Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 21/06/18
-
(ACC Blog) Building Sustainability and Resilience Through Chemistry
Jun 21, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
At the AIA Conference on Architecture this week, architects, designers and firms are gathering in New York City to share their perspectives, and learn from others, about how to “build a blueprint for better cities” – with a focus on health, resilience and sustainability. -
Changes to Fifra Labelling Rules May Ease Disclosure Mandate Compliance
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
The US EPA is expected to publish a formal proposal this summer to update rules related to pesticide registration and labelling, to ease conformance with third-party requirements, a conference in Washington, DC has heard. -
Walmart Considers Blockchain Technology for Tracing Chemicals
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US retail giant Walmart is assessing whether the digital technology 'blockchain' can be used to trace chemicals across some of its products and packaging. -
Trump Rolls Out Long-Shot Plan for Government Overhaul
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Michael Doyle
The Interior Department would take over part of the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program under a wildly ambitious federal government reorganization plan proposed by the Trump administration today. -
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Trichloroethylene (TCE)?
Jun 21, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was signed into law June 22nd, 2016 and created a mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines, to do so in a transparent fashion, and to do so using risk-based chemical assessments rather than rely on simple epidemiological correlations. -
EPA Updates TSCA New Chemical Submission Guidance
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published an updated copy of its guidance for submitting new chemicals for agency review under TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Study Urges Stricter PFOA Safety Levels
Jun 21, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The U.S. government released a long-awaited study June 20 on the safety of fluorinated chemicals that recommends much stricter safe exposure levels for the public. -
(ACC Mentioned) US ATSDR Releases 'Suppressed' PFAS Tox Profile
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has released a controversial draft toxicological profile on four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). -
US Legislators Seek Changes in Iarc Procedures
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Members of the House Appropriations Committee have demanded assurances that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) will make specified changes in the way it conducts research reviews as a condition of receiving US funding. -
US Industry Defends Methylene Chloride Despite Retailer Bans
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US industry groups have continued to defend the need for methylene chloride paint removers, despite three major retailers announcing plans to phase them out. -
No Need for Cancer Risk Label on Coffee — State Agency
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
It's bottoms up with a smile for coffee addicts in California. -
ChemSec Disputes Echa Has ‘Addressed’ all Relevant SVHCs
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
NGO ChemSec is challenging Echa’s claim that it has "addressed all relevant currently known" SVHCs. -
Echa Opens Consultation on Derogation Request for PFOA Restriction
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa is inviting comments on a proposal for an additional derogation to the restriction of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related substances (entry 68 of Annex XVII to REACH). -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has invited third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies on 13 testing proposals for nine substances. -
The Great American Oil Boom
Jun 21, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Jude Clemente
Thanks to evolving hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, the U.S. shale revolution that has taken flight since 2008 has transformed energy markets around the world. -
Shell Viewing Pennsylvania Shales as ‘Growth Option’
Jun 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
In a rare overview of its Marcellus and Utica shale operations, a Royal Dutch Shell plc official told a crowd at an industry conference in Pittsburgh on Wednesday the supermajor is “strongly committed to Pennsylvania,” where its natural gas wells have low breakevens and generate competitive cash flow within the U.S. unconventional portfolio. -
'Shale Gale' Still Upending Industry After 10 Years — Report
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The shale drilling boom that remade the U.S. energy industry is entering its second decade, according to the research firm IHS Markit Ltd., and like any adolescent, it's having growing pains. -
With Obama Standards on Hold, BLM Drops Methane Appeal
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration is dropping an appeal aimed at sidelining Obama-era standards for methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands. -
Energy Firm Cites NEPA Delays in Drilling Project Withdrawal
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
EOG Resources Inc. has withdrawn its proposal to drill more than 2,000 wells on mostly public lands in Utah. -
Unfracked Oil Wells Growing as Permian Pipeline Scarcity Worsens
Jun 21, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Ryan Collins
Pipeline bottlenecks in North America’s biggest oil field are so pervasive that drillers are quitting new wells at a record pace. -
Pruitt Says New Hazardous Substance Spill Rule ‘Unnecessary’
Jun 21, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today said he would not require businesses to take any new steps to prevent or contain chemical spills, declaring that existing rules are sufficient. -
States Fear Permit Streamlining Might Undercut Role In Project Approvals
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State water regulators fear that Trump administration efforts to streamline environmental permitting might limit their ability to use Clean Water Act (CWA) powers to certify federally approved projects such as pipelines and assume authority to permit dredge-and-fill projects, urging the government to consult with states as co-regulators. -
More Than 20 Nations Seek Toughen Climate Goals by 2020
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Alister Doyle
More than 20 nations ranging from Germany, France and Britain to Pacific island states said on Thursday they would try to limit their greenhouse gas emissions more than already planned under the Paris climate agreement by 2020. -
Greenpeace Finds PFAS and Microplastics in the Antarctic
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A Greenpeace study, has revealed the presence of microplastics and per- and polyfluorinated alkylated substances (PFASs) in seawater and snow samples from the Antarctic.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Building Sustainability and Resilience Through Chemistry
Jun 21, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
At the AIA Conference on Architecture this week, architects, designers and firms are gathering in New York City to share their perspectives, and learn from others, about how to “build a blueprint for better cities” – with a focus on health, resilience and sustainability.
AIA states that “community sustainability goals are fulfilled in large part by an architect’s ability to create practical solutions to the challenges posed by climate change, population growth and the pursuit of more connected, healthier communities.”
American Chemistry Council (ACC) members provide the chemistries for the high-performance products and technologies that enable these practical solutions. From foam insulation materials that help keep buildings warm and save energy, to vinyl wall coverings and sealants that can help ventilation systems work effectively and improve indoor air quality, to plastic pipes that can provide clean water to occupants, chemistry innovations are the “Science Behind Sustainability.”
Here are just a few specific examples of how chemistry can contribute to structural resilience and sustainability in the built environment:Building exterior surfaces coated with a thin layer of titanium dioxide nanoparticles not only enable self-cleaning of the building exterior, but may also help clean the surrounding air. Ultraviolet light from the sun reacts with the titanium dioxide, to form reactive hydroxyl radicals that can actively break down pollutants in the air, including nitrous oxide gases and volatile organic compounds.Wall insulation can help protect buildings during uncontrollable natural events. Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) is made from a variety of monomeric and polymeric isocyanates, polyethers and acrylics that, when combined, create a lightweight polymer material with high-performing insulating properties. Closed-cell SPF can withstand direct, prolonged contact with floodwater without sustaining significant damage.Closed-cell SPF insulation applied to the underside of a roof also can seal and strengthen a roof deck to help prevent water penetration and damage from high winds. Specifically, closed-cell SPF can improve roof racking strength by as much as 300 percent, while also adding air and moisture barriers.Durable polycarbonateplastic – the same material used in Kevlar – helps make wall cladding, windows and frames that are shatter-resistant and resilient. Polycarbonate sheets can also be 250 times more impact-resistant than glass, extremely difficult to break, are tested to perform in temperatures ranging from -40°F to 240°F, and can withstand extreme weather such as heavy winds, hail and snowstorms.Vegetative, or “green” roofs, constructed using polyethylene water barriers and resin-based adhesives, can enhance a building’s resilience as well as sustainability. Vegetative roofing systems can help keep water out of a building during times of high rainfall and reduce storm water run-off. These systems can contribute to more resilient, sustainable communities by reducing stress on urban sewer systems and decreasing run-off related pollution in waterways.
Learn more about the latest sustainability trends and emerging concepts in the built environment at BuildingwithChemistry.org.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/06/building-sustainability-and-resilience-through-chemistry/
-
Changes to Fifra Labelling Rules May Ease Disclosure Mandate Compliance
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
The US EPA is expected to publish a formal proposal this summer to update rules related to pesticide registration and labelling, to ease conformance with third-party requirements, a conference in Washington, DC has heard.
The draft guidance, released in September 2017, proposes allowing manufacturers to make some additional labelling changes without providing the agency with a formal amendment.
And the proposal could allow products subject to pesticide regulations – including disinfectants and antimicrobials – to more readily meet ingredient disclosure mandates being imposed by states and retailers, a conference organised by the cleaning industry association ISSA heard on 7 June.
The possible change in policy was triggered by Walmart’s announcement that it was giving suppliers until January this year to conform with its disclosure requirements.
In the draft, the EPA sought comment on whether it would be "appropriate" to allow changes, "based upon third-party vendor requirements" without formal amendment. The agency is considering allowing this either with or without notification. The EPA also sought views "on requiring disclosure of all inert ingredients or only a subset of those in registered formulations."
It is currently reviewing responses, ahead of publishing a formal proposal.‘An emerging concern’
Although the EPA’s proposal was triggered by the Walmart announcement, other pending retailer mandates and state disclosure laws – such as the cleaning products law passed in California in 2017 and New York’snew programme – pose the same issue for federally regulated products.
Komal Jain, director of the Center for Biocide Chemistries, told the conference: "At the retailer level, there is not a great deal of appreciation of the process involved when you change a label impacting federal and state requirements."
Walmart offered some relief by giving "leeway" to companies for products regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra ) if "they have a compliance plan," Ms. Jain said.
However, she said, the EPA must address not only the amendment process, but how much flexibility companies will have to vary such elements as the placement of information on a label and the "nomenclature" used to identify ingredients.Other changes
Industry was pleased with some other changes proposed in the EPA document; such as, allowing addition of terms such as "floral scent" to a label when a fragrance has been changed or added, without formal amendment, said Bill McCormick, a research fellow at the Clorox Company.
"We have worked for years to get an improved process for fragrance," he said.
And most "impactful" for Clorox, he said, is easier changes to symbols and graphics. "If we want to change the picture of a sink, we shouldn’t need an amendment for that."
However, industry is against requiring them if the source of an ingredient changes, saying that this could cause months of disruption in the supply of a product.
In other comments to the consultation, industry groups opposed requiring advance notification to add other surface uses for disinfectants.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67668/changes-to-fifra-labelling-rules-may-ease-disclosure-mandate-compliance
-
Walmart Considers Blockchain Technology for Tracing Chemicals
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
US retail giant Walmart is assessing whether the digital technology 'blockchain' can be used to trace chemicals across some of its products and packaging.
Blockchain is a digital record keeping system that enables the creation and maintenance of a growing number of records, allowing fast tracking of information. It was originally created to manage transactions through the crypto-currency Bitcoin, but has since shown potential for sharing and retrieving many other forms of data.
In its 2018 global responsibility report, the company says the technology holds a lot of promise for "enabling a new era of transparency and enhanced trust".
A Walmart spokesperson told Chemical Watch that,"the beauty of blockchain is that it lets us shine a light on a range of data attributes".
"We have certainly thought about how we could trace chemicals in foods and food packaging among these," she added.
Blockchain, she said, lets companies confidently and precisely pinpoint ingredients and suppliers, with dates, times, locations, temperatures, certificates and more.
"It can provide an extraordinary level of detail that we would definitely like to see include chemical ingredients, direct and indirect additives and colours," she added.Pilot projects
Last year, Walmart collaborated with Chinese online retailer JD.com, IBM, and the Tsinghua University National Engineering Laboratory for E-Commerce Technologies to create a 'Blockchain Food Safety Alliance'. This aims to enhance food tracking, traceability and achieve greater transparency across the food supply chain.
In a trial of the technology, the company first asked a team to trace a package of sliced mangoes back to their source using current methods. Because of paper-based record keeping commonly used in the industry and multiple layers in produce supply chains, it took six days, 18 hours and 26 minutes.
However, using blockchain it was able to trace a mango in a US store back to its origin on a farm in Mexico in 2.2 seconds.
"Such capability would help enable rapid processing of recalls and help limit potential exposure to affected products," it said.
It also ran a blockchain pilot in China on pork, significantly reducing the time needed to trace products back to the farm.
Its potential has sparked the formation of a coalition comprised of the suppliers and retailers Danone, Dole, Driscolls, Golden State Foods, Kroger, McCormick, Nestlé, Tyson, Unilever and Walmart. The aim is to identify new areas where the global supply chain can benefit from blockchain.
The technology is a hot topic and has been linked with its potential use for a number of materials and products, including the tracking of conflict minerals and nanomaterials.
In a 2017 report on the mining industry, service provider PwC says through its use, materials could be tracked and traced from the "moment of extraction to the point of sale". This, it says, would satisfy increasing consumer demand for both improved supply chain transparency and more environmentally sound products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67911/walmart-considers-blockchain-technology-for-tracing-chemicals
-
Trump Rolls Out Long-Shot Plan for Government Overhaul
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Michael Doyle
The Interior Department would take over part of the Army Corps of Engineers' civil works program under a wildly ambitious federal government reorganization plan proposed by the Trump administration today.
The plan also would merge the Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries within Interior, among many other proposals.
"By merging agencies that handle similar, if not the same, functions we would be able to greatly improve services to the American people and better protect the land and wildlife under our care," Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said.
Months in the drafting, the energy and environmental ideas presented by the White House Office of Management and Budget are only part of a larger reorganization scheme that includes merging the Labor and Education departments and moving food stamps from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Human Services.
"This effort, along with the recent executive orders on federal unions, are the biggest pieces so far of our plan to drain the swamp. The federal government is bloated, opaque, bureaucratic and inefficient," said OMB Director Mick Mulvaney.
Administration officials bill the plan as an exercise in good government. Skeptics call it far-fetched, the latest in a decadeslong series of reorganization proposals that sound good on paper but face big-time resistance from Capitol Hill, bureaucracies and regulated industries.
Congress, for one, would have to find the time and political space for a massive administrative undertaking amid the competing priorities and impediments of an election year. Regulated industries tend to grow comfortable with their overseers. President Trump would have to stay focused.
"For the administration's reorganization plans to succeed, the president and members of his administration must articulate a governmentwide vision for reform, the rationale for each proposal, and how the administration will implement changes and measure progress," Partnership for Public Service President and CEO Max Stier cautioned today.
The Government Accountability Office underscored the point in a 2009 report, noting that "policymakers over the last four decades made several unsuccessful attempts to reorganize the nation's land and resource agencies," among others.
"These proposals, however, were unsuccessful for a number of reasons, including political resistance to the specific changes and shifting government priorities," GAO noted.
The still-relevant 2009 GAO study came in response to lawmakers potentially interested in moving the Forest Service back to Interior, from which the agency had been pulled by Congress in 1905 (Greenwire, June 7).
Bureaucratically, USDA has consistently resisted surrendering control of the Forest Service, whose approximately 34,000 employees number more than any other branch of the department. The Trump proposal does not resurrect the old idea of folding the Forest Service into Interior.The Trump plan
The Army Corps of Engineers staged flood relief equipment at Buckley Air Force Base in Colorado in 2013. Staff Sgt. Nicholas Rau/U.S. Air Force
The new proposal would:Move NOAA Fisheries from the Commerce Department to merge with FWS at Interior.
Administration officials said it would make sense to combine the agencies as a way to end the confusion over who's in charge of implementing the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Critics have long complained that the agencies oftentimes have overlapping jurisdictions, leading to unnecessary bureaucracy.Fold Interior and USDA hazardous material programs into EPA's Superfund program. That should allow EPA to more easily clean up waste sites on federal land, while Interior and USDA can keep their reclamation programs for other sites, the proposal said.
Trump's plan also would have EPA streamline and reduce its oversight of state regulators to focus on "national consistency" and provide technical assistance to states. In addition, the agency would assess using owned office space versus leasing for its field operations and review management of its laboratories.Move the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works division out of the Defense Department and into the departments of Transportation and the Interior. The move is meant "to consolidate and align the Corps' civil works missions with these agencies."
The Army Corps has a broad domestic portfolio that includes wetland permitting, management of inland waterways and reservoirs, flood control and responses to natural disasters.
The proposal would move the corps' navigation management to the Department of Transportation, which "would place a single federal agency in charge of supporting maritime transportation investments."
The rest of the corps' missions would be moved to Interior.Merge the Department of Energy's applied energy offices on renewables, nuclear and fossil energy into one "Office of Energy Innovation."
Elements of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which currently is a separate program funded at $353 million, would be moved into the new innovation office.
The White House also wants to create a parallel Office of Energy Resources and Economic Strategy to deliver "solutions that support U.S. energy dominance in access to resources and infrastructure." The Office of Cybersecurity, Energy Security and Emergency Response would be maintained.Long shot
The new governmentwide reorganization proposal is separate from Zinke's plan to shuffle his department by redrawing regional maps and moving personnel and possibly an agency's headquarters out of Washington, D.C. (Greenwire, May 23).
A similarly ambitious governmentwide reorganization proposal crashed and burned in 1949, underscoring the difficulties ahead.
The so-called Hoover Commission proposed many moves, including taking the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Land Management and commercial fish operations out of Interior and moving the Army Corps of Engineers' flood control and rivers-and-harbors work in. The idea died.
Formally called the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, the group was composed of esteemed individuals and experts outside of government. The Trump plan, by contrast, was drafted by the White House's own OMB.
Neither the Energy Department nor EPA existed at the time of the 1949 Hoover Commission's set of proposals.
"The White House ... must get congressional buy-in and bipartisan support, make substantial, upfront investments, and plan for sustained attention over many years," Stier said.
Reporters Kevin Bogardus, Rob Hotakainen, Ariel Wittenberg, Christa Marshall, Sam Mintz and Kellie Lunney contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/21/stories/1060086039
-
ACSH Explains: What's The Story On Trichloroethylene (TCE)?
Jun 21, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Michael L. Dourson
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was signed into law June 22nd, 2016 and created a mandatory requirement for EPA to evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines, to do so in a transparent fashion, and to do so using risk-based chemical assessments rather than rely on simple epidemiological correlations.
EPA selected the first 10 chemicals to undergo risk evaluation under the amended TSCA and to make those understandable for the public, the American Council on Science and Health is producing risk-based evaluations of each, which will then be compiled into a free downloadable book for consumers.
What is Trichloroethylene (TCE)?
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a colorless, volatile liquid that is nonflammable and has a sweet odor. It evaporates quickly into the air, but can also be found in water and soil. It is used as a solvent to remove greases, oils, fats, waxes, and tars from metal parts, and is also used to clean cotton, wool, and other fabrics. It is also a component of adhesives, lubricants, paints, varnishes, paint strippers, pesticides, and cold metal cleaners. In the past it was used as a food extraction solvent for natural fats and oils, the decaffeination of coffee, and for cosmetic and drug products.
The chemical structure of trichloroethylene is very simple as shown in the graphic; two molecules of carbon in a double bond with 1 hydrogen atom and 3 chlorine atoms. This simple structure and the ability of our bodies to metabolize TCE lead to its principle effect, that of liver and kidney toxicity at high levels of exposure. This is similar to other solvents, including alcohol.
Exposure to TCE
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of 2014 states that TCE is commonly found in outdoor air at levels far less than 1 part per million (ppm) but levels as high as about 0.02 ppm have sometimes been measured inside homes and in public places. In workplace air at facilities that use TCE for metal degreasing, it has been measured from 1 ppm up to 100 ppm but it is not chemically stable in air and is broken down quickly. TCE has also been found in drinking water samples in the United States, at levels far less than those found in air, typically less than 30 parts per billion (ppb).
In contrast to air, TCE breaks down slowly in surface water (such as lakes and rivers) and is removed from these waters mostly through evaporation. TCE can also slowly enter groundwater from surface water. In these cases, TCE is expected to remain in groundwater for long periods of time because it is contained and cannot readily evaporate. TCE is also found in soil; it can move through soil to the groundwater or evaporate to air.
Like its fate in groundwater, TCE breaks down only slowly in soil and is removed mostly through evaporation. TCE in soil (and to some extent in groundwater) may evaporate and migrate into air spaces beneath buildings and possibly enter the indoor building air, a process termed vapor intrusion.
TCE Health Effects
TCE is quickly eliminated from the body by breathing, whether exposed occurs through breathing or oral ingestion, find both ATSDR (2014) and EPA (2011). What remains in the body is changed by the liver to other chemicals that are quickly eliminated in the urine. When the body absorbs more TCE than it can eliminate quickly, some of it is stored in body fat. However, once exposure ceases, TCE and its breakdown products are quickly eliminated as above.
Like exposure to any chemical, toxicity of TCE depends on the level to which one is exposed and the length of time of exposure. Both ATSDR (2014) and EPA (2011) report that environmental monitoring data suggest TCE levels, which the public might encounter by direct contact or through air, water, food, or soil, are generally much lower than the levels at which adverse health effects are elicited in experimental animal studies. However, some drinking water sources and working environments have been found to contain levels of TCE that may cause health problems in humans.
Exposure of experimental animals over a few weeks to high levels of TCE result in harmful effects on the nervous system, liver, respiratory system, kidneys, blood, immune system, possibly heart, and body weight loss. Highly controversial evidence exists which concluded that TCE may also cause fetal heart effects (see section on controversy below). Similarly, exposure to modest levels of TCE in people over a few weeks may cause headaches, dizziness, and sleepiness. Larger amounts of TCE may cause nervous system effects related to hearing, seeing, and balance, changes in heartbeat rhythm, liver damage, kidney damage, coma and even death. Some people who get concentrated solutions of TCE on their skin develop rashes.
Both ATSDR (2014) and EPA (2011) note that exposure of several years in experimental animals have also shown liver and kidney damage, immune toxicity, and cancer of various organs. Also noted by these agencies is that TCE exposure of several years in the workplace may cause autoimmune disease in some workers, and some men occupationally-exposed to TCE showed decreases in sex drive, sperm quality, and reproductive hormone levels. In addition, some evidence exists that TCE can cause kidney, liver, or blood cancer in people.
TCE Safe Levels
The federal and state governments develop regulations and recommendations to protect public health. Regulations and recommendations are often expressed as a safe or virtually safe level, that is, a level of a substance in air, water, soil, or food that is not expected to cause any adverse health effect, even in people who are sensitive to the chemical’s effects. These safe levels are usually based on information from experiments with animals (usually rodents) at much higher levels of the chemicals than humans would typically encounter. The higher animal exposures are used to see what the adverse health effects could be. The scientists then conjecture what the adverse effects possibly could be in humans at a lower level of exposure. Scientists can then estimate what a level probably is that will protect humans.
Sometimes these safe levels differ among federal and state organizations because they used different assumptions for human exposure, different animal studies, or employ methods that differ slightly. Other times these recommendations differ because new science develops that suggests different levels are toxic or safe. ATSDR (2014) and NLM (2018b) give examples of these differing recommendations for TCE among government organizations. Recommendations and regulations are also updated periodically as more information becomes available.
Why Is EPA Looking At This Under The Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act?
EPA scientists are currently looking at the likely routes of exposure to TCE in the environment and will be developing exposure scenarios, or pathways, of how the public comes in contact with TCE. These exposure pathways will then be studied by EPA scientists by comparing the amount of TCE exposure in the pathway to its safe or virtually safe level. If human exposure in the pathway is at or below this safe or virtually safe level, then TCE exposure from the pathway is not considered to be a human health concern.
If exposure is above this safe or virtually safe level, then the pathway might be considered as a possible health concern, though small excesses of the safe or virtually safe dose are seldom cause for concern. Safety levels are developed from conservative assumptions, including the use of safety factors that tend to exaggerate risk and exposure pathways that tend to exaggerate exposure. Still, if it becomes a concern regulations might be developed to lessen the exposure of TCE from this pathway. See also EPA (2018) for specific questions related to the assessment of TCE under the new LCSA.Controversy Over Trichloroethylene (TCE)
The assessment of TCE toxicity has led to controversy because not all authorities or government agencies consider TCE to be a known human carcinogen. Rodents are not little people, and TCE has only been shown to definitively cause cancer in experimental animals (see for example, NLM, 2018b). In addition, EPA (2011) accepted a study showing developmental toxicity in the hearts of experimental animals at low doses based on a controversial study of TCE exposure in drinking water that is controversial (Johnson et al., 1998, 2003), in part because other studies in experimental animals showed no such effects, including one study specifically designed to replicate these findings (Fisher et al., 2001).
Additional and ongoing attempts at replicating this controversial study have proved to be difficult since the concentration of TCE cannot be readily maintained in the drinking water, leading to additional questions regarding use of that lone study as the basis for EPA’s safe level.
To seek better answers, the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) was petitioned by the Alliance for Site Closures, a small company in Indiana composed of retired state government scientists, to develop a collaboration of interested groups to review EPA’s non-cancer toxicity assessment of TCE and to improve the understanding of current EPA methods to develop risk assessment values. The resulting range of values included EPA’s current safety standards for TCE, which were based in part on the controversial Johnson et al. (2003) study. The Steering Committee of the ARA, composed almost exclusively of government officials, asked that the collaboration focus instead on building a range in EPA’s risk values, based on EPA methods, but using TCE as an example. The resulting range of values included EPA’s current safety standards for TCE, which were based in part on the controversial Johnson et al. (2003) study. The collaboration team included scientists from a number of organizations, including the ATSDR and the nonprofit organization Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA).
The team developed a method that was independently vetted by a team of risk assessment experts, including EPA scientists, and was published in a peer reviewed journal (Dourson et al., 2016).
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/21/acsh-explains-whats-story-trichloroethylene-tce-13098
-
EPA Updates TSCA New Chemical Submission Guidance
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published an updated copy of its guidance for submitting new chemicals for agency review under TSCA.
The newest version of the document – Points to consider when preparing TSCA new chemical notifications – incorporates comments received on a November draft, including those made at a December public meeting.
Formation of the document came amid ongoing industry frustration at the slow pace of review of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) since TSCA was amended in 2016. It provides non-binding information to assist submitters in preparing PMNs, significant new use notices (Snuns) or exemption notices under section 5 of TSCA.
The agency says the guidance "promotes early engagement and communication, and enhances overall understanding of EPA’s technical review and analysis to better move chemicals through the evaluation process."
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said this will "increase manufacturers’ certainty, improve submissions, and get new, safer chemicals on the market faster and more efficiently".
Alongside the guidance, the agency has published responses to more than 100 comments raised by stakeholders.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67915/epa-updates-tsca-new-chemical-submission-guidance
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Study Urges Stricter PFOA Safety Levels
Jun 21, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The U.S. government released a long-awaited study June 20 on the safety of fluorinated chemicals that recommends much stricter safe exposure levels for the public.
The study, from a unit of the Centers for Disease Control, recommends safety standards for the non-stick chemicals that are up to 10 times lower than previously recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to environmental groups who have analyzed the detailed 852-page report.
One of the chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, had been used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, and the class of chemicals has been used in firefighting foams and in the lining of food packaging, among other applications. Various studies have found it widely in drinking water systems.
The chemicals were the subject of an Environmental Protection Agency forum in Washington in late May that drew headlines for excluding some reporters and members of the public.
At that forum, a speaker from the American Chemistry Council urged using the best available science to determine safety standards and urged restrictions on imports of legacy versions of the chemicals in a broad class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.
The Washington-based Environmental Working Group noted that states like New Jersey and Michigan have been moving to set much tougher PFAS standards than the current EPA safe levels, and predicted that absent federal leadership, it "will largely fall to state and local governments to step in."
"This study confirms that the EPA's guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water woefully underestimate risks to human health," said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser at EWG.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180621/NEWS/180629978/us-study-urges-stricter-pfoa-safety-levels
-
(ACC Mentioned) US ATSDR Releases 'Suppressed' PFAS Tox Profile
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has released a controversial draft toxicological profile on four per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The move comes amid uproar over allegations that other federal agencies were suppressing its release.
Last month, internal EPA emails released under a public records request showed concern that the ATSDR was planning to publish a study with minimal risk levels (MRLs) for the PFASs far below those set by the EPA. One White House staffer feared this would result in a "public relations nightmare".
Congress and the consumer advocacy community responded with outrage over the delay, and called for the ATSDR – which is housed under the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – to release the draft toxicological profile.
Now the "very, very low" MRLs values referenced in the January email exchange have been confirmed in the toxicological profile for four of the 14 assessed substances: PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA.
The limits are set out on a body-weight basis (mg/kg/day), intended to serve as estimates of daily human exposure unlikely to cause an appreciable risk of adverse non-cancer health effects.
Environmental Working Group researchers tell Chemical Watch that using the EPA's methodology for translating these figures into drinking water advisory values results in the following levels:PFOS: approximately 7 parts per trillion (ppt);PFOA and PFNA: approximately 11ppt; andPFHxS: approximately 74ppt.
This contrasts with the EPA's non-enforceable lifetime health advisory level for PFOA and PFOS of 70ppt in drinking water. This makes its level seven to ten times higher than that recommended by the ATSDR, says the EWG.
And it "confirms that the EPA's guidelines for PFAS levels in drinking water woefully underestimate risks to human health," said Olga Naidenko, senior science adviser at the group.NGOs push for further action
Michael Halpern of the NGO Union of Concerned Scientists praised the ATSDR for "finally doing the right thing" by releasing the "suppressed" assessment.
He requested that Congress "step up oversight into political interference in science that causes direct harm to public health and the environment."
And the EWG used the document's release to reiterate a call made by 40 NGOs for US states to continue taking the lead on eliminating the use of PFASs.
"It will largely fall to state and local governments to step in and take the necessary action to deliver results for the public," said EWG president Ken Cook.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) told Chemical Watch it looked forward to reviewing the draft and providing feedback.
The ATSDR will accept comments on the document for 30 days. It is particularly seeking "additional information, reports and studies about the health effects of these substances" for possible inclusion in the final profile.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67897/us-atsdr-releases-suppressed-pfas-tox-profile
-
US Legislators Seek Changes in Iarc Procedures
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
Members of the House Appropriations Committee have demanded assurances that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) will make specified changes in the way it conducts research reviews as a condition of receiving US funding.
Fiscal 2019 spending legislation contains a provision barring funding for Iarc’s monograph programme unless the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) submits to Congress a report which describes "that grants, contracts or cooperative agreement awards to Iarc will require":a "transparent review process" in which drafts and revisions are publicly available online;a process to "address conflicts of interest in the selection of individuals involved with monograph programme assessments;"use of "the best available science" in developing assessment conclusions; andsummaries of "relevant and significant" studies and reports that do not support assessment conclusions.
The legislation, approved on 15 June by a House appropriations subcommittee, covers the fiscal year beginning on 1 October. But spending bills are not likely to be finalised for several months, and Senate appropriators would have to agree for the provision to be included in the final version.Long-simmering row
The appropriations rider is the latest salvo in a long-running feud between the international agency and Republicans in the US Congress.
Members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology recently wrote to Elisabete Weiderpass, the incoming Iarc director, asking her to testify at a July hearing. The letter described the monograph programme as "an affront to scientific integrity" and accused Dr Weiderpass of having aligned herself with "shoddy and politics-driven science".
Iarc’s decisions have regulatory implication in the US because they lead to substances being listed as carcinogens under California’s Proposition 65.
Critics have taken aim at Iarc’s procedures generally, but their primary focus has been its 2015 review of glyphosate – the primary ingredient of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide – which Iarc classified as "probably" carcinogenic to humans. Litigation over the substance's listing under Prop 65 is currently underway.
The NIH has given nearly $48m to Iarc since 1985. More than $22m of this went to the monographs programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67898/us-legislators-seek-changes-in-iarc-procedures
-
US Industry Defends Methylene Chloride Despite Retailer Bans
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US industry groups have continued to defend the need for methylene chloride paint removers, despite three major retailers announcing plans to phase them out.
In recent weeks, retail giants Home Depot, Lowe’s and Sherwin-Williams have pledged to stop selling products containing the solvent by the end of this year. The actions follow campaigning from consumer advocacy groups for a ban, after a number of deaths over the last few years.
But a spokesperson for the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) insisted that methylene chloride products still had an important place in the marketplace, and "are the best products for efficient and effective paint removal".
Alternative formulations have not been widely accepted in the market, the spokesperson told Chemical Watch. "They do not work as well and many of them are flammable, unlike methylene chloride."
They are frequently returned to the store and exchanged for the methylene chloride-based products, the spokesperson added. "To the extent the big stores stop carrying these, I would guess contractors [and] knowledgeable consumers will go to smaller local hardware stores."
The US paint and coatings trade group, American Coatings Association, also defended the use of methylene chloride and alternative solvent N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) in paint removal products.
A spokesperson said the association "opposed outright bans of these compounds in the absence of environmentally safer alternatives."
ACA "strongly endorses following the precautionary labelling guidelines of using proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and ensuring proper ventilation," they said.
The US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recently expanded its labelling guidance for paint strippers containing methylene chloride to address acute inhalation hazards.Decoupling NMP from methylene chloride
Meanwhile, the NMP Producers Group told Chemical Watch it believes the US EPA should decouple its approach to NMP and methylene chloride in regulating the products.
In 2017, the EPA proposed a single rule under section 6 of TSCA to ban methylene chloride paint strippers, and either to ban or impose restrictions on products containing NMP.
But Kathleen M Roberts, manager of the NMP Producers Group, said that assessing them as a single category had "led to confusion in the marketplace, by giving the impression these products present a comparable risk profile."
Methylene chloride is "very volatile and most of the exposures occur via inhalation", she said. NMP is "mildly volatile and most of the exposures would occur through dermal exposure".
The fact that the agency put forward a proposal for NMP that considers labelling and other restrictions in place of a ban "demonstrates that EPA does not intend for the two chemicals to be treated the same", Ms Roberts added.
Apparently shelved, the EPA announced last month that it will finalise a rule on methylene chloride. But the EPA’s recent problem formulations suggest the agency might not be moving forward with its rulemaking on NMP.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67909/us-industry-defends-methylene-chloride-despite-retailer-bans
-
No Need for Cancer Risk Label on Coffee — State Agency
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
It's bottoms up with a smile for coffee addicts in California.
The state's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) wants to exempt cups of joe from having to include warnings that the popular beverage includes chemicals with cancer risk.
California's Proposition 65, passed in 1986, requires warnings for products and locations that contain certain chemicals identified as having a cancer risk. Those alerts are ubiquitous in the Golden State.
OEHHA said this week it will seek to add new language to state regulations that would say that "exposures to listed chemicals in coffee created by and inherent in the processes of roasting coffee beans or brewing coffee do not pose a significant risk of cancer."
The proposed change is based on "extensive scientific evidence that drinking coffee has not been shown to increase the risk of cancer and may reduce the risk of some types of cancer," the agency said in a statement.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — in a review of more than 1,000 studies published this week — concluded there is "inadequate evidence" that drinking coffee causes cancer. Moreover, it said that coffee is associated with reduced risk for cancers of the liver and uterus, and does not cause cancers of the breast, pancreas and prostate. IARC also found that coffee drinking exhibits strong antioxidant effects related to reduced cancer risk, OEHHA said.
"Coffee is a complex mixture of numerous chemicals that includes both known carcinogens — such as acrylamide, formed during the roasting of coffee beans and brewing coffee — and chemicals that protect against cancer, including antioxidants," OEHHA said.
OEHHA agency will take comments on its proposed language change from Friday through Aug. 30 and will hold a public hearing Aug. 16 in Sacramento. OEHHA is the lead state agency that implements Proposition 65, and has authority to put forward or amend regulations linked to the law.
The Council for Education and Research on Toxics brought a lawsuit against roughly 90 coffee and other companies in 2010, seeking warnings tied to the chemical acrylamide. A Los Angeles judge in May finalized a court ruling that coffee sold in California has to carry cancer warnings. Julian Leichty, a spokesman at OEHHA, said he couldn't comment on what effect the OEHHA move on coffee would have on existing court actions.
"We're focused on what the science says," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/21/stories/1060086015
-
ChemSec Disputes Echa Has ‘Addressed’ all Relevant SVHCs
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
NGO ChemSec is challenging Echa’s claim that it has "addressed all relevant currently known" SVHCs.
The agency most recently stated this in its fourth progress report on the implementation of the SVHC roadmap.
The NGO is questioning Echa’s use of the words ‘addressed’ and ‘relevant’ and will be raising the issue in a letter to agency head Bjorn Hansen next week.
"We don't agree they are addressed because they are not [all] on the candidate list. They are somewhere in the system," ChemSec senior toxicologist Anna Lennquist tells Chemical Watch.
She says she sees the need to put high priority substances in the system "because we know they are used and in that sense relevant". But, she adds: "You cannot just sit back and say that’s it, that’s done."
In Echa’s automated SVHC roadmap process, Ms Lennquist says, unregistered substances are "usually filtered out". It does not mean that the agency can say the non-registered are not relevant, she adds, because they may well be.
There are "very many substances" Echa needs to look at that are not yet regulated. "They are just somewhere in some expert group."
And when the agency uses the words ‘relevant substances’, she says, it’s really whatever they think is so. "It’s time to move beyond that now for Echa and member states."
In November last year, Echa analysis identified seven substances on ChemSec's Substitute It Now (SIN List) that are not yet under regulatory scrutiny but that may be potentially harmful to humans or the environment.
The SIN List contains publicly available information on substances from existing databases and scientific studies, as well as new research. At the end of last year, the NGO produced a report which said the list shows the REACH process is too slow. It cited the wide disparity between it and the candidate list of substances.'Political' process
The second REACH Review acknowledges that the process of adding SVHCs to the candidate list is "extremely slow", Ms Lennquist says, and that the precautionary principle is "not yet used".
The process is 'politicised' and there is "so much manufacturing of doubt from industry, so much insecurity from member states", which she says are too cautious. "They want to nominate something they know is certain to get through because it is costly."
Many of the last year’s nominated substances, she adds, were degradation products of a substance already on the candidate list, or a mixture with something closely related to a substance on the list.
"All the time they are trying to take the very secure ones people can agree on rather than perhaps the most important ones that we can protect human health and the environment from."
There is a need to work on many different levels, she says, to "take back the candidate list and its role".
Overall, she adds, there is a "common understanding" that this is an important list. The actors need to "work harder to get it populated and this letter to Bjorn is one way of doing that. We hope he can have an overview and clean that up because it is difficult on a member state level to have this."
Ms Lennquist talks more on the issue in this month’s Global Business Briefing.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67907/chemsec-disputes-echa-has-addressed-all-relevant-svhcs
-
Echa Opens Consultation on Derogation Request for PFOA Restriction
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa is inviting comments on a proposal for an additional derogation to the restriction of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), its salts and PFOA-related substances (entry 68 of Annex XVII to REACH).
The agency’s Committees for Risk Assessment and for Socio-economic Analysis (Rac and Seac) have been requested to prepare an opinion.
Echa says this assessment is not being carried out under the normal restriction procedure as it is a specific request from the European Commission for a derogation on an existing restriction. The opinions will be sent to the Commission by 1 December 2018.
The restriction entered into force in June 2017 and includes several derogations for different industrial sectors and uses.
The derogation review request came from pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, which uses perfluorooctane bromide (PFOB) for the manufacturing of pharmaceutical products for the treatment of pulmonary diseases.
PFOB is excluded from the scope of the PFOA restriction, but it contains perfluorooctane iodide (PFOI) as an impurity in concentrations above the threshold in the PFOA restriction. PFOI is a PFOA-related substance that is covered by the restriction.
The public consultation ends on 20 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67916/echa-opens-consultation-on-derogation-request-for-pfoa-restriction
-
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Testing proposalsEcha has invited third parties to submit scientifically valid information and studies on 13 testing proposals for nine substances. The deadline for providing information is 2 August.CLH intentions
The agency has received new intentions to harmonise the classification and labelling of:multi-walled carbon nanotubes (fibres fulfilling the WHO definition: diameter <3µm, fibre length >5μm and aspect ratio ≥3:1, with a diameter >xx nm), [MWCNT]. Additional lower cut-off value for the diameter of the MWCNT will be clarified in the final CLH proposal. Germany proposes a harmonised classification of carcinogen 1B, specific target organ toxicity-repeated exposure (Stot Re) with submission expected by 31 December;2,4,6-tri-tert-butylphenol; and6-[(C10-C13)-alkyl (branched, unsaturated)-2,5-dioxopyrrolidin-1-yl] hexanoic acid. Echa closure
Echa will be closed on 22 June.Video on updating REACH-IT contact details
The agency has reminded registrants of the importance of keeping contact details up to date in its REACH-IT tool. There is a video with practical advice on how to do this, which is through the REACH-IT menu (Menu/Manage company/Contacts).
It is also important, Echa says, to make sure the email address in the 'Email notifcation settings' is up to date (Menu/Manage company/Contacts). An email is sent to this account every time an action is required in REACH-IT by the registrant, for example, updating a dossier, it says.Update to interactive guide on SDSs
Echa has updated its interactive guide on safety data sheets and exposure scenarios. The guide is to help suppliers and SDS recipients to compile and understand substance and use information.
The agency has fixed some minor bugs and updated links. Translated versions will be corrected in coming weeks.Consultation on new guidance on Annex VIII to CLP
The agency has sent its new draft guidance on harmonised information related to emergency health response for Forum consultation (Annex VIII to CLP).
https://chemicalwatch.com/67859/echa-round-up
-
Jun 21, 2018 | RealClearEnergy
By Jude Clemente
Thanks to evolving hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies, the U.S. shale revolution that has taken flight since 2008 has transformed energy markets around the world. Long thought to have peaked in 1970, U.S. crude oil production continues to surge to new heights. Higher prices have increased profit margins, and output in 2018 has increased every week so far except one in mid-February.
In fact, new crude production has come so fast this year that even the top experts have quickly been shown to be out of touch. Back in November, for instance, analysts at Morgan Stanley claimed it highly unlikely that U.S. shale could add 1 million b/d of supply in 2018. So far, however, production has actually increased 1.4 million b/d, reaching another record of 10.9 million b/d for the week ending June 8.
Constant technological and efficiency gains have laid the foundation for soaring U.S. oil production. One of the key advantages of the commodity price collapse that began in 2014 is how “lean and mean” it forced the U.S. oil industry to become. Sunken prices pushed those companies that were not able to cut costs out of business, with over 100 E&P companies going bankrupt by the end of summer 2016.
Today, producers have streamlined operations to such a degree that they can “be in the black” even when oil costs just $44 per barrel, or a hefty 33 percent below where prices are now. Capital discipline has firmly been installed: Most companies are not approving projects that cannot generate a 15 percent return even if prices plummet to below $50.
We have six or seven major shale plays, but the Permian basin in west Texas has replaced the Bakken in North Dakota as the driving force behind our production boom. Almost doubling since 2015, Permian output is now at ~3.3 million b/d, and the field holds over half of all U.S. oil-directed rigs. Although constraints on pipeline takeaway capacity are raising concerns of a slowdown, IHS Markit still expects the Permian to soar to 5.4 million b/d by 2022. Outside the Permian, the higher prices that we have seen this year — U.S. oil prices hit a four-year high on May 22 of over $72 — have put the other fields more in play, such as the Bakken, offshore, and even a potential resurgence in the Austin Chalk.
Rising U.S. crude production has also ignited an export business that has been ramping up since late 2015, when a law change made it possible to ship crude to other nations besides Canada. In particular, flat U.S. demand for the past decadeand a refining system largely configured to process the heavier crudes that we import from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela have freed up loads of our oil for other countries. (U.S. shale oil is a lighter, sweeter grade that is not a perfect match for our refineries.) Commercially, U.S. crude exporters have also been bolstered by a widening gap between our own grade (West Texas Intermediate) and the higher cost international benchmark (Brent). It is noteworthy that U.S. petroleum product exports have also been at record highs, with distillate fuel oil leading the way.U.S. crude oil production and exports have surged to record highs in 2018.Data source: EIA
Looking forward, the future remains very bright for the U.S. oil business. Our Energy Information Administration (EIA) has us racing toward 12 million b/d by the end of next year to easily surpass Russia as the world’s largest petroleum producer. The Paris-based International Energy Agency has the U.S. accounting for 75 percent of new non-OPEC supply this year and next. Our crude exports could reach 5 million b/d over the next five years — more oil than any OPEC nation besides Saudi Arabia currently produces in total.
The great American shale boom offers a number of lessons for us. But let me focus on just two.
First, we should never underestimate the non-stop advance of energy technologies, even for the conventional sources that many assume will just simply cede the future to renewables. It regularly gets forgotten that while it is indeed true that wind and solar energy will continue to evolve, so wil oil and natural gas technologies. To illustrate, EIA’s International Energy Outlook 2007 never even mentioned shale as a possible future source of oil (or natural gas) in the decades ahead — forecasted out until 2035. In the years since, however, the U.S. shale boom has become the most important energy development globally in at least the past 50 years.
Secondly, as OPEC readies to meet with Russia and other partners on Friday to discuss next steps in their November 2016 agreement to cut production by 1.8 million b/d, the U.S. shale story also demonstrates how quickly policy support for our oil industry can allow the country to flourish. Besides the obvious economicand job benefits, our exports have also helped weaken the geopolitical influence of risky OPEC and Russia.
For example, since U.S. exports started in 2016, import-hungry China has been our second largest crude customer, receiving 122 million barrels as of March — a $1 billion monthly boon for us. But unfortunately now, the Trump administration’s burgeoning trade war on potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods is being met by very predictable retaliation: China proposing a 25 percent tariff on U.S. crude oil.
A loss for us but a gift for OPEC and Russia.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/06/21/the_great_american_oil_boom.html
-
Shell Viewing Pennsylvania Shales as ‘Growth Option’
Jun 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
In a rare overview of its Marcellus and Utica shale operations, a Royal Dutch Shell plc official told a crowd at an industry conference in Pittsburgh on Wednesday the supermajor is “strongly committed to Pennsylvania,” where its natural gas wells have low breakevens and generate competitive cash flow within the U.S. unconventional portfolio.
Shell has about 544,000 acres scattered throughout the state and currently produces 444 MMcf/d with a breakeven price of about $2.00/MMBtu, said Shell Oil Co.’s Tonya Williams, general manager of unconventional Appalachian resources.
“So, natural gas in the Appalachian Basin is going to be quite affordable for us...in particular with strong Henry Hub” prices, she said at Hart Energy’s Dug East Conference and Exhibition. “This is an excellent fit for our strategy. We talked about 25% oil, 75% gas,” she said, referring to Shell’s global production mix. “While we want to get balance in those ratios in the short-term, Appalachia is short-term cash and a wonderful hedge against long-term prices.”
Indeed, integrated gas, conventional oil and gas, and oil products are Shell’s main cash engines, but deepwater operations and chemicals are the priorities today. However, in unconventional resources, which include a huge position in the Permian Basin, and its technology division, New Energies, which is working on renewables solutions, Shell sees emerging opportunities, executives said at the annual management day last year.
Shell revamped its upstream business in 2015 and created an unconventional resources arm to oversee plays including the Marcellus and Utica. Since the revamp, Appalachian cycle times have been cut, costs have been reduced and 89% of the wells have performed in the top 5% of all those in the basin, Williams said.
“It’s interesting, our position, because it was known for many as what they believed to be an overmature part of the basin,” Williams told the crowd, referring mainly to north-central Pennsylvania, where the company works the Harvest area in Tioga County.
“We’ve actually discovered a dry gas sweetspot, primarily in the Tioga area, that we are using to our competitive advantage.” Shell attracted attention to the region about four years ago after testing two Utica discovery wells with success in an area that was about 100 miles northeast of the nearest Utica operator at the time. The region, once a Marcellus hotbed, has seen an uptick in activity since.
Shell does “see and have options” to explore in other counties in the north-central part of the state, Williams said. The operator also has in other drier portions of the play in western and central Pennsylvania, including deep Utica rights that eventually could be explored as well as acraege in eastern Ohio.
Another Shell unit is building a multi-billion dollar ethane cracker in Beaver County, PA, but Williams said the Appalachian wells would not be providing supplies for the facility given their dry gas profiles. Ten other natural gas producers have signed 10-20 year ethane supply agreements to anchor the cracker.
For now, Shell’s onshore team in the region is focused on the 250,000 acres it holds in Tioga County. The Appalachian division is operating on a $150 million capital budget this year, with plans to drill four pads and complete three with laterals of 10,000-15,000 feet in north-central Pennsylvania. One rig is to be idled in the county sometime this summer but the rig could go back to work quickly as plans for the next three years are being reviewed.
Appalachia, however, must compete for capital with all the other unconventional resources in Shell’s portfolio, she noted. In addition, Northeast takeaway constraints and low gas prices may factor in to what’s available to spend.
“We have in our portfolio a number of different positions; we talked about 25% oil and 75% gas, so we’re quite gassy right now. Some of the focus is to get a bit more balance and that’s consistent with being competitive and managing the swings in the market,” Williams said.
“We are quite competitive, we have a low breakeven, we’ve got some of the best in our portfolio from Shell’s perspective, in the wells that we’re drilling. We fit right in there, but when you’re looking at the overall strategic picture, we view Pennsylvania as a growth option.”
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114795-shell-viewing-pennsylvania-shales-as-growth-option
-
'Shale Gale' Still Upending Industry After 10 Years — Report
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The shale drilling boom that remade the U.S. energy industry is entering its second decade, according to the research firm IHS Markit Ltd., and like any adolescent, it's having growing pains.
Total U.S. gas production is expected to grow more than 50 percent over the next 20 years, the report said. That, along with a boost in U.S. oil production, will continue to drive down U.S. fuel imports, allow the electric power sector to continue switching away from more-polluting fuels like coal, and boost manufacturing and other industries that rely on low-cost energy.
At the same time, the shale boom is straining the nation's pipeline capacity, according to the report, "The Shale Gale Turns 10: A Powerful Wind at America's Back."
"It's touched everything and everyone in North America in some form or fashion," said Sam Andrus, who co-wrote the report with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Daniel Yergin.
The roots of the shale boom go back much further than 10 years. George Mitchell, who is largely credited with developing so-called unconventional drilling, began experimenting with new techniques in the 1990s.
In 1998, Mitchell's crews drilled the first commercially successful well into the Barnett Shale formation in Texas, using a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
Within a few years, other independent producers had developed shale fields in Pennsylvania, North Dakota, Colorado and other states.
At the time, American oil and gas production had been declining for decades. Other independent oil and gas producers quickly adopted Mitchell's techniques. In 2007, "the bell rang" as gas production began to rise significantly for the first time since the 1970s, the report said.
In the first decade of the "shale gale," gas output rose from 51.7 billion cubic feet a day in 2007 to 72.6 billion cubic feet a day in 2017. Oil output almost doubled during the same years, from 5 million barrels a day to 9.4 million barrels a day, according to Energy Department data.
Gas output from the U.S. and Canada combined now totals about 95 billion cubic feet a day and could hit 145 billion cubic feet by 2040, Andrus said. Just two shale fields — the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and the Permian Basin in Texas — will see their gas production double to 50 billion cubic feet a day by 2050, the report said.
The boom in gas production has upended the electric power market. Gas overtook coal as the most-used power plant fuel in 2016, contributing to a drop in greenhouse gas emissions, the report said.
Overall, the boom contributed up to 2 million jobs to the U.S. economy, including direct and indirect employment.
The industry has struggled, though, to build enough pipelines as production has exploded in regions that had little or no infrastructure. Just this week, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America said the U.S. will need to build 180,000 miles of new pipelines by 2035.
The estimated cost of pipeline construction has spiked 45 percent in a year, and that doesn't include the impact of the Trump administration's proposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, an INGAA report said (Energywire, June 19).
The most affected region will likely be Appalachia, according to IHS. The industry has already used up its opportunities to reverse the south-to-north flow of existing pipelines to get gas out of Pennsylvania and Ohio. It'll take new lines to carry away more gas, which will be more expensive.
There are other potential threats, too, such as foreign competition and the rise of renewable energy for power generation.
Still, Andrus said, the shale boom has permanently changed the U.S.'s relationship with the energy-producing world. Oil imports are near an all-time low, and the U.S. is exporting natural gas rather than importing it.
"This paper shows you just how significantly our world has been changed by the yoking together of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing," Andrus said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/21/stories/1060085923
-
With Obama Standards on Hold, BLM Drops Methane Appeal
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration is dropping an appeal aimed at sidelining Obama-era standards for methane emissions from oil and gas operations on public lands.
BLM's methane rule in the courts
Click here to open the PDF. Claudine Hellmuth/E&E News
The Justice Department gave notice yesterday that it is voluntarily dismissing a case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that challenged a California court's brief revival of the full 2016 regulation.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California revived all parts of the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management rule in February after finding that Trump officials had unlawfully suspended it. The government appealed two months later.
But a different court has since put the Obama standards back on hold, making the government's 9th Circuit case unnecessary.
The BLM methane rule has been caught in many layers of litigation since its unveiling in 2016. Right now, certain parts are in effect, but key provisions are on hold while the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals weighs whether to revive them (Energywire, June 5).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/21/stories/1060085279
-
Energy Firm Cites NEPA Delays in Drilling Project Withdrawal
Jun 21, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
EOG Resources Inc. has withdrawn its proposal to drill more than 2,000 wells on mostly public lands in Utah.
In the time it has taken the Bureau of Land Management to conduct its environmental review of the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas Infill Project, the proposal has outgrown its viability, EOG told BLM in a letter provided to E&E News by WildEarth Guardians.
"In sum, the speed of technological and engineering advances in directional and horizontal drilling, combined with significant changes in natural gas commodity prices, have outpaced the viability of the current revised proposed action being reviewed by BLM, and BLM's analysis reflected in the [draft environmental impact statement] as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)," the Houston-based oil firm wrote in its Monday letter.
WildEarth Guardians heralded the withdrawal as a victory for environmentalists.
"Overall, it's a big win for the keep-it-in-the-ground fight and our air quality," said Becca Fischer, a climate expert for the group. "It also goes to show that Trump's attempts to prop up fossil fuels are failing."
When a company wants to build a pipeline, road or other infrastructure, federal agencies are required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to review the project's environmental impact. But how does NEPA work and why is it controversial? E&E News Explains provides a simple overview.Pamela King/E&E News
BLM and EOG confirmed the withdrawal yesterday. The company said it is planning to re-evaluate its approach to resource development in the Greater Chapita Project area.
EOG's move comes as industry interests are pressing federal land managers to ease the strain of NEPA requirements on oil and gas producers operating on public lands. BLM has taken up at least two of their recommendations, frustrating environmental advocates who have called for maintaining the current level of public involvement in NEPA reviews (Energywire, June 14; Energywire, June 7).
When EOG first proposed the Greater Chapita Project in 2009, it included 7,028 wells on as many as 1,679 new and expanded pads (Land Letter, Sept. 30, 2010). After encountering pushback related to air quality concerns in the Uinta Basin, the company scaled back its proposal to 2,808 wells.
EOG estimated that the project would raise $1 billion in state royalties.
BLM's Vernal Field Office in Utah opened the revised proposal to public comments from March 9 through June 7. The agency noted at the time that the proposal was in keeping with President Trump's goal of promoting America's energy independence.
In its earlier comments on the project, WildEarth Guardians said BLM would be failing to comply with NEPA if it allowed the Greater Chapita Project to move forward.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/21/stories/1060085971
-
Unfracked Oil Wells Growing as Permian Pipeline Scarcity Worsens
Jun 21, 2018 | Bloomberg (In Houston Chronicle)
By Ryan Collins
Pipeline bottlenecks in North America’s biggest oil field are so pervasive that drillers are quitting new wells at a record pace. And it’s about to get a lot worse.
The vast pipe networks that haul crude from the Permian Basin are almost completely full thanks to a production boom in the oil-rich area of West Texas and New Mexico that rivals Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar field in massiveness. Explorers who’ve been drilling feverishly to cash in on an OPEC-driven price rally are now slamming on the brakes to let pipeline owners catch up.
As a result, the number of Permian wells that were drilled but left unfinished surged to 3,203 last month, a 90 percent increase from a year earlier and the highest since the Energy Department began tracking them in 2013. Postponing fracking, the final stage of drilling, reduces the supply a company needs to ship to markets. The jump in unfinished wells is a harbinger of oil producers actually shutting down older wells.
Exxon Mobil, Plains partner on Permian pipeline projectRecommended Video:
Now Playing: The US prepares for Hurricane Harvey
Residents in the Gulf of Mexico are filling hundreds of sandbags in preparation for possibly the worst hurricane in 12 years to hit the mainland United States since Hurricane Wilma struck Florida in 2005. Hurricane Harvey is forecast to make land this weekend packing winds of up to 201 km per hour. The threat has triggered evacuations along the south Texas coast home to 5.8 million people from Corpus Christi to Galveston. “So we are recommending in the strongest terms that if you live in those low-lying areas that you get out and you begin to get out now. Go to a family member or friend, somewhere, just get to higher ground,” said Joe McComb mayor of Corpus Christi. The National Hurricane Center expects the storm to come ashore along the central Texas coast, an area that includes Corpus Christi and Houston, home to some of the biggest refineries in the country. More than 45 percent of the country’s refining capacity is along the U. Gulf Coast, and nearly a fifth of the nation’s crude oil is produced offshore in the region. Ports from Corpus Christi to Texas City, Texas, were closed to incoming vessels. Harvey has already disrupted US oil supplies in the region. Three refineries in Corpus Christi and one farther inland at Three Rivers were shutting down ahead of the storm Supermarket shelves are also emptying fast as residents stock up on food, water and other essentials before Harvey strikes. The NHC expects the hurricane to move slowly over Texas and linger over the state for days, dumping as much as 97 cms of rain on some areas.Media: Brandpoint
“I think without a doubt you’re going to see shut-in wells,” said Judy Stark, president of the Panhandle Producers & Royalty Owners Association, an Amarillo, Texas-based industry group that represents mostly small, closely held drillers.
Permian pipelines probably will be totally full in three or four months, Pioneer Natural Resources Co. Chairman Scott Sheffield said in an interview Wednesday. Those constraints will compel some drillers to shut off wells, he said in Vienna as OPEC ministers prepared for key cartel meeting later this week.
“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,” Sheffield said, using the industry jargon for guaranteed pipeline contracts.
Struggles Ahead
EOG Resources Inc., the world’s second-largest independent oil producer, also sounded the alarm, warning that smaller operators that haven’t already locked in pipeline space will soon feel the brunt.
“Companies that were a little late to the table are going to struggle,” Ezra Yacob, EOG’s exploration chief, said during the JPMorgan Energy Conference on Wednesday. “They’re not going to have a lot of leverage at the negotiating table.”
As for EOG, which estimates almost 60 percent of its untapped crude is resides in the Permian, pipes are not an issue and most of its production in the region is shielded from the steep penalties other producers are paying in the form of higher rail or trucking fees to carry their oil.
“A lot of our Permian oil has firm transportation all the way down to the Gulf Coast, which we’re very proud of,” Yacob said.
Shale giant says Permian oil faces shut ins on pipe shortage
The first explorer to publicly announce cutbacks stemming from the pipeline shortage was Halcon Resources Corp., which on Tuesday announced it will idle a quarter of its drilling fleet starting next month. The company didn’t provide an estimated production impact or say how long the curtailment would continue.
C&J Energy Services Inc., which helps explorers drill wells and test reservoirs, halted a planned expansion of its frack fleet on June 11 in response to Permian bottlenecks. Explorers are shying away from signing new fracking contracts, CEO Don Gawick said in a statement.
For Occidental Petroleum Corp., the bottlenecks have been a $350 million windfall. That’s because the Houston-based explorer controls about twice as much pipeline space as it needs for its own crude. It’s been selling some of the space, or filling it with oil bought at a discount from rivals and making a killing by selling those barrels in higher-priced markets like Houston and Corpus Christi.
The pressure on pipeless Permian drillers will continue to grow as the local glut expands, said Gabriele Sorbara, an analyst at Williams Capital Group.
Millions Barrels
“The worst is going to be” in the fourth quarter and “maybe you’ll see it spill into” the first three months of 2019, Sorbara said in a telephone interview.
Permian expected to experience 'stunning' growth
Exxon Mobil Corp., which sees the Permian Basin as one of its cornerstones of global growth, is urgently taking steps to ensure it can haul oil from its wells to far-away markets. The world’s biggest oil explorer by market value signed a deal last week with Plains All American Pipeline LP to build a conduit that will handle 1 million barrels a day.
“That’s a pretty strong signal that the problem is real and infrastructure is needed,” said Christine Ehlig-Economides, professor at University of Houston’s Cullen College of Engineering.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Unfracked-Oil-Wells-Growing-as-Permian-Pipeline-13013343.php
-
Pruitt Says New Hazardous Substance Spill Rule ‘Unnecessary’
Jun 21, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today said he would not require businesses to take any new steps to prevent or contain chemical spills, declaring that existing rules are sufficient.
The agency today proposed ending a court-ordered rulemaking without imposing new requirements for onshore spills that send hazardous substances into U.S. waters. Environmentalists sued in 2015 to force EPA to consider new rules, the year after the Elk River chemical spill that saw chemicals from a storage tank contaminate the drinking water for hundreds of thousands of West Virginians.
EPA said existing permitting programs were sufficient to address the risks of onshore spills.
“After engaging the public and analyzing the best available data, EPA believes that additional regulatory requirements for hazardous substances discharges would be duplicative and unnecessary,” Pruitt said in a statement.
The agency held a public meeting last fall in Charleston, W.Va., along with two "virtual" meetings.
EPA says it identified 2,491 non-transportation-related hazardous substance spills into U.S. waters from 2007 through 2016, and said just 117 had significant impacts like water supply contamination, waterway closures or casualties.
EPA already has a rule specifically covering only onshore oil spills, but not other hazardous substances. A new rule would have covered about 100,000 facilities across a wide swath of industries, including oil and gas drilling, utilities, chemical manufacturing, mining, agriculture and construction.
Pruitt said that finalizing a rule setting no new requirements “would give the regulated community the clarity and certainty they need to continue to uphold the law and ensure the nation’s waterways are protected.”
WHAT’S NEXT: A 2015 court order gives EPA 14 months to finalize the rulemaking once the proposal is published in the Federal Register. Public comment will be open for 60 days once published.The agency today proposed ending a court-ordered rulemaking without imposing new requirements for onshore spills that send hazardous substances into U.S. waters. Environmentalists sued in 2015 to force EPA to consider new rules, the year after the Elk River chemical spill that saw chemicals from a storage tank contaminate the drinking water for hundreds of thousands of West Virginians.
EPA said existing permitting programs were sufficient to address the risks of onshore spills.
“After engaging the public and analyzing the best available data, EPA believes that additional regulatory requirements for hazardous substances discharges would be duplicative and unnecessary,” Pruitt said in a statement.
The agency held a public meeting last fall in Charleston, W.Va., along with two "virtual" meetings.
EPA says it identified 2,491 non-transportation-related hazardous substance spills into U.S. waters from 2007 through 2016, and said just 117 had significant impacts like water supply contamination, waterway closures or casualties.
EPA already has a rule specifically covering only onshore oil spills, but not other hazardous substances. A new rule would have covered about 100,000 facilities across a wide swath of industries, including oil and gas drilling, utilities, chemical manufacturing, mining, agriculture and construction.
Pruitt said that finalizing a rule setting no new requirements “would give the regulated community the clarity and certainty they need to continue to uphold the law and ensure the nation’s waterways are protected.”
WHAT’S NEXT: A 2015 court order gives EPA 14 months to finalize the rulemaking once the proposal is published in the Federal Register. Public comment will be open for 60 days once published.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
States Fear Permit Streamlining Might Undercut Role In Project Approvals
Jun 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
State water regulators fear that Trump administration efforts to streamline environmental permitting might limit their ability to use Clean Water Act (CWA) powers to certify federally approved projects such as pipelines and assume authority to permit dredge-and-fill projects, urging the government to consult with states as co-regulators.
The Association of Clean Water Administrators (ACWA), which represents state water officials, says in a June 15 letter to the Army Corps of Engineers that while the group supports generally the effort to streamline permitting it has concerns that the effort “may result in unintended consequences.”
“The reforms as currently designed would limit states’ ability to exercise their authority to certify that infrastructure and development projects will not adversely impact state water quality standards and would also create additional confusion for those states interested in pursuing assumption of the section 404 program under the CWA,” ACWA writes.
The concerns highlight an outcome that would appear to be at odds with the administration's push to give greater deference on policy decisions to states -- including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's push for “cooperative federalism” through which the agency is trying to give states more decisionmaking power on environmental policies. But the administration has also made a major goal of accelerating environmental permitting.
Earlier this year, the Trump administration unveiled an infrastructure plan that among other things calls for streamlining environmental reviews, including making legislative changes to CWA sections 401 and 404 to reduce duplicative requirements and oversight.
Regarding section 401, the Trump administration plan would “establish an administrative appeal process to resolve disputes involving a state's determination that a project would lead to a violation of its water quality standards,” an issue that has taken on increased importance in recent months for pipeline approvals.
The plan seeks to amend section 404(c) to “eliminate EPA's ability to veto an Army Corps section 404 permit for infrastructure projects in order to implement the one federal permit decision,” as well as amending the water law to “clarify the Army Corps’ authority to construe the jurisdictional term 'navigable waters' under section 404.”
ACWA, in its letter, stresses “states’ unique role as co-regulators and the states’ responsibilities in implementing the CWA,” adding that “proposed changes to applicable regulations and policies by federal partners should be developed in collaboration with the states.”
Under section 401, states have the ability to evaluate whether activities under a federal permit will harm water quality standards, and a state certification that water quality will be protected is necessary for projects requiring such permits, including CWA permits, to proceed.
“Section 401 provides states with two distinct powers: one, the power to withhold certification; and two, the power to impose conditions upon federal permits by placing limitations on certification,” ACWA writes. States view this section as an important tool to protect their waters, the letter says. “Without section 401 certification, federal agencies could permit activities that would undermine a state’s knowledge of and investment in pollution control efforts and impose a double standard for different activities affecting the same in-stream values.”
Permitting Authority
ACWA also says it is concerned that the permit streamlining effort could affect states' abilities to assume the section 404 dredge-and-fill permitting program.
Under section 404, a state or tribe may request to “administer its own individual and general permit program” in place of the federal dredge-and-fill permit program administered by the Corps and overseen by EPA. But only two states -- Michigan and New Jersey -- have assumed the authority, in part because assumption is a lengthy, complex process. “Other states have explored assumption, but those efforts have not borne fruit in part due to uncertainty over the scope of assumable waters and wetlands,” ACWA says.
Florida is currently in discussions with the Corps, EPA and federal wildlife agencies on assuming section 404 permitting authority, although environmentalists have raised concerns about the state's ability to protect Florida's complex hydrology.
ACWA says majority recommendations last year from EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) “initiated significant progress in addressing this issue” of clarifying which waters are subject to assumption by interested states and which waters should be retained by the Corps.
Other state regulators, while also welcoming the NACEPT recommendations, have said additional clarification is needed.
ACWA says many states believe that a simplified and more flexible process for state assumption of the 404 permit program is needed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program while maintaining protection of wetlands. But many states are concerned that “any efforts focused on permit streamlining would only lead to further confusion and delays in more states assuming the section 404 program. States believe that state assumption of the section 404 program could result in a more responsive, stable and consistently implemented program that would improve the dredge and fill permitting process for stakeholders in those states that take on the program,” the letter says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-fear-permit-streamlining-might-undercut-role-project-approvals
-
More Than 20 Nations Seek Toughen Climate Goals by 2020
Jun 21, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Alister Doyle
More than 20 nations ranging from Germany, France and Britain to Pacific island states said on Thursday they would try to limit their greenhouse gas emissions more than already planned under the Paris climate agreement by 2020.
They welcomed a decision by U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to host a summit in September 2019 to review the fight against global warming since almost 200 governments signed up in 2015 for the Paris climate agreement.
"We commit to exploring the possibilities for stepping up our own ambition," the 23 nations said in a statement, issued by the Marshall Islands in the Pacific, about goals for action by 2020. "We call on other countries to join us in expressing their desire to lead from the front."
The governments also said they would encourage long-term strategies for low emissions and new funds and investment in projects to help goals of the Paris Agreement.
Signatories were Argentina, Britain, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Rwanda, Saint Lucia, Spain and Sweden, a statement said.
Their "Declaration for Ambition" underscores commitment to the principles of the Paris climate agreement, which also seeks ever tougher climate goals to phase out polluting fossil fuels this century.
The nations said they would work in the light of a U.N. report by leading climate scientists, due for publication in October, about ways to limit a creeping rise in global average temperatures that is causing heat waves, downpours and droughts.
A leaked draft of that report says warming is set to exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7°F) above pre-industrial times, the strictest goal under the Paris Agreement, by around 2040 unless governments take "rapid and far-reaching" measures.
The world's biggest producer of greenhouse gases, China, is not among the nations pledging faster action, but the declaration is preliminary with other nations welcome to sign up. Beijing remains a signatory of the Paris accord.
The landmark agreement has been weakened by a decision by President Donald Trump to pull the United States, the number two emitter, out of the accord. Trump doubts mainstream scientific findings that man-made greenhouse gases are the prime cause of warming and wants to promote the coal industry.
By contrast, small island states say that a thaw of ice worldwide will raise sea levels and swamp their nations.
"If we do not raise global ambition by 2020, it will be too late for my island nation," Hilda Heine, President of the Marshall Islands, said in a statement.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/06/21/world/europe/21reuters-climatechange-goals.html
-
Greenpeace Finds PFAS and Microplastics in the Antarctic
Jun 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
A Greenpeace study, has revealed the presence of microplastics and per- and polyfluorinated alkylated substances (PFASs) in seawater and snow samples from the Antarctic.
The samples were gathered during a three-month expedition from January to March this year.
In its recently published report, Microplastics and persistent fluorinated chemicals in the Antarctic, Greenpeace says the study shows "even the most remote and pristine habitats of the Antarctic are contaminated with microplastic waste and persistent hazardous chemicals".
The study found:seven out of eight seawater samples contained microplastics;microplastics were detected in two samples of seawater taken using a manta trawl (a net system for sampling the surface of the ocean);seven out of nine snow samples tested contained detectable concentrations of PFASs.‘Fast fashion’ risk
Microplastics are defined by Greenpeace, as pieces of plastic "with a diameter of 5mm or less" which are likely to come from microbeads in personal care products, fragments from land-based sources such as tyres, or fibres from synthetic clothes, which are released into wastewater systems when consumers wash them.
The most likely sources of microplastic fibres in the Antarctic ocean, the report says, are fishing nets and polyester from textiles.
"Synthetic fibres, especially polyester, are widely used in textile products. For example, 60% of the material currently used in clothing is polyester, much of it in short life ‘fast fashion’ items of clothing," the report says.
Last year, Greenpeace warned about the industry's use of large quantities of polyester and its contribution to pollution of the oceans with microplastic fibres. Its Fashion at the crossroads report called for industry to slow down its plans for expansion - which include plans to nearly double its annual use of polyester by up to 76 million tonnes annual by 2030.
According to the report the "synthetic nature and their propensity to absorb or attract chemicals from seawater on to their surfaces" of microplastics means they can also carry "substantial concentrations of a range of chemical additives and contaminants, contributing to the exposure of marine species to hazardous chemicals".
The European apparel and textile confederation, Euratex declined to comment.'Global spread'
The most commonly detected chemical was PFOA, which was found in "significant concentrations" in five out of nine snow samples.
Greenpeace says the findings confirm its conclusion from previous expeditions, that once PFAS are released they "are spread globally by long distance transport through the atmosphere and are deposited as snow in all remote regions."
PFASs are widely used in many industrial processes and consumer products, such as in waterproof and dirt-repellent finishes by the outdoor apparel industry.
Jon Corley, spokesperson for the chemical industry trade association, FlouroCouncil, said it was difficult to comment on the report without knowing more about the underlying data and methodologies used.
"It is important to note they provide no risk context for the extremely low levels of PFAS detected in their report," he said.
In response, Kirsten Brodde, project lead for Greenpeace's Detox my Fashion campaign said: "The FluoroCouncil should be aware that persistent chemicals such as the PFAS found in Greenpeace's study can be hazardous at extremely low levels – they should be concerned by the fact that they've been found in habitats as remote as the Antarctic."
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested