Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report - March 20, 2019
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Advanced Recycling Worth $10b Impact in US
Mar 20, 2019 | Plastic News
By Jim Johnson
A new report claims use of "advanced plastic recycling and recovery technologies" could be worth almost $10 billion in economic impact in the United States. The America Chemistry Council is out with the report that looks at... -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Administration Names New Regulatory Chief
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E- Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The White House has decided on a new chief for the agency overseeing the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda. Paul Ray has been named acting head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs... -
(ACC Mentioned) Report: $10 Billion at Stake in ‘Advanced Plastics Recycling’
Mar 20, 2019 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
An industry report released today highlights economic opportunity in pyrolysis and other emerging plastics processing technologies. The American Chemistry Council on Wednesday published “Economic Impact of Advanced Plastics... -
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Continues to Grow at Low Levels
Mar 19, 2019 | Process Worldwide
By Alexander Stark
Data collected and tabulated by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) show that global chemicals production rose 0.1 % in January. This follows a 0.3 % gain in December, stable activity in November and a 0.1 % gain in October. -
(ACC Mentioned) Head of Top Hedge Fund Association to Step Down
Mar 20, 2019 | The Hill
By Alex Gangitano
Former House lawmaker Richard Baker, who has led the Managed Funds Association (MFA) for more than a decade, announced Wednesday that he will step down at the end of the year. MFA, which represents the hedge fund industry... -
(ACC Mentioned) Outgoing APPA President Bob Vetere Reveals the Industry’s Best Kept Secret
Mar 20, 2019 | Pet Product News
By Jennifer Boncy
After nearly 17 years at the helm of the America Pet Products Association (APPA), Bob Vetere is retiring, leaving in his wake a tenure as president and CEO distinguished for its thoughtful leadership and strong advocacy for the pet... -
Hawaii’s Novel Plastic Bans Inch Closer to Legislative Approval
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McAfee
Hawaii state lawmakers are getting closer to passing a first-in-the-nation ban on single-use plastics as a means to reduce local and marine pollution. S.B. 522—which bans the sale or use of certain plastics common at most... -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Regulate Formaldehyde with Health Review Hidden
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA today began considering regulations on 40 chemicals including formaldehyde, a widely used carcinogenic substance. The move — part of an effort to comply with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century... -
EPA Proposes TSCA 28 Significant New Use Rules
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed 28 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for a variety of new substances that were permitted to come to market, subject to certain restrictions. Each Snur is intended to hold users of the substance... -
EPA Formaldehyde for Next Round of TSCA Reviews
Mar 20, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
EPA today said it has picked formaldehyde, a contentious chemical linked to cancer and used in a wide variety of products, for the next round of study under the Toxic Substances Control Act, along with 19 other chemicals. -
Congressional Democrats Decry Methylene Chloride Rule as 'Inadequate'
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Democrats in Congress say the EPA's long-awaited methylene chloride prohibition does not go far enough to protect workers exposed to the substance. Announced late last week, the TSCA section 6 rule bans the substance's use in... -
Solvents, Phthalates Among 40 Chemicals EPA to Vet This Year
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released a list of 40 chemicals March 20 that it will examine this year to decide which 20 are a “high priority” to proceed down a pipeline that could lead to restrictions. Candidates for that pipeline include five solvents, three... -
California, Rhode Island Consider Expanding Cosmetics Ingredient Disclosure
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
State legislators in California and Rhode Island are considering bills to expand ingredient disclosure requirements for personal care products. In California, the legislation under consideration (SB 574) takes aim at the many fragrance... -
What’s Next in Court for Bayer Toxic Chemical Claims
Mar 20, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Washington Post)
By Joel Rosenblatt and Margaret Cronin Fisk
Many Bayer AG investors didn’t realize just how much litigation risk they were getting when the German company spent $63 billion in June 2018 to acquire Monsanto Co., the giant U.S. seed and herbicide maker. Since then, two adverse... -
J&J Ordered to Pay $29m in California Asbestos Case
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A California jury has awarded $29.5m to a woman with cancer, which she claims was caused by exposure from asbestos contained in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. Personal injury lawsuits are ongoing across the US, with... -
Federal Judge Casts Doubt on Trump’s Drilling Plans across the U.S. Because They Ignore Climate Change
Mar 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the Interior Department violated federal law by failing to take into account the climate impact of its oil and gas leasing in the West. The decision by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia... -
Feds Must Look at Oil, Gas Leases’ Effects on Climate Change
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bernie Pazanowski
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must take a hard look at the impact oil and gas leases on federal land may have on climate change before selling them, a federal district court said. At issue were leases the BLM authorized in... -
Bill to Increase Renewable Energy Use Advances
Mar 20, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Brian Witte
A measure to increase Maryland's use of renewable energy advanced in the state Senate yesterday after senators approved changing the bill to eliminate trash incineration as eligible for subsidies like wind and solar energy. -
Big Oil’s Electric Dreams Could Create New Energy Cartels
Mar 20, 2019 | The Telegraph (In S&P Global Platts)
By Andrew Critchlow
Oil companies want to become power utilities to meet rising demand from electricity in transport and from growing populations. The strategy makes sense, but would also bring risks for regulators and consumers if it were to create a... -
DOE's Process Rule: More Harm Than Good
Mar 20, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Lauren Urbanek
It will soon be more difficult and cumbersome to set strong standards for the appliances and electronics in our homes and businesses, if the Trump administration’s Department of Energy has its way. At issue is a change in the process to... -
Houston Area Petrochemical Tank Fire Out: Company
Mar 20, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Kristen Hays
A fire that engulfed eight tanks holding mostly gasoline components at Intercontinental Terminals Company's petrochemical tank farm along the Houston Ship Channel has been extinguished, though crews continued working to... -
Black Smoke over Houston Is Part of the Deal
Mar 20, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Farmers complain that consumers think their food comes from the back of the grocery store; refiners complain people think chemicals spontaneously flow up from the ground. The enormous black plume dominating the Houston skyline... -
Former Lawmakers Urge Bipartisan Push on Infrastructure
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Former Reps. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) urged Congress today to pass a broad infrastructure package. Shuster, who chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Crowley, who led the... -
EPA Head Says Climate Change Threat '50-75 Years Out'
Mar 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Zack Budryk
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler believes the threat posed by climate change is “50 to 75 years out” compared to more immediate issues like access to clean drinking water. Wheeler, who was confirmed... -
Trump Climate Denial Poses National Security Danger, Inslee Says
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), a 2020 presidential hopeful, criticized President Donald Trump on March 20 for not taking action on climate change risks to military bases. “President Trump presents a clear and present danger to our...
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC: Advanced Recycling Worth $10b Impact in US
Mar 20, 2019 | Plastic News
By Jim Johnson
A new report claims use of "advanced plastic recycling and recovery technologies" could be worth almost $10 billion in economic impact in the United States.
The America Chemistry Council is out with the report that looks at technologies to convert recovered plastics into products such as chemicals and chemical feedstocks.
Mechanical recycling dominates plastics recovery, but work continues on creating economically viable ways to chemically recycle the material. Chemical recycling is technically viable, but the struggle has been creating ways to actually make money using that approach.
"Advanced plastic recycling and recovery technologies have the potential to revolutionize the way we make, use and reuse our plastic resources," Steve Russell vice president of plastics for ACC said. "These technologies further demonstrate the untapped value of used plastics and have the potential to dramatically accelerate our transition to a circular economy."
Plastic recycling lags behind both paper and metal recycling in the United States due to the unique challenges of handling used resins and keeping them separate. Even small amounts of misplaced resin can cause huge problems in plastics recycling systems.
The report is called Economic Impact of Advanced Plastics Recycling and Recovery Facilities in the U.S. The study updates similar work done by the ACC in 2014.
Chemical recycling includes processes such as pyrolysis and depolymerization, the trade group said.
https://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20190320/NEWS/190329993/acc-advanced-recycling-worth-10b-impact-in-us
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Administration Names New Regulatory Chief
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E- Greenwire
By Niina Heikkinen
The White House has decided on a new chief for the agency overseeing the Trump administration's deregulatory agenda.
Paul Ray has been named acting head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, a senior administration official confirmed, though there has been no public announcement.
Ray comes to the position from a stint as OIRA's associate administrator for less than a year. He will take over for Neomi Rao, who was sworn in this week to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Rao nabbed the seat left vacant by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
OIRA had not made an official announcement of the change in leadership as of this morning, which some critics say is typical of a lack of transparency at OIRA. Bloomberg Governmentfirst reported last week that Ray would be named to the acting post, citing unnamed sources.
Under the Trump administration, OIRA has implemented the president's tight regulatory budget for federal agencies.
As the previous OIRA chief, Rao, a vocal champion of cutting regulatory costs, faced fierce criticism from advocates who called for greater discussion of the benefits of regulations to public health and the environment.
The new OIRA head, Ray, joined OIRA as its second in command last July.
He previously served as counselor to Labor Secretary Alex Acosta and worked as an associate for the law firm Sidley Austin LLP. His clients at the firm included industry groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers and American Chemistry Council, all of which are actively involved in the federal regulatory process. Ray also clerked for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito (Greenwire, March 5).
Bridget Dooling, a research professor at George Washington University's Regulatory Studies Center, and former career attorney at OIRA, emphasized the importance of now getting a confirmed head of the agency to interact with Senate-confirmed counterparts at other federal agencies.
"With Paul Ray serving in an acting capacity, now the focus should be on nominating a permanent head who can lead OIRA as it drives one of the President's priority initiatives," Dooling said in an email.
Peter Keisler, a partner at Sidley Austin, had expressed confidence in Ray's capabilities as a potential head of OIRA.
"I would say that Paul is a tremendously capable lawyer, and I am quite confident he would function superbly in any position he might assume," he said in an interview earlier this month.
James Goodwin, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, said he hoped Ray would work to improve transparency at the regulatory agency. He described OIRA under the Trump administration as a "supreme disappointment."
Goodwin noted that OIRA had not held meetings with interest groups, known as Executive Order 12866 meetings, in three months. Previously, it was unusual to go more than a few days without a meeting.
"From the outside looking in, things don't seem normal there. The fact that they haven't made an official announcement is almost in keeping with that," he said.
Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, echoed Goodwin's critiques of the agency under Trump.
"Paul Ray has his work cut out for him at OIRA. The Trump Administration's regulatory roll backs have been sloppy, supported by little evidence, and overwhelmingly rejected by the courts. If OIRA continues to rubber stamp agency roll backs under Ray, courts will continue to strike down those roll backs," he wrote in an email.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060127753/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report: $10 Billion at Stake in ‘Advanced Plastics Recycling’
Mar 20, 2019 | Resource Recycling
By Colin Staub
An industry report released today highlights economic opportunity in pyrolysis and other emerging plastics processing technologies.
The American Chemistry Council on Wednesday published “Economic Impact of Advanced Plastics Recycling and Recovery Facilities in the U.S.” The report points to $9.9 billion in economic output that could be derived from “a burgeoning class of technologies that convert used plastics into a range of products and raw materials,” including chemical feedstocks, fuels and more.
Such processes are often referred to as chemical recycling, and in recent months a number of investments have been announced to help push the sector forward.
“These technologies further demonstrate the untapped value of used plastics and have the potential to dramatically accelerate our transition to a circular economy,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at ACC, in a release.
Wider adoption of the technologies, which include plastics-to-fuel and other processing methods, would add 40,000 direct and indirect U.S. jobs, the report states, contributing $2.2 billion in annual payroll to the economy.
In the release, Priyanka Bakaya, founder and CEO of plastics-to-fuel company Renewlogy, said wider implementation of plastics recovery technologies could divert 6.5 million tons of end-of-life plastics per year.
https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2019/03/20/report-10-billion-at-stake-in-advanced-plastics-recycling/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Global Chemical Production Continues to Grow at Low Levels
Mar 19, 2019 | Process Worldwide
By Alexander Stark
Data collected and tabulated by the American Chemistry Council (ACC) show that global chemicals production rose 0.1 % in January. This follows a 0.3 % gain in December, stable activity in November and a 0.1 % gain in October.
During January, chemical production gained in North America, the former Soviet Union (FSU), Africa and the Middle East, and Asia-Pacific, was flat in Latin America and fell in Europe. With softness earlier last year, the Global Chemical Producing Regional Index (Global CPRI) was up only 0.5 % year-over-year (Y/Y) on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis and stood at 116.2 % of its average 2012 levels. During January, capacity utilization in the global chemical industry slipped 0.2 points to 83.1 %. This is down from 85.6 % last January and below the long-term (1987-2017) average of 86.5 percent.
Among chemical industry segments, January results were mixed on a product basis, with gains in agricultural chemicals, inorganic chemicals, plastic resins, synthetic rubber, manufactured fibers, coatings, and other specialty chemicals offset by weakness in consumer products and bulk petrochemicals and organics. Considering year-earlier comparisons, growth was strongest in coatings, followed by bulk petrochemicals and organics and plastic resins.
https://www.process-worldwide.com/global-chemical-production-continues-to-grow-at-low-levels-a-811409/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Head of Top Hedge Fund Association to Step Down
Mar 20, 2019 | The Hill
By Alex Gangitano
Former House lawmaker Richard Baker, who has led the Managed Funds Association (MFA) for more than a decade, announced Wednesday that he will step down at the end of the year.
MFA, which represents the hedge fund industry, said its board will soon begin the process of selecting Baker's successor. The former Louisiana Republican served in the House from 1987 to 2008 before joining MFA.
“The financial crisis dominated my first year at MFA. It also set the stage for a sweeping revamp of our financial regulatory structure. From the first meetings about the Dodd-Frank Act until now, I have been proud to lead an exceptional team which, without fanfare, effectively advances the interests of our members and their investors,” Baker said in a speech announcing his retirement.
“While my tenure at MFA is coming to an end, I remain bullish on the hedge fund industry, which is as transparent and thoroughly regulated as it has ever been," he added.
While in Congress, Baker was a member of the House Financial Services Committee and chaired the Subcommittee on Capital Markets for more than a decade.
He is among a dwindling number of former lawmakers at the helm of trade associations. Some of his peers include James Greenwood (R-Pa.), CEO of the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, and Calvin M. Dooley (D-Calif.), CEO of the American Chemistry Council.
MFA recently hired Mark Epley, who was general counsel to former Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Epley started as executive vice president and general counsel of MFA on Feb. 19.
https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/434922-ex-rep-richard-baker-to-retire-from-helm-of-managed-funds-association
-
(ACC Mentioned) Outgoing APPA President Bob Vetere Reveals the Industry’s Best Kept Secret
Mar 20, 2019 | Pet Product News
By Jennifer Boncy
After nearly 17 years at the helm of the America Pet Products Association (APPA), Bob Vetere is retiring, leaving in his wake a tenure as president and CEO distinguished for its thoughtful leadership and strong advocacy for the pet industry and its various participants—including the nation’s pet-owning public. Now, as he prepares to hand over the reins to successor Steve King, formerly the president of the Pet Industry Distributors Association (PIDA), Vetere looks back at the organization’s most notable accomplishments and forward to where the industry is headed, with sound advice for retailers on how they should prepare. Also, armed with a degree of insight that could only have been earned through decades of experience, Vetere reveals why it is critical that the industry learn from other industries’ mistakes and start shouting from rooftops its own best-kept secret.
Pet Product News: Congratulations on your impending retirement as president and CEO of APPA. Since you took the position back in 2002, APPA has seen tremendous growth. In your mind, what have been the most notable, most powerful growth spurts? And to what do you attribute this progression?
Bob Vetere: When I first arrived at what was then APPMA [America Pet Products Manufacturers Association], the total U.S. market for pet expenditures was just under $30 billion. The industry had been showing strong but modest growth. But trends were changing. People were beginning to make pets a more important part of their lives—what today is referred to as “humanization.” People were working in more isolated situations—cubicles with less and less interaction with other people. Long workdays were followed by a trip home, dinner and, soon after, bedtime. To fill the void of human contact, people began to turn to their pets as someone to talk to, sit with and generally have as a companion to fill the void. APPMA/APPA began to see that change in the types of products being exhibited at the trade show and reacted by highlighting those sectors more and more within the show.
On top of this humanization trend, which really reached a tipping point from 2006-2008, more and more evidence was surfacing validating that pets are good for health. Organizations like the Human Animal Bond Research Institute (HABRI) began to fund and uncover more studies showing that having a companion animal could extend your life and add to good health. This trend caused another upward spurt in pet ownership and spending that has continued to today and shows no sign of weakening. Human health companies and physicians are more widely recognizing these facts and are reacting in a way that continues to encourage pet ownership.
PPN: During your time in the pet industry, you applied much of what you learned in years past from working in other industries. They were very different industries, for sure, but your experience certainly wasn’t wasted in your role at APPA. Looking ahead, what lessons do you think the pet industry can still learn from observing the life cycles of other industries and how they’ve responded to both prosperity and challenges?
Vetere: Good question. You wouldn’t think that making plastic bags and antifreeze would lend itself to a learning experience in the pet world. On top of that, you would be hard pressed to bridge the changeover from the for-profit world to the not-for-profit world. But as it turned out, I had a very important experience in my prior life that I am working on helping our industry avoid.
When I first graduated from college, plastics were still on the upswing. We were saving trees and forests by substituting plastic products in place of paper products. But then some early studies were surfacing noting that plastic had a long life and discarded or abandoned pieces of plastic were accumulating in some areas. The plastics industry basically turned their heads and said we are way too powerful and don’t need to pay attention to these reports, so we collectively put our heads in the sand and plowed ahead. Then more reports were being generated indicating the problem was increasing. Again, no reaction. At that point, some of the more extreme environmentalists began to realize that touting the soon-to-come end of humanity due to plastic production was a great fundraising tool and began to generate all sorts of reports—some based loosely on facts and some written with the finesse of a great fiction writer. The industry laughed, thinking, “Who would ever believe this?” and still did minimal in response. Finally, some local and state legislatures were taking notice, largely because a small but vocal section of voters kept coming to them. With no clarification or opposition from the industry, plastics began to be banned, from plastic bags and bottles to just plastic in general.
As the bottom line of some of the larger companies was being affected, the industry began to take notice. Only problem was that so much momentum had gathered against the industry that they were finding it hard to get anyone to listen. After all, the industry was just in it for the money. They didn’t care that they were polluting the earth. So we formed the American Plastics Council, which morphed into the current American Chemistry Council. It was comprised of senior executives from about 15-20 plastics manufacturers. They finally decided to fight back. After all, plastics, in many cases, were a positive—they provided items used in heart surgery, protection in football helmets and other sports, and so much more. Except no one really paid attention to this because we had waited so long before responding. As it turned out, the initial budgets for the APC began at $20-plus million in the mid-1980s before even the slightest slowing of opposition began to occur. And, the budget grew quickly before finally making a difference.
All of that background is to relate it to what the pet industry is increasingly facing right now. We, as an industry, are allowing ourselves to be categorized by extreme animal rights activist groups. Until recently, we had been doing nothing to oppose, or at least correct, some of the misinformation getting so much press time. Plus, because the perception is that we are “only in it for the money,” the public and legislators paid little to no attention to our facts when viewed against the tug of heartstrings by extremists.
Thankfully, the plastics issue was different in two key ways. First, people rely on the industry for the health and well-being of their pets, so there is some base to begin to build credibility. Second—and this is the lesson I am learning from—we are beginning to change the landscape much earlier in the cycle. While there are pet sale bans and some restrictions on breeders, most of the impact has been a small segment of the industry. But it is growing. Facts showing a decreasing domestic supply of dogs and other companion animals are foreboding much larger problems if not addressed now. The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, (PIJAC) does an admirable job of working on local legislative issues as they arise, but needs greater support and more resources to be able to make a national impact on some of the most important issues facing the industry. We are finally finding a growing group of very involved companies and organizations willing to step up on behalf of the entire pet industry to set the record straight. The good news is because we are starting earlier, it will be a much more manageable budget to make the kind of difference we need.
PPN: Looking back, what are your proudest achievements working with the pet industry and APPA? And in what ways have the organization and the people within it made you proud?
Vetere: This one is a little bit tricky to respond to. Virtually none of “my achievements” would have been possible without the amazing staff and board I work with, plus those other forward-looking people in the industry willing to partner with me on what sometimes looked like a wild goose chase. I think the one project I take the most pride in is the formation of HABRI. This was a labor of love that took two to three years to come to fruition, and shows the willingness of others to work with me to make it happen. Besides the APPA board allowing me the time and dollars to work with Dr. Alan Beck at Purdue, I had three early whole-hearted supporters—Charlie Piscitello of Petco and Mike McFarland and David Haworth from Zoetis (then Pfizer). With their help—and with the work of Steve Feldman—HABRI has become a well-respected player in the world of human health benefits from companion animals.
One of the most important pieces of the pet industry that continues to make me proud is the unbelievable commitment to ensuring the health and well-being of companion animals that is shared by such a large majority of those in this industry. While it was important to many in my previous jobs to make good/safe plastic bags and antifreeze, it was not the same. You can speak to virtually anyone in our industry and the conversation inevitably will center around the good things their products are doing to make sure your pet is well taken care of and healthy. So many times you will hear of someone leaving a company, and then very quickly showing up again in another pet-related organization. It is their pride in making this industry different that is a great source of pride for me to say I am a part of it.
The only problem we have had—that, thankfully, we are working on correcting—is that our commitment to animals is one of the world’s best-kept secrets. We all know it, but we have been remiss in not letting those outside of the industry know it. That secret is starting to get out and is very much to the advantage of the industry. People, legislators included, are starting to realize when we speak about upcoming legislation, bans or whatever, we really are speaking on behalf of the welfare of the animals, not to just protect our profits. As someone who spent a lot of years outside of the pet industry, it is an incredibly positive step we are taking.
PPN: Personally, what has been the most rewarding aspect of your time at the helm of APPA? What will you miss the most?
Vetere: Easily the unbelievably amazing staff I have had the pleasure to work with. I have had many truly supportive board members over my 16-plus years that have trusted me to accomplish all of the things that APPA has accomplished. Virtually none of that would have happened without my staff. They continue to make me proud every day. Starting with Andy Darmohraj, the brains behind so much of the day-to-day successes we have, and Edith Martignetti, the key individual who keeps me from getting in my own way, and going through every single member of the staff, I have been blessed. The stability they show in coming to work at APPA, and then staying with us is impressive. With very few exceptions, we have kept the team together, and they continue to perform and make it a pleasure to be at work. I am so fortunate to be able to say that and truly mean it. While I enjoy so many elements of my job, I will very much miss being a part of my staff. Walking out the door for the last time is going to be one of the more difficult things I have ever had to do. They are an important part of it all for me.
PPN: What is your projection for the future of the pet industry? Do you anticipate stagnation, continued growth or development in new directions of some kind?
Vetere: Although predicting the future is an art form I am not necessarily expert in (see the trail of my losing lottery tickets as proof), I think with the pet industry it is a little easier. One of the big worries everyone has been monitoring over the past few years was the behavior of baby boomers like me. The oldest members of this generation reached 70 a couple of years ago. A concern is that as pets pass away for these folks, will they be replacing the pets with the same enthusiasm? Although it is still a bit early to know for sure, the drop-off in ownership is not nearly as dramatic as first feared. New products and services are making it much easier to maintain pet ownership, and boomers seem to be willing to take advantage. There is, of course, some noticeable drop-off. But the good news is that millennials are turning to pet ownership at an unexpectedly high rate. In fact, the latest APPA National Pet Owners Survey shows that millennials are now the largest segment of pet ownership. And while boomers traditionally have spent the most money per pet, millennials, at this point, are showing a willingness to equal that rate and more.
Given that these two dynamics seem to have developed some momentum, I feel pretty confident in saying that the industry is set for continued meaningful growth. The only caveat is to watch for changes in what people are buying as opposed to worrying if they are buying. Millennials are treating pets as family members, even practice families while getting ready for children, and their purchases reflect those needs and services. Boomers, on the other hand, are looking more to products enabling them to sustain ownership. All of the marketplace, including the generally ignored gen Xers, are looking more than ever at products and services aimed at creating a healthier life for their pets.
PPN: What parting advice do you have for our readers, today’s independent pet retailers?
Vetere: Building off of my comments above, my advice to today’s independent retailers is to pay attention to the demographic that shops in their stores. Noting whether you have more of an older crowd or younger crowd can help focus the bulk of your stock and promotions. On the optimistic side, because so many more pet owners are concerned with the health and well-being of their companions, they will be looking for someone to talk to when they come in to make a purchase. This is where smart pet store owners have an advantage. Shopping online or in large mass-merchandise enterprises can be helpful from a pricing standpoint in some cases, but feeling confident that you have someone you can turn to for advice and suggestions is becoming even more important. Setting yourself up as the one they can turn to will only help give your outlet credibility and solid repeat business.
http://www.petproductnews.com/News/Outgoing-APPA-President-Bob-Vetere-Reveals-the-Industrys-Best-Kept-Secret/
-
Hawaii’s Novel Plastic Bans Inch Closer to Legislative Approval
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David McAfee
Hawaii state lawmakers are getting closer to passing a first-in-the-nation ban on single-use plastics as a means to reduce local and marine pollution.
S.B. 522—which bans the sale or use of certain plastics common at most restaurants also lays out a future path to eliminate single-use plastics altogether—is one of two main bills on plastic being considered in Hawaii.
The measure is scheduled to be heard by the House consumer protection and judiciary committees March 20, according to state Senator Mike Gabbard (D), who introduced S.B. 522.
Gabbard said the bill is an effort to phase out single-use plastic beverage bottles, utensils, stirring sticks, polystyrene foam containers, and straws.
The measure sailed through the state Senate March 5 with only one “no” vote, from state Senator Kurt Fevella (R). Emails sent to the senator’s office requesting comment were not returned. Plastic bag makers say consumers haven’t been prepared to give up useful plastic bags and related products.
Should it get approval by the two House committees March 20, it would then go to the House finance panel and then eventually to a conference committee where the House and Senate would finalize the legislation, Gabbard said.
Second Bill
The second measure on the reduction of plastics, S.B. 367, is narrower in that it would only prohibit the sale of polystyrene foam food containers used in restaurants. It also is scheduled to be considered by the House consumer protection and judiciary committees March 20.
If it becomes law, that too may be a first-in-the-nation ban although other states like Maryland are considering similar measures.
A spokesperson for Gov. David Ige (D) said on March 19 that the governor has not yet “made any kind of statements on” the separate measures.
Business Concerns
Local businesses are concerned about the potential impacts of S.B. 522, if enacted as written, according to Adrian Hong, the president of Island Plastic Bags in Hawaii.
“It would basically ban Costco from selling trash liners to consumers, it would ban me from selling my bags to nursing homes and hospitals,” Hong, who testified in opposition to the bill, said in a phone call on March 19.
“It’s very comprehensive in banning almost everything. I’ve never seen legislation that was that comprehensive.”
Hong said he would go out of business if S.B. 522 went into effect and that the bill is advancing too quickly.
“S.B. 522 is about two committee hearings away from becoming law, so it’s very possible that this could actually happen,” he said. “I don’t think consumers realize what they’re going to have to give up.”
Hong and Gabbard agree that Hawaii lawmakers are often at the forefront of environmental issues. Just last year, the Aloha State became the first in the nation to ban over-the-counter sale of certain sunscreens that reportedly harm coral reefs.
Alternatives?
Gabbard says the effects on businesses will be minimal because of plastic-free alternatives like reusable bags, milk protein, hemp, metal straws, and more.
“The legislature finds that the local and global impact of the world’s increasing waste stream is unsustainable and detrimental to the future of Hawaii’s economy and people,” according to S.B. 522.
“Single-use disposable foodware and packaging—including plastic bottles, caps, lids, straws, cups, and polystyrene and plastic containers—are major contributors to street and beach litter, ocean pollution, marine and other wildlife harm, and greenhouse gas emissions,” it says.
“Think about the incredible technological advancements of the last 25 years. If we can figure all these things out, then we can rid ourselves of plastic,” Gabbard said. “The industry will adapt and move toward natural alternatives.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/hawaiis-novel-plastic-bans-inch-closer-to-legislative-approval
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Moves to Regulate Formaldehyde with Health Review Hidden
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
EPA today began considering regulations on 40 chemicals including formaldehyde, a widely used carcinogenic substance.
The move — part of an effort to comply with the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act — immediately prompted concern from public health advocates, who want EPA to first publish its independent assessment of formaldehyde, and praise from the chemical industry.
The Lautenberg act, which in 2016 amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the first time in 40 years, required EPA to begin risk evaluations of 10 chemicals the following year — a precondition for potential future regulations of the substances.
By 2019, the act called for the agency to undertake an additional 40 evaluations. Half of those evaluations had to be for "high priority" chemicals that EPA believes may present an "unreasonable risk" of harm to humans or the environment.
"We are delivering on the promise of Lautenberg to better assess and manage existing chemicals in commerce and provide greater certainty and transparency to the American public," EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement announcing the newly selected chemicals.
Aside from formaldehyde, the 20 high-priority candidate chemicals include seven chlorinated solvents, six phthalates, four flame retardants, a fragrance additive and a polymer precursor.
EPA selected the 20 substances likely to be designated as "low priority" chemicals from its Safer Chemical Ingredients List.
The Integrated Risk Information System, a science-focused program at EPA whose work is used by other offices to write regulations, has been studying the danger posed by formaldehyde since 1997. The chemical is used in everything from plywood to insecticides.
The IRIS assessment took on new significance in 2011, when a Department of Health and Human Services program determined that formaldehyde was "known to be a human carcinogen."
IRIS was ready to release its formaldehyde review last year. But EPA leaders blocked the program from releasing any of its research, the Government Accountability Office found earlier this month (E&E News PM, March 4).
"After years of working on formaldehyde under IRIS, EPA is starting all over again under a different program," Robert Sussman, counsel for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, said in an email.
Sussman, who served as senior policy counsel in President Obama's EPA, thinks "the only possible explanation" for moving to regulate formaldehyde without releasing the IRIS review first "is that EPA management does not like the conclusions of the assessment about the hazards of formaldehyde and hopes that the TSCA program under Nancy Beck will deliver an assessment more favorable to the chemical's producers."
Beck, the second-ranking political appointee in EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, was a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council trade group before joining the Trump administration.
"The correct approach would be for the TSCA program to accept the IRIS conclusions and then add exposure information to make a determination of unreasonable risk," Sussman added. "Instead, EPA wants the TSCA office to review and likely water down the IRIS determinations."
EPA downplayed concerns that it was moving to disregard IRIS's work on formaldehyde.
"Moving forward evaluating formaldehyde under the TSCA program does not mean that the formaldehyde work done under IRIS will be lost," Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, Beck's boss and the newly confirmed head of the chemical safety office, said in the release.
"In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process," Dunn added. "By using our TSCA authority, EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority."
Meanwhile, ACC praised EPA for moving forward with the required risk evaluations while casting doubt on the need for any new regulations.
"With the announcement of the next set of candidate substances for prioritization, EPA met another important milestone and further demonstrated its commitment to meeting its statutory deadlines for implementing TSCA in an efficient manner that is consistent with congressional intent," spokesman Jonathan Corley said in a statement.
"It is also important to note that neither this announcement nor any final high priority designation represents a finding of risk by EPA," Corley said. "Rather, that is the role of a TSCA risk evaluation."
That entire process of prioritizing, evaluating and managing the risks posed by formaldehyde and the other potentially hazardous chemicals could take up to six years to complete.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060127777/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
EPA Proposes TSCA 28 Significant New Use Rules
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has proposed 28 TSCA significant new use rules (Snurs) for a variety of new substances that were permitted to come to market, subject to certain restrictions.
Each Snur is intended to hold users of the substance to the same requirements as those the original pre-manufacture notice (PMN) submitter is held to under a section 5(e) consent order.
The protective measures are designed to address potential unreasonable risks the EPA identified while reviewing the new substance application.
The proposed Snurs – which cover substances from the fourth quarter of 2018 – join a long queue of rules awaiting finalisation. These include the following from last year:
-145 Snurs, proposed on 1 August;
-27 Snurs, proposed on 17 August;
-29 Snurs, proposed in two batches on 27 August;
-28 Snurs, proposed on 17 September;
-26 Snurs, proposed on 3 October;
-28 Snurs, proposed on 10 October;
-13 Snurs, proposed, in the absence of 5(e) consent orders, on 16 October; and
-66 Snurs, proposed on 15 November.
Speaking at the recent GlobalChem conference, the EPA’s Jeff Morris spoke about the importance of getting Snurs proposed quickly as part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to ensure the safety of new chemicals entering commerce.
When the agency finds that it is necessary, he said, the Snur needs to be released in a timely fashion because that is one of the protections the agency puts in place to support a safety determination around a new substance.
The agency, he added, is "doing just that: we are grouping them together in batches and moving forward on a schedule".
Comments on the latest 28 Snurs will be accepted until 3 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75141/epa-proposes-28-tsca-significant-new-use-rules
-
EPA Formaldehyde for Next Round of TSCA Reviews
Mar 20, 2019 | Politico Pro - Energy Whiteboard
By Alex Guillén
EPA today said it has picked formaldehyde, a contentious chemical linked to cancer and used in a wide variety of products, for the next round of study under the Toxic Substances Control Act, along with 19 other chemicals.
The pick is unlikely to assuage public health advocates dismayed by the Trump administration’s delay of a major report on formaldehyde’s risks. The Government Accountability Office reported this month that EPA political officials delayed another scientific review of formaldehyde under EPA's Integrated Risk Information System program. The chemical industry had been critical of that IRIS evaluation and sought to have EPA revisit the science.
EPA chemicals chief Alexandra Dunn insisted the TSCA review of formaldehyde would not nullify the IRIS review. “In fact, the work done for IRIS will inform the TSCA process. By using our TSCA authority EPA will be able to take regulatory steps; IRIS does not have this authority," she said in a statement.
Today's announcement kicks off a public comment period, with EPA expected to finish the prioritization process by December. That then begins a three-year evaluation to determine potential risks and eventually restrictions or even a ban.
Other chemicals selected for prioritization include several flame retardants, a chemical used in musk fragrances and six phthalates used to make plastics and vinyls.
EPA also listed another 20 chemicals as “low priority” candidates that it believes pose low risk and thus do not require further study for now.
WHAT’S NEXT: EPA will accept information on the chemicals from the public for 90 days. It faces a statutory deadline to initiate the evaluations by December.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard/2019/03/epa-formaldehyde-for-next-round-of-tsca-reviews-2908308
-
Congressional Democrats Decry Methylene Chloride Rule as 'Inadequate'
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Democrats in Congress say the EPA's long-awaited methylene chloride prohibition does not go far enough to protect workers exposed to the substance.
Announced late last week, the TSCA section 6 rule bans the substance's use in consumer paint removal products but does not address commercial uses. Instead, the agency has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for a workplace training programme that could allow for continued commercial uses for certified professionals.
Senator Tom Carper (D-Delaware), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), called the ban on consumer uses "a step in the right direction", but said the approach was simply insufficient to protect workers.
"With each and every use, this chemical will continue to endanger workers’ health," he said.
Representative Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, added: "Workers and others who are exposed through the commercial marketplace deserve equal commitment and protection, and this rule fails them."
Senator Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), who was instrumental in securing passage of the Lautenberg Act in 2016, said the "watered-down" rule speaks to broader executive branch failures.
"The Trump administration has again failed to live up to the letter and spirit of the historic bipartisan reform of TSCA that Congress passed," he said.
There has been a sharp uptick in Congressional oversight of EPA activities since Democrats took control of the House in January. A recent subcommittee hearing, for example, examined whether the agency is "mismanaging" worker risk under TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75173/congressional-democrats-decry-methylene-chloride-rule-as-inadequate
-
Solvents, Phthalates Among 40 Chemicals EPA to Vet This Year
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The EPA released a list of 40 chemicals March 20 that it will examine this year to decide which 20 are a “high priority” to proceed down a pipeline that could lead to restrictions.
Candidates for that pipeline include five solvents, three flame retardants, and five phthalates—a type of chemical generally used to soften plastic. The EPA also selected formaldehyde—a “building block” chemical produced in the 1 billion to 5 billion pound range in 2015 and used to make particle board and other products including other chemicals—as a high priority candidate.
Companies that have produced some of these chemicals include the BASF Corp., Eastman Chemical Co., Koch Industries Inc., Olin Corp., and Sherwin Williams Co.
Another 20 “low-priority” chemicals will move to an off-ramp from regulation, at least temporarily. A variety of alcohols are among the candidates for low-priority designation.
The Environmental Protection Agency must classify all 40 chemicals as either high or low priorities for risk evaluation by Dec. 22.
Chemical manufacturers and companies that purchase their chemicals to make other goods should give the EPA information that will help it make its prioritization and subsequent decisions, Mark Duvall, a principal at law firm Beveridge & Diamond PC in Washington, said at a recent chemical regulations conference.
Early Information Helpful: EPA
“We want the best information as early in the process as we can get it,” Joel Wolf, chief of the EPA’s Existing Chemicals Branch, said during the same conference.
The agency will have only three months to process all the information it receives after the first 90-day public comment period, he said. Public comments will be due June 19.
The EPA wants to better understand how the chemicals are made and used, according to Wolf.
Once the agency has insight into such “conditions of use,” it will want exposure information, he said.
Safety data sheets are useful as are results from exposure monitoring and details on engineering controls used to reduce exposures inside or outside a plant. “It doesn’t do us any good to read books and search the internet,” Wolf said.
The agency will then announce its proposed classifications and invite comment for another 90 days.
The final decision must be announced by Dec. 22, according to deadlines in the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act amendments.
High-Priority Implications
Immediately after the agency announces the 20 high priority chemicals, it must then determine the health and ecological concerns, potentially highly exposed populations, and uses of the chemicals that it will evaluate during the next three to three and a half years.
The 20 risk evaluation scoping plans must be published by June 22, 2020.
The EPA’s release of the 20 scoping plans temporarily pre-empts some state activities.
States can’t regulate a chemical’s use that is within the scope of what the EPA plans to evaluate. For example, if the EPA plans to examine the risks a particular flame retardant poses to consumers using products made with it, then states couldn’t ban that flame retardant from consumer products.
But states can regulate ways the chemicals are used that are beyond the agency’s risk analysis plan. For example, a state could regulate the flame retardant’s disposal if the EPA isn’t examining that issue.
Low-Priority Implications
To designate a chemical as low priority, the agency must be convinced that it poses so little potential to cause harm that it can be set aside unless new science pointing to potential problems emerges.
Classifying a chemical as a low priority also is a final agency action.
That means environmental, health, and other groups could challenge the agency in court if they maintain the toxicity, exposure, and other information shows the chemical needs closer scrutiny to unearth potential unreasonable risks.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/solvents-phthalates-among-40-chemicals-epa-to-vet-this-year
-
California, Rhode Island Consider Expanding Cosmetics Ingredient Disclosure
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
State legislators in California and Rhode Island are considering bills to expand ingredient disclosure requirements for personal care products.
In California, the legislation under consideration (SB 574) takes aim at the many fragrance and flavour ingredients in cosmetics that are typically only identified by a broad, generic term on labels.
Existing California law – the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005 – requires cosmetics manufacturers to provide notification for products sold in the state that contain chemicals identified as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity.
But, starting from July 2020, the bill is looking to expand the disclosure requirements to fragrances or flavours that appear on any of 27 designated authoritative lists, including chemicals: listed as causing cancer or reproductive toxicity in California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, 1986; classified by the EU as carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive toxicants; on the EU’s candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs); identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) as group 1, 2A or 2B carcinogens;listed as persistent, bioaccumulative and inherently toxic to the environment on Canada’s Domestic Substances List (DSL); listed in Washington state as persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT); and on the Danish EPA’s list of endocrine disrupting compounds.
The protection of trade secrets is assured by not requiring disclosure on weight or amount of fragrance used, nor details on how it is formulated. Manufacturers would also not be required to disclose ingredients beyond those that appear on a list of concerning substances.
The bill is co-sponsored by NGOs Black Women for Wellness (BWW), Breast Cancer Prevention Partners (BCPP) and Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE). In supporting SB 574, Jamie McConnell, WVE director of programmes and policy, said it will help ensure safer products and encourage reformulations hit the market "because companies know that people don’t want to see chemicals linked to cancer in their body wash, or powerful allergens in their lotion."
And, in a separate move, California has also seen the introduction of a bill aimed at improving the oversight of 'harmful' cosmetics. AB 495 would ban from the state’s market cosmetics products containing 15 toxic chemicals including asbestos, mercury, lead, phthalates, formaldehyde, triclosan and PFASs.
Rhode Island
Meanwhile, a Rhode Island measure (S 477 / HB 5826) looks to require disclosure of ingredients – listed in order of predominance by weight in a product – as well as information on research performed on the health or environmental impacts. It also seeks disclosure of whether an ingredient is published as a chemical of concern on any of 30 referenced lists.
The legislation proposes to allow disclosure exemptions for confidential business information, but blocks chemicals of concern from such protection.
Biennial reporting – as well as notification when introducing a new personal care product or when a previously reported product’s formulation changes – is scheduled to take effect from 1 July 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75183/california-rhode-island-consider-expanding-cosmetics-ingredient-disclosure
-
What’s Next in Court for Bayer Toxic Chemical Claims
Mar 20, 2019 | Bloomberg (In the Washington Post)
By Joel Rosenblatt and Margaret Cronin Fisk
Many Bayer AG investors didn’t realize just how much litigation risk they were getting when the German company spent $63 billion in June 2018 to acquire Monsanto Co., the giant U.S. seed and herbicide maker. Since then, two adverse verdicts concerning Monsanto’s blockbuster weedkiller, Roundup, have rocked Bayer’s shares, which were down 38 percent as of March 20. With more than 11,000 Roundup cases still pending, along with a flood of lawsuits over waterways contaminated with PCBs and fresh cases emerging over another Monsanto herbicide, Dicamba, investors are left to ponder the final cost of Bayer’s increased legal exposure.
1. Why is Roundup such a big target for litigation?
It contains the weed-killing chemical glyphosate, which has become widely used by commercial farmers and home gardeners. Over more than four decades, about 3.5 billion pounds of glyphosate was sprayed in the U.S. Glyphosate was declared a probable human carcinogen in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, which prompted the lawsuits. However, like other regulators around the world, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said in 2017 that glyphosate isn’t likely to be carcinogenic to humans at current exposure levels. Monsanto developed Roundup in the 1970s, and then created a multibillion-dollar business around seeds that it genetically modified to resist the chemical.
2. Why is the Roundup litigation so alarming to investors?
When Bayer sought to acquire Monsanto, much of the attention was focused on the regulatory obstacles of combining global makers of crop chemicals. The outlook changed in August 2018 when a San Francisco jury awarded $289 million to a groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, who blamed Roundup for his cancer. (Bayer has since won a ruling cutting that award to $78.6 million.) In the second case, a jury on March 19 found that a man’s decades-long use of Roundup on his property caused his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; liability and damages are still to be determined in the final phase of the trial. Jonas Oxgaard, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., has estimated Bayer may face $5 billion in legal costs and plaintiff payouts as a result of its Monsanto acquisition, which would rank among the biggest ever by a company facing damage claims made by private individuals.
3. What’s Bayer’s strategy?
Bayer vowed after the Johnson verdict to step up its defense, emphasizing scientific research that shows no link between Roundup and cancer in humans. Even as it pursues an appeal to set aside that verdict, the company is concentrating on getting wins in federal court in San Francisco, where cases on behalf of more than 9,000 plaintiffs have been collected and the company may stand a better chance of success. The second trial was heard in that city by a judge who had expressed skepticism about the link between Roundup and cancer and was structured in a way that excluded some of the most damning material against Roundup. Bayer’s loss in the case may show flaws in its strategy.
4. Where are the next trials happening?
A trial is set for March in state court in Oakland, California; another in San Francisco federal court in May; and at least one this summer in St. Louis, where Monsanto was headquartered for 117 years and Bayer now runs its North American crop-science business. Plaintiff lawyers have flocked to the circuit court for the city of St. Louis, which has produced some of the largest verdicts in U.S. product-defect claims. While the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 made it harder to combine lawsuits in state courts by non-residents, Bayer, as a local defendant, has little chance of blocking the Monsanto trials in St. Louis given recent Missouri court decisions.
5. How big are Bayer’s other Monsanto-related risks?
Some weeds are growing resistant to glyphosate. That’s led to development of genetically modified seeds that can be used in conjunction with another weedkiller, Dicamba. However, Dicamba can vaporize after application and drift onto nearby fields of non-resistant crops. Scores of growers across the Midwest have sued Monsanto over alleged damage to soybeans, cotton, fruit trees and vegetable crops from spraying of its Dicamba product, known as Roundup Ready Xtend Crop System. In 2018, U.S. farmers sprayed Dicamba on about 50 million acres of soybean and cotton crops. Of that, about 1 million acres of soybeans were damaged by the herbicide. Should litigation further restrict Dicamba and related products, Bayer could lose $1 billion in annual sales from a business that is key to expanding the agrochemical businesses it acquired from Monsanto.
6. What’s Bayer doing about Dicamba?
Before the takeover, Monsanto developed new formulations that it said would keep the weedkiller on the plants where it’s been applied, preventing drift onto untreated crops. In October, Bayer won EPA renewal of the registration for its Dicamba-based product, XtendiMax with VaporGrip, albeit with restrictions on the chemical’s use.
7. What is Bayer’s problem with PCBs?
PCBs -- chemical compounds used in transformers, paints, sealants and multiple other products -- were prized for their fire-resistant properties, particularly by defense contractors. Production was banned in the U.S. in 1979 over environmental concerns. Pending lawsuits claim Monsanto knew that PCBs were toxic to humans and wildlife and could cause contamination far into the future, but hid the risk and continued to make the product. Plaintiffs include the states of Washington, Oregon and Ohio as well as the cities of San Diego, Portland and Seattle. Monsanto has countered that it never discharged PCBs into any waterways and isn’t responsible for dumping by third parties, and that the cities and states waited too long to sue. But several judges have rejected Monsanto’s motions to dismiss. Monsanto spent $280 million in 2016 to settle lawsuits claiming personal injuries caused by PCB exposure.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/whats-next-in-court-for-bayer-toxic-chemical-claims/2019/03/20/ba3458a6-4b18-11e9-8cfc-2c5d0999c21e_story.html?utm_term=.4e08ee34fcbd
-
J&J Ordered to Pay $29m in California Asbestos Case
Mar 20, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A California jury has awarded $29.5m to a woman with cancer, which she claims was caused by exposure from asbestos contained in Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder.
Personal injury lawsuits are ongoing across the US, with more than 10,000 plaintiffs claiming that use of the J&J product has led to their development of ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.
This latest case centred around Theresa Leavitt, who developed mesothelioma, and the defendants J&J and Cyprus Mines Corporation, a supplier of the talc.
In a statement to Chemical Watch, responding to the verdict, J&J said it will pursue an appeal because "Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer."
It added that there were "serious procedural and evidentiary errors in the proceeding that required us to move for mistrial on eight different points".
"Plaintiffs’ attorneys have fundamentally failed to show that Johnson’s Baby Powder contains asbestos, and their own experts concede that they are not recognising the accepted definition of asbestos and are ignoring crucial distinctions between minerals that are asbestos and minerals that are not," it said.
"We respect the legal process and reiterate that jury verdicts are not medical, scientific or regulatory conclusions about a product," it added.
J&J is being investigated by the US federal government over concerns that its talcum powder products cause cancer due to claims of asbestos contamination. This followed an investigation by news agency Reuters which, after reviewing internal documents, reported that company executives have been aware of asbestos in their Baby Powder for decades.
The company has seen several verdicts against it – including one last July for $4.7bn. But it said it believes it has "strong grounds on appeal to overturn" these decisions.
In recent cases, the J&J statement said, there have been multiple defence verdicts and mistrials. "This track record shows that there is one set of facts in these cases, and that decades of tests by independent, non-litigation driven experts and institutions repeatedly confirm that Johnson’s Baby Powder does not contain asbestos or cause cancer," it said.
"We believe these issues will warrant a reversal on appeal."
Last month, J&J talc supplier Imerys Talc America voluntarily filed for bankruptcy rather than attempt to continue fighting mounting litigation claims that exposure to its product causes cancer. In a statement, Giorgio La Motta, Imerys Talc America’s president, said filing for Chapter 11 protection (bankruptcy) is "the best course of action to address our historic talc-related liabilities".
And earlier this month, US accessories and cosmetics retailer Claire’s confirmed it had removed three products from its store shelves, following an investigation into asbestos contamination by the Food and Drug Administration.
https://chemicalwatch.com/75198/jj-ordered-to-pay-29m-in-california-asbestos-case?view=print
-
Mar 20, 2019 | Washington Post
By Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis
A federal judge ruled late Tuesday that the Interior Department violated federal law by failing to take into account the climate impact of its oil and gas leasing in the West.
The decision by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras marks the first time the Trump administration has been held to account for the climate impact of its energy-dominance agenda, and it could have sweeping implications for the president’s plan to boost fossil fuel production across the country. Contreras concluded that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management “did not sufficiently consider climate change” when making decisions to auction off federal land in Wyoming to oil and gas drilling. The judge temporarily blocked drilling on roughly 300,000 acres of land in the state.
The initial ruling in the case brought by two advocacy groups, WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility, has implications for oil and gas drilling on federal land throughout the West. In the decision, Contreras---a Barack Obama appointee--faulted the agency’s environmental assessments as inadequate because it did not detail how individual drilling projects contributed to the nation’s overall carbon output. Since greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, the judge wrote, these analyses did not provide policymakers and the public with a sufficient understanding of drilling’s impact, as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
“Given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering each individual drilling project in a vacuum deprives the agency and the public of the context necessary to evaluate oil and gas drilling on federal land before irretrievably committing to that drilling,” he wrote.
Contreras did not void the leases outright, but instead ordered BLM to redo its analysis of hundreds of projects in Wyoming.
Jeremy Nichols, who directs WildEarth Guardians’ climate and energy program, said in a phone interview that decision would force the administration to reveal how its policies are helping to fuel climate change. He said his group would now take steps to try to block federal oil and gas lease auctions scheduled for next week, which encompass 560,000 acres of land out West.
"It calls into question the legality of the Trump administration’s entire oil and gas program, Nichols said. “This forces them to pull their head out of the sand, and look at the bigger picture.”
Still, even if Contreras’ decision stands it may not block the administration’s energy agenda altogether. While BLM would be required to disclose the overall climate impact of its leasing decisions, it could potentially still go ahead and open these lands up for development.
While the Interior Department began to take into account the climate impacts of federal oil, gas and coal leasing toward the end of President Obama’s second term, Trump administration officials jettisoned those plans right after President Trump took office. Trump and several of his top deputies have dismissed recent federal findings that the United States and other countries must curb their carbon output in the next decade or face potentially disastrous consequences from climate change.
Interior officials did not immediately comment Wednesday.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/03/20/federal-judge-casts-doubt-trumps-drilling-plans-across-us-because-they-ignore-climate-change/?utm_term=.d8442b6de486
-
Feds Must Look at Oil, Gas Leases’ Effects on Climate Change
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bernie Pazanowski
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must take a hard look at the impact oil and gas leases on federal land may have on climate change before selling them, a federal district court said.
At issue were leases the BLM authorized in Wyoming, Utah, and Colorado. Though the BLM summarized their potential impact on climate change in general, it didn’t provide sufficient information for the public to understand the degree the leases would contribute to that impact, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled March 19.
WildEarth Guardians and Physicians for Social Responsibility challenged the leases. The three states, the Western Energy Alliance and Petroleum Association of Wyoming, and the American Petroleum Association of Wyoming, intervened in the case as defendants. The New York University School of Law’s Institute for Policy Integrity filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs.
Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the BLM must quantify and forecast drilling-related greenhouse gas emissions from the leases; consider GHG emissions from the downstream use of the extracted oil and gas; and compare those GHG emissions to state, regional, and national GHG emissions forecasts, and other foreseeable regional and national BLM projects, the court said.
The BLM claimed the required analyses are overly speculative at the leasing stage of the projects and are more appropriate as site-specific assessments. But given the national, cumulative nature of climate change, considering individual drilling projects in a vacuum as the BLM suggested, deprives it and the public of the context necessary to evaluate the impact of the drilling before the leaseholder is irretrievably committed to it, the court said.
Western Environmental Law Center represented the plaintiffs. DOJ represented BLM.
The case is WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 2019 BL 94024, D.D.C., No. 16-1724 (RC), 3/19/19.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/feds-must-look-at-oil-gas-leases-effects-on-climate-change
-
Bill to Increase Renewable Energy Use Advances
Mar 20, 2019 | AP (In E&E - Greenwire)
By Brian Witte
A measure to increase Maryland's use of renewable energy advanced in the state Senate yesterday after senators approved changing the bill to eliminate trash incineration as eligible for subsidies like wind and solar energy.
The Senate voted 34-12 for the amendment before giving the bill preliminary approval. A vote could come later this week on the measure, which would increase the state's renewable energy portfolio standard from 25 percent by 2020 to 50 percent by 2030.
Supporters of ending subsidies for waste-to-energy in the "top tier" of renewable energy said it's wrong to classify trash burning in the same way as wind and solar.
"This is a common-sense amendment," said state Sen. Michael Hough, a Frederick County Republican who sponsored the amendment. "This doesn't say you can't have trash incineration. It doesn't even regulate them. It just says we shouldn't subsidize them."
The provision was originally part of the bill, but division in the Senate Finance Committee led to its removal.
Opponents to the amendment say while waste-to-energy incineration does emit carbon dioxide, it's not as bad a contributor to climate change as landfills.
"It is true that waste-to-energy does emit CO2," said Sen. Malcolm Augustine, a Prince George's County Democrat who said waste-to-energy facilities can become cleaner with better use of scrubbers. "It does emit some other dangerous things, but the fact of the matter is that this is about climate change, and the fact of the matter is that the comparison is between waste-to-energy and landfills, and the fact of the matter is that in the landfill, when it goes to the landfill, it is actually more detrimental to climate change."
But state Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Prince George's County Democrat, said the issue isn't about preferences of handling trash by burning or by landfills.
"The question is, as a policy decision, should we spend our money to underwrite these companies when we have other options?" Pinsky said. "Shouldn't we use that money to have expansion of solar, of wind, of hydro? Where is the best investment for the state? So I might agree with you of the science between those two. It doesn't mean we have to invest our money behind them, and I would prefer to have that money lower the cost of solar and wind and expand truly clean energy."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127735
-
Big Oil’s Electric Dreams Could Create New Energy Cartels
Mar 20, 2019 | The Telegraph (In S&P Global Platts)
By Andrew Critchlow
Oil companies want to become power utilities to meet rising demand from electricity in transport and from growing populations. The strategy makes sense, but would also bring risks for regulators and consumers if it were to create a new breed of gigantic energy-controlling monopolies.
On one hand, watchdogs in developed markets such as the UK should welcome the introduction of relatively new players like Shell and BP to challenge the Big Six conventional utilities. On the other, electricity markets are politically sensitive and oil majors would make easy targets for politicians keen to be seen protecting consumers if profits are put too far ahead of the public good.
The Labour Party has threatened to nationalize parts of the electricity industry if it gains power in Britain. Meanwhile, regulator Ofgem was forced last year to introduce price capsto reduce household energy costs in response to political pressure. Introducing big oil into the debate could fan the flames.
There is also the question of shareholder value for oil industry leaders to consider. Can Shell and other international oil majors afford to increase spending in their embryonic electricity businesses and still maintain adequate levels of expenditure on their conventional oil and gas divisions, which remain the main drivers of profits and investor returns?
The decline in capital expenditure in new oil production has been flagged as a major concern for policymakers seeking stable crude prices. The world could require at least another 30 million barrels per day of new crude capacity by 2040 to meet demand, replace ageing reservoirs and keep prices affordable. Diverting capital into electricity markets could be a distraction.
Despite these concerns, international oil companies such as Shell are ramping up their investments in electricity. The largest international oil major in Europe expects the market for power to be the fastest growing area of the energy industry as pressure builds to cut global pollution and carbon emissions, according to a recent Bloomberg television interview by Shell executive committee member Maarten Wetselaar.
“We believe we can be the largest electricity power company in the world in the early 2030s, because this part of the energy system is going to be the thing that grows fastest,” said Wetselaar, who also heads up Shell’s gas and new energies division.
Wetselaar’s vision is understandable given the rapid growth in electric vehicles (EVs). S&P Global Platts Analytics forecasts that plug-in EVs – including rechargeable hybrids – will account for nearly half of global auto sales by 2040, displacing some oil demand as a transport fuel and expanding the role of the electricity sector.
Shell has said it plans to avoid investing in conventional transmission and power station assets to focus instead on distributed renewables and supply, making its goal to become number one in the power sector a complex and risky bet on emerging technologies and markets. The company beefed up its UK electricity supply business by buying First Utility in late 2017. It has since struggled to compete with cheaper start-ups in a fiercely competitive market that has seen a slew of supplier bankruptcies in recent months.
Energy majors in new battleground
To become the world’s biggest renewable generator, meanwhile, would require an annual expenditure in the region of $2 billion initially, according to a report by S&P Global Platts. By comparison, Spain’s Iberdrola – a European sector leader – ploughed over $5 billion into green power generation growth last year.
Iberdrola has 29 GW of renewable electricity capacity installed worldwide. Shell has 1.6 GW of solar and will have 5 GW of wind on completion of committed investments. And Shell isn’t alone in wanting to forge into these new markets. BP claims it is now generating enough power from wind renewables to feed 400,000 homes.
Meanwhile, some international oil companies are being even more aggressive, posing a direct challenge to incumbent conventional utilities in their domestic markets. In France, Total recently acquired Direct Energie. The deal pits it against the state-owned market giant EDF. By 2022, Total aims to be supplying electricity to 6 million customers in France and 1 million in Belgium.
However, utilities can’t match the financial muscle of big oil. NextEra Energy, the world’s biggest renewable generator in the US, had a turnover of around $17 billion last year, which is less than Shell made in actual profits over the same period. Gobbling up rivals in the power sector is relatively cheap when armed with an oil company’s gigantic balance sheet.
Globally, it’s not just international oil majors going electric. State-owned fossil fuel producers are increasingly looking at the sector for growth. Saudi policymakers have for the last decade harboured dreams of the kingdom being the biggest exporter of solar-generated electricity in addition to crude oil. Elsewhere in the oil-rich Gulf, petrodollar sheikhdoms are pumping billions into renewables.
US oil companies are also coming under more pressure to diversify. Rising star US Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has America’s most powerful business lobby in her sights. Ocasio-Cortez wants 100% of the country’s power to come from renewables and fossil fuels to be phased out in the world’s biggest economy, in just a decade.
In its defence, big oil is stressing that EVs are no magic bullet for climate change and won’t spell the end of petroleum. EVs still account for a small share of the total global passenger vehicle fleet. Global sales of light duty plug-in EVs saw double-digit year-on-year growth in January, but still only totalled 155,000 units, according to the latest S&P Global Platts Analytics monthly report.
Of course, declines in consumption by motorists will be compensated by growth in petrochemicals and industrial transport like shipping. Rapidly growing developing economies in Asia will also increasingly play a more important role in supporting crude demand. In tilting from hydrocarbons to electrons, oil companies will have to find a balance between serving their fossil fuel past while investing in their electric future.
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/03/20/big-oil-companies-electric-dreams-energy/
-
DOE's Process Rule: More Harm Than Good
Mar 20, 2019 | Natural Resource Defense Council
By Lauren Urbanek
It will soon be more difficult and cumbersome to set strong standards for the appliances and electronics in our homes and businesses, if the Trump administration’s Department of Energy has its way. At issue is a change in the process to set standards, recently proposed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). By erecting unnecessary hurdles for efficiency standards for products we use every day like clothes dryers, room air conditioners, and refrigerators, DOE's revised process will lead to more energy waste and pollution.
And, in fact, had the “Process Rule,” which is the subject of a DOE hearing this week, been in effect over the past decade, we would not have seen energy-saving improvements to at least 16 products, leaving homes and businesses with higher electric bills.
The process rule change is part of a two-pronged attack on energy efficiency by the Trump administration. In addition to making it more difficult to put new or updated standards in place, DOE is attempting to roll back light bulb energy efficiency standards set for 2020 by excluding certain types of bulbs, which would increase consumer utility bills by $12 billion—$100 per U.S. household—every year. It will also lead to a lot more pollution from the extra 25 power plants’ worth of electricity that will be needed.
Meanwhile, DOE has also failed to issue even one new or updated energy efficiency standard over the past two years, as my colleague Kit Kennedy recently noted in testimony before Congress. The agency's illegal delays and inaction hurt the nation's energy efficiency standards program just when we need it most to urgently address the emissions that cause climate change. They also threaten to undercut bipartisan-led efficiency standards progress that has delivered $2 trillion in energy savings over the past three decades while boosting American competitiveness by collectively driving manufacturers to make better products.
Rather than spending its time and effort on setting new standards, as it is statutorily obligated to do, DOE has proposed a variety of unnecessary changes to the process rule, which is what DOE uses to create new energy efficiency standards for appliances, electronics, and equipment. Some of the changes, such as adding additional reviews before initiating a standard and allowing industry to develop its own efficiency tests, are transparent efforts to slow down and weaken a regulatory process that has been working smoothly for years.
It's only upon closer inspection of DOE's proposal that the potentially devastating impact of this policy becomes clear. It’s likely that the largest efficiency standard ever set, for commercial rooftop air conditioners, heat pumps, and warm air furnaces, would never have been set if the proposed changes were in place. That’s because the updated process rule would defer to efficiency levels for equipment set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers’ (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, and not require (or allow) higher efficiency levels in most cases. The fact that DOE could go further than the ASHRAE-set levels enabled the federal agency to set the standard for rooftop units, which will save 15 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of energy: nearly equivalent to the amount of energy in all of the coal burned to generate electricity in the United States in a year.
The proposal also requires a "significant energy savings threshold" that is arbitrary and will be very damaging. The agency would require an efficiency improvement of 0.5 quads, or 10 percent, over 30 years for any new or updated standard.
Such an subjective requirement could have derailed more than 4 quadrillion BTUs (quads) of energy savings from previous standards, which is equivalent to the annual energy use of 44 million homes. Much of those benefits come from standards that fall below both thresholds for "significant energy savings," yet are delivering precisely that for consumers.
Take standards for clothes dryers and room air conditioners finalized in 2011, which together are expected to save almost $4.5 billion over about three decades while avoiding 36 million metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2)—approximately equivalent to the emissions from 7 million cars in a year.
DOE's ability to set standards like these without the constraint of an artificial requirement of "significance" is one reason why it has long delivered steady, measured progress on energy efficiency. This product-by-product progress, in the aggregate, is not only significant but vital in curbing carbon emissions and saving consumers money. In testimony at DOE Thursday, I'll urge the agency not to hobble this program with needless rules and nonsensical requirements. Even seemingly modest percentage increases in efficiency deliver huge benefits at scale, given that the national appliance standards cover more than 60 categories of appliances and equipment, many of which can remain in use for several years. With each delayed or denied standard, the United States locks in decades of energy waste and lost savings for consumers.
What we could have missed
Here's a full list of the standards that might have been rejected under DOE's proposed savings thresholds:
Automatic commercial ice makers: Beginning in 2018, more efficient ice makers common in restaurants and hotels began saving 19 billion kilowatt-hours over three decades, equivalent to the annual energy use of 1.7 million American homes.
Residential boilers: Minimum efficiency levels for the units that provide heat and hot water for homes were raised in 2016.
Ceiling fan light kits: Some 80 million households operate one of these fans. Standards announced in 2016 will save consumers $12 billion over three decades.
Clothes dryers: Standards finalized in 2011 require dryers to use 5 percent less energy. Even when the standards themselves are modest, they establish a baseline for necessary improvements over the years, since DOE is required periodically to revisit them.
Commercial clothes washers: Though this flawed standard left potential energy savings from top-loading machines on the table, it still improved the water and energy efficiency of the large washers that dominate laundromats and apartment building laundry rooms, and it sets the stage for further needed savings.
Commercial and industrial pumps: Rules finalized at the end of 2015 for these pumps, often used to circulate clean water in large buildings, are projected to save more than $1 billion and avoid 17 million metric tons of carbon pollution over the next 30 years.
Commercial warm air furnaces: Standards for these furnaces, common in small- to medium-size commercial buildings, were updated in 2015 and will help avoid 12 million metric tons of CO2 emissions through 2053.
Dehumidifiers: Standards covering dehumidifiers, established in 2016, go into effect this year and will save the average homeowner between $100 and $140 in energy costs over the life of the product.
Direct heating equipment: Finalized in 2010 and effective as of 2013, these standards ensure a baseline for annual fuel utilization efficiency in floor heaters, gas wall heaters, and room heaters.
Dishwashers: The 2012 standards require units to use about 14 percent less energy and 23 percent less water by 2013.
Metal halide lamps: The dome-shaped lights you see in big-box stores, parking lots, and other large spaces are more efficient thanks to 2014 standards that will save about $1.1 billion by 2046.
Pool heaters: Standards that took effect in 2013 require a minimum thermal efficiency of 82 percent.
Pre-rinse spray valves: These hand-held sprayers, often used in restaurants and commercial kitchens, will cost about $80 less to operate annually starting this year, thanks to standards passed in 2016.
Ranges and ovens: In 2009, DOE prohibited wasteful standing pilot lights on gas-powered ranges and ovens. These appliances still lack energy efficiency performance standards, which were proposed in 2015 and have languished under the current administration.
Room air conditioners: The air conditioning units placed in windows or through walls – now use 10 to 15 percent less energy thanks to standards that took effect in 2014, adding up to $1.5 billion in net energy bill savings.
Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps: These units, typically installed externally on modular classrooms and similar buildings, are set to become more efficient this year when standards established in 2015 take effect.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/lauren-urbanek/does-process-rule-more-harm-good
-
Houston Area Petrochemical Tank Fire Out: Company
Mar 20, 2019 | S&P Global Platts
By Kristen Hays
A fire that engulfed eight tanks holding mostly gasoline components at Intercontinental Terminals Company's petrochemical tank farm along the Houston Ship Channel has been extinguished, though crews continued working to prevent reginition, the company said Wednesday.
"Crews continue to spray foam and water on the tanks to facilitate cooling and prevent reigniting of the remaining material," the company said in a statement. "Although all fires have been extinguished at this time, steam and smoke may still be visible from the area and the possibility of reigniting still exists."
The fire started on Sunday at a tank containing naphtha, a building block for gasoline. It spread to a total of eight tanks, including an empty tank, with others that held toluene and xylene, both gasoline blendstocks, and base oil.
On Tuesday the blaze had been reduced to five tanks, but another three reignited as crews sprayed water and foam to prevent further spreading.
The fire sent a massive plume of black smoke over Houston, the nation's fourth-largest city, prompting concerns about air quality and public health.
The company said on Wednesday that air monitoring was ongoing, and "as of this update readings are currently well below hazardous levels."
Multiple school districts in the area had canceled classes on Wednesday in anticipation of chemicals descending with the blaze extinguished, according to local media.
The cause of the fire is under investigation, and the company said no serious injuries had been reported.
The ITC Deer Park terminal has 13.1 million barrels of capacity across 242 tanks, according to its website. It stores all kinds of petrochemical liquids and gases, as well as fuel oil, bunker oil and distillates. The terminal has five ship docks and 10 barge docks, rail and truck access, as well as multiple pipeline connections.
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/petrochemicals/032019-houston-area-petrochemical-tank-fire-out-company
-
Black Smoke over Houston Is Part of the Deal
Mar 20, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
Farmers complain that consumers think their food comes from the back of the grocery store; refiners complain people think chemicals spontaneously flow up from the ground.
The enormous black plume dominating the Houston skyline these past few days is a stark reminder that the glue, gasoline, nail polish, pharmaceuticals, plastics and dozens of other products we rely upon are derived from dangerous chemical processes. And those processes take place along the Houston Ship Channel.
Plant employees describe their job as working inside a bomb. These facilities take crude oil, natural gas and other flammable materials and apply heat to separate and distill them. They add other chemicals and catalyze the building blocks of modern life to create new substances, liquids and gases.
Every six weeks something goes wrong, according to a Houston Chronicle investigation. Folks living in Greater Houston end up breathing a little bit of something that doctors say is harmful. This past weekend, there were two fires at facilities that make gasoline.
The first came at Exxon Mobil's Baytown refinery on Saturday and firefighters quickly extinguished it. As is typically the case, the fire injured no one and air quality remained within established parameters. Except for a few videos of a little black smoke posted to social media, most people would never have known a fire occurred at all.
Then came the fire at the Intercontinental Terminals Company in Deer Park on Sunday. Again, no one was injured, and officials say the pollution released does not exceed public health limits. But putting this fire out was more difficult, and days later the smoke is still hovering over Houston like something from an alien invasion movie.
"Right now, what we're seeing is no elevated levels (of pollutants) because the plume is high enough that it's not affecting us here close to the ground," Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo said Monday.
What goes up, though, must come down. These black particulates will disperse at high altitudes and then settle across areas west of Houston in tiny quantities. The smoke reached Austin on Tuesday afternoon.
Most gasoline and petrochemical consumers are shrugging their shoulders. They made a bargain with the oil and gas industry for affordable and plentiful liquid fuel for their two-ton motor
Pretending that you are not as responsible as the plant’s management is delusional.
You believed the engineers who promised fool-proof systems while knowing the story of the Titanic. You believed the regulators who claim they are keeping watch over these facilities, even though the ITC plant has been out of compliance with the federal Clean Water Act for nine of the last 12 quarters, according to Environmental Protection Agency data.
And you might even believe ITC spokesperson Alice Richardson when she said: “We believe that our environment is what we're handing down to our children,” even though the company’s track record says otherwise.
The truth is that a majority of Texas voters elected state officials who make sure the Texas Commission for Environmental Quality is a lapdog to the industry. The American people elected a president who is repealing safety regulations and systematically gutting federal agencies entrusted to make sure plants and refineries are safe.
They do this because most consumers want cheap fuel prices so they can commute alone for an hour a day in an oversized, overpowered and environmentally destructive truck or SUV.
That is the essence of the social contract with the oil and gas industry. Give me a cheap product, even if it means a black cloud hangs over Houston on occasion.
Environmentalists and neighborhood activists will undoubtedly excoriate the executives and workers at Intercontinental Terminals Company for failing to prevent this fire. My colleagues will spend hundreds of hours investigating what happened and why. We will earnestly offer ways to reduce the risk of another fire.
None of it will matter, though, if voters and consumers do not care, and politicians do not demand better.
The next time you buy paint, thinner or any chemical at the big box store, remember the contents under the child-proof lid passed through a petrochemical plant. The next time you fill up the gas tank, think about the workers inside the bomb refining your fuel.
Lastly, ask yourself if you are satisfied with the current social contract. Might you be willing to pay a few pennies more for fewer accidents? Do you want to negotiate a new deal? Perhaps a green one?
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/columnists/tomlinson/article/Black-smoke-over-Houston-is-part-of-the-deal-13701169.php
-
Former Lawmakers Urge Bipartisan Push on Infrastructure
Mar 20, 2019 | E&E - Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Former Reps. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) urged Congress today to pass a broad infrastructure package.
Shuster, who chaired the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Crowley, who led the House Democratic Caucus, made the pitch to President Trump and Congress at a Bipartisan Policy Center event on infrastructure funding.
"The president of the United States has to be pounding this message every day. ... Until he does that, there's 535 voices out there," Shuster said. "He ought to mention it. I wish he had said more in State of the Union."
Trump briefly touched on infrastructure in his State of the Union address before pivoting to other topics, signaling that the White House had handed off the issue to Congress (Climatewire, Feb. 6).
Last year, Trump repeatedly touted a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, only to see talks fizzle on Capitol Hill. This year, the White House is sitting on the sidelines as leaders of both parties look to move a broad legislative package by late spring (E&E Daily, March 7).
Shuster, who chaired the Transportation panel for five years, also expressed confidence in Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), its current chairman.
"Peter knows how to cut a deal," he said. "He knows he's not going to get everything he wants. But I think he's willing to sit at the table and say, 'Let's move something.'"
Crowley, who was upset by progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in a Democratic primary last year, noted that Democrats have been putting the spotlight on climate change in the 116th Congress.
He said advocates of the Green New Deal, the sweeping climate resolution from Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), will have to reconcile their ambitious policy goals with Republicans' priorities for an infrastructure bill.
"I do think the emphasis [on climate change] is certainly much greater," Crowley said. "I think there are going to be some of those dichotomies that exist."
For instance, backers of the Green New Deal want to wean the United States off fossil fuels, he said. But that would mean ending the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles, which pay the federal gasoline tax that funds road and bridge repairs.
The idea of raising the gasoline tax has been gaining traction on Capitol Hill as a way of funding a broad infrastructure package, with even some Republicans getting on board.
Another funding option on the table is implementing a fee on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which would better account for the rising number of electric vehicles. EV owners don't pay the gasoline tax, since their vehicles run on electricity.
Both Shuster and Crowley seemed receptive to transitioning to a VMT fee. Crowley even predicted that EVs would account for one-third of the global fleet by 2040. That's a less bullish outlook than that of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which projects that EVs will reach 55 percent of car sales worldwide by 2040.
Crowley also noted that Congress has a short time window for moving an infrastructure bill before lawmakers start gearing up for the 2020 presidential election and the primaries.
"The presidential cycle is in 2020, but it's already started, and we anticipate over 20 Democrats running for president right now," he said. "And the president himself is focused on 2020. You see it in the tweets."
Former Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who served as House majority leader from 2011 to 2014, spoke on a second panel at the Bipartisan Policy Center event.
Cantor said he believes public-private partnerships are a viable funding option for an infrastructure bill. Trump's plan last year faced criticism for relying too heavily on private-sector investment.
"I do think that there is ... a duty upon the private sector to play a bigger role," said Cantor, who's now vice chairman of the investment bank Moelis & Co.
"Every conversation that I have with large institutional investors, both here and abroad — and especially those abroad — they want infrastructure investment opportunities here in the U.S.," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/03/20/stories/1060127771
-
EPA Head Says Climate Change Threat '50-75 Years Out'
Mar 20, 2019 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Zack Budryk
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler believes the threat posed by climate change is “50 to 75 years out” compared to more immediate issues like access to clean drinking water.
Wheeler, who was confirmed to his position last month, told CBS’s Major Garrett in an interview that aired Wednesday that contaminated drinking water was a higher-priority, immediate environmental threat than climate change.
“We have 1,000 children die everyday worldwide because they don't have safe drinking water,” Wheeler told Garrett. “That's a crisis that I think we can solve. We know what goes into solving a crisis like that. It takes resources, it takes infrastructure, and the United States is working on that.”
Wheeler called climate change “an important change we have to be addressing and we are addressing,” but said most of its most drastic effects are decades away compared to unsafe drinking water, which is killing people now.
Wheeler’s assertions contradict a major report issued in October by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which predicted atmospheric warming will reach 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit around 2040. The same report warned that countries had about 12 years to stop greenhouse gas contributions or face irreversible effects of climate change. The White House has dismissed the report as depicting a worst-case scenario, with President Trump telling reports at the time that the U.S. is “the cleanest we’ve ever been” in terms of emissions.
Advocates of more drastic environmental action also pointed to extreme weather events in order to argue for action on climate change. A recent example is the cyclone that may have killed more than 1,000 people in Mozambique.
Separately, a Gallup poll released Tuesday found one-third of respondents blame climate change for colder temperatures this winter as well as hotter temperatures in the summer.
Wheeler argued that the United States has cut carbon dioxide emissions by 14 percent since 2005 and is “doing much better than most westernized countries on reducing their CO2 emissions, but what we need to do is make sure that the whole world is focused on the people who are dying today, the thousand children that die everyday from lack of drinking water.”
Many of the carbon emission reductions Wheeler pointed to took place under the Obama administration, and emissions were projected to rise slightly for 2018 and flatline in 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, said last week that supporters of the Green New Deal, which calls for a transition of the nation’s electric grid to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, were “oblivious to how far we’ve come” and called the proposals “dangerous for the economy and national security.”
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/434884-epa-head-says-climate-change-threat-50-75-years-out
-
Trump Climate Denial Poses National Security Danger, Inslee Says
Mar 20, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rebecca Kern
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D), a 2020 presidential hopeful, criticized President Donald Trump on March 20 for not taking action on climate change risks to military bases.
“President Trump presents a clear and present danger to our national security because he’s not responding to the threat to our military infrastructure,” Inslee said at the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Renewable Energy Policy Forum.
Navy and Air Force bases that have been flooded due to sea level rise, and a hurricane destroyed the center of a fighter jet base, Inslee said.
“The Pentagon and the national intelligence assessment have made very clear that climate change is a major threat to the national security of the United States,” he said. The Defense Department, in a report released Jan. 17, warned of risks to bases and troops from climate change.
“One of the points I make when I talk about climate change, this isn’t about polar bears, this is about our safety, where we live in America, and his willful ignorance on climate change is endangering us all,” Inslee said.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/trump-climate-denial-poses-national-security-danger-inslee-says
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested