Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 09/01/19
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2019: A Look Ahead
Jan 7, 2019 | Chemical Week
CW looks, in the pages ahead, to where industry sits in the market cycle, the impact of slower growth in China, uncertain prospects in Europe, increasingly volatile energy and feedstocks, a maturing M&A market, Aramco’s bold petrochemical ambitions globally, a reshuffle in the industrial gases lineup, and tariff impacts on demand and trade. -
(ACC Mentioned) H1 Outlook: US Polypropylene to Depend on Propylene Direction
Jan 9, 2019 | Platts
By Brian Balboa
Should the feedstock propylene market continue to come down in early 2019, it may make US polypropylene more competitive with the rest of the world again, according to trade participants. -
As Shutdown Continues, So Does Damage to U.S. Science
Jan 9, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Ben Guarino , Carolyn Y. Johnson , Sarah Kaplan and Lenny Bernstein
Neither bear nor rattlesnake nor hurricane has prevented ecosystem ecologist Jeff Atkins from collecting water samples in Shenandoah National Park. But a recent letter from the government did what wildlife and storms could not: For the first time since the early 1980s, the monitoring program, which traces the forest’s recovery from acid rain, has a gap in its weekly data. -
Trump Formally Nominates Wheeler to Head EPA
Jan 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump has formally nominated Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist who has led the Environmental Protection Agency for six months, to serve as EPA administrator. -
A Toxic Past and Present on the Spokane River
Jan 9, 2019 | High Country News
By Carl Segerstrom
East of Spokane, Washington, the ghost of decades-old industrial pollution still haunts the groundwater. -
(ACC Blog) What the American Academy of Pediatrics Report Got Wrong About PFAS in Food Packaging
Jan 9, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP’s) recently published a flawed technical report, “Food Additives and Child Health,” that has created unwarranted concern about perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs) in food packaging. -
(ACC Mentioned) NY Eyes Tough Rules for PFOA in Drinking Water
Jan 9, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
New York state is moving toward what would be the country's strictest standard for regulating a chemical used in fluoropolymer manufacturing, setting levels that would be significantly more stringent than federal guidelines. -
“Environmentally Friendly” Flame Retardants Break Down Into Potentially Toxic Chemicals
Jan 9, 2019 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
A purported "eco-friendly" flame retardant breaks down into smaller, possibly harmful chemicals when exposed to heat and ultraviolet light, according to a study from German researchers. -
Johnson & Johnson Agrees First Talc Settlement for Over $1.5m
Jan 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Consumer products multinational Johnson & Johnson has reportedly reached its first settlement in a talcum powder case, paying more than $1.5m to a New York woman who claimed the company’s products caused her cancer. -
EU Sets Outs Third POPs Implementation Plan
Jan 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission has published its third implementation plan to address new persistent organic pollutants (POPs) added to the Stockholm Convention since 2014 and the technical and legislative progress made in the area. -
Chevron, Oxy Invest in Climate Pollution Scrubbing Technology
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Chevron and Occidental Petroleum are investing in technology that will suck carbon dioxide directly from the air near oil fields and store it underground as a way to address climate change, the companies announced Jan. 9. -
Chevron and Occidental Invest in CO2 Removal Technology
Jan 9, 2019 | Financial Times
By Leslie Hook
Oil majors Chevron and Occidental Petroleum are taking a minority stake in a Canadian start-up that has developed technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and use it to make synthetic fuel. -
Saudi Arabia Eyes Investment Into U.S. Gas—Energy Journal
Jan 9, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal - Blog
By Neanda Salvaterra
Good morning. -
TransCanada to Change Name to TC Energy
Jan 9, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
TransCanada Corp., the company behind the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline, is changing its name to TC Energy. -
Ted Lieu Floats Ambitious Warming Bill
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) yesterday introduced an updated version of his "Climate Solutions Act," an ambitious measure that marks one of the first major climate bills of the new Congress. -
Calls For A Carbon Tax Are Coming After Dour 2018 Report. Republicans Are Leading The Charge
Jan 9, 2019 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
When news hit on Tuesday that CO2 emissions in the United States rose by 3.4% in 2018, it sucker punched the environmental community. -
Unions Tout Waxman-Markey As Alternative To 'Green' Deal, Carbon Tax
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Seven energy-related labor unions are urging Congress to revisit the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill that passed the House in 2009 in lieu of both a carbon tax and a so-called “Green New Deal” that are gaining political traction, putting further strain on an already divided Democratic caucus. -
New CEQ Chief Agrees to Address 'Climate Preparedness'
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
Mary Neumayr, the newly confirmed chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is committing to work on climate change “preparedness,” including in CEQ's planned overhaul of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing rules.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2019: A Look Ahead
Jan 7, 2019 | Chemical Week
CW looks, in the pages ahead, to where industry sits in the market cycle, the impact of slower growth in China, uncertain prospects in Europe, increasingly volatile energy and feedstocks, a maturing M&A market, Aramco’s bold petrochemical ambitions globally, a reshuffle in the industrial gases lineup, and tariff impacts on demand and trade.
Chemical markets are set for overall global growth in 2019 but a late-2018 drop in energy and commodities pricing and slower demand and GDP growth has curbed expectations a bit. US economic growth and chemical production is expected to remain above trend, while other key economies will experience further deceleration. “As a result, IHS Markit predicts that global growth will edge down from 3.2% in 2018 to 3.0% in 2019—and will keep decelerating over the next few years,” says IHS Markit chief economist Nariman Behravesh. Global industrial production will slow to 2.8% in 2019, down from 3.1% in 2018, according to IHS Markit.
The US chemical sector is expected to grow faster than the global market again this year thanks to strong conditions in key end markets as well as advantaged energy and feedstock supply, says Kevin Swift, ACC chief economist. US volumes are forecast to grow 3.6% in 2019, up from 3.1% in 2018. Global chemicals output is set to rise 3.0% in next year after growth of 2.8% this year, according to ACC.
“American chemistry is set for significant growth in output as new production capacity comes online and demand strengthens in key end-use markets,” says Martha Moore, senior director of policy analysis and economics at ACC. “Provided that access to export markets remains open to our producers, expanding global demand will be met by shale-advantaged chemistry sourced from the United States.”
In specialties, production will pick up 2.2% in 2019 after a 3.7% gain this year. Gains in specialty chemicals were led by oilfield chemicals, electronic chemicals, coatings, adhesives, cosmetic chemicals, and flavors and fragrances, according to the report. Demand for specialty chemicals is expected to grow in line with industrial and construction sector gains in the years ahead.
China decelerates
China’s economy, meanwhile, is expected to keep decelerating. The slowdown partly reflects the country’s transformation to a more sustainable economic model after the government had grown the Chinese economy as rapidly as possible for two decades, sometimes causing it to overheat. IHS Markit forecasts that demand growth in China for key chemicals will be 5–7%/year for the next four years, significantly below the recent historical growth rate. “This ‘new normal’ growth rate will likely extend beyond 2020,” says Paul Pang, vice president/chemicals, APAC at IHS Markit.
Industry nevertheless has confidence in China as an investment location and several world-scale projects were announced in 2018, in addition to a huge wave of capacity that Chinese companies will bring onstream in the next four years. China will account for about 50% of the growth in the worldwide chemical industry in 2017–30 and already accounts for about 40% of the world chemical market, says BASF.
Growth in emerging economies has also topped and will ease in 2019. During 2018, growth in emerging economies edged down to 4.8% down from 4.7% in 2017. IHS Markit expects another decrease in growth in 2019, to 4.7%. India remains a growth outlier in chemicals with production forecast to expand 6.2% in 2019, down from 6.5% last year.
The outlook for Europe’s chemical industry, particularly the region’s petrochemical sector, is uncertain. After a strong first half to 2018, regional production and consumption of chemicals began to falter, culminating in a sharp drop in November. Meanwhile, with less than three months to go until the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, no Brexit agreement has been reached and the chemical industry is increasingly concerned about the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
Volatility ahead
2019 Outlook at a glance. Click to expand the graphic.
Volatility in commodity markets, including energy and feedstocks, will continue, with downside risks. IHS Markit expects that recent output cuts agreed to by OPEC and Russia will support oil prices. “As a result, we predict oil prices will rise a bit in the near term and average around $70 per barrel over the coming year, compared with an average of $71 in 2018,” says Behravesh. “That said, the risks to prices of oil and other commodities are predominantly on the downside, given slowing demand growth and rising supply.”
Ethylene on the US Gulf Coast (USGC) will remain oversupplied until late 2019 or early 2020, when new derivative and export capacities begin taking up the excess. The improved market balance will strengthen ethylene prices and allow margins to recover. However, feedstock ethane will remain tight until the startup of new fractionators and pipelines, and inventory will not begin to improve until 2020 at the earliest, say analysts at IHS Markit.
Four new steam crackers and two major expansions have increased USGC ethane consumption capacity by over 350,000 b/d since the start of 2017. Ethane prices strengthened in response in early 2018, and a growing premium developed between the hubs in Mont Belvieu, Texas, and Conway, Kansas. When ethane inventory took a sudden turn downward during the third quarter, prices soared, reaching as high as 61.5 cents/gal in mid-September. Ethane prices fell back near fuel value by mid-December, but the respite will be short-lived.
Ethane production capacity has not increased as quickly as consumption capacity. When oil prices collapsed in late 2014, so did investment in crude oil production, natural gas production, and midstream infrastructure. So little NGL fractionation capacity was added that when throughput picked up in 2018, the new volume filled essentially all the capacity added since 2009, notes IHS Markit’s report, US ethane: Why the price spike?
One critical risk in the coming year is the sharp drop-off in world trade growth, which fell from a pace of above 5% at the beginning of 2018 to nearly zero at the end of the year. Tension between the United States and its major trading partners have escalated dramatically.
Plastics challenge
On the policy front, increasing public attention to the impact of plastic waste is an issue that will be front and center this year. Concerns have been there for decades but there has been much greater scrutiny and calls for much more aggressive action over the past year, including bans on single-use plastics.
Chemical makers, led by resin producers, are expected to announce a coordinated response, including seed investments in technology and waste infrastructure, in early 2019. The key question is can resin makers mobilize the entire plastics value chain. Brand owners, OEMs, converters, waste, and recyclers must be engaged across the value stream to solve a very complex issue. For challenges such as marine waste the focus clearly needs to be on Asia, but the effort needs to be global and transformational about how plastics are produced, applications are developed and how they are processed, used and recycled, or disposed of across their life cycle.
https://chemweek.com/CW/Document/100718/2019-A-look-ahead
-
(ACC Mentioned) H1 Outlook: US Polypropylene to Depend on Propylene Direction
Jan 9, 2019 | Platts
By Brian Balboa
Should the feedstock propylene market continue to come down in early 2019, it may make US polypropylene more competitive with the rest of the world again, according to trade participants.
For most of 2018, US polypropylene prices were the highest globally. With more competitive PP alternatives in other regions such as Europe and Asia, US producers had a difficult time moving PP exports outside of typical regions such as Latin America. The high US PP price had been attributed mostly to a tight global market and strong feedstock propylene prices in the US, especially in the first half of 2018 when polymer-grade propylene prices peaked.PROPYLENE EXPECTED TO COME DOWN MORE IN Q1
As US PGP spot prices firmed to a yearly high of 68.50 cents/lb ($1,510/mt) in January, so too did US PP homopolymer injection export spot levels, moving to a H1 2018 high of $1,709/mt (77.52 cents/lb) FAS Houston, according to S&P Global Platts data. It was not until early August, that US PP spot prices would peak for 2018 at $1,720/mt FAS Houston, as PGP spot levels reached the low 60s cents/lb range amid propane dehydrogenation production issues.
PGP spot and contract prices began to come down in Q4 2018 as PDH units begin operating normally and building domestic inventory levels back up, which in turn led PP pricing down.
Interest for US PP exports did not emerge until December 2018, however, as PGP fell to a yearly low of 36.75 cents/lb. Trade participants said the renewed interest in US PP in December was due to weaker feedstock costs, but also due to some producers looking to sell off material ahead of the US ad valorem tax deadline on December 31. The lower PGP prices led PP market discussions to a yearly low of $1,147/mt FAS Houston late December.REQUEST A FREE TRIAL OFPetrochemicalscan
Platts Petrochemicalscan daily price assessment market reports provide you with a complete view of the global aromatics market, helping to identify new opportunities and make informed trading and business decisions. Click the link below to see how it can meet your needs.FREE TRIAL US PP PRICES STILL HIGHEST GLOBALLY HEADING INTO 2019
With no major PDH production issues expected in early 2019, PP market sources have said there is an opportunity for PP prices to come down. US PP spot prices averaged $1,520/mt FAS Houston for 2018, up from $1,221/mt FAS Houston in 2017. In contrast, PP injection spot prices in Asia averaged $1,201/mt CFR FE Asia for 2018, while PP homopolymer spot prices in Europe averaged $1,370/mt FOB NWE.
Meanwhile, domestic PP contracts kept premiums against the PGP contract at an 18-cent premium for homopolymer injection on a delivered railcar basis and at a 20-cent premium for homopolymer fiber grade. Overall, with premiums against PGP contract intact, prices still declined as the PGP contract fell from 61 cents/lb in August to 42 cents/lb the end the year in December.
Regardless of what the propylene market does in early 2019, some US PP market participants have suggested that the market may have bottomed out in December and domestic spot levels may move back up again in January and February.
Despite the decline in PP prices in December, US export spot business was limited. Market participants had said during H2 2018 that US PP exports would likely not emerge again until mid-2019. As a result, activity in the US PP market may be limited to the domestic distribution market for much of H1 2019.HIGH US PP PRICES MAY LEAD TO CONTINUED IMPORTS IN 2019
With US PP prices the highest in the world, the discrepancy in global prices also has opened the door to more imports during 2H, which trade participants have said could continue into 2019. Through October 2018, total year-to-date PP imports in the US were at 465,741 mt. This was up 18.9% from the same time frame a year earlier, in line with market expectations from 1H 2018, according to US International Trade Commission data. Much of the imports have come from South Korea, which sent a yearly high of 15,973 mt in October 2018.
The imports came, as domestic production continued to come down through the remainder of 2018. Through November 2018, American Chemistry Council data showed domestic North American production was 2.7% lower than in the same period in 2017. Although production was slightly down, domestic inventory was building back up. ACC data showed domestic stockpiles from June through November 2018 was above levels from the same time frame in 2017. The latest data from the ACC showed November 2018 PP inventory was at 1,634 billion lb, up by 7.1% from 1,526 billion lb in November 2017.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/010919-h1-outlook-us-polypropylene-to-depend-on-propylene-direction
-
As Shutdown Continues, So Does Damage to U.S. Science
Jan 9, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Ben Guarino , Carolyn Y. Johnson , Sarah Kaplan and Lenny Bernstein
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/01/09/shutdown-continues-so-does-damage-us-science/?utm_term=.0d5700589931
-
Trump Formally Nominates Wheeler to Head EPA
Jan 9, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/424555-trump-formally-nominates-wheeler-to-head-epa
-
A Toxic Past and Present on the Spokane River
Jan 9, 2019 | High Country News
By Carl Segerstrom
East of Spokane, Washington, the ghost of decades-old industrial pollution still haunts the groundwater. Laden with chemicals that can cause cancer and developmental disabilities, the subsurface water flows into the Spokane River before it winds through the city and then across the Spokane Indian Reservation. Along the way, toxics pile up, contaminating fish in the river.
The Kaiser Trentwood factory is working to remove the PCBs that they've leeched into the groundwater.Waymarking
The Kaiser Trentwood aluminum rolling factory, a sprawling industrial complex near the riverside, now dotted with decaying concrete buildings, was once the source of much of this pollution. The still-operating factory, which manufactured metal for bombs and airplanes during World War II, no longer uses the toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that make up the nastiest part of the pollution. But its groundwater, which is filled with PCBs from decades of production, makes the site a major source of contamination in the Spokane River.
Today, the company is working to clean up the aquifer it once polluted. Water is drawn up from below and into a filtration system that pumps it through tanks filled with ground-up walnut shells, which capture the PCBs in their absorbent pores. The PCBs are then washed from the walnut shells and stored in tanks.
The cleanup at Kaiser Trentwood is part of a widespread effort in the watershed to exorcise the PCB demons of the past. The area has some of the nation’s most stringent PCB pollution regulations, so wastewater dischargers and environmental agencies are working to identify the sources of PCB pollution and reduce the toxic chemicals in the river. Many American cities are struggling with similar, seemingly intractable problems. Now Spokane has emerged as a leader, testing both the potential for innovation and the limits on cleaning up decades of toxic waste.
ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN the late 1920s and produced exclusively by Monsanto in the United States, PCBs were a wonder chemical for industrial technology, with a high boiling point and electric insulating properties. But they also had devastating impacts on human and ecosystem health. For years, Monsanto suppressed internal findings about their toxicity. When the truth was revealed in the 1970s, the federal government outlawed the production of PCBs. Spokane, Portland and San Diego, among other cities, are mired in lawsuits over the corporate cover-up, hoping to recoup some of the costs of the cleanup; in most places, those costs and the necessary investments in infrastructure have fallen on local tax- and ratepayers.
Like many pollutants that affect animal and human health, PCBs build up in the food chain, accumulating in small amounts in microorganisms, and then in increasing amounts in fish and the animals, like orcas and humans, that eat them. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists PCBs as probable carcinogens that also impact hormone regulation and childhood development. Pregnant women and young children are most at risk from the chemicals, which cause birth defects and developmental disabilities in populations where contaminated fish are eaten regularly.
In response, the Washington Department of Health now recommends that residents consume no more than one fish in any given month from many sections of the Spokane River, and none at all in other stretches. That is a far cry from the traditional diet of the Spokane Tribe, whose members once ate up to two pounds a day. In 2015, the tribal nation and environmental organizations won a court order to set more stringent numeric limits on PCB pollution, hoping to clean the river enough to sustain their traditional diet.
The Washington Department of Health recommends restrictions on residents' consumption of fish from the Spokane River.LDELD/Flickr CC
In 2016, the EPA limited the amount of PCBs allowed in Washington waterways to 7 parts per quadrillion (ppq), or the equivalent to seven regular postage stamps on a letter the size of California and Oregon combined. That’s far stricter than the PCB levels allowed in drinking water by the EPA, which is 500 parts per trillion. Spokane is the first place in the state to navigate the permitting process under the tighter restrictions.
Under the Trump administration, however, the EPA is in the process of revisiting the pollution standards, despite opposition from the Washington Department of Ecology. The state environmental agency, which had originally proposed a limit of 170 parts per quadrillion, has said that changes to the rules would undermine the ongoing permitting process, which already includes exemptions that give polluters more time to reach the standards. Business interests along the Spokane River, including the Washington Farm Bureau and Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, petitioned the EPA to relax the standard.
For now, the city of Spokane and other dischargers are moving ahead on cleanup by building new wastewater infrastructure and treatment technology and evaluating sources and potential solutions to PCB pollution in the river. The city alone is spending $340 million on upgrades to stormwater and sewer treatment systems designed to keep more PCBs and other toxins out of the river. But even those major investments aren’t likely to be enough. Dischargers say the long history of PCB use in the region and the more lax standards for PCBs in manufactured products make it unrealistic to meet the new pollution standards. “It’s going to take a long time to get out, but people are looking for a short-term fix,” said Rob Lindsay, the water programs manager for Spokane County.
The efforts at the Kaiser Trentwood aluminum plant also show the gap between treatment technologies and pollution levels. Since October 2015, more than 11 million gallons of groundwater have passed through the facility’s walnut shell filtration system. When the system runs efficiently, engineers believe it can remove about three-quarters of the PCBs from the water. But after four years, the cleanup project has removed less than half an ounce of PCBs, a far cry from the almost 11 pounds the company discharged into the river in 2002.
CLEANING UP PCBS in the Spokane River isn’t simply a matter of cleaning up a toxic past. PCBs are still inadvertently produced, and cleaning them up forces regulators and polluters to grapple with knotty environmental paradoxes.
Take, for example, Inland Empire Paper, a local papermaking company on the banks of the Spokane River. It’s one of five facilities in the United States that make print paper. Great billows of steam vent from the factory as paper-rolling presses turn bales of recycled paper and piles of wood chips into finished products. Despite the benefits of recycling, both for the quality of the fiber and environment, the company has had to cut the percentage of recycled paper in its products by two-thirds, and may have to stop recycling entirely.
That’s because certain dyes and inks, like the classic yellow of a Cheerios cereal box, still contain PCBs, which can be inadvertently created in chemical processes, such as colored dye manufacturing, that involve high heat and chlorine. And if Inland Empire uses paper with those dyes on it, it’s responsible for the PCB waste from them. To the frustration of wastewater dischargers and clean water advocates, EPA regulations allow those contaminants up to 50 parts per million in finished products — more than 1 billion times the amount allowed in wastewater discharges. “As long as this inadvertent PCB allowance exists, I find it very doubtful that we’ll be able to meet a standard like 7 parts per quadrillion,” said Doug Krapas, the environmental manager for Inland Empire Paper.
And while Inland Empire’s decision to cut back on recycled material will lower PCB levels in the river, it only means those toxic chemicals will become someone else’s problem. “Those PCBs are going to continue to persist,” Krapas said. “They will go into landfills, they will get into the environment through airway pathways, through waste energy plants, or back to China.”
This disconnect has pushed Krapas, along with local conservation groups and Northwest tribes, to take Spokane’s PCB fight beyond the county line. They’ve sent petitions to federal regulators spelling out the problem: As long as we continue to allow PCBs to be produced in some parts of the system at such high levels, we won’t be able to get ahead of the pollution curve. They are asking the EPA to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act to lower the acceptable amount of PCBs in manufactured products. That would have international consequences, as many PCBs come from products manufactured in Asia and India.
Krapas said that some companies, like Apple and Hewlett Packard, have adopted standards that require far lower PCB levels in the products they purchase and produce, and that inadvertent production of PCBs is largely avoidable. But the lack of oversight and lax rules on PCBs in manufactured products leaves facilities like Inland Empire Paper frustrated, trying to undo pollution they didn’t create and lack the technology to entirely eliminate.
Rachel Harwood explains how soil microbes can break down petrochemicals.Chris Bachman/The Lands Council
MEANWHILE, SPOKANE’S NEXT generation is looking for innovative ways to tackle existing PCB contamination. Just half a mile from the Spokane River, the Institute of Science and Technology at North Central High School looks more like a college research center than a public high school science classroom. Tall windows gaze out over sports fields, as lab partners Luke Heimbinger and Rachel Harwood pore over the latest data from the lab’s gas chromatograph, which show how soil microbes are breaking down petrochemicals from the city’s stormwater drains.
Bioremediation, the practice of using plants, fungi and microbes to break down pollutants, is an important part of many environmental cleanup efforts. Their experiment is part of a project, funded by the toxics task force and run by the Lands Council, that looks at using natural systems to breakdown PCBs. It was started after an earlier study showed some potential to use bioremediation to breakdown PCBs.
Unlike the previous study, which used a specific fungus, the students and their advisers are trying to supercharge a wide array of native microbes with nitrogen to get them to chew up the toxic PCBs. That will make their fix specific to Spokane. “The most successful bioremediation occurs when you are utilizing the indigenous (microbial) populations that are already suited to the land,” Heimbinger said.
PCBs are some of the toughest chemicals to destroy, as soil organisms often bypass them for marginally more appealing toxic nibbles. Biology teacher Dan Shay compares it to trapping a group of students in a buffet restaurant for a year. At first they would eat the tasty stuff like desserts, then the less desirable food like pasta, and by the end, “they’d be stuck eating stuff like lima beans and shoe leather,” Shay said. PCBs are the shoe leather in this scenario, he explained: one of the hardest chemicals for microorganisms to digest and therefore the last course in a bioremediation meal.
So, rather than focusing their studies directly on PCB levels in the city’s waste, the students are working to clear out the rest of the toxic buffet first. That means monitoring how quickly things like motor oil and diesel fuel disappear from the soil. If those petrochemicals are being digested, “then we know bioremediation is occurring,” Heimbinger explained. And once those other pollutants are removed, the microorganisms will be left to chew on the PCBs.
If the students can encourage the microbes to chomp on PCBs more quickly, they could then spread the treatment to contaminated sites around Spokane.
While environmental advocates and the Spokane Tribe continue to pursue strict pollution regulations, much of the momentum on PCB cleanup has come from working together and trying to solve problems outside the courtroom. “Because we are so focused on PCBs, it generates interest locally to try innovative things like this,” said Mike Petersen, the executive director of the Lands Council, who has been facilitating the bioremediation project.
“We may not be able to solve the entire PCB crisis around the world,” said Shay. “But we’re contributing to this little piece here.”
https://www.hcn.org/articles/pollution-a-toxic-past-and-present-on-the-spokane-river
-
(ACC Blog) What the American Academy of Pediatrics Report Got Wrong About PFAS in Food Packaging
Jan 9, 2019 | American Chemistry Matters
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP’s) recently published a flawed technical report, “Food Additives and Child Health,” that has created unwarranted concern about perfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs) in food packaging.[1] It is important to set the record straight and address some of the problems with the report.
Before detailing specific concerns about the Report, however, it may be helpful to provide a brief background on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulation of food contact substances, which includes substances used in food packaging.[2]
Before a new food contact substance can be sold or distributed in the US, it is reviewed by FDA through the submission of a Food Contact Notification (FCN).[3] The FCN must contain data and information regarding:The chemical composition of the food contact substance, including all impurities and potential degradation products;The levels at which the food contact substance or any impurities or degradation products may be released from the food packaging under the intended use conditions and the resulting potential dietary concentrations of those substances; andToxicity data (and any other relevant health and safety data) on the substance itself, and on all impurities, degradation products and other components of the food contact substance.[4]
FDA will allow the proposed food contact substance to be placed on the market only if the agency concludes, on the basis of the information contained in the FCN, that there is sufficient scientific data to demonstrate that the substance is safe for its intended use.[5] If FDA makes such a determination, the food contact substance is allowed to be used as specified in the FCN and is added to FDA’s inventory of effective FCNs.[6] After a food contact substance is added to that inventory, FDA maintains the authority to withdraw its acceptance of the substance at any time if available data no longer support the conclusion the food contact substance is safe for its intended use.[7]
One of the most striking flaws in the AAP report is that none of the PFC substances discussed in the report are authorized for use in food packaging in the US, as reflected on FDA’s inventory of effective FCNs. Indeed, a careful review of the inventory shows that the specific PFC substances that are permitted for use in food packaging (and that are actually used in food packaging) in the US do not include, and are not anticipated to degrade to, any of the PFC substances discussed in the report, almost all of which were long chain:[8]Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS);Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS);Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA);Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA); andPerfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)).
However, instead of addressing the specific PFC compounds that are authorized for use in food packaging, the AAP report focuses on these long chain PFCs, that are no longer allowed to be used in food contact applications.[9]
The PFC compounds that are used to provide grease resistance in food packaging are large polymers that are not, themselves, bioavailable. Because the polymers are not bioavailable, regulators around the globe generally assess and characterize the risks of these compounds by examining their ultimate degradation products (i.e., their alkyl acids and salts). Thus, for example, the risks associated with eight-carbon (C8) long chain PFCs are assessed and characterized by examining the hazard characteristics of PFOA and PFOS (i.e., eight-carbon acids). On the other hand, the PFCs that FDA has reviewed and permitted for use in food packaging today include those based on six-carbon (C6) non-sulfonated molecules and do not include C8 or other long chain PFCs. Accordingly, the risks associated with such compounds are assessed and characterized by examining the non-sulfonated C6 acid – perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA).
A second significant flaw in AAP’s report is the statement that the potential health effects of currently allowed PFC compounds “have not [been] sufficiently evaluated.”[10] However, as illustrated below, this is factually incorrect. The C6 PFC compounds that are listed on the inventory of effective FCNs are supported by a robust body of data demonstrating that these materials are safe for their intended use.
The full suite of standard laboratory assays are available for PFHxA. These include:A 2-year rodent cancer bioassay (Klaunig 2015);DNA mutation and genotoxicity in vitro assays (NTP 2018, Loveless 2009, Eriksen 2010);Chronic systemic toxicity rodent bioassay (Klaunig 2015);Reproductive/developmental rodent bioassays (Loveless 2009, Iwai 2014, Iwai et al. in submission);Sub-chronic systemic toxicity bioassays (Loveless 2009, Chengelis 2009, Iwai 2014);Analysis of endocrine disruption (Borghoff 2018);High-throughput molecular in vitro assays (EPA Tox21); andToxicokinetic assays in rats, mice, microminipigs, monkeys and humans (many; examples include Chengelis 2009, Iwai 2014, Russell 2013, 2015, Nilsson 2010, 2013, Fujii 2014, Guruge 2015, Gannon 2011, 2016).
These studies demonstrate the following:PFHxA does not exhibit carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or genotoxicity. PFHxA is not an endocrine disruptor. Sensitive endpoints in rodent studies include effects on liver, thyroid, kidney, and hematology. PFHxA was not carcinogenic and has not exhibited any DNA mutation or genotoxic effects in several studies (NTP 2018, Klaunig 2015, Loveless 2009, Nobels 2010). A comprehensive review of both in vitro and in vivo studies evaluating PFHxA activity across endocrine pathways shows that PFHxA is not bioactive in estrogen, androgen, aromatase, or thyroid receptor signaling pathways (Borghoff 2018). Effects noted from high level exposure to PFHxA in subchronic and chronic noncancer rodent bioassays include liver, thyroid, kidney, and hematologic effects (Loveless 2009, Chengelis 2009, Iwai 2014), with the lowest no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) of 30 mg/kg-day from the chronic rat study (Klaunig 2015).PFHxA does not exhibit adverse effects on reproduction, and developmental effects are mixed and occur at higher doses than other endpoints (see above). PFHxA has not demonstrated any adverse reproductive effects in mice or rats; however, findings regarding some developmental endpoints are mixed. PFHxA exposure did not cause any developmental effects in rats (Loveless 2009). A mouse study indicated some potential developmental concerns due to low incidences of increased stillbirths, pup death at postnatal days 1 to 4, and effects on the eye (Iwai 2014). However, when the full concurrent controls are included and when historical controls from the same mouse strain and lab are evaluated, the low incidence of stillbirths is shown to be unrelated to PFHxA exposure. Due to the inconsistency between studies and the questionable biological and statistical significance of the mouse effects, it is unlikely that PFHxA is a developmental toxicant. However, even if these developmental endpoints were considered, the NOAEL from the 2-year rodent bioassay referenced above is more sensitive (i.e., lower) and, therefore, would be protective of any potential developmental effects in a quantitative risk assessment.
These and other data demonstrate that there is a high margin of safety for human exposure to PFHxA, including infants and children, from all routes of exposure and from food contact materials in the U.S. For example, ANSES, the French agency for food safety, environment, and labor, issued an expert evaluation on the chronic risks of PFHxA for the French General Directorate of Health.[11] ANSES derived a toxicity value (or “reference dose” in U.S. terminology) for PFHxA based on kidney effects from the chronic rodent study referenced above (Klaunig 2015), which was deemed protective of all other potential health endpoints of concern. Given the extremely quick elimination of PFHxA from all species tested, the agency applied the standard allometric scaling based on body weights to convert the rodent administered dose to the human equivalent dose. This methodology has been shown to be appropriate for PFHxA specifically (Russell 2013). The agency also applied standard uncertainty factors to account for variability in humans and a database uncertainty. The final toxicity value (oral reference dose) derived by ANSES is 0.32 mg/kg-day. This reference dose is 16,000 times higher (meaning safer) than that found for PFOA or PFOS, and is a factor of 13,300 times less than the expected exposure from food packaging materials, being fully protective of human and infant health.
As this brief survey of the published literature indicates, the Technical Report is incorrect in suggesting that there are insufficient data available on the PFC compounds that are currently used in food packaging. In fact, there is a substantial body of data on the C6 PFC compounds that have been reviewed and accepted by FDA for use in food packaging. These data firmly support the conclusion that currently-available C6 PFC food contact substances are safe for their intended use in food packaging and should not be equated with long chain C8 compounds.
FluoroCouncil[12] is a global organization representing the world’s leading manufacturers of products based on PFCs, better known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). FluoroCouncil has a fundamental commitment to product stewardship and rigorous, science-based regulation, and, as part of its mission, addresses science and public policy issues related to PFAS.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Vol. 142, No. 2; August 2018 [hereinafter Report].
[2] See 21 U.S.C. § 348 (Definition of “food contact substance” includes “any substance intended for use as a component of materials used in manufacturing, packing, packaging, transporting, or holding food . . .”).
[3] According to FDA, the FCN is “the preferred process for authorizing” the use of a food contact substance, see 67 Fed. Reg. 35,724 (May 21, 2002), although it is not the exclusive mechanism by which a new food contact substance may be lawfully sold or distributed in the US. Other mechanisms include Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) determinations and food additive petitions. See generallyhttps://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/Notifications/ucm2006854.htm.
[4] See 21 U.S.C. § 348(h)(1) ; 21 C.F.R. §170.100. See also, FDA, Guidance for Industry Preparation of Premarket Submissions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry Recommendations (December 2007); FDA, Guidance for Industry Preparation of Food Contact Notifications for Food Contact Substances: Toxicology Recommendations (April 2002).
[5] See 21 U.S.C. § 348(h)(1).
[6] The Inventory of Effective FCNs can be accessed at the following url: https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/PackagingFCS/Notifications/default.htm.
[7] See 21 C.F.R. §170.105(a).
[8] PFBS is the only short chain PFC discussed in the report. However, PFHxS was erroneously described as a short chain in the Report.
[9] As others have reported (see, e.g., Vedagiri UK, Anderson RH, Loso, HM, Schwach CM. Ambient levels of PFOS and PFOA in Multiple Environmental Media. Remediation. 2018;28:9–51.), certain long chain PFAS compounds, including PFOA, are nearly ubiquitous in the environment. Accordingly, it is possible that modern food packaging materials – including products containing current FDA-authorized PFC substances – may contain long chain PFC chemicals as impurities. However, for packaging products made with current FDA-authorized PFC substances, long chain impurities would only be expected to be present at trace levels, if at all.
[10] Report at 4.
[11] https://www.anses.fr/fr/system/files/SUBSTANCES2015SA0127Ra.pdf.
[12] FluoroCouncil’s member companies are Archroma Management LLC, AGC, Inc., Daikin Industries, Ltd., Solvay Specialty Polymers, The Chemours Company LLC, Dynax (associate), and Tyco Fire Products LP (associate).
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2019/01/what-the-american-academy-of-pediatrics-report-got-wrong-about-pfas-in-food-packaging/
-
(ACC Mentioned) NY Eyes Tough Rules for PFOA in Drinking Water
Jan 9, 2019 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
New York state is moving toward what would be the country's strictest standard for regulating a chemical used in fluoropolymer manufacturing, setting levels that would be significantly more stringent than federal guidelines.
New York's action — in the form of a vote from a key advisory committee — means the state is likely joining New Jersey, Vermont and Minnesota to move toward much stricter regulation of perfluorooctanoic acid.
Specifically, New York is considering a legally-enforceable drinking water standard of 10 parts per trillion of PFOA, which state officials said would be the country's toughest, well below the current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency advisory guideline level of 70 ppt.
The state's Department of Health is now tasked with taking the recommendations from its Drinking Water Quality Council and turning them into regulations.
While a chemical industry trade group criticized New York's action as going beyond what science supports for public health, one high-ranking state government official told a Dec. 18 council hearing that the vote to recommend a 10 ppt standard would protect people.
"I think the work you've done here today will save lives," said Basil Seggos, commissioner of the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. "This is New York leading. These are unregulated compounds that no one has taken the chance to regulate the way we have, if this comes to pass through regulation. [It's] nation-leading work."
State officials said water contamination from perfluorinated chemicals comes from a wide range of sources, including firefighting foams and coatings on paper packaging, but the fluoropolymer industry has also been identified as a source.
In New York, the issue came to wide public attention in 2016 with contamination around Saint Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. factories in the village of Hoosick Falls, where Saint Gobain paid for water system upgrades.
Nationally, DuPont Co. and Chemours Co. paid $670 million in 2017 to settle thousands of lawsuits over drinking water contamination from their fluoropolymer manufacturing plant in Parkersburg, W.Va.
And in November, Chemours agreed to pay a $12 million fine to North Carolina and spend $100 million to reduce emissions of GenX, a replacement for PFOA, by 99 percent by the end of 2019, from its Fayetteville Works facility. Chemours also agreed to protect drinking wells in impacted areas. The Fayetteville plant began making GenX commercially in 2009.
If New York's tougher standards prompt similar action in other states, it could mean tougher regulation and higher cleanup costs for companies.
Studies have linked PFOA and PFOS exposure to kidney and testicular cancer, low birth weight and liver tissue damage.
Legal standard
State officials said New York's proposed standard would be legally enforceable, unlike the U.S. EPA's national standard, which is advisory. New York is also considering a 10 ppt standard for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS.
The council's decision was generally praised by environmental groups and residents who attended the hearing, although there was a push among them for lower safety thresholds such as a 6 ppt standard and for including more types of perfluorinated chemicals in the state's regulations.
Council members include government and water district officials, along with university professors.
Water district officials said they supported standards to protect public health but also said they had concerns about what remained unknown about levels of PFOA and PFOS in water systems.
New York's state Department of Health estimated that a 10 ppt standard would cost water systems $855 million statewide in treatment upgrades and add $40 million a year to annual operating costs statewide.
"We really don't know what the practical impact will be setting it at 10 for PFOA," said Steven Schindler, director of water quality for New York City's Department of Environmental Protection. "It's challenging for me to support a level even though we want to be very protective of health, and I certainly do as well, not knowing what the outcome of that is going to be statewide."
Some New York residents, including from Hoosick Falls, testified that they had high levels of PFOA in their blood, and one brought her infant daughter in front of the council hearing and said the baby had tested at 75.9 parts per billion of PFOA when she was seven weeks old.
Several residents argued that inaction would lead to more health problems and higher costs for them personally, and they urged the state government to have companies, rather than taxpayers, fund treatment and cleanup.
Elizabeth Moran, environmental policy director for the New York Public Interest Research Group, urged the state to adopt the council's recommendations. NYPIRG and other groups urged New York to go beyond PFOA and PFOS and include more of the thousands of perflourinated chemicals in future rules.
"While this is a national standard that is being set today by New York state, we have to make sure and go forth in good faith to lower these levels down the road," she said. "There's more science coming out that there is likely no level of exposure to these chemicals that is assuredly safe for public health."
Industry said the 10 ppt level is not supported by science.
"All Americans deserve access to safe drinking water," the American Chemistry Council said in a statement. "While we recognize New York state's interest in developing standards for PFOS and PFOA in an effort to protect public health, the proposed levels are not supported by the science and would be difficult for smaller water systems to achieve."
ACC said New York's levels are much lower than EPA's advisory standard and Canada's guidelines of 200 ppt for PFOA and 600 ppt for PFOS.
But in a presentation at the council hearing, New York officials noted that other states are moving beyond the EPA standard.
New Jersey is currently considering a 14 ppt legally enforceable standard for drinking water, Vermont has an enforceable standard of 20 ppt for PFOA, PFOS and three related chemicals, and Minnesota has an advisory standard of 35 ppt for PFOA.
EPA lowered its advisory level for PFOA exposure in drinking water from 400 ppt to 70 ppt in 2016.
ACC said EPA is expected soon to issue a national management plan for the chemicals that's likely to include cleanup levels and to evaluate the need for national standards.
"EPA is best-positioned to provide the public with a comprehensive management plan informed by a full understanding of the risks and benefits of different PFAS chemistries," ACC said.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190109/NEWS/190109897/ny-eyes-tough-rules-for-pfoa-in-drinking-water
-
“Environmentally Friendly” Flame Retardants Break Down Into Potentially Toxic Chemicals
Jan 9, 2019 | Environmental Health News
By Brian Bienkowski
A purported "eco-friendly" flame retardant breaks down into smaller, possibly harmful chemicals when exposed to heat and ultraviolet light, according to a study from German researchers.
The study, published today in Environmental Science and Technology, is the first to show that a popular insulation flame retardant degrades into dozens of smaller chemicals and casts doubt that the "green" flame retardant is as harmless as touted.
It's also the latest example of manufacturers discontinuing harmful chemicals only to produce replacement chemicals with similar structures and exposure concerns.
"This class of flame retardant is rapidly becoming among the most-used type of flame retardant in the world," Joe Charbonnet, science and policy associate at the Green Science Policy Institute, told EHN.
"And they break down into things that look just like old flame retardants," said Charbonnet, who was not involved in the new study.
The flame retardant chemical—mostly used in insulation products and marketed as Polymeric FR (or PolyFR)—was touted as "breakthrough sustainable chemistry" when released by manufacturer Dow Chemical Company in 2011.
In a press release the company called it the "next generation industry standard" for flame retardants. About 26,000 tons of the chemical are made each year.
Dow made these claims because, unlike previous flame retardants, Polymeric FR has larger molecules, which makes it less likely to get into wildlife and people and build up in their bodies, as former flame retardants were doing.
However, researchers from Germany report today that when the flame retardant is exposed to ultraviolet light it breaks down into 75 different compounds, and many of these breakdown products contain bromine. When they exposed the compound to high heat—about 140 degrees Fahrenheit—there were seven breakdown compounds formed, one of which contained bromine.
Breakdown compounds with bromine are quite similar in structure to the brominated flame retardants being phased out, such as PBDEs, that build up in the environment, wildlife and people and are linked to disturbing health impacts: altered brain development, hormone disruption, diabetes, negative effects on the liver, thyroid and nervous, immune and reproductive systems.
While the researchers didn't test whether or not the breakdown products were toxic to people, the similar structures are a red flag.
The smaller brominated compounds "might be harmful to humans, especially when exposed to a mixture of these degradation products over a long period of time," said Christoph Koch, lead author of the study and a researcher at the University of Duisburg-Essen, in a statement.
"We have to make smart inferences," Charbonnet said. "The [breakdown compounds] look like other things that we know are toxic."Regrettable substitutions
The authors point out Polymeric FR is mostly installed behind roofs and walls so probably wouldn't face much UV radiation, however, "the whole life cycle of a product should be considered," they write.
There could be UV, or heat-induced, breakdown of the insulation both prior to or during installation (think a hot attic) or after it is sent to a landfill.
And, given the high use of the compound, even small amounts of degradation could have big impacts.
"Even a loss of 1 percent of PolyFR's mass can lead to significant amounts of degradation products over several years," Koch said. "Given that [more than] 26,000 tons of PolyFR are produced each year, our research suggests that the environmental impact of this flame retardant is larger than anyone suspected."
Charbonnet said it's time to take "concrete steps to avoid whole classes of compounds."
"When one flame retardant chemical is revealed to be toxic, manufacturers replace it with a chemical cousin that turns out to be toxic, it's a phenomenon called regrettable substitutions," he said. "We need to stop calling these "greener"— at the very least, the jury is still out, more and, more likely, they don't have better health and environment outcomes."
We've reached out to Dow Chemical and will update the story when they respond.
https://www.ehn.org/environmentally-friendly-flame-retardants-break-down-into-potentially-toxic-chemicals-2625440344.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
-
Johnson & Johnson Agrees First Talc Settlement for Over $1.5m
Jan 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Consumer products multinational Johnson & Johnson has reportedly reached its first settlement in a talcum powder case, paying more than $1.5m to a New York woman who claimed the company’s products caused her cancer.
The case centred around 78-year-old Ann Zoas, who said that asbestos exposure from the use of J&J’s baby powder caused her to contract mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. She blamed both J&J and talc supplier Imerys.
The 3 January settlement is apparently the first of its kind in the company’s ongoing legal battle over the safety of its baby powder, though it would not confirm that. However, the lower-profile Imerys has settled some claims previously.
In a statement, J&J said it has no organised programme to settle more cases in 2019 but will continue to "vigorously defend" the safety of its talc products in the courtroom.
"In litigation of every nature there are one-off situations where settlement is a reasonable alternative," said J&J. "The decision to resolve any particular case in no way changes our overall position that our talc is safe, is asbestos free and does not cause cancer."
Ms Zoas’ settlement comes amid a media firestorm caused by the recent revelation that J&J executives may have known about asbestos contamination in its talc products for decades, as reported by Reuters.
Her case was handled by veteran personal injury attorney Mark Lanier, who also won a $4.7bn verdict last summer for a group of 22 women blaming the company for their ovarian cancer.
There are over 11,700 lawsuits pending against J&J for its talc products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73095/johnson-johnson-agrees-first-talc-settlement-for-over-15m
-
EU Sets Outs Third POPs Implementation Plan
Jan 9, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The European Commission has published its third implementation plan to address new persistent organic pollutants (POPs) added to the Stockholm Convention since 2014 and the technical and legislative progress made in the area.
The aim is to review existing EU POPs measures and assess how efficiently and sufficiently they meet convention obligations. The previous plan was agreed in 2014.
The 30-point action plan, detailed in a 7 January implementation report and staff working document (SWD), includes proposals for greater dissemination of information and more coordination between authorities.
One of the aims is to identify areas needing further action and establish ways of putting them into practice. It also seeks to pinpoint and strengthen links and potential synergies between POPs management and other environmental policies and policy fields.
At the same time it wants to increase awareness of the chemicals and their control measures.New actions
Eight of the 30 necessary actions are new and address recently added chemicals, while nine are ongoing. The other 13 actions were already listed in the previous plan and still current.
New actions specifically for the Commission are:to compile information on HBCDD alternatives from REACH and feed this information into the Stockholm Convention process to guide the selection of such alternatives for uses in expanded polystyrene and extruded polystyrene in buildings;to gather available information on validated methods for identification of HBCDD in products/articles/wastes and facilitate its exchange among member states; andto develop guidance related to ‘closed-loop’ in the metal-plating industry, including PFOS-containing waste handling as part of this.
And the Commission and member states will:work to identify products, substances and materials containing PCB in open applications and raise awareness about environmental release from these (paints and sealants) within the EU;develop a strategy for identifying sites contaminated by POPs and for their environmentally sound remediation;support the work on decontamination of polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE)-containing materials through collection of information which should be disseminated to all stakeholders. This would also include promotion of techniques to manage these materials across the Union;facilitate exchange of information and experiences on elimination of PCBs (for example, through a workshop). This should be used to further explore progress made on their elimination within di-electric equipment, obstacles faced, and what member states could implement from lessons learnt; andensure better coordination and communication between scientific research communities and relevant national, Union and international bodies to communicate priority data needs in managing POPs issues.Gaps
According to the Commission, several member states have not met their POPs reporting obligations and need to improve. Despite"significant efforts" by member state entities in monitoring, knowledge gaps remain, the SWD says.
"This occurs because the chemical data generated by the monitoring activities are not being collected, managed and assessed in a coherent and accessible manner."
To address these gaps, an information platform has been established on a European scale and "a coordinated and integrated approach … will be ensured in future".
But also, the SWD says, the EU should develop ways to better coordinate bilateral aid programmes between the Commission and member states, to ensure available resources are used more efficiently.
To increase awareness and demonstrate support by EU financial instruments, specific information could be provided on the POPs Commission website, it added.
The updated implementation plan will be submitted to the Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention and published on the Commission website.
In November last year, the EU approved a recast of the POPs Regulation, which included lower limits on decaBDE flame retardants. NGOs had campaigned for the changes to be rejected.
https://chemicalwatch.com/73194/eu-sets-outs-third-pops-implementation-plan
-
Chevron, Oxy Invest in Climate Pollution Scrubbing Technology
Jan 9, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bobby Magill
Chevron and Occidental Petroleum are investing in technology that will suck carbon dioxide directly from the air near oil fields and store it underground as a way to address climate change, the companies announced Jan. 9.
The development is part of a broader ambitious effort to remove fossil fuel pollution from the atmosphere.
Scientists say such a move is necessary because it’s impossible to avoid the worst consequences of climate change—rising seas, inundated cities, extreme heat, and greater levels of disease, famine, and death—by cutting greenhouse gas emissions alone.
The technology is being developed by Carbon Engineering Ltd., a British Columbia-based firm that receives U.S. Energy Department funding. It is developing direct-air-capture technology using giant fans that suck carbon dioxide from the air. The company says the technique will cut the climate impact of fossil fuel use and assist in enhanced oil recovery techniques.
Carbon Engineering is also developing “air to fuels” technology that combines carbon dioxide scrubbed from the atmosphere with hydrogen to produce low-carbon transportation fuel for existing cars, trucks, and airplanes. Investments Not Disclosed
“With an increasing focus worldwide on the need for aggressive emissions reductions, CE’s technology can play a major role, and energy industry leaders like Occidental and Chevron will greatly accelerate commercialization of CE’s technology,” Carbon Engineering CEO Steve Oldham said in a statement.
The company said Chevron Technology Ventures and Oxy Low Carbon Ventures have made undisclosed investments in Carbon Engineering’s technology and business plan.
Oxy and Chevron’s specific investment in the company is confidential, Oldham told Bloomberg Environment.
Chevron spokesman Jan Sieving said Jan. 8 that the company doesn’t provide details on its investment numbers. Oxy declined to comment Jan. 8.
Directly removing carbon from the air is among many techniques being developed to clean the atmosphere, but no carbon removal technology has been proven at a scale that makes a difference for global warming. Carbon Engineering is one of a handful of firms attempting to prove the technology.
Nobody knows now much mass-scale carbon removal will cost or what its impacts will be, so major energy company investments may be important to determine if carbon-removal can occur on a mass scale in a cost-effective way, Michael Wara, an energy policy researcher and professor at Stanford Law School, told Bloomberg Environment.
“We’re going to be using fossil fuels in some parts of the economy for a long time,” Wara said. “If we can figure out how to cost-effectively remove as much carbon as we’re putting into the air, that would be a huge win.”Scaling Up
Chevron called Carbon Engineering’s air-to-fuels technology “a prime target area” for Chevron’s investments, Chevron Technology Ventures President Barbara Burger said in a statement.
California’s climate policies, such as the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standards, have created a demand for Carbon Engineering’s technology, Oldham said.
Direct-air-capture technology is too expensive to develop at a mass scale today, and more demonstration plants are needed to determine its viability, said Jennifer Wilcox, a chemical engineering professor studying carbon removal technologies at Worcester Polytechnic Institute in Massachusetts.
Oil company investments in direct-air-capture are necessary to help drive down the costs of the technology and refine the techniques so it can eventually be scaled up enough to help reduce the impact of global warming, Wilcox said.
Negative emissions technologies “are essential to meeting our climate goals at this point,” Wilcox said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/chevron-oxy-invest-in-climate-pollution-scrubbing-technology
-
Chevron and Occidental Invest in CO2 Removal Technology
Jan 9, 2019 | Financial Times
By Leslie Hook
Oil majors Chevron and Occidental Petroleum are taking a minority stake in a Canadian start-up that has developed technologies to suck carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere and use it to make synthetic fuel. The deal marks the first significant investment by energy groups into the technology, known as direct air capture, which pulls carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by using chemicals and fans. Carbon Engineering, a Bill Gates-backed start-up based in Squamish, British Columbia, said the new investment was part of a $60m fundraising round that would help it design and build commercial-scale plants. The company has not disclosed its valuation. The investment comes at a time when the oil and gas industry is racing to find ways to reduce carbon emissions while also maintaining its core business model, producing and selling fuel. Part of the answer could be “negative emissions”, which refers to a range of technologies that reduce the level of carbon dioxide in the air. “Negative emissions are increasingly essential in the various scenarios for how we address climate change,” said Steve Oldham, chief executive of Carbon Engineering. “It’s infeasible that we all stop using fossil fuels overnight.” Unlike more traditional methods of carbon capture, which rely on pulling carbon dioxide out of a smokestack or from close to the source of emissions in an industrial process, direct air capture sucks carbon dioxide from the air. The process has long been thought to be too expensive to be deployed on a large scale, but a paper published last year in scientific journal Joule using data from Carbon Engineering’s pilot plant suggested it could cost as little as $100 a tonne of carbon dioxide extracted. Tech innovations fuel an oil and gas fightback Carbon Engineering also uses carbon dioxide to produce synthetic fuels that can substitute for gasoline, jet fuel or marine fuel and be used in the same engines without modification, according to the company. Even though these fuels produce carbon dioxide when burnt, they are considered low-carbon fuels because they are made using carbon dioxide that came from the atmosphere in the first place. The investment in Carbon Engineering is only the second public deal made by Chevron’s Future Energy Fund, following its investment last year in ChargePoint, an electric vehicle charging company. “We are interested in looking at innovations around carbon capture,” said Barbara Burger, head of Chevron Technology Ventures. The fact that Carbon Engineering uses carbon dioxide to make synthetic fuels is an area of particular importance, she added, pointing to Chevron’s significant downstream business. Occidental said it was particularly interested in exploring atmospheric carbon extraction to complement its enhanced oil recovery operations, which inject carbon dioxide into old wells to maximise their production.
https://www.ft.com/content/59eed49a-13fe-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
-
Saudi Arabia Eyes Investment Into U.S. Gas—Energy Journal
Jan 9, 2019 | The Wall Street Journal - Blog
By Neanda Salvaterra
Good morning. After seeing its oil dominance wane, Saudi Arabia is considering an investment in the U.S. gas industry. Meanwhile, oil prices are benefitting from positive chatter coming from the U.S.-China trade talks. That aside, the U.S., once able to boast about its reduced carbon emissions, has lost those bragging rights as a strong economy has pushed up fossil fuel usage. Lastly, the U.S. is keeping up the pressure on Venezuela with new sanctions.
Let us know what you think of this newsletter by emailing EnergyJournal@wsj.com.
Did someone forward you this email? Sign Up HereSAUDI ARABIA EDGES TOWARD BET ON BOOMING U.S. ENERGY SECTOR
Saudi Arabia is nearing a deal to invest in U.S. liquefied natural gas, write the Journal’s Sarah McFarlane and Summer Said.
Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Aramco, has narrowed its focus to a shortlist of at least four U.S. LNG projects and intends to announce a deal in the first half of this year, people familiar with the matter said.
Companies with projects being considered include Tellurian Inc., a Houston-based LNG developer known for its intention to ship gas from its planned Driftwood terminal in Louisiana, said sources.In addition, San Diego-based Sempra Energy, which is developing five LNG projects between the U.S. and Mexico, has had discussions with Aramco concerning its Port Arthur project in Texas, according to sources.
Any such investment would mark a sea change in the energy flows between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.America’s shale revolution has broken years of dependence on Middle Eastern oil, to the extent that the International Energy Agency expects the U.S. to become a net energy exporter by 2023.
Meanwhile, oil prices received a boost on Wednesday following positive developments in the trade talks between the U.S. and China
Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, was trading up 2% at $59.89 a barrel on London’s Intercontinental Exchange, its highest level in more than three weeks.
West Texas Intermediate futures, the U.S. oil standard, were up 2.4% at $50.95 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
‘A lot of times energy is used as a club by rogue nations and I think (the U.S.) has proven itself to be a reliable supplier’—Mike Sommers, the president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute
U.S. CARBON EMISSIONS ROSE 3.4% IN 2018 AS ECONOMY SURGED
U.S. carbon emissions rose 3.4% in 2018, after three years of declines, as the effects of a strong economy outstripped a sharp decline in the number of power plants burning coal to generate electricity, reports Kris Maher.
The increase in carbon emissions was the biggest jump since 2010, when the economy was rebounding from the Great Recession, and the second largest increase in two decades, according to the Rhodium Group.
The U.S. had been among the world’s few success stories, dramatically reducing emissions for several years as it moved away from coal-fired power during the Obama administration. Those reductions have started to level off and potentially now are in reverse.
U.S. TARGETS HUGE CURRENCY SCHEME IN VENEZUELA BEFORE MADURO INAUGURATION
The U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned a Venezuelan network that allowed the owner of media giant Globovision Tele C.A. and several state-connected business people to illicitly make billions of dollars in profits from the country’s broken currency market.
The U.S. action is part of a comprehensive sanctions campaign Trump administration officials say is meant to pressure President Nicolás Maduro into restoring democratic order and the rule of law, report Ian Talley and Kejal Vyas.
Despite threatening to ban Venezuela’s most important resource, oil, the administration has so far held off from targeting the crude exports that American refiners buy to help keep America’s gasoline tank topped up.
BANK OF CANADA IS EXPECTED TO KEEP INTEREST RATES ON HOLD AMID LOWER CRUDE-OIL PRICES
The Bank of Canada is widely expected to keep its benchmark overnight interest rate on hold at a policy announcement Wednesday, giving officials more time to monitor the impact of low oil prices and financial-market turbulence on the Canadian economy, writes Kim Mackrael.
Economists from all 11 primary dealers of Canadian government securities told The Wall Street Journal they anticipate that the Bank of Canada will keep its key rate at 1.75%. A majority expect the central bank to wait until at least the second quarter before raising the rate again.
BIG NUMBER: 75%
Oil and gas firms are set to make more technology investments, according to a recent report by Ernst & Young. Firms surveyed anticipate that robotic process automation and advanced analytics “will have the most significant positive effect on their businesses,” says the report. 75% of the companies that participated in the survey are already implementing robotic process automation and 87% are using advanced analytics.
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2019/01/09/energy-journal-saudi-arabia-eyes-investment-into-u-s-gas/?guid=BL-MBB-70647&mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1&dsk=y
-
TransCanada to Change Name to TC Energy
Jan 9, 2019 | AP (In The New York Times)
TransCanada Corp., the company behind the contentious Keystone XL oil pipeline, is changing its name to TC Energy.
If approved by shareholders and regulators, TransCanada becomes TC Energy in the second quarter. The stock ticker "TRP" will not change.
The Keystone XL project is being delayed by a federal court that found the Trump Administration didn't fully consider the environmental effects when it approved the permit for the 1,184-mile (1,900 kilometer) pipeline, intended to ship up to 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil from Alberta, Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The project has been marred by protests. Environmentalists and Native American groups had sued to stop the pipeline, citing property rights and possible spills
ADVERTISEMENT
A hearing on the proposed pipeline is scheduled for Monday in Great Falls, Montana.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2019/01/09/business/ap-us-transcanada-name-change.html
-
Ted Lieu Floats Ambitious Warming Bill
Jan 9, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Nick Sobczyk
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) yesterday introduced an updated version of his "Climate Solutions Act," an ambitious measure that marks one of the first major climate bills of the new Congress.
H.R. 330 would create a national renewable energy standard, requiring 100 percent of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources by 2035.
It would also aim to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, compared with 1990 levels.
Lieu introduced a similar measure in 2015, but the updated version mirrors the quixotic goals laid out by progressive backers of the "Green New Deal," who call for 100 percent renewables in just 10 years.
"There is no threat greater to our nation's security than climate change," Lieu said in a statement. "Failing to protect our planet will endanger the lives of millions, hurt our economy and jeopardize our children's future."
Co-sponsors include Democratic Reps. Jimmy Gomez and Barbara Lee of California and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton of D.C.
Lieu circulated a letter to colleagues in December looking for co-sponsors, citing recent warnings about climate change, including the most recent U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (E&E News PM, Dec. 21, 2018).
Lieu's bill will likely be followed in coming months by a slew of Democratic climate bills, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) moves to make global warming a top-line issue for the House.
On the Senate side, Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), seen as a likely 2020 presidential candidate, is planning to introduce a similar measure in the style of the Green New Deal.
And Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) will likely reintroduce some form of the carbon tax bill he floated with Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in the last Congress.
"Now that Democrats are in the majority, we can and will be more aggressive on curbing the impact of climate change and creating a sustainable future for generations to come," Lieu said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/01/09/stories/1060111433
-
Calls For A Carbon Tax Are Coming After Dour 2018 Report. Republicans Are Leading The Charge
Jan 9, 2019 | Forbes
By Ken Silverstein
When news hit on Tuesday that CO2 emissions in the United States rose by 3.4% in 2018, it sucker punched the environmental community. But it also jolted the Trump administration, which said that its coal-friendly energy policies had not prompted any rise in domestic carbon levels.
Now the data indicate that this country is unlikely to meet the climate targets set by the Paris agreement — a 26% cut in CO2 releases by 2025, from 2005. As a result, there are clarion calls for new solutions and one subset is stepping up: moderate Republicans, who are presenting a carbon tax proposal.
Indeed, former Republican members of Congress such as Ryan Costello from Pennsylvania and Bob Inglis of South Carolina are among two of the champions of a carbon tax. They have joined former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Schultz, whose Climate Leadership Council has said that energy producers don’t bear the environmental price; rather, it is the broader society.
“It is also vital that Congress exert leadership on climate due to the Trump administration’s roll backs to critical federal programs that encourage growth in the clean energy and transportation sectors, clean our air and water and reduce carbon emissions,” says a letter from 500 business leaders across the United States representing E2. “By the end of the century, climate change could cost the U.S. economy $500 billion per year. This sum is much larger than the current GDPs of most states.”
That group is preceded by BP, Chevron Corp., ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and StatOil that have said that a carbon tax is superior to an international patchwork of laws. Moreover, those oil giants have major investments in natural gas, which has become the leading fuel to replace to coal — and, which also accounts for 1.9% of the overall 3.4% increase in CO2 releases.
“While a record number of coal-fired power plants were retired last year, natural gas not only beat out renewables to replace most of this lost generation but also fed most of the growth in electricity demand,” says the Rhodium Group’s report. “As a result, power sector emissions overall rose by 1.9%.” The White House has proposed to make it easier to build new coal-fired power plants, all at a time when coal plant closures totaled 16,000 megawatts last year.
US Capitol under sever weather. Flooding, Tornado and Lightning represent the political climateGETTY
Companies are calling too
As for oil companies, they know that tougher carbon constraints are coming and that they need to be at the table. Today, for example, those businesses back the Paris climate agreement to limit temperature increases to no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by mid century, from pre-industrial levels.
That evolution, meanwhile, comes after efforts by a few state attorneys general to have Exxon turn over documents. The papers allegedly show that the oil company knew decades ago that burning oil resulted global warming.
Under a carbon tax, government would assess utilities and industrials according to their carbon footprints. The Republican-led Climate Leadership Council says that British Columbia has such a carbon tax: government gradually increased the tax and then redistributed it to individuals. The council proposes to tax carbon at $40 per ton, which it says would generate $194 billion in year one and $250 billion 10 years later.
NextEra Energy, which is a utility focused on next generation energy technologies, says that it is a fairer way to assess pollution levels and that it is easier to administer than a cap-and-trade system. The proceeds from the carbon fee could also be used to develop clean energy technologies.
A joint report issued by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute says that pricing carbon is the most efficient way of reducing CO2 releases.
A decade ago, the discussions centered on a cap-and-trade system, where carbon ceilings are set and utilities must meet them, or buy credits that allow them to exceed such limits. But those debates occurred when the Democrats controlled both legislative chambers. When the Republicans took over the U.S. House in 2010, those ideas died. Donald Trump, today, denies the existence of manmade climate change and any immediate action is unlikely.
“Ultimately, it means penalizing companies that emit too much pollution or putting a price on carbon,” says Christine Todd Whitman, former EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, in an earlier interview with this writer. “The environmental cause is basically a Republican issue. We can do these things without cratering the economy.”
No doubt, Governor Whitman is sensitive to the needs of coal communities, noting that 21st Century energy businesses could find good homes there.
The Trump administration is an aberration, not just because its policies depart from those of the international community but also because they are contradicting the actions of American businesses. Most are trying to cut their carbon footprints. But in the wake of the 2018 carbon update, some companies and some Republicans are calling for a carbon tax. With proper vetting, the idea could catch on and the United States could once again become a global role model.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2019/01/09/calls-for-a-carbon-tax-are-coming-after-dour-2018-report-republicans-are-leading-the-charge/
-
Unions Tout Waxman-Markey As Alternative To 'Green' Deal, Carbon Tax
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
Seven energy-related labor unions are urging Congress to revisit the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade climate bill that passed the House in 2009 in lieu of both a carbon tax and a so-called “Green New Deal” that are gaining political traction, putting further strain on an already divided Democratic caucus.
The unions last month crafted a position paper, "Preliminary Labor Positions on Climate Change Legislation," that expresses worry about the job implications of a carbon tax and "grave concerns about unrealistic solutions" in the Green New Deal -- a plan by progressive Democrats to transition to an entirely renewable electricity sector by 2030.
Instead, the paper says a market-based "emission allowance trading program such as that developed in the 2009 Waxman-Markey bill” is a “good starting point for discussions about future climate legislation. Improving upon that bill could offer strong technology incentives while delivering significant longer-term emissions reductions.”
The push by the unions -- part of the AFL-CIO as well as the Union for Jobs and Environmental Progress, representing boilermakers, electrical workers, mine workers, iron workers, plumbers and pipefitters, and transportation workers -- to revive cap-and-trade comes as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) also appeared to float the idea of using that bill as a starting point for legislation in the opening days of the 116th Congress.
“We couldn't pass in the Senate our climate bill, and we'll be returning to that,” she told a Jan. 3 MSNBC town hall.
Sponsored by then-Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA), the measure narrowly passed the House 219-212 in June 2009. A year later, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said upcoming energy legislation would not include a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, effectively killing the effort.
In response, President Barack Obama said there is “more than one way to skin a cat,” and directed EPA to develop sector-specific GHG rules including the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and other measures the Trump administration is now rolling back.
The Waxman-Markey bill would have created a carbon trading market to reduce emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. Republicans and larger industry groups roundly criticized the measure as a job killer, with many observers arguing that cap-and-trade approaches became too politically toxic to embrace at the federal level.
Even though the legislation was not enacted, experts say the United States might still hit the 17 percent target by 2020 -- a goal the Obama administration first floated during 2009 international climate talks in Copenhagen.
But the issue and cap-and-trade are both back on the table again, at least in the new Democratic-controlled House. Pelosi called climate change the "existential threat of our time" when she retook the Speaker's gavel Jan. 3 and also revived a select climate committee to boost attention to the issue.
Labor unions, which helped draft parts of Waxman-Markey, now see it as a much better approach than a carbon tax or the Green New Deal, in particular because the prior bill included provisions to encourage carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), including a "bonus allocation program" granting two-for-one credits if a power plant installed and operated CCS.
"If a plant used CCS it would get a two-for-one bonus, so for every ton that was stored through CCS it would get an extra allowance . . . to put on the market to defray the cost of CCS," one policy adviser to the unions explains. That concept was taken from the earlier acid rain trading program adopted in 1990, which offered bonus allowances for plants that complied early by installing scrubbers, the source adds.
'Instant Death'
The unions "do not want to see the elimination of fossil fuel" and believe the two other oft-discussed climate mitigation approaches would quickly lead to that outcome.
The source calls a carbon tax "instant death" regardless of the selected tax rate because coal plants would immediately shift to natural gas. "You could not shut down the coal plants fast enough," the source says, noting that is what happened when Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states adopted the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which set low carbon prices of $2 and $3 per ton. "That's why RGGI states lost their coal generating capacity" so quickly.
Intended for Congress, the position paper was crafted throughout December and went through a half dozen drafts before winning support from the unions, the source explains.
Regarding Pelosi's comments referencing the cap-and-trade bill, the source says it is “gratifying” that she also appears to believe Waxman-Markey is “the appropriate starting point for deliberations by the select committee on climate. The position recommended by the seven labor unions recognized that the use of an allowance allocation program with bonus allowances for CCS deployment was the best means to ensure widespread commercial use of CCS technology. That in turn can be expected to generate significant job benefits for CCS construction and operation."
The source cites comments on the Green New Deal by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on the Jan. 6 broadcast of 60 Minutes, where she called the plan to transition to an all-renewable energy system in 11 years a "goal" that is "ambitious."
She is "basically acknowledging . . . that this cannot be done. . . . It's just an aspirational goal. It is difficult to take seriously when it's not a bill, and I'd sure like to see the bill that accomplishes that,” the source says.
The paper similarly criticizes the Green New Deal -- which also promises a federal job guarantee with a living wage for all Americans willing and able to work -- and says any legislation addressing carbon emissions reductions must also minimize the impact on the millions of fossil fuel-reliant jobs.
It notes that the unions have "consistently advocated for a comprehensive, economy-wide legislative solution" and calls legislation "essential for crafting appropriate worker adjustment assistance programs.”
The paper outlines a host of principles for any cap-and-trade legislation, including that it cover all major emitting sectors and that each be given their own cap; that caps should not be imposed for a decade after passage to allow time for compliance planning; that the bill should include the CCS bonus program; that prescribed emission reductions be determined based on technology cost and availability; and that utilities should receive a longer time frame to comply due to the need to develop CCS.
The unions are advocating for a single federal trading program rather than state-by-state caps, with interstate trading allowed. They also call for the free distribution of allowances, opposing auctions as a form of "double taxation;" few limitations on banking and borrowing; language to maintain fuel diversity among fossil, nuclear and renewables; a dramatic boost in the Energy Department's budget to accelerate CCS commercialization; and protections for workers in adversely impacted industries.
The paper also notes that legislation is far preferred over EPA GHG rules, because "the Clean Air Act is not an appropriate vehicle" to address the problem.
'Reverse Hands Of Time'
It is not clear if the push to again consider cap-and-trade will gain steam, given significant energy on the left for a Green New Deal, though many top Democrats, including Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) -- is throwing cold water on the feasibility of moving to an all-renewable electricity system within 11 years as envisioned in progressive's plan.
At the same time, some industry groups and moderate Republicans see a carbon tax as a simpler way to reduce emissions.
There is also unlikely to be much support in the GOP-controlled Senate to consider climate policies, and it is highly doubtful President Donald Trump would sign any legislation on the matter.
The union paper could be an early response to concerns that Trump could lose to a progressive Democrat in 2020, who would then seek to revive the strict Obama regulatory climate policies such as the CPP.
Even so, this is not the first time that observers have openly wondered whether the energy industry would have been better off if Waxman-Markey had been enacted. In 2015, Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) at an EPA budget hearing discussed the state of play if Waxman-Markey had passed.
"Is it fair to say that if [the bill] had been enacted into law and not been stopped by Senate Republicans that we would not be involved with the Clean Power Plan rules right now?" he asked. In response, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said, "It might have impacted the choice considerably and the requirements moving forward."
Also expressing support for the bill was Quin Shea of the Edison Electric Institute, who earlier that year suggested taking a poll of those "would like to reverse the hands of time [and create] a national program that tried to minimize winners and losers instead of a piecemeal regulatory approach?”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/unions-tout-waxman-markey-alternative-green-deal-carbon-tax
-
New CEQ Chief Agrees to Address 'Climate Preparedness'
Jan 9, 2019 | Inside EPA
Mary Neumayr, the newly confirmed chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), is committing to work on climate change “preparedness,” including in CEQ's planned overhaul of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing rules.
The commitment comes in a recently released letter from Neumayr to Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee ranking member Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE).
The Senate confirmed Neumayr as CEQ chair by voice vote Jan. 2. She had been acting chair since early 2017 and before that was a long-time GOP House staffer. During her July confirmation hearing before EPW, she won bipartisan praise.
Neumayr's pledge on climate adaptation comes in an Aug. 17 letter to Carper that was only recently released after she won confirmation. In the letter, she also pledges to hold public hearings including in the Mid-Atlantic if CEQ moves forward as expected with a proposed rule following its June advance notice of proposed rulemaking(ANPR) to streamline its NEPA implementing rules.
The letter responds to Carper's follow-up questions from her hearing, including whether she would support “the reinstatement of federal guidance for communities to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather and prepare for other impacts of climate change.” Carper was referring to a CEQ climate guidance document that was withdrawn after President Donald Trump's March 2017 energy executive order.
Neumayr says she would support the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other agencies' efforts to improve preparedness and resilience, and "commit" to working on actions such as "planning and preparing for extreme weather events, and the development of modern, resilient infrastructure to address future risks, including climate-created risks.”
CEQ is separately considering new climate guidance, though she does not mention this in the letter.
Neumayr also agrees with Carper that many highway projects are not delayed by NEPA because they have categorical exclusions "and do not require preparation of an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment." However, while she also agrees with Carper that lack of funding can cause major project delays, she would not agree that NEPA is never a primary cause of delay.
"Because its core responsibilities include overseeing implementation of NEPA, I believe it is important for CEQ to consider potential improvements to the environmental review and authorization process, including improved coordination and planning by federal agencies, while also ensuring environmental protection consistent with congressional directives,” she writes.
She also notes that if CEQ proceeds with a NEPA rule, it will conduct public outreach commensurate with the scope of the rulemaking. She argues CEQ's steps to date have gone beyond requirements, including issuing the ANPR, extending the public comment period and making comments publicly available for the first time. She adds that CEQ would hold public meetings, including one in the Mid-Atlantic region, if it issues a proposed rule.
Further, she details the groups CEQ met with in developing the ANPR, including environmental groups and the oil and gas industry.
In response to a question about whether the government should consider the social cost of carbon (SCC) in federal actions, Neumayr says SCC estimates were developed for regulatory actions and not project-level NEPA reviews.
She also responds to a question about whether EPA must regulate greenhouse gas emissions, writing that the "obligation will continue as long as the Endangerment Finding continues to be in effect,” and cites testimony from EPA air chief Bill Wehrum on May 16 saying EPA "does not have any plans at this time to reconsider" the finding.
Carper tells Inside EPA in a statement that after raising concerns about "many of the Administration's harmful environmental policies . . . EPA and CEQ have made specific commitments to me with respect to some of the most egregious ones. . . . I intend to hold Acting Administrator [Andrew] Wheeler, Chair Neumayr and the EPA nominees who have been confirmed to those commitments going forward."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/new-ceq-chief-agrees-address-climate-preparedness
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested