Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - November 5, 2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Specialty Chemical Stocks for the Trader's Lab
Nov 5, 2018 | Investopedia
By Tim Smith
The chemicals industry, which is part of the basic materials sector, often gets overshadowed by news of the latest catalysts driving oil and gold prices. -
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, w/c Nov 5
Nov 5, 2018 | Platts
US ethylene participants are expected to confirm a marketwide settlement for the October ethylene contract on Monday. -
(ACC Mentioned) More Sales, Broader Safeguards May Follow Chemical Rule Deluge
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA went from issuing virtually no significant new use rules for new chemicals since the Trump administration arrived to releasing eight batches of these rules—covering a total of 296 new chemicals—since Aug. 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) Drive for N.Y. Drinking Water Standards Faces Industry Pushback
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Chemical companies and New York businesses are pushing back against the possibility that New York could set the toughest standards in the country by the end of this year for three drinking water contaminants. -
US EPA Proposes Technical Changes to Composite Wood Emissions Standards
Nov 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA is proposing technical amendments to its formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products. -
Regulation of Foam's Toxic Chemicals a Moving Target
Nov 5, 2018 | Rapid City Journal
By Samuel Blackstone
A federal health organization was set to publish a study earlier this year that would cast serious doubt on levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe in drinking water. -
Norway Finds Reprotoxin Leaching from 'Slime' Toy Products
Nov 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Norwegian Environmental Directorate has removed some 'slime' toy products from the market after it found they contained illegal levels of the reprotoxin boron. -
Total Partners with Sempra on Cameron LNG Expansion and More
Nov 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
French energy major Total said Monday it plans to partner with San Diego-based Sempra Energy for the expansion of the Cameron LNG project in Louisiana near the Texas border. -
With Democrats Poised to Take House, Energy Sector Faces Reckoning
Nov 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
A two-year campaign by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations to boost oil and gas drilling and other industrial activity is facing the prospect of a drawn-out congressional investigation should the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives. -
U.S. Officially the World’s Largest Crude Oil Producer
Nov 5, 2018 | The New American
By Bob Adelmann
In an interview with CNNMoney in June, Pioneer Natural Resources Chairman Scott Sheffield said he expected U.S. crude oil production to surpass 11 million barrels a day by this fall, making the United States the world’s top oil producer. -
(ACC Blog) Help Avoid OSHA's Top 10 Violations with Product Stewardship Resources
Nov 5, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
During a conference session on Oct. 24, at the National Safety Congress & Expo in Houston, the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) announced its list of the top 10 occupational safety violations, occurring for fiscal year 2017. -
Morale Slumps at Embattled Agency
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Job satisfaction at the Chemical Safety Board has declined again after a brief turnaround under the leadership of former Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland, leading government watchdogs to question the management of the long-troubled agency. -
Trump Disputes Federal Climate Report's Findings, Says He Hasn’t Seen It
Nov 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump disputed a recent federal government report's conclusion that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change, but also said he has not seen the report. -
Supreme Court Allows Kids' Case to Move Forward
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Landmark litigation brought by young people challenging government inaction on climate change is set to move forward. -
EPA Advisory Panel to Review Standards for 2 Contaminants
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A newly reconstituted EPA advisory committee is charging ahead with reviews of national air quality standards for two key pollutants.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 3 Specialty Chemical Stocks for the Trader's Lab
Nov 5, 2018 | Investopedia
By Tim Smith
The chemicals industry, which is part of the basic materials sector, often gets overshadowed by news of the latest catalysts driving oil and gold prices. The American Chemistry Council (ACC) believes that the U.S. chemicals industry is positioned for continued growth due to strong global growth prospects, an increase in manufacturing activity, rising exports, balanced chemical inventories, robust demand from end-use markets and favorable shale gas economics. It expects chemical production to expand 3.4% in 2018 and 3.6% in 2019, which bodes well for chemical stocks.
Investors who want to trade leading names in the space should consider these three specialty chemical stocks that look poised for a move.Albemarle Corporation (ALB)
Founded in 1994 and headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, Albemarle is one of the world's largest lithium producers. The company, with a market capitalization of $11.54 billion, sees lithium demand remaining robust due to the growth of electric cars – through their battery use. Albemarle also produces bromine – a dark toxic liquid used in fire safety chemicals, disinfectants and sanitizers. As of Nov. 5, 2018, the company's stock has returned -15.99% year to date (YTD), but it has returned 16% over the past three months. Albemarle offers investors a 1.26% dividend yield.
Albemarle stock started to show price and volume momentum last week ahead of its earnings report, scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 7, in which analysts expect the company to report earnings per share (EPS) of $1.25 for the quarter ended September 2018. On Nov. 1, the share price broke above a downtrend line that has remained intact throughout most of 2018. The 50-day simple moving average(SMA) has also recently crossed above the 200-day SMA – referred to as "golden cross" – suggesting further upside price movement. Traders could buy the current breakout to ride momentum into the earnings report. A tight stop-loss ordershould sit below the downtrend line to protect trading capital. Consider booking profits at the $118 level, where the stock's price should encounter resistance from the Jan. 18 gap below the 200-day SMA.
Ecolab Inc. (ECL)
Ecolab, with a market cap of $44.66 billion, manufactures and sells cleaning and sanitation products for hospitality, healthcare and industrial markets. The company also offers customers tailored solutions in water and energy end markets. Trading at $154.59 and delivering a 1.06% dividend yield, Ecolab stock has returned 16.13% YTD, outperforming the industry average gain by roughly 2.5% as of Nov. 5, 2018. Analysts project a 2018 EPS growth rate of 3.5% for the company.
The share price of Ecolab has traded in a steady uptrend for the past nine months. The stock gapped below the 200-day SMA when the company reported mixed third quarter earnings on Oct. 30 but staged an impressive intraday reversal to close over 1.5% higher for the day. Those who wish to buy should look for a pullback to the $147.5 level, where the stock is likely to find support from the uptrend line dating back to early February. Traders could place stops below the 200-day SMA and set a take-profit order at the $160 level – an area where the price may find resistance from the September swing high.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. (IFF)
International Flavors & Fragrances produces flavors and fragrances for food, beverages, household goods and personal care products. The company's two self-explanatory segments – flavors and fragrances – generate roughly equal revenue. International Flavors & Fragrances stock, with a market cap of $15.57 billion and a 2% dividend yield, has returned -2.96% for the year but is up 11% over the past three months. The company reports its third quarter earnings Monday, Nov. 5, and analysts expect EPS to come in at $1.54.
International Flavors & Fragrances' stock chart has formed a broad inverse head and shoulders (H&S) chart pattern between February and October. Like Albemarle, the 50-day SMA has recently crossed above the 200-day SMA, signaling bullish price action ahead. Traders should seek an entry point close to the inverse H&S pattern's neckline, which now acts as support, at $141. A stop-loss order could sit just below the pattern's right shoulder at the $130 level. The distance between the pattern's head and neckline could be added to the entry price to project a profit target ($20 + $141 = a profit target of $161).
https://www.investopedia.com/news/3-specialty-chemical-stocks-traders-lab/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Americas Petrochemicals Outlook, w/c Nov 5
Nov 5, 2018 | Platts
US ethylene participants are expected to confirm a marketwide settlement for the October ethylene contract on Monday. There was no confirmation of a marketwide contract settlement on Friday, but trade participants had reported some settlements at a 2.50 cent/lb decline from September. A 2.50-cent decline would take October ethylene contracts to 31.25 cents/lb. Meanwhile, trade sources have said Chevron Phillips's Port Arthur, Texas, facility, should be back online heading into this week, following a 60-day turnaround. In the propylene market, with all three propane dehydrogenation units in the US, inventory is expected to continue growing. Downstream, no other polypropylene producers have come out with price increases for November. Braskem America said in October it will apply a 2 cents/lb ($44/mt) increase in addition to any change in pricing for feedstock polymer-grade propylene (PGP) between October and November, but trade sources have said the market may not accept the increase as propylene prices have come down. However, LyondellBasell said it will implement a 3 cents/lb price increase for all North American polypropylene products sold, effective December 1, according to a letter obtained Friday by S&P Global Platts. The letter, which was dated November 1, said the company will implement the price adjustment for all PP products, in alignment with any published changes in US Gulf Coast propylene monomer prices for December as compared with November.US AROMATICS
US benzene prices were expected to remain soft amid continued weak derivative demand from the styrene segment as well as on the back of recent pressure by a softer energy complex. Buy interest was likely to remain scant in the face of sharply falling prices, sources said. US benzene prices were hovering at a 19-month low to start the week and were expected to post continued declines. Sources anticipated that this would put continued pressure on softening styrene prices, which were last talked at near $1,010/mt FOB USG. Toluene prices were last assessed at 262 cents/gal and sources said that demand would likely continue to come via MSTDP margins, which benefited from a rollover in the October paraxylene contract. US xylene prices were expected to be flat to lower as recent declines seen in the other aromatics were somewhat offset by an increase in mixed and paraxylene exports out of the US in October and November.LATIN AROMATICS
Toluene and xylene pricing is unlikely to rise this week as it tracks a US market where buying interest has been absent, sources said. Friday saw FOB Brazil pricing for toluene fall to 3.5-month low while the xylene assessment dipped to a three-month low, as both were pressured by relatively soft demand in the US, sources said.US POLYETHYLENE
Polyethylene market players enter the first full week of November with an eye on producer strategies and looking for additional direction from the impending release of October output and sales statistics, sources said. After September's data from the American Chemistry Council showed reduced output sales for US and Canadian producers, and considering consistent feedback of a bearish market in October, buyers in the region are heard to be digging in for a price floor as we enter what is typically a destocking season, sources have said. Most US producers have proposed 3 cents/lb price hikes on the table for each of November and December, but market feedback has pointed to neither having much support after a similar increase was rejected in October, sources have said.US VINYLS
US export PVC pricing for November was expected to settle this week after protracted negotiations. A producer had nominated November pricing up $20/mt from October levels, in a range of $790-$805/mt FAS Houston, while others had offers at rollover levels of $765/mt and $760/mt. As of October 31, talks were largely quiet, with buyers pushing for lower pricing while producers resisted pressure to reduce. However, market sources say global demand remained soft in key markets such as North Africa, the Middle East, Europe and Asia, though the CFR India price rose $5/mt to $905/mt on a CFR basis as demand inched up. A source said activity appeared to be picking up, though buyers still pushed for bargain prices that would require further price reductions from US producers unwilling to comply. Shintech was expected to wrap up its turnaround at its Plaquemine, Louisiana, complex in the coming days, but OxyChem had a turnaround coming up in late November at its Pasadena, Texas, operations, that was expected to further limit export volume availability.LATIN POLYMERS
PE buyers in Brazil could be poised to show more of an appetite in November as consumer confidence improves and the nation's currency maintains recent gains in the wake of far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro being elected president in late October, sources have said. Buying for much of the third quarter was subdued due to seasonal slowdowns and a weak Brazilian real, but activity has slowly picked up as the currency has strengthened by 11.6% since its valuation against the US dollar reached its weakest point in 2018 at 4.1807 on September 18, according to feedback from sources and S&P Global Platts data. Additionally, import pricing could face pressure from local producer Braskem, who was heard lowering domestic PE pricing by Real 400-500/mt ($108-$135/mt), sources have said, adding that the reductions could also serve to help the company destock after months of weak sales. Braskem representatives have not responded to a request for confirmation at those levels. Along South America's Pacific Coast, PE buyers enter November looking for additional discounts on US-origin offers in the wake of US producers scrapping a 3 cents/lb hike and instead rolling over on domestic contract pricing in October, sources said. WCSA market players have termed current conditions a "buyer's market," while indicating restocking might not occur until December on the expectation further reductions could be in store through the end of the year.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/110518-americas-petrochemicals-outlook-w-c-nov-5
-
(ACC Mentioned) More Sales, Broader Safeguards May Follow Chemical Rule Deluge
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA went from issuing virtually no significant new use rules for new chemicals since the Trump administration arrived to releasing eight batches of these rules—covering a total of 296 new chemicals—since Aug. 1.
The rules broaden sales opportunities for both the companies that designed these chemicals and ones that want to make or use them, Richard Engler, who was a chemist at the Environmental Protection Agency for 17 years, told Bloomberg Environment.
The regulatory surge broadens the health and environmental safeguards the agency already required when it reviewed those chemicals, Jeffery Morris, director of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, told Bloomberg Environment Nov. 1.
But details in those rules released since Aug. 1, and assumptions that the agency made about the chemicals’ effects on people and the environment, weaken protections required by the the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments, environmental health groups said.
Also, the most recent batch of new rules, which the EPA released Oct. 16, allowed 13 new chemicals with agency-recognized potential risks onto the market and violated the nation’s main chemicals law, according to Daniel Rosenberg, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund.
Among the 296 new chemicals covered by EPA’s recent rules—which represent more than a fourth of the roughly 1,000 new chemicals the agency reviews annually— are ones destined to coat metal, make optical lenses, dye paper, and clean electronic equipment. Chemical manufacturers that seek approval to make these new chemicals generally ask the EPA to keep their names confidential in order to protect their research and development investments.
Safety CheckpointSignificant new use rules (SNURs) under TSCA are a safety checkpoint. The rules describe ways the EPA has determined that a new chemical could be inhaled, ingested, touch the skin, or get into the air, water, or soil, and possibly pose an unreasonable risk of injuring people or the environment. The agency dubs that “use” of the chemical as new.
For example, a chemical could harm aquatic life if released into water, so the agency makes sure it wouldn’t be released into water, Morris said. The agency does that in several ways.
The company that wants to produce a new chemical may not plan to release it into water or it could agree not to, he said. It also could sign a legally enforceable consent order barring it from doing so.
The agency then issues an immediately-effective or a proposed significant new use rule—or both simultaneously—that requires the original manufacturer and other companies to notify EPA 90 days before they release that new chemical into water.
The 90 days gives the agency a chance to see if the particular way that company would release the new chemical to water is a concern, the EPA’s Morris said.
“We want to look at it and evaluate if that would pose an unreasonable risk,” he said.
The agency then can impose additional limits on a proposed new use, and it can require the company to produce data so it can better understand the potential problem.
SNURs can play a useful and appropriate role that completes a new chemical’s entry into commerce, Karyn Schmidt, senior director for chemical regulation, regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council, told Bloomberg Environment.New use rules aren’t the most urgent problem that the council’s chemical manufacturers face, she said. Instead, it is the months—in some cases years—it takes the EPA to decide whether a new chemical can be made, Schmidt said by email.
The law gives the agency 90 days to complete its review, allowing for a one-time 90-day extension.
Catch UpThe EPA is working to speed its new chemical reviews, according to Morris.
The new use rules issued since August show new compounds already have reached the market, and the EPA is catching up by issuing SNURs when those types of rules are required, Morris said. The pace will level off after the EPA gets caught up, he said.
The EPA’s release of the new use rules is good news for the original manufacturers, said Engler, who became chemistry director at the Washington office of Bergeson & Campbell PC after leaving the EPA.
Many consent orders include restrictions limiting how far down the supply chain a new chemical can be sold until SNURs are issued, he said.
Once the SNURs are proposed, the new chemicals can be sold further down the supply chain.
Failure to Protect?The infrastructure the EPA has built since 2016 to oversee new chemicals is so riddled with cracks that the agency is failing to protect people and the environment as amended TSCA requires, Rosenberg and Denison told Bloomberg Environment.
Denison cited hundreds of details in restrictions the agency has—or hasn’t—mandated for new chemicals.
The combined impact of these safety gaps is that the EPA is failing to protect workers, consumers, the public, and the environment, and is violating the the law, he said.
The Oct. 16 batch of SNURs illustrates another way the agency is defying TSCA, according to Rosenberg.
The TSCA amendments require the EPA to control potentially unreasonable risks from known, intended, or reasonably foreseeable uses of a new chemical before it enters commerce, Rosenberg said.
The agency allowed the 13 chemicals identified in that rule to enter commerce despite recognizing they could pose risks, he said. The agency then proposed the SNURs to control the reasonably foreseeable risks.
The EPA proposed that strategy in December 2017, prompting the Natural Resources Defense Council to challenge it in a federal appeals court.
The council then dropped its lawsuit in August because the EPA hadn’t used its proposed strategy. Now it has.
The American Chemistry Council’s Schmidt said the EPA’s strategy holds promise.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/more-sales-broader-safeguards-may-follow-chemical-rule-deluge
-
(ACC Mentioned) Drive for N.Y. Drinking Water Standards Faces Industry Pushback
Nov 5, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
Chemical companies and New York businesses are pushing back against the possibility that New York could set the toughest standards in the country by the end of this year for three drinking water contaminants.
They aren’t recommending specific numerical limits but want the state to set standards based on sound science and not yield to what they call political pressure from environmental groups and state lawmakers.
New York is expected to join at least eight other states that aren’t waiting for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and have taken action to regulate the chemicals. At least 10 other states are considering action.
The standards would set maximum contaminant levels for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), and 1,4 dioxane.
The state Drinking Water Quality Council blew through an Oct. 2 statutory deadline by failing to recommend levels for the standards. It will meet sometime by the end of the year to make its recommendations, but no date has been set.
‘Very Concerned’“We are very concerned about the politicization of the development of maximum contaminant levels [MCL],” Darren Suarez, director of government affairs for the Business Council of New York State Inc., told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
“If significant resources are diverted to address a politically expedient MCL we will miss meaningful opportunities for scientifically certain health risk reductions,” he said.
The American Chemistry Council, in a statement, said, “while we recognize the state’s interest in moving quickly to the development of standards for PFOS and PFOA, ACC urges the Council and the Health Department to take a thoughtful scientific approach to assessing the available information prior to proposing MCLs for these two substances.”
“ACC does not believe that there is a sufficient scientific basis to support the development of a combined standard for PFOS and PFOA,” it said.
Two Democratic state lawmakers have asked the Health Department to move forward immediately by promulgating regulations without a recommendation by the Drinking Water Quality Council.The lawmakers, in letters to the state health commissioner, are calling for a combined MCL of 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, and an MCL of 0.3 parts per billion for 1,4 dioxane.
Lowest in CountryThat PFOA/PFOS level would be the lowest in the country and is in line with what environmental groups have been recommending.
But Kimberly Ong, a staff attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said recent studies have led it to lower its recommendation. The group will be submitting new comments to the state, calling for a combined MCL of 2 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS, she told Bloomberg Environment.
The Drinking Water Quality Council will be basing its recommendation on risk assessment data provided by the Health Department’s Bureau of Toxic Substance Assessment. Thomas Johnson, a research scientist at the bureau, told the council at an Oct. 17 meeting that an MCL between 4 and 35 parts per trillion for PFOA and between 8 and 35 parts per trillion for PFOS is “scientifically defensible.”
He said the Drinking Water Quality Council, before coming to a decision, must decide what “reference dose” to use and what “exposure parameters.”
Reference dose is the term used in chemical risk assessment to determine an acceptable daily intake over a lifetime, while the exposure findings in this instance include total exposures to the chemicals including sources other than drinking water.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/drive-for-ny-drinking-water-standards-faces-industry-pushback
-
US EPA Proposes Technical Changes to Composite Wood Emissions Standards
Nov 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
The US EPA is proposing technical amendments to its formaldehyde emissions standards for composite wood products.
These standards – adopted on 12 December 2016 – require suppliers, importers and manufacturers of hardwood plywood, medium-density fiberboard and particleboard to limit the products’ formaldehyde emissions.
They are intended to reduce exposure to formaldehyde and "result in benefits from avoided adverse health effects", and are based on the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) requirements for the products.
The proposed changes largely address issues related to the testing and certification provisions of the rule. These include removing the requirement for annual correlations between third-party certifiers and other mill quality testing methods, as well as various labelling requirement clarifications.
According to the proposal, published in the Federal Register, the changes are intended to streamline compliance programmes and further align the federal approach with the CARB ATCM Phase II.
The proposed rule was informed by public comments and a June meeting that sought feedback for addressing technical issues. Among discussion topics were correlation and equivalence of test methods, treatment of test data and sampling requirements.
The agency had amended the rule several times since 2016 to address other issues. These included allowing early labelling of compliant composite wood products and extending the compliance dates from those included in the 12 December 2016 final rule.
Public comments on the latest proposed changes will be accepted until 3 December.
The EPA says it is considering using an immediate or 15-day effective date upon publication of the final rule. This is in order to allow stakeholders time to adjust their certification ahead of the 22 March 2019 TSCA Title VI rule’s CARB reciprocity end date.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71592/us-epa-proposes-technical-changes-to-composite-wood-emissions-standards
-
Regulation of Foam's Toxic Chemicals a Moving Target
Nov 5, 2018 | Rapid City Journal
By Samuel Blackstone
A federal health organization was set to publish a study earlier this year that would cast serious doubt on levels of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) the Environmental Protection Agency deems safe in drinking water.
But the report’s release was stymied by EPA and White House officials over concerns that it would create, according to emails from a Trump administration aide, a “public relations nightmare.”
“The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these numbers is going to be huge,” an unidentified White House aide wrote in the January email. “The impact to EPA and (the Defense Department) is going to be extremely painful. We cannot seem to get ATSDR (the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be.”
Amid the backlash following the email’s disclosure, the ATSDR report was published June 20. It suggested slicing EPA levels nearly 10 times lower than the current value. It also recommended setting levels for two PFAS the EPA does not currently monitor, including one chemical closely associated with the firefighting foam that has contaminated soil, surface water and drinking water in Box Elder and Sioux Falls.
That controversy wasn’t novel to the debate surrounding PFAS. Rather, it was indicative of the system that has created today’s situation.
Scattershot standard
In 2009, the EPA set its first lifetime health-advisory level for two PFAS: pefluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). The level — 400 parts per trillion (ppt) or about 20 drops of water in an Olympic sized pool — was an assurance that humans could expect no adverse health effects from consuming water with such concentrations over the course of their lifetimes.
Seven years later, the assurance dropped to 70 ppt. Today, that level serves as a red line declaring water as safe when below the level and dangerous when above. It also determines if the DOD supplies long-term drinking water to affected homes, which typically only occurs when a home’s water source tests above the level.
Such advisory levels, while helpful as a reference point, are non-regulatory and non-enforceable, which means they do little to hold polluters accountable. Federal drinking-water standards, on the other hand, are enforceable. With a PFAS standard, the EPA can require liable parties to pay for the contamination’s investigation, cleanup and future long-term costs like providing alternative water sources. But no such standard exists today.
In its absence, some states have begun to take regulatory matters into their own hands. South Dakota, however, is not among those states and has no plans to set standards. As a result, the state cannot require public water systems to routinely monitor for PFAS.
Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager with the state Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), said the state still has the power to force polluters to cleanup contamination when it pollutes groundwater or poses a threat to public health. Still, the DENR would like to see a federal EPA standard.
“We don’t have a national consensus and that’s really what we need,” said Mark Meyer, administrator of the DENR’s drinking-water program. “In the absence of them (EPA) taking the lead, it makes it more difficult for states. I think the consensus is ‘look, there needs to be a standard.’”
Sioux Falls city officials agree. Utilities Operation Administrator Trent Lubbers said that until a standard is established, deciding how to replace the city’s lost water production will be a challenge. Wells composing about 12 percent of the city’s water production are contaminated with PFAS above the EPA level.
“It’s difficult for us to come up with a strategy until we know what the regulatory standard will be,” Lubbers said.
Some states aren’t willing to wait. Vermont and Minnesota have set PFAS levels as low as 20 ppt and Washington recently became the first state to ban the chemicals in food packaging and firefighting foam. Meanwhile, New York and New Jersey are working toward a state drinking-water standard, and nine other states have formally adopted the EPA’s 70 ppt level to give them broader enforcement powers.
‘We don’t have any idea’
Before there were stymied reports or debate about EPA levels, there was David Savitz, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Brown University. Savitz, along with two other doctors, was one of the first people to study the health effects of PFAS in the mid-2000s in the wake of a class-action lawsuit against DuPont. The results didn’t get much attention back then. That changed around 2012.
“In the last five to seven years … it’s really just a flurry of recognition,” said Savitz, who chairs a state-funded team launched in Michigan in 2017 to combat the state’s PFAS crisis, where over 30 PFAS contamination sites have been identified. Different levels between the EPA, ATSDR and states are not surprising, Savitz said.
“What’s the right number?” he said. “Well, we don’t have any idea. I don’t think there is a right and a wrong. They’re just based on different assumptions and different calculations, but it’s all really in that ballpark.”
Part of the discrepancy is timing. The ATSDR report used new research on PFAS’s effects on the immune system, information that was unavailable to the EPA when it set its level in 2016. The ATSDR report also relied more on human studies; the EPA leaned on animal studies.
“These are just very approximate, these estimates,” Savitz said. “They’re all highly speculative, and I think that’s just going to remain that way.”
Other scientists see more cause for alarm.
“The significance of the conflict between the ATSDR’s minimal risk level and the EPA’s health advisory is that yet another group of scientists have looked at the evidence and decided that the EPA levels are too high to protect public health,” David Andrews, Ph.D., a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, said in a news release.
'Confidential business information'
Before companies like 3M and DuPont — two of the largest PFAS manufacturers over the past half century — can manufacture a compound, they must complete certain federal requirements. One is to submit what’s known as a “pre-manufacture notice” to the EPA detailing the chemical’s identity, production volume, use, disposal practices, potential for human exposure and available testing data.PauseCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time0:00Stream TypeLIVELoaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00Fullscreen00:00Mute
But according to a 2007 EPA report, only 15 percent of those notices include information about the chemical’s potential impact on health. Most of the time, the EPA nonetheless reviews the information and gives the manufacturer the green light. From 1979 to mid-2016, the EPA required additional health/safety tests or limited a chemical’s production while safety concerns were addressed in only 10 percent of new applications.
Part of the problem isn’t the EPA but the laws. To suspend or reject a manufacturer’s chemical because of potential risk, the burden of proof is on the EPA. Elsewhere, like in the European Union, manufacturers carry that burden.
“The industry is a little backwards,” Meyer said of America’s regulations for chemical manufacturing. “These AFFF (firefighting foam) compounds have been banned, but there’s other replacement compounds that are being used instead.”
The replacements highlight another problem with EPA laws. Because the EPA must assess chemicals individually, rather than as a family, no one is quite sure how many PFAS there are. One study found between 500 and 700 different PFAS compounds at sites where firefighting foam was used. Toxicity questions abound.
The unknown number of PFAS isn’t an accident.
A 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office found about 95 percent of pre-manufacture notices sent to the EPA didn’t include information as basic as the chemical’s name and structure, making it nearly impossible to track.
For over 100 new PFAS notices reviewed by the Environmental Working Group where the chemical posed a risk to human health and/or the environment, more than 85 percent didn’t include the chemical’s name and more than 55 percent didn’t disclose the manufacturer.
The secrecy skirts by because it’s claimed to be “confidential business information.” According to the investigative news site The Intercept, “manufacturers have used the CBI (confidential business information) shield to withhold the names and identities of 17,585 of the chemicals now registered with the EPA.”
New and improved?
In August 2016, the Air Force spent $6.2 million on new firefighting foam without PFOA/PFOS. At Ellsworth and Sioux Falls Regional Airport, the installation is nearly complete.
The new foam still contains PFAS, but with a shorter six carbon-chain. Also known as C6 — the old PFOA/PFOS-laden foam had an eight-carbon chain, called C8 — manufacturers claim the health effects are mitigated because C6 breaks down faster in the human body.
According to a 2011 document from the European Food Safety Authority, the half-life of a six carbon-chain PFAS replacement made by 3M was between 12 and 34 days in the bodies of three workers. C8’s half life in the human body can be up to four years.
“The main feature is they are simply less persistent,” Savitz said of C6 and other short-chain PFAS. “They don’t last as long in people.”
The reduced persistence in humans doesn’t translate to the environment, though. In a DuPont report submitted to the EPA in 2010 for one of its C6 chemicals, “the biodegradation of the test substance was 0%.”
Critics question the importance of reduced half-lives when people are continuously exposed. They also point to health studies showing similar health effects from C6 and C8 exposure. Savitz admitted as much.
“We don’t know exactly the subtleties of the toxicity, but the general strategy of making chemicals that don’t last as long, it seems logical that it would move things in a better direction,” he said.
One PFAS in opposition to that theory is the four-carbon chain Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS), which has been linked in animal studies to lower infant body weight, delayed development, changes in thyroid hormone levels, cellular changes in kidneys and female reproductive effects in offspring exposed during pregnancy. In 2017, Minnesota set a drinking water “guidance level” at 2 parts per billion. PFBS was found in all 32 wells sampled on Ellsworth Air Force Base, with 13 wells testing above Minnesota’s guidance level.
The path forward
In 2001, a class-action lawsuit was filed against DuPont on behalf of around 80,000 people whose drinking water was contaminated by DuPont’s Parkersburg, West Virginia plant where Teflon was manufactured. Aside from creating the panel Savitz served on to conduct the early study of PFAS’s health effects, it ended with a $300 million-plus settlement that led to over 3,500 individual lawsuits, costing DuPont and its subsidiary, Chemours, another $671 million. The EPA also fined DuPont $16.5 million in 2005 for covering up its knowledge of PFAS toxicity since the 1950s, the largest civil administrative penalty the EPA had ever levied at the time.
Since then, more lawsuits have piled up against PFAS manufacturers like DuPont and 3M, which produces PFAS-laden Scotchgard. Lawsuits against companies that used PFAS-laden products in their goods and contaminated nearby waterways, like Saint-Gobain Corporation in New York and Wolverine World Wide in Michigan, have also begun to accumulate.
In one lawsuit this year in Minnesota, an initial $5 billion lawsuit filed by the state against 3M ended with an $850 million settlement. New York, Michigan, Alabama, Vermont and other states also have pending lawsuits and/or smaller settlements.
Two years before DuPont merged with Dow Chemical to form DowDuPont in 2017, it spun off its chemical division into a separate company, Chemours. Any future PFAS contamination liabilities from DuPont’s actions are now the problem of Chemours, a much smaller and less well-funded company many believe exists only to limit DuPont’s future liability.
South Dakota’s liable parties can’t resort to the corporate hide-and-seek games, though. The DENR has already identified Ellsworth Air Force Base and by extension, the Air Force and Department of Defense, as liable for contamination in Box Elder. In Sioux Falls, the South Dakota Air National Guard — again, the DOD — and the city are at fault.
South Dakotans wondering what may transpire in the future have plenty of case studies to examine. In fact, 40 states are currently experiencing PFAS contamination of some kind. Judging by past responses across the U.S. and by comments of those involved in the investigations at Ellsworth and Sioux Falls, continued private-well sampling is certain. Sampling of people’s blood for PFAS seems a real possibility.
https://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/regulation-of-foam-s-toxic-chemicals-a-moving-target/article_7cec4a4e-0e15-53b6-b48d-32c66e148d4b.html
-
Norway Finds Reprotoxin Leaching from 'Slime' Toy Products
Nov 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Norwegian Environmental Directorate has removed some 'slime' toy products from the market after it found they contained illegal levels of the reprotoxin boron.
Of 14 products tested from online and high street stores, six leached over three times the permitted limit, the directorate said.
Boron compounds, such as borax, are added to toy slime to give it a gelatinous texture.
Some products also had high levels of the preservatives MI (2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one) and CMI (5-chloro-2-methyl-2H-isothiazol-3-one). Used to prevent fungi and bacteria, they face EU regulatory controls for water-based materials in toys.
Slime products are often imported into Norway, the Directorate said, adding it has stopped several containers of slime and putty that were not CE marked or lacked the necessary test reports to show compliance.
It urged retailers and importers to ensure routine checks on safety of products they sell are in place, and to request test reports from the manufacturers, Mathieu Veulemans, the directorate's product supervision director, said.
In April, the directorate removed other ‘slime’ toys from the market after it found they contained high levels of lead and arsenic.
EU countries have also been warning about harmful chemicals contained in slime used in toys. In July, UK consumer group Which? said slime toys can contain boron compounds exceeding EU safety limits, and similar warnings have been issued in Finland and France.
https://chemicalwatch.com/71608/norway-finds-reprotoxin-leaching-from-slime-toy-products
-
Total Partners with Sempra on Cameron LNG Expansion and More
Nov 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
French energy major Total said Monday it plans to partner with San Diego-based Sempra Energy for the expansion of the Cameron LNG project in Louisiana near the Texas border.
Total, which already is a partner on the first phase of the Cameron liquefied natural gas export project, said it wants to invest in the expansion that could begin as soon as 2020, as well as another LNG export project on the west coast of Mexico in Baja California.
The long-delayed $10 billion Cameron LNG project is expected to begin coming online next year with the first two LNG units. The third LNG facility in the first phase will start up in late 2019 or early 2020. The project is expected to churn out 14 million tons of LNG a year.
Total said it is ready to partner with Sempra on a second phase that would build two more LNG units, called trains, for another 9 million tons of LNG.
Total also says it will partner with Sempra on the Energia Costa Azul LNG project in Mexico as well as both an investor and buyer of the LNG.
"This relationship with Sempra Energy will support our goal of building a diverse portfolio of LNG supply options that offers our customers flexibility, reliability and low-cost North American natural gas," Total Chief Executive Patrick Pouyanné said, noting that the Mexico project would have an even easier logistics advantage for shipping LNG to Asia.
Total is a new partner to Sempra. Total acquired a 16.6 percent stake in Cameron LNG early this year when it bought the LNG assets of France's Engie.
The sale made Total the world's second-largest player in LNG market share after its Anglo-Dutch competitor Royal Dutch Shell.
Sempra said it eventually wants to build 45 million tons of LNG export capacity in North America, including a project in Port Arthur, so Total would have future investment opportunities as well.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Total-partners-with-Sempra-on-Cameron-LNG-13363164.php
-
With Democrats Poised to Take House, Energy Sector Faces Reckoning
Nov 5, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
A two-year campaign by the Trump administration to roll back environmental regulations to boost oil and gas drilling and other industrial activity is facing the prospect of a drawn-out congressional investigation should the Democrats win a majority in the House of Representatives.
With national polls indicating that outcome, lobbyists in Washington are already gearing up for an oversight process expected to delve into how the administration went about moves such as easing limits on methane emissions and the expansion of lease sales on federal lands.
That would likely include looking not only at officials in the White House, Environmental Protection Agency and departments of Energy and Interior but what role energy companies and their representatives might have played, said Scott Segal, an energy lobbyist at the Washington law firm Bracewell.
“If there’s a lot of back and forth with energy companies, then what ends up happening is House Oversight call the EPA administrator and officials and the people on the other side of those communications,” he said. “The question is, if you create a narrative, will that stay the hand of the administration?”
Democrats are not telegraphing how such an oversight process would play out yet, but they are eagerly campaigning on their disdain for Trump’s environmental policies.
Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., who is expected to lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee should Democrats gain a majority, could play a critical role in checking Trump’s environmental action. Pallone said climate change is a critical issue for the party, along with the economy and jobs, and Democrats would focus on “holding the Trump administration accountable for dangerous policies that only make it worse.”
“We also have serious concerns with how Trump’s EPA has consistently sided with the special interests over people’s health and the environment,” he said in a statement. “We will look to restore the environmental protections that have been gutted over the last two years.”
Since coming into office, Trump has taken repeated action to boost U.S. fossil fuel production and move away from the Obama administration’s efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has repealed the Clean Power Plan, designed to reduce reliance on coal plants, a leading source of the most prevalent greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
The Interior Department has increasingly allowed oil companies onto federal lands to drill, while simultaneously pulling restrictions on their emissions. And at the Energy Department, led by former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, there is an as yet unsuccessful effort to find a way to raise wholesale power rates for coal plants.
Democrats are coming under increasing pressure from environmental activists to take a harder line on climate change, an issue the party has showed mixed enthusiasm for in past elections.
Even in Texas, where climate change remains far from a hot-button issue, Democratic candidate Gina Ortiz Jones has been vocal on the topic as she tries to unseat Rep. Will Hurd, R-San Antonio. In September she tweeted, “Hurd claims to believe in climate change — but he consistently votes to undermine our environment.”
“We are seeing a historic number of candidates running ads on clean energy and climate change and the devastating impacts it’s having, from wildfires in the West to hurricanes that devastated Texas and Florida,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. “They know it’s what their voters care about.”
With Republicans expected to retain control of the Senate and President Donald Trump holding veto power in the White House, Democrats would be limited in how much they can do.
Legislation to address climate change, such as through a carbon tax that Exxon Mobil and other large oil companies are supporting, would face staunch Republican opposition and likely even turn away some Democrats.
“We’re always hesitant to vote tax increases, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat. It’s always going to hurt someone,” said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston.
Even a bipartisan issue such as rebuilding U.S. infrastructure to aid clean energy, through modernizing the power grid or building charging stations for electric vehicles, is expected to be a tough slog in a hyperpartisan political climate, against a backdrop of ballooning budget deficits.
“With a divided government, I don’t see a path forward,” Matt Nugen, director of government relations at the Milwaukee-based power company WEC Energy Group, said at an event hosted by the American Gas Alliance last month. “Not a lot has happened on (Capitol Hill) in the last year, and we expect that to continue.”
The House’s oversight authority presents a clear opportunity to not only try and slow Trump but to score some points with liberals ahead of the 2020 presidential election.
In the meantime, executives at energy companies that have been beneficiaries of Trump’s deregulatory campaign are already preparing themselves for the possibility of being called before Congress to explain their interactions with the administration, according to Segal, the Bracewell lobbyist.
“We have had discussions,” Segal said. “We are already staffing up to assist clients facing this exact scenario.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/With-Democrats-poised-to-take-House-energy-13362916.php
-
U.S. Officially the World’s Largest Crude Oil Producer
Nov 5, 2018 | The New American
By Bob Adelmann
In an interview with CNNMoney in June, Pioneer Natural Resources Chairman Scott Sheffield said he expected U.S. crude oil production to surpass 11 million barrels a day by this fall, making the United States the world’s top oil producer. Right on schedule the Energy Information Administration announced on Thursday that the U.S. oil industry produced 11.3 million barrels of crude oil a day during August, an increase of 416,000 barrels from the previous month and topping production from Saudi Arabia and Russia. That level of crude oil production is more than 2 million barrels a day ahead of August 2017, the largest increase over any 12-month period in U.S. history.
Sheffield told CNNMoney that “we’ll be at 13 [million] very quickly” and predicted that that number could jump to 15 million in a very few years.
On Wednesday U.S. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told Fox News that officially “today we are the largest oil and gas producer on the face of the planet, rolling through 11 million … on our way to 14.”
In less than 10 years, thanks largely to the development of, and continued improvement to, fracking technology, U.S. crude oil production has more than doubled, from 5 million bpd (barrels per day) in 2008 to more than 11 million today.
This has immediate as well as long-term ramifications that extend far beyond gas prices at the pump. On October 3, the price of crude for November delivery was over $76 a barrel. At Friday’s close the price for December delivery was below $63. Gas prices, which had hit more than $3 a gallon in many places in the country, now average $2.77 a gallon at the pump with further declines expected.
The record puts the United States in the position where it will no longer be bullied by OPEC. As Patrick Buchanan pointed out on Tuesday, OPEC still thinks it can push the United States around:
Over the Weekend Donald Trump warned of “severe punishment” if an investigation concludes that a Saudi hit team murdered Washington Postcolumnist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.
Riyadh then counter-threatened, reminding us that, as the world’s largest oil exporter, Saudi Arabia “plays an impactful and active role in the global economy.”
That role is steadily diminishing thanks to the fracking revolution that has been taking place in the United States, enhanced and encouraged by the Trump administration and its relatively light regulatory hand on the industry.
It’s also putting the lie to the “peak oil” theory that has, since its development by geologist M. King Hubbard in 1956, increasingly been discredited as a soggy shibboleth — a now provably false belief — that has nevertheless long informed federal government policy (i.e., CAFE standards that have been imposed on the automobile industry since 1975).
Hubbard’s theory initially predicted that U.S. crude oil production would peak at around 1970. Revisions to the theory pushed the peak date out to 2000 when U.S. crude would hit 12.5 billion barrels per year and then start its inevitable and irreversible decline. For 2018 U.S. crude oil production will hit 30 billion barrels.
But as Eric Peters (who blogs at EricPetersAutos.com) laments, government interference based on the discredited “peak oil” theory remains firmly in place:
Easing of the regulatory burdens on domestic oil producers combined with new methods of extraction have increased the domestic oil supply….
These are things the government and its media hyena chorus swore could never happen. Their mantra was that the U.S. is a spent hen as far as oil production is concerned and not only were we running out [but] so was the world.
Hence the austerity measures.
But things are no longer austere — so why the measures?
In August Trump’s EPA and the Department of Transportation proposed rolling back some of those measures, specifically reducing CAFE from 54.5 mpg proposed by then-President Obama in 2011 to 37 mpg. In its statement accompanying the proposed rule change, EPA acting administrator Andrew Wheeler and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao said the change was needed because the current rules “impose significant costs on American consumers, and eliminate jobs” — making it economiclly not feasible. Nothing was mentioned about the failed Hubbard theory which still informs that government policy.
Obviously, though, the belief by many Americans that government should dictate to Americans and businesses is deeply engrained: Even Trump's modest CAFE reduction is facing opposition from California and 18 other states, which immediately announced that should the proposal be enforced, they would sue to reject the change.
Nevertheless, the United States is now the big dog in the oil business, with its influence globally ever increasing as it continues to outproduce both Russia and Saudi Arabia. This gives the president even more clout when dealing with recalcitrant parties who are considering resisting his trade policies.
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/energy/item/30534-u-s-officially-the-world-s-largest-crude-oil-producer
-
(ACC Blog) Help Avoid OSHA's Top 10 Violations with Product Stewardship Resources
Nov 5, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
During a conference session on Oct. 24, at the National Safety Congress & Expo in Houston, the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) announced its list of the top 10 occupational safety violations, occurring for fiscal year 2017.
Patrick Kapust, OSHA’s Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement Programs, counted down the list. The top 10 violations announced by OSHA were:Personal Protective and Lifesaving Equipment—Eye and Face ProtectionMachine GuardingFall Protection—Training RequirementsPowered Industrial TrucksLaddersLockout/TagoutRespiratory ProtectionScaffolds—General RequirementsHazard CommunicationFall Protection—General Requirements
A big focus here at ACC is product stewardship, with an emphasis on workplace safety and safe handling practices. With regard to OSHA’s top 10 list, the Center for Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) provides a variety of resources on hazard communication, respiratory protection and personal protective equipment (PPE). A quick look through our product stewardship library yields plenty of information workers and employers can use to help educate themselves and others.
CPI, along with the Diisocyanates (DII) and Aliphatic Diisocyanates (ADI) panels, represents ACC in a National Alliance with OSHA. The mission of our Alliance is to provide members, occupational physicians, stakeholders and others within the polyurethanes value chain with information, guidance and access to training resources that will help them further protect the health and safety of workers.
As a direct result of our Alliance with OSHA, the ADI panel developed an infographic, offering guidance on PPE usage with automotive refinishing, including high-level recommendations for respiratory protection and eye and face protection. Other Alliance activities have included CPI working with downstream trade associations and OSHA to provide government speakers at industry events to share information with workers and employers about workplace safety.
ACC is committed to protecting the health and safety of workers. Collaborating with OSHA, we are able to expand our audience and provide more information to stakeholders about eliminating some of the most common safety violations in the workplace.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/11/help-avoid-oshas-top-10-violations-with-product-stewardship-resources/
-
Morale Slumps at Embattled Agency
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Job satisfaction at the Chemical Safety Board has declined again after a brief turnaround under the leadership of former Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland, leading government watchdogs to question the management of the long-troubled agency.
Sixty-one of 72 questions in an annual survey of CSB employees' job satisfaction yielded more negative ratings than positive ones, according to an analysis of the results by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
Meanwhile, only 41 percent of survey respondents said CSB was a good place to work, and fewer than half of them thought senior leadership was doing a good job.
PEER alleges that the decline in CSB employee satisfaction results supports worker "complaints that the 2017 morale survey results were inflated because the CSB chair and senior staff pressured employees to give a false impression to avoid being defunded as proposed in two Trump budgets."
When CSB morale picked up last year, leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked the agency to explain the change (Greenwire, May 30).
Committee leaders have also called on the president to "nominate a new Chairman who possesses the qualifications, experience, and integrity necessary to address the longstanding dysfunction at the CSB." A failure to do so, they warned, "could plunge the agency into further chaos, and a leadership void could embolden the remaining Board Members to engage in more inappropriate behavior" (E&E News PM, Aug. 10).
So far, however, President Trump hasn't even moved to pick an interim chair among the five-person board's three remaining members. As a result, CSB member Kristen Kulinowski is leading the agency under the title of interim executive authority.
Instead, Trump has repeatedly sought to eliminate the 40-person agency responsible for investigating industrial chemical accidents.
The budget uncertainty, coupled with weak leadership structure, has made it hard for the agency to attract and retain talent, an inspector general found earlier this year (Greenwire, June 5).
PEER amplified those concerns today with its analysis of the survey and publication of a "manifesto" from a CSB investigator. The document claims the agency's management has also limited the depth of investigations, removed critical elements from the review process and marginalized investigative staff.
"Although CSB is a very small agency, it is being massively mismanaged," said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.
PEER is legally representing former CSB Managing Director Daniel Horowitz, whom Sutherland fired shortly before leaving the agency in June. Horowitz had been kept on administrative leave since 2015.
Asked to respond to PEER's analysis and allegations, CSB pointed to the overwhelmingly positive responses its employees gave to questions about the quality and importance of their work.
"The 2018 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results validate the commitment of our staff to the mission of the agency," said Kulinowski, the de facto CSB leader. "As we expected, there are areas where the agency management can do better."
But CSB leadership is also seeking to address the concerns raised by workers in the survey.
"As an agency, we believe in continued improvement," Kulinowski said. "Toward that end, I have already asked for a task force of management and staff to work collaboratively to identify solutions to address the low scored areas. I know as a team we can continue to advance our mission and work to improve our FEVS results."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/05/stories/1060105193
-
Trump Disputes Federal Climate Report's Findings, Says He Hasn’t Seen It
Nov 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump disputed a recent federal government report's conclusion that human activity is the dominant cause of climate change, but also said he has not seen the report.
In an interview released Sunday, Jim VandeHei and Jonathan Swan of Axios asked Trump to respond to the Climate Science Special Report, a multi-agency report released last year that concluded there is “no convincing alternative explanation” for global warming of recent decades other than that the “dominant” cause is human activity, mainly via greenhouse gas emissions.
Trump said humans contribute to warming, but not to the degree described in the report, whose authors come from agencies like NASA and the Energy Department.
“I want everybody to report whatever they want. But ultimately, I’m the one that makes that final decision,” he told VandeHei and Swan. “I can also give you reports where people very much dispute that. You know, you do have scientists that very much dispute it.”
Trump also repeated his prediction, first outlined last month, that the climate will “change back” and that the current warming will reverse. He did not provide evidence for the claim.
“Is there climate change? Yeah. Will it go back like this, I mean, will it change back? Probably, that’s what I think,” he said, making a wave motion with his hand.
“We do have an impact, but I don’t believe the impact is nearly what some say, and other scientists that dispute those findings very strongly.”
Asked if Trump would order federal agencies to include the views of those who dispute the report’s findings, the president said of the report, “I haven’t seen that.”
The 2017 government report said about 92 percent of global warming is due to human activity.
The report aligns closely with the scientific consensus of recent years that humans are the overwhelming cause of climate change.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/414890-trump-disputes-federal-climate-report-says-he-hasnt-seen-it
-
Supreme Court Allows Kids' Case to Move Forward
Nov 2, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Landmark litigation brought by young people challenging government inaction on climate change is set to move forward.
The Supreme Court issued an order today greenlighting the ambitious "kids' climate case," a novel lawsuit brought by 21 children and young adults asserting a right to a safe climate.
The court found that the stay is unwarranted because the government can still seek review in the 9th Circuit.
"At this time, however, the Government's petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a 'fair prospect' of success in this Court because adequate relief may be available in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit," it wrote.
The case was scheduled to go to trial this week in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. It's unclear how the schedule will change in light of the Supreme Court detour. Trump administration lawyers had made an eleventh-hour plea for the high court to halt the case, which they say involves political and regulatory issues that do not belong in the courtroom.
The justices denied the request today after Chief Justice John Roberts provided a temporary reprieve two weeks ago (Greenwire, Oct. 19).
The administrative stay is now lifted. The order notes that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas would have granted the application.
The decision is a massive win for the youth plaintiffs, who have fended off multiple government attempts to derail the case. Previous attempts to halt proceedings were unsuccessful at the district court, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, which in July denied a similar government petition.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060105085
-
EPA Advisory Panel to Review Standards for 2 Contaminants
Nov 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A newly reconstituted EPA advisory committee is charging ahead with reviews of national air quality standards for two key pollutants.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee will meet Nov. 29 in a public phone conference to discuss a recently released draft plan to guide its assessment of the ground-level ozone standard, according to a notice set for publication in tomorrow's Federal Register.
The seven-member panel will then gather in person in the Washington, D.C., area on Dec. 12 and 13 to consider a draft roundup of the scientific research to be used in a separate review of EPA's particulate matter limits, according to another upcoming Federal Register announcement.
Both gatherings are likely to be scrutinized for signs of the committee's direction, especially because the draft roundup of particulate matter research includes evidence that the existing standards are too weak to adequately protect public health (Greenwire, Oct. 16).
For five of the seven members, the meetings will mark their first formal involvement with the panel — often known by its acronym, CASAC — since acting EPA chief Andrew Wheeler appointed them last month. The other two were named to the committee last year by then-Administrator Scott Pruitt under new rules that bar current EPA grant recipients from serving on agency advisory committees.
This spring, Pruitt followed up by setting fresh ground rules to guide the statutorily required pollutant reviews. Wheeler last month dissolved an auxiliary panel that was supposed to assist the CASAC in its review of the particulate matter standards and scuttled plans to convene a separate panel that was similarly supposed to provide added expertise in the appraisal of the ozone benchmark (Greenwire, Oct. 12).
EPA officials have offered no explanation for those decisions other than to cite the Clean Air Act and the committee's charter, neither of which mentions the auxiliary panels. But with most of the new CASAC members lacking direct experience with research on particulate matter's health effects, it's unclear how equipped they are to review the large number of studies included in the draft roundup, officially known as an integrated science assessment.
"It's going to be challenging for them," Janice Nolen, assistant vice president for policy at the American Lung Association, said in a recent interview.
Committee members will also be working under accelerated schedules.
Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to review the standards for ozone, particulate matter and four other "criteria" pollutants every five years to gauge whether any changes are warranted in light of the latest findings on their health and environmental effects.
While the agency has routinely missed those deadlines, Pruitt's guidelines call for both reviews to be completed by late 2020.
EPA's last review of the particulate matter standards concluded in 2012 with a decision to tighten the annual exposure threshold for the fine particles known as PM2.5 from 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 12 micrograms.
In 2015, EPA finished its last review of the ozone threshold by strengthening that standard from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/11/05/stories/1060105181
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested