources in areas that are effectively in attainment with national air quality standards for ozone, particulates and other common pollutants.
In issuing the new guidance in April. EPA officials predicted it could "reduce the cost and time for manufacturers to obtain this type of air pollution permit from states, local permitting authorities and EPA," according to an online summary.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/20/stories/1060085221
-
Ewire: Bipartisan Group Forms to Push Carbon Tax
Jun 20, 2018 | Inside EPA
Bipartisan supporters of a revenue-neutral carbon tax have launched a new political committee to push the policy amid steep resistance from Republican lawmakers, with news reports saying that the group could receive funding from several major energy companies.
The formation of Americans for Carbon Dividends was reported in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and elsewhere.
The group's co-chairmen are former Sens. Trent Lott (R-MS) and John Breaux (D-LA), and it has earned the support of two former Federal Reserve chairs, Janet Yellen and Ben Bernanke. Nuclear-heavy utility Exelon, which has long called for a federal carbon price, has pledged $1 million for the effort, and the Journal reports that oil companies ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell are “weighing financial commitments.”
The new political action committee is backing a policy outlined by a related group known as the Climate Leadership Council (CLC) that would impose a carbon tax starting at $40 per ton and return the funding to Americans in the form of an annual dividend of roughly $2,000 for a family of four. That would help offset higher gasoline and electricity costs.
Importantly, the plan would also give energy companies liability protection from a growing number of lawsuitsseeking damages for their role in causing climate change. It would also preempt EPA's Clean Power Plan utility greenhouse gas rule that the Trump EPA is trying to rescind.
Despite the GOP's long-standing resistance to carbon controls, Lott told the Times that the “tide is turning” in the party, citing the recent enactment of federal tax breaks for carbon capture and storage technology, as well as a poll the group commissioned showing wide support for a carbon tax policy that includes dividends.
“The dividend changes everything,” Lott told the Journal. “The money goes back to the people instead of into the dark, deep hole of the federal government.”
Jerry Taylor, the president of the libertarian Niskanen Center that favors efforts to address climate change, recently outlined several scenarios -- with varying degrees of likelihood -- that could push Republicans to embrace a carbon price.
Two key factors, he said, are the possibility that such legislation could include liability protection and the chance that oil companies move beyond “generalized statements” in support of a carbon tax to broad agreement on a policy such as the CLC plan, with lobbying and political efforts to back it up.
“There are reasons for real optimism,” he said. “Things look a little bit sunnier in the Republican Party.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-bipartisan-group-forms-push-carbon-tax
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