Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 14/01/19
-
Hearing on EPA Administrator Nominee
Jan 16, 2019 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Location: 406 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
Rules Governing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Jan 14, 2019 | Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
Location: 106 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Industry to Stay Strong Even as Economic Growth Slows
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Economists writing about 2018 already sound a bit wistful. Last year, the global economy grew 3.7%, according to the International Monetary Fund, and the US enjoyed an extraordinary time of growth and job creation. -
(ACC Mentioned) Year Begins with No End to US-China Trade War in Sight
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
Early last month, the US and China declared a three-month truce in their trade conflict after a meeting between their respective leaders. -
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs Will Muddy the Waters for Automotive Materials
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
Trade tensions among the US, Europe, and China will escalate and lead to shifts in global supply chains, say analysts at the credit ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service. -
(ACC Mentioned) There’s a Tiny Plastic Enemy Threatening the Planet’s Oceans
Jan 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report (In Fortune, TIME, Houston Chronicle)
By Eric Roston
Environmentalists have identified another threat to the planet. -
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Stocks Set to Ride Specialty Chemical Industry's Upswing
Jan 11, 2019 | Zacks.com
By Anindya Barman
Specialty chemicals that include catalysts, surfactants, speciality polymers, coating additives and oilfield chemicals are used in specific fields based on their performance. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Plastic Bottle Recycling Declines Slightly in 2017
Jan 11, 2019 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
Plastic bottle recycling declined slightly in 2017, slipping 3.6% to 2.8 billion lb, according to figures released jointly today by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). -
Nominee Deal May Have Included 'Secret Science' Redo
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A top EPA appointee is voicing confidence that Peter Wright will win Senate confirmation to run the agency's solid waste office after an eleventh-hour deal that reportedly involved a rewrite of the agency's controversial "secret science" proposal fell through earlier this month. -
This Coal Lobbyist Should Not Run the E.P.A.
Jan 14, 2019 | New York Times
By Dominique Browning
When I was pregnant with my first child, 35 years ago, one of the first things my doctor in Texas told me was to stop eating tuna, swordfish and other large, fatty fish because they were contaminated with mercury. -
(ACC Mentioned) An Ocean Engineer and a Nuclear Physicist Walk Into Congress …
Jan 13, 2019 | The New York Times
By Maggie Astor
From a couch on the back deck of a dockside restaurant, the Beatles playing in the background and a breeze blowing off the water, Joe Cunningham gestured to Shem Creek. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pentagon Recruits Rejected Scientist for Massive Pollution Fight
Jan 13, 2019 | Politico
By Annie Snider
The Defense Department has sought to hire a controversial scientist who was blocked from joining the Trump administration as the Pentagon fights state and federal chemical regulations that could lead to billions of dollars in cleanup costs and legal settlements, according to documents obtained by POLITICO. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Decision to Retain Industrial Air Toxics Limits Panned (1)
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Environmental advocates are troubled that the EPA couldn’t find any advances in technology or new health risks associated with air toxics from various industrial sectors that would merit tightening the hazardous pollutant standards. -
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Bill Dies on Baker's Desk
Jan 14, 2019 | Newbury Port News
By Katie Lannan
Gov. Charlie Baker will not sign into law a ban on certain chemical flame retardants in household goods, he told lawmakers Friday afternoon, citing concerns with the bill sent to him on the final day of the 2017-2018 legislative session. -
(ACC Mentioned) Massachusetts Bill Banning Certain Flame Retardant Chemicals Dies Without Gov. Charlie Baker’s Signature
Jan 11, 2019 | MassLive.com
By Gintautas Dumcius
A Massachusetts bill banning the use of some flame retardants in household and children’s products is dead, at least for now. -
(ACC Mentioned) Have an Idea for a Law? Here's How You Can Officially Propose It
Jan 14, 2019 | Lowell Sun
By Bob Katzen
There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week. -
DIBP Systematic Review Suggests US IRIS Assessment Progress
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
US EPA scientists have published a systematic review of the animal data for the phthalate DIBP, suggesting a step forward in the Integrated Risk Information System's (IRIS) assessment of the substance. -
Massachusetts Governor Vetoes Flame Retardants Ban
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) vetoed a bill to ban flame retardants but said he would support a similar measure if child car seats weren’t included. -
FDA is Dragging Its Feet While Children Continue to be Exposed to Perchlorate in Food
Jan 11, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
It has been more than 18 months since EDF and other advocates challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) May 2017 decision to continue allowing perchlorate in dry food plastic packaging and food handling equipment. -
Scotched Senate Nomination Deal Kills Key EPA Regulatory Pledges
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
A Democratic senator's recent action blocking confirmation for EPA's waste nominee appears to have killed -- at least for now -- a blockbuster deal in which the agency pledged to revise its controversial proposed science rule... -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Expansion Makes Shell Plant No. 1 in Alpha Olefins
Jan 12, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Gulf Coast has become home of one the largest producers of a common chemical after Shell recently fired up its fourth alpha olefins unit at its chemical plant in Geismar, La. -
Redo Well Fee Case, Pennsylvania Drillers Ask State High Court
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A coalition of Pennsylvania energy companies wants the state’s highest court to reconsider a ruling that would put them on the hook for millions of unpaid fees for low-producing natural gas wells. -
Gas Drilling Up, Oil Down - Rig Count Stays Flat
Jan 11, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The tally of rigs drilling for natural gas in the Northeast increased this week, but oil drilling declined in Oklahoma and the Gulf of Mexico. -
Republicans Shift on Offshore Drilling
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger
Republican opposition toward offshore drilling off the conservative state of South Carolina is amplifying. -
Court Deals Another Setback to Atlantic Coast Project
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week declined to soften a ruling that prompted developers of the Atlantic Coast pipeline to shut down construction on the project. -
Climate Action Relied on Natural Gas. Then CO2 Spiked
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
America has followed a simple formula for reducing carbon emissions this century: Retire old coal plants, replace them with natural gas, add a dash of renewables. -
EPA Weighs Easing Waste Rules For Bioreactor Landfills But Eyes Methane
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is considering easing limits on municipal solid waste landfills to allow for the addition of liquids to so-called wet and bioreactor landfills as a way of speeding waste degradation, but the agency is grappling with how to deal with increases in the emissions rate of methane... -
Environmentalists Seek To Continue Some EPA Suits As Shutdown Drags On
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are pushing back against EPA's efforts to stay all regulatory challenges and other litigation where the agency is a party until the government shutdown ends, arguing officials including Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys have authority to keep working on any case where a judge orders proceedings to continue. -
States Defend Push to Consider 'Background' Ozone in NAAQS
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
A coalition of states opposed to EPA's tougher 2015 ozone standard is defending its position that EPA should have considered naturally occurring "background" ozone when setting the standard, which they argue should result in a weaker limit... -
Republicans Plan Revival of Curbelo Carbon Tax Bill
Jan 11, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
A pair of climate-conscious Republicans are planning to reintroduce the "MARKET CHOICE Act," the landmark carbon tax bill floated last year by then-Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.). -
Action on Climate and Energy: Beyond Partisan Talking Points
Jan 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By David Hart
Young Democratic activists calling for a “Green New Deal” surprised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last month. Their sit-in forced the incoming Speaker to pay attention to climate change, an issue she might have preferred to keep on the back burner.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Hearing on EPA Administrator Nominee
Jan 16, 2019 | Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
-
Rules Governing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Jan 14, 2019 | Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Industry to Stay Strong Even as Economic Growth Slows
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Melody M. Bomgardner
Economists writing about 2018 already sound a bit wistful. Last year, the global economy grew 3.7%, according to the International Monetary Fund, and the US enjoyed an extraordinary time of growth and job creation.
But this year, growth in the US is expected to slow to 2.5%, down from 3.5% in 2018. The story is the same for other advanced economies, according to IMF projections. And China’s growth rate will continue falling back to earth, moving to 6.2% from 6.6%.
For the chemical industry in particular, demand for chemicals in Europe is expected to increase by only 0.5% this year, according to the European Chemical Industry Council, a trade association.Upswing
US chemical employment will grow thanks to shale gas–driven investments..
Source: American Chemistry Council.
Note: Numbers are projections.The US, in contrast, will be a bright spot. There, the cumulative power of spending and investment since the 2008 recession will keep factories humming, and that’s good news for chemical businesses. “The industry is poised for significant growth in output. It’s a very promising outlook,” says Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a trade group for US chemical makers.
High demand for chemicals used in manufacturing will dovetail with a rise in production capacity as new chemical facilities open to take advantage of the shale gas boom, Swift points out. The ACC projects that US chemical output, excluding pharmaceuticals, will rise 3.6% this year, up from an already vigorous 3.1% in 2018.
The biggest factor driving US demand for chemicals is consumer spending. Thanks mainly to job growth, consumer confidence remains at historically high levels. Even jobs in the chemical sector are multiplying after decades of erosion. And continued low unemployment is expected to finally push up wages this year.
But that wage pressure will also mean rising interest rates as the Federal Reserve looks to avoid inflation. That will make financing more expensive for consumers and is expected to dampen sales of cars, while sales of single-family homes will at best remain flat this year.
Businesses can still access relatively low-cost financing, and rising rates are not expected to hurt business investment. According to the Institute for Supply Management, manufacturers say they will increase capital expenditures by 6% this year. Chemical firms that supply materials for heavy equipment benefited from such spending last year, and that’s expected to continue.
While it’s hard to imagine there are any chemical company acquisitions still to be made, deals will flourish this year, according to EY. The consulting firm says the need to expand earnings and fend off competition will cause more consolidation in petrochemicals, paints and coatings, polymers, and specialty chemicals. The breakup of DowDuPont into three new companies will likely create trickle-down merger and acquisition activity as they cast off noncore businesses.
One concern looming over the US industry is trade. Many of the new Gulf Coast chemical facilities were developed in part or full for the export market. This year exports are likely to be hampered by slowing growth overseas, Swift says.
Companies will also be watching the ongoing trade disputes, though Swift says the ACC has included their impact in its outlook.
https://cen.acs.org/business/World-Chemical-Outlook-2019-Around-the-globe/97/i2#Business
-
(ACC Mentioned) Year Begins with No End to US-China Trade War in Sight
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Jean-François Tremblay
Early last month, the US and China declared a three-month truce in their trade conflict after a meeting between their respective leaders. But as the meeting was going on, Canadian authorities quietly arrested a senior executive from Chinese electronics firm Huawei at the request of the US, a move that triggered fierce protests from China. This messy end to 2018 ensured that the US-China trade spat will continue to make headlines in 2019. As C&EN went to press, trade negotiators from both sides were meeting in Beijing.
The conflict began in March when the US, in an effort to convince China to change certain investment and intellectual property policies, threatened to impose a 25% import tax on $50 billion worth of Chinese goods. The US not only made good on the threat but also started collecting a 10% tax on an additional $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. China retaliated by introducing taxes on $110 billion worth of US products.
Chemicals are an important component of US-China trade. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents the US chemical industry, calculates that over 1,000 US chemicals and plastics, worth nearly $11 billion per year, are affected by China’s retaliatory tariffs. On the US side, buyers have to pay more for over 1,500 Chinese chemicals and plastics worth more than $15 billion.
“The tariffs will cut off U.S. manufacturers from international supply chains and from importing inputs that help keep them competitive in the global marketplace,” the ACC commented in September.
Depending on the chemical or plastic, the tariffs could have a variety of effects. In the case of polyolefins, for example, the tariffs imposed by China could reduce investment in new facilities in the US.
China’s retaliatory tariffs on petrochemicals and plastics are lowering the financial returns on US-based plants, making the construction of new facilities less likely, according to Ashish Chitalia, a principal analyst at Wood Mackenzie Chemicals, an industry consultant. China is the world’s largest market for basic plastics, and tariff rates of 5 to 25% hurt US competitiveness, he explains.
On the other hand, Chitalia notes, higher prices for Chinese-made plastic goods could lead to new investments in the US by plastic processors.
For chemicals used by the electronics industry, the impact of a long trade war would be profound. Lita Shon-Roy, president of the electronic materials consulting firm Techcet, says US materials suppliers could gradually lose what share they have of the Chinese market.
“Eventually, China will minimize their dependency on American-made goods through vertical integration and rerouting their supply chain to the exclusion of the US,” Shon-Roy says. In the US, the electronics industry has had to absorb price increases in excess of 25% for certain Chinese-made materials, she adds.
If the US and China don’t come to an agreement before March 1, $200 billion worth of Chinese goods that the US currently taxes at 10% will have their rate increased to 25%. China will certainly retaliate, but as it is running out of US imports to tax, it may impose new restrictions on US companies.
https://cen.acs.org/business/World-Chemical-Outlook-2019-Around-the-globe/97/i2#Business
-
(ACC Mentioned) Tariffs Will Muddy the Waters for Automotive Materials
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Marc Reisch
Trade tensions among the US, Europe, and China will escalate and lead to shifts in global supply chains, say analysts at the credit ratings agency Moody’s Investors Service. Those tensions have already been felt in the automotive sector, where the outlook is for marginal increases in sales of cars and light trucks.
The slowing growth will have a trickle-down effect on chemical makers. BASF, for instance, says its business with the automotive sector has been slipping since the third quarter of 2018. In particular, demand from customers in China slowed “significantly,” the world’s largest chemical maker says. A major factor in the slowdown, BASF says, is the trade conflict now underway between the US and China.
Overall, analysts at Moody’s are forecasting that global light-vehicle sales will increase 1.3% in 2019, down from 1.5% this year. China, which experienced double-digit sales growth as recently as 2016, saw sales drop in 2018 and may see little growth in 2019.
The UK’s approaching Brexit from the European Union could cost the UK car industry $10 billion in annual revenue, according to the consulting firm LMC Automotive. Light-vehicle production could fall to 1.4 million units in 2019 from 1.6 million in 2018 if tariffs rise under a no-deal Brexit scenario, LMC says.
In the US, vehicle sales are likely to fall as tariffs and talk of a downturn spook the economy, despite current good conditions. Cox Automotive, an Atlanta-based auto research service, says US car sales will drop to about 16.7 million units this year from 17.2 million in 2018. The threat of new tariffs influenced consumers to purchase vehicles in 2018 rather than postpone to 2019, the firm concludes. Higher interest rates and stock market volatility are likely to contribute to this year’s decline, Cox adds.
Economists at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which represents major US chemical producers, acknowledge that US auto production is set to fall in 2019, but they point out that the plastic and chemical content of vehicles is rising as the use of steel continues to decline. That trend will somewhat mute the impact of vehicle sales declines on chemical makers.
According to the ACC, each vehicle built in the US represents over $3,250 in chemical content, up from $2,664 in 2008. That content includes adhesives, coatings, fibers, plastic resins, rubber-processing chemicals, and synthetic fluids.
Complicating matters for both chemical makers and automakers are tariffs that the US and China have imposed on chemicals and other goods imported from each other. “Tariffs raise prices,” points out Ray Will, a director at the consulting firm IHS Markit. “The list of items from China subject to tariffs is staggering,” he says. For example, US auto-part makers that use fluoropolymers imported from China were hurt because of the tariffs, he notes.
US makers of the polymers, used in under-hood seals, benefited because they could raise prices, Will says. But in the end, he notes, consumers will have to bear the increased costs.
https://cen.acs.org/business/World-Chemical-Outlook-2019-Major-markets/97/i2#Specialty-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) There’s a Tiny Plastic Enemy Threatening the Planet’s Oceans
Jan 11, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report (In Fortune, TIME, Houston Chronicle)
By Eric Roston
Environmentalists have identified another threat to the planet. It’s called a nurdle.
Nurdles are tiny pellets of plastic resin no bigger than a pencil eraser that manufacturers transform into packaging, plastic straws, water bottles and other typical targets of environmental action.
But the nurdles themselves are also a problem. Billions of them are lost from production and supply chains every year, spilling or washing into waterways. A U.K. environmental consultancy estimated last year that preproduction plastic pellets are the second-largest source of marine plastic, after micro-fragments from vehicle tires.
Now, shareholder advocacy group As You Sow has filed resolutions with Chevron Corp., DowDupont Inc., Exxon Mobil Corp. and Phillips 66 asking them to disclose how many nurdles escape their production process each year, and how effectively they’re addressing the issue.
As justification, the group cites estimates of high financial and environmental costs associated with plastic pollution, and recent international efforts to address it. These include a United Nations conference in Nairobi and a U.S. law banning micro-plastics used in cosmetics.
“We’ve had information over the last couple of years from the plastics industry, that they’re taking this all seriously,” said Conrad MacKerron, senior vice president of As You Sow. The companies say they have set goals to recycle plastics, he said. “This is really more of a bellwether moment, as to whether they’re serious … if they’re willing to come out, warts and all, and say ‘here’s the situation. Here are the spills that are out there. Here’s what we’re doing about them.’”
The companies already participate in Operation Clean Sweep, a voluntary industry-backed effort to keep plastics out of the ocean. As part of an initiative called OCS Blue, members are asked to share data confidentially with the trade group about the volume of resin pellets shipped or received, spilled, recovered and recycled, along with any efforts to eliminate leakage.Nurdles on Seal Beach, Orange County, California, USA. Universal Images Group UIG via Getty Images
Jacob Barron, a spokesman for the Plastic Industry Association (PIA), an industry lobby, said “the provision about confidentiality is included to eliminate competitive concerns that might prevent a company from disclosing this information.” The American Chemistry Council, another lobbying group, co-sponsors OCS along with the PIA. In May, it announced long-term industry-wide goals to recover and recycle plastic packaging, and for all U.S. manufacturers to join OCS Blue by 2020.
There’s limited information on the extent of this kind of plastic pollution by U.S. companies, and global researchers have struggled to make an accurate assessment. A 2018 study estimated that 3 million to 36 million pellets may escape every year from just one small industrial area in Sweden, and if smaller particles are considered, the quantity released is a hundred times greater.
Eunomia, the British environmental consultancy that discovered that nurdles are the second-largest plastic pollutant, estimated in 2016 that the U.K. could be unwittingly losing between 5.3 billion to 53 billion pellets into the environment every a year.
Braden Reddall, a spokesman for Chevron, said the fossil fuel giant’s board reviews shareholder proposals and makes recommendations for each in its proxy statement, planned for April 9. Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow, said the company regularly talks with shareholders about sustainability issues and works to “develop solutions that keep plastic out of our environment.”
Joe Gannon, a spokesperson for Phillips 66, said his company “has received the shareholder proposal and has offered to engage with the proponent.” ExxonMobil declined to comment.
The companies will decide in the next several months whether to include the resolutions in this year’s proxy statements, according to As You Sow.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/theres-a-tiny-plastic-enemy-threatening-the-planets-oceans
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Stocks Set to Ride Specialty Chemical Industry's Upswing
Jan 11, 2019 | Zacks.com
By Anindya Barman
Specialty chemicals that include catalysts, surfactants, speciality polymers, coating additives and oilfield chemicals are used in specific fields based on their performance. They have application in the manufacturing process of a vast range of products including paints and coatings, cosmetics, petroleum products, inks and plastics.
Industry Set to Run Higher in 2019
The specialty chemical industry is poised for an upside in 2019 on healthy demand in end-use markets such as construction, electronics, automotive and agriculture. In particular, the U.S. specialty chemical industry is set to ride the growth wave this year on the back of higher industrial activities and rising end-market demand.
The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), a leading industry trade group, envisions growth in construction markets along with gains in manufacturing and exports to drive the specialty chemicals segments.
According to the ACC, the specialty chemicals segment is expected to see production growth of 2.2% in 2019. Improvement in oilfield chemicals, electronic chemicals, coatings, adhesives, cosmetic chemicals, and flavors and fragrances are fueling growth in specialty chemicals. The trade group expects demand for specialty chemicals to grow in sync with gains in industrial and construction sectors in the years ahead.
The ACC expects improving export markets to contribute to growth of the domestic chemical industry. Strength in export markets and higher business investment have boosted demand in major chemical end-use markets such as light vehicles and housing, per the trade group. While the automotive sector remains at high levels, housing activity is improving with 1.27 million starts in 2018 and 1.34 million in 2019. Light vehicle sales are also expected to remain elevated at 16.8 million in 2019.
Strategic Actions to Reap Margin Benefits
Companies in the specialty chemical space face headwinds from a spike in costs of raw materials as a result of short supply partly due to production outages and plant shutdowns. China’s environmental crackdown has led to the tightening in the supply of certain key raw materials as a result of plant closures. The disruption in the supply chain has pushed up the prices of inputs.
However, the companies in this space are gaining from strategic measures including cost-cutting and productivity improvement, expansion into high-growth markets, operational efficiency improvement and earnings-accretive acquisitions. Moreover, a number of companies are taking aggressive price increase actions in the wake of raw material cost inflation. These actions should help them alleviate any pressure on margin.
Trade Tariffs — A Dampener
Trade tensions between the United States and China continue to cloud the prospects of the chemical industry. The Trump administration slapped punitive tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese products last year while China has imposed retaliatory tariffs on $110 billion in U.S. goods. China’s tariffs on American products include a wide range of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and plastics.
The United States and China reached a temporary ceasefire on tariffs at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires in December 2018. Under the truce, the countries agreed not to levy further tariffs for 90 days. The Trump administration agreed to hold off on plans to raise tariffs (to 25% from existing 10%) on $200 billion in Chinese goods. However, the existing tariffs remain in place.
Washington and Beijing now have until Mar 1, 2019 to hammer out a deal before additional tariffs are implemented. While recent talks between the countries have raised hopes of a resolution of the trade dispute, the tariffs currently in place are already doing damage to the chemical industry.
China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals. Beijing’s retaliatory trade actions have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in this major market. Chemical industry trade groups are worried that the tariffs would hurt U.S. chemical exports and the competitiveness of the American chemical industry. China’s retaliatory tariffs have hit more than 1,000 U.S. chemicals and plastics exports worth an estimated $10.8 billion, per the ACC.
5 Specialty Chemical Stocks to Buy
Notwithstanding a few challenges including input cost pressure and concerns over trade tariffs, the specialty chemical industry is poised for an upswing this year on growing end-market demand, growth in industrial and construction sectors and gains in exports.
The Zacks Chemicals Specialty industry currently carries a Zacks Industry Rank#107, which places it in the top 42% of more than 250 Zacks industries. Our back testing shows that the top 50% of the Zacks ranked industries outperforms the bottom half by a factor of more than two to one.
As such, it would be prudent to invest in specialty chemical stocks that have compelling growth prospects. We highlight the following five stocks with Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) or 2 (Buy) that are good options for investment right now. You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Ferro Corporation (FOE - Free Report)
Ohio-based Ferro sports a Zacks Rank #1 and has an expected earnings growth of 21.6% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 4.4% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, the company delivered positive earnings surprise in three of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 0.3%. The company also has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 15.6%.
Ingevity Corporation (NGVT - Free Report)
Our next pick in the space is South Carolina-based Ingevity sporting a Zacks Rank #1. It has expected earnings growth of 21.5% for 2019. The company also has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 12%. Moreover, Ingevity delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of 19.8%.
Westlake Chemical Partners LP (WLKP - Free Report)
Based in Texas, Westlake Chemical Partners carries a Zacks Rank #2. The company has expected earnings growth of 14.2% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 5.1% upward over the last 60 days. The stock also has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 2.8%
Quaker Chemical Corporation (KWR - Free Report)
Pennsylvania-based Quaker Chemical is another attractive choice armed with a Zacks Rank #2. It has an expected earnings growth of 21.1% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.7% upward over the last 60 days. The company delivered positive earnings surprise in each of the trailing four quarters, with an average positive surprise of roughly 5%. The stock also has an expected long-term earnings per share growth rate of 11%
Livent Corporation (LTHM - Free Report)
Pennsylvania-based Livent caries a Zacks Rank #2. The company has an expected earnings growth of 20.5% for 2019. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.8% upward over the last 60 days. Moreover, the company delivered positive earnings surprise of 19.1% in the last reported quarter.
More Stock News: This Is Bigger than the iPhone!It could become the mother of all technological revolutions. Apple sold a mere 1 billion iPhones in 10 years but a new breakthrough is expected to generate more than 27 billion devices in just 3 years, creating a $1.7 trillion market.
Zacks has just released a Special Report that spotlights this fast-emerging phenomenon and 6 tickers for taking advantage of it. If you don't buy now, you may kick yourself in 2020.
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/346894/5-stocks-set-to-ride-specialty-chemical-industrys-upswing
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: Plastic Bottle Recycling Declines Slightly in 2017
Jan 11, 2019 | Greener Package
By Anne Marie Mohan
Plastic bottle recycling declined slightly in 2017, slipping 3.6% to 2.8 billion lb, according to figures released jointly today by the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC). The The 2017 United States National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report indicates the overall recycling rate for plastic bottles for the year was 29.3%, down 0.4% from 29.7% in 2016. The five-year CAGR for plastic bottle recycling was 0.1%.
Factors that contributed to the industry challenges included changing export markets and a 3.6% drop in material collected for recycling. Ongoing increases in single-stream collection also led to increased contamination of recyclables in the near term. In addition, growth in the use of plastic in bottles was offset by continuing progress in lightweighting and increased use of concentrates with smaller, lighter bottles.
In 2017, PET (#1) bottles collected for recycling decreased by 27 million lb. The collection of high-density polyethylene (#2) bottles, which include bottles for milk, household cleaners, and detergents, fell by 70.3 million lb (6.3%) to just over 1.0 billion lb for the year. The recycling rate for HDPE bottles slipped from 33.4% to 31.1%.
Exports of HDPE bottles fell nearly 28% from 193 million lb to 140 million lb, or 13.4% of total HDPE bottles collected in 2017. The processing of recycled HDPE sourced domestically and imported fell by 31 million lb in 2017.
“Plastic bottle recycling is proving to be resilient in the face of short-term challenges,” says Steve Alexander, President of APR. “The recycling industry is responding in kind, with some investing in increased U.S. infrastructure, a clear sign of a positive long-term outlook. These investments underscore the need for continued consumer participation and convenient access to recycling programs.”
Says Steve Russell, ACC’s Vice President of Plastics, “Increasing plastics recycling is a critical part of moving toward a more circular economy, and commitments made across the value chain—from brand owners to plastics makers to recyclers—give us good reason to be optimistic about the long-term prospects for plastics recycling. Plastics makers in North America and Europe have committed to recycle or recover all plastic packaging by 2040.”
This year’s survey found the collection of polypropylene (#5) bottles fell 15.2% to 31.1 million lb, as the PP collection rate dropped to 17.2%. PP caps, closures, and non-bottle containers are widely collected for recycling in the U.S., and these data are presented in a separate report on recycling non-bottle rigid plastics, which will be released in the coming months (until then, see the 2016 National Post-Consumer Non-Bottle Rigid Plastic Recycling Report).
Together, PET and HDPE bottles make up 97% of the U.S. market for plastic bottles, with PP comprising 1.9%, low-density PE 0.7%, and polyvinyl chloride 0.3%. Together, PET and HDPE comprise 98.8% of bottles recycled, with PP comprising 1.1%.
The 2017 United States National Postconsumer Plastic Bottle Recycling Report is based on a survey of reclaimers conducted by More Recycling, formerly Moore Recycling.
https://www.greenerpackage.com/recycling/report_plastic_bottle_recycling_declines_slightly_2017
-
Nominee Deal May Have Included 'Secret Science' Redo
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
A top EPA appointee is voicing confidence that Peter Wright will win Senate confirmation to run the agency's solid waste office after an eleventh-hour deal that reportedly involved a rewrite of the agency's controversial "secret science" proposal fell through earlier this month.
As the 116th Congress gets underway, "we trust there will be an agreement, and we are working toward that," EPA Chief of Staff Ryan Jackson said in an email to E&E News on Friday. "Mr. Wright is exceptionally qualified, and our land and emergency response office has gone too long without its leader."
President Trump nominated Wright, a former lawyer for what is now the DowDuPont Inc. chemical company, last March to head EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management.
After his nomination mostly languished for the rest of the year, Wright seemed poised to join several other candidates for top environmental posts in winning confirmation near the end of the 115th Congress this month. But the deal collapsed after Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) demanded a roll call confirmation tally instead of a voice vote (E&E Daily, Jan. 9).
As part of the failed quid pro quo, EPA would have committed to make significant changes to its proposed rule limiting the agency's use of scientific research in drafting major regulations, according to a lobbyist familiar with the terms.
The original proposal, which would allow EPA to tap only studies for which the underlying data "are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation," set off a storm of criticism when then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt unveiled it last April. Under Pruitt's successor, acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the agency has since put the draft rule on a slow track to completion (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2018).
As part of the deal to secure Wright's confirmation, EPA would have reproposed a new version that would not apply retrospectively to existing regulations and in a form that complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, among other changes, according to the lobbyist, who spoke to E&E News on condition of anonymity. Wheeler would have also reappointed eight current members of the Science Advisory Board, the lobbyist said.
Other elements of the tentative agreement, most of which were initially reported by Politico, included placing two chemicals in the PFAS category on a list of hazardous substances and moving ahead with a report on the risks of formaldehyde.
In a separate message, Jackson broadly disputed the accuracy of the Politico report, which cited an unnamed environmental lobbyist as its source.
"We did not consult with environmental lobbyists so any of their characterizations are at best second hand," Jackson said. He did not address a follow-up question asking whether EPA had made any commitments to win Wright's confirmation and, if so, what they were.
But Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) had previously touted trade-offs granted by EPA as a condition of Senate approval for three other nominees for environmental positions confirmed in the waning hours of the 115th Congress (Greenwire, Jan. 7).
Carper, the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, also suggested last week that Wright could easily win confirmation if Trump again taps him for the solid waste post.
Asked Friday about the terms of the reported compromise, a Carper spokeswoman would only express hope that, once the partial government shutdown ends, "constructive negotiations with agencies regarding nominations and other matters can resume to secure enhanced protections for the environment and public health."
Wright is serving as senior counsel to Wheeler. As of Friday, President Trump had not renominated him for the solid waste post, according to the White House's website.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/01/14/stories/1060111779
-
This Coal Lobbyist Should Not Run the E.P.A.
Jan 14, 2019 | New York Times
By Dominique Browning
When I was pregnant with my first child, 35 years ago, one of the first things my doctor in Texas told me was to stop eating tuna, swordfish and other large, fatty fish because they were contaminated with mercury. What I didn’t know until I began working on children’s health issues is that the mercury in our food starts as a pollutant in our air.
Mercury is released from the combustion of coal and emitted into the atmosphere from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants. It rains down on land and water, where it is passed up the food chain as methylmercury. Its effects among aquatic animals is particularly pernicious. By the time it reaches larger fish, the concentrations of mercury in their fatty tissue becomes dangerously magnified.
That’s why the federal government warns against consuming certain seafood. When pregnant women eat mercury-laden fish, the poison immediately crosses into the bloodstream, travels into the placenta and then makes its way into the fetus, where it deposits itself in the fattiest tissue available: the brain. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. It disrupts the developing architecture of a baby’s brain. It can cause brain damage in infants, affecting a child’s ability to walk, talk, read and learn.
For adults, ingesting even small amounts of mercury can cause serious health problems, harming the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs and immune system. Those coal-fired power plants also spew out lead, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases, as well as cancer-causing chromium and selenium.
The Environmental Protection Agency spent more than 20 years working on standards that would require power plants to filter mercury from their emissions. The power industry repeatedly sued the agency to block restrictions. But finally, in 2011, the E.P.A. finalized a rule, the Mercury and Toxic Air Standards, that imposed limits on mercury emissions. The standards have been a resounding success; a testament to a government agency doing its job to keep us safe.
To comply, many power plants were outfitted with technology known as scrubbers to remove mercury from the emissions before they leave the smokestack. Since the rule went into effect in 2012, electric companies have cut mercury emissions by nearly 90 percent, according to the Edison Electric Institute, an industry group. Mercury levels in Atlantic fish have been dropping in recent years, a consequence of this rule, but not in fish in the Pacific Ocean, where prevailing winds carry mercury pollution from Asia.
So who would want to unravel such an important health protection? The very man President Trump nominated last Wednesday to succeed Scott Pruitt as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: Andrew Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler, currently the acting administrator, had served as the deputy administrator under Scott Pruitt, who resigned in July facing more than a dozen investigations into his spending and management practices. The Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to consider his nomination at a hearing this Wednesday.
A former coal industry lobbyist, Mr. Wheeler recently proposed a revision to the way the government evaluates the costs and benefits of regulating mercury emissions and, more broadly, air pollution. While the proposed change would not itself upend the rule, it would revoke the E.P.A.’s determination that it was “appropriate and necessary,” undermining the very foundation on which the regulation is built.
In other words, if the rule wasn’t “appropriate and necessary,” why have it? In essence, Mr. Wheeler is inviting the coal industry to challenge the mercury rule in court. And not only the mercury rule. By rewriting the way costs and benefits are evaluated, Mr. Wheeler’s proposal threatens regulations governing a host of other environmental poisons.
The issue over the mercury rule has focused on costs and benefits. Mr. Wheeler’s E.P.A. argues that the Obama administration was wrong to include “co-benefits” that would result from the rule. The scrubbers that remove mercury from coal plant emissions also reduce other pollutants, especially particulates, which are deadly, so this co-benefit keeps lethal pollution out of the air.
Reductions in heart and lung disease from particulates prevent up to an estimated 11,000 premature deaths a year. And those other hazardous air toxics coming from industrial coal stacks? As someone who has survived kidney cancer — my oncologist vaguely explained it was “one of those environmental cancers” — I can promise you these aren’t things we want to breathe: probable carcinogens like cadmium, arsenic, benzene and formaldehyde, among others. The cost associated with harm from these was not even monetized by the E.P.A. Keeping them out of our air is a “freebie.”
If anything, the benefits of reducing mercury have been vastly understated. Since the rule was finalized, the science documenting the severe health impacts of mercury has become even stronger. New studies show that the quantified benefits of reducing mercury are now in the billions of dollars; a study published in the journal Environmental Health in 2017 estimated that the societal costs associated with the neurocognitive deficits from methylmercury exposure in the United States that year was $4.8 billion.
Among those urging the E.P.A. to leave the mercury standards alone was, surprisingly, the nation’s electric utility industry, which found that implementation cost far less than they had anticipated. Power industry experts indicate the true costs of the standards are $2 billion — or less than a quarter of what the agency originally estimated. Mr. Wheeler ignored the industry’s request that the standards be left in place. As the Rev. Mitch Hescox, president of the Evangelical Environmental Network, wrote in The Christian Post, addressing Mr. Wheeler’s legalistic cover of not overturning the rule but making it vulnerable to legal attack: “God is not fooled — and neither are we.” He added, “We’ll never give up on protecting children and the unborn from mercury pollution. Never.”
President Trump’s pro-polluter agenda is profoundly radical — and immoral. We are in danger of normalizing the president’s ruthless disregard for health- and science-based protections. Mr. Wheeler’s cynical ploy to upend the mercury regulations is emblematic of his agenda. His fingerprints are all over proposed rollbacks of environmental regulations covering cars, carbon emissions from power plants, coal ash and more. For this destructiveness, Mr. Trump praised him in November, saying he had “done a fantastic job and I want to congratulate him.”
Mr. Wheeler’s E.P.A. is also weakening implementation of a bipartisan law passed in 2016 protecting the public from toxic chemicals; people with chemical industry résumés dominate his staff. And Mr. Wheeler has sought to roll back an Obama-era rule requiring energy companies to monitor and repair leaks of methane; these leaks can occur from the moment a well is fracked until the gas gets to your home. Methane is an extremely powerful and swift contributor to global warming. Rather than move the country onto a path toward climate safety, Mr. Trump and Mr. Wheeler are leading us — and the world — closer to mutually assured destruction.
Mr. Wheeler is more media savvy than Mr. Pruitt ever was, and that makes him more dangerous. His nomination to run the E.P.A. is among the most consequential and cynical of all the cabinet appointments that Mr. Trump has proposed. Mr. Wheeler’s disregard for the agency’s core mission — to protect public health and the environment — is brazen. But what else should we expect from a former coal industry lobbyist?
Andrew Wheeler has demonstrated over and over again why he should not be entrusted with protecting us from harm. If his failure to do one single thing to address the global warming catastrophe isn’t bad enough to stop this nomination, perhaps his decision to upend the mercury rule, which could threaten the brains of tiny babies, will wake up senators. No one voted to make America dirty again.
Dominique Browning is the senior director and a co-founder of Moms Clean Air Force.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/14/opinion/epa-trump-andrew-wheeler.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) An Ocean Engineer and a Nuclear Physicist Walk Into Congress …
Jan 13, 2019 | The New York Times
By Maggie Astor
From a couch on the back deck of a dockside restaurant, the Beatles playing in the background and a breeze blowing off the water, Joe Cunningham gestured to Shem Creek.
“This could be the reality here, of oil rigs and oil spills off the beach,” Mr. Cunningham said. “An oil spill could just decimate the area, and all of a sudden instead of people coming to Charleston, South Carolina, they high-tail it down to Florida or somewhere else.”
Offshore drilling might not captivate voters in most parts of the country, but it did here. For months, Mr. Cunningham called for the restoration of a federal ban as his Republican opponent, Katie Arrington, talked about immigration and warned that a vote for him would be a vote for Nancy Pelosi’s “San Francisco values.” And in November, Mr. Cunningham, 36, defeated Ms. Arrington in a House district that last elected a Democrat four years before he was born.
It was one of the biggest upsets of the midterms, and it turned on an ideal issue for a candidate who, before he became a lawyer, was an ocean engineer.
“‘We believe in science’ — that line always drew applause,” he said in an interview. “I think it’s a sad state of affairs when you have to actually say that. Imagine someone saying that about any other subject, like, ‘I believe in history’ — topics that are proven with evidence and facts and numbers.”Lauren Underwood, a registered nurse, won Illinois’s 14th District, a seat previously held by a Republican.
Lauren Underwood, a registered nurse, won Illinois’s 14th District, a seat previously held by a Republican.
Mr. Cunningham is one of at least 11 freshman representatives with a background in science, medicine or technology. Eight of them are Democrats, and they are some of the first victors of a trend that began soon after President Trump was elected: Alarmed by inaction on climate change and the administration’s marginalization of experts, many more scientists have been entering politics.
“There is this growing consensus among the scientific community that they need to go beyond advocacy and signing polite letters and actually get involved in electoral politics,” said Shaughnessy Naughton, a chemist and the president of 314 Action, a two-year-old organization that supports candidates with scientific and medical backgrounds. The group — which raised $4 million for the 2018 elections — trained about 1,500 prospective candidates and supported the eight winning Democrats, as well as Senator Jacky Rosen and more than 30 successful state-level candidates. (While members of any party can attend trainings, the group doesn’t endorse Republicans for federal offices because, Ms. Naughton said, “we can’t justify supporting Republicans when the G.O.P. platform is aligned against scientific consensus on issues like climate change.”)
Elaine Luria, an engineer who operated nuclear reactors in the Navy, flipped Virginia’s Second Congressional District, which had been represented by a Republican for 16 of the last 20 years. Kim Schrier, a pediatrician, won Washington’s Eighth District, which had never elected a Democrat. Sean Casten, a biochemist, defeated a six-term Republican incumbent in the Sixth District of Illinois. T.J. Cox, a chemical engineer, won in California; Chrissy Houlahan, also an engineer, in Pennsylvania; Lauren Underwood, a registered nurse, in Illinois; and Jeff Van Drew, a dentist, in New Jersey.
At least three Republicans with science or medical backgrounds, and starkly different views, also won House seats: Mark Green of Tennessee, a former Army physician; Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, a businessman with a degree in aerospace engineering; and John Joyce of Pennsylvania, a dermatologist.
In several of the districts that flipped, science was at the very center of the campaign. 314 Action spent $500,000 on advertising in Mr. Cunningham’s race, hammering the offshore drilling issue, and it was largely based on that issue that Mr. Cunningham received endorsements from several local Republican officials. The same issue resonated in coastal Virginia, where Ms. Luria said she “did not meet a single person on the campaign trail, regardless of political affiliation, who wants offshore drilling off of our coast.”
For Mr. Casten — a former cancer researcher with degrees in molecular biology, biochemistry and biochemical engineering — the big issue involved Sterigenics, a company that sterilizes medical equipment at a facility in Willowbrook, Ill. The plant uses a carcinogenic chemical called ethylene oxide, and a Department of Health and Human Services report released in August found a high risk of cancer in nearby communities. (Sterigenics said the report had “purposefully relied upon a worst-case scenario for assessing risk.”)
A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.
ImageSean Casten, a biochemist, defeated a six-term Republican incumbent in the Illinois’s Sixth District.
The report became a liability for the incumbent Republican, Peter Roskam, who had received campaign contributions from the American Chemistry Council. The council and Sterigenics had been lobbying the E.P.A. for several years not to classify ethylene oxide as a known human carcinogen, and Mr. Roskam — whose spokeswoman declined to make him available for an interview — had supported legislation to put industry representatives on the E.P.A. boards that make such decisions.
Now that they are in Washington, the Democratic scientists-turned-representatives face a new challenge. Many of them said that, beyond addressing climate change and other science-related issues, they wanted to bring a more scientific mind-set to Congress.
For the last six years, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology was led by Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican with no scientific background. Under him, the committee investigated the debunked idea that global warming had “paused,” subpoenaed organizations whose research affirmed the reality of climate change, and promoted rules that reduced the number of scientists and increased the number of industry representatives on E.P.A. advisory panels. At times, committee members showed a basic lack of scientific knowledge: During a hearing in 2014, Steve Stockman, another Texas Republican, said it was nonsensical to think melting glaciers and ice sheets would increase sea levels because glasses don’t overflow when the ice cubes in them melt.
Mr. Smith has now retired, and four other Republicans on the committee were not re-elected. The new chairwoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Texas Democrat and former psychiatric nurse, is the first person with a scientific background to hold that position since the 1990s. Ms. Johnson said in an interview that she had invited the new scientists to join, though committee assignments may not be finalized for several weeks.
But the old dynamics are not going to disappear.
There will continue to be tension even with some of the scientists on the other side of the aisle: Mr. Hern, the aerospace engineer elected in Oklahoma, has questioned whether human activity is the primary cause of climate change, and Mr. Green, the doctor from Tennessee, repeated the debunked claim that vaccines can cause autism. (He later backtracked, telling HuffPost that children should be vaccinated.) They, too, feel their experience gives them a more authoritative voice and, in Mr. Hern’s words, “an understanding of many of the issues that others might not have.”
Representative Don Beyer of Virginia, a Democrat on the science committee, acknowledged that eight people could not “change the entire culture.” But, he said, they could change Congress’s perspective.Elaine Luria, an engineer who operated nuclear reactors in the Navy, flipped Virginia’s Second Congressional District, which has been represented by a Republican for 16 of the past 20 years.
Elaine Luria, an engineer who operated nuclear reactors in the Navy, flipped Virginia’s Second Congressional District, which has been represented by a Republican for 16 of the past 20 years.
“So often, our perspective of politicians is lawyers and people with the gift of gab,” Mr. Beyer said. “Now we’re getting people that have a deep knowledge of mathematics and physics and chemistry and biology, and that’s a really important perspective in an increasingly scientific world.”
Mr. Cunningham is already preparing a bill that would ban drilling off the Atlantic coast for 10 years. Mr. Beyer and Bill Foster — an Illinois Democrat and physicist who is the only member of Congress with a doctorate in a scientific field — described several other legislative priorities for the committee, including more oversight of the E.P.A. and other science-related government bodies; regulation of developing technologies like human genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrencies and mobile payments; and, of course, measures to combat climate change. One of the first may be carbon pricing legislation — which would charge corporations for their carbon emissions — because unlike more aggressive measures, Mr. Foster said he believed that might get through the Republican-led Senate.
Mr. Foster said he believed Mr. Casten would be particularly helpful on carbon pricing. With experience in both biochemistry and business, Mr. Casten can “really talk about the nuts and bolts about what it means,” he said, “and how different industry sectors will react to that, and how that’s going to affect the carbon footprint of different industries, in a quantitative way.”
Ultimately, that sort of subject expertise, more than the Sisyphean task of changing the congressional approach to science, may be the new members’ most immediate contribution.
While talking about Ms. Luria, a nuclear engineer, Mr. Foster recalled the congressional discussion of the Iran nuclear agreement, which included a page describing the technical changes Iran needed to make to its reactor cores to ensure that the reactors could not produce large quantities of weapons-grade plutonium.
“Democrats and Republicans were coming to me in this period saying, ‘Bill, what does this mean and how should I vote on it?’” he said. “With Elaine there, at least that will cut my workload in half. We’ll have two competent members who can talk about reactor cores.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/13/us/politics/scientists-congress.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pentagon Recruits Rejected Scientist for Massive Pollution Fight
Jan 13, 2019 | Politico
By Annie Snider
The Defense Department has sought to hire a controversial scientist who was blocked from joining the Trump administration as the Pentagon fights state and federal chemical regulations that could lead to billions of dollars in cleanup costs and legal settlements, according to documents obtained by POLITICO.
The scientist, Michael Dourson, withdrew from consideration to be an assistant administrator at the EPA in December 2017 following bipartisan opposition to his past research that downplayed the risks of a chemical found in consumer products like Teflon and firefighting foam used by the military.
Nearly a year later, a Defense Department official sought to hire Dourson to lead a new study on the health risks of that same class of chemicals, according to an emailobtained by POLITICO under Kansas' public records law. Public health experts say new scientific reviews are unnecessary and would only delay important steps to clean up the chemicals that are showing up in drinking water supplies around the country.
The most well-understood of the chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, have been linked with kidney and testicular cancer, hypertension and other ailments. They are suspected to be contaminating at least 401 military bases across the country, where they were used in firefighting foam, according to the Pentagon.
While Dourson does not appear to have been hired, Democrats are furious that he was even a candidate for the government-funded work.Morning Defense newsletter
Sign up for Morning Defense, a daily briefing on Washington's national security apparatus.EmailSign Up
By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
“It’s as absurd as it is deeply troubling that, despite his dangerous record on chemical safety, the Department of Defense could be seeking to hire Dr. Dourson for this drinking water project,” Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and who led opposition to Dourson’s nomination for EPA, said in a statement to POLITICO.
The effort to hire the controversial scientist is the latest revelation about DoD's attempts to influence research on the chemical under the Trump administration. The Pentagon has also delayed release of health warnings and cleanup recommendations, as POLITICO has previously reported.
The state of Kansas is home to a number of military sites, including Fort Leavenworth, where testing has found high levels of PFOA and PFOS in nearby drinking water wells. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is in the early phases of deciding how to address the contamination, and last fall it convened an advisory group to help develop a monitoring plan. That group includes state and federal officials, health experts, industry representatives and drinking water managers.
In a Nov. 20 email to the Kansas official heading the state’s work on the issue, a regional Defense Department official serving on the advisory panel asked the state to request a new scientific review of the chemicals’ dangers that would be done by an outside researcher hired by the military. “The goal will be to identify toxicity values that are robust, that are scientifically defensible, and that meet EPA criteria for selecting toxicity values used to accomplish [Superfund] processes, investigations and response actions,” wrote the official, Stanley Rasmussen.
“It is anticipated the review will be conducted by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) and/or the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA),” Rasmussen wrote. Both outfits are run by Dourson.
The Kansas official leading the state’s work on PFOA and PFOS, Jaime Gaggero, said in a statement that the state did not make the request "and we do not plan to.” It is unclear whether DoD moved forward with plans to hire Dourson, who declined to discuss his status.
"As a company policy, TERA does not divulge information about sponsors or contracts prior to any agreements," Dourson said by email.
Critics say DoD appears to be taking a page from the chemical industry's playbook — attempting to use Dourson's research and state-level contacts to stave off expensive regulations and lawsuits. His track record contributed to the bipartisan opposition that sunk his nomination at EPA.
SPACEA small satellite revolution?
By JACQUELINE KLIMAS
One of his most controversial projects related to the very same class of chemicals. In 2002, the state of West Virginia was looking to convene a panel that would recommend a safe limit for PFOA, which had contaminated drinking water near one of DuPont's plants. Emails released years later show the chemical giant recommended Dourson for the job, which he ultimately got. His panel recommended a safety threshold that was 150 times higher than the company’s own internal limit; when EPA evaluated the chemicals in 2016, it recommended a standard thousands of times stricter than the one Dourson endorsed.
Since Dourson's EPA nomination was defeated, he has restarted work on the class of chemicals, including filing comments to a federal study on PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals this summer that made the case for less stringent safety limits.
Adam Finkel, an environmental health science professor at the University of Michigan who has worked with Dourson in the past, said he has a reputation among industry for producing science that is “favorable to what the funders want to hear” while at the same time cultivating an appearance of impartiality.
“There are plenty of unbalanced groups around, but I don’t know of too many others who are as unbalanced as his are who are aggressively promoting the fact that they are balanced,” Finkel said.
Defense Department spokesperson Heather Babb did not respond to questions about the effort to hire Dourson but said the department takes its responsibility for PFOA and PFOS contamination seriously.
“The long-term solution to PFOS and PFOA in our environment is a complicated national issue that needs national attention. DOD has been following, and will continue to follow, the guidelines and toxicity levels established by EPA," Babb said in a statement.
The move by the Defense Department comes as independent scientific studies increasingly show that PFOA, PFOS and other chemicals in their family pose dangers at extremely low levels of exposure. Communities across the country whose drinking water has been affected by the contaminants are pressuring state and federal regulators to act.
EPA has not established a federal drinking water limit for PFOA and PFOS, but the agency said in a 2016 drinking water health advisory that the chemicals could pose dangers at concentrations above 70 parts per trillion. The Trump EPA has committed to deciding whether to regulate the chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law.
In the meantime, a number of states have set or are considering setting drinking water limits of their own, at levels far lower than EPA’s health advisory levels. New Jersey set a limit of 13 parts per trillion for PFOA, and Vermont has a 20-parts-per-trillion limit for PFOA and PFOS.
Independent experts who study the chemicals say there are already a plethora of studies assessing the risks of for PFOA and PFOS, and that there is no need for the military to seek another like the one described in the email.
GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWNShutdown’s economic damage: $1 billion a week
By VICTORIA GUIDA
“There are lots and lots of reviews,” said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicology professor at North Carolina State University. “I don’t see how a private consultant is going to be able to provide anything more than what we already have available to us.”
But the Defense Department has a major stake in halting this trend toward lowerlimits. It will be on the hook for cleaning up contaminated bases, providing safe drinking water for local communities, and potentially compensating service members who experience health effects from their exposure.
When a division of HHS, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, was preparing a report last year that warned the chemicals could pose dangers at levels 10 times below EPA’s advisory level, a Pentagon official raised alarm bells with the White House.
“We (DoD and EPA) cannot seem to get ATSDR to realize the potential public relations nightmare this is going to be,” an unidentified White House official wrotein an email released to the Union of Concerned Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act.
Environmental advocates who follow Dourson closely say the military's new effort to influence the science through state-level action fits the controversial researcher's pattern.
Dourson’s group TERA offers a free service to help states with risk assessment. But emails from Dourson obtained by Greenpeace under the Freedom of Information Act indicate that this work has at least partially been funded by the chemical industry’s primary lobbying group, the American Chemistry Council.
The emails also show that, when he worked with states in the past, Dourson pushed the conclusions of research he had conducted for industry.
For instance, a series of emails from May 2017 show Dourson discussing the chemical trichloroethylene with officials from the states of Missouri and Indiana. In the emails, Dourson promotes a workshop where he will discuss safety thresholds for the chemical, which were described in a “recent publication” — one that was funded by ACC and argued for a standard that was as much as 15 times weaker than EPA’s. Dourson copied in a high-level staffer at ACC, Steve Risotto, on one of the emails, allowing him to see the conversation without the state officials’ knowledge.
“Now why would he send that email to ACC — and keep the fact that he was doing so secret from Missouri and Indiana officials?” Richard Denison, with Environmental Defense Fund, said in a blog post analyzing the emails.
In a later email to Risotto, Dourson says “the budget you gave us should be able to stretch through this workshop and perhaps a wee bit more.”
Risotto is also a member of the PFAS advisory group. ACC said he was not involved in discussions about hiring Dourson in Kansas.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/13/pentagon-scientist-pollution-fight-1078023
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Decision to Retain Industrial Air Toxics Limits Panned (1)
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Amena H. Saiyid
Environmental advocates are troubled that the EPA couldn’t find any advances in technology or new health risks associated with air toxics from various industrial sectors that would merit tightening the hazardous pollutant standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency decided to leave in place hazardous air pollutant standards set more than a decade ago for producers of wet fiberglass mats, hydrochloric acid, brake and clutch linings, and leather goods. The EPA also retained standards for manufacturers of coatings used on wood building productsand large appliances, metal furniture, and fabrics.
Acting EPA Chief Andrew Wheeler signed the regulatory actions on Dec. 20 and 21, but they haven’t been published in the Federal Register. The agency is required to review the effectiveness of standards and changes in pollution technology eight years after they have been set to see whether they need to be tightened.
The agency’s decision was made a week before most EPA workers were furloughed due to the partial government shutdown. The emissions include cancer-causing chemicals formaldehyde and hexavalent chromium, as well as other toxic compounds such as lead, toluene, and methanol.
Long-Overdue Decision
In separate, long-overdue regulatory actions, the EPA said existing toxic air pollution standards for the industries pose an acceptable risk to the public, and no developments in technology warrant further action. The agency also made it known that the existing standards would now apply when industrial operations were starting up, shutting down or malfunctioning—all situations that can cause emissions to rise.
“We do not feel the existing standards are protective of the communities near the facilities, and that is why we will be taking a very close look at the rules and see if the EPA responded to our extensive comments,” Jane Williams, chair of the Sierra Club’s national clean air team, told Bloomberg Environment. “We will be assessing whether these rules meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act.”
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
Reviews Required
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review air toxics standards for individual industrial sectors within eight years of when they were set. These reviews are intended to account for any technological improvements and newly identified health risks that may warrant updating the standards.
The EPA in 2002 last set hazardous emissions limits for manufacturers of leather goods, brakes and clutch linings and other friction materials, wet-formed fiberglass mats and producers of surface coatings for wood building products and large appliances. In 2003, the agency set its most recent standards for producers of hydrochloric acid as well as surface coatings for metal furniture, coating, printing and dyeing of fabrics.
A coalition of environmental groups filed suit, and U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia imposed a Dec. 31, 2018 deadline to complete the reviews for the seven industrial categories.
The coalition was represented by Earthjustice attorneys Emma Cheuse and James Pew, and includes the Sierra Club, as well as the Glendale Springs, N.C.-based Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, which has chapters in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama and Tennessee.
“The EPA just went through the motions to complete the regulatory reviews,” said Louis Zeller, executive director of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League. “It was a pro forma approach to meet the deadline.”
Cheuse told Bloomberg Environment that the coalition would review the rules carefully before deciding whether the EPA met its legal obligations.
The ‘Laugh Test’
An industry group representing the leather tanning industry was pleased with the EPA action, which affects four facilities nationwide.
“We worked closely with EPA when it developed the standards and also commented on the risk and technology review,” said John Wittenborn, president of the Leather Industries of America Inc. “We are satisfied with EPA conclusions and have nothing more to add.”
But Williams said her group found it hard to believe that no technological advances have been made to reduce formaldehyde emissions since the standards were last updated.
Formaldehyde is a type of volatile organic compound that causes respiratory problems. Recent studies have linked exposure of this chemical at sufficient concentrations with low birth weight and other health problems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as carcinogenic to humans, the EPA lists it as a hazardous pollutant, and California calls it a toxic air contaminant.
“Kind of doesn’t pass the laugh test, does it?,” Williams said. “This is what what we would expect in this administration that downplays the hazards of highly toxic chemicals into environmental justice communities.”
The American Chemistry Council told Bloomberg Environment it wouldn’t comment on EPA’s action on the hydrochloric acid production until it is published in the Federal Register. Dynax America Corp., which manufactures clutch plates and other friction materials, didn’t respond to request for comment.
(Updated with comment from the Leather Industries of America Inc.)
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/epas-decision-to-retain-industrial-air-toxics-limits-panned-1
-
(ACC Mentioned) Flame Retardant Bill Dies on Baker's Desk
Jan 14, 2019 | Newbury Port News
By Katie Lannan
Gov. Charlie Baker will not sign into law a ban on certain chemical flame retardants in household goods, he told lawmakers Friday afternoon, citing concerns with the bill sent to him on the final day of the 2017-2018 legislative session.
The House and Senate sent Baker the bill on New Year's Day, a move that was cheered by environmental advocates and firefighters who spent years pushing for passage, but which also made the bill subject to a pocket veto and precluded any opportunity for the governor to return it with an amendment or for lawmakers to override a veto.
Supporters of the bill (H 5024) had said the chemicals they sought to ban are unnecessary and can pose health risks to children and firefighters.
The 12,000-member Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts pushed for the bill's signing and officials there said that while disappointed, they plan to keep advocating for the legislation.
"This legislation was originally introduced six years ago by the late Senator Ken Donnelly who tragically lost a battle to occupational cancer, and we will continue to fight for this law in the name of people like Senator Donnelly and the many other firefighters we have lost to this disease," Richard MacKinnon Jr., president of the firefighters group, said in a statement to the News Service.
Baker said he would have returned the bill with an amendment if the Legislature had still been in session, but since a new term is now underway, he does not have the option. At the end of each two-year session, bills on the governor's desk die if not signed by the governor within 10 days.
"Massachusetts can be a leader in this area, but the specifics of the bill that emerged during the last hours of the legislative session limit its potential effectiveness," Baker wrote in a message to lawmakers. "A deliberative process involving all stakeholders and an implementation schedule that takes into account the realities of manufacturing and distribution practices are key components to any legislation. I look forward to working with the bill sponsors and stakeholders on a revised form of this legislation in the current session."
The Senate passed a version of the bill in May 2018, and the House approved its bill on Dec. 28.
The bill, according to Baker, would make Massachusetts the only state "to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, products already subject to federal flammability requirements."
He also took issue with the June 1 implementation date, saying it gave manufacturers less of a window to comply than the year of lead time in an original version of the bill.
"The resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford more expensive alternatives," Baker wrote.
Industry groups including the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council were opposed to the bill, as were car seat and mattress manufacturers.
On New Year's Day, Decker said she believed Baker would be "eager" to sign the bill.
"I think our bill is very strong, it speaks to the needs of firefighters, it speaks to keeping children safe, and it speaks to respecting how we can continue to manufacture and allow businesses to thrive," she said then. "All that is possible with this bill. It really is the best of what good public policy looks like. It would be confounding for the governor not to stand with children and the lives of firefighters who stand with us every day."
Decker posted to Twitter Friday afternoon that she was "deeply disappointed" with Baker's move.
"Gov. Baker has chosen to stand on the side of the trade industries and NOT with the thousands of firefighters, children, and mothers who are at risk every day of cancer and other deadly health risks as a result of the toxic flame retardants that are in our furniture and household goods. MA had the opportunity to lead," the Cambridge Democrat wrote in a series of posts. "Instead, the Legislature will have to begin this process again over the next two years. Our first responders, our children, and our pregnant mothers deserve better."
Rep. Tommy Vitolo, a Brookline Democrat, responded to one of Decker's tweets about the flame retardant bill, writing, "I found a bill to co-sponsor."
Lawmakers have until next Friday to file bills for consideration this session, which will then be assigned to committees and eventually undergo public hearings.
House lawmakers have until Feb. 1 to round up lists of bill cosponsors.
In a statement, Environmental League of Massachusetts President Elizabeth Henry said backers "hope to see this legislation arrive back on the Governor's desk in short order during the new session," and Elizabeth Saunders, state director of Clean Water Action, said they "will work with the legislature to make sure that this becomes law before another 2 year session is over."
Baker had largely stayed mum about his thoughts on the bill, telling reporters earlier in the week only that he was still reviewing it.
Asked Friday afternoon, less than a half hour before his plans for a pocket veto were disclosed, if he would sign it, Baker said he had spent the week talking to people on both sides and had "a lot of work to do just to figure out how it differed from the bill that originally popped last summer and making sure that we engaged with the various affected parties on it before we made a decision."
https://www.newburyportnews.com/news/regional_news/flame-retardant-bill-dies-on-baker-s-desk/article_50c3febc-6802-580a-8e4c-344a3f5c2e87.html
-
Jan 11, 2019 | MassLive.com
By Gintautas Dumcius
A Massachusetts bill banning the use of some flame retardants in household and children’s products is dead, at least for now.
State lawmakers sent the bill to Gov. Charlie Baker’s desk in the closing hours of the 2017-2018 legislative session. Because the session ended and a new one started, the bill could not be amended and fell victim to what’s known as a “pocket veto.”
While saying he supports the elimination of flame retardant chemicals, Baker called the bill flawed and said if he had the opportunity, he would’ve returned the bill with suggested changes. The bill can be filed again in the new State House session and restart the legislative process.
The bill as written would’ve made Massachusetts the only US state to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and non-foam parts of adult mattresses, “products already subject to federal flammability requirements,” according to Baker’s letter to lawmakers.
“In addition, this ban would go into effect in less than five months, cutting the lead time for manufacturers by more than half as compared to the full year provided in the legislation as originally filed,” Baker said in the letter explaining why he didn’t sign the legislation. “The resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford expensive alternatives.”
Baker also noted that the bill called for the Department of Environmental Protection to ban other flame retardants “based solely on certain risks, without any consideration of countervailing benefits.”
The pocket veto earned a note of disappointment from the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, saying Baker "missed an opportunity to start reducing the risk of occupation cancer for firefighters."
"While the firefighting profession will always be dangerous and come with risk, this proposed ban of toxic flame retardants could have been a step forward to reduce the risk of occupational cancer for our 12,000 members," the group said in a statement.
Science and research about the health effects of the chemic is “irrefutable,” the group continued. “As firefighters, we accept an inherent risk that comes with our profession, but families should not be needlessly put at risk when they purchase children products and household items.”
Baker’s letter came a day after the local chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the governor to approve the bill, according to the State House News Service.
“In everyday use, flame retardant chemicals migrate out of products in the air and incorporate into household dust. Children are disproportionately exposed to this chemical-laced dust because of their tendency to put things in their mouths, including their own fingers after crawling on dusty floors or dust covered objects they encounter during their explorations,” Dr. Elizabeth Goodman, the president of the Massachusetts chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, wrote in a letter to the governor.
The bill, the subject of intense lobbying on both sides, sought to ban 11 flame retardants. Twelve states have similar bans.
Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council opposed the bill, the News Service reported.
Push for flame retardant bill countered by industry call for veto
Gov. Charlie Baker is facing mounting pressure to sign a bill that would ban the use of certain toxic flame retardant chemicals in many products as industry groups lobby hard for the Republican to veto the bill.
After Baker’s office released the letter from the governor, the Environmental League of Massachusetts Action Fund, an advocacy group, said in a post on Twitter they were “disappointed that Gov Baker has prioritized concerns of chemical companies over parents +firefighters.” The group pledged to "keep up the pressure.
Baker closed his letter to lawmakers by saying the state can be a “leader” in eliminating flame retardant chemicals.
“A deliberative process involving all stakeholders and an implementation schedule that takes into account the realities of manufacturing and distribution practices are key components to any legislation,” he wrote. “I look forward to working with the bill sponsors and stakeholders on a revised form of this legislation in the current session."
Material from State House News Service was used in this report.
https://www.masslive.com/news/2019/01/massachusetts-bill-banning-certain-flame-retardant-chemicals-dies-without-gov-charlie-bakers-signature.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Have an Idea for a Law? Here's How You Can Officially Propose It
Jan 14, 2019 | Lowell Sun
By Bob Katzen
THE HOUSE AND SENATE: There were no roll calls in the House or Senate last week.
"THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW": Friday, Jan. 18 at 5 p.m. is the official deadline for legislation to be filed for consideration during the 2019-2020 legislative session. The deadline is not etched in stone because even though the vast majority of proposals are filed by Jan. 18, many late-filed bills are admitted to the Legislature following the deadline and throughout the 2-year session. In the recent 2017-2018 session, legislators filed more than 6,000 bills.
Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that give citizens the "right of free petition" -- the power to propose their own legislation. A citizen's proposal must be filed in conjunction with his or her representative or senator or any other representative or senator. Sometimes a legislator will support the legislation and sponsor it along with the constituent. Other times, a legislator might disagree with the bill but will file it anyway as a courtesy. In those cases, the bill is listed as being filed "by request" -- indicating that he or she is doing so at the request of the constituent and does not necessarily support it. Citizens that are interested in filing legislation should contact their own or any other representative or senator.
You can find the contact information for your local representatives at https://malegislature. gov/Legislators/Members/House and for your local senator at https://malegislature.gov/Legislators/Members/Senate
If you don't know who your legislators are, you can look them up by your street address and city or town at https://malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator
Perhaps one of the most famous bills filed "by request" goes all the way back to 1969 when a constituent opposed to the Vietnam War asked Newton Democratic Rep. James Shea to file a bill prohibiting Massachusetts citizens from being forced to fight in an "undeclared war." The bill challenged the constitutionality of sending Bay State men to fight without a Congressional declaration of war. It was approved by the House and Senate and signed by then-Gov. Francis Sargent. The new law made national headlines.
To comply with the new law, Massachusetts initially filed a complaint in the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court declined to hear the case, which was later refiled in the U.S. District Court and dismissed -- rejecting the state's argument that President Richard Nixon had usurped the war-making powers of Congress. In a tragic footnote, Rep. Shea committed suicide in the fall of the year the legislation passed.
ALSO UP ON
BEACON HILL
BAN TOXIC FLAME RETARDANTS (H 5024): Gov. Baker did not sign a bill that would ban 11 toxic flame retardants from children's products, bedding, carpeting and residential upholstered furniture sold or manufactured in Massachusetts, except for inventory already manufactured prior to Jan. 1, 2019. He was unable to propose any amendments to it because the 2017-2018 session ended on January 1st and the Legislature would not be able to act on the amendments.
"I will continue to stand with families and first responders in our state and will be refiling this bill next session," said Senate co-sponsor of the measure Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton).
The bill requires the Department of Environmental Protection to review, at least every three years, chemical flame retardants used in these products and include them on the list of prohibited chemical flame retardants that are documented to pose a health risk. Vehicles, watercraft and aircraft are exempt from this law as are any previously-owned product that contains a retardant. Violators would be fined up to $5,000 for a first offense and up to $50,000 for subsequent offenses.
In his message to the Legislature, Baker said that he supports the elimination of flame-retardant chemicals from various household and children's products when those chemicals are unnecessary and toxic but cannot sign the bill in its current form. "Had this bill been presented to me while the Legislature was still in session, I would have returned it with an amendment to address [my] concerns," Baker said. "Unfortunately, because the Legislature has adjourned, I do not have that option."
"This bill would make Massachusetts the only state in the United States to ban certain flame retardants in car seats and the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, products already subject to federal flammability requirement," continued Baker. "In addition, this ban would go into effect in less than five months, cutting the lead time for manufacturers by more than half as compared to the full year provided in the legislation as originally filed. The resulting disruption to what is available to consumers in Massachusetts would likely have a disproportionate impact on families with lower incomes who are less able to afford more expensive alternatives."
Today Massachusetts had the opportunity to make our homes safer for children, firefighters and families by taking the simple step of banning toxic flame retardants from certain home products," said Senate co-sponsor of the bill Sen. Cindy Creem (D-Newton). "However, because [the governor] vetoed this important bill, firefighters and children continue to remain at risk for cancer and other health problems caused by these harmful chemicals."
The industry lobbied heavily to defeat the bill. They argued that flame retardants are still an effective tool to combat fire risk. "We understand and support preventing exposure to dangerous chemicals; however [the bill] goes too far and could endanger children's lives," wrote Kelly Mariotti, executive director of Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association.
GOVERNOR SIGNS DOZENS OF BILLS: Here are some of the dozens of bills from the 2017-2018 session that Gov. Charlie Baker signed last week:
HONOR ROSA PARKS (S 2410): Requires the MBTA, during the month of February, to have an LED display or decal on each bus to recognize the accomplishments of Rosa Parks to the Civil Rights Movement. By refusing in 1955 to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama, city bus, Parks eventually became known as "the first lady of civil rights" and "the mother of the freedom movement."
"It was an honor and a privilege to both sponsor and advocate for this legislative bill which will honor an American heroine, said Sen James Timilty (D-Milton). "The sole purpose of this legislation is to commemorate the incredible courage and sacrifices exemplified by Ms. Rosa Parks. I am proud that this piece of legislation was enacted by both bodies of the Legislature."
Parks was arrested and convicted of disorderly conduct. What followed was a 381-day boycott of the bus system by blacks that was organized by the then 26-year old Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The incident led to a Supreme Court ruling that desegregated public transportation in Montgomery. This eventually led to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that desegregated all public accommodations nationwide.
COUNTERFEIT AIRBAGS (H 4051): Imposes a 2.5-year prison sentence and/or up to $5,000 fine on anyone who imports or sells counterfeit airbags in Massachusetts. Over the past few years, thousands of counterfeit airbags have made their way into the Bay State through purchases and sales on the Internet.
"I filed this bill to protect Massachusetts drivers from being injured and killed when counterfeit airbags fail to deploy properly," said Rep. Jennifer Benson (D-Lunenburg).
CREDIT REPORTS (H 4806): Prohibits consumer reporting agencies, like Equifax, Experian and TransUnion from charging fees for freezing and unfreezing a person's credit information. Under current law, companies can and have charged up to $5 per freeze or unfreeze.
A freeze makes the report inaccessible until the consumer unfreezes it. Since banks and other lenders require access to the borrower's credit report before giving a loan, this greatly reduces identity thieves from getting a loan or credit in another individual's name.
The proposal gained momentum following the 2017 crisis when, from May to July, the personal information including names, social security numbers, addresses, driver's licenses, and credit card numbers of 145 million Americans was stolen from Equifax's systems. Equifax didn't reveal the breach until September and consumers lost valuable time to act.
Other provisions of the bill prohibit businesses from obtaining a consumer's credit report without obtaining written, verbal or electronic consent from the consumer; require credit monitoring services to be available for 3.5 years for some consumers affected by a breach; and improve notices and consumer information the companies are required to give.
"This is good news and offers consumers new tools to protect themselves from identity theft after a security breach like the recently announced ones at Equifax and Marriott," said Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for MASSPIRG. "While a good first step, we still have some more work to do to hold companies accountable for failing to properly safeguard our personal information."
"With more access to credit due to their longer careers and higher incomes, older adults are the most common targets of identity theft nationwide," said Mike Festa, State Director of AARP Massachusetts. "Individuals age 50-59 filed more than 7,200 complaints of identity theft in Massachusetts alone in 2017, according to the Federal Trade Commission."
DISABILITY INSURANCE (H 482): Prohibits insurance companies from charging higher disability insurance premiums based solely on gender.
Supporters say that filings with the Division of Insurance show that women in Massachusetts pay much more for the same disability insurance benefits than men in the same occupation class. They note that on average, women pay 23.5 percent more than men but the difference has also been as much as 61 percent higher.
"Equal rights groups having been working to end gender discrimination in insurance products since 1976 when the Equal Rights Amendment was adopted," said Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) the bill's sponsor. "Over the years, we eliminated unfair treatment by gender in automobile insurance, homeowner's insurance, health insurance and annuities. Today we have ended the unfair practice of charging women more than men for the same disability protection. Always proud when Massachusetts leads the way on equal treatment of all people. Today, we have made progress toward our goal of equal rights for women."
HOW LONG WAS LAST WEEK'S SESSION? During the week of Jan. 7-11. the House met for a total of 19 minutes while the Senate met for a total of eight minutes.
http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_32383045/have-an-idea-law-heres-how-you-can#ixzz5caZBUx8w
-
DIBP Systematic Review Suggests US IRIS Assessment Progress
Jan 14, 2019 | Chemical Watch
US EPA scientists have published a systematic review of the animal data for the phthalate DIBP, suggesting a step forward in the Integrated Risk Information System's (IRIS) assessment of the substance.
The IRIS programme published preliminary assessment materials in 2014 and held a public meeting the following year.
However, according to the agency's website, the programme has not made any formal progress since then.
The systematic review is published in Environmental International. The authors include Erin Yost – first and corresponding author – and Todd Blessinger, who are the EPA’s assessment managers for DIBP.
They identified 19 rat and mouse studies for inclusion in the systematic review and found "robust" evidence that DIBP causes male reproductive and developmental toxicity.
They also found:
· "slight" evidence for female reproductive toxicity and effects on the liver; and
· "indeterminate" evidence for carcinogenicity and effects on the kidney.
The results "support DIBP as a children's health concern", they say in their conclusion. "Data gaps include the need for more studies on male reproductive effects following postnatal and adult exposure, and studies to characterise potential hormonal mechanisms in females."
https://chemicalwatch.com/73322/dibp-systematic-review-suggests-us-iris-assessment-progress
-
Massachusetts Governor Vetoes Flame Retardants Ban
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adrianne Appel
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) vetoed a bill to ban flame retardants but said he would support a similar measure if child car seats weren’t included.
The bill, H. 5024, would have immediately banned the sale or manufacture of any children’s clothing, car seats, or household bedding, carpeting, upholstered furniture, and drapes that contain one of 11 flame retardant chemicals.
Firefighters and environmental groups had pushed for the ban in response to high cancer rates among firefighters, which they believe are due to exposure to carcinogens in flame retardant chemicals used widely on clothes and home fabrics.
Proponents of the bill said they plan to introduce it again in 2019.
The bill was in the works for two years and was approved by Senate lawmakers Jan. 1, as the final vote on the last day of the two-year session.
Groups representing the industries potentially affected by the proposed ban, including the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association and American Home Furnishings Alliance, had opposed the bill. The International Sleep Products Industry Association delivered a letter to Baker after it passed the legislature urging him to veto it.
Bill Too LateBaker said if the legislature had delivered the bill to him earlier in the session, he would have sent it back to lawmakers with a proposed amendment.
The session is over now, so Baker had no choice but to let it die through a “pocket veto” by not signing it, he said.
“I fully support the elimination of flame retardant chemicals from various household and children’s products when those chemicals are unnecessary and toxic,” Baker said Jan. 11 in a veto statement.
The bill would have made Massachusetts the only state in the country to ban flame retardants from child car seats and from the non-foam parts of adult mattresses, but those items are subject to federal flammability requirements, Baker said.
Also, the bill would have mandated the state Department of Environmental Protection to broaden the ban to other chemicals in the future based solely on their potential risk without consideration to “countervailing benefits,” Baker said.
Consumer ChoiceThe Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association didn’t reply to a Bloomberg Environment request for comment Jan. 11.
“Claims that children are being exposed to toxic levels of hazardous substances are misleading, misguided, and inappropriate,” the association said in a position statement on banning flame retardants in child car seats.
Banning certain chemicals, including antimony trioxide, would limit “mattress manufacturers’ ability to meet federal flammability standards that are specifically intended to reduce the risk of deadly residential fires,” Ryan Trainer, president of the International Sleep Products Association, said in a Jan. 4 letter to Baker.
Bill Will be Back“By vetoing this bill, Gov. Baker is choosing to stand with the chemical industry instead of children and firefighters. Attempts to weaken it or quibble with certain provisions are a smoke screen,” Elizabeth Saunders, spokeswoman for the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition of environmental, civic, and religious organizations in Massachusetts, told Bloomberg Environment Jan. 11.
“We will be counting on the legislature to pass the bill again during the 2019 formal session and override his veto should he choose that path again,” Saunders said.Thirteen states have banned the use of one or more flame retardant chemicals, according to the alliance.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/massachusetts-governor-vetoes-flame-retardants-ban
-
FDA is Dragging Its Feet While Children Continue to be Exposed to Perchlorate in Food
Jan 11, 2019 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Tom Neltner
It has been more than 18 months since EDF and other advocates challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) May 2017 decision to continue allowing perchlorate in dry food plastic packaging and food handling equipment.
While Congress gives FDA 180 days to act on food additive petitions, FDA must act “as soon as possible” on a challenge such as ours. However, the agency has yet to complete a review of its May 2017 decision in light of our concerns and evaluate whether to either stand by it, or reverse it. We did not expect FDA would take three times longer to review a decision already made, especially since our objection is largely based on the agency’s own data.
In the meantime, perchlorate in food continues to threaten children’s brains. The chemical, a component of rocket fuel, disrupts the thyroid gland’s normal function and reduces production of the thyroid hormone needed for healthy fetal and child brain development. FDA’s own studies show increased levels of perchlorate in foods such as baby food dry cereal, indicating the chemical’s intentional use in dry food packaging is the likely source of increased exposure for young children.
How FDA got it wrong
In FDA’s May 2017 decision to continue allowing intentional use of perchlorate in contact with dry food, the agency largely relied on flawed science to assess dietary exposure. Its three central errors were:Ignoring its own data showing significantly increased exposure for children;Woefully underestimating exposure based on a flawed migration test; andUnrealistically assuming that perchlorate-laden plastic would only contact food once.
Below, we take an in-depth look at the three major mistakes FDA made in its decision to continue allowing perchlorate in food – and why it’s critical for the agency to take action on the chemical now.FDA ignored its own data showing significantly increased exposure for children
In its decision, FDA made no reference to a study published five months earlier by its own scientists describing the perchlorate concentrations in food collected by its Total Diet Study (TDS) from 2008 to 2012. The study evaluated the dietary intake of perchlorate by various age groups, including an assessment of the relative contribution from 12 different food types to each age group. It also compared the results from 2008-2012 to an earlier TDS study of foods collected from 2003 to 2006.
While not highlighted in the study, the data revealed a stunning increase in young children’s mean dietary intake of perchlorate in 2008-2012 as compared to 2003-2006.[1]
Specifically, the median dietary intake increased 34% for children 6 to 11 months; 23% for 2-year-olds; and 12% for 6-year-olds. Older children and adults did not show an increase, indicating that foods eaten by children six or younger had higher concentrations of perchlorate than foods favored by adults.
Despite dates of 2003-2006, FDA actually collected all of the baby food used in that study prior to the agency’s November 2005 decision to approve perchlorate’s use in dry food packaging and food handling equipment. This is significant because it allows a clear comparison of perchlorate levels in food before and after FDA’s decision. Figure 1 provides the information graphically.
Figure 1: Increase in perchlorate intake in young children after FDA’s approval of perchlorate use in dry food packaging and handling equipment.
For these children, FDA estimated dietary perchlorate intake in 2008-2012 using two different methods[2] and compared them to the safe dose (also known as the reference dose) set in 2005 by the National Research Council (NRC). It is important to note that the safe dose is significantly outdated; it was established before the science showing the risks of irreversible disruption to brain development was well understood, and is currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency.
FDA saw no cause for concern even when the upper range of exposures approached the outdated safe dose using the Word Health Organization (WHO) statistical method (as shown in Figure 1). However, the results were even more disturbing when FDA applied to the same data a newer method its scientists developed to estimate exposure: for 2 year-olds, the estimated upper range of exposure to perchlorate was greater than the outdated safe dose, and for 6 to 11 month-olds, the estimate was almost equal.
At the time of its decision in May 2017, FDA also updated its perchlorate webpage to provide the results of its study and the data from the 2008-2012 TDS. Rather than explain the increased dietary intake for young children, FDA glossed over the estimated dietary intake findings, focusing instead on the perchlorate average in all food types.
In our challenge to FDA’s decision, we dug deeper into FDA’s TDS data and focused on dry cereal samples designated by the agency as baby food.[3] We chose these samples because:Dry cereal was unlikely to be contaminated by other sources of perchlorate such as degraded hypochlorite bleach or water contaminated from industrial sites.The samples designated by FDA as baby food provided a clear before-and-after approval example.
Figure 2 provides the results.
Figure 2: Perchlorate concentration increased in four baby food dry cereals collected 3-7 years after FDA approval.
Bulk raw material packaging, known as Super Sacks in the industry, is one of the advertised uses of the perchlorate-laden packaging. This distribution is what we would expect to see if the perchlorate-laden bulk packaging was used only by some but not all grain suppliers.
The percent of baby food dry cereal samples with detectable levels of perchlorate increased from 5% to 15%. Most significantly, six of the highest levels were far greater than the maximum level of 11 parts per billion (ppb) found before its approval. One post-approval sample, a baby food dry rice cereal, had 173 ppb.[4]
By focusing on all the foods, FDA missed the real story behind the data – since 2005, young children’s food has contained increased amounts of perchlorate.FDA woefully underestimated exposure based on flawed migration testing
Critical steps in evaluating whether the uses of food contact substances are safe include determining (1) how much is likely to migrate into food from that use, and (2) how many opportunities there are for that migration to occur.
Historically, FDA assumes that there will be virtually no migration from food contact substances into dry food, an assumption that’s not scientifically defensible.[5] Therefore, in 2005, when Ciba Specialty Chemicals requested FDA’s approval of its perchlorate-laden plastic to use in contact with food, it relied on the agency’s assumption.
A decade later, BASF, which bought Ciba Specialty Chemicals, agreed to conduct migration tests to address questions raised by a food additive petition from health advocates requesting FDA reconsider its perchlorate approval.
BASF submitted the migration test results to FDA in November 2015. The test results revealed both how little FDA understood about the uses it had approved, and how significant the potential migration may be.
FDA and BASF agreed upon the following test to figure out whether perchlorate will migrate from plastic to dry food. Four square inches of perchlorate-laden plastic was inserted into a glass jar roughly 1” by 1” wide by 2.7” tall. To simulate dry food, 12 grams of a dry powder called Tenax (with the consistency of flour) was poured into the jar. The study allowed the plastic to contact the Tenax for 2, 24, 96, and 240 hours. After the appropriate time had passed, the plastic was removed, and the Tenax was analyzed for perchlorate. The photos below show the glass jar, Tenax, and a representation of the migration test.
Figure 3. Representation of the migration test based on BASF’s description
For each of the four time periods, perchlorate was detected in the Tenax but at levels below which the amount could be accurately quantified. BASF stated that the results suggested “that the perchlorate found in the simulant [Tenax] was most likely caused by surface abrasion.”
And therein lies the problem. The test was not designed to measure abrasion, but rather how much of the chemical leached into or was absorbed by the Tenax. As such, the test bears little resemblance to the actual uses of perchlorate-laden plastic.
The primary purpose of adding perchlorate to plastic food packaging is to reduce the static charge that builds up when a dry food flows across plastic. These are the same circumstance likely to result in abrasion.[6]
In 2014, we found a brochure from BASF for Irgastat P18, the trade name for the perchlorate-laden plastic, promoting its use in China and stating, “The product is approved and used for bulk and industrial food and non-food contact packaging.” Neither the sales brochure nor a technical product flyer mentioned the presence of perchlorate in Irgastat P18. We also found a 2004 patent application proposing use of Irgastat P18 as a liner in flexible bulk packaging commonly known as Super Sacks.
While there are many alternative ways to prevent or manage static charges, the company sought to add perchlorate as a new option. Below is a photo of a typical Super Sack.
Figure 4. Super Sack filled with solid material. The arrow indicates the point of entry of the material
In a Super Sack, a ton of dry food such as rice or corn meal is poured into the top and later emptied from an opening in the bottom. The solids enter and leave at high velocity and may generate static buildup in a standard plastic. These high velocities may also abrade the plastic.
The amount of abrasion, and resulting perchlorate migration, likely to be seen from a Super Sack use bears no resemblance to the migration test that BASF used with FDA’s approval – in which the jar with the perchlorate laden plastic and Tenax sat quietly undisturbed on a shelf in a warm environment.
Despite having only two dynamic contacts with Tenax, namely when the soft powder was poured onto the plastic placed in the jar and at the end of the experiment when the plastic was removed from the jar, BASF reported abrasion as the possible explanation for the small amounts of perchlorate that migrated into the Tenax.
In contrast, an Irgastat P18 liner used in real-world conditions would experience much, much more abrasion during a single use from most dry foods than BASF found in its poorly designed migration test.
We pointed out the flaws of the migration test to FDA, but the agency largely based its denial of our petition on the test results asserting that the levels found are so low that it won’t cause any health concern.FDA unrealistically assumed that perchlorate-laden plastic would only contact food once
The third critical flaw is that FDA assumed food would have only a single contact with perchlorate-laden plastic. However, the description of FDA’s approval of perchlorate used in plastic material allows dry food to contact said material multiple times.
In today’s global food supply, perchlorate-laden plastic packaging used to move food from farm and factory to the grocery store will contact dry food ingredients and food additives many times — adding more perchlorate with each contact. Moreover, these ingredients will also be in contact with perchlorate used in dry food handling equipment such as plastic chutes, conveyor belts, grinders and screens.
Summary
When FDA decided in May 2017 to continue to allow perchlorate’s use as a food additive, the agency relied on flawed science and assumptions with little regard to perchlorate’s potential – and irreversible – harm to a child’s brain.
This prompted EDF and the eight others’ objection to FDA’s decision and request for a formal evidentiary public hearing. We know now, as we did 18 months ago, that it is our duty as public health advocates to challenge FDA’s faulty interpretation of both the law and the science on behalf of our most vulnerable. And it is FDA’s duty to protect public health by ensuring the safety of our nation’s food supply.
The agency must take steps to protect children’s health by stopping the unnecessary use of perchlorate in contact with food. FDA has two choices: either reverse its original decision to allow perchlorate, or give public health advocates the opportunity to argue their case.
And they need to act now.
[1] See Table 4 of article.
[2] In its study, FDA analyzed the 2008-2012 data using a new methodology it developed called Clustered Zero-Inflated Lognormal or CZILN. For two-year-olds, the upper bound was 114% of the NRC safe dose. It was 93% for 6 to 11 month-olds and 79% for six-year-olds. In the figure, we used the medians and ranges from FDA’s analysis using an older World Health Organization (WHO) methodology that gave a narrower range. We used the older methodology to compare the 2008-2012 data to the 2003-2006 data because FDA did not use the new method on the older data.
[3] By coincidence, the 2005 samples were collected between October 2004 and September 2005 – before the agency approved the use of perchlorate as an additive to dry food packaging and food handling equipment.
[4] Note that these samples represented a blending of three individual samples from a region of the country so an individual sample could have been three times greater if the others were non-detectable.
[5] Based on FDA representative’s comment at an industry-sponsored law firm seminar as reported in Food Chemical News on October 6, 2011. The article said FDA’s Mike Adams “noted that FDA's standing assumption has been that there is no migration of polymers from packaging into dry food. Exposure is based on a default dietary concentration of 50 parts per billion. However, evidence from EU lab studies shows substantial migration into dry food, more than 50 ppb in some cases. We're contemplating a change to require migration studies for dry foods."
[6] Static is a problem because plastic does not typically conduct electricity and, therefore, allows an electrical charge to build up when solids flow past it. As an analogy, think of spark you get on a dry day when you touch a doorknob after shuffling your feet on a carpet. Small static charge buildups cause powders to cling to the plastic much like the packing peanuts do to your hand when opening a package. Higher buildups can release enough of a spark to trigger a dust explosion under the wrong circumstances.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/11/fda-perchlorate-in-food/
-
Scotched Senate Nomination Deal Kills Key EPA Regulatory Pledges
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
A Democratic senator's recent action blocking confirmation for EPA's waste nominee appears to have killed -- at least for now -- a blockbuster deal in which the agency pledged to revise its controversial proposed science rule, advance the long-sought draft assessment of formaldehyde risks and require cleanup of two perfluorinated compounds.
As Inside EPA reported last week, the Senate confirmed Trump's nominees to lead EPA's toxics and international offices in the final hours of the 115th Congress, but Peter Wright, the former Dow Co. lawyer tapped to lead the waste office, remains stalled after Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) sought a recorded vote.
Wright's nomination to lead EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) stalled after Menendez “demanded a vote on Wright and of course that wasn’t possible so the nomination died,” an environmentalist told Inside EPA last week.
Now, Politico reports that before Menendez killed the deal, EPA agreed to “resume . . . moving toward publication of a major report on formaldehyde risks, dramatically revise . . . its controversial 'secret science' rule, and add two of the best-studied chemicals in the [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)] family to the hazardous substance list under [Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA)].”
Menendez told Politico that “he would not accept” a unanimous consent approval instead of a roll call vote on Wright, noting that his home state of New Jersey has “the greatest number of Superfund sites in the nation.”
The connection between Wright's nomination and formaldehyde had been known for some time, as the nominee was questioned about it during his conformation hearing before the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee last summer.
More recently, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) fretted in a press statement last month his concern that Wright might win Senate approval even though the agency has not followed through on its pledge to release the draft formaldehyde assessment.
But with the deal scotched and Wright still unconfirmed, the Trump administration will have to renominate him for consideration in the 116th Congress, giving senators an additional opportunity to win the commitments from EPA.
The concessions could also be considered in relation to Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler, whose confirmation is slated to be held before the Environment and Public Works Committee Jan. 16.
Wheeler told reporters last summer that he would release the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of the human health risks of exposure to formaldehyde after he had reviewed its accuracy, but the document remains stalled within EPA's research office.
Wheeler's predecessor, Administrator Scott Pruitt, proposed the controversial 'secret science' rule last spring, which sought to bar EPA's use of scientific information in regulatory decisions when the underlying raw data is not publicly available. Wheeler has indicated that he would advance the measure, but it, too, remains stalled within EPA's research office, which rarely manages rules. The electronic docket on the proposal was buried in more than 500,000 comments, and the draft rule has been placed in the long term category of EPA's unified agenda.
Listing PFAS as hazardous substances under CERCLA or other environmental statutes is one of several steps EPA is considering as it crafts an action plan to address the substances. It was also one of several bipartisan asks from federal and state lawmakers during a Congressional hearing last September.
EPA's then PFAS czar, Peter Grevatt, told them that in addition to CERCLA, there are a number of ways in which EPA could achieve a hazardous substance listing. Such a listing could be done through the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Grevatt said EPA is looking at various authorities to list PFAS as hazardous substances, which would give the agency greater regulatory authority to address the substances.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/scotched-senate-nomination-deal-kills-key-epa-regulatory-pledges
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Expansion Makes Shell Plant No. 1 in Alpha Olefins
Jan 12, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Gulf Coast has become home of one the largest producers of a common chemical after Shell recently fired up its fourth alpha olefins unit at its chemical plant in Geismar, La.
The multibillion-dollar expansion adds 425,000 metric tons per year in capacity for manufacturing alpha olefins, which are key ingredients in consumer goods such as laundry detergents, motor oils and hand soaps. The new unit brings total alpha olefin production at Geismar to more than 1.3 million metric tons per a year, making it the largest alpha olefins producing site in the world, the company said.Recommended Video
00:0701:59
The project represents a major expansion of Shell’s petrochemical business in the region and will support the Deer Parkrefining and chemical plant in Greater Houston.
The new unit is part of Shell’s push to integrate the refining and chemicals side of its business. The company said the Geismar site is supported with ethylene feedstock from Shell’s nearby Norco, La., and Deer Park manufacturing sites. Ethylene, processed from the natural gas liquid ethane, is the feedstock for most plastics, including the most common one, polyethylene.
Ethylene also is used as a feedstock for alpha olefins. Shell previously had sold much of the U.S. ethylene it produced, but the addition of the alpha olefins unit provided the company with another way to earn profits off its abundant supplies of ethylene, said Steve Zinger, vice president of chemicals at the analyst research firm Wood Mackenzie
“This is one way they could consume some of that ethylene and convert it to a usable product that could be sold,” Zinger said.
Zinger added that the alpha olefins in Louisiana could also feed into the new plastic chemicals complex Shell is building in Pennsylvania. Alpha olefins are used in the production of polyethylene products. The company is building an ethane cracker, which processes ethane into ethylene, which will be the feedstock for on-site production of polyethylene.
The Geismar chemical site near the Mississippi River is used in the production of stronger and lighter polyethylene plastic for packaging and bottles, as well as engine and industrial oils and drilling fluids, according to the company. The alpha olefins unit started in December.
“This is a key growth project for Shell’s global chemicals business, “ said Graham van’t Hoff, executive vice president for Shell’s global chemicals business. “Geismar will continue to play a leading role in providing the materials for products that an increasing number of people need and enjoy.”
Shell announced its final investment decision in the project in November 2015 and construction began in 2016. The project included repurposing an idled tank farm, significantly expanding rail in the plant, and building a new water cooling tower. The project took 3,570 metric tons of steel, 18,290 meters of concrete and 85 linear kilometers of pipe to build, according to a Shell announcement.
Shell’s chemical business is already considering another expansion for the Geismar plant, according media reports. Shell is reportedly in the early evaluation stage of a $1.2 billion expansion of a project that would add a “world scale” monoethylene glycol unit to the Geismar site, the Advocate newspaper of Baton Rouge, La., reported. Monoethylene glycol is used in polyester, polyethylene terephthalate resins and engine coolants.
Dozens of petrochemical projects have come online in recent years thanks to the shale boom providing cheap and abundant supplies of natural gas, which is a feedstock for chemicals used in a variety of plastics and consumer goods. Since 2010, the American Chemistry Council estimates that $202 billion in capital investments were announced in the U.S. chemical and petrochemical industries, with about $170 billion targeted for the Gulf Coast.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that U.S. production of ethylene and polyethylene will double between 2015 to 2025, Zinger said.
https://www.chron.com/business/article/Chemical-expansion-makes-Shell-plant-No-1-in-13526579.php
-
Redo Well Fee Case, Pennsylvania Drillers Ask State High Court
Jan 12, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
A coalition of Pennsylvania energy companies wants the state’s highest court to reconsider a ruling that would put them on the hook for millions of unpaid fees for low-producing natural gas wells.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court misunderstood how different types of wells should be covered, the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association said in a filingJan. 11 asking that the ruling be reconsidered.
The appeal concerns Pennsylvania’s Act 13 of 2012, the state law that imposes an annual fee on certain unconventional gas wells, more commonly known as an impact fee. Energy producers such as EQT Production Co., Chesapeake Energy Corp., Range Resources Corp., and others that use hydraulic fracturing to tap the region’s Marcellus Shale deposits are affected by the ruling.
The court ruled Dec. 28 that drillers must pay the fee for vertical gas wells that produce more than 90,000 cubic feet of natural gas per day on average, even if production levels are that high for only one month during the year. The ruling reversed a decision by the Commonwealth Court and upheld the original ruling of the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission.
Impact Fee SuitPIOGA and Snyder Brothers Inc., a private oil and gas producer in Kittanning, Pa., sued the utilities commission over impact fees for calendar years 2011 and 2012, arguing that a well needed to exceed the production threshold every month of the year for the fee to be imposed.
In its ruling, the court misunderstood the relationship between the statutory definitions of a “vertical gas well” and lower-producing “stripper” wells, PIOGA’s filing said. Under Act 13, vertical gas wells are subject to impact fees; stripper wells are not.
While the case involved only vertical wells, the ruling could also affect some horizontal wells, Kevin J. Moody, general counsel and vice president of government affairs for PIOGA, told Bloomberg Environment in an email.
Millions in Uncollected FeesThe Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission estimates that the ruling applies to hundreds of wells with outstanding fees totaling millions of dollars, and is in the process of invoicing producers for unpaid fees.
“There are 18 producers with varying numbers of wells and reporting years that owe Impact fees for ‘stripper well’ activity,” PUC spokesman Nils Hagen-Frederiksen told Bloomberg Environment in an email Jan. 11.
“At this time, we do not have a final total, but those figures will become clearer in the coming weeks as invoices are generated and payments are collected from these disputed wells.”
Based in Wexford, Pa., just north of Pittsburgh, the 500-member association represents oil and natural gas producers, drilling contractors, distributors, pipelines, royalty owners, and others in the oil and gas industry.
The case is Snyder Bros. Inc. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, Pa., No. 47 WAP 2017, 48 WAP 2018, application for reconsideration 1/11/19.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/redo-well-fee-case-pennsylvania-drillers-ask-state-high-court
-
Gas Drilling Up, Oil Down - Rig Count Stays Flat
Jan 11, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Jordan Blum
The tally of rigs drilling for natural gas in the Northeast increased this week, but oil drilling declined in Oklahoma and the Gulf of Mexico.
The end result: the nation's net rig count remains unchanged at 1,075 active rigs, according to the weekly count compiled by Houston oilfield services firm Baker Hughes, a GE company.Recommended Video
01:1001:59
Pennsylvania and West Virginia in the gassy Marcellus shale play each gained two rigs, while Oklahoma oil drilling dipped by four rigs.
The booming Permian Basin gained one net rig with two added on the New Mexico side and one coming offline in West Texas.
RELATED: Permian Basin goes corporate
The Gulf of Mexico also lost two rigs - one in shallow and one in deep waters.
The overall tally of rigs primarily drilling for oil dipped by four down to 873. That leaves 202 rigs seeking natural gas.
Out of the 873 oil rigs, well more than half of them - 488 - are situated in the Permian Basin. Texas accounts for 532 rigs overall.
Because of pipeline shortages in West Texas, many companies are continuing to drill Permian wells while leaving more of them uncompleted for the time being until new pipelines come online.
The total count is up from an all-time low of 404 rigs in May 2016.
South Texas' Eagle Ford shale remains the next most active area after the Permian with 80 rigs, although that number is closer to 100 if additional neighboring counties were counted. Oklahoma's Cana-Woodford shale with is next with 57 rigs. Statewide, Oklahoma ranks second after Texas with 136 rigs. New Mexico is next with 107 rigs.With this week's small jump, the oil rig count is down 46 percent from its peak of 1,609 in October 2014, before oil prices began plummeting. However, rigs today are able to drill more wells than before and to deeper depths to produce more oil and gas. That's largely why the U.S. is producing record volumes of both crude oil and natural gas.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Gas-drilling-up-oil-down-rig-count-stays-flat-13526746.php
-
Republicans Shift on Offshore Drilling
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Kelsey Brugger
Republican opposition toward offshore drilling off the conservative state of South Carolina is amplifying.
GOP attitudes have long been mixed in the Palmetto State. While many have equated offshore production with economic prospects during sluggish times, coastal residents worried an oil spill could tank their vibrant tourism industry.
"About five years ago, we were the first municipality to oppose seismic testing," said Billy Keyserling, mayor of the marsh city Beaufort, S.C. "We pretty quickly built a coalition of almost if not every mayor."
Now, five of the state's nine-member congressional delegation are willing to oppose drilling off the Mid-Atlantic, including three of the seven Republicans.
The mounting opposition comes as the Trump administration prepares to release its highly anticipated five-year offshore leasing draft plan. Last January, former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke stunned coastal residents when he proposed opening up 90 percent of the outer continental shelf, mostly in Arctic waters. It put him at odds with many coastal Republican politicians.
Over the years, South Carolina's GOP senators, Tim Scott and Lindsey Graham, have both changed their minds on drilling. More recently, both opposed exploration, couching their positions in terms of states' rights and coastal public opinion.
"[A]lthough I believe there is some actual benefit to going offshore and seeing what's possible ... my constituents disagree with me," Scott told The State newspaper last summer. "I have sided with my constituents."
Graham has flip-flopped on the issue more than once.
In 2008, Graham said rising gas prices made him reconsider the opposition he had declared a few years prior.
"The more domestic supply the better we are as a nation," he told NBC News a decade ago. Changing his tune again last February, Graham said states should be able to opt out of Zinke's sprawling drilling plan.
Frank Knapp, president of the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce and a drilling opponent, spent last week lobbying members of Congress.
"I am very optimistic," he told E&E News by phone as he boarded a plane home.
"I am even optimistic that we might be able to pick up support from one or two additional members of the South Carolina delegation," Knapp said.
On the state level, drilling opposition has also grown.
Last week, a flurry of anti-drilling bills was introduced in the South Carolina Legislature.
And South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson became the first Republican attorney general to intervene in litigation to fight energy exploration off the coast.
The news struck many close observers for one key reason: Wilson's father is Republican Rep. Joe Wilson, the senior member of South Carolina's congressional delegation.
The elder Wilson favors drilling but has not been very public about it in recent years, sources say.
The split symbolizes the divide in the Republican Party on offshore drilling in a very personal way. The younger generation appears to be more hostile to offshore extraction.
Both Wilsons did not respond to multiple requests for interviews.
Industry sources admit drilling off the Atlantic coast is an uphill battle, largely because of the political realities. Energy exploration off the Mid-Atlantic has not occurred in decades, and it is unclear how much oil and gas potential lies beneath the sea floor. Five seismic testing companies are currently awaiting final approval to conduct seismic exploration in the Atlantic Ocean.
Attorney General Wilson's legal action comes after Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, one of President Trump's earliest supporters, called Atlantic drilling "too dangerous" during the 2018 campaign.
"Our coast is not industrialized at all, and there is no room for industrialization of our coast," he said last March, according to The Anderson Independent-Mail.
McMaster became governor in January 2017 after former Gov. Nikki Haley became U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. This also represented a shift — Haley had favored offshore drilling.
McMaster asked the Trump administration to exclude South Carolina from the White House's offshore leasing proposal shortly after then-Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) did the same, according to The State.Exploration and drilling:
'Two different things'
The debate about offshore drilling in South Carolina is not new. Five years ago, when the Obama administration was preparing its five-year drilling plan, opponents lobbied hard — and succeeded.
But the battle is not over.
Stephen Gilchrist, chairman of the South Carolina African American Chamber of Commerce, advocates for energy development off the coast.
"Obviously there are people who have more recently acknowledged not supporting [drilling]," he said Friday, referring to the attorney general's opposition. "We were anticipating some of that."
Gilchrist thinks it's possible to balance improving the economy with environmental concerns.
He said the chamber is "steadfast" that offshore drilling could be an economic boon for inland parts of the state that have been decimated. He argued coastal regions are often home to wealthy vacationers who are not necessarily worried about how to improve the economy.
In addition, energy exploration and drilling "are two different things," he said. "We want to make sure we have the opportunity to know" what resource potential exists.
Gilchrist leads an American Petroleum Institute effort, Explore Offshore, which formed last June to support "increased access to offshore U.S. oil and natural gas resources." More than 100 businesses and organizations in the Southeast joined, a press release said.
Last month, API and other industry groups moved to intervene in litigation in favor of seismic testing. They said seismic activity has been done safely for 80 years and reduces the need for multiple test wells (Energywire, Jan. 8).
But the political fight is accelerating.
Last week, freshman Democratic Rep. Joe Cunningham, who made opposing offshore drilling his signature issue, introduced legislation along with his coastal colleagues to prohibit exploration.
Much of his bill's language was borrowed from his predecessor, the environmentally friendly Republican Mark Sanford, who was ousted in the 2018 June primary by Trump-backed Katie Arrington, known for flip-flopping on offshore drilling.
Reporter Kristi E. Swartz contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/14/stories/1060111743
-
Court Deals Another Setback to Atlantic Coast Project
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week declined to soften a ruling that prompted developers of the Atlantic Coast pipeline to shut down construction on the project.
Dominion Energy Transmission Inc. and other backers of the 600-mile East Coast natural gas pipeline last year informed federal regulators that they were stopping work on the project. Their announcement followed a 4th Circuit decision that pulled a Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion and incidental take statement for further review (Energywire, Dec. 10, 2018).
"The Court's Order grants significantly broader relief than necessary based on Petitioners' alleged harms and will have substantial impacts on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline that are wholly unrelated to the alleged errors or deficiencies in the Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statement," Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC wrote in a Dec. 7 motion.
Environmental opponents urged the court to deny the request.
"FWS's [biological opinion] must encompass construction of the entire ACP, and if construction will jeopardize even one species, Atlantic cannot build it as planned," Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club and the Virginia Wilderness Committee wrote in their Dec. 18 response.
The 4th Circuit denied the developers' request. The court on Dec. 28 also turned down the developers' move to accelerate the proceedings.
"Consumers are already paying higher energy costs than they should, and major industries are having their natural gas service shut off during the winter months," Dominion spokesman Karl Neddenien wrote in an email.
"We cannot solve these challenges without new infrastructure," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/01/14/stories/1060111739
-
Climate Action Relied on Natural Gas. Then CO2 Spiked
Jan 14, 2019 | E&E Climatewire
By Benjamin Storrow
America has followed a simple formula for reducing carbon emissions this century: Retire old coal plants, replace them with natural gas, add a dash of renewables.
But the limitations of that approach came into focus in 2018, when power-sector emissions rose for the first time in five years. That bump was all the more notable given a near-record year for coal plant retirements (Climatewire, Jan. 2).
The increase raises questions about America's reliance on coal-to-gas switching to drive down greenhouse gas emissions. And it underscores the stark reality facing U.S. carbon cutters: The chief source of emissions reductions in recent years has not been wind or solar. It's a fossil fuel.
"This isn't the huge transition that is necessary to meet the climate challenge, and I do think utilities are a big part of it," said Leah Stokes, a professor who studies power-sector and political trends at the University of California, Santa Barbara. "It's easier to build a natural gas plant, fits with business as usual, and they can ramp it on and off."
American power companies have shouldered the burden of U.S. emissions reductions in recent years. Power-sector emissions fell 28 percent between 2005 and 2017, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, even as carbon levels from other sectors of the economy rose.
Many utilities are promising to push further still.
Alliant Energy Corp., Ameren Corp., American Electric Power, Consumers Energy, DTE Energy and WEC Energy Group Inc. are among the utilities that have pledged to cut emissions 80 percent by midcentury.
A growing number of power companies have begun replacing coal with renewables. Xcel Energy Inc. will close two coal units a decade early and replace much of its capacity with renewables, as part of a wider push to completely decarbonize by midcentury (Climatewire, Dec. 5, 2018).
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. similarly announced last year its intention to close all its coal plants within a decade and replace its power with a combination of renewables and energy efficiency (Climatewire, Sept. 21, 2018).
But those cases remain an exception to the rule. More frequently, power companies have turned to gas to replace aging coal facilities, like in the case of DTE, which is building a nearly $1 billion gas plant to replace several old coal facilities. The Detroit-based power company estimates the new plant will emit 70 percent less carbon than its retiring coal counterparts (Climatewire, Oct. 26, 2018).
"I've also said to people the CO2 reduction is not an exercise in purity," DTE CEO Gerard Anderson told E&E News last year. "We got to get it done, and we got to get it done in a way that works for our society."
DTE is hardly alone. American power companies installed 46.3 gigawatts of natural gas between 2013 and 2018, EIA figures show. Of that total, 21 GW of new gas capacity was expected to come online in 2018. Wind and solar, by comparison, added 33 GW and 23 GW of new capacity over that five-year period.
The trend could continue. Wind is expected to be the top source of new capacity in 2019, but natural gas is predicted to reclaim that title in 2020 and 2021.
"Gas is going to continue to grow. Coal retirements will continue," said Matthew Hong, an analyst who tracks the power sector at Morningstar Inc. "What the industry is trying to figure out now is reliability. With the growth in solar and wind generation, natural gas for the time being is going to be needed to ensure a reliability of electricity."
Power companies' reliance on gas is a double-edged sword for climate hawks. When a natural gas plant replaces a coal facility, there is a climate benefit. Gas plants emit about half of what's puffed into the air by their coal counterparts. EIA estimates that coal-to-gas switching is responsible for two-thirds of power-sector emissions reductions between 2005 and 2017. Renewables account for the remaining third.
But when gas plants run harder to meet an increase in electricity demand, emissions go up.
That's what happened in 2018, when a combination of weather events and a hot economy prompted the first increase in electricity demand in years. Power-sector emissions rose 1.9 percent as a result, as gas plants ran more to satisfy robust demand for electricity (Climatewire, Jan. 10).
The dynamic highlights the diminishing climate returns of adding more gas plants, said Joshua Rhodes, a power-sector researcher at the University of Texas, Austin.
"The climate cares about actual tons, not [emissions] intensity," he said. "Any natural gas built to serve new demand will not have climate benefit."
Indeed, carbon emissions from gas plants are on the rise, increasing 59 percent between 2005 and 2017, according to EIA figures. The growing reliance on gas will make it difficult for many power companies to achieve their deep decarbonization goals, analysts said.
"At some point, for our carbon emissions to continue to go down, traditional natural gas is not going to get us there anymore," Rhodes said.
There is some debate about whether gas can be reformed, or whether it needs to be displaced entirely.
Natural gas interest groups point to the industry's improving efficiency. The American Gas Association, which represents natural gas utilities, noted in a statement that more Americans are using gas to heat their homes than ever before but emissions from the sector continue to decline.
And there is some hope that natural gas electricity generation could someday be carbon free. A Texas company is experimenting with a natural gas demonstration project that could almost achieve carbon-free power (Greenwire, Jan. 16, 2018).
But others think government intervention is necessary. While the cheap price of natural gas has been the primary force behind coal plant retirements, low gas prices also pose a threat to nuclear facilities and a hurdle to new renewable generators.
Liberal states have begun to take matters into their own hands. California recently passed a law calling for 100 percent carbon-free electricity by 2045. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) are planning to follow suit with similar proposals. And several New England states have begun awarding long-term contracts to offshore wind and hydroelectric projects. Connecticut, notably, awarded such a contract to a nuclear plant earlier this month.
The problem is that leaves large swaths of the country behind, said Stokes, the UC Santa Barbara professor. "That does not add up to resolving the problem," she said.
"You are going to need the federal government to do something like the Clean Power Plan, which we saw contested by some states," Stokes said. "It is going too slow in the market, and the policies that exist are increasingly coming from Democratic states and not Republican states."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2019/01/14/stories/1060111765
-
EPA Weighs Easing Waste Rules For Bioreactor Landfills But Eyes Methane
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
EPA is considering easing limits on municipal solid waste landfills to allow for the addition of liquids to so-called wet and bioreactor landfills as a way of speeding waste degradation, but the agency is grappling with how to deal with increases in the emissions rate of methane, the potent greenhouse gas, and other landfill gases that would also result.
In a recent advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) on revising Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) subtitle D part 258 rules for the landfills, the agency asks the public for information on a number of possible changes, some of which it has been contemplating since the Obama administration but which the Trump administration is now hailing for their potential to provide permitting flexibility.
The notice asks for comment on removing the general ban on the addition of bulk liquids to solid waste landfills; defining a particular class of landfills -- bioreactor landfill units -- to operate with greater moisture content; and revising criteria for landfills to address new technical considerations related to liquids management, “including waste stability, subsurface reactions, and other important safety and operational issues.”
Currently, the agency permits liquids addition at bioreactors under a research, development and demonstration (RD&D) permitted program that was crafted by the Bush administration.
EPA in the ANPRM notes that in bioreactor landfill units, the generation of landfill gas (LFG) is accelerated compared to traditional solid waste landfills. Methane comprises nearly 50 percent of LFG, EPA says.
“Should EPA propose in a subsequent rulemaking to move bioreactor landfill operations outside of RD&D permits, EPA intends to evaluate changes to the RCRA regulations to ensure that LFG gas emissions are properly controlled in compliance with existing emissions regulations” under both RCRA and the Clean Air Act (CAA), the ANPRM says.
The RCRA limits are designed to prevent the build up of methane “to prevent landfill fires and explosions that can kill or injure and damage containment structures and thereby cause emissions of toxic fumes,” EPA says. The agency plans to examine whether an increase in methane surface emissions may also result in exceedances of the current explosive gas limits in Part 258, so any proposal to amend the RCRA rules to allow bulk liquids addition will require the need to consider the implications of enhanced methane generation at such units due to concern about the climate impacts of methane emissions.
The CAA rules include a 2003 municipal solid waste landfill National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Performance Standards/Emission Guidelines (NSPS/EG) that were revised in 2016 to lower the threshold for when landfills must install and operate a gas collection control system.
But the Trump administration has sought to delay the effective date of the 2016 changes. A pending lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California is challenging the agency's failure to follow deadlines in the 2016 rule.
And in recent written comments, Democratic states and environmentalists are arguing the proposed extension amounts to an unlawful effort to stay the standards.
Groundwater Contamination
In addition to potential challenges in addressing LFG, EPA notes there could be an increased risk of groundwater contamination and that adverse impacts could be magnified at these landfills.
Allowing more bioreactor landfill units could increase the potential for releases of contaminants to groundwater due to higher moisture content in the landfill and the potential for increased hydrostatic pressure on its liner. EPA says it will “carefully examine” this possibility, but notes that data it has seen so far have not shown evidence of great differences between groundwater contamination at bioreactor units compared to conventional landfills.
The presence of additional liquids in these landfills could also result in subsurface heating events or waste stability matters, EPA says. Therefore, the agency says it plans to consider several factors as it weighs design and operating criteria, including “increased engineering design requirements and more complex construction,” greater levels of oversight and operator skill, issues related to temperature control, potential waste compatibility issues related to adding liquids to unknown solid waste constituents, and possible waste stability issues and the chance for lateral leachate seeps, it says.
But a faster LFG generation rate could also have environmental benefits, EPA says, because it could lower the duration of those releases and limit the post-closure period for which air emissions can occur. Other potential benefits include potentially lessening the need for leachate treatment and offsite disposal, lowering the risk of spills during transport and decreasing potential releases during off-site treatment and disposal; shortening the post-closure care period due to the faster reduction in concentrations of biodegradable organic compounds; increasing the rate of waste settlement and compaction, promoting more efficient use of landfill capacity; and enhancing opportunities for the beneficial use of landfill properties.
EPA cites potential cost savings associated with such revisions as well. For instance, it predicts “decreased costs for leachate treatment and increased revenue from the use or sale of captured [landfill gas] and acceptance of bulk liquid wastes.” It also suggests savings would result because post-closure care costs would be lower due to the faster rate of organic compounds biodegrading, and landfill capacity would be greater due to increased waste settlement and compaction.
The ANPRM also requests that commenters provide data on how organics diversion programs approved under laws by a number of states and municipalities will impact the operation of bioreactors or wet landfills. Several states and cities have passed laws requiring organics diversion from landfills, which EPA expects will impact the amount of organic waste that otherwise would be sent to bioreactor or wet landfills. For instance, so far four states have adopted bans on sendingorganic waste to landfills, while California has adopted a waste recycling law requiring commercial generators of organic waste to compost it or send it to an anaerobic digester, it says.
It notes that “As a policy matter, EPA sees the development of appropriately-regulated bioreactor landfill units or wet landfill units as a potential complement to diversion programs, with both reducing the environmental impacts from organics management, albeit under different management scenarios.” It therefore asks for data on how organics diversion may interact with, or enhance, the policy goal of lowering the environmental impact of organics management.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-weighs-easing-waste-rules-bioreactor-landfills-eyes-methane
-
Environmentalists Seek To Continue Some EPA Suits As Shutdown Drags On
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
Environmentalists are pushing back against EPA's efforts to stay all regulatory challenges and other litigation where the agency is a party until the government shutdown ends, arguing officials including Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys have authority to keep working on any case where a judge orders proceedings to continue.
“Despite the lapse in appropriations . . . DOJ has stated in its contingency plan that if a court denies a request for a postponement until funding is available, 'the Government will comply with the court’s order, which would constitute express legal authorization for the activity to continue',” environmentalists challenging EPA procedures for reviewing state coal ash programs said in a Jan. 7 brief opposing EPA's request to stay the suit until funding resumes.
“Similarly, the contingency plan for [EPA] provides that where a stay of litigation is denied, DOJ expects EPA 'to continue to provide the legal or technical support necessary to meet any court deadlines or orders',” the brief adds.
The case, Waterkeeper Alliance, et al., v. EPA, et al., is a regulatory challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where environmentalists are targeting EPA's process for reviewing state coal ash permit programs.
The case has not yet begun merits briefing, which the plaintiffs say in their brief is a point in their favor. “The resource commitment by DOJ and EPA . . . is slight, amounting to consultations with Waterkeeper over a proposed briefing schedule,” the brief says.
The environmentalists' language implies they would be reluctant to seek continuation of cases where the government's work would be more resource-intensive, such as those where merits briefing or oral argument are imminent.
Moreover, the courts themselves are due to run out of the funds necessary to support their full operations on Jan. 18. Beyond that point, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has said each court will be forced to “determine the staff necessary to support its mission critical work,” according to Courthouse News.
While any court order to advance EPA-related suits would have to be made on a case-by-case basis, the possibility of some suits resuming creates a window for a percentage of pending litigation involving the agency to continue.
That would be a boon to groups with challenges pending against the agency after prospects have dimmed that the funding stalemate will be resolved anytime soon and EPA and other shuttered agencies would reopen.
In Congress, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on Jan. 11 refused to take up House-passed “clean” spending bills for EPA, DOJ and several other agencies.
And President Donald Trump indicated Jan. 11 he is not inclined to quickly issue an emergency declaration to allow the military to build the border wall -- the heart of the dispute that has led to the government shutdown -- without needing new legislation from Congress.
"What we're not looking to do right now is national emergency," he said Jan. 11. “I’m not going to do it so fast.”
Given that lawmakers have left town for the weekend, the shutdown will likely continue into next week, making it the longest in recent history.
Funding Lapse
The shutdown for most agencies began Dec. 21 when their appropriations lapsed, although though EPA only shuttered all “non-essential” operations, a process that included seeking stays of pending court cases, when its funding reserves expired at the end of Dec. 28.
The dispute stems from Trump's refusal to sign any new spending bill that does not include $5.7 billion for a border wall and other security measures, which Democrats refuse to provide.
It is already hindering a host of agency functions, including enforcement inspections, major rulemakings that are key to the administration's deregulatory agenda and services that industry relies on for its operations, such as permitting and engine certifications..
EPA staff received only half of their usual paychecks Jan. 11, reflecting the fact that the agency was able to continue operating during the week of Dec. 23.
Since taking control of the House on Jan. 3 Democrats have passed two slates of appropriations bills aimed at reopening the government without wall funds. Most recently, the chamber on Jan. 11 passed H.R. 266, an interior and environment spending bill that would maintain EPA's prior $8.1 billion funding level through fiscal year 2019, by a 240-179 margin, with 10 Republicans joining with all 230 Democrats who voted.
However, McConnell has already pledged not to bring up for a Senate vote any spending bill that Trump opposes, and allowed the chamber to recess for the weekend without addressing the latest House-passed bills.
In the meantime, EPA is continuing to work on certain “essential” tasks, including preparing Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler for his Jan. 16 confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee following his nomination to lead the agency on a permanent basis.
EPA's use of resources to lay groundwork for the hearing has drawn fire from environment committee Democrats, who in a Jan. 10 letter charged that its work “may be occurring using resources that are not described in or authorized under EPA's Contingency Plan,” and could violate the Antideficiency Act that bars agencies from spending funds not authorized by Congress.
General Counsel Matt Leopold, however, has countered in an interview with the Washington Post that the hearing preparation is both “essential work” and authorized by the Constitution's appointments clause.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-seek-continue-some-epa-suits-shutdown-drags
-
States Defend Push to Consider 'Background' Ozone in NAAQS
Jan 11, 2019 | Inside EPA
A coalition of states opposed to EPA's tougher 2015 ozone standard is defending its position that EPA should have considered naturally occurring "background" ozone when setting the standard, which they argue should result in a weaker limit because it would account for background ozone levels states are powerless to reduce.
In a Jan. 11 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Arizona on behalf of state petitioners in Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA says that it is legitimate for EPA to take into account the feasibility of attaining national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) when setting the limits.
State air regulators responsible for attainment of NAAQS cannot control naturally-occurring or foreign-sourced "background" ozone, and the states argue this renders the 2015 limit of 70 parts per billion (ppb) unattainable in areas of the country with high background ozone levels.
The standard is tougher than the prior limit of 75 ppb set by the George W. Bush administration in 2008, but the Trump administration is defending it in the D.C. Circuit case.
States opposed to the stricter standard say that a 2002 Clean Air Act ruling by the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Associations (ATA) v. EPA, known as ATA III, supports their argument.
Environmentalists in a recent letter to the court contested this view, arguing that it applies only to secondary "welfare" issues rather than the human health protections afforded by "primary" NAAQS standards.
At Dec. 18 oral argument, they claimed EPA is prohibited from considering background ozone. The agency, meanwhile, says it will consider the issue during its review of the ozone NAAQS that is due to conclude in 2020.
But in their Jan 11 filing, the states say environmentalists' argument "misses the broader point in that decision and EPA’s brief from 2001: the Agency, the States, and this Court all agree that EPA may consider background ozone when setting the NAAQS."
The court "considered the primary standard for ozone and reached the same conclusion concerning uncontrollable background ozone," states say. EPA's "error in the current rulemaking is arbitrarily considering only some background ozone, considering it only some of the time, and considering it in a form (averages) that does not match the trigger for nonattainment" of NAAQS, states say.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-defend-push-consider-background-ozone-naaqs
-
Republicans Plan Revival of Curbelo Carbon Tax Bill
Jan 11, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Nick Sobczyk
A pair of climate-conscious Republicans are planning to reintroduce the "MARKET CHOICE Act," the landmark carbon tax bill floated last year by then-Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.).
Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) said in a brief interview today he plans to sign on to a revived version of the legislation, with Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) as the lead sponsor.
The measure was the first Republican-led carbon pricing legislation in nearly a decade when Curbelo rolled it out last July (Greenwire, July 23, 2018).
When it's reintroduced, it will likely have to compete with other carbon tax proposals, as well as progressives pushing for a "Green New Deal" focused on government spending and regulation.
Rooney said he's working with outside groups to craft a separate carbon pricing bill.
That measure "spends the money to help employers and employees," Rooney said. "It's a CEO-led bill. A lot of the Fortune 500 CEOs are for it."
The "MARKET CHOICE Act," by contrast, would tax carbon emissions at $24 per ton, with 70 percent of the revenue going to the Highway Trust Fund. Other chunks would be doled out to low-income households and coastal mitigation projects.
Timing for the reintroduction is unclear, and a spokeswoman for Fitzpatrick did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rooney, for his part, is also trying to get a spot on the newly formed Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.
But he said this morning he hasn't heard back from Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who will pick Republican members for the panel.
"I told him I don't necessarily vote the way a lot of Republicans do, but I think I could be effective on it," Rooney said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/01/11/stories/1060111717
-
Action on Climate and Energy: Beyond Partisan Talking Points
Jan 14, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By David Hart
Young Democratic activists calling for a “Green New Deal” surprised House Speaker Nancy Pelosi last month. Their sit-in forced the incoming Speaker to pay attention to climate change, an issue she might have preferred to keep on the back burner.
Congressional Republicans, who have mostly denied that climate change is a problem, much less tried to solve it, are paying attention, too. Senate Environment Committee chair John Barrasso of Wyoming even took to the New York Times with a welcome call for more innovation to cut carbon emissions.
As Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said: “It’s great that we moved the political conversation from whether or not we should act on climate change to what we should do about it.”
But talking about doing something is not the same as actually doing it. So far, neither side has moved far enough off its talking points to pave the way for meaningful action.
For Green New Dealers, the key move is to embrace all forms of low-carbon energy, not just renewables and efficiency. The environmental left’s allergy to nuclear power and fossil fuel with carbon capture, use, and sequestration (CCUS) not only alienates potential allies among labor unions and other stakeholders in the Midwest, South, and Mountain West — it also rejects the most promising pathways to a full transformation of the global energy system.
The next move Congressional Republicans need to make is harder: accepting that government has a positive role to play in reshaping energy markets.
Senator Barrasso’s program of deregulation and tax cuts would merely deepen our fossil-fuel dependency, whereas smarter regulation and tax reform could unleash entrepreneurship that would make clean energy cheaper and reduce further damage from climate change.
Both sides should build on modest steps taken in the last Congress. Republicans and Democrats agreed on new tax incentives to stimulate CCUS innovation. They agreed on streamlined regulation to make it easier to build the next generation of nuclear plants without relaxing safety standards. They agreed on expanded federal research and development (R&D) spending across a broad front to stimulate new technologies and improve existing ones, including energy storage technologies needed to unlock the full potential of renewables.
State governments led by both parties provide further evidence that progress can be made on clean energy. Senator Barrasso’s home state, dominated by his Republican party, is not content to simply extract its plentiful fossil fuel resources; it is investing substantial public resources to become a leader in CCUS technology. Speaker Pelosi’s home state, dominated by her Democratic party, adopted the bold goal of a zero-carbon economy by 2045, but rejected doing so only with renewable energy.
Climate change is real, and it’s already affecting our lives. Congressional Republicans have begun to admit these truths, however grudgingly, and to adjust their positions accordingly. The Green New Dealers are right that the damage will get much worse if carbon emissions are not wrung out of the energy system much more quickly in the future. But insisting on a massive, top-down program that forces today’s costly technology on unwilling households and businesses is more likely to produce gridlock and backlash than results.
The vast majority of Americans in both political parties support an aggressive federal program that uses a wide array of policy tools to make clean energy affordable. It’s time for action in Congress that moves beyond partisan talking points and gives them what they want.
David M. Hart (@ProfDavidHart) is a senior fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) and professor of public policy and director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy at George Mason University’s Schar School of Policy and Government.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/425064-action-on-climate-and-energy-beyond-partisan-talking-points
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested