Preview Newsletter
PM ACC Clips Report
-
(ACC Mentioned) UN Lists Plastic as Hazardous Waste, Votes to Control International Trade
May 15, 2019 | Inhabitat
By Lucienne Cross
On May 10, 187 countries voted to list plastic as hazardous waste and tighten control over its international trade. The governing agreement, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal dictates legally binding standards... -
(ACC Mentioned) From Our Nation’s Capitol CCX
May 15, 2019 | Charlton County Herald
By Rep. Buddy Carter
... I’m always glad to welcome constituents from back home to the Capitol and this morning I’m delighted to welcome the McGowens from Jesup before meeting with the American Chemistry Council to discuss the asbestos hearing from earlier this week... -
US House Democrats Propose Raising EPA Funding in FY 2020
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Democrats in the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee have rebuked calls from the Trump administration to slash the EPA’s budget by nearly a third. -
Mnuchin: U.S.-China Trade Talks Likely to Continue in Beijing in 'Near Future'
May 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Doug Palmer
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said today he expects Trump administration officials will soon return to Beijing to continue trade talks, despite President Donald Trump’s recent decision to increase tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. -
New Intestine-On-A-Chip Could Be Used to Test Chemical Metabolism
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A new ‘intestine-on-a-chip’ may help scientists to understand how human gut microbes can break down environmental chemicals in the body, sometimes producing more toxic products. -
(ACC Mentioned) Unexpected Delay to TSCA Inventory Designations Raises Compliance
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An unanticipated announcement from the US EPA has delayed the effective date for 'inactive' chemical designations under TSCA by almost three months. But the move has also raised several compliance questions. -
Lawmakers, 13 Bills Seek Answers to Nonstick Chemical Pollution
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Tiffany Stecker
Lawmakers have been laying the groundwork for months to come up with solutions to a growing headache for water providers in all corners of the U.S. -
Congress Can’t Wait for EPA on Nonstick Chemicals, Tonko Says
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Congress must act now to require the EPA to use a range of regulations to cleanup and regulate a large group of chemicals contaminating water systems across the U.S., Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said during a May 15 hearing. -
Republicans Raise Worries About Sweeping PFAS Push
May 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
House Republican leaders objected to a bipartisan push for legislation to aggressively address the PFAS contamination crisis at a hearing today. -
Companies Refuse to Pay Clean-Up Costs Mandated by New Jersey Directive
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Four major chemical companies operating in New Jersey have said they will not pay for a statewide investigation and clean up of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) contamination. -
Legal Opinion Casts Doubt over Proposed EU Microplastics Restriction
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A proposal by Echa to restrict microplastics cannot be seen as appropriately meeting a legitimate objective under the REACH Regulation, according to analysis carried out by a leading international law firm. -
Echa Appoints New Board of Appeal Chair
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Antoine Buchet has been named as the new chair of Echa’s Board of Appeal. -
EEA Study Highlights Marine Contamination ‘Problem Areas’
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A recent high-level report has revealed that 85% of European waters mapped for contaminants, such as hazardous chemicals, are so-called problem areas. -
Uk Committee Probes Amazon, Ikea, Kingfisher on Chemicals Management
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Major retailers Amazon, Ikea and Kingfisher have provided evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on how they are tackling the issue of chemicals of concern in the products they sell. -
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Part of National Push for Laws Promoting Fledgling Chemical Recycling Industry
May 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Texas Legislature has passed a bill that would support a fledgling industry that aims to reduce waste by returning plastic back to its original chemical components, which can then be reused for fuels and feedstocks of new plastic products. -
China LNG Buyers Seek to Swap U.S. Cargoes After Fresh Tariffs
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Stapczynski
Liquefied natural gas buyers in China are seeking to swap their U.S. shipments for cargoes from other nations after Beijing pledged to raise tariffs amid a deepening trade dispute, according to traders with knowledge of the situation. -
Increased Trade Tensions Could Squelch US Crude Flow to China
May 15, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Escalation of trade tensions between the US and China is likely to further dampen US crude flows to China, at time when China was seen stepping back into the US market following a cooling-off period. -
House Democrats Offer Bill to Reverse EPA, BLM Methane Rollbacks
May 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are introducing legislation to curb emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations, a move they say would reverse Trump administration efforts to ease Obama-era limits imposed by both EPA and the Department of the Interior (DOI). -
A Keystone-Like Pipeline Opens Fierce Battle Over New York’s ‘Energy Future’
May 15, 2019 | New York Times
By Vivian Wang and Michael Adno
The proposal seemed straightforward: A new pipeline would connect natural gas fields in Pennsylvania to New Jersey and New York, delivering enough fuel to satisfy the region’s booming energy needs and stave off a looming shortage. -
On Infrastructure: Common Ground Is There for the Taking
May 14, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dave Bauer
Stand on a rising Virginia hillside just inside Arlington National Cemetery and look east. -
New Safety Standards for Oil Trains Are Needed to Prevent Tragedy
May 15, 2019 | The Spokesman-Review
By Shawn Vestal
Washington’s new law to establish safer standards on the highly flammable oil trains that pass regularly through Spokane – past hospitals, a high school, a freeway – is likely headed for a courtroom. -
(ACC Mentioned) From Making It to Managing It, Plastic Is a Major Contributor to Climate Change
May 15, 2019 | Common Dreams
By Eoin Higgins
Plastic pollution is more than a threat to our oceans and landscapes—it's a major source of emissions. -
CEOs, Green Groups Launch Joint Initiative
May 15, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
More than a dozen CEOs and several environmental groups have banded together to demand federal climate legislation.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) UN Lists Plastic as Hazardous Waste, Votes to Control International Trade
May 15, 2019 | Inhabitat
By Lucienne Cross
On May 10, 187 countries voted to list plastic as hazardous waste and tighten control over its international trade. The governing agreement, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal dictates legally binding standards for importing and exporting toxic materials. For the first time ever, the agreement now includes plastic, with the exception of PE, PP and PET plastics.
The new agreement gives lower income countries — particularly Southeast Asian countries — more control over the indiscriminate dumping of toxic materials. “This is a crucial first step toward stopping the use of developing countries as a dumping ground for the world’s plastic waste, especially those coming from rich nations,” said Von Hernandez from Break Free From Plastic.
European nations and the U.S. export waste to African and Asian countries as a way to dispose of their trash and hazardous materials. Sometimes these countries are paid for their recycling or landfill services, but many times the dumping happens without permission.
Under the Basel Convention agreement, export countries must receive written permits before dumping hazardous waste, which now includes most contaminated, mixed and non-recyclable plastic.
Related: A guide to the different types of plastic
In 2018, China banned imports of plastic waste and nearby countries Vietnam, Indonesia and Thailand saw a massive upsurge in dumping. With China no longer an option, the $200 billion global recycling industry suddenly had no buyers that could handle the scale of the world’s plastic addiction. Ports in the U.S. and Europe began to overflow with plastic while exporters struggled to find new dumping sites.
The U.S. is not a member of the Basel Convention and therefore could not participate in the vote. As the largest exporter of plastic, however, it will be required to obtain permits when dumping in participating countries. The American Chemistry Council and Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries were among the outspoken opponents, arguing these new obstacles will hinder recycling programs.
One million citizens around the world signed online petitions in support of the new agreement.
“Plastic waste is acknowledged as one of the world’s most pressing environmental issues,” said Rolph Payet, executive secretary of the convention. “The fact that this week close to 1 million people around the world signed a petition urging Basel Convention Parties to take action here in Geneva at the COPs is a sign that public awareness and desire for action is high.”
https://inhabitat.com/un-lists-plastic-as-hazardous-waste-votes-to-control-international-trade/
-
(ACC Mentioned) From Our Nation’s Capitol CCX
May 15, 2019 | Charlton County Herald
By Rep. Buddy Carter
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!
The Carter family is blessed with some incredible moms. Happy Mother’s Day to all the wonderful mothers!
FIRST DISTRICT VETERANS FORUM
Georgia’s First Congressional District is the proud home to four major military installations and it is a privilege for me to represent all five branches of the military.
In honor of the brave men and women who served our country, I will host a Veterans Forum in Savannah on Monday, May 13th, to bring together experts from veteran service organizations and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs for a discussion on important issues that impact veterans and to offer assistance.
I hope you will join me and take advantage of the resources provided. Please do not hesitate to call my office in Savannah at 912-352-0101 for more information.
FROM OUR NATION’S CAPITOL CCX
Monday, May 6: I’m at our Savannah district office this morning as I meet with a student from the Harvard University Extension School to discuss her recently completed study on recidivism and blight reduction programs in Georgia and specifically in the Savannah area. Next, I meet with Donna Camacho and other advocates for the Alzheimer’s Association who do such an outstanding job working to find cures for this dreaded disease that is costing us so much financially and emotionally.
My next meeting is with members of the Savannah Harm Reduction team including Alexa Frame, founder Lesli Messinger and Rick Cricenti. Working with planning managers, law enforcement groups and others, this group donates Naloxone and trains officials on how to administer it in an effort to fight the opioid epidemic. I am particularly interested in these types of programs as increasing Naloxone to prevent opioid deaths was a key part of the SUPPORT Act we passed in Congress last fall, including one provision that expanded programs to allow more first responders such as policemen and firefighters to carry Naloxone. Afterwards, I head to the Savannah Realtors offices to meet with their directors to discuss issues such as flood insurance before heading to Jenkins High School where I visit with the Robotics Class that recently competed at the State’s First Robotics Competition in Cartersville.
The charge to each of the competing schools was to design and build a robot that could pick up and drop a large bounty ball and deposit it into a space ship’s fuel or cargo area within a certain amount of time. This impressive group of young people, who combine traits of intelligence, ingenuity and team work to achieve their goals, are one of the many reasons I am confident the greatest times for our country still lie ahead of us.
Tuesday, May 7, 2019: After an early morning flight this morning, I’m back in Washington and my first meeting is with representatives from Nostrum Energy and Nostrum Pharmaceuticals to learn more about their business. Next, I head to my office where I meet with representatives from Amgen to discuss proposed rule changes by Health and Human Services (HHS) that could impact their business. Afterwards, I head to the House Chamber where I pay tribute to Dick Eckberg, Dr. Les Wilkes and Linnie Darden who are being honored later this week by Senior Citizens, Inc., for their work in our community. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD) to congratulate them on their 40th anniversary in Savannah. Afterwards, I head downtown where I have the opportunity to address global executives of Sanofi, including CEO Olivier Bradicourt, who are in town this week and are interested in hearing about the environment for health care policy in this current Congress. Once back at the Capitol, I meet with the Chief Minority Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Courts, IP and the Internet to discuss the patent system process and potential patent reforms, particularly in the prescription drug arena. Next, I head to the Capitol plaza where I meet with students from St. Simons Christian School before heading to a meeting with members of the American Council of Engineering Companies of Georgia, including my good friend from Savannah, Sam McCachern.
After returning to my office we have our weekly staff briefing after which I meet with representatives from Pfizer Pharmaceuticals and then head to an Energy and Commerce (E&C) meeting to discuss the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and privacy issues. Next, I head to a Doctor’s Caucus briefing on surprise billing before heading off of Capitol Hill to accept the American Conservative Union’s (ACU) award for Conservative Achievement.
Next, I head to our weekly Whip Team meeting and then head to the House Chamber for our first vote series of the week. Afterwards, I pay tribute to the 165th Airlift Wing in Savannah for naming a C-130 the “Spirit of Savannah.”
Wednesday, May 8: My first meeting this morning is an E&C roundtable discussion with National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Dr. Francis Collins where we are brought up to date on the research being done at the NIH. After our weekly GOP Conference meeting, I head back to my office where I meet with members of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), including my good friend Mark Burns, President of Gulfstream Aerospace. Next, I head to an E&C Environment Subcommittee hearing on asbestos. Afterwards, I head to an E&C Consumer Protection and Commerce (CPAC) Subcommittee hearing on oversight of the FTC.
After heading to the Capitol plaza to greet students with Center Elementary School in Waycross, I head back to my office where I meet with the Online Lenders Alliance before heading to the House Chamber for our first and only vote series of the day and afterwards pay tribute to Sgt. Major Carole Warren Clark on her recent retirement. Once back in my office, I have a series of meetings beginning with Kathy Kleinsteuber with Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital in Savannah, followed by representatives from IBM, and then the Georgia Bankers Association including my good friend from Macon, John Hall.
My final two office meetings are with St. George’s University and with Express Scripts.
Thursday, May 9: I’m on the Capitol plaza this morning where I meet with students from Oglethorpe School in Savannah who are visiting this week.
Afterwards, I head to an E&C Health Subcommittee hearing on the Prescription Drug Price Supply Chain where I spend most of my morning. Afterwards, I head to the House Chamber for our first vote series of the day after which I remain in the Chamber and speak on a bill pertaining to preexisting conditions. After meeting with the Independent Insurance Agents of Georgia in my office, I head to the Capitol plaza where I greet students from Wacona Elementary School in Waycross, where my wife attended many years ago and my mother-in-law taught for many years.
Next, I head to Statuary Hall where I have a live interview on MSNBC to discuss prescription drug prices. Afterwards, I head to a Cancer Survivorship Caucus meeting before heading back to the House Chamber for our second vote series of the day and I remain in the Chamber to deliver a tribute to the Guyton Methodist Men’s group on the 63rd anniversary of their 5th Sunday breakfasts. I return to the Chamber a few minutes later as I lead a special order on Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM’s) and proposed rule changes by Health and Human Services (HHS) to decrease drug prices.
Friday, May 10: I’m always glad to welcome constituents from back home to the Capitol and this morning I’m delighted to welcome the McGowens from Jesup before meeting with the American Chemistry Council to discuss the asbestos hearing from earlier this week. Next, I head to the House Chamber for our first and only vote series of the day, and then head to Statuary Hall for a TV interview with WSB in Atlanta regarding disaster relief.
During a layover in Charlotte on my flight back home, I have a phone interview with WTOC TV in Savannah to discuss our Veterans Forum coming up on Monday.
http://www.charltoncountyherald.com/opinion/from-our-nation-s-capitol-ccx/article_19478448-7725-11e9-a600-0bcf1589048f.html
-
US House Democrats Propose Raising EPA Funding in FY 2020
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Democrats in the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee have rebuked calls from the Trump administration to slash the EPA’s budget by nearly a third. Instead, a draft spending bill released by the Democrat majority on 14 May would increase the agency’s funds for fiscal year (FY) 2020 by around 8%.
The draft bill provides for increasing the EPA’s current budget of $8.8bn to $9.52bn. This represents $3.42bn more than the amount President Trump had requested in his FY2020 budget, released in March.
The legislation includes almost $2.7bn for environmental programmes and management, the line item under which chemical risk review and reduction sits. And while the bill does not designate a specific dollar amount for the chemicals programme, it pegs the 2020 funding to be "not less than" the 2014 budget of $62.7m.
Significantly, President Trump’s proposal had called for $66.4m for chemical risk review and reduction, to supplement TSCA fees paid by manufacturers and processors.
The draft bill also more than doubles current levels of funding for scientific and regulatory work on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), allotting $18m.
The change reflects growing concern about PFAS contamination on the federal level. And even while the EPA released a nationwide PFAS management plan in February, key Democratic lawmakers have said it lacks teeth.
The subcommittee markup for the bill is scheduled for today, 15 May, at 2pm EDT.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77582/us-house-democrats-propose-raising-epa-funding-in-fy-2020
-
Mnuchin: U.S.-China Trade Talks Likely to Continue in Beijing in 'Near Future'
May 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Doug Palmer
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said today he expects Trump administration officials will soon return to Beijing to continue trade talks, despite President Donald Trump’s recent decision to increase tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.
“My expectation is we will most likely go to Beijing at some point in the near future to continue those discussions,” Mnuchin said at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing. “And I think it is President Trump’s expectation to meet with President Xi [Jinping] at the G20 at the end of June.”
Mnuchin repeated that he believed the United States had been “very close to a historic agreement with China” before the talks broke down earlier this month in the midst of U.S. accusations that China was backsliding on some previous commitments.
However, he put a positive spin on a meeting with Chinese Vice Premier Liu He last week, even though that session did not deter Trump from going ahead with the tariff increase.
“I think we had a constructive meeting with the vice premier,” Mnuchin said.
Patrick Temple-West contributed to this alert.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/mnuchin-us-china-trade-talks-likely-to-continue-in-beijing-in-near-future-3262113
-
New Intestine-On-A-Chip Could Be Used to Test Chemical Metabolism
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Davies
A new ‘intestine-on-a-chip’ may help scientists to understand how human gut microbes can break down environmental chemicals in the body, sometimes producing more toxic products.
Existing in vitro models tend to survive only for a number of hours before bacterial overgrowth. A US team reports that its device can be used for experiments lasting five days or more – "substantially longer" than past studies.
The new model uses human intestinal cells covered in a layer of mucous and contains a complex community of human gut bacteria, with a population diversity similar to that observed in living human intestine.
The complex microbiota were originally derived from human stool specimens and kept alive in mice grown to have sterile guts.
The US tool was designed to help discover microbiome-related therapeutics, probiotics and nutraceuticals but could also be used for chemical testing.
"One novel use of the human intestine chip inhabited by a living complex gut microbiome, is testing for potential environmental toxins that exert their toxicities as a result of a commensal microbe or particular microbial community modifying the chemical and producing a toxic product," said lead author Donald Ingber, director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University.
"This can’t be easily done in conventional cultures because the microbes over grow and kill the human cells, or in animal models because the human gut microbiome is so complex and so unique," he added.
The intestine-on-a-chip is described in an article published in Nature Biomedical Engineering. It should be possible to create organ chips, lined with cells from different regions of the intestine, suggest the researchers.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77561/new-intestine-on-a-chip-could-be-used-to-test-chemical-metabolism
-
(ACC Mentioned) Unexpected Delay to TSCA Inventory Designations Raises Compliance
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
An unanticipated announcement from the US EPA has delayed the effective date for 'inactive' chemical designations under TSCA by almost three months. But the move has also raised several compliance questions.
Last week, the agency announced a memorandum – signed by Administrator Andrew Wheeler on 6 May – initiating a 90-day transition period between the identification of inactive substances and their official designation as such.
This means that starting from 5 August, the designations will take effect and industry will be required to notify the agency before resuming their use in commerce.
Up until last week’s announcement, however, it had been widely understood that the EPA’s 19 February release of an updated inventory had been the start of this transition period. And indeed, in a 13 March webinar, the agency said that 20 May would be the effective date.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment on what had prompted the delay.
But the 2017 final TSCA inventory notification rule prescribes that the initiation of the transition period must be formalised with "a signed action" – a step absent from the February release of the updated inventory.‘Dragged out’ timeline
The American Chemistry Council told Chemical Watch that publishing the notice in the Federal Register is a "prudent and practical step", given the importance of ensuring that stakeholders globally have notice of the 90-day transition period.
"We’re pleased that EPA is taking the time needed to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the inventory," it said.
But Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, rebuked the agency for the delay.
"There is no apparent reason or basis for EPA to have taken nearly three months to issue the signed action," he told Chemical Watch. "Under TSCA this process should have taken slightly over 180 days after the rule was finalised. By August, the timeline will have been dragged out to almost two years."
Transition period questions
The latest TSCA inventory shows 45,573 substances slated for designation as ‘inactive’. These constitute 53% of the substances on the overall TSCA inventory, not notified as ‘active’ under the ‘inventory reset’ reporting exercise that ended in October last year.
The final inventory notification rule, however, includes a 90-day 'transition period' to address cases where a substance was not used during 2006 to 2016 – and therefore could not be reported active – but has since reentered commerce.
Such a chemical may be notified with a Notice of Activity (NOA) Form B during this grace period, prior to the final active and inactive designations taking effect.
But it remains uncertain whether the newly clarified timeline will call into question submissions made between February and 6 May.
Herb Estreicher and Tom Berger, partners with the law firm Keller and Heckman, told Chemical Watch that one could make the argument that NOA Form Bs submitted before 5 May "technically … should not be effective", because the regulations require they be submitted during the 90-day period.
But because the EPA "earlier advised the regulated community in writing" that the transition period began on 19 February, it is likely the agency will accept submissions made previously.
"While we have not confirmed this with EPA, we believe that the agency would consider any and all otherwise proper NOA Form Bs submitted between 19 February and May 5 as being in full compliance with the active/inactive rule," they said.
Jared Rothstein, senior manager of regulatory affairs at speciality chemicals group Socma, told Chemical Watch: "Our assumption has been that the CDX [online reporting] portal has been open and have not heard otherwise from members."
"We interpret the memo as an administrative correction and not a technical correction, and, therefore, it seems to only be expanding the response period," he said.
Mr Estreicher and Mr Berger added: "It is not clear why EPA delayed the issuance of the signed action but it is only good news for industry."
https://chemicalwatch.com/77541/unexpected-delay-to-tsca-inventory-designations-raises-compliance-questions
-
Lawmakers, 13 Bills Seek Answers to Nonstick Chemical Pollution
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto and Tiffany Stecker
Lawmakers have been laying the groundwork for months to come up with solutions to a growing headache for water providers in all corners of the U.S.
House members are meeting today to discuss a strategy for moving through Congress over a dozen bills on pollution from poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—chemicals linked to thyroid and liver problems, cancer, and immune system deficiencies.
The problem is enormous.
Since 1949, manufacturers have used thousands of different PFAS chemicals in everything from fast-food wrappers to nonstick pans to fire-extinguishing foam. The chemically stable compounds resist heat and accumulate easily in humans and animals.
Over 99% of Americans have PFAS in their blood, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. And water utilities are spending millions to reduce the amount of the compounds in their drinking water sources.
“Every bit of delay is threatening to the public health and well-being of the American people,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), who as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on environment and climate change is presiding over the May 15 hearing.
Some lawmakers are working to learn more about the particular issues with PFAS in each other’s districts.
Tonko and Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) visited Pennsylvania districts last week served by Reps. Madeleine Dean (D) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R), where the fluorinated chemicals from the firefighting foam used at former military installations seeped into the groundwater. Fitzpatrick said he is planning to go to Kildee’s Flint-area district as well.
Top Environmental PrioritySome see the legislation being attached to a must-pass appropriations bill or Department of Defense authorization bill. The last two National Defense Authorization Acts provided funding for a nationwide study on the health effects of PFAS. The Pentagon could be on the hook for millions of dollars in cleanup costs because of the widespread use of PFAS-containing foam at bases across the country.
“Every single avenue that is a possibility, we’re going to pursue every single one of them,” Fitzpatrick, who is co-chairing the bipartisan Congressional PFAS Task Force with Kildee, told Bloomberg Environment. “It’s my top environmental priority right now.”
Others, like Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), envision a larger, PFAS-related package that will pass the House. Dingell says she has the backing of the top members of the House to pass something on PFAS.
The 13 bills up for consideration at this time fall in three areas, said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group. Some, like a measure from Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) to add the chemicals to the Toxics Release Inventory, address the need to monitor PFAS in the environment and in humans.
Others seek to ban the chemicals altogether.
A third group of bills tackles the cleanup.
And the House fiscal year 2020 spending bill would set aside $18 million for studying PFAS, more than double current spending levels.
The situation reminds Faber of the concerns over polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), another persistent and ubiquitous pollutant linked to cancer and reproductive effects.
“We know we have a contamination crisis,” Faber said. “We just don’t know how big it is.”
PFAS Action Plan
On the Senate side, Democratic Sens. Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) proposed several bills each to address the problem.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced legislation (S. 675) that would authorize the Pentagon to offer PFAS-free water to agricultural operations near military bases where contaminated groundwater has been found. A spokeswoman for Udall said the office has not ruled out attaching the bill to a larger package.
Udall, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, also wants to increase funding for cleaning up PFAS in the Pentagon’s spending bill, the spokeswoman said.
The EPA released a PFAS action plan in February, in which it said it was developing adrinking water standard called a maximum contaminant level for two of the most prevalent PFAS chemicals—PFOA and PFOS, two molecules with long chains of fluorine and carbon atoms that have been studied for years. The agency also said it would work toward designating those chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.
One of the bills, H.R. 2377, would go further than the EPA and establish a limit for all PFAS chemicals. Another, H.R. 535 (S. 638 in the Senate), would extend the hazardous substance designation to all PFAS.
Short-Chain PFAS
Short-chain PFAS chemicals, those with less than eight carbon atoms, are generally less toxic and less bioaccumulative in wildlife and humans, according to the EPA. But only scant research exists on the short-chain chemicals, which chemical manufacturers began to sell as replacements for PFOA and PFOS.
Legislators may also be evaluating whether it would be better to set a maximum contaminant level or develop a technology standard to limit these contaminants, said Betsy Southerland, who oversaw science and technology issues in the EPA’s Office of Water before retiring.
Requiring the EPA to identify technologies that could remove both the older and newer long-chain and newer short-chain PFAS could be a more effective way to control PFAS then requiring the agency to set a drinking water standard for each one, said Southerland and Carl Reeverts, former deputy director in EPA’s Drinking Water Protection Division.
At the very least, the members expect to bring more attention to the problem.
“A year or so ago most people had no idea what PFAS was,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/lawmakers-13-bills-seek-answers-to-nonstick-chemical-pollution
-
Congress Can’t Wait for EPA on Nonstick Chemicals, Tonko Says
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Congress must act now to require the EPA to use a range of regulations to cleanup and regulate a large group of chemicals contaminating water systems across the U.S., Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said during a May 15 hearing.
“We cannot wait for EPA to act,” said Tonko, chairman of the subcommittee on environment under the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The hearing discussed a large group of chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are used to make textiles, paper, food packaging materials, firefighting foam, and cookware with heat, oil, and water resistant properties.
But the chemicals’ persistence in the environment, and the toxicity of at least two of the group, have spurred multimillion dollar toxic tort litigation across the country involving companies such as 3M Co., the Chemours Co., and DowDupont, which make or formerly made some of these chemicals.
The Safe Drinking Water Act needs to be updated, but that “cannot stop us from taking action on PFAS,” Tonko said. “PFAS issues are bigger than drinking water.”
But Republicans say existing laws are enough to address the issue.
Congress overhauled the nation’s chemicals law in 2016 and its risk-based regulatory approach should be used to decide whether some PFAS chemicals need to be regulated, said Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) the top Republican on the subcommittee.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/congress-cant-wait-for-epa-on-nonstick-chemicals-tonko-says
-
Republicans Raise Worries About Sweeping PFAS Push
May 15, 2019 | PoliticoPro
By Annie Snider
House Republican leaders objected to a bipartisan push for legislation to aggressively address the PFAS contamination crisis at a hearing today.
Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the top Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said his district, too, has concerns about the toxic chemicals, which were used for years in firefighting foam, Teflon and other consumer products. But, he said, the measures under discussion represent an "enormous, sweeping response" that could undercut their end goal.
"States could face significant unfunded mandates while forcing obligations on private parties that are currently unaware of potential liability like farmers," Walden argued in his opening statement at an environment subcommittee hearing. "All of this is likely to result in litigation and prevent or prolong the situation rather than move to promptly address contamination."
The subcommittee was discussing more than a dozen bills relating to PFAS, including some that would require treating the more than 5,000 varieties of PFAS chemicals as a single class.
Walden and Environment and Climate Change Subcommittee ranking member John Shimkus (R-Ill.) — who said he was “open to getting to yes on some of these proposals” — asked for additional hearings, including with EPA witnesses.
Subcommittee Chairman Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.) said the hearing is just the beginning of the legislative push on PFAS, but emphasized the need for more urgent action than EPA is on track to take. In part, Tonko said, the Safe Drinking Water Act is to blame.
"We need to have a larger conversation about SDWA regulatory reform, but that action cannot stop us from taking action on PFAS. SDWA’s shortcomings are bigger than PFAS, and PFAS issues are bigger than drinking water," Tonko said.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2019/05/republicans-raise-worries-about-sweeping-pfas-push-3262049
-
Companies Refuse to Pay Clean-Up Costs Mandated by New Jersey Directive
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Lisa Martine Jenkins
Four major chemical companies operating in New Jersey have said they will not pay for a statewide investigation and clean up of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) contamination. Their refusal comes despite being ordered to do so via a directive from the state’s Department of Environmental Protection
In letters to the NJDEP late last month, Chemours, DuPont, 3M and Solvay took issue with the department’s informal enforcement measure and said they will not pay the cost of cleaning up the fluorinated chemicals.
However, all agreed to "work with" the department, especially regarding any contamination in the vicinity of their own factories.
In the 25 March directive, the NJDEP directed the companies to fund the statewide removal of PFAS contamination, citing evidence of the chemicals in waters across New Jersey. The companies would also be responsible for accounting for their PFAS use and discharge.
The directive cites the state’s Spill Compensation and Control Act as the source of its authority to hold the companies responsible for cleanup and removal costs, "no matter by whom incurred" and "without regard to fault".
But in letters submitted to the NJDEP between 17 April and 25 April, obtained by Bloomberg Environment, each company sets out their own ‘good cause defences’ for their respective refusal to pay. All responded within the time limit given in the original directive.
To refuse on good cause a directive requires a recipient to argue that it has an objectively reasonable basis for believing it to be invalid or inapplicable. When contacted by Chemical Watch, however, the NJDEP said: "We are confident in our legal authority" with regard to the directive’s requirements.
Department officials have met with several of the companies since issuing the directive. And they say they are hopeful they can continue working with them to "reach a voluntary resolution to address statewide PFAS investigation and remediation without the need for further costly, protracted legal action."
No state has used a directive – which is not a "formal enforcement order, a final agency action or a final legal determination that a violation has occurred" – to hold companies accountable for pollution in this way ever before.
Core arguments
In a 17 April letter, Chemours and Dupont responded jointly (Chemours is the DuPont subsidiary responsible for its fluorinated chemical dealings.), calling the statewide breadth "not just unprecedented but untenable". They said that New Jersey’s environmental laws are only intended to be applied in the specific locations where discharges have occurred.
Solvay – which was singled out and told to reimburse the NJDEP $3m for past clean-up and treatment efforts – also called the directive "unprecedented". In its letter – also sent on 17 April – it acknowledged its need to investigate certain contamination issues near its West Deptford facility in the southwest of the state, but also took issue with the implication that it is responsible for contamination across New Jersey.
Solvay operates a single facility in New Jersey and does not manufacture PFAS itself. It listed other potential PFAS sources – including gasket/seal manufacturers, historic use of firefighting foams (AFFF), other fluorochemical facilities, petrochemical facilities and landfills – that it said the NJDEP had failed to investigate.
Similarly, Chemours and DuPont argue that the directive’s failure to establish a "causal nexus between a given discharge or contamination and the responsible party" flies in the face of New Jersey law.
Meanwhile, 3M said in a 25 April letter that it is "fundamentally flawed" because perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) – the specific PFASs at issue – have not yet been named 'hazardous substances' under the Spill Act.
"On 1 April 2019, DEP issued a proposed rule seeking to list the two substances as hazardous substances, but this is not yet final," 3M said in its letter to the NJDEP.
"The directive is therefore premature."
Firefighting foam lawsuit
In a separate action, the state has brought a lawsuit against companies that manufactured and sold firefighting foam products containing PFASs in the state, "despite knowing those products released toxic and harmful chemicals into the environment".
Filed in New Jersey Superior Court on 14 May, the complaint alleges environmental and product liability claims related to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) that contain, or break down into, PFOS and PFOA. Chemicals released from these products, it says, have contaminated groundwater and surface water in the state.
"The corporations we’re suing today knew full well the health and environmental risks associated with this foam, and yet they sold it to New Jersey’s firefighters anyway," said NJ Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. "Their conduct was unconscionable, and we’re going to hold these companies accountable."
The lawsuit seeks natural resource damages, costs to investigate AFFF contamination and payment for remediation from the defendants. It also seeks civil penalties under the Consumer Fraud Act.
The manufacturers and product sellers named in the suit are:
· The 3M Company;
· The Chemours Company;
· EI du Pont de Nemours & Company;
· Chemguard, Inc;
· Buckeye Fire Equipment Company;
· National Foam, Inc;
· Kidde-Fenwal, Inc; and
· Tyco Fire Products LP.
In recent weeks, parties to the Stockholm Convention agreed to a global ban on the use of PFOA, with some exemptions. Firefighting foams qualify as an exempted use, though their production, export or import and use in training will be prohibited.
While the US is not a party to the Stockholm Convention, the use of PFOA has largely been phased out nationwide through a voluntary stewardship programme.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77542/companies-refuse-to-pay-clean-up-costs-mandated-by-new-jersey-directive
-
Legal Opinion Casts Doubt over Proposed EU Microplastics Restriction
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
A proposal by Echa to restrict microplastics cannot be seen as appropriately meeting a legitimate objective under the REACH Regulation, according to analysis carried out by a leading international law firm.
In a 6 May document seen by Chemical Watch, lawyers at the firm say this is because the agency has not identified a hazard or risk posed by the substances.
Cefic commissioned the analysis shortly after it criticised the current definition of microplastics in Echa’s proposal as being "too broad". This, it said, could leave room for interpretation, making implementation and enforcement of restrictions "challenging".
The legal analysis comes as part of the organisation’s deliberations over the restriction proposal, the consultation on which started in April and ends on 20 September. The request for external legal counsel is a "routine step" in its evaluation of a new legislative measure, Cefic told Chemical Watch.
In its report, the law firm says Echa has exceeded its competence under the provisions of REACH title VIII on restrictions on the manufacturing, placing on the market and use of certain dangerous substances, mixtures and articles.
It says there is no explicit provision in REACH – and no inference can be made on the basis of any provision in it – that would allow the agency to derogate from the rules in title VIII, when it comes to the risk assessment of substances such as microplastics.
Dossier
Echa’s proposal, contained in an Annex XV dossier, says microplastics do not present a hazard that can be identified by reference to recognised categories. As their hazard properties are "complex and in many instances uncertain […]", a range of risk assessment paradigms will be considered.
The dossier also says that (eco)toxicological hazards "may also occur from the polymers themselves, or via the presence of unreacted monomers, impurities [...] additives [...] or other substances within the polymer matrix [...]".
However, the law firm says that a generic conclusion cannot be made on hazards presented by unidentified impurities, additives, or unreacted monomers. And the possibility of any substance in these categories posing a hazard does not adequately justify an indication of hazard for any microplastic.
The legal analysis says that the Echa dossier points out that there is no suggestion in the scientific literature that microplastics are causing significant adverse impacts in the environment.
Therefore, it argues, the agency’s claim that their use will "inevitably" result in environmental release, irrespective of the conditions of use, cannot be proven as an assessment has not been conducted.
And, it adds, such an assessment could not go ahead anyway because of the absence of an identifiable hazard recognised by EU legislation.
Generic assessment
The legal analysis also concludes that by assessing a group of substances identified generically, rather than individually, the restriction proposal does not align with REACH provisions.
Its scope directly contradicts several explicit legal provisions in REACH, as well as its structure, the law firm says. As an example it points to:
· provisions in REACH title VIII that require substances in the group to be identified individually; and
· Article 67(1) which says "a substance on its own, in a mixture or in an article" may be the subject of a restriction. Substance(s) must be identified under the terms of Annex XV, which states that "[t]he proposal shall include the identity of the substance [...]".
By not identifying specific substances, the proposal does not meet the principle of legal certainty, the law firm says. This, it adds, is because it does not enable individuals to assess whether their products fall exactly within the scope.
And the scientific evidence behind it does not meet standards required by case law on the application of the precautionary principle, it says.
Cefic told Chemical Watch it agrees that "the potential effect of intentionally added microplastics on the environment poses a legitimate concern and call(s) for a regulatory measure that has a clear scope, is based on the latest scientific evidence on the hazards and risks associated with this type of microplastics, and brings the most benefit to environmental protection."
Echa reaction
In its comments to Chemical Watch, Echa said the proposal is a "wide-ranging, ambitious measure".
It is "well recognised" that science is slowly understanding the implications of microplastics in the environment. And yet, the agency pointed out, scientific literature already contains numerous examples of the substances causing adverse effects in freshwater, marine and terrestrial species.
When considered alongside their extreme persistence in the environment, and degradation through the formation of nanoplastics, this information is considered "sufficient" to conclude that their use (when this results in environmental release) is not adequately controlled.
REACH allows a ‘case-by-case’ approach to risk assessment, Echa said, when conventional approaches (such as by using ‘safe’ thresholds), are not practical. Its conclusion that risks are not adequately controlled is on the basis of such an assessment.
Echa also pointed out "numerous examples" of a group-based approach to restrictions, where individual group members are not specifically identified. These include mercury, chromium and lead compounds and PFOA, its salts and related substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77579/legal-opinion-casts-doubt-over-proposed-eu-microplastics-restriction
-
Echa Appoints New Board of Appeal Chair
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
Antoine Buchet has been named as the new chair of Echa’s Board of Appeal.
Mr Buchet, who will begin his five-year term on 16 August, is currently employed as a legal adviser in the European Commission's legal service.
He is a French national with substantial experience in EU law, the international courts, public administration and institutional European law, Echa says. He spent a decade working at the French Ministry of Justice.
Mr Buchet replaces Mercedes Ortuño, whose ten-year spell as BoA chair ended on 15 April this year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77568/echa-appoints-new-board-of-appeal-chair
-
EEA Study Highlights Marine Contamination ‘Problem Areas’
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
A recent high-level report has revealed that 85% of European waters mapped for contaminants, such as hazardous chemicals, are so-called problem areas.
The document, produced by the European Environment Agency, is a first attempt to map such areas. Over 1,500 locations were assessed.
Contaminants continue to find their way into the seas through multiple pathways and result in potential negative effects on marine and human life.
It continues to be a "large-scale challenge, though progress has been observed", the report said. Concentrations of some well-known contaminants appear to be declining, though not all meet the agreed thresholds.
To reach the policy vision of achieving clean, non-toxic European seas, a "profound transition" is needed in how marine pollution is addressed, EEA said.
The agency has set a series of recommendations including:
· the monitoring of a wider variety of substances can provide earlier warnings;
· monitoring of a "predefined subset" of chemicals could ease preparation of regional and European assessments and ensure consistent, solid policy support on progress; and
· avoiding upstream use of persistent and hazardous substances – this is essential for reaching long-term policy commitments.
Another six EEA marine thematic reports are planned, covering a broad range of topics.
Preventing pollution to waterways, especially from plastic, is high on the agenda for many authorities.
At their meeting on 10 April, Nordic environment and climate ministers signed a declaration of 11 key commitments to combat plastic and microplastic pollution in seas and oceans.
A month earlier, the fourth UN Environment Assembly (Unea-4) decided that the intergovernmental process relating to marine litter and the proliferation of microplastics and the expert group created to identify stronger international governance structures, should continue.
And in January last year, the European Commission published the EU plastics strategy, which is one of five priority areas adopted by the EU action plan for the circular economy.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77566/eea-study-highlights-marine-contamination-problem-areas
-
Uk Committee Probes Amazon, Ikea, Kingfisher on Chemicals Management
May 15, 2019 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Major retailers Amazon, Ikea and Kingfisher have provided evidence to a UK parliamentary committee on how they are tackling the issue of chemicals of concern in the products they sell.
The Environmental Audit Committee launched an inquiry in February into the impact of "toxic chemicals in everyday life on human health and the environment". This came after the government promised to address chemicals "of national concern" in a 25-year environment plan, released a year ago.
At yesterday’s parliamentary session, the Committee’s chair MP Mary Creagh asked Daniel Kingdon, director of compliance and safety for EMEA at Amazon, how the company ensures products sold by its online sellers are compliant with its chemicals requirements and national legislation.
Mr Kingdon said that, while it tests its own-brand products, it does not carry out routine testing of products sold by its seller community.
Ms Creagh raised concerns, citing the results of a UK investigation by the consumer organisation Which? This found that some children's slime toy products it tested from a range of high-street and online retailers, including Amazon, exceeded EU safety standards for boron, a substance of very high concern (SVHC).
"[Amazon] is relying on Which? and trading standards, the public sector, to do the company’s due diligence," said Ms Creagh.
In response, Mr Kingdon said the company is gathering intelligence through its customer feedback and investing in technology "which helps us learn more about concerns that might exist". One such technology, he said, continually scans the site for illegal products and substances regulated under EU legislation. The Restricted Products programme works in real-time, searches text placed on the website by the seller and is informed by regulatory requirements at a European and national level.
Ms Creagh questioned its effectiveness, saying Amazon sellers are "unlikely to list the names of chemicals of concern in their products, such as phthalates, formaldehyde or bisphenols". Mr Kingdon said the company is "reliant on the information" provided in the supply chain and by its sellers. "We offer the website as a service to third-party sellers … We are limited by this," he said.
She said that Amazon’s recently announced US safer chemicals policy was "a positive thing" but asked why it is not yet applied in the UK. Mr Kingdon said that it was only published in October last year and that the company was "actively looking to roll the policy out in different geographies". However, he did not provide a date.
"In Europe, we have a much stricter chemicals regulation and we have very recently started to look at what impact the restricted substances list in our policy would have on the European market.
"I fully anticipate that the products restricted in the policy in the US will already be restricted by law in Europe," he said.
Mr Kingdon added that, when creating a restricted substances list, a company has to work with its suppliers to ensure there are safer alternatives available. "The ingredients often serve a particular function and purpose and it is important that you maintain that function in the product. All of this can take some time to work through."
Transparency
Turning to Gemma Brierley, sustainability director, offer and supply chain at Kingfisher, Ms Creagh asked why the company’s recently announced chemicals of concern phase out plan will take six years.
The key challenge is transparency within the supply chain, Ms Brierley said. "Right now our vendors are not obligated to declare the full ingredient list for products and materials."
Suppliers are required to declare SVHCs under the REACH Regulation. However, REACH can push substance declaration "underground", she said.
"[They] only need to declare when a substance is above 0.1% by weight of the article. This means we may find the formulation is just under the limit and so they do not have to declare."
Recycling
The committee moved onto how the companies are ensuring recycled products and materials are free from chemicals of concern.
Therese Lilliebladh, product requirements manager at Ikea in Sweden, said that the company has committed to make all of its products from renewable or recycled materials by 2030.
The way to ensure chemicals of concern are not present in these materials, is to set strict requirements, Ms Lilliebladh said.
Ikea carries out chemical risk assessments on materials before they are introduced into its products. It also carries out tests during the product development phase, as well as "spot checks" thereafter.
"It is challenging to track legacy chemicals, which is why we think these strict requirements are so important to have in place, so that even the virgin material is free from harmful chemicals," she said.
The first oral evidence session took place on 30 April. As part of the inquiry, the committee has launched a consumer survey to ascertain the level of public awareness and concern about the presence of harmful chemicals in everyday consumer products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/77559/uk-committee-probes-amazon-ikea-kingfisher-on-chemicals-management
-
(ACC Mentioned) Texas Part of National Push for Laws Promoting Fledgling Chemical Recycling Industry
May 15, 2019 | Houston Chronicle
By Marissa Luck
The Texas Legislature has passed a bill that would support a fledgling industry that aims to reduce waste by returning plastic back to its original chemical components, which can then be reused for fuels and feedstocks of new plastic products.
The bill, supported by chemical makers such as Chevron Phillips Chemical of the Woodlands and the Texas oil major Exxon Mobil, is a response to the growing public outcry over plastic waste that is choking the world’s oceans, contaminating soil and threatening marine and wild life. Chemical recycling is not only viewed by chemical makers as a way to reduce plastic pollution, but also as a new and potentially $10 billion industry.
Unlike traditional mechanical recycling, chemical recycling uses chemical processes to convert plastic waste into fuels to use in cars or manufacturing feedstocks that can be turned into new plastics. Although chemical recycling itself isn’t new, more petrochemical companies are investing in improving the technology to make it work on a commercial scale.
The bill, which last week was sent to Gov. Greg Abbott’s office to be signed into law, would regulate chemical recycling operations as manufacturing plants, rather than solid waste disposal sites, a designation that would spare chemical recyclers from many regulations imposed on solid waste sites. The plants would still have to comply with state and federal air, water and other environmental laws.
The regulatory certainty provided by the legislation would make it easier for companies to invest in and obtain financing for chemical recycling agreements, said Craig Cookson, senior director of recycling and recovery at American Chemistry Council, the chemical industry trade group.
“It takes a long time at the beginning stages of an industry to line up investment and secure offtake and feedstock agreements,” Cookson said. “What they don’t want is a shifting regulatory landscape”
The bill is part of a national push by the petrochemical industry to promote chemical recycling. Texas is the sixth state to pass such legislation - joining Florida, Wisconsin, Georgia, Iowa and Tennessee, and similar bills are proposed in Rhode Island, South Carolina and Illinois.
Turning waste into a $501 million industry in Texas
Cookson said the significance of the legislation is especially big in Texas, which as the nation’s largest chemical manufacturing industry. Converting just 25 percent of the state’s plastic waste into manufacturing feedstocks and transportation fuels could support 40 chemical recycling plants and generate $501 million in economic output annually, ACC estimates.
Nationally, the Amerian Chemistry Council estimates that chemical recycling could create $9.9 billion in economic output and generate 38,500 American jobs if adopted more broadly.
New plants likely to face opposition
The Texas legislation was opposed by environmental groups such as Texas Campaign for the Environment and Sierra Club, which argued that chemical recycling projects produce additional air pollution without significantly decreasing plastic waste.
Historically many of these chemical recycling plants have operationally underperformed, failing to produce as much fuel or feedstock as they original targeted due to technological and economic challenges, said Andrew Dobbs, program director at the nonprofit Texas Campaign for the Environment. That means many plants have struggled financially and turned to taxpayers for subsidies to survive, he said.
He pointed to a 2017 study by the advocacy group Global Alliance for Incerator Alternatives that found that chemical recycling plants have a similar emissions profiles to garbage incineration plants. Both can emitnitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, heavy metals and greenhouse gases.
More fundamentally these chemical recycling plants don’t address what environmentalists say is the root of the problem - the nation’s continuing reliance on fossil fuels and the single-use plastics made from them.
“This is industry’s attempt to try to justify the dramatic ramp up of plastic production we’re seeing now by pretending like there is a solution on hand when they’re really isn’t,” Dobbs said.
He added that he appreciated the intent behind the bill to reduce plastic waste, but “this technology doesn’t work. It’s a huge waste of money and its bad for the environment.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-part-of-national-push-for-laws-promoting-13847145.php
-
China LNG Buyers Seek to Swap U.S. Cargoes After Fresh Tariffs
May 15, 2019 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Stapczynski
Liquefied natural gas buyers in China are seeking to swap their U.S. shipments for cargoes from other nations after Beijing pledged to raise tariffs amid a deepening trade dispute, according to traders with knowledge of the situation.
Some Chinese LNG buyers have approached suppliers about trading the U.S. cargoes, which they’ve already committed to buy, for shipments from non-tariff nations, said the people, who asked not to be identified as the information isn’t public. While China’s imports of American gas have dropped since it slapped a 10% duty on the fuel in September, pressure is mounting to completely avoid the cargoes after Beijing said May 13 it would boost the tariff to 25% starting June 1.
The trade war has derailed what should be a natural partnership, as the U.S. vies to become the world’s top exporter of LNG and China is on track to become the largest buyer. While cheap shale gas had helped U.S. exporters undercut other sellers that are nearer to China, the bigger tariff makes American LNG uncompetitive and has discouraged long-term partnerships.
China has imported four LNG cargoes from the U.S. so far this year, down about 80% from the same period last year, according to vessel tracking data. That compares with a 21% jump in total LNG imports during the first quarter.
Almost all of China’s imports of U.S. LNG are received at terminals owned and operated by state giants China National Petroleum Corp., China National Offshore Oil Corp. and Sinopec Group. The companies are China’s biggest LNG buyers, and their terminals are also accessible to smaller independent buyers, including ENN Group and Beijing Gas Group.
CNPC, the parent company of PetroChina Co., is the only Chinese firm with a long-term off-take agreement from a U.S. project. CNOOC has a long-term contract with Total SA, which sources cargoes from the U.S.
None of the companies replied to requests for comment.
--With assistance from Aibing Guo.
https://bnanews.bna.com/environment-and-energy/china-lng-buyers-seek-to-swap-u-s-cargoes-after-fresh-tariffs
-
Increased Trade Tensions Could Squelch US Crude Flow to China
May 15, 2019 | Platts
By Laura Huchzermeyer
Escalation of trade tensions between the US and China is likely to further dampen US crude flows to China, at time when China was seen stepping back into the US market following a cooling-off period.
Although crude oil imports are not included in the latest round of China’s tariff increases to US goods announced on May 13, the heightened tensions between the two countries has been enough to put the brakes on oil trade.
“China will be wary of buying US cargoes because it could be added at any moment and they would be left holding the baby,” said Sandy Fielden, director of oil and products research at Morningstar Commodities.
Despite an anticipated decrease in buying from China, Fielden said he does not expect to see total US crude exports to decrease all that much.
Fielden said China went from being the biggest foreign buyer of US crude by mid-2018, to halting all of its purchases of US crude in the latter quarters of the year as US and China began imposing increased tariffs on each other.
China halted buying US crude in August last year, after taking a record 27 million barrels in June and July. Purchases picked up slightly in November and December, when China took about 3 million barrels of US crude.
Some 7 million barrels of US crude were exported directly from the US to China from January to March this year, according to US Census data. That is compared with 32 million barrels of US crude that was exported to China during the same time frame in 2018.
Other market watchers also expect the breakdown in US/China trade negotiations to keep the flow of US crude towards China at a near standstill despite a recent return to the market.
“Before this weekend’s events, April was a sign of tepid optimism,” according to a report from data intelligence firm Kpler.
Chinese imports of US crude, which do not face Chinese tariffs, finished April at 78,000 b/d, marking the highest level since October of last year, Kpler reported.
China had been seen stepping up its buying activity of US crude in recent weeks as the arb for US crude to Asia has been open. Five May-loading VLCCs had been booked for loading in the USGC with the option for discharge in China, according to S&P Global Platts’ shipping reports. Only one USGC-to-China VLCC was fixed in April.
It is too soon to know if those fixtures will actually load, or if their destinations might be switched from China, to another country.
Despite the loss of China as a major buyer of US crude, oil exports have not seen a major impact as other buyers such as South Korea, India and Taiwan have stepped in as China bowed out.
“That crude just went to other buyers,” Fielden said. “Crude is a very fungible commodity. Unlike soybeans, that has limited buyers, oil has plenty of buyers. If China steps out, the market ends up balancing itself out and the oil ends up going somewhere else.”
https://blogs.platts.com/2019/05/15/trade-tensions-us-crude-china/
-
House Democrats Offer Bill to Reverse EPA, BLM Methane Rollbacks
May 15, 2019 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are introducing legislation to curb emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from oil and gas operations, a move they say would reverse Trump administration efforts to ease Obama-era limits imposed by both EPA and the Department of the Interior (DOI).
The May 14 bill, known as the Methane Waste Prevention Act, codifies EPA’s 2016 new source performance standards (NSPS) to curb methane from new oil and gas operations, and would require DOI’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reduce methane releases via venting, flaring and leaks at existing operations on federal lands.
The Trump administration has faced legal obstacles in seeking to delay implementation of both rules while it works on the rollbacks. Last fall, the administration finalized a rule largely repealing the BLM limits that is being challenged in federal district court in California. EPA last fall proposed but has not yet finalized a rule to weaken the NSPS.
EPA is also expected in the coming weeks to issue a new proposal that would drop direct methane regulation entirely -- relying instead on limits on smog-forming pollution. Such a strategy would preclude eventual EPA methane rules of existing oil and gas equipment.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO). Co-sponsors include Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), committee Vice Chairwoman Deb Haaland (D-NM) and energy panel Chairman Alan Lowenthal (D-CA).
The bill would reimpose the DOI rule while the department issues a new regulation reducing wasted methane and setting more stringent reporting requirements for natural gas production and disposition volumes. The Obama rule would save taxpayers more than $330 million in lost revenue from wasted gas, the lawmakers note in a May 14 statement.
The committee held an April field hearing in New Mexico, which has the highest methane emissions of any state, the lawmakers note in the statement.
“If we’re going to be serious about fixing the climate crisis, we have to be serious about curbing the release of methane into the atmosphere,” DeGette said in the statement. “We should be capturing and using this extremely valuable resource, not allowing the worst actors in the oil and gas industry to release it into the atmosphere where it’s going to harm future generations.”
Grijalva added: “Fossil fuel companies are inflicting severe public health and environmental damage in the name of economic progress and lying about the consequences. . . . This bill is a necessary step in the process of restoring some balance to an out-of-control industry.”
Several environmental groups are offering early support for the bill including Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Wilderness Society, the National Parks Conservation Association, Earthworks and Sierra Club.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-democrats-offer-bill-reverse-epa-blm-methane-rollbacks
-
A Keystone-Like Pipeline Opens Fierce Battle Over New York’s ‘Energy Future’
May 15, 2019 | New York Times
By Vivian Wang and Michael Adno
The proposal seemed straightforward: A new pipeline would connect natural gas fields in Pennsylvania to New Jersey and New York, delivering enough fuel to satisfy the region’s booming energy needs and stave off a looming shortage.
That is the argument of the pipeline’s operator, the Williams Companies, which is seeking approval from New York and New Jersey regulators for the proposed $926 million project. But environmental activists tell a different story: They say the company has manufactured a crisis in order to justify a project that would rip apart fragile ecosystems, handcuff the state to fossil fuels and hobble New York’s march toward renewable resources.
The result has been an arcane but fevered battle, loaded with accusations of misinformation and political maneuvering. It has also become another litmus test for Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has made environmental conservation a centerpiece of his third-term agenda.
Mr. Cuomo’s administration must decide whether to approve the pipeline before Thursday, perhaps its most fraught environmental decision since New York banned fracking in 2014. Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, told reporters last week that the state’s Department of Environmental Conservation would review the proposal and make the final choice. The agency said that it had not yet made a decision.
New Jersey regulators must also decide on the project in June, though the state will not receive any of the gas; officials there said they had not made a decision either.
While the pipeline has not attracted anywhere near the attention of the Keystone XL or Dakota Access pipelines in the Great Plains region, which carry oil, supporters and opponents alike said the gas project could be similarly consequential. A chorus of Democratic elected officials has already denounced the pipeline, including the New York City comptroller, Scott M. Stringer, Representative Jerrold Nadler and Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Last month, President Trump signed two executive orders designed to speed up the construction of pipelines and make it more difficult for states to reject them.
“This is precedent setting. These projects are happening all over the country,” said Suzanne Mattei, the former head of the New York City branch of the state’s environmental conservation agency who opposes the pipeline. “It’s not just about the energy future of New York, but it’s really about the energy future of the entire country.”
The project in question is the Northeast Supply Enhancement pipeline, known colloquially as the Williams pipeline. It would carry natural gas for one company, National Grid, for 37 miles from Pennsylvania through New Jersey, then underwater via Raritan Bay and New York Harbor, ending three miles off the coast of Rockaway Beach in Queens. There, it would connect to an existing pipeline also run by Williams.
Williams has said the new pipeline could help accelerate the replacement of fuel sources that emit more carbon dioxide — the equivalent, company officials said, of taking 500,000 cars off the road for a year.
More critically, it said, without the extension, billions of dollars in infrastructure and development projects could stall. Williams and National Grid projected that natural gas demand would rise 10 percent in the next decade in New York City and Long Island; National Grid has threatened to impose a moratorium on new gas hookups in New York City and Long Island if the pipeline is not approved, just as Consolidated Edison has in Westchester County.
After New York in 2016 rejected a permit for the Constitution Pipeline Company, another Williams project, the company sued the state; that case is pending.
“The demand for natural gas is at an all-time high, and the existing infrastructure is at capacity,” Scott Hallam, a senior vice president at Williams, said in an interview.
But opponents have mounted a two-pronged campaign aimed at discrediting the companies’ statistics and warning Mr. Cuomo of damage to his environmental legacy.
Ms. Mattei, the former New York City environmental official who now works as an attorney at a public policy firm, was commissioned to write a report on the proposed pipeline by 350.org, an activist group that seeks to end the use of all fossil fuels. Her research, she said, showed that the claim of unmet gas demand was “a lot of smoke and mirrors.”
She pointed to a company presentation by Williams last year that predicted that several states in the Northeast could “experience flat to negative gas-demand growth” in the next 20 years as renewable energy proliferated. And while National Grid said that it would need to supply 8,000 new natural gas hookups each year, Ms. Mattei said the number appeared speculative and inflated.
Chris Stockton, a Williams spokesman, said national trends did not capture demand for particular states or regions, and that New York’s economic development plans set it apart from the energy needs of other states.
John Bruckner, the president of National Grid New York, called the 350.org report “misleading” and said it “misrepresents many essential facts related to the need for natural gas in our region.”
But the activists’ critiques extend beyond demand, to the broader threat of climate change. Federal officials have also expressed concern on that front: Though the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on May 3 authorized the project to proceed, one of the four commissioners, Richard Glick, said the body had failed to “give climate change the serious consideration it deserves.” Mr. Glick, a Democrat, was appointed by Mr. Trump.
Activists have used that argument to pressure Mr. Cuomo politically with protests and phone-banking campaigns, warning that his progressive credentials would be imperiled if he allowed state regulators to approve the pipeline.
“Banning fracking is a great step in the right direction,” said Robert Howarth, an ecology and environmental biology professor at Cornell University. “Allowing a build-out of gas infrastructure — I think that would just be a very sad addition to that, undercutting the governor’s legacy for sure.”
But Williams and National Grid have considerable political influence, too. Williams hired a lobbying firm, Kivvit, that is led by Mr. Cuomo’s former campaign manager. It also donated $100,000 last year to the Democratic Governors Association, which later gave $20,000 in in-kind contributions to Mr. Cuomo’s campaign.
Mr. Cuomo, who has also made infrastructure a cornerstone of his tenure, has demurred when asked to stop taking money from fossil fuel companies.
Rich Azzopardi, a senior adviser to Mr. Cuomo, said in a statement that the governor had advanced “the most aggressive environmental agenda in the nation.” He denied any connection between Williams’s political ties and the pending pipeline application, saying the decision would be made by “career public servants” after “a rigorous review of the facts.”
The project has also won the support of the business and labor communities. Vincent Albanese, the director of policy and public affairs for the New York State Laborers, which represents over 40,000 members in the construction industry, said that a moratorium on new gas hookups would jeopardize jobs.
The union has spent more than $600,000 on Facebook ads in the past year promoting the pipeline, according to Facebook’s database.
Kathryn Wylde, the president of the Partnership for New York City, an influential business group, said investors needed to feel confident in the city’s energy supply.
“The continuity of investment in job creation really depends on certainty about the energy supply,” she said, adding, “It’s clear that it’s not going to be sufficient without the pipeline.”
Still, for some New York and New Jersey residents who live and work near the proposed pipeline site, uncertainty also stems from the pipeline itself.
Tim Ryan, who owns the Clean Water Clam Company in Sea Bright, N.J., said his family had been fishing in nearby waters for four generations. More than 70 percent of his harvest comes from the floor of Raritan Bay, he said.
“It could cause a shutdown for us,” he said of the pipeline. “This is how I make a living.”
Paul Sieswerda, the founder of Gotham Whale, a Staten Island group that studies marine mammals, said whale sightings had become more frequent in recent years, as government officials paid more attention to water quality. The pipeline could change that, he said.
“We just don’t know what kind of effect the disruption will have,” he said.
Of the whales, he added, “I just hope they come back.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/nyregion/williams-pipeline-gas-energy.html
-
On Infrastructure: Common Ground Is There for the Taking
May 14, 2019 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Dave Bauer
Stand on a rising Virginia hillside just inside Arlington National Cemetery and look east.
In the foreground is the Arlington Memorial Bridge, arguably one of Washington, D.C.’s most beautiful—and utilitarian—structures. It symbolically links north and south in its alignment between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington House, the Robert E. Lee Memorial. The adjacent Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway terminus, the Watergate steps, and monumental equestrian statuary join with the bridge to create a formal western terminus of the National Mall at the edge of the Potomac River.
Since its 1932 opening, funeral corteges have crossed the majestic nine-arch span on their way to burial. President John F. Kennedy’s cortege crossed after his assassination in 1963; his brother Robert’s funeral crossed by moonlight in 1968. Taken from the vantage point of the cemetery’s grounds, iconic photos of these processions have been cathartic for millions of mourners.
The bridge has been the focal point for thousands of bikers in annual Rolling Thunder rides aimed at bringing full accountability for prisoners of war and those missing in action. It’s been an easy access route for thousands of tour buses heading to the Lincoln and other nearby memorials. And it has been a major commuter route for D.C. area workers; carrying nearly 70,000 vehicles daily.
Unfortunately, the Memorial Bridge is now also symbolic of something else: the neglect and failure of elected leaders, particularly at the federal level, to invest in our transportation infrastructure network. It is on the list of more than 47,000 “structurally deficient” U.S. bridges (artbabridgereport.org) outlined in an April 2019 report by my organization, the American Road & Transportation Builders Association. Cars, trucks and school buses cross these compromised structures 178 million times every day, the data shows.
A long-overdue replacement of the Memorial Bridge began in late 2018, but only after public outrage and last-minute emergency action from Congress. In the meantime, a 10-ton load limit remains in effect until the rehabilitation is completed sometime in 2021. This means school buses, beverage trucks, city transit buses, tour buses and semi tractors are banned from crossing it.
Other signs of the nation’s infrastructure challenges have been highlighted in recent months:
· On April 1, part of an Interstate 75 bridge collapsed near Chattanooga, Tenn., injuring one driver on the exit ramp below.
· A massive 10-foot-deep sinkhole March 22 forced the closure of the G.W. Parkway; a major commuting route from Virginia into Washington, D.C. It resulted in hours of traffic gridlock.
· The famous Lake Shore Drive in downtown Chicago closed suddenly Feb. 11 due to “structural emergencies,” as crews scrambled to temporarily fix a cracked steel beam that supports the roadway.
· Outside Boston, chunks of concrete fell from a bridge structure on Feb. 7, prompting the closure of lanes on I-90 and resulting in major traffic delays. On the same day, concrete also fell from the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in Northern California, also causing gridlock.
So, what can be done?
The most pressing priority: finding a permanent revenue solution for the federal Highway Trust Fund, which is the source, on average, of more than 50 percent of all highway and bridge capital investments made annually by state transportation departments. The fund is in a world of financial hurt. Without new revenue, starting in 2021, states could face a 40 percent cut in investment.
This week, nearly 500 transportation construction executives will be in town to meet with their members of Congress. “Fix the Highway Trust Fund Now” will be the primary message they deliver to lawmakers.
All revenue options for fixing the trust fund, including an increase in the federal gas tax and new freight-related user fees, should be on the table.
Contrary to assertions from prognosticators and pundits, supporting a gas tax increase will not end political careers. Since 2013, 30 states have raised or adjusted their state gas tax to increase transportation investment. In the past two years, this includes seven states run by Republicans. Voters have re-elected 92 percent of nearly 1,900 state lawmakers who voted in favor of a gas tax increase 2013-2018 and ran for re-election. Support for lawmakers persists across party lines — over 90 percent of Democrats and 94 percent of Republicans were re-elected. It’s time for members of Congress to demonstrate similar backbone.
President Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other congressional leaders have reportedly agreed to meet again soon to discuss how to pay for the $2 trillion in infrastructure spending they agreed to on April 30.
On a new and robust transportation infrastructure package, common ground is there for the taking. We encourage President Trump and members of Congress to “bridge” their political differences and travel the high road together to get the job done.
Dave Bauer is president & CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based American Road & Transportation Builders Association.
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/443799-on-infrastructure-common-ground-is-there-for-the-taking
-
New Safety Standards for Oil Trains Are Needed to Prevent Tragedy
May 15, 2019 | The Spokesman-Review
By Shawn Vestal
Washington’s new law to establish safer standards on the highly flammable oil trains that pass regularly through Spokane – past hospitals, a high school, a freeway – is likely headed for a courtroom.
Andy Billig, the Spokane Democrat and Senate majority leader, hopes that will be just a short stop on the way to its eventual destination: a safer national standard for oil trains, which can become massive, mile-long bombs when they derail.
“The federal government has been falling down on the job in regulating oil train safety,” Billig said this week.
But states and communities have little regulatory recourse; railroads are largely governed by federal law, and efforts to set safer federal standards have stalled. The Spokane City Council took a run at imposing safety standards on coal and oil trains, but backed away after its attorney said it was almost certain to die a legal death in court.
A ballot issue followed; the measure failed, after a full-court press from railroads and energy companies, and opposition from local conservative politicians and business groups. Opponents argued it would have been bad for the economy, and a loser in court – an instance of the city failing to “stay in its lane.”
And the trains keep rolling, unaltered by further safety considerations, through downtown Spokane on their way from the Bakken oil fields to Washington refineries. As an issue for local and state governance, oil train safety won’t go away, nor should it. More than a dozen oil train explosions in recent years make it a matter of urgency for those of us who live, work, study, shop and heal in the potential blast zones.
The 2013 disaster in Lac-Magentic, Quebec, (death toll: 47) and the 2016 derailment into the Columbia River and evacuation of Mosier, Oregon, were causes for local governments to insist on public safety, not surrender and declare regulatory impotence. Awaiting solutions from industry and a foot-dragging, deferential federal bureaucracy is no solution at all.
Attorneys general in six states with heavy oil train traffic, including Washington AG Bob Ferguson, have called on the federal government to do what the new state law will do: Require that crude oil be stored at lower vapor pressure.
The law, developed in part with efforts from Gonzaga law students working with City Councilman Breean Beggs, puts vapor-pressure limits on crude oil unloaded and stored in Washington state. Vapor pressure affects the volatility and flammability of crude oil, and proponents of the lower limits say it makes it much less likely that a derailment will become an explosion.
The law requires the oil be stored at 9 pounds per square inch or lower, a limit that will require oil companies to spend money on equipment to achieve that standard. There is no current federal limit.
The law was scaled back after intense resistance in Olympia from oil companies and refinery employees. It takes a relatively modest step, requiring the lower pressure limit only if a company increases oil shipments in the state by 10% or more above current levels.
Billig’s initial proposal would have put the 9 psi standard in place within a year. But he said he still considers the new law a “win,” because it puts the standard on the books for the first time in the country.
“While we know there is more to do to reduce the risk of a catastrophic event, this bill puts in place protections if we see an increase in oil train traffic traveling through our state,” he said in a news release.
He hopes other states follow and that subsequent pressure on the federal government – which was considering such a standard under the Obama administration, but stopped under Trump – will make the adoption of 9 psi an inevitability.
He likens it to the evolution of phosphate standards in dishwashing detergent. In 2010, Washington became the first state in the country to implement a ban on phosphates in automatic dishwasher soap, to protect river water quality. Other states followed shortly thereafter, and within a matter of years, it became the de facto national standard.
“Companies were all like, ‘You can’t do this, this is terrible,’ ” he said. “Now you can’t go anywhere and buy dishwasher detergent with phosphates in it.”
Oil and railroad companies are now insisting that we can’t do this, this is terrible, and politicians in North Dakota, the country’s No. 2 producer of crude oil, are echoing them.
About a tenth of the daily crude production of North Dakota, 150,000 barrels, is shipped to refineries in Washington state – via downtown Spokane. That state’s congressional delegation pressured Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to veto the law, and its Industrial Commission has pledged to sue.
North Dakota’s top oil regulator, Lynn Helms, told Washington lawmakers earlier this year that there is no scientific reason to support a 9 psi limit, and urged them to await results of an ongoing study. The vice president of the state’s Petroleum Council said rail shipment of hazardous materials is a federal issue, and predicted the law will not survive a court battle.
The arguments probably won’t be resolved anytime soon. Meanwhile, the oil trains rumble through downtown.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2019/may/15/shawn-vestal-new-safety-standards-for-oil-trains-a/
-
(ACC Mentioned) From Making It to Managing It, Plastic Is a Major Contributor to Climate Change
May 15, 2019 | Common Dreams
By Eoin Higgins
Plastic pollution is more than a threat to our oceans and landscapes—it's a major source of emissions.
A new report from a number of groups, led by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), found that the emissions created by the production of plastic are a massive and unexplored source of air pollution in the world. The report, Plastic & Climate: The Hidden Costs of a Plastic Planet (pdf), calls for "urgent, ambitious action" to solve the problem.
"At current levels, greenhouse gas emissions from the plastic lifecycle threaten the ability of the global community to keep global temperature rise below 1.5°C," the report reads. "With the petrochemical and plastic industries planning a massive expansion in production, the problem is on track to get much worse."
Plastic is derived from a number of sources, including coal and salt, but the main base material comes from natural gas and crude oil. The gas or oil is distilled to separate out the chemical naphtha, a main component for plastic production. Then the compound is used in a complex, energy intensive process to make plastics.
That process, CIEL president Carroll Muffett said in a statement, is a major and oft-ignored contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.
"It has long been clear that plastic threatens the global environment and puts human health at risk," said Muffett. "This report demonstrates that plastic, like the rest of the fossil economy, is putting the climate at risk as well."
Priscilla Villa, a south Texas organizer with Earthworks, put the crisis in real-world terms.
"Plastics are fueling the climate catastrophe because they'e made from oil and gas, and oil and gas pollution is the main reason climate change is rapidly accelerating," said Villa. "Planned plastics production facilities in the Gulf Coast and Appalachia would worsen our global climate crisis while also threatening vulnerable communities with more intense storms like Hurricane Harvey."
The warnings come as plastics production is increasing worldwide. In an article reviewing the new report, Environmental Health News laid out the numbers.
In the fall of 2017, the American Chemistry Council estimated $164 billion in investment for 260 new or expanded petrochemical facilities in the U.S. Just one year later, that estimate was blown away—the Council reported investments of more than $200 billion in more than 330 new or bolstered facilities.
Even getting rid of the product through conventional means isn't a solution, said report co-author Doun Moon, a research associate with the Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives.
"Waste incineration, also referred to as Waste-to-Energy, is the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions from plastic waste management, even after considering the electricity that can be generated during the process," said Moon. "The industry's plans to massively expand both petrochemical production and waste incineration are incompatible with the urgent need for climate mitigation."
With such over-arching danger to the planet and the global environment, plastic needs to be treated as a real threat, said the Plastic Pollution Coalition's co-founder and CEO Dianna Cohen.
"Plastic pollution is an urgent global crisis, and plastic pollutes at every stage: from extraction to disposal and incinerator," Cohen said.
The danger to the globe, said The Guardian, can't be overstated.
This plastic binge threatens attempts to meet the Paris climate agreement. It means that by 2050 plastic will be responsible for up to 13% of the total "carbon budget"—equivalent to 615 coal-fired power plants—says the research published on Thursday.
The "alarming" findings of the report, said Cohen, make clear that a clear break from the past and a huge shift is necessary for the planet's survival.
"This is a decisive moment when we will no longer accept business as usual," said Cohen. "Join us in demanding a shift in the system for the health of the Earth and all its living creatures."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/05/15/alarming-report-details-emissions-danger-plastics-production-and-disposal-and-its
-
CEOs, Green Groups Launch Joint Initiative
May 15, 2019 | E&E Greenwire
By Courtney Columbus
More than a dozen CEOs and several environmental groups have banded together to demand federal climate legislation.
The initiative announced today has been dubbed the CEO Climate Dialogue and includes companies such as BP PLC, Exelon Corp., Dominion Energy Inc., PG&E Corp., DuPont and Royal Dutch Shell PLC.
Shell last month left the lobbying association the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers over disagreements about climate change (Energywire, April 4).
The new coalition says it plans to build support for climate policies on both sides of the aisle, laying out six principles it is advocating for.
Those include significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions — at least 80% economywide by 2050; economywide carbon pricing; and durable, responsive policies that don't harm the economy.
"The most underused tool for fighting climate change is corporate advocacy. Business voices matter to Congress, but the vast majority of companies have been missing from the climate policy debate — or even worse, have been lobbying against environmental progress," Environmental Defense Fund President Fred Krupp said in a statement.
"Together, the CEO Climate Dialogue companies are using their political influence to chart a new course for corporate sustainability leadership and drive down pollution across the economy," he said.
The other environmental groups involved are the Nature Conservancy, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, and the World Resources Institute.
"PG&E's commitment to a clean energy future, and to helping California achieve its greenhouse-gas reduction goals, is as strong as ever," PG&E CEO Bill Johnson said in a statement. "Effective climate policies start with a constructive dialogue among the full spectrum of stakeholders. We are proud to help lead that conversation."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2019/05/15/stories/1060338465
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested