Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/09/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Wars Create Collateral Casualties
Sep 10, 2018 | Chemical Processing
By Mark Rosenzweig
Convincing China to engage in fair trade practices is both laudable and necessary. However, imposing hefty tariffs on Chinese products is an ill-advised strategy, warns a major trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, D.C. -
(ACC Mentioned) Full Cycle: Investing for a Circular Economy
Sep 12, 2018 | Asian Investor
...According to the American Chemistry Council, since 20102 , $186 billion has been invested in new plastics manufacturing facilities in the US... -
Scientists Know Plastics are Dangerous. Why Won’t the Government Say So?
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Paul D. Thacker
In July, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a letter that would stop almost any parent in their tracks: Chemicals in food colorings, preservatives and packaging can be dangerous to children, and they aren’t being suitably regulated by the government. -
The Last Straw: Moving Past Disposable Plastic Spurs Companies to Innovate
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Kristen Hartke
Here’s what bartender Todd Thrasher wants to know: How often do you use a straw at home? -
Wheeler's Private Calendar Reveals Recused Client Contacts
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar and Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has met with at least two former clients who he promised to avoid directly interacting with, according to his personal calendar and meeting attendees. -
Anti-Corruption Bill is Named for Pruitt
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) has taken an unusual step to honor former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt by naming legislation after him that would combat corruption. -
US NGOs Caution Against Emissions from Insulation, Sealant Materials
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US NGOs are calling on manufacturers and others to avoid the use of several insulation and air-sealing materials which they say emit formaldehyde, halogenated flame retardants and other chemicals of concern. -
Regulatory Proposals for Nanomaterials in the EU
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Aida Ponce Del Castillo
In the past, we have all too often adopted technologies without thinking about the risks. -
The HSE: Ready for the Next Step
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
When it comes to preparing for the post-Brexit chemicals sector, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says that it has been on the case almost from day one. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Rise: Report Shows Manufacturing from Shale Over $200B
Sep 12, 2018 | North American Shale
Shale gas is a powerful engine of manufacturing growth. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shale-Based US Chemical Investment Surpasses $200 Billion, Says ACC
Sep 11, 2018 | Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
Announced US chemical investment tied to the shale-gas revolution has surged past the $200 billion mark, and more than $100 billion has progressed to the construction phase or beyond, says the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
U.S. Oil Inventories Continue to Fall, Now Below Average
Sep 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Falling U.S. crude inventories helped push oil back over $70 a barrel Wednesday. -
Trump's Move on Methane Begins Bigger Effort on Potent Gas
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
The Trump administration's plan to soften methane standards for the oil and gas industry is the first step in a larger effort to dismantle greenhouse gas rules for the booming sector. -
Alaska LNG Makes Deal with Exxon Mobil on Gas Sales
Sep 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The state-sponsored Alaska liquefied natural gas export project has come to terms with Exxon Mobil to buy gas produced by the nation's biggest energy company. -
Ten Years After Crash That Pushed Congress to Mandate Life-Saving Train Technology, One-Third of Nation’s Rail Network Remains Without
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey
Ten years after a Metrolink commuter train and Union Pacific freight train collided head-on at 84 miles an hour, killing 25 people and injuring 135 in Chatsworth, Calif., the safety system that could have prevented the crash still isn’t working on at least a third of the nation’s rail network. -
FRA Issues Funding Notice for $46 Million in PTC Grants
Sep 12, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for $46.3 million in grants to help railroads pay for the cost of implementing positive train control (PTC). -
California Today: Tackling Climate Change, Without Trump
Sep 12, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta and Matt Stevens
The defiant ones have come to California. -
Calif. Governor Blasts Methane Rule Change as Most 'Dangerous Action' by Trump
Sep 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday said that the Trump administration’s plan to roll back Obama-era methane rules was the most dangerous action President Trump since taking office, calling the move “insane.” -
You’re Probably Breathing Dangerous Air
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Christiana Figueres
Climate change is here now, and it’s time to urgently ask ourselves: What kind of future do we want to work toward? -
Wheeler's Regional Haze Plan Emphasizes States' Role
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, following up on a White House directive, is offering a broad-brush blueprint of his plans for the agency's program to reduce pollution-caused haze in the Grand Canyon and other national parks and wildness areas. -
EPA Undercounts Areas Afflicted with Sooty Air — Study
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The number of Americans living in areas out of compliance with a key air quality benchmark is roughly double the official figure, according to a new study that attributes more than 5,000 premature deaths so far to the lapse. -
EPA Proposes Status Quo for Industrial Emissions
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In the wake of a legally required review, EPA has tentatively decided to leave air toxics emissions standards for metal furniture coatings and two other industrial pollutant categories largely unchanged. -
East Coast, Other States Spar Over EPA's Interstate Ozone Rule 'Closeout'
Sep 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
East Coast states are disputing EPA's proposed rule to “close out” the Obama-era Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) air trading program and faulting its conclusion that no further agency regulatory action beyond existing requirements is necessary to curb interstate ozone transport, clashing with Midwestern and Southern states and utilities that back the proposal. -
UN Chief: World Has Less Than 2 Years to Avoid ‘Runaway Climate Change'
Sep 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, told global leaders this week that the world has less than two years to avoid “runaway climate change.”
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Wars Create Collateral Casualties
Sep 10, 2018 | Chemical Processing
By Mark Rosenzweig
Convincing China to engage in fair trade practices is both laudable and necessary. However, imposing hefty tariffs on Chinese products is an ill-advised strategy, warns a major trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), Washington, D.C. These tariffs and the predictable retaliation in kind by Beijing threatens the well-being of the U.S. chemical industry, stresses the ACC.
“Overall nearly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity are at risk.”
In July, the Trump Administration slapped 25% tariffs on a wide variety of Chinese goods. In August, Washington extended these 25% tariffs to additional products, with more than half coming from the chemicals and plastics sector, notes Emily Sanchez, ACC’s director of economics and data analysis. Most are plastics and plastics products, she explains, adding that they account for $2.2 billion in U.S. imports from China in 2017.
The Administration may extend the 25% tariff to an additional 6,000+ products. This includes 1,505 chemicals and plastics products that represented $16.4 billion in imports in 2017, says Sanchez. A decision about imposing these tariffs was imminent at press time.
Predictably, China has responded tit-for-tat. It imposed 25% tariffs on some American products in July but none were chemicals or plastics. It’s August round of tariffs covered 40 chemicals and plastics products with an export value of $2 billion in 2017, reports Sanchez. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on additional Chinese products in September, Beijing has indicated it will target more American goods. The ACC estimates that the affected chemicals and plastics products represent about $8.8 billion in exports, with plastics accounting for about $2.9 billion of that.
The Chinese tariffs will have a substantial economic impact in the U.S. Sanchez estimates that initially when Chinese importers can’t find alternatives to some American supplies, U.S. exports will drop by $1.6 billion annually. In the worst-case scenario where importers can adjust their supply chains to substitute for American products — a scenario that Sanchez terms entirely possible in the longer term — the loss in exports could reach $6.1 billion/year.
Overall, the Chinese tariffs already in effect or proposed subject $11 billion of U.S. chemicals and plastics exports to increased duties ranging from 5% to 25%, notes Sanchez. The ACC estimates that the U.S. chemical industry alone could lose more than 8,000 direct jobs because of reduced exports to China. The domino effect on the supply chain and from lower spending from fewer chemical industry workers means that nearly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity are at risk, she says.
The chemical industry is a shining star in U.S. manufacturing. In our last state-of-the-industry report, “The U.S. Chemical Industry Gears Up for Gains,” Martha Moore, ACC’s senior director for policy analysis and economics, noted that the industry posted a $32-billion trade surplus in 2017. It projected, barring any major disruptions in the trade scenario, that the surplus should grow to $73 billion by 2022. Moreover, the article pointed out that the U.S.’s competitive advantage because of shale gas and abundant natural gas liquids has led to massive investments by foreign firms in American production facilities; the tariffs situation could blunt the appeal of building plants in the U.S.
The federal government should focus on underpinning our industry’s success, not undermining it. Rescinding the tariffs and opting instead for cohesive efforts with U.S. allies is the most constructive and productive way to get China to change its policies on trading and intellectual property protection.
https://www.chemicalprocessing.com/articles/2018/trade-wars-create-collateral-casualties/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Full Cycle: Investing for a Circular Economy
Sep 12, 2018 | Asian Investor
...According to the American Chemistry Council, since 20102 , $186 billion has been invested in new plastics manufacturing facilities in the US...
Full Text Unavailable. Read more at:https://www.asianinvestor.net/article/full-cycle-investing-for-a-circular-economy/447065
-
Scientists Know Plastics are Dangerous. Why Won’t the Government Say So?
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Paul D. Thacker
In July, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a letter that would stop almost any parent in their tracks: Chemicals in food colorings, preservatives and packaging can be dangerous to children, and they aren’t being suitably regulated by the government. A review of almost 4,000 additives found that 64 percent had no research proving they were safe for people to eat or drink; these chemicals can be especially harmful to small children because they are still growing, making them more vulnerable to any ill effects. The AAP called for reforms to the Food and Drug Administration’s food additive regulatory process and offered guidelines that could be more panic-inducing than reassuring: Don’t microwave foods or liquids in plastic, buy fewer processed foods, switch from plastic to glass or metal whenever possible, avoid putting plastics in the dishwasher.
It’s the sort of medical advice that sends people pillaging through their memories — adding up every time they heated a bottle of breast milk in the microwave, tossed Tupperware in the dishwasher or sent their toddler to day care with sliced fruit in a plastic tub. And it’s the sort of information that makes them wonder: If these materials pose such a danger, why are they everywhere? Where is our government?
It’s a good question, with a complex and terrible answer. Scientists have known for some time that many of these chemicals are harmful, but as more evidence accumulates, the industry that produces them has mounted an increasingly aggressive and widespread campaign — publishing counter-studies in corporate-friendly science journals, attacking scientists and journalists who report on the dangers of these chemicals, and doing as much as possible to create doubt about harm, all tactics borrowed from the tobacco industry.
[How corporate funding can distort NIH research]
The FDA enjoys much higher levels of public trust than the federal government in general does, but maybe it shouldn’t: Much of what we consume is simply not regulated. “To be blunt, it’s an honor system,” says Erik Olson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council and a former Environmental Protection Agency employee. Olson says that while the EPA does a terrible job of protecting people from dangerous chemicals, the FDA is worse: “They are completely in bed with industry.” With corporate interests creating an alternate scientific reality and little federal pushback, ordinary Americans are left to sort through the noise and try to assess what is safe for themselves and their children.
Olson’s characterizations are echoed in a recent book by Rutgers University professor Norah MacKendrick, “Better Safe Than Sorry: How Consumers Navigate Exposure to Everyday Toxics.” MacKendrick writes that the current era of deregulation places an undue burden on parents — mostly on mothers — to make complicated choices to ensure that the products and foods they buy are safe for children, a process she calls “precautionary consumption.” Since the 1950s, food packaging has become increasingly cluttered with often incomprehensible information, and the FDA has provided little help for people who simply want food that is safe.
Before concluding that the FDA is not protecting children, says Leonardo Trasande, director of the division of environmental pediatrics at the NYU School of Medicine and a member of the AAP, the academy spent two years discussing food additive safety. He adds that the statement is a conservative consensus of the AAP’s 67,000 members, who delved into the research on the dangers of chemicals to small children. “This is not a bunch of green, tree-hugging pediatricians,” says Trasande.
[How one scientist is fighting the trickle-down ignorance on climate change]
A physician by training, Trasande spends most of his time researching and publishing studies to understand how children are affected by BPA, one of the many chemicals highlighted by the AAP. BPA, which can act like the female hormone estrogen, is particularly threatening to kids. A growing body of research finds that tiny doses of BPA may cause a host of diseases; it can “potentially change the timing of puberty, decrease fertility, increase body fat, and affect the nervous and immune systems,” the APP says. Yet, Trasande says, much of this academic research is ignored by the government.
Meanwhile, many chemicals go unregulated. Scientists who study the regulatory process point to a well-documented, decades-long disinformation campaign by industry to confuse regulators, policymakers and the public. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that Congress was investigating industry influence at the FDA. This and other articles noted that Congress had identified a private product defense group that companies hired to create research favorable to the chemical industry and to undermine studies finding evidence of harm.
An award-winning Milwaukee Journal Sentinel series on the potential dangers of BPA reported in 2009 that industry’s disinformation campaign included altering Wikipedia pages, which was seen as highly unusual at the time. A law and lobbying firm for the chemical industry was exposed for attacking scientists who found harm with chemicals, all while vigorously defending the industry and not always disclosing its ties to it.
The Post and Journal Sentinel coverage came at a time of growing awareness of BPA’s dangers to children. Eleven states would later ban the chemical from baby bottles; the FDA banned it from sippy cups and bottles in 2012. But new research is finding that many of BPA’s replacements pose similar risks.
Last year, Trasande addressed this scientific disinformation campaign in an article calling on scientists to speak up more forcefully when policymakers do not act on data concluding that chemicals and pesticides pose risks to kids. He highlighted one example in which a scientist who was aligned with industry dismissed evidence that the pesticide chlorpyrifos causes disease, calling it “pseudoscience.” Trasande added that the funding for groups and scientists that make these counterclaims is not always disclosed.
Science journals are not safe from these antics. Several investigative reports by the Center for Public Integrity and other outlets have noted that corporate-funded scientists have favored two particular journals for publishing studies that undermine the safety of chemicals and pesticides: Critical Reviews in Toxicology, and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. In 2002, 43 scientists signed a lettercriticizing frequent undisclosed conflicts of interest and industry ties in Regulatory Toxicology. Its editor, Gio Gori, previously worked as a tobacco consultant who wrote skeptically about the dangers of secondhand smoke; the society that publishes the journal, the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology & Phamacology, has held meetings in the office of a chemical industry lobby law firm.
Public health experts dismiss these publications as unreliable vanity journals. “These two journals exist to manufacture and disseminate scientific doubt,” says David Michaels, a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health and the author of “Doubt Is Their Product,” a book about product defense science. “They provide the appearance of peer review and credibility to ‘product defense’ science — mercenary studies not designed to contribute to the scientific enterprise but to forestall public health and environmental protections and to defeat litigation. Corporations opposing public health or environmental regulations enter the rigged studies and questionable analyses published in these mercenary journals into regulatory proceedings or lawsuits to manufacture scientific uncertainty.”
Then, Michaels says, companies can say, “Look, the studies have conflicting conclusions, so there is too much scientific uncertainty to issue regulations to protect the public or to compensate victims.” For example, this spring, the auto industry cited a study in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology to beat back potential climate change regulations. Citing a study in Regulatory Toxicology, a think tank with strong ties to industry sent a letter in August to the FDA attempting to ensure less-stringent regulations for smokeless tobacco.
Adding to the noise are the free-market think tanks and conservative foundations that fund groups to downplay the dangers of chemicals, and disparage the scientists who study them and the journalists who report on them. Most prominent among these is the American Council on Science and Health, which has received funding from several chemical companies and apparently exists to defend fracking, BPA and pesticides. The group recently unveiled a new website that attacks journalists (including me) and scientists who have noted that industry funding can affect research results, a trend that has been confirmed in a large body of research.
There is little confusion among independent scientists about these chemicals and their effects on humans. But given the manufactured public confusion on these issues, Trasande says he does not expect Congress or federal agencies to address chemical safety. The AAP statement was designed to alert the public and start a national discussion. Eventually, Trasande expects that pressure from consumers for more transparency about the chemicals in our food will force companies to make changes to protect their brands. Until our government acts, or the public pressure becomes overwhelming, every time we walk down the supermarket aisle and wonder which products are safest for our families, we’re on our own.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/3b90fcee-b071-11e8-a20b-5f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.1fe910a696c4
-
The Last Straw: Moving Past Disposable Plastic Spurs Companies to Innovate
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Kristen Hartke
Here’s what bartender Todd Thrasher wants to know: How often do you use a straw at home?
A veteran bartender and bar owner who is about to launch Potomac Distilling Co. on Washington’s Southwest Waterfront, Thrasher thinks straws are simply unnecessary to the drinking experience. “I haven’t had plastic straws available behind the bar for seven years,” he says, “but people still ask for them every day.”
[Ready to kick the plastic straw habit? We tested 8 reusable options to determine which is the best.]
In an effort to address concerns about how these once-beloved tubes are littering our streets and waterways, companies such as Starbucks, McDonald’s and Alaska Airlines and such municipalities as Monmouth Beach, N.J., have rallied to ban or limit their use. Starbucks not only developed new “sippy cup” style strawless lids, the company has also been test-marketing paper straws at it stores in Santa Cruz, Calif., for well over a year. But don’t fret about how you’ll enjoy that frosty Frappuccino, as some type of plastic straw will likely still be available upon request.
Once upon a time, we swooned over the 1950s-era images of clean-cut teenagers gazing at each other adoringly over the top of a root beer float, each sipping contentedly on a straw — a more acceptable way, perhaps, of swapping spit in a time before the sexual revolution. The flexible — or “bendy” — straw was invented by a doting father and inventor, whose daughter was struggling to slurp a milkshake through a straight straw. The origins of the first straw itself are perhaps slightly less wholesome: a Washington resident, Marvin Stone, is credited with inventing a paraffin-coated paper straw in 1888 so that he could better enjoy a mint julep after work.
Starbucks announced in July that it plans to phase out plastic straws worldwide by 2020. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)Stone probably had no idea that his quest to quaff his bourbon more quickly would have such far-reaching implications. Varying estimates show that Americans now go through anywhere from 170 million to 500 million plastic straws daily. They’re taking over landfills, washing up on our beaches and clogging the intestines of sea life.
To add insult to injury, every time a Real Housewife sucks chardonnay through a straw so as not to mar her carefully applied vermillion lipstick, somewhere a sommelier softly sobs in the wine cellar. Margaritas rimmed with salt arrive at the table adorned with a straw, despite the fact that the taste of salt against the tang of lime and earthiness of tequila is such an integral part of the flavor experience. We may not use straws often at home, but they are ever-present when we are out and about on the streets, sipping on iced coffee while texting.
[How to break your plastic, foil and paper addiction in the kitchen]
But when Potomac Distilling opens its doors this fall, Thrasher, a longtime scuba diver who is passionate about ocean conservation, is taking a new approach: Customers who insist upon straws in their drinks can purchase them for a quarter apiece, with 100 percent of the proceeds going to the Sea Turtle Conservancy in Florida.
“Honestly,” he says, “I think plastic bags are worse, because I’ve seen plastic bags floating by while diving in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, but anything we can do to help reduce plastic use is worth it. I know I’m going to catch a lot of flak for this, but I can take it.”
One reason that straw-banning businesses are facing criticism is because of serious concerns within the disability community about the dwindling availability of single-use plastic straws, which could hurt those who depend on them as a hygienic tool for ingesting both solids and liquids.
For disabled people, straws are not just a luxury. (Marccophoto/Getty Images/iStockphoto)“This is a very real issue,” says Kathryn Carroll, a policy analyst with the Center for Disability Rights in Albany, N.Y. “People need to know that when you place restrictions on accessibility to plastic straws, it does affect others. It’s been disheartening to see some people be dismissive about it.” Among the concerns being cited is that of possible bacterial contamination in straws fashioned from alternative materials like metal or glass, or allergic reactions that could come from biodegradable straws made with vegetable fiber.
[Plastic straw bans are the latest policy to forget the disability community]
The sudden downfall of the plastic straw is causing a sea change within the industry and spurring innovation that could appease the disability community. At Symphony Environmental Technologies, a U.K.-based company which specializes in the development of degradable plastics, one solution may lie in an additive, designed to reduce the molecular structure of the plastic so that it can safely biodegrade into the environment. Straw manufacturers can simply mix the additive into their existing formulas, and it can even be custom designed to degrade at a certain rate, says Symphony CEO Michael Laurier. “It’s like taking a cup of tea and putting in a teaspoon of sugar,” he says. “We just need to know how strong to make the sugar.”
David Solomon Bassiouni, president of the Bassiouni Group, which advises Symphony Environmental in North America, acknowledges a need to curtail plastic straw pollution through viable practical solutions. “The longer you wait, the more waste builds up,” he says, “but people also feel a tangible relationship with that product. We have a banned regime, but we also need to think about solutions.”
It was a jumbo-size box of plastic straws that got glassmaker Craig Graffius into the alternative straw business 12 years ago — a business that suddenly increased by 500 percent in just six weeks this summer as straw bans began to gain traction across the United States.
Some companies are working to make plastic straws like these more biodegradable. (PATRICK PLEUL/AFP/Getty Images)“I came home from Walmart one day with a box of like a thousand plastic straws for our kids,” recalls Graffius, “and my wife took one look and said, ‘Really? Can’t you make straws for the kids to use instead of buying ones that are just going to end up in landfills?’ ”
So Graffius did, indeed, start making glass straws, using sturdy German-made tubing, a few hundred here and there, sometimes decorated with tiny glass animals, which he often sold at craft fairs. Now he’s fielding calls from major hotel chains, hospitals and college campuses, all looking for viable alternatives to plastic.
[Plastic straws aren’t just bad for the environment — they can be bad for your body]
“Most of the orders are coming from people who had never seen or heard of a glass straw,” Graffius says. “A typical straw takes us about five seconds to make by hand, but demand is so high that we’re trying to get that down to one second.”
At Tetra Pak, which makes such items as juice boxes that include disposable straws, the push is on to, as it were, think outside the box and look for solutions beyond straws, according to Larine Urbina, the company’s vice president of communications. “If you have a ban on a very specific thing, it can create other larger problems,” she says. “Our fear is that a ban on straws has an impact on our packaging that might, unintentionally, have a bigger impact on the environment.” This means that Tetra Pak is looking at such options as new pull tab designs instead of straws, as well as being sure to encourage recycling of its products.
And if you must have a straw in your margarita or pinot noir, Thrasher points to metal straws, which he has championed for years. Even so, customers, when they weren’t actually stealing them, often worried that the metal straws were “unhygienic,” despite the fact that, according to Thrasher, they were individually scrubbed and soaked in hot water for several hours each night before being sanitized.
“I never understand it when people ask about how clean the metal straws are,” chuckles Thrasher. “No one ever seems to think about forks and knives in the same way — I mean, that fork was in someone else’s mouth half an hour ago.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-last-straw-moving-past-disposable-plastic-spurs-companies-to-innovate/2018/09/11/f5709516-b5fd-11e8-a2c5-3187f427e253_story.html?utm_term=.729494a0f692
-
Wheeler's Private Calendar Reveals Recused Client Contacts
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar and Kevin Bogardus
Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has met with at least two former clients who he promised to avoid directly interacting with, according to his personal calendar and meeting attendees.
The meetings, particularly one that took place at EPA headquarters, violate the spirit of President Trump's ethics pledge, according to good government advocates. That pledge restricts the ability of former lobbyists like Wheeler, who took over EPA's top job in early July, from meeting with their recent previous clients.
But on June 26, while Wheeler was still serving as former chief Scott Pruitt's deputy, he had a meeting at EPA headquarters with biofuels lobbyists and executives, including Emily Skor, the CEO of Growth Energy, the agency and biofuels trade group confirmed yesterday. They met at the agency's central offices in downtown Washington.
The previous month, Wheeler signed a recusal statement in which he acknowledged that he is "prohibited from participating in any particular matter involving specific parties in which my former employer, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, or any former client to whom I provided legal or consultative services during the past two years is a party or represents a party."
Growth Energy was one of eight former clients — out of nearly two dozen that are publicly known — listed on Wheeler's recusal statement. The acting EPA chief said on his financial disclosure report that he had provided the trade group with "strategic advice and consulting" for more than $5,000 in compensation.
Wheeler's recusal makes exceptions for interactions "of general applicability" during which "participation in the meeting or other event is open to all interested parties."
That means "the meeting should include a multiplicity of parties representing a diversity of viewpoints," the statement says. "Generally speaking, at least four other parties should be present to ensure that a diversity of viewpoints is represented and not the same united perspective."
The meeting with Growth Energy, which included more than a half-dozen members of biofuels coalition Fuels America listed as likely attendees, exceeded that numerical requirement, according to meeting attendees and EPA. But ethics watchdogs are skeptical that the attendees represented the required "diversity of viewpoints."
Fuels America is a nonprofit registered with the IRS as a "social welfare organization." The mission of the corporate-backed entity is "to advance and support renewable fuel policies through advertising, communications, education and advocacy efforts," according to its tax returns.
Meanwhile, the lobbyist who requested the meeting told EPA the executives "would like to discuss the timing/importance of the 2019 renewable volume obligations and their unified support for a strong renewable fuel standard," Wheeler's personal calendar shows. The document was obtained by E&E News via a Freedom of Information Act request (E&E News PM, Sept. 10).
Growth Energy's presence in the meeting was not disclosed in Wheeler's public calendar, which EPA posts online. In that version of his schedule, it was logged as "Stakeholder Meeting: Fuels America Coalition."
Taking meetings like the one with Growth Energy "undermines the very purpose of the ethics pledge," said Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the good government group Public Citizen.
"What you have described to me is a lobbying meeting, pure and simple," he added. "Wheeler is being lobbied by one of his former clients."
But EPA argued Wheeler's meeting including Growth Energy didn't violate the fine print of his pledge since it included a handful of other corporate executives.
"In Acting Administrator Wheeler's ethics guidance, he is allowed to attend group meetings where his former clients may be in attendance if four or more parties are represented with a diversity of viewpoints, which was the case with this meeting, as every individual in the room had a difference of opinion on the [renewable fuel standard]," an EPA spokesman said. "Administrator Wheeler has followed this guidance and this meeting was no different."
Some of the meeting attendees supported EPA's interpretation of the recusal statement.
"Yes, Emily attended, along with a large number of attendees," Leigh Claffey, a spokeswoman for Growth Energy, said, referring to the group's CEO.
James Carstensen, a lobbyist for DuPont who went instead of the DuPont vice president listed in Wheeler's personal calendar, said "there was a healthy exchange of opinions during the meeting."
When asked whether the meeting had a "diversity of viewpoints," as the recusal statement requires, Carstensen said, "Yeah, I thought that there was. But it was a biofuels coalition."
Kathleen Clark, a lawyer and a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo., who specializes in ethics, disagreed with that assessment. She noted the email requesting the biofuels meeting on Wheeler's personal calendar.
"This email promises 'unified support' for a strong renewable fuel standard. We weren't in the room. You and I don't know what was said. But this email doesn't provide any evidence of a 'diversity of viewpoints,'" Clark said.
Clark doesn't think Wheeler met the ethics standard laid out in his recusal statement
"There is no indication there were a diversity of viewpoints in that meeting," she said. "There was a multiplicity of parties, but there was not a diversity of viewpoints."
Two events with Mark Sutton, the chairman and CEO of International Paper Co. — another company on Wheeler's client recusal list — were less clearly focused on swaying Wheeler. In both cases, he was invited to speak about the Trump administration's priorities to groups that included many corporate executives.
On June 6, Wheeler's personal calendar shows he delivered remarks to the Business Roundtable's Energy & Environment Committee, which is led by Sutton. Other Roundtable members include leaders from DowDuPont Inc., NRG Energy Inc. and Shell Oil Co.
Then on June 28, he spoke at a meeting of the American Forest & Paper Association's board of directors, on which Sutton is the second vice chairman. The association had asked Wheeler to address "public policy priority issues including carbon neutrality of biomass for energy, regulatory reform initiatives and permitting reforms, and clean water issues related to human health water quality criteria," according to his calendar.
EPA and the paper products company previously confirmed that Wheeler and Sutton were both at those events. The agency argued they didn't run afoul of his ethics commitments (Greenwire, July 26).
Holman argued only large events — not small gatherings — involving former clients should be allowed under Trump's ethics pledge.
"The only reasonable exception is a big conference," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096733
-
Anti-Corruption Bill is Named for Pruitt
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) has taken an unusual step to honor former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt by naming legislation after him that would combat corruption.
Today, Lieu announced that he had introduced the "E. Scott Pruitt Accountability for Government Officials Act." The bill would increase criminal penalties for those who use public office for private gain.
"If the Trump Administration's culture of corruption has taught us anything, it's that we need better checks in place to prohibit public officials from using the government as their personal piggy banks," Lieu said in a statement.
"Thank you to President Trump, as well as former and current Trump Administration officials like EPA Administrator Pruitt, [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Tom] Price and Senior White House Adviser Jared Kushner, for their trailblazing work to deepen our understanding of the many types of public corruption," Lieu said.
The penalties outlined in the bill would cover senior White House aides as well as Senate-confirmed officials.
The legislation also includes a long list of findings recounting several of the scandals that overwhelmed Pruitt, including allegations that he had aides perform personal tasks for him, his rental of a Capitol Hill condo tied to a lobbyist with business before EPA, and heavy spending on security and travel. Other Trump administration officials, like Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, are noted in the bill for their own ethics miscues.
Pruitt resigned in July after being swamped with allegations of excessive spending and misuse of his office. The former EPA chief had set up a legal defense fund to deal with multiple investigations into his tenure at the agency.
Lieu was one of several Democrats on Capitol Hill pushing for Pruitt's resignation and requested investigations of the ex-administrator, including from the Justice Department and FBI in one letter he signed with colleagues.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096757
-
US NGOs Caution Against Emissions from Insulation, Sealant Materials
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
US NGOs are calling on manufacturers and others to avoid the use of several insulation and air-sealing materials which they say emit formaldehyde, halogenated flame retardants and other chemicals of concern.
A collaboration of advocacy groups including Energy Efficiency for All, the National Resources Defense Council and the Healthy Building Network, surveyed types of products most frequently used for such purposes in the US building sector. The products included recommended materials such as expanded cork board, used as a type of building insulation, and acrylic latex as a type of sealant.
They then defined which chemicals of concern were present in each product type, and ranked them by their associated health hazards.
Based on their findings, the NGO researchers identified products that posed a higher risk to human health. These are:insulation products with formaldehyde-based binders;foam insulations, which commonly contains flame retardants or isocyanates;polyurethane spray foam sealants;phthalate plasticisers; andproducts that are marketed as being antimicrobial.
In their report, A Guide to Healthier Upgrade Materials, the NGOs advised manufacturers and users to step away from halogenated flame retardants, formaldehyde-based binders, isocyanates and phthalate plasticisers.
They cited concerns over these chemicals’ potential reproductive and developmental impacts, carcinogenicity, and ability to cause or exacerbate asthma.
Instead, the NGOs recommended the use of caulk-type or acrylic-based sealants with low levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), foil-backed butyl tape, as well as cork board and fiber glass for insulation.'Weak' regulation
The NGOs also criticised the "mostly weak regulatory environment" in the US for allowing insulation and air-sealing products to contain chemicals of concern.
TSCA is "much too slow" at reviewing chemicals used in building products, they added. And VOC regulations miss the mark on compounds that are toxic in indoor air, because they exempt chemicals that do not contribute to smog formation.The NGOs also criticised building product manufacturers which list "only the minimum" information about contents and associated health hazards in the safety data sheets (SDSs), required by the federal Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Osha).
"Lack of transparency regarding chemical content still presents a major challenge in trying to select healthier products," they said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70201/us-ngos-caution-against-emissions-from-insulation-sealant-materials
-
Regulatory Proposals for Nanomaterials in the EU
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Aida Ponce Del Castillo
In the past, we have all too often adopted technologies without thinking about the risks. Regulating nanomaterials in the EU has been the subject of a long discussion, which is still ongoing today, albeit less intensely than when it started. The approach chosen by the European Commission has been to establish an ‘Observatory for Nanomaterials’.
The observatory takes the form of a website, which provides a compilation of information provided in the REACH registration dossiers and other public sources. This was not the most desired option for national regulators, trade unions, environmental associations and civil society, who have been critical of several aspects of the observatory.
By definition, an observatory merely observes. It is not as proactive as other bodies can be, works with existing data, relies on voluntary cooperation and has no power of enforcement. Given the shortcomings of the observatory, improvements must be made to the overall nanomaterials regulatory framework.
In particular, effectively regulating nanomaterials implies proper characterisation of them. Such information has to be reliable, so that risks can be significantly reduced. To achieve this, Echa should focus on its core business and demand registration dossiers of sufficient quality on nanomaterials or the nanoform of substances under REACH.
In addition, the European Trade Union Institute (Etui) would make the five following proposals that could contribute to a stronger, more effective and more reliable regulatory regime. If implemented, they would benefit regulators, producers, downstream users, the potentially exposed workforce, users and civil society. They are realistic in their scope and implementation timeframe, could partially close the legislative gaps and could alleviate some of the concerns that the European Parliament, trade unions and other societal actors have repeatedly voiced.
1. Make nano-information public and visible
Currently, little to no scientific information is accessible in the public part of the registration dossier of a substance in nanoform that is submitted to Echa. This situation leads to the possible conclusion that, although available, some information has been left out of the registration dossier by the (lead) registrant. This happens with many other ‘normal’ substances as well as nanoforms. This problem needs to be addressed.
All available scientific information must be visible in the public part of the REACH registration dossier, in a way that is both transparent (including what information there is, how it has been assessed or why it has not been included) and understandable, so that those who are not technical experts can understand it and use it, particularly if they have to work with the substance.
2. Prioritise nanoforms
Greater priority should be given to include substances in nanoform in the substance evaluation process carried out by member states. This process is extremely useful, as it allows them to request further information from the registrant and thus verify possible hazards, workplace and environment exposure and risks for consumers, and even identify other concerns.
However, most substance evaluation processes carried out by member states are met with strong resistance by registrants. Industry consortiums often use the Echa Board of Appeal to appeal decisions. In the case of TiO2, the decision taken by Echa was annulled, as it was deemed to exceeded Echa’s power to request further information. Other examples are nano-silver, evaluated by the Netherlands, and multiwall carbon nanotubes, to be evaluated by Germany this year and in 2019.
3. Provide transparency through mandatory SDSs
Transparency can be achieved by applying Article 32.1.d of the REACH Regulation also to nanomaterials. This requires the supplier of a chemical substance to provide recipients with relevant information to enable appropriate risk management measures to be implemented
If we apply this logic to nanomaterials, a safety data sheet (SDS) would have to be issued for the downstream user concerning nanomaterials applied in mixtures where any amount has been added intentionally. For each nanomaterial and each hazard endpoint based on the available information in the REACH registration dossier, the SDS should state clearly if this information is conclusive, inconclusive or does not merit classification in connection with the specific hazard endpoint.
4. Provide a nano ID
This proposal entails that, for manufactured nanomaterials that do not need to be registered under REACH, the downstream user should receive the common name of the substance with the addition of the word ‘nano’ in brackets, as is currently mandatory in the Cosmetics Regulation. This label or mention should not, however, become a way to transfer the responsibility to the individual consumer or end user, as this is still down to the manufacturer.
5. Cross-fertilise national nano-registers
National registers of nanomaterials have been put in place in Belgium, Denmark, France, Sweden and, to some extent, Norway. These oblige companies to declare the nanomaterials that they produce or import. Information has to be provided relating to the quantities, types of nanomaterials and the ways in which these substances are being used.
Given the lack of an EU-wide nano-register, this is an important layer of governance, as the information requested by national authorities can be used to define national rules and in-company inspections, and eventually help to reduce risks and improve protection.
What is particularly important here is that these national registries, all inspired in their design by the French model, could rather easily share data about exposure of workers, both with labour authorities and workers themselves. Such cross-fertilisation of registries could become the next step in establishing a genuine and effective governance system that could act as a protective shield at least in some countries, who would later be joined by others.
Future for nanomaterials
Regulating nanomaterials implies more than regulating their presence in the environment, food or sunscreen, through the adoption of chemical, cosmetics, food or biocidal laws. If Europe does not succeed in truly regulating nanomaterials now – which requires more than an observatory – it will face even more complex challenges when nanomaterials are deployed with other emerging technologies.
Technological convergence is developing rapidly, in nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. This, coupled with increased reliance on digital technologies, artificial intelligence, robots, and new materials and processes, will position nanotechnologies again at the forefront of European industry. An adequate governance and regulatory framework is essential to accompany this ‘new production revolution’ and even anticipate major societal and ethical issues of the future.
The views expressed in this article are those of the expert author and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70249/regulatory-proposals-for-nanomaterials-in-the-eu
-
The HSE: Ready for the Next Step
Sep 12, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Nick Hazlewood
When it comes to preparing for the post-Brexit chemicals sector, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) says that it has been on the case almost from day one. The HSE is currently the UK’slead authority for the biocides, CLP and prior informed consent(Pic) Regulations. If negotiations with Brussels fail and Britain leaves the EU without an agreement, the HSE would take on most of the responsibilities currently carried out by Echa. These include REACH and parts of the plant protection products Regulation, where it acts as the competent authority for the UK on behalf of Defra.
"We started modeling the spectrum of scenarios from a couple of weeks after the vote was taken in 2016," Dave Bench, the agency’s director of EU exit – chemicals, told Chemical Watch. "It was quite obvious that this was required." Mr Bench was talking outside an HSE Brexit workshop in Liverpool at the beginning of August. The event, attended by 120 stakeholders, was the first of several the HSE intends to hold in the run up to the UK’s departure from the EU in March 2019.
The possibility of a no-deal scenario was discussed at this meeting. "It’s easier to make assumptions about what that outcome might mean, but clearly that’s not the government’s preference. That is to have a deal," Mr Bench said.
Mr Bench was the director for the Chemicals Regulation division (CRD) of the HSE from 2011. He has been leading on EU exit issues for chemicals since the referendum and has focused wholly on them since 2017. Chemical Watch discussed the HSE’s preparations for Brexit with him in more detail at the event.
Chemical Watch: How ready is the HSE for Brexit?
Dave Bench: The preparations are very good. While we are talking about no deal at this event, we’ve got good plans in place for all the different scenarios. There is more we want to do before March, but I am absolutely confident that we will be ready, whatever scenario we are in.
CW: How is the uncertainty in the negotiations affecting your work?
DB: We’ve created a team, mostly by diverting existing staff with the right skills. We’ve also loaned in extra people from around different parts of government because they have the right type of skills to help us. And we have been working on all the possibilities. The easiest scenario to think about is no deal, but even for a deal it’s broadly easy to come up with either end of the spectrum. What’s a bit more difficult is to figure out what you do in terms of modelling the range in between.
We’ve gone through a period of refinement of those different models, and that’s chopped and changed as things have changed in relation to the negotiating process. One of the key things this year was the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech on 2 March. Immediately after that, we reviewed what we had in our models and aligned them to the speech.
CW: Did it make a big difference?
DB: No – which was reassuring. It made a few small differences. In the main it showed that we had thought about most of the right things. Inevitably, some bits of detail were a little different, but nothing particularly significant.
CW: You said in the workshop that if you had to press the button on the IT system being prepared with the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) tomorrow, it would all work.
DB: It would be clunky, but it would work. We want to use the time between now and March to conduct user testing and refine it as much as we can.
CW: Even if there is a deal, will 2019 still be quite a bumpy ride?
DB: I don’t think so. The premise for a deal has already been set in the withdrawal agreement, which is now mostly finalised in terms of the text. Obviously, final sign-off will only come at October’s European Council or shortly afterwards. But the agreement text is there for everybody to see. It defines the parameters for the implementation period that would occur until 31 December 2020. I can’t see any way that we’d enter a deal without that period now. And the way in which it would operate will essentially allow a relatively smooth transition.
For companies, an implementation period next year should be an incredibly smooth transition. The only exception is where there are pieces of assessment work that we are currently engaged in that won’t be finished by the end of March and which will need to be handed over to another EU member state. Things like assessing active substances for biocides.
We won’t be able to participate in such activity after March in an implementation period, as we will no longer be a lead authority. Clearly we still have an interest in knowing what is going on, we will still have some information exchange. The way we would then work is that, when a decision is taken in the EU, we would implement it as we currently do. Companies can come to us and deal with product authorisations in exactly the same way as they currently would.
CW: How confident are you about having sufficient scientific and technical know how?
DB: I do feel confident that we have it. Echa’s Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-economic Assessment committees (Seac) are the two most obvious ones in the REACH regime, but there are lots of other working groups and technical committees that sit below the surface of the various chemical regimes we are engaged in. In the main, they are all populated by member state authority experts.
It’s regulatory scientists and specialists in regulatory authorities that have the necessary expertise to engage. To most of the committees we send one or two people, as do most member states. Although we’re only sending one person, we’ve actually got all the other members of the team with the same, or complementary knowledge. There are very few things that Rac and Seac deal with that I can think of requiring expertise that we don’t actually have.
CW: And transparency?
DB: Pretty much all of the regimes in one way or another involve either submissions from companies or some kind of public consultation exercise as part of the process leading towards a decision – certainly for the higher level decisions at substance level. Where that’s the case we’ve got an opportunity to be open about what’s being proposed, the kinds of questions we are interested in, and the information we need people to give to us. That goes whether they are industry representatives, wider stakeholders or even the general public.
That’s the point at which we need to operate some processes that are genuinely open. We haven’t had to operate those processes in a routine way because it’s been done as part of the collective EU process. We’ve been involved as a concerned member state, not as the facilitating organisation.
Facilitating that open consultation is something that in a no-deal scenario we would absolutely be doing for the UK. It may be that we are doing some of that in the negotiated settlement options too, but it’s too early to say exactly how that would work. And obviously, at the most aligned end of the deal spectrum, we may simply buy into the same kind of process with the existing arrangements continuing as a concerned member state.
CW: How far have you been communicating with the chemical industry so far?
DB: We have been communicating with trade associations and some of the bigger companies on a bilateral basis for a while. I would characterise those interactions mostly as us asking questions to try and understand what thinking the industry guys have been doing.
We certainly haven’t been in a position to do the kind of thing we’ve been doing in the event today, which is essentially saying "Look, here are the government’s propositions in relation to contingency planning arrangements for a no deal". Now we are in a position to communicate in a much broader and open way.
CW: And future communication?
DB: I don’t have a precise plan at the moment because it wasn’t clear that we were going to be able to run today’s event until very recently. But we have had a really good response, more people applied than we could accommodate.
We briefly considered running a couple of days consecutively, but between first agreeing this workshop and realising the nature of the response, Dominic Raab, the Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the EU (DExEU), made an announcement about the soon-to-be-released technical notes, which are intended to be a continuation of discussing the no-deal scenario.
These documents outline what would happen in a no-deal scenario in these particular areas. We’ve been engaged in drafting those notes for chemicals. They are done. Ours are with DExEU, which is looking at all the notes from right across government. They will be published in August or September.
I’m imagining that we will do another meeting very shortly after the technical notes for chemicals have been published. As we go through the autumn, with the October European Council being a key date, we’ve always intended that if a deal is done, even on just heads of agreement, then we would want to follow up fairly swiftly.
https://chemicalwatch.com/70248/the-hse-ready-for-the-next-step
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale Gas Rise: Report Shows Manufacturing from Shale Over $200B
Sep 12, 2018 | North American Shale
Shale gas is a powerful engine of manufacturing growth. Those are the words of Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council. Dooley and his team recently released a report that details the true impact of shale gas on the manufacturing sector. The ACC hasn’t updated its shale gas report and statistics since 2013. In the 2013 version, the ACC said that 97 chemical and plastic industry projects totaling $72 billion had been announced at the time.
-The U.S. chemical and plastic industry investment linked to shale gas has surpassed $200 billion.
-In the past eight years, more than $202.4 billion worth of chemical industry projects (333 in total projects) have been announced. The projects range from expansions or full-facility buildouts.
-The $202 billion invested in chemicals and plastics as a direct result of the shale gas feedstock used to power facilities or as a base element for the production of materials, will result in nearly 800,000 jobs by 2025. The jobs include 79,000 in the chemical industry, 352,000 jobs in supplier industries and 355,000 jobs in communities where workers spend wages.
http://northamericanshalemagazine.com/articles/2499/shale-gas-rise-report-shows-manufacturing-from-shale-over-200b
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shale-Based US Chemical Investment Surpasses $200 Billion, Says ACC
Sep 11, 2018 | Chemical Week
By Clay Boswell
Announced US chemical investment tied to the shale-gas revolution has surged past the $200 billion mark, and more than $100 billion has progressed to the construction phase or beyond, says the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Since 2010, 333 projects with a total value of $202.4 billion have been announced, says ACC, of which 53% has been completed or begun construction, while 41% remains in the planning phase. Foreign companies, through either direct investment or partnership, participate in 68% of the investment.
ACC estimates that the $202.4 billion in capital spending has the potential to increase chemical industry output by $292 billion per year by 2025, supporting 79,000 chemical industry jobs, 352,000 jobs in supplier industries, and 355,000 jobs in surrounding communities.
“This is an exciting milestone for American chemistry and further evidence that shale gas is a powerful engine of manufacturing growth,” says ACC president and CEO Cal Dooley. “The US remains the most attractive place in the world to invest in chemical manufacturing.”
However, barriers to trade threaten the gains, warns ACC. “US manufacturers often rely on inputs that are not available or made in the US to create products that cost less, yet perform at the high level our downstream customers have come to expect from us,” says the group. “Protectionist trade policies such as tariffs and quotas unnecessarily raise the costs of those inputs, deter innovation and economic growth, and could ultimately weaken our country’s competitive advantage.”
On 6 September, ACC announced that Chinese retaliatory tariffs on $10.8 billion in US chemical exports could reduce shipments to China by up to $6.1 billion annually.https://chemweek.com/CW/Document/98303/Shale-based-US-chemical-investment-surpasses-%24200-billion-says-ACC?connectPath=Search&searchSessionId=5b02c301-231d-4c52-b5ae-36eeb3a1dca3
-
U.S. Oil Inventories Continue to Fall, Now Below Average
Sep 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Rye Druzin
Falling U.S. crude inventories helped push oil back over $70 a barrel Wednesday.
Crude stockpiles fell by 5.3 million barrels last week, a decline that was only partially offset by a 1.3 million increase in gasoline inventories, the Energy Department reported. But stocks of other petroleum products, such as distillates used in heating oil and diesel, increased significantly, pushing inventories of all petroleum products up by 10 million barrels.
Inventories of most petroleum products, including crude, remain below the five-year average.
Demand for petroleum products was strong, growing about 5 percent from a year ago, according to the Energy Department. Gasoline demand was up just over 1 percent from last year.
Oil gained about 2 percent in morning trading, climbing to about $70.75 a barrel in New York shortly after the inventory report.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/U-S-oil-inventories-continue-to-fall-now-below-13223458.php
-
Trump's Move on Methane Begins Bigger Effort on Potent Gas
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
The Trump administration's plan to soften methane standards for the oil and gas industry is the first step in a larger effort to dismantle greenhouse gas rules for the booming sector.
It might also cloud the reputation of natural gas as a climate-friendly solution to rising temperatures.
EPA wants to make several technical changes to how oil and gas operators monitor, detect and repair methane leaks. Those so-called fugitive emissions have become central to how favorably natural gas, of which methane is a major component, compares with coal in electricity generation.
A bigger blow to the methane program is expected later this fall. EPA is still tussling with a separate rulemaking about whether to cease regulating the potent greenhouse gas directly. Legal questions loom over that question, and industry is divided over ending the program.
Taken together, the proposed changes yesterday and the anticipated one coming later this year could defang EPA authority over a greenhouse gas that's 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide on a 20-year time scale.
"It appears to be a very deliberate strategy to dumb down the rule," said Matt Watson, an associate vice president at the Environmental Defense Fund.
The agency said its proposal yesterday would "significantly reduce regulatory burden" and "streamline requirements" by relaxing methane monitoring at new and modified well sites and at compressor stations.
It emphasizes the ability to use emerging remote technology and satellites rather than perform check-ins at the ground level, though defenders of the rule noted that those options were never forbidden. It also would let operators follow existing state standards even if they're less stringent than federal requirements (Greenwire, Sept. 11).
"The EPA rule will make technical changes to take care of the myriad problems with cumbersome record-keeping, technicalities that don't work in the field and making the rule practical to implement," said Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance.
Dialing back the standards has implications for the oil and gas sector's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and public health.
EPA said its proposal would increase methane emissions by 380,000 short tons through 2025. It estimated that industry could save up to $484 million, compared with $54 million in lost climate benefits, though the latter reflects only domestic effects. The Trump administration has faced criticism for lowballing the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate.
EPA acknowledged that its proposal would likely "degrade air quality and adversely affect health and welfare" and that "data limitations prevent the EPA" from assessing the unrealized health benefits from ditching the standard set under former President Obama.
The Bureau of Land Management is expected to release a separate proposal this week to replace Obama-era regulations on venting and flaring from oil and gas operations on federal lands.
The moves come as the natural gas industry has positioned itself as a cleaner alternative to coal. Cheap natural gas resulting from the shale energy boom has been credited with reducing U.S. emissions by replacing coal in the electricity sector.
Natural gas has half the carbon density of coal.
"Significantly, methane emissions from the oil and natural gas industry are already down 14 percent since 1990 while production has increased by 50 percent," said Howard Feldman, senior director of regulatory and scientific affairs with the American Petroleum Institute, in a statement. "Clean natural gas produced through advanced technologies like hydraulic fracturing has helped reduce carbon emissions to 25-year lows."
Environmental groups and scientists claim that EPA and industry have historically undercounted leaks.
"The issue really comes down to we need to get a handle on these leaks as quickly as possible, and at the moment, at the federal level, there's very little regulation," said Romany Webb, a senior fellow with Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. "The driving force behind the Obama-era regulation was to really ensure we are finding those leaks more quickly."
Industry contends that the regulations are redundant and unnecessary. That's because companies have a financial incentive to prevent leaks of methane, since it's the main component in natural gas, a product they can sell.
Several large firms, such as BP PLC, have committed to reducing methane leaks. They see it as a way to promote the fuel as a long-term solution to climate change, rather than a "bridge" to zero-carbon energy sources like solar and wind (Climatewire, June 29).
"When it comes to EDF and the environmental lobby, it's not about what's really going on in the field. It's about wrapping oil and gas in red tape so there's less of it. That's the game," Sgamma said.
Watson of EDF said EPA risks letting the industry's methane problem get out of hand without frequent monitoring. He added that President Trump's proposal is "designed to cater explicitly to the lowest performers in industry," not oil giants like BP.
If methane leaks are as undercounted as EDF and many scientists say, unabated emissions could undercut the industry's claim that natural gas is a climate-friendly fuel source, he said.
Studies vary on how big a problem methane leaks are for the industry and the climate. The disparities result from several factors. Technologies and methods are key — measuring leak rates for different component parts and totaling them up can differ from, say, flying a plane or satellite overhead to visualize the emissions. Access to oil and gas sites can also be restricted.
EDF tried to split the difference in a recent study. It convened 140 researchers from 40 institutions and companies to synthesize the range of methods and approaches used to measure leaks. It found that EPA had undercounted methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 60 percent, though industry has disputed those findings (Climatewire, June 22).
On top of all that, natural gas and oil production is thriving. That means deregulatory moves that result in missing leaks could have a multiplier effect on emissions. That differs from the Trump administration's proposal last month to weaken rules on carbon emissions at power plants, because coal, the main beneficiary, is facing an inexorable decline.
"As it continues to grow, those emissions could potentially increase," Webb, of the Sabin Center, said of natural gas. "All of those emissions have a significant near-term warming effect."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096615
-
Alaska LNG Makes Deal with Exxon Mobil on Gas Sales
Sep 12, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The state-sponsored Alaska liquefied natural gas export project has come to terms with Exxon Mobil to buy gas produced by the nation's biggest energy company.
The compromise gas deal agreement announced this week helps move forward the roughly $50 billion Alaska LNG project, which would ship LNG for both domestic use and for exports, including to China. The long-delayed project is run by the state-backed Alaska Gasline Development Corp. and no longer has publicly traded stakeholders like Exxon Mobil, BP and ConocoPhillips.
But Exxon Mobil will sell large volumes of its Alaska-produced natural gas to the project if Alaska LNG is eventually built starting as soon as 2020.
The new deal allows Alaska LNG to buy Exxon Mobil's share of 30 trillion cubic feet of gas produced from from the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson developments in Alaska. ExxonMobil operates the Point Thomson field with a 62.75 percent ownership stake. BP owns the rest. Exxon also has a 36.4 percent share of the nearby Prudhoe Bay field – the largest oil and gas field in North America. The rest is held by BP and ConocoPhillips. And, in May, BP also reached a deal to sell gas to the project.
"This precedent agreement is good for Alaska and ExxonMobil and represents a significant milestone to help advance the state-led gasline project," said Exxon Mobil Alaska President Darlene Gates. "As the largest holder of discovered gas resources on the North Slope, Exxon Mobil has been working for decades to tackle the challenges of bringing Alaska's gas to market."
RELATED: FERC speeding up reviews on LNG projects
The deal would guarantee Exxon Mobil long-term gas sales while giving Alaska momentum to move the project forward. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is scheduled to approve or reject the project by the end of 2019.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Alaska-LNG-makes-deal-with-Exxon-Mobil-on-gas-13223620.php
-
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Ashley Halsey
Ten years after a Metrolink commuter train and Union Pacific freight train collided head-on at 84 miles an hour, killing 25 people and injuring 135 in Chatsworth, Calif., the safety system that could have prevented the crash still isn’t working on at least a third of the nation’s rail network.
“Had a fully implemented positive train control system been in place . . . the collision would not have occurred,” the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) said after a comprehensive investigation of the collision on Sept. 12, 2008, in the Los Angeles neighborhood.
Congress soon thereafter passed legislation mandating that the system, commonly known as PTC, be installed on nearly 58,000 miles of railroad — including the most heavily-traveled passenger lines in the nation’s rail network.
When federal regulators announced last month that PTC was 65 percent in place, the news came with this caveat: “PTC is in operation or advanced testing.” That 65 percent includes significant track systems where it is not fully operational, despite a Dec. 31 deadline for completing the process.
And, according to the NTSB, in the 10 years since the Chatsworth crash, at least 21 deaths and 364 injuries have occurred that could have been prevented had PTC been in use.
The NTSB has yet to determine the probable cause of crashes in Washington S tate in December and South Carolina in February that killed five people and injured 154 combined. But the agency’s preliminary reports suggest that both could have been prevented by PTC.
Rescuers remove a victim with a gurney attached to an aerial ladder as others continue rescue efforts after a MetroLink commuter train collided with a freight train in Chatsworth, Calif., on Sept. 12, 2008. (Reed Saxon/Associated Press)In total, since a train wreck in Chester, Pa., in 1988 between an Amtrak train and a piece of railroad maintenance equipment that injured 34 people, NTSB records show that PTC could have prevented 141 deaths and 2,426 injuries.
PTC is designed to eliminate human error from train travel. If a train is going too fast, it automatically applies the brakes to comply with set speed limits. If a track switch is improperly positioned, it prevents the train from going down the wrong track. And it keeps two trains off the same track, ending rear-end or head-on collisions.
“Every day that PTC is not in place, we run the risk of another Amtrak crash,” NTSB board member Robert L. Sumwalt said in a moment of exasperation in January 2016.
“Is it going to take another five years or another three years for it to be implemented? If that’s the case, that’s unacceptable,” said Sumwalt, who now chairs the panel.
His forecast was correct: Despite another implementation deadline this year, most freight and passenger railroads plan to seek an exemption that will delay flipping on the PTC switch until December 2020 at the latest.
[Railroad officials tell Congress many won’t meet deadline for lifesaving automatic braking systems]
Although the NTSB has recommended PTC installation since 1990, and Capitol Hill already was in motion after several deadly crashes — including a 2005 South Carolina wreck that leaked chlorine gas, killing nine, sending more than 500 to hospitals and requiring thousands of residents to leave for days — it was the Chatsworth crash that got Congress over the hump to pass legislation.
“For nearly 50 years, the NTSB has issued one recommendation after another for the [Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)] to require and the railroads to implement some form of positive train control,” said Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (Ore.), the ranking Democrat onthe House Transportation Committee. “Those recommendations fell on deaf ears and it took the Chatsworth crash for Congress to finally take action to force PTC implementation. We can’t afford any further delay in adoption of this lifesaving technology.”
Signed into law by President George W. Bush a month after the Chatsworth crash, the legislation mandated that PTC be in place on nearly 58,000 miles of railroad by the end of 2015.
When Republicans came to dominate both houses of Congress in January 2015, railroads’ powerful lobby saw an opportunity to seek relief from the deadline, which they found onerous.
Members of Congress have received nearly $60 million from railroad lobbyists since 1990, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
The railroad industry argued successfully in 2015 that the mandate required a rush to invest in technology they said was too complicated and not fully developed. They argued that the nearly $15 billion required to educate rail workers and install onboard computers in engines and communication towers along more than 40 percent of the nation’s 134,000 miles of freight and commuter lines was prohibitive.
Congress relented, extending the deadline to the end of this year, but it added a caveat. If a railroad had installed the necessary PTC hardware, trained rail workers, acquired radio spectrum and had the system ready on 50 percent of the required lines, they could seek an exemption until the end of 2020 to turn on PTC.
[Feds tell railroads they must meet deadlines for live-saving technology]
The FRA issued a progress report last month that said that 15 of 40 railroads had installed all the required equipment and that 12 others were close to that achievement.
Notable, however, is that the railroad that has been the poster child for PTC progress — the massive freight rail BNSF — was the first railroad to seek an extension beyond the Dec. 31 deadline. Although BNSF is fully equipped, has every bit of its tracks covered, and all its employees trained, it has what is essentially a software issue that is keeping it from being fully operational. Twenty-four railroads operate on BNSF tracks, and only six of them are PTC capable.
The kinds of extensions railroads are seeking are not what Congress intended.
“An extension was intended for testing, where a few bugs had to be worked out to ensure the highest level of safety, prevent PTC failures, or the FRA needed a little time to certify each railroad’s safety plan,” said Jennifer Homendy, a former railroad expert on the House Transportation Committee, who was sworn in as one of five NTSB members last month.
“The railroads should not be at the stage where hardware is still being installed and employees still haven’t been trained,” Homendy said. “They should be well beyond that. Yet the latest reports submitted to FRA show that while some railroads have made tremendous progress, others have done little to nothing toward implementation.”
The results reported by FRA last month show a wide disparity in progress by both the freight and passenger rail lines. Most of the big freight railroads have made progress, but they all appear likely to seek extensions to complete the job next year or by the end of 2020.
Commuter rail lines run the gamut, from Philadelphia’s SEPTA (100 percent equipped and trained) to a New Mexico line that FRA reports has done nothing at all.
Ed Hamberger, president of the Association of American Railroads, a coalition that lobbies on behalf of freight railroads, said it is“on track to meet the deadlines established by Congress” and “will have PTC fully implemented and operational on or before the 2020 deadline.”
One success story: Metrolink, the commuter rail line involved in the Chatsworth crash. It has had PTC in full operation since June 2015.
“Nothing focuses your attention like an incident such as that that occurred in 2008 for Metrolink,” spokesman Paul Gonzales said. “PTC is on all the time. There are no near misses, there are no close calls. Any condition that should arise that would lead to a dangerous situation gets handled by the PTC system.”
The Metrolink engineer that day 10 years ago had sneaked a prohibited cellphone onto the train and was busy swapping text messages with a friend, according to the investigation. He blew through a stop signal. The collision with the freight train split his train as if with a can opener. He and 24 of his passengers died.
The worst train wreck in U.S. history took place in Nashville 100 years go, when 101 people were killed and 171 were injured in a head-on crash at more than 100 mph on “Dutchman’s Curve” west of downtown. Investigators concluded that errors by one engineer and by people in a control tower were to blame.
That is precisely the type of human error that PTC would prevent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/ten-years-after-crash-that-pushed-congress-to-mandate-life-saving-train-technology-one-third-of-nations-rail-network-remains-without/2018/09/10/67a3ae58-aaf9-11e8-8a0c-70b618c98d3c_story.html?utm_term=.f16f694fb647
-
FRA Issues Funding Notice for $46 Million in PTC Grants
Sep 12, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) today announced a notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) for $46.3 million in grants to help railroads pay for the cost of implementing positive train control (PTC).
The NOFO represents the balance of the $250 million PTC Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program that remained after selections were announced in August, FRA officials said in a press release.
Railroads can apply for the grants to help fund the deployment of PTC technology for intercity passenger-rail, freight-rail and commuter-rail transportation.
Eligible projects include back office systems; wayside, communications and onboard hardware equipment; software; equipment installation; spectrum; any component, testing and training for the implementation of PTC systems; and interoperability.
"This expedited solicitation will provide commuter and intercity railroads an additional opportunity to request grant funds for positive train control," said FRA Administrator Ronald Batory. "By reissuing these funds, FRA is showing our continued commitment to work with railroads and suppliers in fully implementing PTC."
Applications are due Oct. 12.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-issues-funding-notice-for-46-million-in-PTC-grants--55588
-
California Today: Tackling Climate Change, Without Trump
Sep 12, 2018 | The New York Times
By Somini Sengupta and Matt Stevens
Good morning.
The defiant ones have come to California. Of course they have. Where else would they go?
Mayors, governors, corporate executives and environmental activists from four continents are gathering in San Francisco this week to show what they can do to stave off the most catastrophic effects of climate change, even if the president of the world’s most powerful country — the United States, which is also history’s biggest polluter — won’t.
It’s a gamble. As my colleague Brad Plumer writes, these defiant ones are trying to demonstrate that they can take big steps to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that have warmed the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial age. But their efforts have not been enough to offset the effects of the Trump administration’s rollbacks on climate policy. And the world as a whole is nowhere close to meeting the targets set under the Paris climate accord three years ago, an accord that President Trump intends to withdraw the United States from.
California is not just where some of the consequences of climate change are being felt acutely, nor simply a place where high-profile solutions are being tested out. It has also been a finger in the eye of the Trump administration on climate policy; for instance, it has challenged his rollbacks on fuel-efficiency standards.
On Monday, Gov. Jerry Brown, who is one of the sponsors of the Global Climate Action Summit, signed a bill requiring California’s utilities to get all their electricity from zero-carbon sources by 2045.
And former Vice President Al Gore struck a bullish note on the spread of zero-carbon technologies at an event on Tuesday. But he was also blunt about the pace of change. “We’re still not winning,” he said. “We have to make the decarbonization of the global economy the central organizing principle of human civilization.”
He spoke in a dark cavernous hall at the Fort Mason Center for the Arts and Culture, surrounded by giant photographs of coal miners and receding glaciers, part of an exhibition organized by the Asia Society.California OnlineImageLast year, Apple’s chief executive, Tim Cook, introduced the $999 iPhone X.CreditJim Wilson/The New York Times
(Please note: We regularly highlight articles on news sites that have limited access for nonsubscribers.)
• It’s that time of year again: Apple is set to introduce three new iPhonestoday. [The New York Times]
• A Castro Valley man shouting profanities about President Trump tried to stab a Republican congressional candidate with a switchblade. No one was seriously injured. [The San Francisco Chronicle]
• A Bay Area choir director might seem an odd fit for a six-figure job on the state’s Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. But he’s a friend of Governor Brown. [The San Francisco Chronicle]ImageAmmar Campa-Najjar, who is running against Representative Duncan Hunter.CreditSandy Huffaker/Getty Images
• A Los Angeles Times columnist spent hours on the campaign trail with Ammar Campa-Najjar, the 29-year-old Democrat trying to unseat Representative Duncan Hunter. [The Los Angeles Times]
• A federal judge has struck down a nearly century-old California law that banned gun shops from advertising handguns on their premises. [The Associated Press]
• Uh-oh: Nearly 224,000 solo drivers stand to lose their car pool stickerson Jan. 1. [The Mercury News]ImageRows of new Tesla Model 3 electric vehicles in Richmond.CreditStephen Lam/Reuters
• Tesla will eliminate some color options for its electric cars to streamline production. Goodbye, “Obsidian Black” and “Metallic Silver.” [Reuters]
• How exactly did the California desert become an oasis for palm trees? [The Desert Sun]ImageJacquie Aiche in the garden of her Beverly Hills headquarters.CreditEmily Berl for The New York Times
• One way to describe Jacquie Aiche’s jewelry, Instagram and even her Beverly Hills office: “That laid-back cool California girl is in everything she does.” [The New York Times]
• At his new restaurant Bavel, Ori Menashe — of Bestia fame — is cooking the Israeli and pan-Middle Eastern food he has always wanted to cook. [The New York Times]
• Chipotle is testing bacon at restaurants in four Orange County cities this month. [The Orange County Register]And Finally ...ImageAlex Trebek in the 35th season of “Jeopardy!”CreditCarol Kaelson/Jeopardy Productions, via Associated Press
Answer: This game show host began the 35th season of a much-loved quiz program sporting a beard.
Question: Who is Alex Trebek?
Yes, Mr. Trebek, a Los Angeles resident, has once again taped “Jeopardy!” episodes in Culver City. And given the host’s new look, the show’s Twitter account has started a poll.
“To beard, or not to beard: that is the question,” the tweet says. “Vote now! #AlexTrebeard.”
Mr. Trebek wasted little time addressing the issue in the season’s first episode on Monday.
“Thank you ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to ‘Jeopardy!’ as we begin our 35th season,” he said. “No need to inquire how I spent my summer vacation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/12/us/california-today-climate-change-trump.html
-
Calif. Governor Blasts Methane Rule Change as Most 'Dangerous Action' by Trump
Sep 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Justin Wise
California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday said that the Trump administration’s plan to roll back Obama-era methane rules was the most dangerous action President Trump since taking office, calling the move “insane.”
“This is insane — it borders on criminality,” Brown tweeted.
“It perhaps is the most obvious and dangerous and irresponsible action by Mr. Trump. And that’s saying quite a lot, because he has a whole list of them.”
His comments came just hours after the Trump administration announced that it would roll back a major Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule related to methane gas emissions.
The new regulations replace a rule instituted in 2016 under former President Obama which had aimed to eliminate methane leaks at well sites and other oil and gas facilities.
The EPA said that the rollback of Obama-era regulations for oil and natural gas drillers would reduce unnecessary and duplicative burdens. It also said that the rule change would give the industry $484 million over six years.
The announcement represented the third time this year the EPA has changed the way air pollutants are regulated.
“These common-sense reforms will alleviate unnecessary and duplicative red tape and give the energy sector the regulatory certainty it needs to continue providing affordable and reliable energy to the American people,” acting EPA head Andrew Wheeler said in a statement.
Brown has taken a fiercely critical stance against the Trump administration's environmental policies. In August, the California governor called Trump's plan to roll back Obama-era regulations for coal power plants a "declaration of war against America and all of humanity."
"Truth and common sense will triumph over Trump's insanity," he added.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/406300-california-governor-blasts-methane-rule-change-as-most-dangerous
-
You’re Probably Breathing Dangerous Air
Sep 12, 2018 | The Washington Post
By Christiana Figueres
Climate change is here now, and it’s time to urgently ask ourselves: What kind of future do we want to work toward? The air we breathe is key to answering this question. Global warming is not just manifesting in devastating fires, floods and heatwaves; its causes are impacting nearly every breath we take.
A recent World Health Organization report said that nine out of 10 people on the planet breathe dangerous air, and an estimated 7 million premature deaths a year are caused by air pollution-related diseases, including stroke and heart disease, respiratory illness and cancer. A recent Health Effects reportreiterated these statistics, saying more than 95 percent of the world population breathes bad air. Just a few weeks ago, another study showed that air pollution damages cognitive abilities.
Thick, heavy smog caused by the burning of fossil fuels and crops is choking cities around the world. China has been forced to close tens of thousands of factories to reduce its air pollution. Air pollution in Africa has been ruled responsible for more deaths than unsanitary water or malnutrition. Last November, Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of India’s capital city, wrote: “Delhi has become a gas chamber.”
Pollution is not invisible — but it can be hard to see. The pollutants that give most cause for concern are toxic gases such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, or PM2.5. These gases come from car, truck and bus exhaust, the burning of fuels such as coal, oil, gas and petrol, as well as burning crop materials or naturally-occurring forest and grass fires. These particles are so small — a fraction of the size of the diameter of a human hair — that they are easily ingested deep into the lungs.
PM2.5 is now increasingly showing up in places like Europe and North America, partly due to wildfires. Studies have linked air pollution to about 40,000 deaths a year in the United Kingdom — with about 10,000 in London, partly due to the rise of diesel vehicles there. Meanwhile, wildfires are reversing decades of air quality improvements across wide swaths of the western United States.
The most vulnerable people are impacted the hardest. Fossil fuel combustion byproducts have been deemed one of the most serious threats to children’s health and global equality. Emerging evidenceindicates that pollution from coal combustion and motor vehicles has been linked to development delays, reduced IQ and autism in children.
Carrying on along this trajectory is irresponsible and absolutely unacceptable.
But another trajectory is emerging as more people are standing up and campaigning for their inalienable right to clean air — and therefore, to life. On Wednesday in San Francisco, the Global Climate and Health Forum is bringing together 250 leaders from national and local governments, health systems, public health agencies, civil society and international health organizations to generate momentum and commitments for action on climate and health. We will use this moment, and others during this week’s Global Climate Action Summit, as an opportunity to call on mayors, governors, business leaders and investors — as well as heads of state — to help accelerate this action.
These calls are supported by the indisputable fact that addressing the causes of air pollution — made more feasible thanks to the exponentially declining costs of renewables and nascent battery storage technology — results in immediate health benefits and helps preserve our future climate. For example, after eight coal and oil- fired power plants were retired in California, the rate of preterm births of mothers living nearby dropped within just one year.
In China, the health benefits of reducing power sector emissions in line with the Paris agreement could be up to nine times greater than the costs of implementation by 2050. The reduction of particulate pollution alone would lead to approximately 20,000 fewer deaths per year by 2030.
Driven in part by the demand for and the undeniable benefits of clean, breathable air, the paradigm in which development and economic growth depend on coal in particular is rapidly being replaced. The truth is that addressing global warming and its causes is now the only real way to secure economic growth. That means powering it with clean, everlasting, abundant alternatives. Governments everywhere can reap enormous benefits, including saving billions of dollars on health care, by fostering a shift to electric transport, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and scaling ecosystem restoration, including of mangroves, peat bogs and forests.
Countries all around the world are committing to rapidly phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles. India just announced that at least 15 percent of the vehicles on its roads will be electric in five years. In July, Ireland became the first country in the world to have voted to fully divest itself from fossil fuels. And just days ago, California passed legislation that ensures the state receive all of its power from renewable energy by 2045.
We know that a comprehensive response to climate change could be “the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.” The New Climate Economy report just out shows it will also deliver at least $26 trillion in economic gain over business as usual by 2030.
However, to do this within the window of time we have left to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we must act with boldness and unprecedented urgency. There is no time to lose. Every breath matters.
This was produced by The WorldPost, a partnership of the Berggruen Institute and The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/09/12/air-quality/?utm_term=.4fc7317e463b
-
Wheeler's Regional Haze Plan Emphasizes States' Role
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler, following up on a White House directive, is offering a broad-brush blueprint of his plans for the agency's program to reduce pollution-caused haze in the Grand Canyon and other national parks and wildness areas.
In the newly issued "regional haze reform roadmap," Wheeler said he wants to ensure that EPA "provides adequate support to states to enable timely and effective implementation" of the program.
Among the "principles" outlined in the three-page memo: giving states the lead in implementation and leveraging emissions reductions from other Clean Air Act programs to improve visibility on federal lands covered by the regional haze program.
With states facing a 2021 deadline for turning in their next round of implementation plans, EPA will provide guidance documents during the next year to help focus those efforts and "reduce and streamline the time and resources needed" to meet federal requirements, Wheeler wrote.
The memo follows an April presidential memorandum instructing EPA to continue to carry out its responsibilities for the haze program while "reducing unnecessary impediments to new manufacturing and business expansion essential for a growing economy."
While a previous EPA news release had said Wheeler issued the road map Monday, it is actually dated yesterday (Greenwire, Sept. 10).
The regional haze program, authorized by Congress more than 40 years ago, is intended to return natural visibility to 156 parks and wilderness areas by 2064.
Under the Obama administration, the program became a flashpoint as EPA repeatedly sought to crack down on coal-fired power plants that are major sources of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide that contribute to haze formation.
Republican state officials, including former EPA chief Scott Pruitt when he served as Oklahoma's attorney general, challenged those measures as overbearing and contrary to Congress' intent to give states the lead role.
The Trump administration, which has made protection of the coal industry a top priority, has already backed off in several major cases. In January, for example, Entergy Corp. said it would close two coal-fired plants in Arkansas if it had to comply with an Obama-era rule to install sulfur dioxide scrubbers (Greenwire, Jan. 19). EPA and Arkansas regulators are now working to replace that rule with a plan that environmental groups say will require little in the way of SO2 emissions reductions.
In Texas, EPA is similarly seeking to replace a 2016 plan requiring some coal-fired plants to add controls with an in-state emissions trading program.
Texas' handling of the regional haze program is already the subject of long-running litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; in a filing last week, a lawyer for environmental groups said they would probably pursue a fresh lawsuit with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if EPA finalizes that replacement plan.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096751
-
EPA Undercounts Areas Afflicted with Sooty Air — Study
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
The number of Americans living in areas out of compliance with a key air quality benchmark is roughly double the official figure, according to a new study that attributes more than 5,000 premature deaths so far to the lapse.
The study, released today by the think tank Resources for the Future, uses satellite readings to conclude that EPA has failed to classify 54 counties in 11 states in nonattainment for its 2012 standards for fine particulates.
About 24 million people live in those counties. Because states have to come up with pollution reduction plans for nonattainment areas, "thousands of lives could have been saved by their reclassification," the study says.
The paper attributes the stark undercount to gaps in EPA's ground-based air monitoring network. Currently, the agency lists just nine areas in nonattainment for the 2012 standards. Those areas are home to about 23 million people.
Based on the study's conclusion, the actual number living in parts of the United States that don't meet the fine particulate standards could instead top 47 million. Through the end of last year, the total number of avoidable premature deaths resulting from the misclassification is estimated at 5,452, with an accompanying "social cost" of $49 billion.
In an interview, Dan Sullivan, one of the study's authors, said a number of EPA officials, including Clint Woods, deputy head of the agency's air office, were briefed on the findings several weeks ago.
In an email today, EPA spokeswoman Molly Block declined to comment directly but said agency officials "will be looking closely at the data sources, methodologies, definitions and assumptions that underlie the study and its conclusions."
"It will be important," Block added, to understand the research in the context of the "rigorous" process EPA uses to make the nonattainment designations.
Fine particulate matter, often dubbed soot, is technically known as PM 2.5 because it is no more than 2.5 microns in diameter, or one-thirtieth the width of a human hair. Because such particles can penetrate deep into the lungs, they are considered a particularly dangerous pollutant.
EPA already links particulates to an array of heath and lung problems. Other research suggests a variety of other added risks, such as increased odds of developing autism for children whose mothers were exposed to high levels of fine particulates in late pregnancy.
EPA's 24-hour standard for fine particulate exposure is 35 micrograms per cubic meter of air; the annual threshold, which is the focus of the study, is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
Of 3,100 counties, only 651, or 21 percent of the total, have fine particulate monitors, according to the Resources for the Future study. Of those 651, 48 percent have just one monitor.
While it is commonly assumed that particulate concentrations recorded by those monitors are representative of the county as a whole, Sullivan and co-author Alan Krupnick write that "recent research shows that some monitors appear to be placed in areas of low pollution relative to elsewhere in the county."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096761
-
EPA Proposes Status Quo for Industrial Emissions
Sep 12, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
In the wake of a legally required review, EPA has tentatively decided to leave air toxics emissions standards for metal furniture coatings and two other industrial pollutant categories largely unchanged.
In a lengthy proposed rule published in today's Federal Register, the agency said it had found the risks posed by existing standards for all three to be acceptable and that they provided "an ample margin of safety to protect public health."
The other two categories covered by the proposal are surface coatings for refrigerators and other large appliances, and printing, dyeing and coating of fabrics and textiles used in making such products as tents and hot air balloons.
The toxic chemicals variously covered by the emissions limits include benzene, toluene and methylene chloride; nationwide, the regulations cumulatively apply to dozens of plants, according to the draft rule.
While keeping the status quo in place for the actual emissions limits, the draft rule would require facilities to report electronically, use high-efficiency spray equipment in some circumstances and eliminate exemptions for potential violations related to equipment startups, shutdowns and malfunctions, said an EPA summary.
During the public comment period that ends Oct. 29, the agency is also seeking feedback on the best level of emission control during malfunctions for the fabric coatings category and retesting requirements for control equipment whenever there is a "process change" that could harm compliance with an emissions limit, the summary said.
The proposed changes are the first since EPA issued the standards for all three categories early in the last decade; they follow a court order issued last year after environmental groups sued to force EPA to conduct the long-overdue "residual risk and technology reviews" (E&E News PM, March 23, 2017).
Under the Clean Air Act, those reviews are supposed to be conducted eight years after the original rules are released; in reality, EPA has repeatedly failed to meet that timetable.
The reviews are supposed to assess technical innovations that could further curb releases of air toxics, as well as new evidence of the health effects of individual pollutants.
In last year's order, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper of the District of Columbia gave EPA about three years to wrap up reviews for the three pollutant sources covered by the proposed rule, along with 10 others.
While Cooper left agency officials some leeway in setting the order, seven must be completed by the end of this year, with the other six following by June 2020.
The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments required EPA to set maximum achievable control technology standards for almost 190 hazardous air pollutants released by an array of industrial sources.
To date, EPA says it has issued 96 such standards covering 174 industry sectors, with 1.7 million tons of toxic emissions eliminated as a result.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/09/12/stories/1060096713
-
East Coast, Other States Spar Over EPA's Interstate Ozone Rule 'Closeout'
Sep 12, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
East Coast states are disputing EPA's proposed rule to “close out” the Obama-era Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) air trading program and faulting its conclusion that no further agency regulatory action beyond existing requirements is necessary to curb interstate ozone transport, clashing with Midwestern and Southern states and utilities that back the proposal.
In recent written comments, several Eastern states reject EPA's July 10 proposed finding that the CSAPR utility emissions cap-and-trade program will by 2023 have met its objective of ensuring compliance with federal ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The agency projects that all areas in the CSAPR trading program, as updated in 2016, will by 2023 meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb).
Therefore, EPA is proposing to close out the trading program, and says that further action by 20 states or the agency to curb interstate pollution to meet the 2008 NAAQS, beyond compliance with the existing CSAPR, is unnecessary. The Obama administration created the program to help states attain the standard by setting caps on ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from power plants in 28 states, which utilities could meet by either cutting emissions or purchasing emissions credits. The program also set caps on sulfur dioxide emissions to help reduce particulate matter levels.
The closeout finding does not apply to the tougher 2015 ozone NAAQS of 70 ppb. However, EPA projections show that most areas will also meet that standard in the coming years, with the exception of California. And agency air chief William Wehrum has hinted the agency is unlikely to pursue another major ozone transport program like CSAPR to help states in meeting the stricter standard.
But Eastern states in their comments say EPA's conclusion in the proposed closeout is wrong, and that the 2023 attainment date is later than their Clean Air Act-mandated deadlines to attain the NAAQS.
For example, in comments submitted to EPA on Aug. 31 ahead of a deadline for input that day, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation says, “EPA's analysis that the New York City metropolitan area will meet the 2008 ozone NAAQS by 2023 is both incredible and irrelevant: incredible because it is based on unreasonable assumptions and ignores EPA's own actions to allow increased pollution: irrelevant because the Clean Air Act requires lower ozone now, not in 2023.”
New York calls EPA's approach in the proposal “delusional,” and asks it to “impose more stringent and enforceable control measures” that will ensure attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS no later than the state's attainment deadline of July 20, 2021.
States must submit state implementation plans to EPA by Oct. 1 detailing steps they will take to limit their interstate ozone emissions where that is necessary to meet the 2015 ozone standard. The Trump EPA has shown no inclination to issue a “backstop” trading program such as CSAPR to achieve this where states fail to submit their SIPs.
Regulatory Rollbacks
Further complicating the situation are EPA's proposals to roll-back Obama-era rules, including scrapping the Clean Power Plan (CPP) greenhouse gas rule for power plants and replacing it with a much narrower rule achieving fewer GHG cuts, and fewer “co-benefit” reductions in conventional air pollution. The proposed replacement rule, dubbed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, also contains an exemption from new source review (NSR) air permitting obligations that some critics say could keep some old coal plants operating longer without air pollution controls, causing an increase in ozone-forming emissions.
In addition, the agency has announced its intent to reconsider the Obama EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule limiting power plant air toxics emissions, which achieved large reductions in ozone-forming emissions. Although MATS has been fully implemented and many of those reductions will likely be permanent, the potential exists for an increase in power plant pollution.
With respect to the Clean Power Plan, sources note that the CSAPR closeout proposal does not assume CPP implementation, and hence EPA's modeling still assumes attainment of ozone NAAQS even without any CPP co-benefits for conventional pollution.
But the exemption from NSR requirements to impose tougher pollution controls for old coal-fired plants undergoing modifications that improve energy efficiency would have more uncertain air quality impacts.
Environmentalists say it will likely lead to lost opportunities to reduce pollution from power plants. In contrast, industry sources doubt how many power plants will actually avail themselves of the NSR exemption, if finalized, as the power sector continues to transition to natural gas power and renewables, driven in part by economics.
The potential air quality impacts from EPA scrapping or overhauling MATS are also hard to predict, sources say. Many power sector sources oppose scrapping the rule outright, and instead propose making its implementation more flexible, or replacement with another regulatory program to address power plant emissions.
Also, EPA is proposing to roll back GHG and fuel economy standards for cars, and to eliminate limits on the sale of high-polluting “glider” trucks that combine new chassis with old engines. Although EPA's “Tier 3” emissions limits will remain in place to curb ozone-forming pollution, limiting the impact of relaxed fuel economy standards on ozone, critics of the glider proposal say it will increase emissions of NOx.
States' Divisions
New York and other states skeptical of EPA's CSAPR closeout rule point to EPA's failure to consider the impact of regulatory rollbacks on ozone. They cite the proposed ACE rule's own regulatory impact analysis, which predicts “up to 230 additional deaths from elevated ozone levels,” New York says.
Delaware in its Aug. 31 comments makes similar observations to New York, questioning the 2023 modeling date and the technical quality of EPA's modeling, and asserting that EPA is relying on controls in upwind states that are not legally enforceable, meaning emissions could go back up in the future.
Separately, Maryland in its Aug. 31 comments says that EPA's emissions modeling includes a series of assumptions about plant retirements and fuel switches that cannot be confirmed. The emissions cuts EPA assumes are not “permanent or enforceable” as required by the Clean Air Act, Maryland says.
But upwind states disagree with the East Coast states and are supporting the closeout. For example, Michigan in its Aug. 30 comments says EPA “makes a solid case that efforts to require additional actions (beyond CSAPR Update compliance) from CSAPR states to alleviate transport issues could not be implemented effectively before 2023.”
In Aug. 23 comments, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality says, “The achievement of attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in all areas by 2023 through the continued phase-in of existing regulatory programs, continued reductions from other existing regulatory programs, and changes in market conditions means that it is unnecessary for states or EPA to devote additional scarce resources to developing further requirements for emission reductions to satisfy interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.”
The Midwest Ozone Group (MOG), representing power generators, says in its Aug. 31 comments that “state of the art” modeling it commissioned from consulting firm Alpine Geophysics supports EPA's conclusions. In fact, MOG finds that all air quality monitors in the East will show attainment of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023, not just those in the CSAPR area. MOG calls attention to the dominant role of mobile sources in generating NOx.
“We strongly agree with EPA that mobile source emissions are the dominant contributor to predicted ozone concentrations across the nation,” the group says. “[W]e urge EPA to account for these emissions and to recognize the need for additional reductions in onroad and nonroad mobile source emissions as an additional element of conservatism in this proposal and as a critical element in the effort to apportion compliance obligations associated with the 2015 ozone NAAQS.”
Other power sector groups including the Utility Air Regulatory Group in its Aug. 31 comments and the Class of '85 Regulatory Response Group in its Aug. 31 comments also back EPA's proposed CSAPR closeout finding.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/east-coast-other-states-spar-over-epas-interstate-ozone-rule-closeout
-
UN Chief: World Has Less Than 2 Years to Avoid ‘Runaway Climate Change'
Sep 12, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Aris Folley
António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general, told global leaders this week that the world has less than two years to avoid “runaway climate change.”
“If we do not change course by 2020, we risk missing the point where we can avoid runaway climate change,” Guterres said during a speech at the U.N. headquarters in New York.
“Climate change is the defining issue of our time, and we are at a defining moment,” he said. “Scientists have been telling us for decades. Over and over again. Far too many leaders have refused to listen.”
“The time has come for our leaders to show they care about the people whose fate they hold in their hands,” Guterres said. “We need to rapidly shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels.”
Guterres praised the Paris Climate Accord during his address but also called for more efforts to reduce the emissions that scientists say have been warming the planet over the past century.
“These targets were really the bare minimum to avoid the worst impacts of climate change,” Guterres said. “But scientists tell us that we are far off track. According to a U.N. study, the commitments made so far by the parties to the Paris Agreement represent just one-third of what is needed.”
The goal of the Paris agreement is to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in order to prevent what many scientists say would be catastrophic impacts on the global climate.
President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the pact last year, a move that separated the U.S. from the rest of the world on climate change. At the time, Trump called the climate change agreement “unfair at the highest level to the United States.”
Guterres on Monday also rejected claims from critics who say that shifting away from fossil fuels like oil and coal would be costly, calling that notion “hogwash.”
“Over the past decade, extreme weather and the health impact of burning fossil fuels have cost the American economy at least $240 billion a year,” Guterres said. “This cost will explode by 50 percent in the coming decade alone. By 2030, the loss of productivity caused by a hotter world could cost the global economy $2 trillion.”
Guterres called on world leaders to step up their efforts to combat climate change.
“What we still lack, even after the Paris Agreement, is leadership and the ambition to do what is needed,” he said.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/406291-un-chief-the-world-has-less-than-2-years-to-avoid-runaway-climate
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested