Preview Newsletter
AM ACC Clips Report - August 1, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) Australian Councils Innovate in Recycling Plastic Waste
Aug 1, 2018 | Mirage News
By Mark Combe
In a world first Australian innovation, Australian Councils are increasingly replacing the traditional steel mesh used to reinforce concrete in footpaths with recycled plastic – which would otherwise be sent to landfill or end up in our oceans. -
Andrew Wheeler, New E.P.A. Chief, Details His Energy Lobbying Past
Aug 1, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
The acting chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, has come under scrutiny for his years spent as a powerful energy lobbyist. He has represented an electric utility, a uranium producer, and, most significantly, a coal magnate who paid Mr. Wheeler’s former lobbying firm more than $2.7 million over eight years. -
New EPA Chief Faces First Test on Capitol Hill
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interim chief Andrew Wheeler faces his first congressional test Wednesday when he testifies at his first hearing since taking over for scandal-plagued Scott Pruitt. -
China Vows Retaliation if Trump Slaps 25 Percent Tariff on $200 Billion of Chinese Imports
Aug 1, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Steve Holland, David Lawder and Ben Blanchard
China said on Wednesday that "blackmail" wouldn't work and that it would hit back if the United States takes further steps hindering trade, as the Trump administration considers slapping a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion (£152.5 billion) worth of Chinese goods. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Allows 145 New Chemicals on Market With Controls (1)
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The biggest batch of new chemical rules since the chemical law was amended in 2016 was issued by the EPA on July 31, showing how the agency plans to control their potential risks. -
Chemical Review Strategy Can’t Be Challenged in Court, EPA Says
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Environmental advocates can’t show they are harmed by an EPA strategy to review new chemicals before the compounds hit the market and therefore don’t have grounds to challenge the agency’s approach, government attorneys told a federal court July 31. -
EPA Defends TSCA Review Framework From Environmentalists' Lawsuit
Jul 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is defending its framework for reviewing new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) against an environmentalist lawsuit by arguing that the policy is consistent with the 2016 law, but also says the framework is a draft that it might never finalize and therefore critics lack legal standing for their challenge. -
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Reintroduce Bill To Promote Sustainable 'Green' Chemistry
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have reintroduced their bipartisan bill seeking to advance the development of new chemicals that are more efficient to produce and less toxic to human health and the environment, echoing an unsuccessful sustainable “green” chemistry bill that the two senators floated last year. -
3M Knew About The Dangers Of PFOA And PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show
Jul 31, 2018 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
NEWS THAT THE Environmental Protection Agency pressured the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to suppress a study showing PFAS chemicals to be even more dangerous than previously thought drew outrage this spring. -
Sluggish Hazardous Waste Authorizations Pose Risk — IG
Aug 1, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA authorizations of state hazardous waste regulations take too long, the agency's inspector general said in a report released today. -
UK Charity Questions Effectiveness of PFAS Coatings In School Uniforms
Aug 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Many 'stain resistant' school uniforms sold in the UK use per- or poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) in coatings, even though this does not increase the product's lifespan or reduce the frequency of washing, a study has revealed. -
LNG Goes Small-Scale in Permian to Snuff Out Shale Gas Flaring
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
It’s called micro LNG, and the concept is simple. By super-cooling natural gas, they can pack three times more of it into a truck, which may help the Permian Basin deal with its growing gas excess. -
Private Equity Joins Pipeline Buildup as Shale Patch Needs Grow
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik, Melissa Mittelman amd Rachel Adams-Heard
That’s the message from industry analysts after KKR & Co. announced July 30 it was teaming up with Williams Cos. to buy a Colorado pipeline and services providers for $1.2 billion from TPG Growth, which had held the business for about a year. -
Five Months After Energy Cyberattack, U.S. Pushes Collaboration (1)
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Alex Nussbaum
With hacking attacks mounting against U.S. energy companies, guarding the sector will be a top priority for a new cybersecurity effort, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said July 31. -
(ACC Mentionedd) Passivhaus Trust Announces Nominees For ‘The Oscars For Building Performance'
Aug 1, 2018 | Treehugger
By Lloyd Alter
Let's hope that unlike the Oscars, they make the right choices and open the right envelopes. -
Wheeler, Wehrum Reaffirm Key Elements Of Pruitt's Air Program Overhaul
Jul 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and air office chief William Wehrum are reaffirming several key elements of former agency chief Scott Pruitt's plan for overhauling EPA's air program, including controversial streamlining of national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) reviews and easing new source review (NSR) permitting. -
4 reasons BP America, Unilever And Other Leading Companies Thanked A Florida Congressman For His Leadership On Climate
Jul 31, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Victoria Mills
For the first time since 2010, a Republican has introduced a climate bill – and business leaders have been quick to welcome his market-based approach for fighting climate change. -
Plastic Straw, Fork Ban Heads to San Francisco Mayor’s Plate
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
A ban on selling single-use serving utensils and containers made with fluorinated chemicals and plastics in San Francisco now is headed to the mayor. -
Pepsi Pushes Recycling But Collection Rates Still Falling
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
PepsiCo Inc. is donating $10 million to make it easier to recycle bottles and cans, but the money won’t do much to reverse an overall trend of declining recycling rates, environmentalists said. -
Trump EPA Celebrates Cleaner Air While It Rolls Back Regulations
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is touting strides in cleaning up America’s air, even as it works to roll back Obama-era mandates curbing pollution from power plants, automobiles, and oil wells. -
Uncertain Future For Kigali Despite Lobbying Push
Aug 1, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
Senators from both parties remain in the dark about the fate of an Obama-era climate agreement, even as a wide range of conservatives and industry groups have launched a push for its ratification.
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 Mentioned) Australian Councils Innovate in Recycling Plastic Waste
Aug 1, 2018 | Mirage News
By Mark Combe
In a world first Australian innovation, Australian Councils are increasingly replacing the traditional steel mesh used to reinforce concrete in footpaths with recycled plastic – which would otherwise be sent to landfill or end up in our oceans.
Councils are responsible for building or replacing an estimated 8,000 kilometres of footpaths in Australia each year. Thanks to Queensland engineering firm Fibercon and researchers from James Cook University, councils are now using recycled polypropylene (PP) plastic waste in the form of Emesh to reinforce concrete pavements and other infrastructure.
The Emesh product is 100% recycled polypropylene. To date, 65 tonnes of plastic waste has been recycled, with the potential to recycle 5,000 tonnes of plastic waste annually.
1 tonne of plastic is equivalent to around 20,000 litre bottles, or 120,000 plastic bags.
Townsville City Council was one of the first in Australia to use Emesh, for 3,500m2 of pathway on Magnetic Island.
Senior Project Manager Bob Hickey explained “There are the environmental benefits that come with the use of recycled plastic, but also the fact that it is easy to transport the fibres, especially to Magnetic Island. There are also no problems with corrosion in the saltwater environment. The result was an excellent product with no visible uncontrolled cracking.”
There are 7 different types of plastic, Polypropylene (PP) is the second most widely used plastic in the world despite this it is also has the lowest recycling rate – the American Chemistry Council estimates a rate below 1 percent.
PP is also one of only 3 plastic types which floats – forming a major component of the ocean gyres and estimated an 8 million tonnes of plastic entering the ocean each year.
In the first global analysis of the production, use and fate of all plastics ever made – humans have created 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics since large-scale production began in the early 1950s – roughly half was produced in just the last 13 years ,and an estimated 79% now resides in landfills or the natural environment.
There are only 3 things which can be done with plastic waste: Recycling, Energy Recovery, or Landfill.
In addition to reduced CO2 outputs and preservation of fossil fuels from steel manufacturing, the Emesh innovation also creates a market for recycled PP.
“Recycling is not just putting materials in a recycling bin at the kerbside: collection is only the start of the process” stated Fibercon CEO Mark Combe. “Markets must exist for recyclable materials and buyers must be found for products made with recyclable materials. With China drastically reducing its import of waste in 2017, finding new uses for recycled plastics is more important than ever.“
“Simply by using our Emesh instead of steel reinforcement, Councils can contribute significantly to cleaning up our plastic waste”, said Mark.
So next time you see footpaths or other infrastructure in your local area using steel mesh as reinforcement, ask your Council “Why?”
Mark Combe, Fibercon CEO
https://www.miragenews.com/australian-councils-innovate-in-recycling-plastic-waste/
-
Andrew Wheeler, New E.P.A. Chief, Details His Energy Lobbying Past
Aug 1, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
WASHINGTON — The acting chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, has come under scrutiny for his years spent as a powerful energy lobbyist. He has represented an electric utility, a uranium producer, and, most significantly, a coal magnate who paid Mr. Wheeler’s former lobbying firm more than $2.7 million over eight years.
Mr. Wheeler is now in a position to act upon issues he once raised on behalf of his clients. And he is expected to be grilled on his relationships in the Senate on Wednesday, when he makes a regular appearance before the Committee on Environment and Public Works. It will be his first testimony in Congress since assuming leadership of the agency in July, when Scott Pruitt resigned as E.P.A. administrator.
In an interview, Mr. Wheeler provided fresh details about his lobbying activities, including specifics not included in his government-required disclosure forms, which have been criticized for their lack of detail. Mr. Wheeler also said that, well before Mr. Pruitt’s ethics scandals hit the E.P.A., he had begun stepping away from lobbying activities related to the E.P.A., on the chance he might serve at the agency.
His recent activity as a coal lobbyist, he said, was pushing to kill a rule before the Interior Department that would have restricted coal companies from dumping waste into streams. He also advocated for the Miners Protection Act, he said, a bill that would have used funds earmarked to clean up abandoned mines to bolster mine workers’ health care and pension plans.
Mr. Wheeler acknowledged working with Mr. Murray to fight former President Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan. But he distanced himself from a series of memos that Mr. Murray earlier had presented to top Trump administration officials — including Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Mr. Pruitt — involving direct E.P.A. issues like eliminating a major regulation on smog and reversing a scientific finding that global warming harms human health.
“I did not reach out to the Pruitt E.P.A. at all. I did not lobby them. That was purposeful,” Mr. Wheeler said. After the election, I cut off all ties with E.P.A. and I did not take on any new E.P.A. issues.”
Yet while his most recent work did not involve lobbying the E.P.A. directly, his activities — particularly on behalf of the coal industry, which is subject to E.P.A. regulations on fossil-fuel emissions — have drawn sharp questions from Democrats and environmental groups.EDITORS’ PICKSBillionaire Yogi Behind Indian Prime Minister’s RiseIt’s 4 A.M. The Baby’s Coming. But the Hospital Is 100 Miles Away.Inside China’s Dystopian Dreams: A.I., Shame and Lots of Cameras
Mr. Wheeler faces at least one formal complaint, by the nonpartisan government watchdog group Public Citizen, alleging that he “appears to be working on the same specific issue areas he had lobbied on within the last two years.” That is a potential violation of President Trump’s ethics rules limiting the influence of former lobbyists on the government, the group asserts.
Mr. Wheeler’s critics point in particular to his lobbying disclosure filings, which describe his lobbying activities only in general terms that they say fail to adequately reveal what he actually worked on the past eight years. “If I had it to do over again, I would have been more specific,” Mr. Wheeler said. “But when I started lobbying I didn’t really anticipate ever going back into the government.”
However, by the time the 2016 election came around, Mr. Wheeler said he began shedding his E.P.A.-related lobbying, anticipating that he might be called on to join the Trump administration. “I knew it was a possibility, so after the election I stopped lobbying any new E.P.A. issues,” Mr. Wheeler said.
One of Mr. Trump’s earliest executive orders, aimed at fulfilling his promise to “drain the swamp” in Washington, permitted former lobbyists like Mr. Wheeler to join the administration as long as they did not meet one-on-one with former clients or work on any specific matters they had handled in private practice in the previous two years.
Mr. Wheeler, along with Justina Fugh, the E.P.A.’s senior counsel for ethics, said he had not sought or received any ethics waivers. Such special dispensations have been granted to dozens of people throughout the administration to bypass Mr. Trump’s executive order and allow them to work on the matters on which they lobbied.
“I think that’s an ethical cloud if you have a waiver. I personally didn’t want to do that,” Mr. Wheeler said. “Because I was a lobbyist, and that was made a big deal during my confirmation process, I just wanted to be on safe ground there.”
Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Fugh said he had recused himself from meeting with Mr. Murray and seven other former clients for whom he worked during the two-year period covered under Mr. Trump’s ethics rule. He also has declared one E.P.A. issue hands-off for him: a program called Energy Star that is overseen by the agency and that provides E.P.A. labeling so consumers can compare the efficiency of washing machines, air-conditioners and other appliances.
Mr. Wheeler had lobbied Congress on behalf of Underwriters Laboratories, a company that does safety testing, which objected to some provisions in a bill related to Energy Star.
Mr. Wheeler said he also had gone beyond Mr. Trump’s ethics rules to set up a process within E.P.A. to make sure he is not involved in decisions about any of the approximately 45 toxic cleanup areas, known as Superfund sites, owned by former lobbying or consulting clients. “I don’t see anything having to do with any of those sites,” he said.
Jan W. Baran, a leading Republican ethics lawyer, said Mr. Wheeler’s lobbying past may not sit well with environmentalists but it appears to meet the legal requirements laid out under federal lobbying rules. “Whether a coal lobbyist leading E.P.A. is ethical, that’s different. You can have a discussion about that,” Mr. Baran said. And, he added, “Just because Murray is involved in the E.P.A. doesn’t necessarily require Wheeler to recuse himself from everything.”
In his first detailed discussion of his lobbying, Mr. Wheeler explained the bulk of his private-practice work over the past two years:
• Representing Sargento Foods, a Wisconsin-based cheese giant, he lobbied for legislation related to genetically modified food that would define the difference between natural and processed cheese, an issue the Food and Drug Administration is considering.
• For Xcel Energy, a utility company based in Minneapolis, he lobbied to help the company obtain a charitable deduction and backed legislation that would have protected its ability to remove dead wood around transmission lines in national forests, an issue that the United States Forest Service deals with.
• For the uranium mining company Energy Fuels Resources, Mr. Wheeler helped the company’s bid to persuade the Interior Department to adjust the boundaries of Bears Ears National Monument, emails released under public records laws show.
His work with Mr. Murray began in 2009 with a successful effort to kill congressional plans to curtail and put a price on carbon emissions. His disclosure forms after those early years, though, described his work for Murray only in broader terms, calling it “general energy and environment issues.”
Critics like Norman L. Eisen, the chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, argue that, based on Mr. Wheeler’s own official descriptions of his lobbying activities, Mr. Wheeler is obligated to not work on “general energy and environment issues,” which would cripple his ability to serve as leader of the E.P.A.
“That is an exact description of what he does all day now at E.P.A.,” said Mr. Eisen said. He served as Mr. Obama’s special counsel for ethics and helped write the 2009 executive order upon which Mr. Trump based his 2017 order that set down rules for administration officials who have worked as lobbyists.
Mr. Wheeler acknowledged helping Mr. Murray oppose the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which the coal industry disliked because it required states to cut carbon emissions by shifting from coal power to natural gas and renewables over 15 years. He maintained, however that he is not obligated to recuse himself from working on a plan to replace that regulation.
Mr. Wheeler also said, as he did in Congress during his confirmation hearing to be deputy administrator, that he had no direct involvement in crafting a series of controversial memos that Mr. Murray wrote. He acknowledged arranging and attending a March 2017 meeting with Secretary Perry at which Mr. Murray delivered his proposals, but said his only substantive involvement was looking at an early version.
“I had no role in the writing or drafting of that memo,” Mr. Wheeler said. “Murray is a pretty sophisticated lobbyist and they drafted their own memo and delivered it themselves.”
Mr. Murray also drafted a number of proposed executive orders for Mr. Trump, almost all of which deal directly with E.P.A. issues like eliminating a smog rule and rolling back requirements that states reduce the smokestack pollution that is carried by wind and fouls the air in other states.
“I didn’t work on those,” Mr. Wheeler said.
Mr. Murray declined interview requests to discuss Mr. Wheeler’s work. At a recent public panel discussion in Washington, he said he believed Mr. Wheeler would do an “outstanding” job as E.P.A. administrator. “I didn’t want to lose him, but the country has him,” Mr. Murray said. “He’s an honorable man.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/climate/andrew-wheeler-epa-lobbying.html
-
New EPA Chief Faces First Test on Capitol Hill
Jul 31, 2018 | The Hill- E2 Wire
By Miranda Green and Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interim chief Andrew Wheeler faces his first congressional test Wednesday when he testifies at his first hearing since taking over for scandal-plagued Scott Pruitt.
While Democrats plan to grill Wheeler — a former energy lobbyist — over his policy goals at the agency, the public testimony is expected to have a decidedly different dynamic compared to the heated exchanges that punctuated most of Pruitt’s appearances on Capitol Hill.
Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are hoping they can finally focus on EPA’s policy initiatives.
GOP senators want to hear Wheeler take the same hard-line approach against Obama-era regulations and continue Pruitt’s push to roll-back protections. Democrats would like to hear a more respectful tone regarding environmental issues like climate change.
“When we had Mr. Pruitt before us there were so many distractions to deal with,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a senior member of the panel. “The substantive issues were critically important, but there were a lot of issues unrelated to the substance. Here I think we’ll get right into the substance.”
He said Democrats will want to hear about actions that have been taken on clean air, clean water, lead and toxic chemicals.
Cardin said he wants to try “to get an understanding of where Mr. Wheeler, we hope, will respect the traditional roles of the Environmental Protection Agency that has been lacking.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the panel’s previous chairman, said he expects the tone of Wednesday’s hearing to be drastically different from when Pruitt testified.
“Andy’s a totally different type of person than his predecessor,” Inhofe said. “He’s a very conciliatory type of person, very calm, soft-spoken.”
Wheeler was a senior aide to Inhofe for more than a dozen years before working at the lobbying firm Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.
The Senate confirmed Wheeler in April to be deputy administration in mostly party-line vote of 53 to 45. That followed an 11-10 party-line vote by the Environment and Public Works Committee to advance his nomination.
While Wheeler hasn’t created any major controversies since taking the helm of the EPA July 9, Democrats still expect to press him on a number of issues, including recent meetings he’s held with former energy industry clients — something he promised in an interview with Bloomberg that he wouldn’t do — and his approach to regulatory rollbacks proposed by Pruitt.
When it comes to policy, some Democrats aren’t expecting that Wheeler will be much different than Pruitt.
“He has a very conservative record,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). “There doesn’t appear to be a big difference between the philosophy that he has and that Scott Pruitt had.”
Other Democrats are putting the onus on Wheeler to prove he's different.
“More than ever, Americans want to see a leader at the EPA who is committed to carrying out the mission of the agency -- to protect the public’s health and our environment," said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, in a statement to The Hill.
"For over a year, Mr. Pruitt abused his position of power for personal gain, pushed policies that jeopardized public health, advocated for industry over people, and worked to discredit objective science,” Carper added. “Tomorrow, Acting Administrator Wheeler will need to describe how he’ll be different than Mr. Pruitt. You can expect some tough questions from me.”
Wheeler has distinguished himself from Pruitt on at least one occasion so far. Last week he reversed a policy that had said EPA wouldn’t enforce Obama-era limits on certain highly-polluting big trucks known as glider trucks, the last major policy decision Pruitt made before leaving the agency.
Earlier this week Wheeler sent an agency-wide memo to staff promising increased transparency. In it, he referenced former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus, who succeeded Anne Gorsuch, the EPA chief forced to resign in 1983 after being charged with contempt of Congress.
The memo was seen as an attempt to distance himself from Pruitt, who was often criticized for operating with a close inner circle.
Some Democrats are keeping an open mind and hoping that Wheeler’s recent actions are a sign that he’s willing to compromise and work across the aisle on important environmental concerns. If nothing else, they know at least know they are dealing with a different type of administrator than Pruitt.
Those hopes will be put to the test this week, and not just at Wednesday’s hearing. That same day the EPA is expected to release its final plan to roll back Obama-era fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions regulations for cars. While the idea was largely championed by Pruitt, Wheeler will be responsible for giving it the agency’s stamp of approval.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/399788-new-epa-chief-faces-first-test-on-capitol-hill
-
China Vows Retaliation if Trump Slaps 25 Percent Tariff on $200 Billion of Chinese Imports
Aug 1, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Steve Holland, David Lawder and Ben Blanchard
BEIJING/WASHINGTON — China said on Wednesday that "blackmail" wouldn't work and that it would hit back if the United States takes further steps hindering trade, as the Trump administration considers slapping a 25 percent tariff on $200 billion (£152.5 billion) worth of Chinese goods.
The proposal would increase the potential tariff rate from 10 percent the administration had initially put forward on July 10 for that wave of duties in a bid to pressure Beijing into making trade concessions, a source familiar with the plan said on Tuesday.
The tariffs target thousands of Chinese imports, including food products, chemicals, steel and aluminium and consumer goods ranging from dog food, furniture and carpets to car tires, bicycles, and baseball gloves and beauty products.
While the duties would not be imposed until after a period of public comment, raising the proposed level to 25 percent would escalate the already bitter trade dispute between the world's two biggest economies.
The source said President Donald Trump's administration could announce the tougher proposal as early as Wednesday in Washington. The plan to more than double the tariff rate was first reported by Bloomberg News.
China, which has accused the United States of bullying, again vowed to retaliate if Trump proceeds with the measures, warning that pressure tactics would fail.
"U.S. pressure and blackmail won't have an effect. If the United States takes further escalatory steps, China will inevitably take countermeasures and we will resolutely protect our legitimate rights," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing.
Investors fear an escalating trade war between Washington and Beijing could hit global growth, and prominent U.S. business groups, while weary of what they see as China's mercantilist trade practices, have condemned Trump's aggressive tariffs.
Representatives of U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He have been speaking privately as they seek to restart negotiations to defuse the budding trade war, Bloomberg reported, citing sources.EDITORS’ PICKSAnnoyed by Restaurant Playlists, a Master Musician Made His OwnHer Husband Was a Princeton Graduate Student. Then He Was Taken Prisoner in Iran.Mueller Is Looking at Trump Tweets in Obstruction Investigation
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's Office declined to comment on the proposed tariff rate increase or on whether any changes would alter the deadlines laid out for comment period before implementation.
Asked about communication between the two countries on the dispute, Geng said China had "always upheld using dialogue and consultations to handle trade frictions", but that dialogue must be based on mutual respect and equality.
"Unilateral threats and pressure will only produce the opposite of the desired result," Geng said.
"AMERICANS' POCKETBOOKS"
In early July, the U.S. government imposed 25 percent tariffs on an initial $34 billion of Chinese imports. Beijing retaliated with matching tariffs on the same amount of U.S. exports to China.
Washington is preparing to also impose tariffs on an extra $16 billion of goods in coming weeks, and Trump has warned he may ultimately put them on over half a trillion dollars of goods - roughly the total amount of U.S. imports from China last year.
The $200 billion list of goods targeted for tariffs - which also include Chinese tilapia fish, printed circuit boards and lighting products - would have a bigger impact on consumers than previous rounds of tariffs.
Erin Ennis, senior vice president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said a 10 percent tariff on these products is already problematic, but more than doubling that to 25 percent would be much worse.
"Given the scope of the products covered, about half of all imports from China are facing tariffs, including consumer goods," Ennis said. "The cost increases will be passed on to customers, so it will affect most Americans' pocketbooks."
Trump had said he would implement the $200 billion round as punishment for China's retaliation against the initial tariffs aimed at forcing change in China's joint venture, technology transfer and other trade-related policies.
He also has threatened a further round of tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office initially had set a deadline for final public comments on the proposed 10 percent tariffs to be filed by Aug. 30, with public hearings scheduled for Aug. 20-23.
It typically has taken several weeks after the close of public comments for the tariffs to be activated.
(Reporting by Steve Holland and David Lawder in WASHINGTON, and Ben Blanchard in BEIJING; Writing by Mohammad Zargham and Michael Martina; Editing by Sandra Maler and Nick Macfie)
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/08/01/business/01reuters-usa-trade-china.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Allows 145 New Chemicals on Market With Controls (1)
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Agency publishes rules intended to control risks of the 145 chemicals
Companies, other parties have 30 days to object
The biggest batch of new chemical rules since the chemical law was amended in 2016 was issued by the EPA on July 31, showing how the agency plans to control their potential risks.
The Environmental Protection Agency released significant new use rules for 145 new chemicals. The rules offered details on dozens of restrictions it already required for the chemicals. The EPA last year approved the chemicals for production or sale in the U.S.
Examples of agency concerns that prompted some of the restrictions of each chemical involved the EPA’s desire to protect workers from potential injuries to their lungs, skin, or children they might give birth to.
Nearly 100 of the new chemicals are designed for the oil and gas industry to help monitor well performance. The remaining chemicals are designed for purposes such as being ingredients in coatings, helping batteries work, and improving the performance of aviation fuels. The agency didn’t release the names of the chemicals’ manufacturers.
However, Spectrum Tracer Services LLC received the agency’s permission to make most of the oil and gas chemicals, according to EPA databases. Spectrum, based in Tulsa, Okla., manufactures chemical tracers that gather data about subsurface water, gas or petroleum.
Consent Order UsedThe agency used a type of enforceable agreement called a consent order to restrict all of the chemicals before their original manufacturer could produce or import them.
Examples of the types of restrictions EPA already has and the rules would impose include requiring workers that could inhale a new chemical that may irritate skin to wear gloves or forbidding the release of the chemical into water.
The EPA’s significant new use rules covering all 145 chemicals will be published as direct final regulations in the Aug. 1 Federal Register. Those rules would apply the same restrictions the original manufacturer agreed to in its consent order to any other company that wants to make or use them.
Any production or use of any of the chemicals without the restrictions the EPA required would constitute a “new use” and require the agency’s approval ahead of time.
Typical Controls, Albeit DelayedAny organization or company that objects to one or more of the regulations can file an “intent to object” notice to the EPA by Aug. 31. The agency would then withdraw the direct final rule and republish it as a proposed regulation.
The new use rules are typical of the risk-control strategy the agency has long used for new chemicals even before Toxic Substances Control Act was amended, according to industry and environmental organization officials with whom Bloomberg Environment spoke.
The only issue that struck both Mark Duvall, an attorney that represents the American Chemistry Council, and Liz Hitchcock, acting director of the Safer Chemicals Healthy Families coalition, was the delay between the original manufacturer signing its consent order and the agency’s issuance of these direct final rules.
Amended TSCA directs the EPA to issue new use rules within 90 days of a company signing a consent order, Hitchcock said.
“Many of these are more than a year overdue,” she said.
The law directs the EPA to consider issuing new use rules within 90 days, but it doesn’t require that, said Duvall, a principal in Beveridge & Diamond PC’s Washington office, quoting the amended statute.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-allows-145-new-chemicals-on-market-with-controls-1
-
Chemical Review Strategy Can’t Be Challenged in Court, EPA Says
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
EPA tells federal court environmental groups lack standing to challenge new chemicals strategy
Strategy also fine because it complies with chemicals law, EPA says
Environmental advocates can’t show they are harmed by an EPA strategy to review new chemicals before the compounds hit the market and therefore don’t have grounds to challenge the agency’s approach, government attorneys told a federal court July 31.
The Environmental Protection Agency told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City that the Natural Resources Defense Council failed to meet legal requirements to challenge an agency action.
The group sued in January challenging a November 2017 strategy, or framework, describing the agency’s proposed approach to reviewing new chemicals to comply with changes Congress made to the Toxic Substances Control Act in 2016.
Trade associations representing companies that make and use chemicals have intervened on the EPA’s behalf in the lawsuit because swift agency approvals of new compounds are essential to innovation, they said.
Other environmental organizations joined NRDC in challenging the agency’s framework, alleging it skimps on safety.
Groups Not HarmedThe EPA’s opening brief argues, essentially, that the environmental organizations haven’t met the requirements to even challenge the agency’s framework.
First, they lack standing because none have proven the agency’s approach has harmed them, the EPA said.
They also can’t legally challenge the agency’s strategy because it isn’t a final agency action, the EPA said. The agency has consistently said it is open to revising the approach described in that strategy, the agency’s brief said.
Finally, the EPA’s strategy complies with the TSCA amendments that give the agency both the discretion to limit the possible ways a new chemical might be made or used as the agency decides whether the chemical can be sold.
The law also gives the agency discretion to decide how it would control any potential concerns, the EPA said.
The environmental organizations had disagreed, saying the EPA’s strategy exceeds any discretion the chemicals law allows.
The framework is a de facto rule and therefore can be challenged, the NRDC argued in its May opening brief .
The framework violates TSCA by allowing chemicals that may pose unreasonable health or environmental risks to be sold without controlling those risks, the group said.
The case is Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 2d Cir., No. 18-25, 7/31/18.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/chemical-review-strategy-cant-be-challenged-in-court-epa-says
-
EPA Defends TSCA Review Framework From Environmentalists' Lawsuit
Jul 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is defending its framework for reviewing new chemicals under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) against an environmentalist lawsuit by arguing that the policy is consistent with the 2016 law, but also says the framework is a draft that it might never finalize and therefore critics lack legal standing for their challenge.
In the July 31 filing in the case, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, EPA suggests it might never implement the framework issued for public comment late last year that sought to speed reviews of new chemicals under the revised law.
“The Framework is a non-final statement of policy that explains one possible approach that EPA may apply in an appropriate case to make a determination on a new chemical substance under TSCA,” the filing says.
In arguing environmentalists lack standing, EPA says, “Petitioner’s members face no injury at all, unless and until EPA applies the approach described in the Framework to an individual determination, and then the determination allows Petitioner’s members to be exposed to the chemical substance under circumstances that pose an unreasonable risk to human health."
Late last year, EPA issued and sought comment on a draft “New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework” that proposed streamlining reviews by dropping use of enforceable orders as an interim step in regulating new chemicals, and allowing the agency to proceed directly from premanufacture notices to issuing significant new use rules (SNURs).
NRDC sued Jan. 5, arguing that the framework inappropriately narrows the scope of new chemical reviews to only the intended uses of a new chemical, while punting other reasonably anticipated uses to a SNUR.
NRDC, backed by intervenors Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, also has alleged procedural violations, noting statements from EPA officials that they had already started implementing the framework late last year.
EPA's defense of the framework in court filings comes as the agency's plans for reviewing new chemicals under the revised TSCA face scrutiny from Senate Democrats, particularly on how the agency will comply with the law's requirement to consider reasonably foreseeable uses.
A half dozen Senate Democrats, who backed TSCA reform, in a July 24 letter to EPA, sought meetings with the agency staff on EPA's plans for new chemical reviews, noting that the agency has declined to implement the framework and press reports that the Trump administration is considering weakening the approach.
In the July 31 filing, EPA argues that the framework is consistent with the requirements of the revised TSCA, including the law's requirements to consider reasonably foreseen uses.
“EPA is not constraining its evaluation of a chemical substance to only those intended conditions of use identified in the pre-manufacture notice,” the agency says. “Rather, the Framework describes a process where EPA examines all reasonably foreseen conditions of use and takes into account whether a use requires prior approval by EPA in determining whether it poses unreasonable risk."
While arguing that petitioners lack standing because the framework is not a final agency action, EPA acknowledges, but seeks to clarify, past statements from agency toxics chief Jeff Morris that EPA had already begun implementing the framework, and suggests that other approaches may be considered in the future.
“It is true that Dr. Morris stated that 'we are acting on the Framework and governing ourselves by the framework,'” the filing says. “But, elsewhere he said that 'this is an area of active discussion' for which he welcomes input, and that he 'fully expect[s] that as we take comments . . . how we describe things will change a bit.'”
“Dr. Morris also said that using a significant new use rule to address reasonably foreseen uses was not automatic: 'should we go the SNUR route in a particular case,' then the Agency will 'want to make sure [it is] very clear on how it links to what is outlined in the” premanufacture notice that a company submitted to request approval of a new chemical.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-defends-tsca-review-framework-environmentalists-lawsuit
-
(ACC Mentioned) Senators Reintroduce Bill To Promote Sustainable 'Green' Chemistry
Aug 1, 2018 | Inside EPA
Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have reintroduced their bipartisan bill seeking to advance the development of new chemicals that are more efficient to produce and less toxic to human health and the environment, echoing an unsuccessful sustainable “green” chemistry bill that the two senators floated last year.
Coons and Collins introduced S. 3296 July 30, and the bill has been assigned to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. While neither sponsor serves on the commerce committee, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) is the ranking member of its space, science and competitiveness subcommittee. Markey joined Coons and Collins in requesting a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the status of sustainable chemistry practices in the United States.
Coons told Inside EPA after the report's release last March that the "purpose" of his request is to boost his efforts to advance green chemistry and he "hopes to" advance such a bill in the current Congress.
Legislative text for S. 3296 was not available at press time, but Coons in a July 30 press release describes it as supporting “coordinated efforts in sustainable chemistry across all research agencies through research and development, technology transfer, commercialization, education, and training programs; including partnerships with the private sector. The bill does not include any regulatory components, nor does it authorize new spending. Its goal, rather, is to better coordinate federal activities in sustainable chemistry and encourage industry, academia, nonprofits, and the general public to innovate, develop, and bring to market new sustainable chemicals, materials, products, and processes.”
Collins adds, “[s]ustainable chemistry is an important scientific field that aims to improve the efficiency of the chemical production process while reducing risks to human health and the environment. This bipartisan bill would create a coordinated national effort to support research and development in the sustainable chemistry field; provide grants, training . . . and support American jobs by maintaining our nation’s scientific leadership.”
In the 114th Congress, Coons and Collins sponsored a broad sustainable chemistry bill, S. 1447, that sought to create a similar program encouraging development of alternatives to traditional, generally petroleum-based products that can be environmentally harmful.
But that bill did not advance after Coons failed to attach it to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reform rewrite that was enacted into law in June 2016.
About half of S. 1447 was incorporated into the Senate version of TSCA reform, S. 697. But Coons' sustainable chemistry legislation was stripped from the TSCA bill over concerns that it would expand the number of House committees that would need to approve the bill language to include the science committee, which had not previously reviewed the underlying bill.
"There were some jurisdictional concerns, because of where the bill got sent in the House," a congressional staffer told Inside EPA in 2016. "The bulk of the bill went to" the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which had jurisdiction over the lower chamber's version of TSCA reform, H.R. 2576.
If the sustainable chemistry language had remained, it would have triggered the science committee's scrutiny and many lawmakers were concerned that involving another committee would complicate already delicate negotiations between House and Senate lawmakers over two very dissimilar TSCA reform bills, the source said.
The American Chemistry Council heralded the new bill with a July 31 statement from its President and CEO Cal Dooley. “ACC welcomes the introduction of” S. 3296, Dooley said. “It is critical for government and industry to work together to accelerate innovations in chemistry that will help solve critical sustainability challenges while protecting the U.S. business of chemistry’s global competitive advantage.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senators-reintroduce-bill-promote-sustainable-green-chemistry
-
3M Knew About The Dangers Of PFOA And PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show
Jul 31, 2018 | The Intercept
By Sharon Lerner
NEWS THAT THE Environmental Protection Agency pressured the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to suppress a study showing PFAS chemicals to be even more dangerous than previously thought drew outrage this spring. The EPA pressure delayed the study’s publication for several months, and a similar dynamic seems to have been in play this July in Michigan, where Robert Delaney, a state scientist who tried to raise alarms about the chemicals six years ago, was largely ignored. Delaney, who delivered a report to his superiors about high levels of the chemicals in fish and the dangers they presented to people, has been heralded as prophetic. And both delays are being lamented as missed opportunities for getting critical information to the public.
But the dangers presented by these industrial chemicals have been known for decades, not just a few months or years. A lawsuit filed by Minnesota against 3M, the company that first developed and sold PFOS and PFOA, the two best-known PFAS compounds, has revealed that the company knew that these chemicals were accumulating in people’s blood for more than 40 years. 3M researchers documented the chemicals in fish, just as the Michigan scientist did, but they did so back in the 1970s. That same decade, 3M scientists realized that the compounds they produced were toxic. The company even had evidence back then of the compounds’ effects on the immune system, studies of which are just now driving the lower levels put forward by the ATSDR, as well as several states and the European Union.
The suit, which the Minnesota attorney general filed in 2010, charges that 3M polluted groundwater with PFAS compounds and “knew or should have known” that these chemicals harm human health and the environment, and “result in injury, destruction, and loss of natural resources of the State.” The complaint argues that 3M “acted with a deliberate disregard for the high risk of injury to the citizens and wildlife of Minnesota.” 3M settled the suit for $850 million in February, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office released a large set of documents — including internal studies, memos, emails, and research reports — detailing what 3M knew about the chemicals’ harms.
Some of the documents had been under seal since 2005 as a result of a separate lawsuit over PFAS contamination in Minnesota. And the documents had been in the EPA’s possession for at least 18 years: In 2000, 3M gave the EPA hundreds of documents it had withheld from the agency, resulting in more than $1.5 million in penalties in 2006 for 244 violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act. Even so, for years the EPA did nothing. Even as a few government officials and company scientists understood the vast dangers they posed, PFAS were allowed to spread into groundwater and then drinking water, into people and their children, into animals, plants and the food system where they remain today.Suppressing Damaging Data
As a staff epidemiologist at 3M, Geary Olsen has had a wealth of data at his fingertips. The company he’s worked for since at least 1998 makes more than 55,000 products and has more than 90,000 employees. Olsen had access to internal information about both and has been able to combine them to pursue the kinds of scientific questions most researchers can only dream of being able to ask and answer.
In one study, for instance, Olsen looked at blood tests of 3M employees at the company’s plants in Antwerp, Belgium, and Decatur, Alabama, both of which made PFOA and PFOS, among other products. By the late 1990s when Olsen was embarking on this research, these chemicals were known within the company to accumulate in humans and alter cholesterol levels in lab animals. Because the workers had undergone three separate rounds of blood tests, Olsen was able to trace the levels of the chemicals in workers’ blood over time. And by combining his results with various clinical measures the company had been tracking in its workers, he was able to see whether there was a relationship between the chemical and these health outcomes.
Olsen’s findings, written up in an draft report in October 2001, were clear. There was a positive association between the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood and their levels of cholesterol and triglycerides, states the report, on which Olsen is listed as the principal investigator. The report devoted more than 20 tables to triglycerides and cholesterol, detailing a relationship that later studies would confirm: PFOA increased people’s levels of triglycerides, which are a type of fat, and cholesterol, both of which can increase the chance of heart disease. The results were in keeping with rat evidence, as the report noted.
Yet less than two years later, when Olsen and the three co-authors on the report — all 3M employees — published an article based on the same research, it downplayed this key finding. Indeed, according to the study, which ran in the March 2003 issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, “There were no substantial changes in hematological, lipid, hepatic, thyroid, or urinary parameters consistent with the known toxicological effects of PFOS or PFOA” — a statement that appears to contradict the authors’ earlier finding.
In the 19th paragraph of the 2003 article, the authors note that PFOA was “positively associated with cholesterol and triglycerides” and that “serum PFOS was positively associated with the natural log of serum cholesterol … and triglycerides,” but dismiss these effects as “minimal.” The article omits most of the information that was contained in the draft’s tables and clearly laid out the increase in cholesterol and triglycerides in exposed workers.
The minimizing of this bad news is just one of several instances in which 3M seems to have downplayed, spun, and tailored its own research to make these two PFAS chemicals and others it produced appear safer than they were, according to the documents made public by Minnesota’s attorney general.
In some cases, relatively reassuring findings about the chemicals made their way into the scientific literature, while other more concerning ones — like the 1993 observation that goats passed PFOS to their offspring through their milk, or the 1998 discovery that PFOS had made its way into eagles found in the wild, or the association between PFOA and lipids that Geary identified — did so only after many years. In several cases, 3M appears to have not pursued further research based on discoveries that suggested the chemicals posed harm. And the company also relied on several paid scientists, including John Giesy, now a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, who weighed in on the environmental impact of PFOA and PFOS without disclosing their funding from 3M.
In an email, a 3M spokesperson strenuously denied that the company tailored its research around PFAS, writing that “neither 3M nor Dr. Olsen has distorted or suppressed the scientific evidence regarding PFAS in any way.” The email also pointed out that the company eventually gave the EPA Olsen’s 2001 report, which at this point has “been publicly available for well over a decade.” While acknowledging that Olsen found an association between cholesterol levels and PFOA, the 3M spokesperson noted that the effect of PFOA he documented in some workers — increasing cholesterol levels — was inconsistent with those observed in rats, whose levels decreased after exposure to the chemical, and that “the science is complex and neither the study nor the larger body of scientific evidence on this issue establishes causation.”
In a separate email, the 3M spokesperson wrote that “the Minnesota Attorney General released a small set of documents that should not be taken out of context in an effort to distort the full record regarding 3M’s actions with respect to PFOA or PFOS. 3M acted reasonably and responsibly in connection with products containing PFAS, and stands behind its environmental stewardship record.”
Giesy did not respond to a request for comment, but the University of Saskatchewan provided a statement saying that “Prof. Giesy rejects the unproven claims, which were never tried or tested in court.” Giesy “encouraged the company to voluntarily cease production of the chemical,” the university’s statement goes on to say, also noting that it conducted an investigation, which determined that Giesy had not violated university policy. The statement also pointed out that Giesy has not worked for 3M since he began working at the University of Saskatchewan in 2006.
Paul Brandt-Rauf, editor of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, declined to comment, citing pending letters to the editor in his journal.
Yet the documents released by the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office demonstrate that 3M’s communications strategy altered the scientific record on PFAS by prettifying the scientific picture of PFOA and PFOS over the more than four decades it produced them.
While 3M readily paid its fines, there was no undoing the delay in regulatory action that resulted from the previous decades of keeping its damning information secret. While the studies sat in 3M’s private files, PFAS chemicals from the company’s facilities were entering the water in Minnesota, Alabama, and elsewhere, and PFOS and PFOA were accumulating in the environment and in people, the vast majority of whom now have the chemicals in their blood.
The lag in getting scientific information to regulators in turn resulted in prolonged public exposure to the chemicals, as Philippe Grandjean argues in an editorial in the journal Environmental Health. A physician and environmental health scholar who has studied the immune effects of PFAS and provided expert testimony for Minnesota in the 3M case, Grandjean argues that regulators should learn from this massive misstep, and that substitutes for PFOS and PFOA “should be subjected to prior scrutiny before widespread usage.”The Principled Path
The history of PFAS compounds has mostly revolved around DuPont. That giant company also knew for decades that PFOA was escaping its plant, leaching into nearby drinking water, accumulating in the blood of its workers, and harming animals tested in its own labs. Since 2004, DuPont has paid more than $1 billion in class-action litigation and several related suits filed by people living near its plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia — and faced massive public outrage over its actions.
To the extent that 3M has come up in coverage of the fast-growing PFAS story, it’s largely been as a footnote — and a foil. 3M was the company that invented PFOA and sold the toxic stuff to DuPont, whose corporate image was besmirched by the news of its deceptions around PFOA. DuPont has also faced a firestorm of protest over GenX, its similarly toxicreplacement for PFOA.
As 3M executives have pointed out on numerous occasions, their company phased out PFOA six years before DuPont did. (DuPont never manufactured PFOS.) “3M has acted appropriately and on the principled path,” William A. Brewer III, a partner in a law firm representing 3M in perfluorinated chemical-related litigation, told me when I first wrote about Minnesota’s lawsuit in 2016. “They immediately reported it, investigated it, and frankly decided to exit the C8 chemistries in their entirety well more than a decade before anyone else who was a competitor.”
But the documents from the Minnesota suit upend the narrative of 3M as the good corporate citizen.
In 1948, 3M, or the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, as it was then called, acquired the patent for a process of creating compounds out of fluorine. Manhattan Project scientists — several of whom landed at 3M after the war — had already used fluorine to separate the uranium used for the atom bomb. Their new method bonded carbon to fluorine atoms, creating novel materials such as an extraordinarily stable fluid called PFOA. 3M executives believed that the substance might have commercial applications, though they didn’t at first know what those might be. In 1950, after two years of conferring with various companies, 3M landed a deal to sell PFOA to DuPont to make Teflon. After that, “we were in business,” a 3M executive later recalled.
3M would continue to sell PFOA to DuPont for more than four decades. Starting in the early 1950s, the company also made PFOS, a closely related compound that wound up in hundreds of products, including the company’s own Scotchgard fabric protector, which, by the end of the 1950s, was being applied to both upholstery and clothing; and firefighting foam that 3M provided exclusively to the U.S. military for decades. 3M went on to market some of these its fluorochemical products as “the solution for your problems.”
3M’s fluorochemicals helped the company expand into a behemoth worth more than $120 billion. But the story of 3M “is clearly not a story of molecules, compounds, good science or technology,” as the company’s own corporate history explained in 1991. “It is a story of people.” Indeed, while 3M was distinguished by both its industrial chemistry and occupational health, it was individuals who made the fateful choices about which lines of scientific inquiry to pursue — and which to share with the public.A Medical Mystery
The first scientists to raise the alarm about the fluorine-based chemicals didn’t work for 3M. In August 1975, a University of Florida researcher named Warren Guy called the company to get help with a medical mystery his colleague, Donald Taves, had stumbled upon. Taves had detected a form of fluoride in his own blood that hadn’t been found in blood before. The fluorine didn’t break down and appeared to be part of a large and stable molecule. The discovery sparked the scientists to look for and find fluorinated compounds in other blood samples, as they described in a 1975 paper. Guy was calling 3M to ask whether Teflon and Scotchgard might be the source of the compounds.
“We plead ignorance,” one of 3M’s chemists, G. H. Crawford, recounted in a summary he wrote up after the call. But within a few months, staff scientists knew quite a bit about the fluorinated compound found in blood. They compared the unique spectrum of its own patented compound, PFOS, with that of the chemical identified by Taves and Guy and found that they matched, according to a timeline the company compiled in 1977.
During the phone call, Crawford also suggested that Guy check blood samples from “uncivilized areas, e.g. New Guinea” where Teflon and Scotchgard weren’t in use. Later testing of historical blood samples would show Crawford’s suspicion to be spot on. After their introduction into consumer products in the 1950s, the fluorinated compounds began to appear in blood samples from around the world going as far back as 1957.
Closer to home, the chemicals were clearly accumulating in their own factories. By 1976, 3M measured fluorochemicals in the blood of workers at its plant in Cottage Grove Minnesota at “1,000 times normal.” The chemical appeared to accumulate in animals, too. Mice fed “Scotchban,” a grease-proofing 3M product that contained PFOS, had “4,000 times normal organic fluorine compound,” in their blood, the timeline also noted. By 1979, the company noted that samples from Red Cross blood donors also contained trace levels of the fluorinated chemical.
But it’s clear that the scientists’ fielding Guy’s phone call had yet to grasp the implications of the situation. After the call, Crawford tried to put a positive spin on the dawning realization that their chemical had found its way into Americans’ blood.
“If it is confirmed to our satisfaction that everybody is going around with fluorocarbon surfactants in their bloodstreams with no apparent ill-effect, are there some medical possibilities that would bear looking into?” Crawford asked in his notes. Perhaps PFOS might help with hardening of the arteries, “kidney blockage, senility and the like,” Crawford mused, going on to suggest animal experiments “both from a defensive point of view and for the above (to me) intriguing reasons.”
While the company was pondering the possibility that the massive human experiment it had launched might have some positive outcomes, it was becoming clear that it would almost certainly have some negative ones. According to minutes from a 1978 meeting about 3M’s experiments on rats and monkeys, PFOA and PFOS “should be regarded as toxic.” Disturbingly, PFOA caused changes in rats’ livers at levels lower than that measured in one of its workers, according to the memo, which described the finding as suggestive of “a possible human health problem.” Nevertheless, the eight staff members present at the meeting decided that the toxicity “does not constitute a substantial risk and should not be reported [to the EPA] at this time.”
Two studies on monkeys done later that year might have been seen as even more alarming — and worth sharing with the public. One had to be stopped because all the monkeys given PFOS died (“Incorrect (too high) feeding levels were used and all animals died within the first few days”). In the other, monkeys given PFOA developed tiny lesions on their spleen, lymph nodes, and bone marrow — organs central in maintaining the body’s immune defenses.
The next year, a review of the internal studies described PFOS as “the most toxic” of three compounds studied, “certainly more toxic than anticipated,” and recommended that “lifetime rodent studies should be undertaken as soon as possible.” But from the documents released and a search of the medical literature, 3M appears not to have undertaken the studies suggested in the review. Nor did it publish either of the monkey studies. And the company waited 22 years before giving the troubling studies to the EPA or reporting the evidence that the chemical was in the blood of the general public.
Still, 3M appears to have been worried enough about the implications of the studies to seek advice from a well-known toxicologist named Harold Hodge. At a confidential meeting with company executives held in San Francisco in June 1979, Hodge noted that the company’s research on exposed workers showed “indications of liver effects.” Because both PFOS and PFOA also caused liver changes in rats, Hodge suggested that 3M find out whether PFOS “or its metabolites are present in man, what level they are present, and the degree of persistence (half-life) of these materials.” If the levels were high and widespread and the half life long, he said, “we could have a serious problem.”
In a phone call a week after the meeting, Hodge asked that a note be added to the minutes to stress that the research he was proposing was “of utmost importance.” Later that year, another 3M scientist, M. T. Case, underscored Hodge’s suggestion, writing in a memo to his colleagues that “it is paramount to begin now an assessment of the potential (if any) of long term (carcinogenic) effects for these compounds which are known to persist for a long time in the body and thereby give long term chronic exposure.”
In 1980, the company came close to disclosing how widespread its chemicals had become, according to questions drafted in anticipation of the news reaching the general public. “I have heard that fluorochemicals are persistent. Does this mean that [they] are like PCBs and DDT?” one sample question asked, referring to chemicals widely used in electrical equipment and pesticides, respectively, that accumulated in the environment and increased cancer rates. The proper answer, according to the company’s guide was “NO.” But it turned out no rehearsal was necessary. 3M didn’t announce the presence of PFOS or PFOA in human blood — nor did the bad news leak out. And for more than 20 years, as evidence emerged that tumors in exposed lab animals were related to PFOA exposure, that the levels of the chemicals in 3M workers’ blood rose over time, and that their cancer rates were elevated compared to the general population, the questions about the environmental and health consequences of the secret were neither asked nor answered.What Immune Impact?
The real-life implications of this careful curation of the scientific record on PFAS is still coming into relief as the public begins to grapple with the likelihood that the EPA’s safety levels for these two chemicals are far too high. A study released by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in June calculated that the limit for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water ought to be around 7 and 11 parts per trillion or ppt, respectively, just a fraction of the 70 ppt that the EPA set for the chemicals in 2016.
ATSDR and the state of New Jersey, which has calculated similar safety levels for both chemicals, arrived at the lower number for PFOS in part by including studies showing that very low levels of the chemical affect the immune system. The European Food Safety Authority also recently considered evidence of their immune effects when calculating even lower safety levels — 6.5 ppt for PFOS and just 3 for PFOA. And Philippe Grandjean, a physician and environmental health scholar who has studied the immune effects of PFAS and provided expert testimony for Minnesota in the 3M case, calculated that the safety levels for both PFOS and PFOA should be less than 1 ppt.
In contrast, the EPA did not include studies showing immune effects in its calculations. When asked why it didn’t include these studies when devising its health advisory levels for PFOS and PFOA, the EPA did not respond. The agency instead provided the following statement:
EPA remains committed to evaluating PFOA and PFOS under the regulatory determination process using the best available science. As a part of the evaluation, EPA will be reviewing all newly available scientific information including the ATSDR report. EPA is taking steps to accelerate the determination process before the existing statutory deadline.
The statutory deadline is 2021.
While the immune effects of PFOS and PFOA have entered the public conversation only in recent years, 3M has possessed evidence suggesting that its signature chemical affected the immune system as far back as 1978, when its monkey study showed the tiny lesions on immune organs. An internal summary of research noted both PFOA’s liver and immune effects. At a 1983 meeting of the company’s Fluorochemical Study Committee, a member of the toxicology team listed “immunosuppressive effects” as one of three areas of follow-up research given the highest priority, according to meeting notes.
Yet the company didn’t publish anything about how PFOA affected the immune system, even as it was internally gathering more damning evidence. In 1991, a physician named Frank Gilliland came to work at 3M for a year while he was getting his Ph.D. in environmental health. Gilliland wrote his thesis on the health effects of PFOA in 3M workers in 1992, looking at the effects of the chemical on 115 male workers at one of the company’s plants.
The paper describes his finding that the amount of PFOA in workers’ blood correlated to levels of various hormones. Gilliland also calculated that workers in one of 3M’s plants who had at least 10 years of exposure to PFOA had a death rate from prostate cancer that was three times that of workers who weren’t exposed to PFOA. And his thesis explained that the chemical affected the immune response to foreign chemicals.
While Gilliland went on to publish the prostate cancer finding, an internal paper he wrote that further explored PFOA’s effects on the workers’ immune system never saw the light of day. His draft explained that the level of critical immune cells in workers was “significantly correlated” with their total fluoride levels, “suggesting that cell-mediated immunity may be affected by PFOA.” Gilliland’s paper also noted the company’s 1978 monkey studies — and that “no follow-up studies of these observations have been reported.”
But the company didn’t publish or follow up on Gilliland’s work either, based on the documents released. In a 1993 memo, 3M’s medical director, Jeff Mandel, wrote to the company’s Fluorochemical Steering Committee members that Gilliland had three research papers in the works, all of which were “negative for the most part.” Mandel wrote that “we’re working with him regarding some of the wording.” But none of the papers in the memo came out in any form. And 15 years would pass after Gilliland’s finding that PFOA affected immunity — and 30 years after the monkey study suggested a similar impact — before independent scientists documented the effect of PFOA in humans.
One of the reasons scientists in the field didn’t explore whether PFOA, PFOS, and other chemicals in their class could affect the body’s ability to fight off infection and toxicity was because they believed they couldn’t affect the human body. “Word was that the compounds were inert,” said Grandjean, who considered and rejected the idea of researching how the chemicals affected immunity when 3M took the compounds off the market in 2000.
It was only in 2008, after a study showed that PFOA affected the immune systems of mice, that Grandjean and his team went back to study the chemicals’ impact on humans. “We were already looking at PCBs, which we know are immunotoxic, to see if they affected how children responded to vaccines,” said Grandjean. When his team did the same research with PFAS, they noted a dramatic effect. “These responses were much stronger than anything we can attribute to PCBs.”Eagles, Fish, and Rats
Another 3M scientist made discoveries about PFAS that the company didn’t readily follow up or publish. In the 1990s, Rich Purdy, an environmental scientist at 3M, detected PFOS in the blood of eagles. He also found that rats that hadn’t been purposely exposed to the chemical had it in their liver, likely because their food was made from fish that had been exposed. (3M had already measured the chemicals in fish in the Tennessee River near its Decatur, Alabama plant back in 1979.) Alarmed, Purdy reasoned that whales, seals, and other fish-eating animals might also be contaminated and urged the company to sample a few species to find out. But his superiors didn’t share his urgency.
“I’m not sure there is a need to support or refute the hypothesis within any particular time frame,” a 3M attorney named Thomas DiPasquale wrote to his colleagues in the company’s corporate division in a 1999 email. Purdy had also suggested alerting the EPA to his concern that PFOS was spreading through the food chain, but his bosses came up with a slower and more measured response.
The year before, the company had laid out its strategic plan for releasing scientific information. In 1998, it had finally provided the EPA with some of the evidence that its chemicals were in blood samples from the general public. In anticipation of the public release of that information, 3M devised a schedule of publications that would “allow the serum level findings to be placed in an understandable, credible context which demonstrates that there is no medical or scientific basis to attribute any adverse health effects to 3M products.”
Purdy believed that the plan to delay the follow-up was another instance of putting the company’s need to protect its self-interest over the environment:
Plan! That is the same stalling technique you have been using for the last year. There is a high probability that PFOS is killing marine mammals and you want another plan when we could have had data to support the risk assessment long ago. You were given a plan in 1983. Again in the early 90s. And you authorized no testing …
You continually ignore our plans and start new plans that slows the collection of data essential for our risk assessments. You slow our progress in understanding the extent of PFOS pollution and damage. For 20 years the division has been stalling the collection of data needed for evaluating the environmental impact of fluorochemicals.
Shortly afterward, Purdy reached his limit, according to a resignation letter he sent in 1999. In it, he explained that his decision to leave was “prompted by my profound disappointment in 3M’s handling of the environmental risks associated with the manufacture and use” of PFOS. While, years before, the company’s planned questions and answers had sought to dispel any comparison to PCBs, Purdy described PFOS as “the most insidious pollutant since PCB.”
I have been assured that action will be taken — yet I see slow or no results. I am told the company is concerned, but their actions speak to different concerns than mine. I can no longer participate in the process that 3M has established for the management of PFOS and precursors. For me it is unethical to be concerned with markets, legal defensibility and image over environmental safety. …
3M told those of us working on the fluorochemical project not to write down our thoughts or have email discussions on issues because of how our speculations could be viewed in a legal discovery process. This has stymied intellectual development on the issue, and stifled discussion on the serious ethical implications of decisions.
I have worked within the system to learn more about this chemical and to make the company aware of the dangers associated with its continued use. But I have continually met roadblocks, delays, and indecision. For weeks on end I have received assurances that my samples would be analyzed soon — never to see results.
Purdy later changed his mind and returned to work at the company, according to a letter from his wife, who was clearly troubled by his decision. He didn’t respond to requests for comment. In any case, within a year of his letter, everything had changed. In 2000, after giving the EPA hundreds of its studies, 3M announced it would cease production of PFOS and PFOA. While the company claimed it made the decision voluntarily, an EPA official at the time said that the agency was prepared to remove PFOS from the market based on research that “suggests to us is that there are potentially long-term consequences.”
Subsequent research has validated the EPA’s suspicion. Since 2000, the number of scientific articles published on the health effects of PFAS has increased more than tenfold. The findings have linked the chemicals to a wide range of health effects in people, including testicular and kidney cancer, obesity, impaired fertility, thyroid disease, and the onset of puberty. The increased cholesterol and lipids in blood that Olsen noted in his 2001 paper have also been identified in several recent studies. And the immune effects have also been borne out, with one recent study by Grandjean showing that levels of the chemicals in infants’ blood were related to their immune response at age 5.
But the lag in awareness of these problems makes addressing them infinitely harder than it would have been when they had first surfaced. It’s now too late to contain the chemicals that originated in 3M’s laboratories. Since PFAS compounds were first traced in a few workers and animals, the chemicals have gone from being an occupational hazard to one shouldered by everyone. Blood testing done in 2003 found PFOA in 99.7 percent of more than 2,000 samples in the U.S. PFOS was in 99.9 percent. And it’s not just those two chemicals. In 2005, 3M tested human blood from around the country for 15 different PFAS — and found 14 of them.
The number of people thought to be affected by this contamination continues to expand as the scientific information is refined. In Minnesota, where 3M is headquartered and the lawsuit was filed, the plume of PFAS that was first detected in the 1960s as leaching from a few landfills now covers 100 square miles of groundwater and affects the drinking water of some 125,000 people in the Twin Cities area.
PFAS water contamination is now a national — and international — issue. Using data collected by the EPA, the Environmental Working Group calculated that more than 100 million Americans may be have some level of PFAS in their drinking water.
3M insists that “the presence of PFAS in blood does not mean that an individual’s health has been harmed and does not mean that there is a risk of adverse health effects. While the science behind PFASs is complex, the vast body of scientific evidence, which consists of decades of research conducted by independent third parties and 3M, does not show that PFOS or PFOA negatively impact human health at the levels typically found in the environment,” according to a statement the company provided in response to questions for this story.
But even as the company has continued to defend its chemicals, 3M’s legal problems have mounted along with the scientific evidence. States, counties, and individuals have filed dozens of suits against the company over the past two years, many of them based firefighting foam that contain PFAS chemicals.
Even if victory awaits those plaintiffs — as a form of it did in Minnesota — it’s not clear that justice will be done. The state will be using its $850 million settlement from 3M to address its massive water contamination problem. But it will be impossible to fully remove the chemicals from the groundwater or lakes or the Mississippi River, or any of the areas where it’s contaminated groundwater.
The people living in these places — and grappling with the realization that they have been ingesting these chemicals for years — have no recourse. “We don’t have some wonder medicine,” said Grandjean. “When I talk to residents about this, I convey the bad news. I’m a physician. I thought I was getting into medicine to solve problems. But all I can do is say, you’ve got this stuff in your body and it’s going to stay there for a long time and there’s nothing we can do about it.”
While there’s no way to go back and undo the environmental and health damage that’s already been done, criminal prosecutions could help prevent a similar situation in the future, according to Rena Steinzor, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and author of “Why Not Jail? Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction.”
“Criminal law allows us to go after people right now who withhold information they’re supposed to give the government,” said Steinzor. “If lying to the government is prosecuted as a crime with respect to the chemical industry — as it should be — things will get better quick.”
Whether such environmental misconduct might be taken more seriously in the future, 3M’s failure to act sooner on the danger of PFAS still has yet to be fully addressed. Geary Olsen, whose published paper omitted the finding detailed in his internal study, continues to work at 3M. 3M declined to make Olsen available for comment. John Giesy has stayed on as a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, even after it was revealed that he spun the science on PFAS after receiving more than $2 million in grants from the company. And Rich Purdy, who was so distraught by the company’s delays in releasing his research, recently prepared to testify for 3M, according to his wife.
Some researchers, like Frank Gilliland, who detailed the immune impacts of PFOA in his graduate thesis, left 3M “less idealistic” than when he began his work there, he told me in a recent interview. Reached at the University of Southern California, where he is now a professor of medicine, Gilliland said that PFOS and PFOA “should have come off the market sooner.” He said his current academic setting, in contrast to 3M, was a place of “free-ranging scientific inquiry.”
Philippe Grandjean, who has been a physician and environmental health researcher for more than 40 years, has also been affected by the realization of just how long he and others were kept in the dark about the harms of the chemicals. “I lost my confidence in the scientific literature,” said Grandjean. As he sees it, his whole profession has been stained by the experience. “We in my field have failed.”
-
Sluggish Hazardous Waste Authorizations Pose Risk — IG
Aug 1, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Ariel Wittenberg
EPA authorizations of state hazardous waste regulations take too long, the agency's inspector general said in a report released today.
Under the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, states and territories can take over implementation of the hazardous waste program after receiving authorization from EPA, which ensures local regulations are at least equivalent to the federal ones.
But even with an EPA-approved regulatory program, the federal government must still give states the OK to carry out a slew of rules required under RCRA.
EPA cannot enforce those rules in states with authorized programs, but states can't either unless they get specific permission.
But delays in approvals mean no state is authorized for all 173 required regulations. The IG said the agency took 31 years in one case.
While most states are authorized to implement the majority of new required hazardous waste rules, eight states have more than 50 rules each that are not authorized.
That "creates human health and environmental risk," said the IG report. "When states do not keep their hazardous waste programs up to date, it creates an inconsistent playing field for the regulated community and means citizens in different states are unevenly protected from hazardous waste risks."
The IG is recommending that EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management and regional offices identify and track rules for which states have not sought authorization and then prioritize those measures.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/07/31/stories/1060091761
-
UK Charity Questions Effectiveness of PFAS Coatings In School Uniforms
Aug 1, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Many 'stain resistant' school uniforms sold in the UK use per- or poly-fluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) in coatings, even though this does not increase the product's lifespan or reduce the frequency of washing, a study has revealed.
Scottish-based environmental charity Fidra conducted a survey of 637 parents or guardians of school age children across the UK, to establish whether consumers adjusted their behaviour in response to stain resistant finishes of uniforms.
It also created a database of uniform suppliers, such as supermarkets and department stores, with information on whether their products have PFAS-based coatings. Six out of 13 retailers it surveyed continue to sell PFAS-coated uniforms, it said, while others are phasing out their use in uniforms and other products.
The primary argument cited for using PFASs in stain resistant and easy-care finishes is that they increase product lifespan and decrease the need for frequent washing, Fidra said.Frequent washes
However, the charity found the opposite to be true. The respondents who valued stain resistant finishes washed the items more frequently and replaced them more often than those who considered the finishes unimportant. And the former group replaced trousers and skirts on average seven weeks earlier than the latter, it added.
Stain resistant finishes are only guaranteed for around 20 washes, and this raises the question of whether they are needed in the first place, Fidra said.
It made the following recommendations:include behaviour in full lifecycle analyses to fully assess the environmental impact of stain resistant finishes;give consumers the opportunity to find out about the finishes and their environmental impact;develop ways for consumers to explore and engage with the issue; andencourage consumers to assess the need for washing and replacement on an individual item by item basis rather than falling into habitual behaviour patterns.
This month, an EU-funded project concluded that high water and oil repellance are not necessary for most textiles applications and that PFASs should be limited to those where technical performance is "unique and critical".
https://chemicalwatch.com/69170/uk-charity-questions-effectiveness-of-pfas-coatings-in-school-uniforms
-
LNG Goes Small-Scale in Permian to Snuff Out Shale Gas Flaring
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
New way to truck natural gas may fuel drilling operations
It’s abundant, cheap and may slow down need to burn gas off
It’s called micro LNG, and the concept is simple. By super-cooling natural gas, they can pack three times more of it into a truck, which may help the Permian Basin deal with its growing gas excess.
Liquefied natural gas is largely shipped in huge ocean-going tankers. Trucking it lets explorers power drilling operations with a fuel that’s abundant, accessible and cheap, saving them as much as 30 percent in costs versus diesel. An example: As many as five trucks, each carrying about 9,500 gallons of LNG, already trek as much as 400 miles a day in Colorado shale country to make deliveries there.
Next in line may be the Permian in West Texas and New Mexico, where filled-to-capacity pipelines threaten to curtail drilling for both oil and its byproduct, natural gas. Siemens AG and Baker Hughes are now in talks to build multiple small production centers in U.S. shale centers, seeking to create a new outlet for natural gas at a time when drillers are urging regulators to let them burn it off into the air.
“A lot of creative work is going on to lower the wastage and environmental footprint that natural gas has in the absence of pipeline delivery,” said Ramanan Krishnamoorti, chief energy officer at the University of Houston.
While crude prices have risen, gas prices have barely budged nationwide and in the Permian they are trading at the biggest discounts to the U.S. benchmark since 2009. So producers to pipeline owners and services companies are looking to put gas to work to not only eat into that excess supply but cut costs and reduce methane emissions, a greenhouse gas contributing to global warming.
‘Lot of Activity’“We are seeing a lot of activity in the Permian” with Siemens potentially installing 10 to 15 small modular LNG plants by the end of 2019, said Michael Walhof, director of sales for distributed LNG solutions, a division of Siemens.
Houston-based Prometheus Energy Group Inc. has been trucking LNG to producers in the Denver-Julesburg Basin for years, according to Chief Executive Officer Jim Aivalis. But as oil prices have risen lately so has demand, he said. Currently, the company trucks LNG to drillers from a small Williams Cos. plant in Durango and an Exxon Mobil Corp. plant in southwestern Wyoming, to the DJ Basin northeast of Denver.
“In that area of Colorado there are some very restrictive emissions requirements and there has been a lot of public outcry against the energy industry,” in part because of the number of wells flaring, Aivalis said in a telephone interview.
The LNG carried by Prometheus is chilled to minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 162 Celsius), then warmed back into gas before being used in engines made by Caterpillar Inc., Cummins Inc., or General Electric Co. for drilling operations, some of which can run on diesel and natural gas at the same time, according to Aivalis. The more natural gas they use, the bigger the savings, he said.
The attitude shift comes amid an Environmental Defense Fund study published last month that estimated that the U.S. oil and gas industry was wasting $2 billion a year through emissions of methane, the main component of natural gas, across the supply chain. Last month, Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc were among the energy producers discussing efforts to use gas as a cleaner, affordable power-plant fuel used in sync with renewables.
“You are seeing a millennial shift where people want to do the right thing,” Krishnamoorti said.
The economics too are increasingly favoring micro LNG. There are spots in the Permian basin where the price of gas is already negative, so producers are actually paying to “evacuate” gas, said Pablo Avogadri, global LNG platform leader at Baker Hughes. Instead of a salable asset for drillers, “gas is becoming an annoyance,” he said.
In the Permian, the first move toward LNG may come from the Delaware Basin in New Mexico, where Prometheus has been discussing options with potential customers, Aivalis said.30,000 Gallons
Siemens started working on micro LNG four years ago, Walhof said. The small production plants they’re planning would chill 30,000 gallons a day, compared with the 4 billion gallons a day produced in terminals on the Gulf Coast for export abroad.
Meanwhile, Baker Hughes, the world’s third-biggest oilfield services company, has been receiving requests for proposals for Permian LNG projects that can make the fuel available within a 500-mile region, Avogadri said.
The company is studying the question, Avogadri said,adding, “we still need to crack the cost equation.”
Krishnamoorti, meanwhile, equates the challenges of building out the micro LNG plant industry to the launch of Apple Inc.’s cutting-edge iPhone. “The problem with micro LNG is that we are in the first 2,000 iPhones,” he said. “The more experience you get, the more you can drop the cost. ”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/lng-goes-small-scale-in-permian-to-snuff-out-shale-gas-flaring
-
Private Equity Joins Pipeline Buildup as Shale Patch Needs Grow
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik, Melissa Mittelman amd Rachel Adams-Heard
KKR, Blackstone, Stonepeak backing oil, gas pipeline projects
Pipeline companies seeking cheaper cash after tax change
Private equity is increasingly investing in an American oil and gas pipeline network in desperate need of expansion.
That’s the message from industry analysts after KKR & Co. announced July 30 it was teaming up with Williams Cos. to buy a Colorado pipeline and services providers for $1.2 billion from TPG Growth, which had held the business for about a year.
In doing so, KKR joined private equity firms including Blackstone Group LP and Stonepeak Infrastructure Partners with pipeline investments at a time when more are needed to handle booming shale production. Funding via public markets has become increasingly difficult in part because of complex federal tax changes affecting the industry.
“We are at the beginning of the trend here, not the end,” said Katie Bays, an analyst at Height Securities LLC, after the KKR-Williams joint venture was announced. “You can attract a very high source of capital in private equity and cheaper than if you were to go to a public market.”
Master limited partnerships, pipeline operators that are shielded from U.S. income tax, plummeted in March after the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said it would no longer allow the companies to charge customers for taxes the partnerships don’t pay. The regulator this month softened that change, allowing MLPs to take a tax allowance for three years under certain circumstances and not requiring refunds for upfront tax payments passed on to customers.
While many pipeline partnerships said the market’s reaction to the initial policy change was overblown, lower share prices -- called unit prices for MLPs -- raised the cost of capital that companies need to fund new projects.
That’s where private equity can step in, offering cheaper capital in cases where investors perceive a high level of risk associated with a public offering, Bays said. And the initial tax policy change widened yields to levels that finally generated interest from private equity players.
TPG was one of the earlier private equity movers in midstream investing, backing Copano Energy LLC in 2010 and helping to provide financing to EnLink Midstream’s 2016 acquisition of Tall Oak Midstream. For many players, buying into pipeline assets is seen as a way to tap the shale boom while remaining relatively insulated from swings in the price of oil and natural gas.
Partnering with private equity can also be less risky for pipeline companies than doing an “overnight equity offering in the market” which could flop if share prices plummet, according to Matthew Phillips, an analyst at Guggenheim Securities LLC. Meanwhile, private deals mean companies can move forward with new projects more quickly because they don’t have to wait for an equity window to open, Phillips said.
But it’s still often the case that private equity is more expensive than going to the capital markets or funding from internal cash, Bays and Phillips both said. And companies have to balance investors’ demands for long-term growth projects while returning capital to shareholders.
Kinder Morgan Inc. said in June that it was joining Blackstone Energy’s EagleClaw Midstream and Apache Corp. to develop a $2 billion natural gas pipeline in the Permian Basin. Blackstone has previously taken a stake in Energy Transfer Partners LP’s roughly $4 billion Rover gas pipeline in Appalachia.
Private investor groups will probably take more of a partnership role as opposed to spearheading the development of a pipeline project themselves, like in the case of Ares Management LP’s EPIC crude pipeline in the Permian, said Jeff Jorgensen, portfolio manager and director of research at Brookfield Asset Management Inc.’s public securities group.
“I do think EPIC is not the norm,” Jorgensen said by telephone. He pointed to Oryx Midstream Services LLC as a company that could be next in line for a partnership on a long-haul pipeline, because the Quantum Energy-backed Permian player has crude-gathering assets that could feed a potential project.
“If a private equity player is going to get involved, it’s going to be someone who has a ton of supply in the basin,” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/private-equity-joins-pipeline-buildup-as-shale-patch-needs-grow
-
Five Months After Energy Cyberattack, U.S. Pushes Collaboration (1)
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik and Alex Nussbaum
Risk center to coordinate government, private-sector response
Infrastructure is target of “Cat 5 hurricane” attacks, DHS says
With hacking attacks mounting against U.S. energy companies, guarding the sector will be a top priority for a new cybersecurity effort, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said July 31.
Five months after five pipeline operators in the U.S. said their third-party electronic communications systems were shut down by hackers, Nielsen said the new National Risk Management Center will help government and the private sector better coordinate efforts to protect critical infrastructure.
The center will focus initially on energy, finance, and telecom, Nielsen told attendees at a New York conference. The action comes after the energy industry, in particular, faced criticism from cybersecurity firms for not spending enough to fend off attacks. In April, Symantec Corp. said it is tracking at least 140 groups targeting energy, up from 87 in 2015.
“We are in crisis mode,” Nielsen said July 31. “A Cat 5 hurricane has been forecast.’’
Russian government hackers compromised dozens of U.S energy companies in 2017, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence said last week in a report that also cited attacks from Iran and China.
The new center is designed to allow industry and the public sector to better coordinate on both reducing risks and responding to attacks, Homeland Security said in a statement released at the conference. The government’s response also includes a “major” cybersecurity exercise to be held later this year, Nielsen said.
Center ‘Critical’Homeland Security will be critical in helping the private sector fend off assaults, Tom Fanning, chief executive officer at Atlanta-based utility owner Southern Co., told the crowd.
The department is “the convening arm that can bring together these important sectors of America to help organize and harmonize” the counter-response, he said. “We are interdependent on each other.”
The industry’s past response to cyberthreats has drawn criticism from some.
While the Transportation Security Administration requests voluntary notifications of “security incidents” involving hacking, there is no mandate and the industry generally hasn’t supported mandating notification.
Spending EstimateAt the same time, two prominent security firms estimated in April that energy companies, from drillers to pipeline operators to utilities, invest less than 0.2 percent of their revenue in cybersecurity. That is at least a third less than the corresponding figure for banks and other financial institutions, according to the consultants, Precision Analytics LLC and the CAP Group.
The low levels of spending by the industry come as it is rushed to adapt new ways to generate more oil and gas at a lower cost following a historic, three-year rout in crude prices.
During the past few years, the industry has been quickly adding electronic sensors and other monitoring capabilities to track data from 900,000 oil and gas wells, and 300,000 miles of pipelines. Complex computer algorithms at every level of the industry are constantly adjusting the flows of everything from oil and natural gas to electrical power, with automatic valves in place that can shut down flow at a moment’s notice with no human action needed in the case of an accident.
Though the attack in March didn’t disrupt supply, it served to underscore an ongoing vulnerability to electronic sabotage. It showed how even a minor attack can jump between systems with ripple effects, forcing utilities to warn of billing delays, and making it more difficult for analysts and traders to predict a key government report on gas stockpiles.
U.S. intelligence officials have blamed Russia for hacks designed to influence the U.S. election in 2016. But according to FBI and Homeland Security analysis released in March, hackers also are conducting a broad assault on the country’s electric grid, water processing plants, air transport facilities, and other targets on sensitive infrastructure.
“The economy of the world is driven so much by energy,” Energy Secretary Rick Perry said at the conference. “It’s our national security interest to continue to protect these sources of energy. ”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/five-months-after-energy-cyberattack-us-pushes-collaboration-1
-
(ACC Mentionedd) Passivhaus Trust Announces Nominees For ‘The Oscars For Building Performance'
Aug 1, 2018 | Treehugger
By Lloyd Alter
Let's hope that unlike the Oscars, they make the right choices and open the right envelopes.
The UK Passivhaus Trust has just announced its short list for the 2018 UK Passivhaus awards, to be given out in October. They start their press release with the claim that the awards are “Often dubbed ‘the Oscars for building performance’” I certainly hope not, because the Oscars have been getting it wrong since How Green Was My Valley beat Citizen Kane in 1941.
Nonetheless it is a fun analogy, and they include two of this TreeHugger’s favourite projects anywhere anytime, which we have previously covered:
2018 UK Passivhaus Awards Finalist in the Large Residential category. Carrowbreck Meadow is a development of 14 Passivhaus homes. The design response is a contemporary rendition of a Norfolk vernacular – defined by several references to the historic barn seen throughout the county
This is one of the nicest almost-social housing projects I have seen, a collection of charming little passivhaus houses in the woods, designed by Hamson Barron Smith. The houses are lovely, and the economic model, where the municipal council builds a mix of rental and sale housing, is one that should be emulated, copied, xeroxed and stolen; the Chairman of Broadland Growth Limited and Broadland District Council Leader, Andrew Proctor, explains:
Achieving environmental excellence in everything we do is one of our key ambitions and I’m proud of this development. The homes will meet exceptionally high standards of energy efficiency making them much cheaper to run than the average house as well as good for the environment. Selling some of them on a shared equity basis will also help local people looking to get on the housing ladder.
If this doesn’t win, it will be the worst scandal since Crash stole the Oscar from Brokeback Mountain.
Read more on the project on TreeHugger: Passivhaus development in the UK shows that we can have nice things and at the Passivhaus Trust.
Finalist in the non-domestic category of the 2018 UK Passivhaus Awards. This ambitious office demonstrates exemplary low-carbon architecture that achieves the client’s aspiration of Passivhaus, BREEAM Outstanding, and a 100-year performance lifecycle. Utilising local materials, it explores a contemporary vernacular & investigates the impacts of interior materials on health & wellbeing.
It is a lot more than that; I believe that Architype has designed one of the most important buildings of this century, anywhere; After seeing a lot of buildings declared the world’s greenest, I believe that this one is. Of course, it is Passivhaus; it also has an incredibly low embodied energy.
I have called it the American Chemistry Council’s worst nightmare, because of its use of a natural, fossil fuel free materials palette. I have joked that it is almost edible, that you could pour milk on it and eat it for breakfast, for a good, high fibre diet.
If this doesn’t win, it will be the worst scandal since Bonnie and Clyde lost the Oscar to Guess who’s coming to dinner.
https://www.treehugger.com/green-architecture/passivhaus-trust-announces-nominees-oscars-building-performance.html
-
Wheeler, Wehrum Reaffirm Key Elements Of Pruitt's Air Program Overhaul
Jul 31, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler and air office chief William Wehrum are reaffirming several key elements of former agency chief Scott Pruitt's plan for overhauling EPA's air program, including controversial streamlining of national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) reviews and easing new source review (NSR) permitting.
On a July 31 call with reporters to announce the agency's annual “State of the Air” report, Wheeler and Office of Air & Radiation Assistant Administrator Wehrum reiterated the continued drive to attain several of Pruitt's main goals. Their statements ensure that EPA will push ahead with Pruitt's Clean Air Act overhauls that prompted criticism from environmentalists.
Touting continued air quality improvements, Wheeler said he will follow President Donald Trump's directive to “clean up the air, clean up the water and continue deregulation to spur economic growth."
Wehrum said that Wheeler has asked EPA to conduct an overhaul of the NAAQS review process to ensure timely issuance of NAAQS review rules, which are due every five years, a deadline the agency has often missed.
Pruitt, who left the agency July 6 following a series of ethics scandals, was a critic of the Obama EPA's decision to tighten the ozone standard from the 2008 limit of 75 parts per billion (ppb) down to 70 ppb in 2015, and also on the lengthy time taken to conduct NAAQS reviews. He issued a May 9 memo requiring changes to speed NAAQS reviews, yet also broaden them to include previously neglected factors such as the economic impact of NAAQS implementation. Pruitt suggested compressing existing review stages into fewer steps, while Wehrum has suggested limiting review of science on air quality to a “close enough” review.
The decision to continue implementing much of Pruitt's NAAQS reform plan could spur legal challenges in the future from environmentalists, who have faulted several aspects of the proposal that they say would undermine the NAAQS. For example, they note that Supreme Court precedent bars consideration of economic costs in setting the standards, though Pruitt claimed his plan on costs was viable.
On the July 31 call, Wehrum also underscored his commitment to overhauling the NSR program, another Pruitt priority. The air law's NSR program requires that new or modified major industrial sources undergo a far-reaching review that can lead to new emissions control obligations. As a former EPA air official under the George W. Bush administration and a former industry attorney, Wehrum has long advocated reform of NSR.
The air office chief again restated his view that excessively tough NSR rules actually deter environmentally beneficial upgrades to plants, such as energy efficiency improvements. He argued that the strictest possible NSR rules do not yield the best environmental outcomes, but rather EPA should ease the rules to find a regulatory “sweet spot” that encourages companies to invest in upgrades.
Meanwhile, Wehrum on the call also said that the agency is working to “significantly streamline” its review and approval of state implementation plans (SIPs) that states must craft detailing measures they will take to attain NAAQS -- an effort Pruitt supported. EPA has an oversight role to ensure SIPs are approvable, but states have primary responsibility for implementing the air law, Wehrum said.
Some environmentalists have accused the Trump EPA of rubber-stamping sometimes deficient SIPs, without adequate review or the willingness to object to their provisions.
Statutory Obligations
Asked whether EPA would be initiating new programs to protect the environment, Wehrum said that the agency continues to implement dozens of statutory obligations.
He touted EPA's issuance of area “nonattainment” designations for the Obama EPA's tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS as evidence of the agency's “aggressive” implementation of the Clean Air Act -- despite EPA's doing so many months late and only then under court order.
Wehrum also indicated that the agency is still wrestling with whether to reconsider the 2015 ozone NAAQS, after Pruitt prior to his departure directed the agency to look again at the basis for the rule. Wehrum called the review and decision on whether to reconsider the rule “a work in progress."
Litigation against the standard in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is currently ongoing in Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, where the agency is due to report Aug. 1 on whether it will reconsider the 2015 NAAQS. Proceedings will also come out of abeyance the same day.
Pruitt and Wehrum committed previously to a deadline of October 2020 to issue a new ozone NAAQS rule -- adhering to the five-year NAAQS review cycle. Sources have told Inside EPA that Wehrum may well opt to keep the NAAQS unchanged rather than pursue the complicated reconsideration process that would inevitably draw a legal challenge from environmentalists.
Wehrum further touted to reporters EPA's “aggressive action” to combat interstate air pollution, without specifying the nature of that action. Wehrum has said EPA will not issue any more interstate emissions trading programs to address the issue, such as those operated by the Bush and Obama administrations. Instead, for the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS, EPA will rely on states to provide SIPs to address pollution transport issues.
In a June 29 determination, EPA found that states outside of California will almost all meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2023, and hence further steps to meet air law obligations to curb interstate air pollution under that standard are unnecessary. The agency will host a public hearing on the issue Aug. 1 in Washington, D.C.
During the call, Wehrum took questions from reporters on an apparent recent uptick in some air pollution that bucks the longer-term downward trend identified in the “State of the Air” report. EPA's Air Quality Index (AQI) measure of days with air pollution deemed unhealthy for sensitive groups, which combines ozone and particulate matter readings, has actually worsened from 599 days in 2014 to 729 in 2017. It is unclear whether introduction of progressively tougher NAAQS may have affected this measure through alterations to the AQI, however.
EPA staff on the call told reporters that 2017 saw an uptick in particulate matter pollution, which may be attributed mainly to smoke from wildfires.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/wheeler-wehrum-reaffirm-key-elements-pruitts-air-program-overhaul
-
Jul 31, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Victoria Mills
For the first time since 2010, a Republican has introduced a climate bill – and business leaders have been quick to welcome his market-based approach for fighting climate change.
Last week, 34 companies in the United States sent a public letterthanking Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida for introducing the MARKET CHOICE Act, H.R. 6463, a bill to fund infrastructure investment while cutting climate pollution.
Companies that signed the letter applauding Rep. Corbelo's leadership include BP America, Campbell Soup Company, The Dow Chemical Company, DuPont, General Motors, Ingersoll Rand, Lyft, Inc., IKEA North America Services, LLC, National Grid, PG&E Corporation and Shell.
Meanwhile, the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance – which includes Danone, Mars, Nestle USA and Unilever – sent its own letter of support.
Why did these companies publicly thank Rep. Curbelo and his co-sponsors? Here are four takeaways for companies of all sizes.
1. Companies recognize the MARKET CHOICE Act is a big deal
Businesses are way ahead of Washington, D.C. when it comes to addressing climate change, which has regrettably become a partisan issue that Congress hasn't touched in years. The MARKET CHOICE Act could begin to change that.
As the companies write in their letter, "this issue impacts our employees, our customers and the communities that we serve regardless of political affiliation – and of course, it impacts our businesses in very direct ways. "Whether or not this bill passes the House or even comes to a vote, its introduction is a significant step forward in building momentum for climate action in Congress.
2. Companies want market-based solutions to climate change
Their letter points out that the most effective way to fight climate change is to harness market forces to drive down emissions.
"We believe that an economy-wide, market-based approach to valuing or pricing carbon, when carefully crafted, can both strengthen our economy and reduce carbon emissions by encouraging technological innovation and stimulating new investments in infrastructure, products and services," the companies write. They also highlight that a market-based approach "provides much-needed certainty to aid us in making long-term investment decisions that can further mitigate climate-related risks."
While they aren't endorsing this specific bill, the companies commend Rep. Curbelo for using a market-based approach and make the key point that "valuing or pricing carbon and strengthening our economy are not mutually exclusive – something we, as businesses, have understood for many years."
Lawmakers who voted yes on the Scalise resolution – which denounces carbon taxes as "detrimental to the economy" – might want to listen to what these businesses have to say.
3. These companies know that their influence matters.
Businesses know that any lasting and effective solution to climate change will require bipartisan support, and that they have a critical role to play in securing that support. By publicly commending lawmakers who introduce climate bills, companies can create the political space for others – on both sides of the aisle – to do the same.
Moreover, as key stakeholders in climate and energy policies, businesses can't afford to stay on the sidelines. They know their sustained engagement is critical for advancing, improving and ultimately passing legislation that achieves the winning combination of driving down greenhouse gas emissions and improving our economy.
Business influence is a vast and largely untapped resource for moving climate legislation forward and we need many more companies to get involved.
4. Their stakeholders expect nothing less.
Finally, these companies recognize that while their voluntary actions to cut carbon emissions are important, leadership requires constructive engagement in public policy.
Publicly supporting proposals to price carbon shows customers, employees and investors that you are walking the talk on sustainability, and aligning your public rhetoric with your policy advocacy.
It should be a no-brainer for the more than 430 companies that have set science-based targets to cut their emissions, the nearly 140 have committed to be powered 100 percent by renewable energy or the nearly 2,000 businesses and investors that have signed on to We Are Still In.
We joins these leading businesses in commending Rep. Curbelo for introducing his innovative proposal. Now is the time for more companies across the U.S. to do the same.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2018/07/31/4-reasons-bp-america-unilever-and-other-leading-companies-thanked-florida
-
Plastic Straw, Fork Ban Heads to San Francisco Mayor’s Plate
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Joyce E. Cutler
Passage of ban targeting plastics, fluorinated chemical containers
Measure heads to mayor
A ban on selling single-use serving utensils and containers made with fluorinated chemicals and plastics in San Francisco now is headed to the mayor.
The Board of Supervisors voted 11-0 to pass the measure July 31.
It is Mayor London Breed’s turn to weigh in on the wide-reaching proposal, which would block the flow of plastic and chemical-lined containers from reaching landfills. Breed wasn’t among the sponsors of the bill while she was board president until her June election. The mayor has 10 days to sign, veto, or let the ordinance become law without her signature.
The bill targets synthetic chemicals commonly used in and on single-use service ware products to repel water and grease. The chemicals are toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife and produce reproductive, developmental, and systemic effects in laboratory tests, the Environmental Protection Agency said.
“If the fact that our ocean will soon be filled with more plastic than fish doesn’t scare you, I don’t know what will,” author Supervisor Katy Tang told the supervisors.
The concerns about how to comply and live with the single-use plastics ban is similar to the comments made during the debate over the plastic bag ordinance San Francisco passed 11 years ago and more recently the mandatory composting law, Tang said. “And now it is such a normal part of our lives.”
The bill also specifies that reusable cups must be supplied to 10 percent of participants at any event on city property with more than 100 attendees. And condiment packets won’t automatically be stuffed into takeout bags under the legislation.
Producing and managing single-use food and beverage service ware, including straws, lids, and plugs for coffee cup lids, “has significant environmental impacts,” including contamination and pollution; energy and water consumption; greenhouse gas emissions; litter; and clean-up costs, the bill said.
Persistent ChemicalsPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also referred to as perfluorinated chemicals, are persistent chemicals used in industrial applications including coatings on pots and pans, the EPA said.
The law mandates that service ware that claims to be compostable has a Biodegradable Products Institute certification, which costs a third more than noncertified compostable service ware, the trade group Golden Gate Restaurant Association said. The Golden Gate Restaurant Association represents 4,400 largely privately held restaurants in the city, including Extreme Pizza, San Francisco Soup Co./Ladle & Leaf, and Vine Dining Enterprises.
“I think it’s fair to say that the misuse of mass product of perfluorinated chemicals is one of the most important and most ignored issues we have right now both in environmental health and human health,” Rolf Halden, an Arizona State University professor and director of the Biodesign Center for Environmental Health Engineering, told Bloomberg Environment this spring. “This stuff has no place to go. It becomes a legacy and we will suffer from it.”
A pending California bill (A.B. 958) would require manufacturers of food packaging and cookware containing PFAS to disclose the chemicals’ presence on the packages. The bill is awaiting a final vote in the state Senate.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/plastic-straw-fork-ban-heads-to-san-francisco-mayors-plate
-
Pepsi Pushes Recycling But Collection Rates Still Falling
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Even with corporate support, overall recycling rates are dropping
Companies play up support of recycling, lobby against paying for waste they create, environmentalists say
PepsiCo Inc. is donating $10 million to make it easier to recycle bottles and cans, but the money won’t do much to reverse an overall trend of declining recycling rates, environmentalists said.
The food and beverage company’s new All in on Recycling will provide seed fundingtoward an overall goal to raise $100 million to boost curbside recycling programs nationwide.
Despite their good intent, environmental groups have criticized companies such as PepsiCo., the Coca-Cola Co., and Nestle SA for years for playing up their support of recycling while lobbying against regulations that would require them pay for the waste they create.
“This is more of a Band-Aid; it may help increase rates in a few cites, but what happens when money runs out?,” said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president of As You Sow, a nonprofit that works to enhance corporate accountability.
Unlike the European Union, which requires beverage companies to pay for packaging collection, the U.S. focus on voluntary programs is unlikely to advance overall recycling rates, McKerron told Bloomberg Environment July 31.
PepsiCo spent $55 million in U.S. recycling efforts in the past nine years, “but those efforts have failed to change the national recycling rate,” he said.
Improving Recycling AccessThe recycling rate in the U.S. sits around 36 percent, which is about 2 percent lower than it was in 2010, according to the American Beverage Association. The recycling rate measures the total amount of municipal solid waste recycled in a given year divided by the total amount that is generated.
According to PepsiCo, more than half of all recyclable material is thrown away due to lack of infrastructure and widely varying municipal recycling programs.
“At home, there are still large parts of the country that don’t have a recycling bin,” Tim Carey, senior director of sustainability at PepsiCo, told Bloomberg Environment.
The $10 million the company is fronting for its All in on Recycling campaign, announced July 31, will go to the Recycling Partnership, a nonprofit that raises money from the private sector for recycling innovations.
Even with the full amount of money that Pepsi pledged, the progress on recycling rates would still be relatively minimal, said Keefe Harrison, CEO of the Recycling Partnership, based in Arlington, Va. “No one is saying this money will solve the entire problem,” she said.
While their support for recycling has grown substantially in the past four years, the goal of corporate support isn’t to supplant local authority, Harrison told Bloomberg Environment.
“Recycling in the U.S. is still very much an issue handled by local governments. That’s where we come in. We can help channel funding to communities that need it most,” she said.
Plastic PollutionAnother common criticism from environmentalists is the current focus on recycling diverts attention away from the role that companies play for increasing the amount of plastic in circulation.
“As other companies begin to acknowledge their role in the plastic pollution crisis by reducing their plastic footprints, Pepsi has opted for blaming individuals and communities for not recycling their waste well enough,” Kate Melges, a Greenpeace plastics campaigner, said in a statement.
As You Sow’s MacKerron also points out that Pepsi’s plan to eventually raise $100 million calls for just $25 million from corporate donations, with the remaining $75 million coming from public sources—all while a growing number of cities and states are suspending or reducing their recycling programs due to China capping imports of recycled materials.
“Pepsi should think bigger and use its influence to convince corporate beverage peers to roll up their sleeves and raise the full $100 million to begin to significantly move the needle.” he said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/pepsi-pushes-recycling-but-collection-rates-still-falling
-
Trump EPA Celebrates Cleaner Air While It Rolls Back Regulations
Aug 1, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
The Trump administration is touting strides in cleaning up America’s air, even as it works to roll back Obama-era mandates curbing pollution from power plants, automobiles, and oil wells.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s annual air quality report, released July 31, documents a 73 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and other key pollutants between 1970 and 2017, even as the U.S. economy tripled and Americans used more energy. The report’s key message: “Air quality improves as America grows.”
“The U.S. leads the world in terms of clean air and air quality progress,” Andrew Wheeler, the acting EPA administrator, told reporters on a conference call. “These are remarkable achievements that should be recognized, celebrated, and replicated around the world.”
The assessment highlights nationwide reductions in emissions, including criteria air pollutants tied to asthma attacks and respiratory diseases. And it credits federal and state regulations on factories, power plants, and automobiles as driving the reductions.
Meanwhile, under President Donald Trump, the agency is working to ease some of those mandates.
The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs is in the final stages of vetting a proposal to put the brakes on federal rules boosting fuel efficiency and curbing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It also is reviewing drafted EPA proposals to scale back Obama-era limits on greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and the methane and volatile organic compounds that flow out of oil and gas wells.
The moves are “putting the air we breathe in severe peril” and “reversing decades of clean air progress,” said Jeremy Symons, vice president of political affairs at the Environmental Defense Fund.
“If polluter lobbyists had gotten their way for the past 40 years like they do under Trump, we wouldn’t have the clean air today that has improved the health and lives of millions of Americans,” Symons said by email. “The only reason pollution hasn’t gotten worse yet is because the courts have stopped Trump’s reckless attempts to roll back Clean Air Act protections that have successfully reduced pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks.”
Bill Wehrum, assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation, stressed that the agency is continuing “to aggressively implement programs that are already on the books.”
The new report documents year-on-year declines in nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. But it also reveals increases in particulate matter, such as soot, with much of that attributed to large wildfires in the West. A small uptick in lead is tied to more data and different monitoring techniques, Wehrum said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-epa-celebrates-cleaner-air-while-it-rolls-back-regulations
-
Uncertain Future For Kigali Despite Lobbying Push
Aug 1, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Nick Sobczyk and Geof Koss
Senators from both parties remain in the dark about the fate of an Obama-era climate agreement, even as a wide range of conservatives and industry groups have launched a push for its ratification.
The Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer would phase out the potent greenhouse gases known as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are widely used in air conditioning units and as refrigerants.
The agreement was finalized in 2016, but it requires ratification in the Senate by a two-thirds majority and has languished under the Trump administration. The White House did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
And Republican lawmakers haven't heard much either, said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), who penned a letter in June urging the White House to ratify the agreement, alongside 12 other GOP senators.
"It's frustrating, and I wish we could get an answer from the White House," Kennedy said yesterday. "But I understand they're busy, and we're going to keep pressing them."
Another signatory to the June letter, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), ticked off a number of reasons why submitting and ratifying the plan as a treaty makes sense.
"The fact that it is already implemented and does have positive benefits for the environment and creates American jobs and an industry that has complied is OK with it, I'm not sure why there'd be an objection," he told E&E News. "I just don't."
The State Department gave Kigali a stamp of approval last year, but since then, two of its biggest champions in the administration have left: former energy adviser George David Banks and former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
Further complicating the agreement's fate is the fact that a federal court last year vacated an agency rule — devised under former President Obama and defended in court by the Trump administration — regulating HFCs.
Meanwhile, the battle has gotten new legs in recent months among interest groups and on op-ed pages.
Companies such as Honeywell International Inc. have lobbied to get the Kigali Amendment ratified and for a domestic phase-down of HFCs in recent months, according to lobbying disclosure forms.
Honeywell opened a facility in Louisiana last year to manufacture an air conditioning refrigerant designed to replace HFCs.
And Banks last week joined up with the Let America Lead coalition, a group of industry players formed to advocate for ratification (Greenwire, July 24).
The group sells the Kigali Amendment as a way to help businesses keep a "level playing field" with Chinese firms that it says have been dumping HFCs in American markets.
Opponents, though, see that as a cynical attempt by companies to repackage what is ultimately a climate change agreement for President Trump. The Heritage Foundation and Competitive Enterprise Institute have come out strong against Kigali in recent months, arguing it would give companies an easy excuse to pass along costs for expensive new refrigerants to consumers.
The Trump administration and the Senate are both "getting the hard sell from lobbyists, who are pushing claims that it will create American jobs," CEI fellow Ben Lieberman wrote in a Morning Consult op-ed yesterday.
So far, that posture hasn't taken hold with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Senate's self-proclaimed leading climate skeptic.
He noted yesterday that although he opposed the Obama administration's efforts to strike a climate deal under the auspices of the Montreal Protocol, he would have to study the issue further before taking a position if the Trump administration decided to submit the plan for Senate ratification.
"This is a different game than it used to be," he told E&E News, adding he hadn't thought about the issue in more than a year and would have to examine the changing business landscape since the deal was struck.
Inhofe questioned whether companies seeking ratification may have earlier opposed the agreement, and he suggested they may regret compliance because "their competition waited it out."
However, he also said he was sensitive to companies "that made huge investments predicated on the assumption that that's going to be a reality and that's going to be ratified."
"I just think it's a little unfair that they assume something is going to happen and they prepare for it and then they're punished for it," Inhofe said.
Ultimately, he said he would have to consider "who you're doing the greatest injustice to regardless of which way you do this."
Inhofe, who noted that he was in Kigali, Rwanda, last week on an unrelated matter, said he has not spoken to acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler about the issue.'A fool's errand'
Still, the fate of the agreement would be uncertain, even if the White House is willing to hand it over to the Senate.
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) called the GOP letter "a good sign" but added it was unclear whether the Senate could muster up 67 votes for Kigali.
"Treaties bring out an element in the Senate that is not always related to the substance of the issues that we're talking about," he told E&E News yesterday.
Cardin pointed to the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, a United Nations treaty to ban discrimination against the disabled that was rejected by the Senate in 2012 by a 61-38 margin after GOP critics said it would cede U.S. sovereignty.
"We saw that certainly on the disabilities treaty, which is impossible to explain why we haven't ratified yet," he said.
But should the administration submit the Kigali deal to the Senate, "that may help us with some of the difficult votes on the Republican side since we've normally had the Democratic side lined up."
The timing of a treaty vote is also crucial, Cardin added, noting that the failed disability treaty vote occurred after the 2012 presidential election.
"I think we should bring them up early," he said. "If you bring it up lame duck, it makes it more difficult, so I would hope that we would find time now. We've got a whole month of August. We don't have a lot to do. This is a good time to bring it up."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), meanwhile, said Democrats would likely get on board to push it through.
"They're probably of two minds," Schatz said of the Trump administration. "Obviously, industry doesn't dislike this, but they hate international stuff."
But, he added, "predicting the White House is a fool's errand."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/08/01/stories/1060091805
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