Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 08/04/19
-
Hearing on the EPA Budget
Apr 9, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Apr 9, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
Location: 2322 Rayburn / 10:15 AM -
Hearing on Climate Change
Apr 9, 2019 | Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment
Location: 2247 Rayburn / 2:00 PM -
Hearing on Climate Change and Homeland Security
Apr 9, 2019 | Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery
Location: 310 Cannon / 2:00 PM -
Hearing on Investing in Energy Infrastructure
Apr 10, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
Location: 2123 Rayburn / 10:00 AM -
Hearing on Pipeline Safety
Apr 10, 2019 | Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety
Location: 562 Dirksen / 2:30 PM -
Hearing on Global Climate Change
Apr 11, 2019 | Energy and Natural Resources
Location: 366 Dirksen / 10:00 AM -
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Senator will Lobby for Cambodia
Apr 5, 2019 | Politico
By Theodoric Meyer
WASHINGTON STATE SENATOR WILL LOBBY FOR CAMBODIA: Doug Ericksen, a sitting Washington state senator, has registered to lobby for the Cambodian government. -
(ACC Mentioned) Moolenaar’s Bipartisan, Bicameral Bill Provides Federal Support for Sustainable Chemistry
Apr 5, 2019 | The Ripon Advance
U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) on April 3 cosponsored a bipartisan, bicameral bill to authorize federal coordination of activities supporting sustainable chemistry. -
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Looks to Become First State to Ban Foam Packaging
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The Maryland General Assembly has sent a bill to the governor’s desk that would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban expanded polystyrene foam containers and cups. -
Caution Ahead in Petrochemicals
Apr 6, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The petrochemical industry is spooked. -
Chemicals Remain on Soft Footing With Sluggish Output Growth
Apr 8, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
Global chemical production continues the year on a sluggish note with February witnessing a modest uptick in production on lower capacity utilization, according to the recent monthly report from the American Chemistry Council (“ACC”). -
Research Office Overhaul Takes Shape
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA has begun to flesh out the reorganization of its research office. -
EPA Issues New Chemical SNURs, Opening Door To Landmark TSCA Suit
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized significant new use rules (SNURs) on 13 new chemicals using an approach intended to speed up reviews but which environmentalists and others oppose, setting the stage for a likely first-time suit on how EPA addresses new chemicals and protects workers under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
OMB Clears EPA’s TSCA CBI Proposed Rule
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
White House officials have completed review of EPA's proposed rule creating a system under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the agency to review industry confidentiality claims on chemical identities listed as active on the inventory, clearing the way for EPA to issue the proposal. -
Judges Nix Second Set of EPA Coolant Regs Under Kavanaugh Ruling
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Federal appeals court judges struck down in large part the second in a pair of Obama-era rules limiting climate-warming coolants, saying they were bound by the court’s rejection of the first regulation. -
Court Extends Limit On Obama-era Bid To Restrict Climate-Warming HFCs
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has overturned a second Obama-era rule requiring appliance and other manufacturers to replace climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, agreeing with two of the chemical’s producers that it should extend its prior precedent limiting such policies. -
The Hunt Is On for GenX Chemicals in People
Apr 7, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
On a chilly day in November 2017, Beth Markesino sat in the county health department. -
US National Toxicology Program Changes Course
Apr 8, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
After more than 40 years of evaluating the hazards of chemicals by testing animals to extrapolate human health effects, the US National Toxicology Program is shifting gears. -
Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling Asbestos in Alexandria Affordable Housing
Apr 5, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Rachel Weiner
Five years after residents in Alexandria’s largest affordable-housing complex were exposed to asbestos during renovations, the contractor hired to deal with the problem has pleaded guilty to violating the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Michelle Pfeiffer Thinks You Should Know What's in Your Perfume
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Business Times)
Celebrities have used their firepower for many causes. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Aims to Help Polluters by Cutting Air Quality Standards
Apr 8, 2019 | Salon
By Vanessa Nason
The Trump administration has found another way to undermine Environmental Protection Agency regulations and secure a win for Big Oil, according to environmental advocates. -
Exxon Must Offer Shareholder Votes on Climate, Donations: SEC
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Exxon Mobil Corp. must allow votes on shareholder proposals that would create a climate change committee at the oil company and force it to publish reports on political donations, U.S. regulators said. -
Shell Breaks Mold with Deal Linking Gas Prices to Coal
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Tsuyoshi Inajima, Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaugh
Royal Dutch Shell PLC agreed to sell liquefied natural gas to a Japanese utility at prices that include a link to coal, the latest innovation in the booming LNG market where buyers are seeking to diversify risks. -
Shell Hit With Climate Change Suit in Netherlands (1)
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Royal Dutch Shell PLC was hit with a climate suit filed in the Hague April 5 by Friends of the Earth Netherlands and several other environmental organizations. -
Activist Group Withdraws Resolution Challenging Shell Climate Policy
Apr 8, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso
An activist group said it has withdrawn a shareholder resolution calling on Royal Dutch Shell to change its climate policy after the oil and gas company reached a broad agreement with investors on the issue. -
Alaska Governor, Communities, Spar Over Petroleum Property Taxes
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jill Burke
Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy has triggered heavy community and industry concern with his plan to strip local municipalities of their power to tax oil and gas infrastructure. -
NAS Backs Use Of Oil Dispersants But Seeks To Harmonize Test Methods
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A National Academies of Sciences (NAS) panel is backing the use of chemical dispersants to address oil spills but is urging EPA and other agencies to harmonize their toxicity testing methods and take other steps to address them, advice that could help environmentalists who are pledging to sue to force the agency to update its rules on dispersants. -
Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal
Apr 5, 2019 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
Everyone knows an electric fan can make people feel cooler on a steamy day. -
Lawsuit Over Trump Permit Joins Legal Morass
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Critics of President Trump's order approving the Keystone XL pipeline will soon have their day in court. -
Houston Ship Channel Shut as Storm Hits Chemical Disaster Site
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll
The Houston Ship Channel was shut on Sunday as violent storms wracked the site of one of the worst Gulf Coast industrial disasters in 14 years. -
Houston Fires Renew Safety Debate in Oil-Friendly Texas
Apr 5, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Paul J. Weber
Two major chemical plant fires near Houston just 17 days apart closed schools, leaked toxic chemicals into coastal waters and killed a worker, but there’s a good chance they won’t lead to big industry crackdowns in oil-friendly Texas. -
Lawmakers Target Lapses in Deer Park Fire Response, Lax Regulations
Apr 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Taylor Goldenstein
Lawmakers on Friday grilled the director of the state’s top environmental agency and local government officials on whether Texas laws are doing enough to protect the public from incidents like the Deer Park chemical fire. -
Senators Take Their Chance Grilling Safety Officials
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A Senate panel is set to question administration officials and industry representatives about long-stalled pipeline safety rules this week. -
Bipartisan Senate Group Wants More Carbon Capture Research Money
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A dozen senators from both parties want Congress to set an aggressive timeline in spending legislation for the Energy Department to develop new and improved carbon capture technologies. -
States, Environmentalists Back ‘Alternative Compliance’ In Methane Rules
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
State environmental commissioners are joining environmentalists to urge EPA and state governments to bolster the use of “alternative compliance” provisions in their rules limiting methane releases from oil and gas operations, a step they argue could ease industry costs while still delivering equivalent emissions cuts. -
States Sue Trump To Block ‘2-for-1’ Deregulatory Order
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
The attorneys general (AG) of California, Oregon and Minnesota are suing the Trump administration to block the president’s 2017 “2-for-1” executive order (EO) requiring EPA and other agencies to identify two existing rules for repeal before issuing a new rule, echoing a similar suit that environmentalists and others have been struggling to advance. -
Bipartisan Authorization Bills to Clear Committee
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
If big-ticket environmental legislation is a no-go in today's polarized Congress, it might be easier to pitch modest bills that dangle dollars and don't entail major regulatory changes. -
Democrats Push to Stay in Paris Climate Deal: BGOV Closer Look
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
The U.S. would remain part of the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change under a bill (H.R. 9) approved April 4 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Apr 9, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change
-
Hearing on the Consumer Product Safety Commission
Apr 9, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Commerce
-
Apr 9, 2019 | Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Environment
-
Hearing on Climate Change and Homeland Security
Apr 9, 2019 | Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Recovery
-
Hearing on Investing in Energy Infrastructure
Apr 10, 2019 | Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy
-
Apr 10, 2019 | Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety
-
Hearing on Global Climate Change
Apr 11, 2019 | Energy and Natural Resources
-
(ACC Mentioned) Washington State Senator will Lobby for Cambodia
Apr 5, 2019 | Politico
By Theodoric Meyer
WASHINGTON STATE SENATOR WILL LOBBY FOR CAMBODIA: Doug Ericksen, a sitting Washington state senator, has registered to lobby for the Cambodian government. Ericksen, a Republican, registered as a foreign agent along with Jay Rodne, a former Washington state representative who left office earlier this year, through a company called PacRim Bridges LLC. Ericksen and Rodne will meet “with US Officials, electeds at both the federal and state levels, and administrative officials to promote improved relations between the USA and the Kingdom of Cambodia,” according to a Justice Department filing.
— The work will include arranging “visits by Cambodian officials to the US and visits by US officials to Cambodia” as well as setting up meetings with American business leaders, according to the filing. The contract, which was signed March 25, is worth $500,000 a year.
— State lawmakers aren’t typically involved in foreign affairs. But Ericksen visited Cambodia twice last year, including a trip in July with other state lawmakers, to observe the country’s elections, according to The Seattle Times. The elections were widely considered illegitimate, and the White House criticized them at the time as “neither free nor fair and failed to represent the will of the Cambodian people.” But Ericksen told The Seattle Times that the voting process was “amazingly transparent” and “incredibly well conducted” and that he planned to submit a report to Cambodia’s National Election Committee saying so. Neither Ericksen nor Rodne immediately responded to requests for comment.
— This isn’t the first time Ericksen has tried to hold down two jobs at once. During the early days of President Donald Trump’s administration, Ericksen, who worked for Trump’s campaign in Washington state, was tapped to work on the “beachhead team” at the Environmental Protection Agency as he continued to serve as a state senator, The Washington Post reported at the time. Ericksen commuted back and forth between Olympia, Wash., and Washington.
Good afternoon, and welcome to PI. Tips: tmeyer@politico.com. You can also follow me on Twitter: @theodoricmeyer.
BEN WHITE AND MORNING MONEY HEAD TO #MIGLOBAL: POLITICO is partnering with the Milken Institute for this year's global conference in Beverly Hills, Calif., from April 28 to May 1. Ben White will again write a special “Morning Moneyʺ newsletter for the conference, detailing all the happenings, highlights, major conversations, evening festivities and buzzy VIP gatherings. Sign up today to receive exclusive coverage and everything you need to know direct from #MIGlobal in this special-edition, pop-up newsletter.
INSIDE GIULIANI’S WORK ABROAD: Stephanie Baker has a piece in Bloomberg Businessweek digging into Rudy Giuliani’s foreign work in Ukraine and elsewhere. “Giuliani has consistently denied lobbying U.S. officials on behalf of Ukraine or any other foreign government. He told me that most of his work has been in the form of consulting within foreign countries, which [Foreign Agents Registration Act] experts say typically wouldn’t trigger an obligation to file as a foreign agent. ‘Most of our contracts involve giving a state within the national government a security plan to reduce crime, investigate terrorism, secure critical infrastructure,’ he said.” Full story.
MCAFEE LOBBYING ON DEMS’ ELECTION REFORM BILL: The cybersecurity software company McAfee has hired a trio at Blank Rome Government Relations to lobby on House Democrats’ sweeping election reform bill. Stephen Peranich, Jennifer Carrier and Scott Thomas, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, will lobby for McAfee on H.R. 1 (116), House Democrats’ election security and ethics reform bill. The firm’s top priority is ensuring the Election Assistance Commission receives “the necessary federal funds to enable the states to better secure their election infrastructure,” Thomas Gann, McAfee’s chief public policy officer and head of government relations, told PI in an interview.
— The bill, which passed the House last month, has almost no chance of becoming law with Republicans in control of the Senate and the White House. “We certainly hope that some version of the election security provisions [in H.R. 1] gets signed into law,” Gann said. “Based on what we’ve heard, the election security provisions have the best chance of getting passed as a stand-alone effort.”
FLYING IN: Members of the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors were in Washington this morning for a roundtable hosted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.JOBS REPORT
— The Grocery Manufacturers Association has added Audra Kruse as manager of digital communications, Leslie Lake as director of media relations and Sarah Soulier as manager of industry narrative. Kruse previously worked for the International Dairy Foods Association, Lake previously worked at Powell Tate and Soulier previously worked for Airlines for America.
— Carla Lochiatto is joining ASIS International as director of the chief security officer center. She was previously the American Society of Association Executives’ director of public policy operations and political fundraising.NEW JOINT FUNDRAISERS
Dusty Johnson Victory Committee (Rep. Dusty Johnson, Dakota Leadership PAC, NRCC)NEW PACS
Climate 2021 (PAC)
Free Market Healthcare PAC (PAC)
Green New Deal Alliance (Super PAC)NEW LOBBYING REGISTRATIONSAlignment Government Strategies: FP2 Inc.
Alignment Government Strategies: Southwestern/Great American, Inc.
Bose Public Affairs Group: Metropolitan School District of Washington Township
CapeDC Advisors, LLC: Lincoln Military Housing
Capitol Counsel LLC: TeraExchange
Capitol Counsel LLC: The Surety & Fidelity Association of America
Capitol Decisions, Inc.: Van Scoyoc Associates (Medical University Hospital Authority)
Capstone National Partners: NCBA CLUSA
Cornerstone Government Affairs, Inc.: Noble Energy, Inc.
Covington & Burling LLP: Greenwich Biosciences, Inc.
First Rule: Hyperloop America, Inc.
GovBiz Advantage, Inc.: National Wistleblower [sic] Center
Guide Consulting Services, Inc.: Centerstone
J M Burkman & Associates: Royal Dairy
McDermott Will & Emery LLP: Innovative Defense Technologies
McLarty Inbound LLC: Swisse Wellness Pty Ltd
Ms. Susan Greenhalgh: National Election Defense Institute
National Environmental Strategies: Alta Ski Area
National Environmental Strategies: American Humane Association
Orion Advocates: Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America
The Ferguson Group, LLC: Poyner Spruill, LLP on Behalf of Holden Beach
The Madison Group: Loeb & LoebNEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONSBlueWater Strategies: Aptim Corp
BlueWater Strategies: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
BlueWater Strategies: Furman Group
BlueWater Strategies: Timber Products Manufacturers' Association
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP: Cotiviti Corporation
DC Legislative and Regulatory Services, Inc.: Agrium Advanced Technologies
Dickinson Wright PLLC: Ohio Association of Career Technical Education
Electrify America, LLC: Electrify America, LLC
Kathleen Fitzgerald: The Fair Food Network
McDermott Will & Emery LLP: Ambrosia Treatment Center
Nathanson+Hauck: Express Scripts Inc.
OnPoint Strategies: National Association for Relationship and Marriage Education
Polsinelli PC: American Chemistry Council
Smith Advocacy Group, LLC: Arctic Catering & Support Services
Smith Advocacy Group, LLC: Deterrent Specialities LLC
Strategies 360: Alterna Capital Partners LLC
The Advocacy Group: University of Central Floridahttps://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/04/05/washington-state-senator-will-lobby-for-cambodia-421936
-
Apr 5, 2019 | The Ripon Advance
U.S. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) on April 3 cosponsored a bipartisan, bicameral bill to authorize federal coordination of activities supporting sustainable chemistry.
“This legislation strengthens cooperation between the federal government, the private sector and the scientific community to further research and development in chemistry,” Rep. Moolenaar said. “It will keep our country at the forefront of innovation and help create new products that will benefit all Americans.”
Rep. Moolenaar introduced the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2019, H.R. 2051, with lead bill sponsor U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL). Bipartisan companion legislation, the same-named S. 999, was introduced the same day by U.S. Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and Christopher Coons (D-DE).
If enacted, the proposed legislation would spur further development of new and innovative chemicals, products and processes, while also focusing on the efficient use of resources and reducing or eliminating exposure to hazardous substances, according to a one-page summary of the bill provided by the lawmakers earlier this week.
“Chemistry is the foundation of countless industries, including agricultural pesticides, cleaning products, cosmetics, and textiles,” said Rep. Lipinski. “This bill will direct coordination at the federal level to encourage research and practices that incorporate sustainable chemistry, including technology transfer programs. These efforts can lead to economic growth while also improving environmental quality.”
Sen. Collins said the bill also would provide grants and training and educational opportunities for scientists and engineers.
“This is an exciting opportunity to maintain our scientific leadership and ensure the sustainability of our chemical enterprise for years to come,” added Sen. Coons.
According to the lawmakers’ summary, the sustainable chemistry field is creating jobs, supporting economic development, and ensuring U.S. companies remain competitive globally.
But despite the private sector’s strong interest in sustainable chemistry, the members said barriers exist to the continued design, development and commercialization of sustainable chemical products and processes.
“This is partly due to the lack of widely recognized definitions for sustainable chemistry or methods for measuring the sustainability of a chemical product or process,” according to their summary. “In addition, there is no comprehensive approach to research and training in the sustainable chemistry field, meaning most chemists and chemical engineers graduate without exposure to sustainable chemistry training.”
Sen. Capito pointed out that under the bill, federal research agencies would be directed “to act as partners with industry and institutions of higher education in advancing these goals that are so vital for our economy, environment and public health — all at no additional cost to taxpayers.”
The bill specifically would establish a coordinating entity under the National Science and Technology Council within the Office of Science and Technology Policy, according to the summary, and all involved agencies would work in consultation with qualified stakeholders to assess the state of sustainable chemistry in the United States and to coordinate federal efforts in sustainable chemistry, among other provisions.
Thus far, the legislation has received support from numerous organizations and private companies, including the GC3 Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, the American Chemical Society, the American Chemistry Council, the American Sustainable Business Council, the Dow Chemical Co., DuPont, the Environmental Working Group, Procter & Gamble, and others.
H.R. 2051 is under consideration by both the U.S. House Budget Committee and the U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, while the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee is considering S. 999.
https://riponadvance.com/stories/moolenaars-bipartisan-bicameral-bill-provides-federal-support-for-sustainable-chemistry/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Maryland Looks to Become First State to Ban Foam Packaging
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
The Maryland General Assembly has sent a bill to the governor’s desk that would make Maryland the first state in the country to ban expanded polystyrene foam containers and cups.
The statehouse gave final approval to the bill on April 4. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan, a Republican, has yet to say whether he’ll sign the bill.
“The governor looks forward to reviewing this legislation when it reaches his desk,” a spokesperson in the governor’s office said.
The measure passed by a sufficient margin to override a veto should the governor issue one. In Maryland, a three-fifths vote is needed in each chamber to override a veto. And the House of Delegates voted 100-37 in favor, while the tally was 31-13 in the Senate.
But if Hogan does veto the bill, the earliest the state legislature would be able to vote to overturn that veto would be next January, because the General Assembly is in session only from January to April, said Del. Brooke Lierman (D-Baltimore City), the bill’s sponsor.
Single-Use ContainersThe bill would bar businesses and schools from using certain types of polystyrene foam packaging, such as single-serving beverage cups and food containers. The law would have an effective date of July 1, 2020.
“I’m thrilled that Maryland is going to lead the way for the rest of the nation, to prohibit styrofaom containers and reduce our dependence on single use plastics,” said Lierman, who introduced the bill in the House.
Environmental groups have long claimed that polystyrene foam is a significant source of pollution because it crumbles and is difficult to clean up or recycle.
“This stuff gets into the Chesapeake Bay, and breaks down into little pieces which don’t decompose,” said Josh Tulkin, director of the Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg Environment is operated by entities controlled by Michael Bloomberg.
The legislation exempts food and beverage containers that have been produced outside the state, such as ramen noodle cups, egg cartons, or packaging used for raw or butchered meat.
“The kind of foam packing used to protect something like a stereo or TV was not the focus of this bill,” Tulkin said. “From a pollution standpoint, we’re more concerned about the foam coffee cup from Dunkin Donuts, or the single-use containers at a to-go salad bar.”
A number of Maryland counties, including Montgomery, Prince George’s, and Anne Arundel counties, have already passed similar bans. The state will join a list of cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Washington that have put bans on single-use foam products.
According to the text of the bill, county officials could charge fines up to $250 for persons or businesses who violate the law.
ACC Urges VetoA number of large companies, including Dunkin’ Brands Group Inc. and McDonald’s Corp. have already announced plans to phase out foam cups and containers.
Critics of the ban, including the American Chemistry Council, are urging Gov. Hogan to veto the bill, claiming that a ban will penalize farmers and small businesses, and needlessly restrict an entire class of safe and effective products.
“Polystyrene foam packaging and containers provide business owners and consumers with a cost-effective and environmentally preferable choice that is ideal for protecting food and preventing food waste, particularly when used for foodservice,” said Omar Terrie, director of the plastics foodservice packaging group at the ACC.
In a statement Terrie points out that foam packaging is generally more than 90 percent air and has a lighter environmental impact than alternatives.
“A ban on polystyrene foam packaging and containers could lead to increased solid waste, energy use, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions,” he said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/maryland-looks-to-become-first-state-to-ban-foam-packaging
-
Caution Ahead in Petrochemicals
Apr 6, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
The petrochemical industry is spooked.
Shale gas in the US and a long economic expansion brought a decade of unprecedented prosperity for the industry. But speakers at the World Petrochemical Conference, put on in San Antonio last month by the consulting group IHS Markit, warned of threats to the new order.
Economic growth is slowing, and a recession is possible. The plastic waste issue has blossomed into a full-fledged crisis for the industry that could hamper long-term growth. At the same time, petrochemical makers are bringing heaps of long-planned new production on line, which could mean slack markets in the near future.
In his talk opening the conference, IHS Markit chief economist Nariman Behravesh predicted that US economic growth will slow from 2.9% last year to 2.4–2.5% this year. It should ease further to 2.0% in 2020.
Behravesh told the audience of about 1,500 attendees that he thinks a recession is unlikely. He put the probability of that happening at one in three this year and a little more than that next year. But he cautioned that “as growth slows, the vulnerability to a shock increases.”
Slowing trade, instigated by the Trump administration’s protectionism, has been a sore spot for the US economy. Tariffs have shaved 0.3–0.5% off US growth, Behravesh said. The world economy is also limping from slower Chinese output due to government policies meant to curb freewheeling lending. But with those measures behind it, China is now stimulating the economy with tax breaks and infrastructure spending.Our children are being taught in school that plastics are bad.Bob Patel, CEO, LyondellBasell Industries
Only human error could crash the economy, Behravesh said. “The single biggest risk facing the US economy is a trade policy mistake,” he remarked.
Petrochemical executives are used to grappling with economic risk, but they haven’t faced public outcry over their products in some time. Now the specter of plastic waste, especially plastic contaminating the world’s oceans, is haunting them. The public is calling for bans on single-use plastics such as shopping bags, straws, and cutlery.
“Plastic waste, I believe, is going to be the sustainability issue of our time,” Jim Fitterling, CEO of Dow Chemical, said.
Related: China restricts imports of plastic trash
However, Fitterling lashed out at the raft of new plastics restrictions. “This is a slippery slope, not only because it threatens our industry, but more importantly because these types of misguided policies can actually do more environmental harm than good,” he said.
The sources of ocean plastics, Fitterling said, are rapidly developing countries such as Thailand and China that do not yet have the infrastructure to handle mounting quantities of waste. “The issue is not plastics; the issue is the lack of an effective collection, recycling, and reuse system,” he said.
Moreover, the public can’t lose sight of the benefits of plastics, such as making vehicles lighter and more fuel efficient as well as preserving food. “Modern society is what it is today because of the miracle of plastics,” Fitterling said. “We cannot forget that, but we also can’t forget that plastics waste is a global crisis that needs our attention.” ADVERTISEMENT SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Bob Patel, CEO of LyondellBasell Industries, struck a more conciliatory tone. “We find ourselves today in a time of disruption,” he said. Already this year, he pointed out, legislative bodies in 21 US states have introduced 133 bills related to plastic waste.
Moreover, Patel cited an IHS scenario of aggressive recycling adoption that could reduce plastics market growth from 4% to 2% annually. “It may change how we think about capital deployment and drive us to embed circularity in our business models,” he said.
“Typically as an industry we would say, ‘Well, let’s do more to explain why plastics are so good for society,’ ” he said. “I think the time has now come to address the issue head-on, rather than to advocate for why we’re great.”
Patel added that the industry tends to think technically about issues, but he warned that plastic waste resonates with the public more viscerally. “Our children are being taught in school that plastics are bad,” he said. “If we don’t do something about this waste issue, then perhaps their teachers are right.”
Both Patel and Fitterling plugged the Alliance to End Plastic Waste, an initiative involving 35 companies with a goal of spending $1.5 billion to combat plastic waste, largely through promoting waste infrastructure and recycling in developing countries. Patel is vice chairman.
Improving recycling in the US will be a challenge in the wake of National Sword, a Chinese government policy launched last year to stem the flow of recyclable plastics from the US. According to Nina Bellucci Butler, CEO of the consulting group More Recycling, about 450,000 metric tons (t) of material has backed up in the US, unable to be exported. New polyethylene capacity being added in the US to take advantage of shale-based petrochemical feedstocks won’t make matters any easier, she said.
“We have a tsunami of material coming on line compared to a droplet of recycling,” Butler said. And without enough places to take recyclables, municipalities are suspending recycling programs. “Collection is slowing and we’ll probably see the first drop in the amount of material collected for recycling,” she warned.
The problem, as Butler sees it, is that it costs more to process postconsumer plastics than it does to buy virgin plastics. “How do we invest in the need to further process the material when there is not enough value to pull it through?” she asked.
As if it didn’t have enough to worry about, the petrochemical industry is also looking at a worsening of business conditions. “Capacity is outpacing demand growth,” said Dave Witte, head of energy and chemicals at IHS Markit.
Related: Chemicals at risk in spat with China
Chemical demand hasn’t recovered from the Chinese slowdown, trade friction, and economic uncertainty of last year. “We are starting the year weak,” he said.
“There is an overabundance of plastics supply,” Witte added, noting that polymer profits should decline soon, followed by profits for raw materials such as ethylene. Aromatics, which are coming off a strong 2018, should see a dip in earnings as well in coming years as massive new projects to make chemicals such as p-xylene open in China. Bucking the trend, he noted, are chlorine and caustic soda. In that industry, underinvestment may actually force those chemicals into undersupply, causing earnings to accelerate.
Sponsored Content Multi-omics in cancer research
by Thermo Fisher Scientific .ntv-moap { background-color: #f1f1f1; display: table; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { line-height: 0; width: 48%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img { max-width: 100%; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap > div { display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) { padding: 1rem 1.25rem; } .ntv-moap p.tag { background-color: #069; color: #fff; display: inline-block; font-family: "Scout Cond",HelveticaNeue-Light,"Helvetica Neue Light","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 1.25rem; line-height: 24px; margin: 0; padding: 0 0.3125rem; text-transform: uppercase; word-spacing: 0.125rem; } .ntv-moap h3 { color: #425368; font-family: "Georgia","Farnham Display Black",serif; font-size: 1.4rem; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1; margin: 0.25rem 0 0.5rem; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) > p:last-of-type { font-size: 15px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0; } .ntv-moap h3 a, .ntv-moap p a { color: inherit; text-decoration: none; } .ntv-moap h3 a:hover { color: #069; } .pull-left .ntv-moap { max-width: 300px; text-align: center; } .pull-left .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .pull-left .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .pull-left .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .pull-left .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } .article-sponsored-component.full-width { border-top: none; } @media screen and (max-width: 39.9375em) { .full-width .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .full-width .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .full-width .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .full-width .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } }
Overall, Witte sees chemical profits pulling back from the record levels seen in 2018 of about $150 per metric ton on average. But the $125 per metric ton he forecasts for 2022 profits is “nowhere near historical lows.”
“Trough is a little bit of an extreme word, but we see some dips coming,” said Steve Lewandowski, vice president of olefins for IHS Markit, in his presentation on ethylene.
Global ethylene demand normally increases by 6 million to 7 million t annually, Lewandowski says. With the capacity coming on line, primarily in the US and China, he forecasts new capacity will exceed new demand by about 10 million t overall from 2020 through 2023.
Plant operating rates will decline to 88% from about 91% today—still a high level, Lewandowski noted. Moreover, lower ethylene prices could force some closures, such as older ethylene crackers in China.
Related: Aramco pledges $100 billion in chemical investment
Additionally, methanol-to-olefins plants, which produce ethylene and propylene from purchased methanol, will be vulnerable to lower prices and could shutter. Coal-to-chemicals plants that make vinyl chloride and ethylene glycol directly from coal could likewise find themselves under pressure.
“I’m pretty bullish on ethylene even with all the capacity coming,” Lewandowski said, in a remark that was pretty typical of the conference tone overall. Sure, challenges abound, but executives in San Antonio didn’t seem in fear of any existential threats.
https://cen.acs.org/business/petrochemicals/Caution-ahead-petrochemicals/97/i14
-
Chemicals Remain on Soft Footing With Sluggish Output Growth
Apr 8, 2019 | Zacks
By Anindya Barman
Global chemical production continues the year on a sluggish note with February witnessing a modest uptick in production on lower capacity utilization, according to the recent monthly report from the American Chemistry Council (“ACC”).
February Sees Measly Growth
The chemical industry trade group said, on Friday, that the Global Chemical Producing Regional Index ("CPRI") rose a paltry 0.1% in February on a monthly comparison basis, following a 0.2% growth in both January and December.
The Global CPRI, which is measured using a three-month moving average, measures chemical production volumes for 33 major nations, sub-regions and regions. It is comparable to the Federal Reserve Board (“FRB”) production indices.
Capacity utilization for the global chemical industry eased 0.2 percentage points to 83.1% in February. Utilization fell from 84.8% a year ago.
By regions, February saw higher production across Europe and Africa & the Middle East. Output was flat in Latin America and Asia-Pacific while declining in other regions.
On a segment basis, growth was witnessed in inorganic chemicals, bulk petrochemicals and organics plastic resins, manufactured fibers and other specialties for the reported month. This was offset by softness across agricultural chemicals, consumer products, synthetic rubber and coatings.
Per the ACC, chemical production in the United States went down 0.7% on a monthly comparison basis in February. This follows a 0.4% sequential growth a month ago. Output also fell 0.7% in North America for the reported month on declines across the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Chemical Industry Roiled by Trade Tariffs
The chemical industry is among the industries that have been badly hit by the bitter year-long trade spat between the United States and China. Especially, the U.S. chemical industry is caught in the crosshairs of the trade conflict.
Washington and Beijing levied billions of dollars in punitive tariffs on each others’ products last year. China’s list of U.S. goods hit with tariffs includes an array of petrochemicals, specialty chemicals and plastics.
According to the ACC, the United States has levied tariffs on $15 billion worth of imports of chemicals and plastics from China, with Beijing retaliating with duties on $11 billion in U.S. exports of chemicals and plastics to China.
Although recent negotiations between the world’s two biggest economies have raised hopes of a possible resolution of the trade tiff, the tariffs currently in place are already doing damage to the chemical industry.
China is one of the biggest export markets for U.S. chemicals and, thus, leaves the American chemical industry heavily exposed to Beijing’s countermeasures. The trade tariffs have created an uncertain demand environment for U.S. chemical products in China. The tariffs are hurting U.S. chemical exports and the competitiveness of the American chemical industry. Notably, the trade friction has led to a slowdown in demand in the automotive market (a major chemical end-use market) in China.
Per the ACC, China’s tariffs on U.S. chemicals and plastics exports have put roughly 55,000 American jobs and $18 billion in domestic activity at risk as a result of lower demand for those products, which would lead to considerable losses for U.S. manufacturers. The ACC estimates that the loss to U.S. chemical and plastics exports to China could reach as much as $6.1 billion annually.
There is also concern that the tariffs may dampen new chemical investment in the United States. The tariffs have raised fears that chemicals companies would reconsider their investments in new projects, which could lead to a slowdown in growth in the U.S. chemical industry.
Export markets are expected to contribute to the growth of the American chemical industry in 2019. Thus, a potential U.S.-China trade deal would provide a much-needed respite to the U.S. chemical industry.
Chemical Stocks to Watch For
A few stocks currently worth considering in the chemical space are Ingevity Corporation (NGVT - Free Report) , Innospec Inc. (IOSP - Free Report) , Shin-Etsu Chemical Co., Ltd. (SHECY - Free Report) , W. R. Grace & Co. (GRA - Free Report) and Flexible Solutions International Inc. (FSI - Free Report) . Ingevity, Innospec and Shin-Etsu Chemical sport a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), while both W. R. Grace and Flexible Solutions carry a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy). You can see the complete list of today’s Zacks #1 Rank stocks here.
Ingevity has an expected earnings growth of 17.9% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.7% upward over the last 60 days.
Innospec has an expected earnings growth of 3.5% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 5.3% upward over the last 60 days.
Shin-Etsu Chemical has an expected earnings growth of 16.3% for the current fiscal year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 2.5% upward over the last 60 days.
W. R. Grace has an expected earnings growth of 10.4% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 3.2% upward over the last 60 days.
Flexible Solutions has an expected earnings growth of 171.4% for the current year. Earnings estimates for the current year have been revised 46.2% upward over the last 60 days.
Is Your Investment Advisor Fumbling Your Financial Future?
See how you can more effectively safeguard your retirement with a new Special Report, “4 Warning Signs Your Investment Advisor Might Be Sabotaging Your Financial Future.”
https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/372045/chemicals-remain-on-soft-footing-with-sluggish-output-growth
-
Research Office Overhaul Takes Shape
Apr 5, 2019 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA has begun to flesh out the reorganization of its research office.
Earlier this week, the agency's Office of Research and Development held another town hall meeting with staff to go over EPA's plans to consolidate its science division. Slides obtained by E&E News show who will run the new offices and centers under the reorganization as well as a timeline for when the effort will be completed.
This spring, research staff will provide feedback and attend listening sessions so that by mid-June, the proposed structure will be finalized, and then reviewed and approved by the office's leaders by July 1, according to an "Anticipated Timeline" included in the slides.
From then until the end of September, the reorganization will be subject to greater review and implemented by EPA. Notice will also be given to Congress and agency unions during this period.
Bob Kavlock, formerly acting head of EPA's research office, said the agency's quick timeline to rework the division was feasible.
"As to the timeline, it is probably a bit ambitious, but ORD has done a lot of groundwork to get it this stage, so certainly possible to meet," said Kavlock, who retired from EPA in November 2017 after close to 40 years at the agency.
An EPA spokeswoman told E&E News in an email, "We are working to meet the schedule described in our April 3rd Town Hall."
The research office announced the proposed reorganization in a town hall meeting last month. Under the plan, EPA would merge 13 components in the research program into eight (Greenwire, March 8).
Top career EPA officials were named as heads of the new offices and centers in the slides. Thomas Burke, a former EPA science adviser during the Obama administration, praised those officials who are assuming new managerial positions in the reorganization.
"I feel really good about the people who still lead science at EPA," said Burke, now a professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "These are folks that I worked with, and there is such a strong team there."
Several smaller units will also be shifted around under the reorganization at the research office. The Integrated Risk Information System program, which assesses the health hazards of chemicals and has long been a target of EPA's critics, would move into the new Center for Public and Environmental Assessment.
"All of IRIS's functions are staying with IRIS and will be folded into the new Center for Public Health and Environmental Assessment," said the EPA spokeswoman.
"Research conducted by ORD will continue to be governed by the Strategic Research Action Plans and implemented by the new Centers."
Democratic lawmakers have sought to protect the program.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), chairwoman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, told colleagues in a letter this week that IRIS should remain in EPA's research office and its funding should not be cut.
In addition, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), heads of the appropriations committees that oversee EPA, have questioned the agency in a separate letterover reported political interference with IRIS as well as reduction of its workload and reassignment of its staff (Greenwire, April 2).
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said it was important to monitor any changes to IRIS under the reorganization plan. He said, "EPA political leadership clearly wants more control over that process," referring to chemical assessments.
"But it's a little premature to say how the reorganization will impact the independence of scientific work at ORD, particularly for the IRIS program. And we know that career staff are generally supportive of some changes to the structure, regardless of who is in charge of the agency," Halpern said.
Kavlock said the program "is constantly under attack by members of the chemical industry and their ilk because of the impact of IRIS decisions on potential profits."
He said it's vital that top management in the research office advocate for and defend IRIS.
"I am hopeful that that will be the case, but only time will tell," Kavlock said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2019/04/05/stories/1060145241
-
EPA Issues New Chemical SNURs, Opening Door To Landmark TSCA Suit
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA has finalized significant new use rules (SNURs) on 13 new chemicals using an approach intended to speed up reviews but which environmentalists and others oppose, setting the stage for a likely first-time suit on how EPA addresses new chemicals and protects workers under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
In an April 5 Federal Register notice, EPA finalized first-time SNURs addressing risks that a group of new chemicals could present if used in certain reasonably foreseen ways, an approach that mirrors a draft framework for considering new chemicals that the agency floated last year but appeared to abandon after environmentalists sued.
But the agency appeared to revive the approach when it first proposed these SNURs last October.
Now finalized, the SNURs appear almost certain to face similar legal challenges, marking what could be the first such suit challenging a SNUR under the new law.
In their comments on the proposed SNUR, environmentalists raised multiple legal arguments, charging the approach is unlawful because it lacks an associated enforcement order to prevent uses of the chemical that may present risk before a SNUR could be finalized.
They also argued in their written comments -- and reiterated the argument in recent statements -- that EPA's approach fails to adequately protect workers in violation of statutory requirements.
“EPA has utterly failed to provide any legal or factual basis for its 'expectation' that companies will require and workers will utilize personal protective equipment (PPE) absent any requirement to do so,” Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), tells Inside EPA.
“Rather than provide an actual rationale that is consistent with TSCA, EPA in its response to comments simply reasserts that expectation. TSCA mandates that EPA impose controls through an order to address potential risks of new chemicals, including risks arising from 'reasonably foreseen' activities. It defies logic, as well as this mandate, for EPA not to view as 'reasonably foreseen' that companies won’t always require and workers won’t always use PPE -- especially in the absence of any binding requirement,” Denison adds.
The revised TSCA requires EPA to issue a finding on each pre-manufacture notice (PMN) of a new chemical received. Each must meet TSCA's risk standard of not posing unreasonable risk to human health or the environment based on the proposed conditions of use as well as “reasonably foreseen uses,” to gain entry to the market.
But EDF in its Nov. 15 comments argues that “[w]here EPA finds that unreasonable risks to workers would occur absent certain protective measures, EPA must identify as a significant new use any condition of use of the chemical that occurs without those protections. Legally, EPA must issue an order to address these risks--as well as consider promulgating a [SNUR]...”
The agency responds in the final rule, stating that it “disagrees” with the comment, adding that “Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA does not mandate that any specific uses be designated as significant. Instead, EPA has discretion as to which new uses to designate as significant. ... in exercising its discretion regarding which new uses should be designated as significant under section 5(a)(2), EPA expects compliance with federal and state laws, such as worker protection standards or disposal restrictions, unless case-specific facts indicate otherwise.”
Workplace Risks
EPA argues that “any workplace risks will be mitigated if exposures are appropriately controlled, and EPA expects that employers will require and workers will use the appropriate controls (e.g., personal protective equipment such as impervious gloves and/or respirators), consistent with the Safety Data Sheet prepared by the PMN submitter, in a manner adequate to protect them.”
But Denison, who has written several blogs critiquing EPA's reliance on OSHA and other workplace protections to meet the risk standard allowing new chemicals to enter the market, tells Inside EPA that “EPA cannot rely on OSHA regulations to meet its obligations under TSCA. EPA’s assertion that it simply 'expects compliance with federal laws' -- aside from the problems arising from it relying on a mere 'expectation' -- falls even flatter in light of the fact that the federal law in this case (the OSH Act) actually does not mandate the very practices EPA 'expects' will be used by companies and workers.”
EDF and other environmental groups also argue that EPA must issue a section 5(e) enforcement order, prior to proposing a SNUR on uses of a new chemical that are of concern. This had been EPA's initial practice after the June 2016 enactment of TSCA reform. Industry groups, however, have protested the longer review times for PMNs that have accompanied implementation of TSCA reform, and questioned the purpose of the orders. Some argued SNURs are more protective since they apply to everyone, not just those who sign an order, and moving directly to a SNUR is more efficient.
EPA largely brushes aside the comments it received on the need for the 5(e) orders in its response to comments. Its response states, “To the extent these comments argue that the Agency should have issued orders under Section 5(e) or 5(f) of TSCA, EPA believes they are beyond the scope of the SNUR for which EPA is specifically soliciting comments and are properly directed to the Section 5(a)(3) determinations that pertain to the underlying PMNs for the SNUR. EPA is therefore not responding to these comments here.”
EPA also notes that “Because these comments are not germane to this rulemaking, EPA ... declines to withdraw the SNURs on the basis of these comments. Regardless, EPA has already defended the legal and factual basis for the TSCA § 5(a)(3) determinations that these comments reference in a prior legal challenge,” pointing to its brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in the suit Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA.
No conclusion was reached in the suit because environmentalists last summer decided to withdraw it after a top EPA toxics official said the agency's draft framework on how to review new chemicals -- without issuing the 5(e) orders -- has not been implemented as planned.
Instead, the environmentalists warned that they plan to closely scrutinize a process EPA appears to have adopted to replace the draft framework.
Final Rule
The final rule on the SNURs, however, would likely place environmentalists in a better position to bring a challenge to the approach, since it would revolve around a final agency decision.
Industry groups argued throughout that NRDC's suit would likely fail on procedural grounds because the draft framework is not a final rule, with Herb Estreicher of the law firm Keller and Heckman LLP calling NRDC's suit "frivolous," last June.
Industry comments on the proposed SNURs were more complimentary. For example, Estreicher and James Votaw, representing companies that submitted some of the 13 chemicals addressed in the SNURs, argued in their Nov. 13 comments that “EPA has properly exercised its statutory authority in issuing the proposed SNURs.”
They note in the 2nd Circuit case that environmentalists' argument “that the approach of issuing a proposed SNUR concurrent with the 'not likely to pose an unreasonable risk determination' was inconsistent with the statutory scheme because it prevents EPA from considering all reasonably foreseeable uses as required by TSCA § 5(a)(3)(C). This is plainly wrong. It is the Agency’s very consideration of and concerns with reasonably foreseeable uses not intended by the manufacturer that are the raison d'etre for the SNURs.”
Among other issues, the attorneys also fault environmentalists' charge that the lack of an order results in less protection. “Where the concern is only with uses that the manufacturer has no intent to exploit, a §5(e) order risk management provides no practical benefit at all as it will simply order the manufacturer (PMN submitter) not to do what it already has no intent to do and is not reasonably likely to do. This does not reduce any risks. Because the order would be binding only on the PMN submitter, EPA would still need a SNUR to prevent others from engaging in the uses of concern.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-issues-new-chemical-snurs-opening-door-landmark-tsca-suit
-
OMB Clears EPA’s TSCA CBI Proposed Rule
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
White House officials have completed review of EPA's proposed rule creating a system under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the agency to review industry confidentiality claims on chemical identities listed as active on the inventory, clearing the way for EPA to issue the proposal.
The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) April 4 completed review of the “Procedural Rule: Review of CBI Claims for the Identity of Chemicals on the TSCA Inventory -- Amended TSCA Section 8(b)(4)(C),” according to OMB's website.
The revised TSCA mandates that EPA finalize a rule requiring companies to substantiate claims of confidential business information (CBI) within one year of EPA's publication of the final TSCA inventory denoting active and inactive chemicals, which the agency issued earlier this year.
TSCA section 8(b)(4)(C) “requires EPA to issue a final rule, within 1 year of EPA's compiling of a list of active substances on the TSCA Inventory … that establishes a plan to review all claims to protect the specific chemical identities of chemical substances on the confidential portion of the active Inventory,” according to OMB's website.
“Per the statute, the rule will require all manufacturers or processors asserting [CBI] claims for the identities of chemicals on the active Inventory to substantiate those claims in accordance with TSCA section 14 unless the manufacturer or processor already substantiated the claim in a submission to EPA during the previous 5-year period. Approved CBI claims will generally be valid for 10 years except as authorized by the statute.”
EPA plans to issue the final rule by December 2019, though industry officials have said that environmentalists will likely challenge any final measure, given ongoing concerns about the Trump administration’s handling of industry CBI claims under the revised law.
In its “Forecast 2019” attorneys with the law firm Bergeson & Campbell say that environmentalists' pending lawsuit against EPA's “Inventory notification rule … may presage a challenge to the CBI review rule.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is currently weighing the Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) claims that EPA’s 2017 inventory notification rule changes to criteria for substantiating businesses' CBI claims, compared to an Obama-era proposed version, violate TSCA law and the Administrative Procedure Act.
A D.C. Circuit panel heard argument in EDF v. EPA last October. All three judges appeared critical of the 2017 rule -- including comments that the Trump-era changes are illogical, contrary to the law and raise procedural concerns -- but an opinion has yet to be released.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/omb-clears-epa%E2%80%99s-tsca-cbi-proposed-rule
-
Judges Nix Second Set of EPA Coolant Regs Under Kavanaugh Ruling
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
Federal appeals court judges struck down in large part the second in a pair of Obama-era rules limiting climate-warming coolants, saying they were bound by the court’s rejection of the first regulation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit must reach the same conclusion as it did in 2017, when it vacated much of the initial Obama-era regulation banning certain hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, the court said in an April 5 ruling.
The chemicals, commonly used as refrigerants, warm the climate at a rate hundreds of times greater than carbon dioxide.
The Environmental Protection Agency in 2015 issued its first regulation banning certain HFCs. In 2016, it adopted a second rule building on those first limits. The move came in the run-up to global talks to reach a deal in late 2016 to phase down the chemicals worldwide.
The panel of D.C. Circuit judges during March 8 oral arguments appeared sympathetic to the arguments of major chemical producers Honeywell International Inc. and the Chemours Co., as well as the Natural Resources Defense Council, in defense of the EPA rules.
But in their brief April 5 opinion, Judges Judith W. Rogers, Robert L. Wilkins, and Harry T. Edwards said they couldn’t run counter to the D.C. Circuit’s 2017 finding that the EPA doesn’t have authority to restrict the use of HFCs under the Clean Air Act. That 2017 ruling was written by Brett Kavanaugh, now a Supreme Court justice.
“At the onset, we note that the prior merits holding binds us, and that we must grant the new petitions if no procedural issues detain us,” the opinion reads.
EPA Declined to DefendThe decision from the D.C. Circuit all but puts the nail in the coffin of Obama-era rules to ban HFCs.
The EPA defended the first of its HFC rules before the D.C. Circuit in oral arguments just after the Trump administration took office.
The agency declined to defend the second of its regulations, agreeing with the 2017 panel that it didn’t have the authority to carry out the HFC program.
The agency has said it is working to address the issues the court pointed to in 2017 but hasn’t offered a timeline for a regulation.
The majority of appliance manufacturers and chemical makers—including Mexichem Fluor Inc. and Arkema Inc., the two that brought the lawsuit against the HFC rules—back the 2016 global deal limiting HFCs.
It isn’t clear whether the Trump administration will back that deal, known as the Kigali Amendment, which would have to be sent to the Senate for ratification.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler recently told House appropriators he hadn’t been asked to weigh in on the Kigali deal yet.
If the deal were to be ratified, it would require legislation to allow the EPA to implement it, Wheeler said during an April 3 budget hearing.
The EPA “currently lacks the authority” it would need to restrict HFCs, he said.
The case is Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1024, 4/5/19.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/judges-nix-second-set-of-epa-coolant-regs-under-kavanaugh-ruling
-
Court Extends Limit On Obama-era Bid To Restrict Climate-Warming HFCs
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has overturned a second Obama-era rule requiring appliance and other manufacturers to replace climate-warming hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants, agreeing with two of the chemical’s producers that it should extend its prior precedent limiting such policies.
In a brief April 5 per curiam decision in Mexichem Fluor, Inc. v. EPA, the court agreed with HFC makers Mexichem and Arkema that EPA’s 2016 rule at issue in the case violates the court’s 2017 finding in Mexichem I that the Obama EPA’s policy requiring replacement of HFCs, which have a high global warming potential (GWP), was flawed.
“We vacate the 2016 rule only to the extent it requires manufacturers to replace HFCs that were previously and lawfully installed as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances,” the ruling says.
EPA’s 2016 rule changed the status of some HFC refrigerants in different end-uses to “unacceptable," preventing their use in certain situations. HFCs are used as replacements for older, ozone-depleting refrigerants, but they are potent greenhouse gases, and the Obama administration therefore moved to phase them out quickly.
However, in its 2-1 ruling in Mexichem I, the court partially vacated a similar 2015 EPA rule that required further replacement of HFCs with less-harmful substitutes, even where companies had already introduced HFCs as substitutes for other harmful chemicals.
The court in its opinion in Mexichem I, authored by then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, found repeated substitution of ozone depleting chemicals unlawful, but allowed EPA to ban use of HFCs where manufacturers are switching to alternative, non-ozone depleting refrigerants for the first time.
HFCs do not deplete the stratospheric ozone layer and replaced older, ozone-depleting refrigerants such as hydrochlorofluorocarbons, but they are potent greenhouse gases. The Obama EPA, environmentalists and manufacturers of newer, less-harmful refrigerants aimed to ban and replace them in the 2016 rule.
But Mexichem and Arkema, who make the older chemicals, challenged the rule, arguing it contradicted the D.C. Circuit’s precedent in Mexichem I, where they had successfully challenged key parts of EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) rule from 2015 limiting HFCs in a variety of end uses.
In that 2-1 decision from 2017, the court found that EPA may not require substitution of refrigerants that have already replaced ozone-depleting chemicals under the agency’s SNAP program.
The Trump EPA in the present case sided with the petitioners and did not defend its HFC rules, in a reversal of its previous position from the Obama administration.
Chemical manufacturers Chemours and Honeywell, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), intervened to oppose Mexichem and Arkema, argued in the instant case that the challenges to both the 2015 and 2016 Obama HFCs rules were years too late, and hence time-barred.
The court in its Mexichem I ruling was essentially silent on this timeliness problem, and therefore litigants are free to raise it again, the intervenors argued.
But at March 8 oral arguments, a panel of judges including Harry Edwards, Judith Rogers and Robert Wilkins appeared unconvinced. “We are bound by the law of the circuit,” said Edwards.
The court in Mexichem I found that it then had jurisdiction to hear that case because EPA had made a substantial change to its policy on HFCs, which dates back to 1994, Mexichem and Arkema argued. This was then sufficient to overcome a Clean Air Act requirement that litigants bring suit within 60 days of the issuance of an EPA rule -- here, the 1994 rule that underlies the HFC policy, the companies said.
Chemours, Honeywell and NRDC in the present suit argued that in fact, the court was silent on the issue and the time-bar still applies.
But the court in its per curiam ruling now finds that, “we reject the timeliness challenge raised by the three Intervenors.”
The court finds that the doctrine of “issue preclusion” prohibits the intervenors from litigating the same issues twice. The court says, “we must assume that we implicitly found timely the petitions in [Mexichem I]. Silent holdings necessary to the judgment preclude relitigation just as well as stated ones.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/court-extends-limit-obama-era-bid-restrict-climate-warming-hfcs
-
The Hunt Is On for GenX Chemicals in People
Apr 7, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
On a chilly day in November 2017, Beth Markesino sat in the county health department. She pushed up the sleeve of her sweater and extended her arm. A medical technician drew her blood. During her visit to the facility, Markesino spotted several people she knew and said hi to them. They were getting blood work done too.
They hadn’t come for routine medical tests. Markesino and her neighbors in Wilmington, North Carolina, were giving blood samples so researchers could analyze them for more than a dozen fluorochemicals released by a Chemours plant 100 km away. Scientists had found a cocktail of unregulated industrial chemicals in the Cape Fear River, the source of their public drinking water. Scientists in 2016 reported finding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in that drinking water, despite it being treated by a local utility (Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2016, DOI: 10.1021/acs.estlett.6b00398).
Markesino and others assembling at the health department in 2017 are among the more than 300 residents of the Wilmington area who volunteered to give blood and urine samples as part of a PFAS exposure study. North Carolina State University researchers are leading that investigation.
Related: What’s GenX still doing in the water downstream of a Chemours plant?
Many volunteers, including Markesino, were particularly worried about a chemical called GenX, which Chemours makes, then uses as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers for nonstick coatings and other applications. Scientists found that in water, the chemical GenX hydrolyzes into hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (HFPO-DA), which was among the PFAS found in the treated drinking water.
GenX was introduced in 2009. Its inventor, DuPont, called it a “sustainable replacement” for the persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemical perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), which the company formerly used as a fluoropolymer processing aid. When DuPont spun off its fluorochemical business to form Chemours in 2015, the new company continued to make and use GenX at a factory outside Fayetteville, North Carolina. A growing body of studies suggests that HFPO-DA, like the well-studied PFOA, is linked to harmful effects in the liver and reproductive problems (Environ. Health Perspect. 2019, DOI: 10.1289/EHP4372).We cannot say what these results mean for your health.Letter to participants in the GenX Exposure Study
After the Wilmington newspaper the StarNews published a series of articles about the PFAS contamination in June 2017, Markesino sprang into action. She formed a Facebook group of Wilmington residents demanding clean drinking water. That group has since grown to include people across the US and in Australia living in other communities that face PFAS contamination. Markesino is now president of a nonprofit advocacy organization called North Carolina Stop Gen-X In Our Water. The group shares information about PFAS found in drinking water and, through its members’ donations, has sponsored Wilmington-area billboards imploring Chemours, “Stop polluting our air, water and soil with your toxic chemicals.”
Like many of their Wilmington neighbors, Markesino, her husband, and their now 6-year-old daughter stopped drinking their tap water in June 2017. The family now cooks, brews coffee, and brushes teeth with bottled water, Markesino tells C&EN. Her daughter carries two reusable bottles containing filtered water to school each day. Markesino has instructed her not to drink the school’s water. ADVERTISEMENT SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Markesino says her advocacy work and changing the source of the water her family consumed were empowering steps after the shock of learning about the PFAS contamination. But in the following months, worries increasingly gnawed at her. She thought about the training she’d done as a marathon runner, when she kept hydrated by sucking down liter after liter of what she now knows was tainted Wilmington tap water. And she grieved over Samuel, the baby she gave birth to in her 24th week of pregnancy in October 2016. She wondered if her son’s death from kidney, bladder, and bowel malformation was connected to the PFAS in the water she drank.
“I’ll never know what was in Samuel,” Markesino says. But when NC State researchers sought volunteers for the exposure study, she signed up to find out about the PFAS in her own body.
After providing their blood and urine samples in late 2017, Markesino and the other volunteers in the GenX Exposure Study began waiting for the results. A team of researchers from NC State and East Carolina University analyzed the samples for 23 PFAS chemicals using mass spectrometry. These chemicals included HFPO-DA; by-products from the Fayetteville plant’s operations that have been found in the Cape Fear River; fluorotelomers that are ingredients in some firefighting foams; and so-called legacy PFAS, including PFOA, that are no longer made in the US.
Months passed.
In May 2018, Markesino joined 43 other study participants who volunteered for a second blood draw. The results would allow researchers to assess how long any PFAS found in the first samples stayed in their blood.
More months passed.
Meanwhile, in June 2018, a team led by Zachary R. Hopkins, a doctoral engineering student at NC State, published analyses of PFAS found in Cape Fear River water and in drinking water treated by the Wilmington utility during 2017 (J.—Am. Water Works Assoc. 2018, DOI: 10.1002/awwa.1073). The researchers detected a suite of fluorinated chemicals, some not identified in previous papers. They also found that the concentration of PFAS dropped sharply after Chemours began to capture HFPO-DA-containing process wastewater instead of discharging it into the river.
Related: ‘Forever chemicals’ no more? These technologies aim to destroy PFAS in water
Finally, in November 2018, volunteers got envelopes in the mail with their blood test results. While individual data are confidential, the participants’ combined results are public.
First, the study found no detectable HFPO-DA—the GenX chemical—in participants’ blood.
Markesino felt relief. The GenX chemical “was the thing that everyone was so concerned about,” she says.
“Because we could not detect GenX in blood samples, we know that GenX does not stay in the blood for very long,” says a letter that participants received from the study’s principal investigator, Jane Hoppin, an NC State environmental epidemiologist.
The study’s limit of detection for this substance was 2 ppb in blood. In contrast, researchers routinely measure PFAS in water in parts per trillion.
Also, the analysis showed the volunteers’ blood had no detectable amounts of two PFAS that are widely found in the environment: perfluorohexanoic acid, a breakdown product of stain- and grease-resistant coatings, and 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate, an ingredient in many aqueous film-forming foams used to fight liquid fuel fires and in coatings on food wrappers.
That was the good news.
The tests showed that Markesino and the other volunteers, like most people in the US, have PFOA and four other historically used PFAS in their blood. Wilmington-area residents in the study had 4.4 ppb of PFOA in their blood drawn in late 2017, while the US average was 1.5 ppb in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s 2013–14 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
In addition, the results found that volunteers’ bodies harbor four PFAS that scientists know little about. Chemours tells C&EN that all four of these substances are manufacturing by-products that are not produced for commercial purposes.
One of these four, which researchers call Nafion by-product 2, was in 99% of the blood samples analyzed. This chemical is a by-product of making Nafion, Chemours’s sulfonated tetrafluoroethylene-based ionic polymers that are used for membranes in fuel cells, chlor-alkali production, and other applications. Nafion by-product 2 is a multiether sulfonic acid.
Participants’ median blood concentration for Nafion by-product 2 was more than 2.5 ppb, the blood analysis found. The blood samples also contained the carboxylic acid form of Nafion by-product 2, an ester vinyl ether (EVE) called hydro-EVE acid.This is in our river. It’s in my body.Beth Markesino, Wilmington, North Carolina, resident and president of North Carolina Stop Gen-X In Our Water, referring to PFAS pollution
Hopkins’s NC State group also found Nafion by-product 2 in water samples. The water analysis team detected but did not report the presence of hydro-EVE acid in its peer-reviewed results, says Detlef Knappe, an NC State engineering professor and Hopkins’s PhD adviser.
“We did not yet know what it was, and we did not have an analytical standard for it,” Knappe tells C&EN. “But it was present in the water.”
Epidemiologist Hoppin’s team also found two other novel fluoroethers in the blood samples. Perfluoro-3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic acid (PFO4DA) was in 98% of the samples. Perfluoro-3,5,7,9,11-pentaoxadodecanoic acid (PFO5DoDA) was found in 87% of the samples. Volunteers’ median blood concentrations were more than 2.0 ppb for PFO4DA and less than 0.5 ppb for PFO5DoDA.
Sponsored Content Three common risks in drug development partnerships
by Patheon .ntv-moap { background-color: #f1f1f1; display: table; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { line-height: 0; width: 48%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img { max-width: 100%; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap > div { display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) { padding: 1rem 1.25rem; } .ntv-moap p.tag { background-color: #069; color: #fff; display: inline-block; font-family: "Scout Cond",HelveticaNeue-Light,"Helvetica Neue Light","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 1.25rem; line-height: 24px; margin: 0; padding: 0 0.3125rem; text-transform: uppercase; word-spacing: 0.125rem; } .ntv-moap h3 { color: #425368; font-family: "Georgia","Farnham Display Black",serif; font-size: 1.4rem; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1; margin: 0.25rem 0 0.5rem; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) > p:last-of-type { font-size: 15px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0; } .ntv-moap h3 a, .ntv-moap p a { color: inherit; text-decoration: none; } .ntv-moap h3 a:hover { color: #069; } .pull-left .ntv-moap { max-width: 300px; text-align: center; } .pull-left .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .pull-left .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .pull-left .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .pull-left .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } .article-sponsored-component.full-width { border-top: none; } @media screen and (max-width: 39.9375em) { .full-width .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .full-width .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .full-width .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .full-width .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } }
At least one of those two perfluorinated chemicals was in the water too, Knappe says. “PFO5DoDA was likely present in the water at concentrations below our reporting limit.” His lab is working to make its analytical method more sensitive in the hope of detecting this chemical, especially in older, stored samples of Cape Fear River water.
A few weeks before Markesino and the other volunteers gave their first blood samples, Chemours started capturing wastewater from its Nafion manufacturing processes. The company adopted this practice because North Carolina regulators revoked the plant’s wastewater discharge permit for fluoroether production. The chemical maker now hauls this wastewater to Texas for disposal via deep-well injection, Chemours told North Carolina and the US Environmental Protection Agency in 2017.
Related: New Jersey cracks down on PFAS pollution from chemical companies
After Chemours stopped discharging wastewater to the river, Hopkins’s team saw levels of PFAS, including the Nafion by-product, drop sharply in the water—although they didn’t disappear entirely. This suggests these chemicals may be leaching out of river sediment or transported through stormwater runoff or contaminated groundwater, the team’s paper says.
Meanwhile, Hoppin’s team found that median blood levels of Nafion by-product 2, PFO4DA, and PFO5DoDA dropped in the 44 participants, including Markesino, who had their blood retested in May 2018.
Markesino says she is not surprised that fluorochemicals that she’d never heard of turned up in her blood. Instead, she says, “I’m surprised that the scientists knew how to detect them” in blood.
She’s indignant that the novel industrial contamination was imposed on her family and her community without their knowledge or consent.
“This is in our river. It’s in my body,” she says of the PFAS pollution. “It’s in our rain. It’s in our dust. It’s in our soil.” She blames Chemours and its predecessor, DuPont; North Carolina regulators; and the US Environmental Protection Agency for the contamination in the Cape Fear River and, in turn, her and her neighbors.
What the blood test results portend for the health of Markesino and her neighbors is a looming question. When the results were mailed out, there were no published health or toxicology data for Nafion by-product 2, hydro-EVE acid, PFO4DA, or PFO5DoDA.
“Therefore, we cannot say what these results mean for your health,” says Hoppin’s letter to participants.
“It scares me,” Markesino says of not knowing whether the levels of PFAS in her body are safe or pose a risk to her current and future heath.
Now, new data suggest her fear may have a scientific basis, at least for PFO4DA in mice. In March, a team led by Hua Guo of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published what the authors believe is the first study of the toxic effects of perfluoroether carboxylic acids, including PFO4DA. Their 28-day study in male mice showed PFO4DA caused harmful effects to the liver (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00148).
“Efforts to remove or at least decrease its [PFO4DA’s] occurrence in drinking water should be made urgently,” Guo and colleagues write in their paper.
Chemours says an independent laboratory has tested PFO4DA and PFO5DoDA along with eight other “PFAS waste substances” and found none displayed the potential to cause genetic mutations. A chemical’s ability to alter genetic material is often linked to carcinogenicity. Chemours says it is committed to further testing of these and other PFAS.
Meanwhile, researchers in the exposure study are still analyzing urine samples that Markesino and her fellow study participants provided.
“I’m very anxious to see how those come back,” she says.
https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/hunt-GenX-chemicals-people/97/i14
-
US National Toxicology Program Changes Course
Apr 8, 2019 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
After more than 40 years of evaluating the hazards of chemicals by testing animals to extrapolate human health effects, the US National Toxicology Program is shifting gears. Under the direction of Associate Director Brian Berridge, the program is embracing innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence and in vitro human cell systems in hopes of making chemical hazard assessments more relevant to people.
The NTP is also flipping its process for chemical hazard assessment upside down. Rather than starting with individual chemicals or classes of chemicals and looking for their health hazards, the program is looking into whether particular diseases that have a big impact on public health have chemical origins.Vitals
▸ Current position: Associate director, US National Toxicology Program
▸ Previous positions: Director, worldwide animal research strategy, GlaxoSmithKline; toxicological pathologist and cardiovascular safety expert, GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly and Company
▸ Education: DVM, Oklahoma State University; PhD, veterinary medicine, Texas A&M University
▸ Biggest goal this year: Embrace and build confidence in innovative technologies for evaluating the health hazards of chemicals
Berridge joined the NTP in January 2018, after more than a decade working for the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline. There, he was the first to lead a group examining the role of animals in drug development. The group was started “with an intent to try to eliminate animals in drug development” to be socially responsible, Berridge says.
“That was a great aspiration, and I hope to see the day when we get there, but that is not a near-term reality,” Berridge says. “We really needed to optimize the way we used animals, then progressively decrease our dependence on them.” That is the direction he took the group at GSK, and he intends to do the same at the NTP. “I want us to do more piloting of novel technology,” he says.
The NTP was established in 1978 to improve the ability of the federal government to make public health decisions using the most up-to-date science. Under the umbrella of the US Department of Health and Human Services, the program coordinates toxicology information across multiple federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Related: Big data, big deadlines spur change in toxicity testing
Berridge is pushing the envelope at the NTP so that federal agencies get chemical hazard information that is relevant to humans faster. “We have to understand what technologies are out there, bring them in, test them, and help them to evolve to get to places where we need them to be,” Berridge tells C&EN.
One area that excites Berridge is in vitro systems that use human-derived stem cells to construct complex 3-D structures that mimic tissues and organs. Such tools are helping scientists better understand the mechanisms that underlie the toxicity of chemicals to humans, he says.
Berridge is also keeping a close eye on techniques to investigate genetic diversity in both animals and human cellular systems. The throughput of genome-sequencing technologies is increasing while the cost of the technologies is decreasing. “I think we will do more to understand genetic variability in populations” to learn more about genetic factors that play a role in susceptibility to certain chemical effects, Berridge says.We have the ability and the flexibility to pursue innovations like nobody else does.
Mathematical modeling techniques that predict how chemicals are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted are also improving, Berridge notes. These models help decrease some of the uncertainty involved in extrapolating exposures from laboratory animals to humans. ADVERTISEMENT SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“All of those tools are ultimately going to be part of how we approach creating or bringing more human precision or translation to the assessments that we do,” Berridge says.
To that end, the NTP is undergoing a strategic realignment to focus on areas where it has “the most opportunity for impact on public health,” Berridge notes. In the past, the NTP has focused on evaluating the health hazards of single chemicals or classes of chemicals. The program is now reversing that assessment process by starting with diseases of interest rather than chemical agents of interest.
“There is a lot of cardiovascular disease in the world,” Berridge says. “Should we be looking to understand what possibly is contributing to the incidence of cardiovascular disease?” That is a very different approach than looking at whether a particular agent causes cardiovascular disease or other hazard, he explains.
For now, the program has identified three so-called health-effects innovation areas—carcinogenicity, cardiovascular disease, and neurological and developmental toxicity. The goal is to fill in the gaps in current toxicological assessment capabilities in each of the three sectors.
For carcinogenicity, “you could argue we don’t have a gap,” Berridge says. “We do the 2-year rodent study all of the time.” NTP scientists are hoping to find alternative, preferably nonanimal, tests that have faster throughput for identifying chemicals that increase the risk of cancer. The NTP plans to investigate in vitro and in silico systems, as well as shorter-duration in vivo tests for carcinogenicity. “We need to reinvent how we do carcinogenicity assessments,” Berridge says. “It will be about building a strategy, not an individual assay, but actually a strategy.”
The gaps in the other two areas are larger. “We have a pretty well-defined paradigm in pharma for how you do cardiovascular assessments,” Berridge says. “Cardiovascular assessment is much less established in environmental toxicology.” Berridge studied cardiovascular, drug-induced safety challenges while working in the pharmaceutical industry. Before that, he studied cardiovascular pathology related to cardiovascular devices in humans at the Texas Heart Institute.
In the area of neurological and developmental toxicity, the NTP is exploring another tool sometimes used in the pharmaceutical industry: computer vision-aided assessments. The idea is to capture animal behavior around the clock, particularly during the night, when rodents are most active, by attaching cameras to the animals. The goal is to have software mine behavior information to “give us new insights into how behavior reflects health in those animals,” Berridge says.
Along the same lines, the NTP is looking into techniques that couple high-content imaging with in vitro systems that use human-derived cells. These technologies allow imaging of multiple structural components inside cells to illuminate changes in cell structure and function over time. “The proliferation of structural labels for cells and the ability of imaging systems to detect them are going to give us a lot more information about what is happening at the cell and tissue level,” Berridge says.
With these novel technologies, however, comes another challenge—an incredible amount of data “that the average human will not be able to wrap their head around,” Berridge notes. “We will need computational approaches to be able to handle the volume of data, integrate it, and extract meaningful information,” he says.
Sponsored Content Multi-omics in cancer research case studies
by Thermo Fisher Scientific .ntv-moap { background-color: #f1f1f1; display: table; overflow: hidden; position: relative; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { line-height: 0; width: 48%; } .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img { max-width: 100%; width: 100%; } .ntv-moap > div { display: table-cell; vertical-align: middle; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) { padding: 1rem 1.25rem; } .ntv-moap p.tag { background-color: #069; color: #fff; display: inline-block; font-family: "Scout Cond",HelveticaNeue-Light,"Helvetica Neue Light","Helvetica Neue",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 1.25rem; line-height: 24px; margin: 0; padding: 0 0.3125rem; text-transform: uppercase; word-spacing: 0.125rem; } .ntv-moap h3 { color: #425368; font-family: "Georgia","Farnham Display Black",serif; font-size: 1.4rem; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1; margin: 0.25rem 0 0.5rem; } .ntv-moap > div:nth-of-type(2) > p:last-of-type { font-size: 15px; line-height: 1; margin-bottom: 0; } .ntv-moap h3 a, .ntv-moap p a { color: inherit; text-decoration: none; } .ntv-moap h3 a:hover { color: #069; } .pull-left .ntv-moap { max-width: 300px; text-align: center; } .pull-left .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .pull-left .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .pull-left .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .pull-left .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } .article-sponsored-component.full-width { border-top: none; } @media screen and (max-width: 39.9375em) { .full-width .ntv-moap > div { display: block; } .full-width .ntv-moap p.tag { left: 50%; padding: 4px 10px 5px; position: absolute; top: 136px; transform: translate(-50%); } .full-width .ntv-moap h3 { margin-top: 0; } .full-width .ntv-moap .ntv-preview-img-wrapper { height: 169px; overflow: hidden; width: 100%; } }
Artificial intelligence and machine learning “will allow us to mine novel things from that data that we haven’t been able to in the past,” Berridge predicts. “That said, I think we are on the front end of that,” he notes, suggesting that such methods will play a much bigger role in toxicology in the years to come.
Beyond the three health-effects innovation areas, the NTP is facilitating collaboration to better understand diseases that have a relatively high incidence of early mortality. One of those diseases is chronic kidney disease of unknown origin (CKDu), which has hit agricultural workers particularly hard in areas with high heat and humidity in Central America, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
Related: Pharma partnership applies deep learning to very big data
People in less-developed parts of the world are dying from chronic kidney disease at young ages, Berridge says. These people do not have the normal risk factors for kidney disease, such as diabetes and high blood pressure, he adds. “Is this associated with pesticide use or some contamination by heavy metals in the water because of where these folks live?” The NTP has experience assessing the hazards of pesticides and heavy metals in animals. “We can go back and look at our animal studies and see if we see lesions that are consistent with what is being described in these workers,” Berridge suggests.
The NTP is in a unique position to coordinate partnerships to study diseases like CKDu, which may be on the rise because of increasing temperatures and humidity in some parts of the world. “There is some suspicion that the disease is also present in the US, but that has not been studied as well,” Berridge says. The NTP hopes to use its infrastructure to facilitate collaboration across the communities interested in CKDu, he says.
Related: Endocrine disruptor assays go fast track
Being a government entity, the NTP is also in a position to examine innovative technologies and build confidence in them, Berridge believes. “I am not driven by typical academic expectations for pursuing research dollars. I am not constrained by typical corporate profit motives,” he says. “We have the ability and the flexibility to pursue innovations like nobody else does.” Toxicology safety assessment has always been a very conservative science. In order to test chemicals differently, “somebody has to build confidence in that different way,” Berridge says. “I think that is the role for the NTP to play.”
https://cen.acs.org/people/profiles/US-National-Toxicology-Program-changes/97/i14
-
Contractor Pleads Guilty to Mishandling Asbestos in Alexandria Affordable Housing
Apr 5, 2019 | The Washington Post
By Rachel Weiner
Five years after residents in Alexandria’s largest affordable-housing complex were exposed to asbestos during renovations, the contractor hired to deal with the problem has pleaded guilty to violating the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Paul Potter, 76, acknowledged in Alexandria federal court that when performing asbestos removal at Old Town’s two Hunting Point towers in 2014 he did not hire accredited workers or have a trained supervisor on site.
Defense attorney Cary Greenberg said Potter believed he could remove asbestos-laden windows without actually disturbing the hazardous material.
“Mr. Potter’s intention was to remove the windows appropriately,” Greenberg said. “But ultimately he was unsuccessful and was not in compliance.”
Hunting Point’s 525 apartments were owned by the Virginia Department of Transportation until 2013, when the buildings were sold to a Chicago-based real estate developer called the Laramar Group. In 2011, a VDOT study found asbestos in some of the vinyl floor tiles and mastic, exterior door caulk, exterior window caulk, and interior and exterior window glaze. In early 2014, Laramar had begun renovating and hired Potter’s company, Chelsea Environmental, to remove the asbestos for $314,400.
Potter told his workers to remove the apartment buildings’ window frames intact so the asbestos would not break into smaller pieces and become airborne. But the scrapers they used on the window frames did disturb the caulk and glaze, and Potter acknowledged in court filings that he did not tell his workers to take any measures to keep asbestos from getting into the air.
Debris and dust fell into tenants’ apartments, according to prosecutors, and into outside common areas.
Tenants complained to the Environmental Protection Agency, and inspectors over several visits found asbestos debris and saw that workers were not following safety precautions, according to the filings. Work was halted in April 2014, three months after Potter’s team began.
Testing estimated that the concentration of asbestos in the debris would not cause “an immediate public health concern,” according to prosecutors, but they said it is “difficult to say there is no long term risk from exposure to low levels of asbestos that might remain in the building.”
The Laramar Group claimed in 2014 to have learned of the asbestos only when the EPA ordered Chelsea Environmental to stop work. But according to the court filings, the company had provided VDOT’s asbestos survey to Potter in 2013 and hired him specifically to deal with the problem.
Laramar, which did not return a request for comment, still owns the apartments. The complex is now called Bridgeyard Old Town.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/contractor-pleads-guilty-to-mishandling-asbestos-in-alexandria-affordable-housing/2019/04/04/b981fcec-5711-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?utm_term=.b199d01e3173
-
Michelle Pfeiffer Thinks You Should Know What's in Your Perfume
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg (In The Business Times)
Celebrities have used their firepower for many causes. Refugees. Vaccines. AIDS. But transparency in big perfume?
On April 8, Michelle Pfeiffer, known for roles in "Dangerous Liaisons" and "Batman Returns," announces a line of five fragrances under the label Henry Rose. Created in collaboration with 130-year old scent maker International Flavors and Fragrances, the company makes a bold claim: It is the first to disclose all its ingredients and attest to their safety.
"Fine fragrance is still the black box of transparency for ingredients," said the 60-year old actor, during an interview at New York's Public Hotel in March. The sleek bottles now before her, with names like "Torn" and "Last Light," are the result of a nine year effort that both she and outside industry experts say have wedged the box open.
"Fragrance formulations are like mom's special recipe," said Mintel analyst Sarah Jindal, speaking before Henry Rose's launch. "No one wants to tell anybody what their ingredients are."
Over the last two years, Unilever, Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson have begun disclosing fragrance ingredients in products like shampoo and cosmetics. But fragrance houses have remained mum, even as health advocates caution that some of their ingredients contribute to hormone disruption and cancer. Concerns about transparency aren't hurting growth. Euromonitor International projects global perfume's retail value will reach US$57 billion by 2022, up from US$52 billion today.SEE ALSO: Fragrance industry must adapt to come up smelling like roses
A 2018 report from Breast Cancer Prevention Partners listed big-name perfumes among those that contain chemicals with long-term problems. It says many synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system, harm the reproductive system, contribute to asthma, and can affect fetal development when pregnant women are exposed. Around 11 per cent of the US has also become "sensitised" or allergic to chemicals, causing things like contact dermatitis, according to its report."The fine brands continue to be major laggards when it comes to removing chemicals of concern like phthalates," said Mike Schade, a campaign director for Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, which presses retailers to disclose ingredients.
Frederic Pignault, a vice president of sales at IFF, said "there is no concern" about the safety of the fragrance ingredients it or other perfume houses use, but that IFF was excited to work with Pfeiffer to answer growing consumer interest in transparency.
"I went down the rabbit hole," Pfeiffer said, describing how in the mid-90s finding out both her father and best friend had cancer awakened her to environmental health risks. She became an avid label reader, but went fragrance-free—even turning down endorsement opportunities—when she couldn't find enough data on perfumes. And then, around nine years ago, missing perfume, she decided to make one she could prove was safe.
"The fine brands continue to be major laggards when it comes to removing chemicals of concern."
"It was a dead end," she said, recalling how one fragrance house said it could only be 75 per cent transparent. "What's that? It's like being 75 per cent organic." Another backed out after she'd already done a considerable amount of work, and thought she was close to a final product. She declined to name them, or say how much she spent on false starts.
When asked about perfume transparency, two major fragrance houses, Givaudan and Firmenich, referred inquiries to the International Fragrance Association and Personal Care Products Council. IFRA said it helps the industry to self-regulate by disclosing around 4,000 ingredients used and submitted anonymously by its members. PCPC, a trade council for personal care companies, said it's working on a plan that "responds to all stakeholders' interests around greater ingredient transparency."
Retailers and startups are stepping into the void left by the big manufacturers. Sephora's "clean" fragrance line offers formulas without certain infamous ingredients, like parabens, phthalates and formaldehyde. The startup brand Phlur says its scents are "crafted with clean ingredients that won't harm your skin or the planet," and another, Skylar, says its are "hypoallergenic, vegan and free from harsh chemicals."
Ms Jindal said such diverse and vague promises show the industry's challenge—no one has fully addressed all the fractured demands of health-conscious consumers. "Some want ‘organic,' or ‘vegan' or ‘plant-derived,'" she said. "It's hard to slap one label on it."
The breakthrough for Pfeiffer came approximately three years ago when she met Ken Cook, a co-founder of the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based nonprofit with a database that scores the toxicity of chemicals.
"My reaction was, that's impossible," Mr Cook said. But Pfeiffer's determination soon won him over. She took a seat on EWG's board, and soon Mr Cook was going with her to meetings at fragrance houses.
IFF was moving toward transparency when Pfeiffer approached them two years ago. The company had already started working with another nonprofit group, the Cradle to Cradle Product Institute, which has partnered with L'Oreal on personal-care items. It certifies sustainably-produced goods and eliminates plant-based allergens, two big hurdles for the fragrance industry. That led to new challenges—like finding a scent that Pfeiffer liked while using less than 1 per cent of the usually available ingredients. Pfeiffer was drawn to vetiver, with notes of lemon grass. It turned out that the Haitian farm that supplied it to IFF was harvesting the grass earlier than was desirable from a quality standpoint because it needed to make ends meet. Pfeiffer tackled the problem head-on, traveling to the farm herself.
"We put in wells so they had access to water, and gave them chickens and goats," she said. "We helped the community become sustainable."
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/life-culture/michelle-pfeiffer-thinks-you-should-know-whats-in-your-perfume
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Aims to Help Polluters by Cutting Air Quality Standards
Apr 8, 2019 | Salon
By Vanessa Nason
The Trump administration has found another way to undermine Environmental Protection Agency regulations and secure a win for Big Oil, according to environmental advocates.
The White House wants to dial back the standards for particulate matter (PM) — solid particles or liquid droplets in the air, which will be a financial boon for industries that benefit from weaker environmental regulations and, according to critics, would result in the death of even more people than those already at risk.
The air is dirty enough already. “Right now, in the US, under the current standards, there are 23 million Americans that live in areas that have air quality worse than the current standard,” Gretchen Goldman, the research director at the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told "WhoWhatWhy."
“There does seem to be evidence that there are health effects at levels below the current standard, so there’s a significant health impact on the American public.”
Long-term exposure to air pollution has been linked to premature death, according to a paper written by Goldman and data scientist Francesca Dominici. This link is consistent with what the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) — which advises the EPA, and is composed of PM and Ozone Review panels — has found in the past.00:0000:0000:00
The current CASAC panel, however, cannot even agree that long-term exposure to particulate matter causes premature death. This lack of agreement may reflect recent changes initiated by former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
On October 31, 2017, Pruitt announced new chairs for three advisory panels, including CASAC, and signed a directive banning scientists receiving EPA grants from sitting on advisory committees.
Republicans in Congress had long been trying to pass similar legislation co-sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith, R-TX., then-chair of the House Science Committee and noted climate change denier. The move has been harshly criticized by many in the scientific community.
Pruitt, Republicans, and industry-backed supporters like the American Chemistry Council, claim it will keep bias out of the EPA. But the change, critics say, tilts the advisory committees clearly in their favor by allowing scientists funded by oil, fossil fuel, and chemical companies to offer advice on regulating their industries. This is happening with CASAC.
Louis Anthony “Tony” Cox Jr., the current panel chairperson, is an expert in risk analysis and president of a private Denver consulting firm whose clients include those in the oil and chemical industries.
His new CASAC team is, according to Dr. H. Christopher Frey, former EPA CASAC chairman, inexperienced and insufficient.
“CASAC is not competent scientifically to advise the agency,” he said. “The group does not bring to the table the breadth, depth, and diversity of expertise that’s needed to propose extremely controversial, broad-ranging changes to the overall assessment.”
Notably, the current CASAC committee does not include any epidemiologists, whose studies have been key in determining the health effects caused by air pollutants.
“Every other review of every standard going back to late 1970s had a broader view of scientists than just the seven people who are allowed to be on this division,” said John Bachmann, former associate director for science/policy and new programs in the EPA Air Office
Goldman says what Cox is promoting is “manipulative causation.” While the past framework looked at studies across various fields to determine links between air pollutants and public health concerns, Goldman said, Cox will limit what studies can inform decision-making, only looking at studies that show reducing a particular pollutant will have a positive health effect.
This is inconsistent with how the scientific community determines cause-and-effect relationships.
“The proposals coming forward … are just not vetted in the scientific community,” Frey said. “They may have some merit here and there, but they’re being pushed in an application that’s completely out of context in ways that are inappropriate.”
There have been many changes to the air quality review, he said. “Everything has harmed the process, but collectively it has really gamed the whole system.”
Having those in industries that emit pollutants take part in these committees is an “inappropriate conflict of interest,” Frey said. “Regulated industries are certainly stakeholders in the review process.”
And they are not likely to acknowledge the very real health effects associated with such air pollutants.
Bachmann said a stricter analysis than the new framework Cox is promoting would “prevent thousands of premature deaths.”
https://www.salon.com/2019/04/08/trump-aims-to-help-polluters-by-cutting-air-quality-standards_partner/
-
Exxon Must Offer Shareholder Votes on Climate, Donations: SEC
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Kevin Crowley
Exxon Mobil Corp. must allow votes on shareholder proposals that would create a climate change committee at the oil company and force it to publish reports on political donations, U.S. regulators said.
Exxon applied to the Securities and Exchange Commission to omit both proposals but was rejected, according to letters dated April 2 and published on the SEC website April 4. In both instances, the SEC said Exxon does not already “substantially implement” the proposals.
It’s a reversal of fortune for the Irving, Texas-based supermajor. Earlier this week Exxon won approval from the SEC to omit an investor proposal that called for management to align the business with the Paris Agreement.
Exxon’s annual general meetings typically take place in Dallas at the end of May.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/exxon-must-offer-shareholder-votes-on-climate-donations-sec
-
Shell Breaks Mold with Deal Linking Gas Prices to Coal
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg (In E&E Energywire)
By Tsuyoshi Inajima, Stephen Stapczynski and Dan Murtaugh
Royal Dutch Shell PLC agreed to sell liquefied natural gas to a Japanese utility at prices that include a link to coal, the latest innovation in the booming LNG market where buyers are seeking to diversify risks.
In what Shell and its customer, Tokyo Gas Co., said Friday is the world's first such contract, the 10-year deal includes a pricing formula that is based on coal indexation. By diversifying its price exposure for LNG, which has historically been linked to oil, costs of the fuel will be stabilized, Toshio Kawamura, a general manager with Tokyo Gas, said in a briefing Friday.
This type of deal would allow a utility to align the pricing of its LNG with changes in the coal market, and therefore better compete in its own power market, said Christopher Goncalves, chair of the energy practice at Berkeley Research Group.
This is "a risk management strategy for somebody who is competing with coal-fired generation in the home market," Goncalves said. "That is attractive in places which have a lot of coal-fired generation, such as China, India and Japan."
Coal and natural gas face off as power generation fuel in several markets. In the U.S., cheap and abundant gas has decimated coal's share from more than 50% as recently as 2008 to less than 25% last year, according to the Energy Information Administration. In Europe, utilities must add the cost of carbon emissions, which weighs more on coal users because it emits nearly twice as much carbon dioxide.Pricing rivalry
The rivalry hasn't been as prevalent in Asia, where coal is typically the cheapest fossil fuel and most utilities in the region lack the ability to switch quickly to gas. Buyers like Japan, South Korea and China usually pay a premium for gas that is liquefied and shipped on ocean-going tankers. Spot LNG in early 2014 cost nearly $80 per barrel of oil equivalent more than coal, but has tumbled to a discount as wide as $12 last month, according to Bloomberg calculations.
The deal also highlights a growing diversity of pricing options in the LNG market as demand and spot trading boom. And it's Shell's second foray into unorthodox gas pricing this week. The company earlier announced a deal with NextDecade Corp. to buy U.S. LNG, which is usually linked to the American gas benchmark Henry Hub, on a Brent oil-linked basis.
Shell's Singapore general manager last week piqued interest in the possibilities of coal-linked contracts when he mentioned in a panel discussion that it had reached such a deal with a Japanese buyer, which he said helped the company decide to build a gas-fired plant, rather than coal.
While Tokyo Gas in January did abandon plans for a coal-fired station near Tokyo, Kawamura pushed back against the idea that the two were connected.
"This contract has nothing to do with us giving up a coal-fired power plant," he said. "We are still considering whether to use supplies from the Shell contract in our power business."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/08/stories/1060148469
-
Shell Hit With Climate Change Suit in Netherlands (1)
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Royal Dutch Shell PLC was hit with a climate suit filed in the Hague April 5 by Friends of the Earth Netherlands and several other environmental organizations.
The groups, which also include Greenpeace Netherlands and ActionAid, seek to compel the company to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent by 2030, compared to 2010 levels, and to zero out emissions altogether by 2050, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement.
The complaint alleges that Shell has long been aware of climate change and the company’s own role in causing it but continues to lobby against policy aimed at curbing the problem, and invests billions in further oil and gas extraction.
Shell’s principal place of business and management board are located in the Netherlands.
Cause of Action: Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code, foundations and associations with full legal capacity can bring legal action purporting the protection of social and collective interests of other persons.
Relief: Declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Response: Shell said it supports the Paris Agreement and the need to transition to a lower-carbon future. “We’re committed to playing our part, by addressing our own emissions and helping customers to reduce theirs,” the company said in a statement.
“We welcome constructive efforts to work together to find solutions to the challenge of climate change, but we do not believe the courtroom is the right venue to address the global climate challenge.”Attorneys: R.H.J. Cox LLM of Paulussen Advocaten N.V. represents the plaintiffs.
The case is Vereniging Milieudefensie v. Royal Dutch Shell, Rb. (Neth.), No. 90046903, 4/5/19.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/shell-hit-with-climate-change-suit-in-netherlands-1
-
Activist Group Withdraws Resolution Challenging Shell Climate Policy
Apr 8, 2019 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso
An activist group said it has withdrawn a shareholder resolution calling on Royal Dutch Shell to change its climate policy after the oil and gas company reached a broad agreement with investors on the issue.
The Anglo-Dutch energy company drew rare praise from investors and environmental activists in December when it set out plans to introduce industry-leading targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and link them to executive pay.
Nevertheless, Dutch activist group Follow This tabled several days later a resolution urging Shell to drastically reduce its spending on fossil fuel.
Shell's board opposed the resolution, which was to be voted on at the annual general meeting in The Hague in May.
ADVERTISEMENT
Following talks with six of the 10 largest Dutch investors including Aegon and NN Investment Partners, Follow This decided to withdraw the resolution after filing similar motions at the previous three Shell AGMs.
"We have therefore decided to give Shell time to bring that climate ambition into line with the Paris Climate Agreement," Follow This founder Mark van Baal said in a statement.
Follow This said Shell's ambition to halve overall emissions by 2050 needed to be "sharpened" in order to be aligned with the Paris Climate Agreement.
Follow This also targets Shell's rivals BP, Equinor Chevron with shareholder resolutions.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2019/04/07/business/07reuters-shell-climatechange-shareholders.html
-
Alaska Governor, Communities, Spar Over Petroleum Property Taxes
Apr 8, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jill Burke
Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy has triggered heavy community and industry concern with his plan to strip local municipalities of their power to tax oil and gas infrastructure.
The proposal (S.B. 57), introduced in February, would redirect some $440 million in revenue from local funds to state coffers. It’s part of a suite of budget initiatives that cut government spending, redirect revenue, and streamline industry relationships.
Communities in Prince William Sound to the Arctic Ocean say that it would take away money used on key services like public safety, and affected industries say they didn’t lobby for a change.
“It certainly took us by surprise. We did not ask for the bill,” Kara Moriarty, President and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association said April 2.
“We have always said that those communities that are closest and most impacted by development should receive their due course. They are the ones with the infrastructure in their backyard, so it didn’t seem unreasonable to us that they would get that portion of our property taxes,” Moriarty said.
The North Slope Borough, where much of the state’s oil first enters the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is among the growing voices—including mayors and city leaders in affected communities—expressing dismay.
“Taking away the taxing authority of local governments will only create other problems,” D.J. Fauske, Director of Government and External Affairs for the North Slope Borough, the largest county-level political subdivision in the United States, said April 4.
“Our tax revenue is used for a long list of services, from schools and hospitals, feeding the seniors and school kids, to public safety, subsistence and search and rescue. Our borough far exceeds every other local government in the scale and scope of these services, even bearing in mind the smaller population of the region,” Fauske said.
Moreover, Fauske said he doubted the revenue shift would help the state coffers. “The petroleum property taxes we collect are not the reason there is a deficit.”
North Slope Versus Industry?After the proposal was announced, Harry K. Brower Jr., mayor of the North Slope Borough, questioned if the governor was trying to “pit the Iñupiaq people of the Slope against industry”.
Dunleavy (R) has defended the measure, saying it benefits all Alaskans rather than select communities that collect the property taxes but are keeping them within their own jurisdictions. About $380 million in local oil and gas property taxes collected annually helps fund service’s for the North Slope Borough’s about 9,500 residents.
“This results in lower general fund revenues, from vital properties of statewide economic importance, to be appropriated to municipalities around the state and support of vital state programs,” Dunleavy said in his transmittal letteraccompanying S.B. 57.
“It’s very fair to have a discussion about what’s fair, equitable and reasonable,” Matt Shuckerow, the governor’s press secretary, told Bloomberg Tax.
With development in the state’s National Petroleum Reserve projected to contribute $400 million in revenue to the region by 2029, Shuckerow said the North Slope Borough could be bring in as much as $90,000 yearly per resident in oil-related revenue.
“That is a significant portion of income for a small region of the state, and I think having this conversation is important,” Shuckerow said.
Oil industry facilities are among the most valuable sites in their communities, with property tax revenue used for essential services like hospitals, schools, roads, firefighters and police.
Communities with oil and gas properties include Fairbanks North Star Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, City of Valdez, North Slope Borough, City of Cordova, and the city of Anchorage.
Filling Budget Gap“Senate Bill 57 is a very un-Alaska way to govern,” said Jeremy O’Neil, mayor of Valdez, a port city where oil is offloaded from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, loaded onto tankers, and sent to market. The measure would eliminate 90 percent of Valdez’s tax revenue and devastate its ability to provide essential municipal services, he and city council members have said.
“This is revenue our region has relied on for 40-plus years to dramatically improve our quality of life—it supports everything from public safety in our communities to even reliable power and heat. These are services, let’s not forget, that are not provided by the state,” O’Neil said during a Feb. 26 special city council meeting held to discuss opposition to the bill.
Repealing local taxing authority is part of a larger effort by Dunleavy to solve a $1.6 billion budget gap. Dunleavy has promised he won’t implement new taxes without a vote of the people, a policy stance his critics say has grave consequences.
“The state’s refusal to implement a broad-based tax has required it instead to look at where there is current taxability and to pre-empt local governments from collecting what is rightfully local. This approach is being taken on high value North Slope infrastructure, and also on high value fisheries taxes,” Nils Andreassen, executive director of the Alaska Municipal League, a non-profit member coalition of municipalities throughout the state, said March 29. “Local taxpayers—residents and businesses—will have to ask what or who is next.”
So far, Dunleavy’s plan hasn’t been scheduled for a committee hearing.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/alaska-governor-communities-spar-over-petroleum-property-taxes
-
NAS Backs Use Of Oil Dispersants But Seeks To Harmonize Test Methods
Apr 5, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Suzanne Yohannan
A National Academies of Sciences (NAS) panel is backing the use of chemical dispersants to address oil spills but is urging EPA and other agencies to harmonize their toxicity testing methods and take other steps to address them, advice that could help environmentalists who are pledging to sue to force the agency to update its rules on dispersants.
NAS' Committee on the Evaluation of the Use of Chemical Dispersants in Oil Spill Response April 5 released a report, “The Use of Dispersants in Marine Oil Spill Response,” that calls the chemicals -- which break down and disperse spilled oil -- a “useful tool” in responding to oil spills, but says studies have been unclear on the toxicity of oil spills treated with dispersants.
As a result, the committee recommends that EPA and other sponsors require researchers to use standardized toxicity testing protocols to determine the toxicity of oil and dispersants.
The panel also recommends better data collection, with improved protocols for gathering injury and illness reporting for worker health and safety prior to the next major oil spill. It also calls for more field experiments.
And the panel calls for agencies to expand a tool used to compare environmental benefits and drawbacks from various spill response actions to also now include the health of responders, community health and socio-economic impacts posed by various response options.
Dispersants are chemical and biological agents applied to mitigate oil spills, but environmentalists have long cited fears over the environmental and human health hazards of dispersants and campaigned for EPA to strengthen its spill response requirements.
But their extensive use during the Deepwater Horizon spill prompted concerns from environmentalists. At the urging of environmental groups in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill, the Obama EPA in 2015 proposed revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan to address dispersants. The proposed rule would have strengthened requirements related to the use of chemical and biological agents, including dispersants, in oil spills, added new product toxicity and efficacy test methods and criteria for listing dispersants on a schedule of acceptable spill mitigating substances, and required manufacturers to provide more detailed product application information and human health and safety data, among other measures.
But, in 2016, the agency decided to delay its schedule for finalizing the revisions by two years, saying it would issue a final rule in 2018. The Trump administration then further suspended any action.
Last month, they threatened to sue EPA for stalling its updated rule to address dispersants, with the groups arguing in a March 22 notice of intent to sue that an update is needed as no revisions have occurred in the last 25 years.
They also said the update is needed because the Trump administration is preparing to open up vast coastal areas for oil and gas drilling, increasing spill risks.
Toxicity Threshold
The NAS panel's report builds on two previous reports, incorporating additional research in the wake of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, the report says.
The report's sponsors were EPA, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, National Academies' Gulf Research Program, American Petroleum Institute, Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative, and Clean Caribbean and Americas.
“Field and modeling studies show that dispersants can be a useful tool for oil spill response,” lowering the amount of surface oil and therefore response personnel's possible exposure to hazardous substances in oil and reducing the extent marine species encounter surface oil, the NAS panel says in an April 5 press release. Dispersants can also lower the amount of surface oil that washed up on shore, it says.
But the panel, in considering data from recent toxicity tests, found that dispersants' effects on oil toxicity depend on the amount of oil in the water. Where concentrations of oil were below approximately 100 milligrams oil/Liter (mg oil/L), “the toxicity of chemically dispersed oil is comparable to that of untreated oil.” However, at concentrations above that level, dispersants appear to boost toxicity, it says. It notes that oil spills typically have levels below 100 mg oil/L.
The panel says a key issue is determining whether dispersed oil has greater toxicity to marine species than oil alone. But the panel does not seem to have been able to answer that, due to a lack of uniformity on toxicity testing protocols.
“The results of laboratory studies that have looked at the toxicity of oil and oil treated with dispersants have been unclear at least in part due to a lack of consistency in methodologies, despite recommendations by a previous National Academies report to employ standardized toxicity testing protocols,” the release says.
The lack of consistency has made it more difficult to compare results among studies and create a comprehensive view of the toxicity of oil and dispersants, it says.
“Funding agencies, research consortia, and other sponsoring groups should require that research teams use standardized toxicity testing methods, such as those developed by the Chemical Response to Oil Spills Ecological Effects Research Forum program (CROSERF), and analytical chemistry protocols to fully characterize hydrocarbon composition and concentrations in the exposure media,” the report says.
The NAS report also cites data collection issues as a problem. The release notes that while two studies looked at the health impacts of dispersants on responders in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon spill, reporting respiratory and skin irritation, “drawing conclusive results from those studies is hindered by delays in collecting health information combined with a reliance on self-reporting.
“These limitations make it difficult to accurately estimate workers' exposure to dispersants and therefore to untangle the effects of dispersants from the effects of oil and of dispersed oil,” the release says.
The panel recommends that in advance of a future oil spill, “the requirements for details gathered during injury and illness reporting for worker health and safety should be improved, with a clear focus on whether workers were exposed to dispersant,” it says.
The committee also advises that the Net Environmental Benefit Analysis, a tool used to compare environmental benefits and drawbacks of various oil response actions, be expanded to address both response personnel and community health, and the socio-economic effects stemming from various response actions.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/nas-backs-use-oil-dispersants-seeks-harmonize-test-methods
-
Blamed for Climate Change, Oil Companies Invest in Carbon Removal
Apr 5, 2019 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
Everyone knows an electric fan can make people feel cooler on a steamy day. But could fans moderate the planet’s rising temperatures?
Some of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies would like to find out.
Chevron, Occidental Petroleum and the Australian mining giant BHP this year have invested in Carbon Engineering, a small Canadian company that claims to be on the verge of a breakthrough in solving a critical climate change puzzle: removing carbon already in the atmosphere.
At its pilot project in Squamish, an old lumber town about 30 miles north of Vancouver, the company is using an enormous fan to suck large amounts of air into a scrubbing vessel designed to extract carbon dioxide. The gas can then be buried or converted into a clean-burning — though expensive — synthetic fuel.
Investing in Carbon Engineering and other carbon-reduction initiatives is part of an emerging effort by fossil-fuel industries to remain relevant and profitable in a warming world. With electric cars and solar and wind power becoming increasingly affordable, executives acknowledge that business as usual could put their companies at risk.
ADVERTISEMENT
Already, fossil-fuel companies face a barrage of lawsuits, investor resolutions and regulations prompting them to invest more in clean energy. Advocacy groups are also pressing companies and lawmakers to keep oil and natural gas in the ground by challenging hydraulic fracturing, especially in Europe, and fighting pipelines meant to transport production from Canada’s oil sands.
“This is about recognizing that climate change poses significant risks to all economic sectors,” Fiona Wild, BHP’s vice president for sustainability and climate change, said about the company’s $6 million investment in Carbon Engineering. “Climate change is no longer seen as a fringe issue. It’s a business risk that requires a business response.”
Of course, big energy companies continue to drill for oil and gas and are pushing the Trump administration and other governments to open more territory to exploration.
But some businesses have signaled that they are changing. A few companies, including Royal Dutch Shell and BP, are linking compensation to emissions reductions. Equinor, the Norwegian oil company, plans to increase spending on clean energy to 15 to 20 percent of its capital investment by 2030, up from 5 percent now.
ADVERTISEMENT
Carbon Engineering’s pilot on the rocky shores of Howe Sound is one of several carbon “direct-air-capture” ventures being attempted around the world. It is still a small effort, but its backers say it could play an important role in arresting climate change.
Much of the work is done in an old industrial warehouse of corrugated metal adorned with faded graffiti, a structure once used by a company that made chemicals for the pulp industry. The temporary offices are decidedly makeshift, with the bathrooms entered from outside. No carbon is actually being pulled out of the atmosphere permanently because the company is still in testing mode.
Chevron and Occidental, which have each taken seats on Carbon Engineering’s board, refused to disclose their investments. The company says it raised a total of $68 million in its most recent funding round to expand the pilot and develop its first commercial plant.
Critics of fossil-fuel companies say such investments are so modest as to amount to little more than a public-relations stunt.
“That’s chump change for these guys,” said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign, an environmental organization in Washington. “I don’t see any epiphanies.”
But other experts disagree. “It could be greenwashing, but so what?” said Dieter Helm, a professor of energy policy at Oxford and the author of “Burn Out: The Endgame for Fossil Fuels.” “If money is being spent on research and development to develop ways to sequester carbon, that is a good thing.”
Executives at Carbon Engineering said they welcomed investments by fossil-fuel companies not only for the money but also for their engineering and lobbying skills.Editors’ PicksIt’s Possible Leggings Are the Future. Deal With It.No, Your Instagram ‘Influence’ Is Not as Good as Cash, Club Owner SaysThe Cracking of a Cold, Cold Case
ADVERTISEMENT
“I have great big brothers now who are looking after me,” said Steve Oldham, Carbon Engineering’s chief executive. “Initially companies wanted to show that they were thinking of being green. Now you are seeing action.”
The company said its commercial plants would have banks of large fans, 33 feet in diameter, to collect air and run it through a complex chemical process.Removing Carbon Dioxide From the Air
Carbon Engineering, a small Canadian company, has developed methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using “direct-air-capture” technology. It is one of several companies around the world working on the technique. The carbon dioxide may be reprocessed into fuel, or buried for disposal.
Direct-air-capture technology
PURE CO2 GAS
TYPICAL
ATMOSPHERIC
AIR
May be injected into the earth for disposal, or made into fuel.
HYDROXIDE
SOLUTION
1
2
3
4
WATER
CO2-RICH
CARBONATE
SOLUTION
CALCIUM
CARBONATE
PELLETS
CALCIUM
OXIDE
CALCIUM
OXIDE SLURRY
AIR WITH MOST OF
THE CO2 REMOVED
1. Air intake
2. Pellet reactor
3. Calciner
4. Slaker
The carbonate solution is converted into small, dry pellets of calcium carbonate.
The calcium carbonate pellets are heated until they break into their component parts — pure carbon dioxide gas and solid lime, or calcium oxide.
Water is added to the calcium oxide, and the resulting slurry is returned to the pellet reactor, to regenerate the hydroxide solution used in the process.
Large fans draw in air, which is run through a mesh coated with a hydroxide solution. The hydroxide binds with the carbon dioxide to convert it into a carbonate solution.
By The New York Times | Source: Carbon Engineering
The air will be pushed through honeycombed plastic channels coated with potassium hydroxide that attaches itself to carbon dioxide. More chemicals will be added to produce tiny white pellets containing carbon. The pellets will then be heated to more than 1,600 degrees to form carbon dioxide gas.
In one kind of plant the company hopes to build, the captured carbon dioxide could be injected underground, where it would be harmless unless some of it leaked back into the atmosphere. Mr. Oldham asserts that each such installation could eventually take as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually as 40 million trees.
In another kind of facility, captured carbon dioxide would be combined with hydrogen extracted from water to make synthetic fuel that can be processed into gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. The energy needed to produce hydrogen would come from wind turbines and solar panels to limit emissions.
The company’s synthetic fuel would be more expensive than conventional gasoline. Production costs could be about $4 a gallon, according to Carbon Engineering, compared with more than $2.70-a-gallon average retail price in the United States. But it could still be attractive to countries that spend tens of billions of dollars on crude imports, like India and Japan. Regulations taxing carbon could also make the fuel more attractive.Subscribe to With Interest
Catch up and prep for the week ahead with this newsletter of the most important business insights, delivered Sundays.SIGN UP
ADVERTISEMENT
The company says its synthetic fuels could be used in standard car, truck and plane engines, and would cause less air pollution than traditional fuels.
Burning Carbon Engineering’s fuel would release carbon dioxide, but it would not increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by much or at all because the process would be recycling carbon that was already in the air, executives said.
Early investors in Carbon Engineering include the Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and N. Murray Edwards, executive chairman of Canadian Natural Resources, a big producer of oil sands, a heavy oil that has a large carbon footprint.
“Oil and gas companies have to wonder about their future,” said Michael Webber, an energy professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “They know that someday the energy mix will be different. So there are a lot of motivations for this investment.”
Occidental wants to use the technology to find a sustainable supply of carbon dioxide that it can use to inject in its oil fields to increase pressure and extract more oil while also sequestering the carbon. The company is already the largest injector in the industry, but it now re-injects carbon that was found in natural underground deposits — providing little or no environmental benefit. By recycling carbon taken from the air, it hopes to bury as much carbon as its fuels emit, or even more. As an added benefit, there is a federal tax credit for sequestering carbon.
“Every oil company should be striving to become carbon neutral,” said Vicki Hollub, Occidental’s chief executive. “Ultimately, we think we can be carbon negative. Addressing climate change is a turning point for the industry.”
Chevron is seeking to meet a different immediate need. California requires refiners and other distributors to meet progressively declining targets of carbon in their fuels through 2030. Chevron, which is based in San Ramon, Calif., has two big refineries in the state that could use the synthetic fuel.
ADVERTISEMENT
“We have a need for low-carbon fuels,” said Barbara Burger, president of Chevron Technology Ventures. “The world needs transportation fuels and the public desires them, but they have an expectation that we lower the carbon content. And this is one of the options to do that.”
But ramping up the ambitious ideas put forward by Carbon Engineering and other companies into projects large enough to have an important environmental impact will take considerable investment.
Mr. Oldham said one of his carbon capture and sequestration plants would remove one million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, a small fraction of the more than 33 billion tons humanity emits in a year. The sequestration process would cost roughly $100 per ton, which in Occidental’s model could be offset in part by the increased oil production it would enable. The carbon could also be used to make cement and other building materials.
But in case of an acute global climate emergency, governments would probably have to step in to hasten removal of carbon from the atmosphere. Mr. Oldham said the cost of capturing and sequestering all the carbon needed to stop climate change would require trillions of dollars.
The company’s synthetic fuel could also struggle to find markets because of its cost.
David Keith, an applied physicist at Harvard who founded Carbon Engineering and sits on its board, said the synthetic fuel would be most useful for trucks, ships and planes, while cars and other smaller vehicles would more likely be powered by batteries in the future.
“There is no way we are beating oil from the ground in a head-to-head competition without regulation,” Mr. Keith said, referring to carbon taxes and other environmental policies. If there is sufficient political will to deeply cut emissions, he added, “I think you will see a large amount of this technology in the next decade or two.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/07/business/energy-environment/climate-change-carbon-engineering.html
-
Lawsuit Over Trump Permit Joins Legal Morass
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
Critics of President Trump's order approving the Keystone XL pipeline will soon have their day in court.
Plaintiffs in existing litigation over the State Department's approval of the embattled crude oil project on Friday sued to stop Trump from attempting to circumvent agency authority under a fresh executive order.
Their challenge comes as the president is preparing to release a broader order to streamline pipeline permitting (Greenwire, March 29).
"That makes this even more messy," said University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias.
The legality of Trump's Keystone XL order — which replaces the State Department's 2017 approval with a presidential permit — is an open question (Energywire, April 2).
The Indigenous Environmental Network and North Coast Rivers Alliance contend that Trump's Keystone XL permit is an effort to dodge judicial roadblocks.
"After losing on the merits in this Court, and failing to secure a stay of this Court's injunction in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, President Trump chose to evade the effect of those court orders," the groups argued in their complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana.
"Rather than comply with applicable federal environmental laws as directed by these courts ... President Trump attempted to sidestep those rulings by issuing, through his Office of the Press Secretary, a new 'Presidential Permit' purportedly 'grant[ing] permission' for TransCanada 'to construct, connect, operate and maintain' its proposed Project without compliance with the laws of the United States."
Trump lacks the authority to permit a 1.2-mile section of the pipeline across the U.S.-Canada border because those lands are controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the groups argued.
The president's attempt to authorize the remainder of the Keystone XL line oversteps powers held by BLM, Congress and the State Department, according to the complaint.
Judge Brian Morris, an Obama appointee to the Montana district court, last year ordered the agency to supplement its environmental review and froze construction on the project.
Pipeline developer TransCanada Corp. and the Trump administration brought the case to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. So far, the appellate court has declined to lift the lower bench's construction freeze.
TransCanada and the federal government could argue the litigation — and Morris' injunction — should be dropped as a result of Trump's order.
The appellate court may not be receptive to those arguments, Tobias said.
"Morris is careful, and he's fair," the law professor said. "I don't think he's anti-Trump. I think he'll get it right, and I think he's well-regarded at the 9th Circuit."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2019/04/08/stories/1060148485
-
Houston Ship Channel Shut as Storm Hits Chemical Disaster Site
Apr 8, 2019 | Bloomberg
By Joe Carroll
The Houston Ship Channel was shut on Sunday as violent storms wracked the site of one of the worst Gulf Coast industrial disasters in 14 years.
All outbound vessels emerging from the northwest end of the waterway were halted and inbound traffic was limited to ships and barges already en route to final destinations, Intercontinental Terminals Co LLC said in a statement.
Decontamination stations used by the U.S. Coast Guard to make sure ships don’t drag any toxic residue into Galveston Bay or the Gulf of Mexico also were closed, according to the statement.
The channel, Houston’s lifeline to the Gulf and to foreign markets, has been shut or under strict limitations since ITC’s complex erupted into flames three weeks ago and spewed dangerous oil byproducts into the air and water.
ITC crews were in the process of draining tanks holding xylene and naphtha -- highly volatile gasoline ingredients -- when severe thunderstorms rolled through Houston’s eastern suburbs on Sunday, spawning a tornado warning. A company spokesman said he didn’t know if the layers of foam used to secure the chemicals in damaged tanks had been disrupted.
The disaster site will be inspected on Monday, according to the statement. As of early April 6 there had been 39 cases of wildlife deaths attributed to the incident, including red-eared slider turtles, opossums and various types of birds and fish, ITC said.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-07/houston-ship-channel-shut-as-storm-hits-chemical-disaster-site
-
Houston Fires Renew Safety Debate in Oil-Friendly Texas
Apr 5, 2019 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Paul J. Weber
Two major chemical plant fires near Houston just 17 days apart closed schools, leaked toxic chemicals into coastal waters and killed a worker, but there’s a good chance they won’t lead to big industry crackdowns in oil-friendly Texas.
Just days after the first blaze broke out last month, Republican lawmakers suggested siphoning off money from clean-air programs during budget discussions. And bills that environmental groups say would weaken enforcement ease the permitting process continue to move through the Legislature.
Local officials are calling on the state to beef up safeguards, saying the current ones are insufficient.
Federal investigators have yet to announce what caused either accident.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/houston-fires-renew-safety-debate-in-oil-friendly-texas/2019/04/05/d2807cfe-57da-11e9-aa83-504f086bf5d6_story.html?utm_term=.d8422b2833d5
-
Lawmakers Target Lapses in Deer Park Fire Response, Lax Regulations
Apr 8, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Taylor Goldenstein
Lawmakers on Friday grilled the director of the state’s top environmental agency and local government officials on whether Texas laws are doing enough to protect the public from incidents like the Deer Park chemical fire.
Over about three hours, members of two legislative committees in the Texas House pressed for more information on failures exposed by the March 17 fire. Those included a lack of critical information for the public in a timely manner and what some described as lax regulations that allow polluters to keep a clean record.Recommended Video
00:2701:32
Rep. Mary Ann Perez, D-Houston, read transcripts of 911 calls and news reports from within the first hour of the fire in which local officials did not know what chemicals were burning at the tank farm owned by the Intercontinental Terminals Co., or what effect they were having on the air quality.
That information should have been released by ITC minutes after the fire started, she said, but instead the public and emergency responders waited nearly an hour for details, as residents were ordered to remain indoors.
FOR SUBSCRIBERS: Deer Park plant on fire at Intercontinental Terminals Co has history of environmental violations
“That was very disturbing to me because I would imagine you would need information timely enough to know, No. 1, what was burning in order for you to call a shelter-in-place?” Perez said. “In a best case scenario, how soon would you like to know what’s burning?”
Perez and other lawmakers suggested companies should be required to report basic information about chemical fires almost immediately.
But while some pushed for such change, Deer Park Mayor Jerry Mouton said he was proud of the overall response and doubted anything could have been improved. Mouton blamed residents for spreading misinformation on social media.
“I don’t think legislation’s going to solve this,” Mouton said about the response time, adding later, “whether it be here on the state level or Washington.”
Mouton said legislative changes dictating response protocol could be an overreach by the state government into local matters.
“I respectfully disagree,” said Rep. Tony Tinderholt, R-Arlington. “I think local control is really important, but when it comes to the safety and security of the human beings, the people of Texas, I think potentially we may need to do some sort of legislation to set certain standards for those emergency operations and decision points.”
ON HOUSTONCHRONICLE: Deer Park plant fire: What you need to know about benzene
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Director Toby Baker was more open to the idea as Rep. Ed Thompson, R-Houston, pressed him on whether regulatory laws are effectively holding companies accountable. The cause of the fire has not been determined; investigating agencies include the Harris County fire marshal’s office and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
“When the cause of the fire is ultimately identified, I commit that we’re going to look at what overlays with our permitting and enforcement process,” Baker said. “If there's something administratively or statutorily that needs to be changed, we will be looking at those options.”
Baker said in the short term, the agency has asked for funding for handheld air monitors and mobile monitoring units as well as iPads and software that would allow TCEQ to upload air quality data in real-time. The agency currently writes measurements down on paper and transcribes them to computers with a delay of up to two hours.
During a similar hearing Thursday, state Sen. Carol Alvarado, D-Houston, told Harris County officials that they, too, should request state funding for monitoring equipment before the end of the legislative session.
ON HOUSTONCHRONICLE: In wake of Deer Park fire, Harris County officials lament lack of air monitors
Another tense moment arose Friday when Rep. César J. Blanco, D-El Paso, questioned Baker about how ITC could retain a satisfactory rating from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency despite repeated violations. ITC has been cited for violations of the federal Clean Water Act in 9 of the past 12 quarters.
A bill Blanco filed, House Bill 4087, would eliminate the state’s so-called “affirmative defense” program, which exempts polluters from some financial penalties if the impact is not considered excessive.
“My point is Texas really talks tough about going after polluters, but the reality is we have a mechanism — do you not agree? — that is currently in our books that allows polluters to escape liability,” Blanco said.
Baker said he thinks the program works and that “outside of what I would call the bad actors, companies work hard to try not to pollute.”
Erin Zweiner, D-Driftwood, referenced a September 2017 order from TCEQ that found that ITC failed to prevent an unauthorized emission of over 1,509 pounds of benzene, a carcinogen. Zweiner said the agency determined that the company reaped an economic benefit of about $6,900 over the period of the leak but levied a fine of just under $4,000.
A bill Zweiner authored, House Bill 3035, would ensure pollution penalties are at least equal to the economic benefit of noncompliance.
“My question to you is what is the incentive for companies like this to stay in compliance if it’s more cost-effective for them to not be in compliance and if TCEQ takes 19 months to follow up on the violation of the penalty?” Zweiner said.
Baker agreed that 19 months is long but said investigations are time-intensive. He said the agency receives many complaints and must look into each one.
As investigations into the Deer Park fire unfolds, Baker said he would be interested to know what action ITC took immediately after the fire and if there was there more they could have done.
“I think a lot of us know there was more they could do,” said Rep. Briscoe Cain, R-Deer Park.
https://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Lawmakers-target-lapses-in-Deer-Park-fire-13746005.php
-
Senators Take Their Chance Grilling Safety Officials
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Courtney Columbus
A Senate panel is set to question administration officials and industry representatives about long-stalled pipeline safety rules this week.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Transportation and Safety hearing is titled "Pipeline Safety: Federal Oversight and Stakeholder Perspectives."
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing last week that also focused on the issue, particularly regulations pending at the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
Members of the panel seemed frustrated by PHMSA's pace in completing rules required under two previous reauthorizations (E&E Daily, April 3).
Schedule: The hearing is Wednesday, April 10, at 2:30 p.m. in 562 Dirksen.
Witnesses:Howard Elliott, administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.Robert Sumwalt, chairman, National Transportation Safety Board.Paul Amato, vice president of engineering, operations, environmental, health and safety, Iroquois Pipeline Operating Co., representing the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.Robin Rorick, vice president, midstream and industry operations, American Petroleum Institute.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/08/stories/1060145247
-
Bipartisan Senate Group Wants More Carbon Capture Research Money
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Abby Smith
A dozen senators from both parties want Congress to set an aggressive timeline in spending legislation for the Energy Department to develop new and improved carbon capture technologies.
The senators are urging their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to fund Energy Department programs for carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies at the “highest possible levels” in fiscal year 2020.
The Trump White House, in its fiscal year 2020 budget request, proposes a nearly $200 million cut to the Energy Department’s Office of Fossil Energy Research and Development.
Those cuts would include zeroing out the office’s CCS and Power Systems program, which conducts research on capture and storage technologies, and sharply reducing by nearly $130 million the office’s carbon capture, utilization, and storage program under the office’s Advanced Coal Energy Systems research, according to the Energy Department’s budget justification.
Carbon capture is “a critical component of the portfolio of energy technologies needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide,” the senators, led by Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), wrote in a letter to Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.). Alexander and Feinstein sit atop the Senate Appropriations committee panel that oversees the Energy Department budget.
Carbon capture separates the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from emissions of power plants and other facilities so it can be permanently stored or used, rather than released into the atmosphere, where it accumulates and drives global warming.
First Letter from GroupThe April 5 letter, obtained by Bloomberg Environment, is the first from this bipartisan group of senators, which includes longtime carbon capture advocates Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chair of the Senate environment committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
The senators are urging the inclusion of language alongside any spending bill to direct the Energy Department to set up a comprehensive research and development effort to “solve the carbon sequestration and utilization challenge within ten years.”
The group of senators request “robust funding” for Energy Department programs to develop carbon capture technologies to address emissions from coal, natural gas, and industrial facilities.
Congress passed bipartisan tax credits in February 2018 to boost carbon capture deployment. But the dozen senators say greater research and development to improve the technology and bring down costs in areas like the power sector.
“Like the wind and solar industries, a combination of federal incentives such as tax credits and federal funding for research, development, and demonstration, will be needed to improve the technology so that it can be cost-competitive with other forms” of low carbon-emitting technologies, they wrote.
Others signing the letter were Michael Bennet (D-Colo.); Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.); Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.); Angus King (I-Maine); Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.); Christopher Coons (D-Del.); Cory Gardner (R-Colo.); and Steve Daines (R-Mont.).
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/bipartisan-senate-group-wants-more-carbon-capture-research-money
-
States, Environmentalists Back ‘Alternative Compliance’ In Methane Rules
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
By Lee Logan
State environmental commissioners are joining environmentalists to urge EPA and state governments to bolster the use of “alternative compliance” provisions in their rules limiting methane releases from oil and gas operations, a step they argue could ease industry costs while still delivering equivalent emissions cuts.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) issued a joint April 4 report that calls for novel compliance flexibilities that go beyond the traditional leak detection and repair (LDAR) programs in current rules -- underscoring the pressure EPA faces to retain oil and gas methane standards, including an emerging split on the subject within the sector.
Even though small operators have backed the White House’s expected move to scrap Obama-era limits, larger firms are increasingly calling for it to retain some type of regulation on new sources and eventually regulate existing sources. This has spurred a new call from a former top Obama EPA air official for them to take more concrete action by joining ongoing litigation that claims EPA has a mandatory Clean Air Act duty to craft those rules.
Amid the jockeying over EPA's rules, EDF and ECOS say in their new report that federal and state regulators should develop bolstered requirements in their oil and gas methane rules allowing for “alternative compliance” using new LDAR methods, which could include continuous monitoring or emerging technologies like laser-based emissions detection.
“There is uncommonly strong agreement among environmentalists, regulators, innovators, and operators that alternative compliance pathways are needed,” the April 4 report argues, noting the potential for improved technology that can achieve regulatory goals quicker and at lower cost.
The report comes as ECOS is preparing for its spring conference April 8-10 in Arlington, VA, with an agenda that features agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler as a keynote speaker as well as a meeting of the group’s Shale Gas Caucus that worked with EDF on the new recommendations.
EDF and ECOS note that EPA's current new source performance standards (NSPS) rule has an alternative compliance provision, as do similar rules developed by Colorado. However, programs in states such as Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Ohio and California do not have an “express” pathway for allowing alternatives, even though some of the states are open to the concept.
Trump officials are advancing a proposal that would weaken the nationwide NSPS that EPA issued in 2016, and the agency has been expected to issue a follow-on proposal that would float dropping direct methane requirements altogether in favor of an approach that regulates only smog-forming pollutants and achieves methane cuts indirectly.
However, environmentalists and Democratic-led states are claiming in court that EPA has no choice but to regulate methane emissions from existing sources, and the EDF-ECOS report represents a new effort to detail what the end result of a decision in their favor might look like.
Emerging Technologies
The current standards are based on semi-annual inspections using either an optical gas imaging camera or so-called Method 21 device -- though the Trump proposal would require less frequent inspections, among other provisions.
By contrast, EDF and ECOS cite emerging technologies such as lasers or mobile equipment, which could be deployed continuously at one location or frequently across a broad area. However, the report adds, it is difficult to compare the expected methane cuts “from very different types of technologies and leak detection methods.”
The groups add that some consider EPA and Colorado's pathway for approving alternative compliance to be “too uncertain and slow.”
As such, they are urging the agencies to adopt the same model that industry can use to justify an alternative compliance option, while also ensuring a “transparent and rapid” approval process. They also urge states and EPA to work together in order to limit the work that an operator must do to use an alternative technology in multiple jurisdictions.
EDF and ECOS note that the effort could benefit regulators as well because they could “take advantage” of new technologies such as continuous monitoring to receive much more data and improve their rules.
Meanwhile, former Obama EPA air attorney Joseph Goffman, now director of Harvard University's environmental law program, wrote an April 4 op-ed in the Houston Chronicle, where he seizes on major oil and gas companies’ public support for direct methane limits in the sector and urges them to join a lawsuit brought by states and environmentalists seeking to compel Trump officials to regulate existing drilling equipment.
Goffman argues that BP America and firms that have backed methane rules verbally “can do something far more consequential than issuing statements and taking voluntary actions,” namely adding themselves as plaintiffs or amici in the state and environmentalist lawsuit seeking Clean Air Act methane standards for existing sources.
“Engaging in this lawsuit as a party is the single most effective action BP can take to achieve regulation of methane emissions from existing oil and gas operations,” he writes, along with co-author Hana Veselka Vizcarra, an attorney with Harvard's environmental law program.
In addition to BP, the world's two largest oil and gas companies -- ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell -- in recent weeks have come out in support of EPA regulating methane from both new and existing sources in the sector. Shell, for instance, recently said that it and the oil sector's main trade group, the American Petroleum Institute, “both support reforming, not repealing,” the agency's methane rules.
A key implication of dropping direct methane standards in the NSPS is that it would remove a legal requirement for EPA to eventually craft methane rules for existing oil and gas equipment.
Despite this requirement, EPA officials early in the Trump administration scrapped an Obama-era request for industry data that was intended to inform existing source rules. That spurred a New York-led coalition of states and environmental groups to file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to force such rules. The court has scheduled an April 12 status conference in that case.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/states-environmentalists-back-%E2%80%98alternative-compliance%E2%80%99-methane-rules
-
States Sue Trump To Block ‘2-for-1’ Deregulatory Order
Apr 8, 2019 | Inside EPA
The attorneys general (AG) of California, Oregon and Minnesota are suing the Trump administration to block the president’s 2017 “2-for-1” executive order (EO) requiring EPA and other agencies to identify two existing rules for repeal before issuing a new rule, echoing a similar suit that environmentalists and others have been struggling to advance.
The litigation charges inpart that President Donald Trump’s EO 13771 is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it preempts statutory mandates.
“In the first two years of his term, President Trump has demonstrated an utter contempt for congressional authority and the role that federal agencies play in protecting Americans,” said California AG Xavier Becerra (D) in an April 4 press release announcing the lawsuit, which was filed the same day in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
The states’ suit comes as a similar challenge in the same court by environmentalists -- Public Citizen, et al., v. Trump, et al. -- appears to be faltering. The judge in that case recently ruled that the environmentalists have not shown concrete proof that the order has caused the delay of certain rules, which would be necessary to decisively resolve the question of whether they have been harmed by the executive order and thus have standing to sue. The judge rejected their motion for summary judgment that would strike down Trump's order.
The judge also rejected California and Oregon’s bid to intervene on the environmentalists’ behalf, leading them to file the instant litigation to challenge EO 13771.
The state AGs allege that Trump’s directives to agencies “exceed the President’s constitutional authority, violate the separation of powers doctrine and the President’s duty under the ‘Take Care’ clause, and are generally ultra vires.”
Further, in issuing guidance to implement the order, the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) “acted in excess of statutory jurisdiction, among other things, in violation of the [APA],” the states claim.
In addition to the president, the challenge names multiple federal agencies as defendants, including OMB, EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation and Department of the Interior.
“Regulations should be evaluated one at a time and enacted or repealed based on the merit or lack of merit of each one individually: that's how we should expect government to operate,” said Minnesota AG Keith Ellison (D) in the release. “Arbitrarily sacrificing two or more regulations that protect the public in order to enact another one that might not amounts to the federal government abandoning its duty to protect the public.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-sue-trump-block-%E2%80%982-1%E2%80%99-deregulatory-order
-
Bipartisan Authorization Bills to Clear Committee
Apr 8, 2019 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
If big-ticket environmental legislation is a no-go in today's polarized Congress, it might be easier to pitch modest bills that dangle dollars and don't entail major regulatory changes.
Direct evidence will come Wednesday when two bipartisan measures are expected to breeze through a markup by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
One would authorize more spending on a popular air quality grant program; the other aims to spur research into a type of atmospheric carbon reduction technology known as direct air capture.
The latter bill, S. 383, was introduced in February by EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.). As of Friday, it had 13 co-sponsors, including Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the committee's ranking member, as well as a half-dozen other Democratic senators.
The measure, dubbed the "Utilizing Significant Emissions with Innovative Technologies (USE IT) Act", would authorize $35 million for creation of an EPA direct air capture advisory board and to pay for design and demonstration projects aimed at sucking carbon from the air.
With atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continuing to rise amid faltering global efforts to cut emissions, the approach is drawing attention as another way to combat climate change. Supporters hope a congressional endorsement and the possibility of federal funding could help encourage more private investment in the nascent technology.
"America should reduce emissions through innovation, not punishing government regulations," Barrasso said in a February statement (E&E Daily, Feb. 28). "The USE IT Act advances that goal."
The other bill, S. 747, would reauthorize the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA) grant program through fiscal 2024, at up to $100 million annually. The bill, introduced last month by Carper, has nine co-sponsors, including Barrasso, along with four other Republicans.
The program, created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and backed by industry and environmental groups, doles out money to replace or retool older diesel-powered school buses, locomotives and other equipment with cleaner-burning models.
While its last authorization expired at the end of fiscal 2016, that hasn't stopped lawmakers from raising spending. For fiscal 2019, they set aside $87 million for DERA grants, up from $50 million three years earlier.
But the reauthorization bill would give Congress the chance to tweak the ground rules besides furnishing more stability.
"With millions of dirty diesel engines still on American roads, as well as on boats and trains, DERA is as important and relevant today as it was on the day it was first introduced," Carper said at a hearing last month (E&E Daily, March 14).
But while the two bills are poised to easily clear the committee at Wednesday's markup, their longer-term prospects are cloudier. Previous versions also won the panel's approval in the last Congress but never got out of the Senate.
In the House, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) has introduced H.R. 1768, a slightly different version of the DERA reauthorization legislation (E&E News PM, March 14). It is awaiting action by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Schedule: The markup is Wednesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in 406 Dirksen.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2019/04/08/stories/1060148401
-
Democrats Push to Stay in Paris Climate Deal: BGOV Closer Look
Apr 5, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam M. Taylor
The U.S. would remain part of the 2016 Paris Agreement on climate change under a bill (H.R. 9) approved April 4 by the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
On June 1, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw from the nonbinding accord. Under the terms of the agreement, no country can withdraw before Nov. 4, 2020.
“The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers — who I love — and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production,” Trump said in his announcement.
President Barack Obama used his executive authority to join the agreement in September 2016. Because he treated the accord as an executive agreement rather than a treaty and didn’t submit it to the Senate for ratification, Trump has discretion to cancel U.S. participation in the deal.
The bill would prohibit the use of federal funds to take actions to remove the U.S. from the accord.
The measure also would require the White House to submit to Congress a plan for the U.S. to meet its voluntary commitments under the Paris Agreement and to use the deal’s transparency provisions to hold other countries accountable for meeting their commitments.
“It was with America’s leadership and engagement that so many nations committed to climate action in the international Paris Agreement,” said Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), the bill’s sponsor and chairwoman of the House Climate Crisis Committee, at a March 27 press event announcing the bill. “Despite what President Trump has said, America cannot and will not retreat. We will keep our commitments to fight the climate crisis.”
Read more: Paris Deal Bill Gives House Democrats a Climate Rallying Cry
Paris AgreementThe Paris Agreement was negotiated in 2015 by representatives of 195 countries to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. It was signed on April 22, 2016, and took effect on Nov. 4, 2016.
As of March 28, 185 countries had approved the deal, including the U.S., Brazil, China, India, Japan, and Russia.
The agreement calls for actions to keep global temperatures within 2 degrees Celcius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) of preindustrial levels. It asks signatories to pursue efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees and to reach the “global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible.” It also recognized that developing countries may reach that peak later than more developed economies.
Each country that signed the agreement agreed to “nationally determined contributions,” nonbinding commitments to reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions over time. There’s no penalty if the reductions aren’t accomplished on schedule.
The U.S. pledged to reduce emissions by 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025 and to “make best efforts” to reduce emissions by 28 percent.
The Paris Agreement established different standards for developed and developing countries, saying that more advanced economies should “take the lead” with economywide emissions targets defined in absolute terms, while less-developed states should enhance their existing “mitigation efforts.”
The accord also set up a transparency framework to provide information on countries’ emissions and progress toward their commitments. It includes technical expert review of information shared under the framework. Developed countries would also have to share information on their financial and other support to help emerging economies address climate change.
Environmental Groups Back BillEnvironmental groups including the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, and World Wildlife Fund applauded the measure as a strong opening steps to comprehensive climate action.
“This legislation recognizes that the Paris Agreement is a critical pathway for tackling the climate crisis, increasing global cooperation, and amplifying and complimenting vital climate action legislation,” Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said in a statement.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, is the majority owner of Bloomberg Government’s parent company.
Industry Split on AgreementMost energy companies called for the U.S. to remain a part of the deal before Trump’s announcement.
Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc, and BP Plc endorsed the deal along with liquefied natural gas exporter Cheniere Energy Inc. and coal producers Cloud Peak Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp., Bloomberg News reported at the time.
Energy companies without significant gas production that could benefit from greater international demand quietly opposed the Paris deal, and the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group, didn’t take a formal position, according to the report.
Robert E. Murray, founder and CEO of the coal company Murray Energy Corp., pushed for U.S. withdrawal from the agreement, which he said was “just a way for other countries to get American money.”
Conservatives Pushed WithdrawalSeveral groups including the Heritage Foundation, FreedomWorks, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute supported Trump’s decision to withdraw from the accord.
“Paris was the open door for egregious regulation, cronyism, and government spending that would have been as disastrous for the American economy as it is proving to be for those in Europe,” Nick Loris of the Heritage Foundation wrote in 2017.
Republicans in the Senate also supported the move. Staying in the agreement would make rolling back Obama-era environmental rules more difficult and invite litigation under the Clean Air Act, according to a May 2017 letter from 22 Republican senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), calling for withdrawal.
Next StepsHouse Energy and Commerce Chairman Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said leadership is pushing to bring H.R. 9 to the floor during the first week of May, Bloomberg Environment reported.
Pallone’s panel approved the bill 29-19, along party lines, on April 4. The measure had 71 original cosponsors, all of them Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi(D-Calif.).
The measure was also referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which held a hearing on climate change April 2 but hasn’t marked up the bill. Castor’s Climate Crisis panel doesn’t have authority to mark up legislation.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/democrats-push-to-stay-in-paris-climate-deal-bgov-closer-look
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested