Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 11/18/2015
-
(ACC Mentioned) Don't Get Left Behind in the Sustainability Game
Nov 18, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
PlasticsToday caught up with Dr. Han Zhang, Sustainability and Advocacy Manager for Dow Packaging & Specialty Plastics (P&SP) North America, for an exclusive interview on where the future of packaging sustainability is headed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Clearing a Path to Sound Chemicals Management
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Cal Dooley
Held in Geneva, ICCM4 allowed delegates to review progress towards achieving the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management’s (Saicm) goal – to ensure that chemicals are produced and used in ways that are safe and sustainable. -
TSCA Bill Might Struggle To Get Floor Vote Regardless Of LWCF Dispute
Nov 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) might struggle to get floor debate and a vote before the end of the year regardless of whether senators are able to resolve a dispute over reauthorizing the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) that has stalled the bill... -
Bill to Ban Microbeads in Soap Advances in House
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a environmentally conscious bill Wednesday that aims to keep the small plastic beads found in body washes, soaps and other personal care products out of the nation’s lakes and streams. -
US EPA to Expand Safer Chemical Ingredients List
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA plans to add 100 chemicals per year to its Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL), a list of substances allowed in products that seek its Safer Choice eco-label. -
BASF on Managing GHS Requirements
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process of transitioning hazard communication systems to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals is much like dealing with a hurricane, says Suzanne Janicki, the North American GHS project manager... -
US FDA Subjects FCMs to Import Verification Rule
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Food contact substances are now subject to foreign supplier verification programmes (FSVPs) for importers of food for humans and animals, under a final rule issued by the US FDA. -
Echa Proposes 11 Substances for Authorisation List
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraine Roberts
Echa has launched a public consultation, until 17 February, on a draft recommendation to add a further 11 substances to REACH Annex XIV – the list of chemicals subject to the authorisation process. -
Global Chemical Safety – Less Talk, More Implementation
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joe DiGangi
Each year, hundreds of millions of factory and farm workers are injured by accidents, pesticides and industrial chemical exposures – a subset of an even larger population of people exposed to, and affected by, harmful chemicals. -
Wastewater Spills Untracked in Texas, Masking Pollution
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It took decades for the stand of hardwood trees near Lake Texoma to grow tall. It took less than a day for 3,000 gallons of drilling wastewater to destroy them. -
(ACC Mentioned) DOT Rejects Rail, Chemical Industry Bids to Change New Tank Car Rule
Nov 18, 2015 | Transport Topics Online
By Rip Watson
The Department of Transportation turned down appeals to its final rule covering tank car safety from the railroad and chemical industries, which separately sought changes such as more flexibility in meeting the standards announced in May. -
26 Senate Dems Urge More Funding, Shorter Reauthorization
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
A group of almost 30 Senate Democrats sent a letter to congressional negotiators today urging them to increase surface transportation funding levels over a shorter authorization period. -
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Flores Floats Bill to Slow Ozone Standard Enforcement
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Legislation introduced this week by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) would effectively delay U.S. EPA enforcement of its new ground-level ozone standard by as much as eight years. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Green Building Council Gives Steps for New Leed Credit
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Green Building Council (USGBC) has released guidance, for achieving a credit under Leed v4 for material ingredient disclosure and selection of safer substances. -
Flake Introduces Measure to Kill New Ozone Standard
Nov 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Sen. Jeff Flake on Tuesday introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to challenge EPA’s recently finalized ozone standard. -
House Panel Approves Bills Undoing Obama Climate Rules
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved legislation to block new power plant rules from the Obama administration. -
Clean Power Plan Votes Waste Time that Could be Spent on Counterterrorism -- Democrats
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Senate approval last night of two resolutions to kill U.S. EPA's flagship climate rules took place under the cloud of last week's deadly shootings in the French capital, in which "Paris" suddenly seemed to conjure scenes of terrorism rather than U.N. summits. -
Amid Record Global Temperatures, Senate Votes to Block Obama’s Clean Power Plan
Nov 18, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Even as new data suggest that October of 2015 was a record-breaking hot month — with a 1.04 degree Celsius global temperature anomaly, the biggest monthly departure from average ever seen in NASA records — Senate Republicans led a vote... -
EPA Head Vows to Defend Climate Rules to Lawmakers
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the Senate’s Tuesday vote to kill the agency’s key climate change rule means she and the Obama administration need to do a better job explaining their vision for the energy sector... -
EPA Rule Hits the Road, Stops in Denver
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Bruce Finley
The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is taking a road trip, stopping at Pittsburgh last week and now Denver. -
Sensors: The Next frontier for Pollution Reduction
Nov 18, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Thirty years ago, several of our scientists snuck into our New York City headquarters on a weekend to take over the organization’s entire computer system and run data analytics on acid rain.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Don't Get Left Behind in the Sustainability Game
Nov 18, 2015 | Plastics Today
By Kari Embree
PlasticsToday caught up with Dr. Han Zhang, Sustainability and Advocacy Manager for Dow Packaging & Specialty Plastics (P&SP) North America, for an exclusive interview on where the future of packaging sustainability is headed. Zhang will also be speaking on the same subject at SouthPack, which is co-located with PLASTEC South, on Thursday, November 19, 2015.
Zhang is responsible for the implementation of the Energy Bag Program 2.0 and driving the 2025 Sustainability Goals for P&SP, informing the P&SP business of sustainability threats and opportunities and developing strategies to grow business value by leveraging Dow’s sustainability expertise. He is also responsible for advocacy efforts with key trade associations to grow recycling and align their efforts to Dow’s vision. In 2016, Zhang will expand the integration of sustainability into non-packaging sectors of the P&SP portfolio and partner with Marketing and R&D to drive sustainable product innovation.
What are some sustainable material options on the market and in development right now?
Zhang: At Dow, we believe that what is good for the planet and society is also good for business. To that end, we recently launched our 2025 sustainability goals, our third set of decade-long goals—available here. We are committed to applying science expertise to create sustainable solutions to help advance the well-being of humanity.
Many Dow innovations currently on the market help enable more sustainable packaging. The recently launched Innate Precision Packaging Resins offer unprecedented stiffness—toughness balance which can help converters lightweight packages or down-gauge film so less material is used in the package. Beyond the resin, Dow also collaborated with others in the value chain to develop the Recycle Ready Pouch, which is a mono-material Polyethylene (PE) Stand Up Pouch that can be recycled in communities with existing PE film recycling streams such as the grocery store drop-off. The Polyethylene Stand Up Pouch offers up to 88% less total material weight, consumes 54% less total energy, and allows for up to 90% less post-consumer solid waste when compared to a bag-in-box cake mix format with equivalent contents.
How can we increase community engagement for recycling? What types of programs are out there?
Zhang: Recycling programs have certainly been expanding; both in terms of communities served and what types of items can be recycled. Despite progress, approaches to integrated waste management have only begun to evolve. Dow is committed to helping facilitate the world’s transition to a circular economy and is highly active in educating and promoting the advantages of plastic packaging by advocating for increased recycling, for packaging’s role in food security and food preservation, and for the adoption of energy recovery technologies to reduce landfill use.
Dow is leading sustainability efforts to increase recycling by supporting programs of associations like GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) How2Recycle Label program that is a standardized labeling system that clearly communicates recycling instructions to the consumer as well as actively supporting the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Flexible Film Recycling group which has laid the groundwork for national public awareness to increase polyethylene (PE) film recovery at store drop-off locations.
As a leading supplier of PE resins and adhesives to the packaging industry, we saw a need to explore new end-of-life options for the growing segment of multi-material flexible plastic packaging. We recognized the untapped value of these non-recycled plastics. The Energy Bag Pilot Program demonstrated that resource recovery of non-recycled plastics is a viable municipal process which can lead to positive long-term environmental advantages.
What are some things to consider when developing a sustainability strategy?
Zhang: The key is to drive lifecycle thinking and science-based decision making. The product lifecycle involves many steps and many concerned parties. This can impact how a business addresses sustainability across a product’s lifecycle. Sustainability strategies can generally be considered from both a reduction in the utilization of resources such as materials, water and energy, as well as an optimization of the package performance. For example, if we want to minimize the amount of food waste incurred during long distribution times, the package should provide better barrier protection as well as strong seals to protect the contents against the environment.
How can companies stay competitive in the sustainability game?
Zhang: Companies that are committed to providing solutions that benefit the world from an economic, social, and environmental standpoint are positioned to succeed as sustainability becomes increasingly important. Companies should make sure they work with value-chain partners to achieve the balance of value and sustainability that the marketplace demands and consumers need. By continuously seeking to improve solutions, manufacturing methods, and relationships within the value chain, it is possible to stay ahead of the competition. In the end, those that are poised to overcome challenges while remaining dedicated to producing a quality result will succeed in the quest for sustainable innovation.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clearing a Path to Sound Chemicals Management
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Cal Dooley
Held in Geneva, ICCM4 allowed delegates to review progress towards achieving the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management’s (Saicm) goal – to ensure that chemicals are produced and used in ways that are safe and sustainable.
Saicm’s innovative, multi-stakeholder framework brings together governments and non-governmental stakeholders to build trust, collaborate and address challenges on issues ranging from chemicals in products and lead in paint, to nanotechnology and endocrine disrupting chemicals.
Some countries continue to face challenges in their efforts to manage chemicals and waste. They may lack a regulatory infrastructure to set chemical safety and sound management standards and enforce compliance with such standards. In other regions, more needs to be done to build in-country capacity to safely manage chemicals.
That’s why industry supports extending the Saicm process beyond 2020 to drive further gains. Continuing this multi-stakeholder, voluntary approach is critical. Through partnerships, collaboration among parties with similar goals but different perspectives has been possible, and different regions and countries have been able to develop solutions that meet their individual needs.
Saicm is able to leverage progress in sound chemicals management to promote overall economic growth and improve quality of life in countries that do not have robust chemical management frameworks today. To achieve this, stakeholders will need to work with governments to support the creation of regulatory programmes that will help manage the production, handling and use of chemicals throughout their lifecycle responsibly.
At the same time, we must also work to accelerate deployment of innovative products and technologies made possible by chemistry, including safe, clean drinking water; increased agricultural production enabled by fertilizers and chemical products that protect plants from pest infestation; and renewable energy sources and technologies that depend on innovations in chemistry to become more efficient and affordable, to name just a few.
The products of chemistry are the backbone of new technologies that will enable us to address global challenges and improve the quality of life for individuals today and tomorrow. As we look forward to 2020, ICCA members will continue to work with intergovernmental organisations, national governments and other stakeholders, to ensure a future where chemicals are produced and used safely and sustainably.
Since its launch in 2006, the ICCA has made real, tangible progress on the road to sound chemicals management. At ICCM4, we highlighted some specific achievements:
expanding Responsible Care, the chemical industry’s world-class environmental, health and safety performance initiative, to more than 60 countries and thousands of global chemical companies, including in Russia, the Arabian Gulf and China;
conducting 172 capacity building workshops in 46 regions around the world to enhance the ability of local industry to manage chemicals safely;
publishing more than 4,600 product safety summaries on the ICCA website to provide consumers with more information about chemicals in the products they use;
developing a Regulatory Tool Box that provides guidance to governments in developing nations on how to integrate best practices into their own risk-based, national chemical safety legislation;
partnering with the UN Environment Programme (Unep) over the past five years on multiple capacity building initiatives to promote sound management of chemicals, with a particular focus on Africa.
At a conference side event, featuring top industry leaders, the ICCA publicly launched its updated Responsible Care Global Charter, which aims to unite global chemical companies under a shared commitment to strengthen chemicals management systems, safeguard people and the environment and engage stakeholders to work toward sustainable solutions.
To date, leaders from 536 chemical companies have pledged support for the Global Charter, including more than 90% of the world’s top 100 petrochemical and chemical manufacturers. More than 400 small- and medium-sized enterprises that operate globally also joined these companies in their commitment to continuous improvement, as did thousands of other domestic companies that participate in Responsible Care through national and regional trade associations.
In addition, the ICCA renewed its commitment with Unep to carry out joint activities to advance sound chemicals management globally. Over the next four years, Unep and the ICCA will build on their long-term vision to work with government agencies and industry in developing countries on specific capacity building projects, tailored to individual country needs and priorities, with the goal of enabling measurable, sustainable improvement in a country’s chemicals management capacity.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
Cal Dooley, council secretary for ICCA and president and CEO of the ACC
-
TSCA Bill Might Struggle To Get Floor Vote Regardless Of LWCF Dispute
Nov 18, 2015 | InsideEPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
Senate legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) might struggle to get floor debate and a vote before the end of the year regardless of whether senators are able to resolve a dispute over reauthorizing the Land & Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) that has stalled the bill, according to chemical industry officials.
"There are several issues that could eat up floor time," one industry source says, including those that are seen as higher legislative priorities than TSCA reform in a "political year" -- including negotiations over how to address a budget continuing resolution that ends Dec. 11 and a GOP push to defund Planned Parenthood.
A second industry source notes that there can be no floor vote on the TSCA bill, S. 697, until Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) withdraws his formal objection to such a vote, and at press time the objection remained in place.
Burr objected on Oct. 21 and then Oct. 28 when Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a leading co-sponsor of the measure, sought unanimous consent to bring the bill to the floor. Burr is seeking an amendment to the S. 697 bill to reauthorize the LWCF, but Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), and a small handful of Republican senators oppose reauthorization of the fund without changes to how it operates, and so neither bill has thus far been allowed to move to a vote.
The first industry source says that the LWCF dispute might not be the only thing that prevents the Senate considering the TSCA bill before 2016, noting that "Burr may not be the only obstacle" given other pending issues. The budget talks alone could consume several days of floor time that narrows the window for debating the TSCA bill. With the Senate slated to recess Dec. 18, that could push consideration of the legislation into next year.
The TSCA bill has at least 60 declared supporters, meaning it would survive any filibuster attempts. "No reason except politics it could not be passed" this year, says the second industry source.
Even if the Senate holds a successful floor vote on S. 697 before the end of the year, lawmakers will still have to hold a conference committee to resolve differences between the bill and the narrower House bill, H.R. 2576, which cleared the House in a 398-1 vote in late June. If senators punt debate over the TSCA to next year, the bill's sponsors would not have to reintroduce it because it the 114th Congress continues through 2017.
A spokeswoman for Udall's office says that the senator "remains optimistic" for a path that would allow a vote on TSCA before the end of the year -- though the LWCF fight is still unresolved.
LWCF Dispute
Lee objects to reauthorizing the fund, which expired Sept. 30, without adding language that would address a massive backlog of maintenance projects on public lands, according to a spokesman from Lee's office.
As a result, Lee has blocked the amendment that Burr is seeking to offer as a rider to the S. 697 bill. The prompted Burr's objection to the TSCA bill going to a vote. There is concern among the proponents of reforming TSCA that allowing such a rider could divide the Republican support for the chemical safety bill.
The LWCF helps acquire and maintain park lands and is funded by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas. Lee and Burr are supporters of the TSCA reform legislation, but their push on the LWCF has created major uncertainty about when a vote could take place on either the measure to reauthorize the fund or the TSCA bill.
Both the House and Senate TSCA bills would overhaul the 1976 toxics law in order to give EPA new authority to address risks from existing chemicals in the marketplace, and eliminate legal hurdles in current law that have hindered the agency's ability to restrict dangerous chemicals, such as its 1991 failure to ban asbestos.
The House bill has narrower preemption of state toxics programs than S. 697. It would "grandfather," or preserve existing state chemical safety laws that have taken effect before Aug. 1 and preserve state toxic tort claims, after EPA takes final action on a chemical, unless they "actually conflict" with new federal mandates. New state chemical laws, however, would be preempted once EPA finishes a restriction under TSCA.
Should the Senate eventually approve S. 697, it will then head to conference negotiations to resolve it with H.R. 2576. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), who authored the House version of the legislation, previously said that the two chambers will eventually hold "staff to staff meetings" to discuss the bills and options, including "informal conference, negotiating on the same bill, [or] formal conference."
-
Bill to Ban Microbeads in Soap Advances in House
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Lydia Wheeler
The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed a environmentally conscious bill Wednesday that aims to keep the small plastic beads found in body washes, soaps and other personal care products out of the nation’s lakes and streams.
The committee approved an amendment to establish a substitute for the Microbeads Free Waters Act of 2015 to ban microbeads from personal care products and set up an aggressive timeline for the phasing out of these products beginning in 2017. The committee then voted favorably to move the substitute bill to the floor for a vote.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), applies to any non-prescription, rinse-off cosmetic product.
While typically not a fan of pre-emption, Pallone said the substitute bill includes a provision to keep states from enacting their own laws to regulate these plastic microbeads because the federal law proposed has a faster timeline for phasing out products than any state law now in place.
Though these tiny beads, which are less than five millimeters in size, are almost invisible, committee Chair Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said they are causing “mega-problems.”
“Because they are so small, they escape water filtration systems and end up in our bodies of water,” he said. “They are known to absorb pollutants and are often mistaken as food by fish and wildlife.”
Pallone said he was pleased to see the committee finally taking the steps to address a problem that’s existed for some time and urged his colleagues on the committee to support the legislation.
“Synthetic plastic microbeads have polluted our nation's waters for years and action is long overdue,” he said.
The committee also approved the technical amendment he offered to clarify that toothpaste is considered a rinse-off cosmetic that’s covered under the proposed legislation.
A companion bill has also been introduced in the Senate by Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Gary Peters (D-Mich.), who are concerned about protecting the nation’s Great Lakes.
A report earlier this year by the State University of New York in Fredonia found anywhere from 1,500 to 1.1 million microbeads per square mile in the world's largest source of freshwater.
-
US EPA to Expand Safer Chemical Ingredients List
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA plans to add 100 chemicals per year to its Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL), a list of substances allowed in products that seek its Safer Choice eco-label.
Launched in 2012, the list now has about 725 chemicals and is updated several times a year.
It is organised by product type, or "functional use classes", such as surfactants, solvents, polymers and antimicrobial actives. The standard and criteria for the list address a broad range of potential toxicological effects, including sensitisers, asthmagens, substances that are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBTs) and those on “authoritative lists of chemicals of concern”.
Previously know as the Design for the Environment (DfE), the Safer Choice programme aims to promote safer product design and green chemistry alternatives, through “informed substitution” of chemicals.
The programme was renamed along with the release of new eco-logos in March.
The goal of adding 100 chemicals per year to the list "is our base for the next few years”, Emma Lavoie, a toxicologist for the programme, told a meeting in Arlington, Virginia, last week. But the agency is also "talking about potentially reviewing about 300 chemicals per year”, she added.
The EPA also hopes to increase the number of functional use classes from the current 14, she said.
The label's new data system will be able to incorporate toxicological information in the future, Aly Lorenz, a lead product reviewer for the programme, explained to delegates. Third-party profilers now can submit products into the system for EPA review. Submitting data for SCIL review is under development, she said.
The Safer Choice label is one of three “key pillars” of Walmart's sustainable chemistry policy, announced in 2013, Ashley Hall, the retailer's senior manager manager of sustainability, told the meeting. The company encourages its suppliers to get the Safer Choice label and expects, over time, to see an “increased amount” of products with the label on it.
-
BASF on Managing GHS Requirements
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The process of transitioning hazard communication systems to the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals is much like dealing with a hurricane, says Suzanne Janicki, the North American GHS project manager for international chemical company BASF.
As international requirements change for classifying substances, a ripple effect is felt throughout the supply chain – on mixtures, labelling, personal protective equipment requirements and transportation. “It quickly turns from a droplet of rain into a hurricane,” she told delegates at a recent meeting of the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication in Virginia.
Ms Janicki said that it is likely to be at least five more years before the GHS conversion storm passes. “Managing this ‘hurricane’ for the next several years will be a challenge and require industry and agency cooperation, and understanding of the difficulties of the transition from a practical application standpoint,” she added.
Communication is king
A formal internal and external communication programme has been a cornerstone of BASF’s GHS transition, according to Ms Janicki. She acknowledged that while there are “a lot of confused and frustrated people out there right now”, efforts to provide clear, transparent and consistent communication have alleviated some of these challenges.
Complying with hazard communication regulations may seem to be a job for a company’s environmental, health and safety (EHS) staff, but it is actually a process that needs to be managed across many job functions, explained Ms Janicki. A company’s supply chain, marketing, operations, logistics and IT staff are all pulled into issues related to updating to GHS. “Speaking EHS” to such varied roles in the company, she said, will not work. A well-documented and transparent communication programme has helped BASF improve this cross-functional dialogue.
Similarly, Ms Janicki said that “we’re spending a lot of time at BASF with customers,” some of whom, she noted, have been “scared” by new hazard communication. The company continues to emphasise to customers that the “toxicological information has not changed, it’s how we’re communicating it,” when concerns arise and when new or different hazards are disclosed on familiar products.
Decision making
For BASF, a typical Cas number will appear in 500-1,000 products. When changes occur to a Cas’s hazard classifications, it becomes a company decision on how to address the corresponding hazard communication changes.
In the US, the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS 2012) assumes a six month sell-through for a product using outdated labels. However, Ms Janicki pointed out that many companies produce a majority of products to be inventoried, rather than to be sold immediately. At BASF, for example, the through-put for a pre-printed label is as long as three years, so a six-month sell through may not be “logistically realistic” in all cases.
What’s more, there’s no such thing as a single label, explained Ms Janicki. While applied labels can be reprinted on demand, there is also third-party labelling – including private and blind labelling – pre-printed packaging labels, and work place hazard communication labels, all of which must be assessed for possible changes with new substance hazard classifications.
As classifications for certain substances, mixtures and products shift, companies will need to make decisions on how to handle the corresponding ripple effects throughout the supply chain, said Ms Janicki.
“Any change to label information or classification has significant economic cost for existing labelled inventory and supply chain management efforts” and each company must weigh those costs and decisions. Some companies may determine that in order to achieve full compliance with hazard communication regulations, measures such as unpalleting, relabelling and re-palleting products, or even dumping products, may be considered.
Ultimately, said Ms Janicki, a company needs to decide on its own toxicological information, its own risk matrix and to decide on how to handle hazard communication challenges.
BOX: ‘One chemical, one classification’?
As a case study to examine how widely classifications for a single substance may vary, BASF performed a Cas-level examination of its North American suppliers of 50-70% nitric acid in water. In reviewing the substance’s classifications from the company’s 36 suppliers, 18 different GHS classification approaches were found, which named a total of 22 individual hazard classifications. Of those 22 specific hazards, only two – skin corrosive and eye corrosive – were included in every classification approach.
This, she said, is illustrative of how complex GHS is.
A “one chemical, one classification” system will not be a reality, as there is no consistent industry GHS classification approach at a Cas level, according to Ms Janicki. This lack of consistency contributes significantly to the hurricane’s ripple effect, in ways such as:inconsistent industrial hygiene approaches;different personal protective equipment requirements from suppliers;confusion in the marketplace; and“exponential” impact on how mixtures may be classified.
-
US FDA Subjects FCMs to Import Verification Rule
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
Food contact substances are now subject to foreign supplier verification programmes (FSVPs) for importers of food for humans and animals, under a final rule issued by the US FDA.
The regulation requires importers to verify that food they import into the US is produced in compliance with the hazard analysis and risk-based preventive controls and standards for the produce safety provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
The agency received several comments, requesting that it exclude food contact substances from the definition of food, because facilities that manufacture, process, pack, or hold them are not required to register with the FDA and, therefore, are not subject to the proposed regulations on preventive controls.
But the FDA said it does not agree that “it is appropriate to exclude food contact substances (including food packaging), as defined in section 409(h)(6) of the Act from the definition of “food” for FSVP purposes. The definition of “food” for the purposes of food facility registration, excludes food contact substances as defined in section 409(h)(6) of the Act.
Consequently, a facility that manufactures/processes, packs, or holds food contact substances is not required to be registered, according to the rule to be published in the Federal Register.
But section 805 of the Act is not similarly limited to facilities that are required to register, said the agency. Instead, it applies to imports of “food,” which is defined to include articles used as components of food.
“Further, we do not believe there is any evidence that Congress intended to exclude food contact substances from being considered “food” for the purposes of section 805 and the FSVP Regulation.”
-
Echa Proposes 11 Substances for Authorisation List
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Geraine Roberts
Echa has launched a public consultation, until 17 February, on a draft recommendation to add a further 11 substances to REACH Annex XIV – the list of chemicals subject to the authorisation process.
The agency is seeking comments on whether the substances should be a priority for authorisation, their uses, possible exemptions and the proposed application and phase-out deadlines.
As with the agency’s previous draft recommendations, its Member State Committee will produce its opinion on the draft, taking into account the consultation responses. Echa will then draw up its final recommendation and submit it to the European Commission.
The latter will then decide which of the substances to add to Annex XIV and what the conditions will be for each substance, including the sunset date. The production and use of those added to the annex will be prohibited after the sunset date – except for any uses granted authorisation.
The draft recommendation is Echa’s seventh. However, its fifth and sixth final recommendations have been held up by the Commission, while it focuses on revising the authorisation process – prompting concern for Echa and among some member states (CW 9 July 2015).
There are 163 substances on the candidate list, of which 31 have so far been added to Annex XIV.
The 11 substances, included in the draft seventh recommendation, are:the respiratory sensitisers, HHPA and MHHPA, which are used as hardeners in epoxy resins. Their designation as SVHCs remains subject to a legal challenge (CW 22 September 2015);the boron compounds, sodium perborate and “perboric acid, sodium salt and sodium peroxometaborate”. These are used in detergents and bleaches and are toxic for reproduction category 1B;the lead compounds, orange lead (lead tetroxide), lead monoxide (lead oxide), tetralead trioxide sulphate and pentalead tetraoxide sulphate, which are used to make batteries and rubber. These are classified as category 1A reprotoxins;trixylyl phosphate. This is used in lubricants, hydraulic fluids and plastics production, and is toxic for reproduction 1B; andtwo plasticisers used in PVC - dihexyl phthalate and “1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, dihexyl ester, branched and linear” 1B reprotoxins.
The draft recommendation says the deadline, by which the last authorisation applications should be submitted, should be between 18 and 24 months, depending on the substance. For all 11, the proposed sunset [phase-out] date is 18 months after the application deadline.
In parallel, the Commission is seeking information on the possible socio-economic consequences of including the substances in the authorisation list. Echa will pass this on to the Commission and it will not be considered by the agency in the recommendation process.
-
Global Chemical Safety – Less Talk, More Implementation
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joe DiGangi
Each year, hundreds of millions of factory and farm workers are injured by accidents, pesticides and industrial chemical exposures – a subset of an even larger population of people exposed to, and affected by, harmful chemicals.
One international agreement that should address the multitude of chemical safety struggles around the world is the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). But there is a long way to go to fulfil Saicm’s chemical safety mission.
Han Hye-kyung is seated on the floor opposite me, at a low-slung table in a quiet non-descript restaurant in South Korea. Pale, uncomfortably thin, and now in her mid-30s, her body suddenly collapses and she falls sideways. Her mother deftly catches her and both act as if this is completely normal – because now it is.
After massive chemical exposures in an electronics manufacturing facility, Hye-kyung developed brain cancer in her early 20s. Removal of part of her brain impaired muscle coordination and speech. “I know I talk like an idiot,” she says, “but people do not realise I am fully aware of my condition.” Her out-of-control body personifies the true cost of the chemical industry’s products. Existing global chemicals treaties do not cover any of the chemicals Hye-kyung was exposed to, but Saicm should address them and the harms she and millions of others face in workplaces and communities around the world.
Delegates from more than 100 governments, along with representatives of the chemical industry and public interest groups, met recently at the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) in Geneva to tackle chemical safety issues under Saicm. If you just consider the number of resolutions produced by the meeting, you might think it was highly successful. But the best summary of the meeting came from Barbara Thomson, deputy minister of environmental affairs in South Africa using only four words: “Less talk, more implementation.”
Saicm’s roots in the World Summit for Sustainable Development in 2002 and its broad multi-sectoral / multi-stakeholder scope make it highly relevant to all countries. However, it has a special value to the many low- and middle-income countries that still have very weak legal, regulatory, institutional and technical infrastructures for protecting their countries’ residents and environment from the harms associated with exposure to toxic chemicals and wastes. With the current, rapid expansion of chemical production and use in the developing world, there is a growing need for a stronger, more capable Saicm that receives proper political priority and adequate resources.
Its goal is to reform how chemicals are designed, produced and used in order to minimise and eliminate their harms. To do this, financing is needed to establish and maintain regulatory infrastructure and enforcement, along with a whole host of prevention and clean-up measures. However, at ICCM4, finance was missing from the meeting agenda and delegates allowed the only funding programme administered by the agreement – the Quick Start Programme Trust Fund – to quietly come to an end. Established in 2006 at Saicm’s beginning, the programme was extremely popular because it was nimble, not overly bureaucratic, and provided ranges of funding that could make real change without burdensome co-finance.
The Quick Start Programme Trust Fund was designed to enable an activities programme to get started. Unfortunately, the substantive funding for the long-term implementation of Saicm never arrived. Other sources exist but so far they either do not match the need or they have not been operationalised.
The persistent lack of financing for chemical safety has led to the catch phrase that funding should be, “sustainable, predictable, adequate and accessible”. The current model for satisfying these requirements is an integrated approach that contains three elements: dedicated external finance, mainstreaming chemical safety into the development agenda, and what is politely called, “industry involvement”. These elements should be developed further, but so far the approach has not yet provided any substantial influx of financial support for Saicm implementation.
Dedicated external finance includes a time-limited special programme which has been established with a secretariat held by Unep Chemicals to support institutional strengthening at the national level for Saicm, the three chemicals conventions, and the new mercury treaty. However, it specifically diverges from Saicm’s multi-stakeholder approach by excluding financing for public interest civil society organisations and the funds are insufficient. Including a pledge announced at ICCM4, the special programme currently has only approximately US $14m to cover five international agreements. According to an ICCM4 information document, the executive board of the programme has not yet been established.
Another possible source of external funding is the Global Environment Facility, which allocated US $13m for Saicm during its sixth replenishment, to cover a period of four years; appreciated but not nearly sufficient.
Ten years ago at Saicm preparatory meetings, donor government delegates raised expectations that international development assistance agencies would provide substantial funding for implementation. This has not yet occurred on a significant scale and needs to be pursued further. However, there is an obvious, but untapped, large source of funding for chemicals management: the chemical industry itself. This is what the “industry involvement” portion of the integrated approach should be about.
According to Unep, the global chemical industry has an annual turnover of approximately US $4.1tn per year. A very small levy of only 0.1% would yield more than US $4bn per year – an amount that is more consistent with the scale of what is actually needed and considerably more than what donor governments are ever likely to be able to pay. For the chemical industry, this cost is so small relative to its total turnover that it should not be absorbed into the price of products for the end user to pay. The aggregate costs of daily fluxes in the price of petroleum and other raw materials, for example, dwarf the amount a producer might need to pay annually in this kind of a cost-recovery scheme. Ultimately, the chemical industry should be responsible for the true cost of its products.
The true measure of Saicm’s success will not be cleverly worded resolutions put together in Geneva. Instead, it will be how policies can be put into practice and actually reduce and eliminate the harms, currently inflicted on workers and communities throughout the world.
A few real-world actions that should result from ICCM4, by 2020, include:
global elimination of lead paint – a known hazard for more than 100 years and still widely used in developing countries. Of all children with elevated blood-lead levels, an estimated 90% live in low-income regions;
the wide-ranging phase-out of highly hazardous pesticides and the phase-in of agroecology, an approach widely accepted as the key to truly sustainable agriculture. The FAO Council called for the progressive ban of these farmer killers ten years ago;
publicly available information on chemicals in products for communities and workers rather than being stifled by confidential business information or the industry hiding behind weak legislation in developing and transition countries;
protective regulatory policies on endocrine disrupting chemicals that reflect how the endocrine system actually works, instead of what is convenient for chemical manufacturers; and
financing for Saicm implementation of at least US $1bn/year, with a substantial portion originating from industry cost-recovery.
Finally, we come to hazardous chemicals in electronics – perhaps one of the widest gulfs between policy and action on the Saicm agenda. Like that of millions of workers, in Han Hye-kyung’s case the company designed a toxic process, did not adequately protect her, refused to tell her what she was working with and then worked to deny her compensation after she developed cancer.
This year’s ICCM4 resolution re-states the case for information disclosure and much more, but the issues of design, production and waste make electronics a stunning case study of how badly chemical safety needs to address an entire lifecycle in practice.
Lunch is over and Hye-kyung is struggling to get into her wheelchair – not easy when you cannot control key muscles. When she finally stopped swaying and caught her breath she said, “You know … health is important.”
-
Wastewater Spills Untracked in Texas, Masking Pollution
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
It took decades for the stand of hardwood trees near Lake Texoma to grow tall. It took less than a day for 3,000 gallons of drilling wastewater to destroy them.
The salty fluid spilled from aging oil field pipes in February 2012 in the Hagerman National Wildlife Refuge north of Dallas. The leak killed 84 mature oaks, cottonwoods and hackberry trees, some of them more than 150 years old. U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials estimated the damage at $154,000.
But you won't find the details of the spill in the records of the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), the state agency in charge of regulating the state's oil and gas industry.
The state doesn't track wastewater spills, and the rules are so vague and unenforceable that insiders say companies don't even need to notify state officials when they have a spill. Many consider notifying RRC about waste spills to be voluntary, though the agency insists otherwise.
Most other states with oil and gas producers track wastewater spills and require drillers to report them. But while Texas tracks spills of crude oil and condensate, its records leave out spills of the waste fluid often called "salt water," or "produced water."
The omission of such information in Texas, environmentalists say, ignores the danger presented by the toxic, briny fluid.
"Texas is way behind the curve when it comes to paying attention to salt water spills," said Scott Anderson of the Environmental Defense Fund.
Texas officials declined to explain why such spills are omitted from reporting requirements, but they stress companies are supposed to clean them up.
"Produced water spills of any amount must be cleaned up under Statewide Rule 8 but reporting is not required in the agency rules," former Texas Railroad Commission Executive Director John Tintera said in an email to EnergyWire.
But Anderson said a requirement that spills be cleaned up is unenforceable if they don't get reported.
"The notion that salt water spills can be effectively regulated without even requiring spills to be reported is ludicrous," Anderson said.
Excluding such spills has the effect of masking a large amount of pollution from oil and gas wells. In the states that do track all spills, records show there can be as many wastewater spills as oil spills.
In neighboring New Mexico, 55 percent of spills reported in 2014 were wastewater-only. In Oklahoma, wastewater spills were 36 percent of the total.
Texas' policy also discounts what experts say can be severe environmental damage. The briny wastewater is many times saltier than seawater and can include heavy metals, petroleum residue and even low-level radioactive material.
A limited study recently presented by a Duke University doctoral candidate found that environmental damage from brine spills is more severe and longer-lasting than oil releases (EnergyWire, Nov. 4).
Oil spills tend to get more attention. But thick crude oil can be scraped away. Briny wastewater, on the other hand, can penetrate deep into soil, even down to groundwater.
And even if it doesn't reach groundwater, the salty water can turn productive farmland into concrete-like "hardpan."
"Brine spills are much worse than oil spills, in my opinion," said Pedro Ramirez, an environmental contaminant specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who has studied spills in refuges.
If it isn't cleaned up, nothing will grow on the land for generations. If a company does try to clean up a spill, it can take years.
"The hydrocarbon [oil] will be a distant memory while you're still dealing with the salt," said Kerry Sublette, a chemical engineering professor at the University of Tulsa.
Texas has a reputation for not being as aggressive in cleaning up such spills, said Sublette, who does seminars on remediation all over the country. And Ramirez said that without data, it's more difficult for land managers to get a handle on the scope of the problem.
"If you're not tracking them, it's going to be more difficult to manage that situation," Ramirez said.
EDF's Anderson notes that Texas regulators may also be missing problematic side effects of efforts to conserve groundwater.
Because industry is looking for ways to reuse produced water in frack jobs, a lot more wastewater is being trucked and piped through oil field communities now. That means a lot more chances to spill wastewater.
"It is especially important to track saltwater spills given industry's increased interest in recycling of produced water," Anderson said.Confusion about reporting
Texas' policy on reporting brine spills can be confusing. The RRC has specific requirements for reporting oil and condensate spills of five barrels or more. Companies must fill out a form, called an H-8, when such spills happen.
But there is no specific reporting requirement for reporting brine spills. The H-8 form excludes wastewater spills.
Even the requirements for notifying the agency about wastewater spills are murky. Instead, RRC spokeswoman Gaye McElwain said brine spills are covered under requirements to notify the agency about releases of "other well liquids."
RRC's "Statewide Rule 20," McElwain said, requires that such releases must be reported to the local RRC office by phone.
But that's not always the understanding of those outside the agency's media affairs office. Tintera, the agency's former director, told EnergyWire reporting is voluntary.
So did Richard Brantley, the associate director of the Midland office of the University of Texas's University Lands. The UT system includes more than 2 million acres in the resource-rich Permian Basin, most of which are leased for energy development. UT land managers oversee leases with more than 250 companies.
Brantley said that reporting wastewater spills to the Railroad Commission is voluntary.
"That's my understanding," Brantley said.
UT land managers use a spill cleanup guide that incorporates a 2005 RRC draft guide that says "all produced water notifications are voluntary."
McElwain said that document is outdated and unofficial. Brantley said he was unaware of any other guidance from the Railroad Commission.
UT land managers, though, require companies to report any spills of wastewater or anything else, Brantley said. Companies are required to report in writing.
"Don't just call me and tell me," Brantley said.
Heather Palmer, who advises clients on the environmental issues surrounding oil and gas development for Bracewell & Giuliani, says it's her understanding that companies must report brine spills by phone and follow up with a letter.
But there is some confusion, she said, because there is no threshold for reporting brine, unlike the five-barrel threshold for oil. So it's not clear what counts as a spill. That makes for some subjective decisions in the field.
"Does that mean a thimble-full?" she said. "Our clients struggle with this."
RRC reported 25 violations of its notification rules for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 1. They are not broken down by type of spill. RRC records show companies reported 1,256 crude oil and condensate spills.
The company responsible for the spill in the Hagerman refuge agreed to deposit $30,000 in a cleanup fund and developed plans for replacing the pipes that leaked with better pipe farther from sensitive areas.
-
(ACC Mentioned) DOT Rejects Rail, Chemical Industry Bids to Change New Tank Car Rule
Nov 18, 2015 | Transport Topics Online
By Rip Watson
The Department of Transportation turned down appeals to its final rule covering tank car safety from the railroad and chemical industries, which separately sought changes such as more flexibility in meeting the standards announced in May.
DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, announced its decision in the Federal Register. In addition to rejecting the Association of American Railroads and the American Chemistry Council, appeals by other groups such as the Dangerous Goods Advisory Council were turned down.
The rule was unveiled in a joint news conference with Canadian transport regulators. The rule was meant to reduce incidents and their consequences in light of multiple accidents in the United States and an explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in July 2013. The rule regulated factors such as tank car design, speed and routing restrictions and braking systems, and routing.
AAR in a statement said it was “disappointed that PHMSA has denied the railroad industry’s appeal to strengthen” the tank car rule by using thermal blankets to smother a fire or explosion.
“The AAR is continuing to review the decision’s specifics and is still considering its options,” spokesman Ed Greenberg told Transport Topics.
The agency’s response to the railroads’ multiple protests focused on factors such as costs, the feasibility of doing retrofits and installation of electronically controlled pneumatic, or ECP, brakes.
For example, PHMSA said the railroads’ protest of a plan to allow the use of older tank cars known as DOT-111s for some service was made “because it would have been cost prohibitive” to bar the older cars altogether. The railroads sought to bar the older cars due to fears related to accidents and liability.
Like the railroads, the ACC said it was “disappointed” by the decision.
“The rule continues to create a great deal of uncertainty regarding the types of shipments that are covered by the rule and could create an unworkable timetable for upgrading tank cars,” the chemical group’s statement to TT said.
In response to the chemical industry trade group, PHMSA said its multiyear timetable for upgrading tank car safety features was reasonable.
The DOT agency said the timetables for upgraded tank car bodies and brakes were workable since there is ample capacity to make those improvements.
AAR contends that the safety ECP brakes is questionable since they haven’t been adequately tested.
-
26 Senate Dems Urge More Funding, Shorter Reauthorization
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
A group of almost 30 Senate Democrats sent a letter to congressional negotiators today urging them to increase surface transportation funding levels over a shorter authorization period.
Spearheaded by Sens. Tom Carper of Delaware and Cory Booker of New Jersey, the letter was sent as conferees working to hammer out differences between House and Senate legislation met for the first time this morning.
"We urge you to consider the urgent need for an increase in infrastructure investment around the country, and report a final proposal that can best address these needs by maximizing annual investment levels for all surface transportation programs over a shorter authorization period," the letter says. "We strongly urge you to finalize a surface transportation conference report that can provide the maximum amount of benefits to American families and businesses by prioritizing increased investment for all surface transportation programs over the length of the authorization."
Determining how to finance the $325 billion road and public transit package has been a major point of contention as the bills moved through Congress, and remains the main sticking point for the conference committee (E&E Daily, Nov. 5).
Currently, the Senate bill authorizes funding for six years but provides enough money only to pay for the first three. The House was able to cover five years of the bill's cost thanks to an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) that would help finance the bill by reducing dividends that the Federal Reserve pays to some large member banks (Greenwire, Nov. 5).
That fix has some members of the conference committee considering authorizing a fully funded five-year authorization package.
The letter from Senate Democrats not on the conference committee notes that prior to the 2012 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), "each successive transportation package contained significant increases in annual funding levels."
"While the proposed Senate investment levels exceed baseline funding, they would still only be sufficient to cover expected increases in construction materials costs," the letter says. "These funding levels are certainly insufficient to rebuild and modernize our nation's transportation infrastructure."Additional conferees
Neugebauer was among 16 last-minute additions to the House delegation to the conference committee.
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) assigned the additional legislators last night, saying they would help deliver "a final highway bill that cuts waste, prioritizes infrastructure, and helps create good-paying jobs across the country."
The additional members are: Reps. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas), Mike Rogers (R-Ala.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Tom Marino (R-Pa.), Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Will Hurd (R-Texas), John Mica (R-Fla.), Lamar Smith (R-Texas), Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.).
Mica is a former chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. LaHood's father, Ray LaHood, served as President Obama's first Transportation secretary.
The Senate appointed 11 conferees, and the House appointed 30 earlier this month (E&E Daily, Nov. 16).
-
(ACC Mentioned) Rep. Flores Floats Bill to Slow Ozone Standard Enforcement
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E Daily News
By Sean Reilly
Legislation introduced this week by Rep. Bill Flores (R-Texas) would effectively delay U.S. EPA enforcement of its new ground-level ozone standard by as much as eight years.
The bill, H.R. 4000, is aimed at salving manufacturers' worries that the standard, unveiled last month, will mire them in permitting limbo. While the Clean Air Act requires manufacturers to show compliance with the new benchmark when applying for pre-construction permits, EPA has yet to provide instructions on how they're supposed to do that (Greenwire, Oct. 8.
The new regulations lower the 75 parts per billion ambient air ozone standard set in 2008 to 70 parts per billion. EPA officials expect to name the "nonattainment areas" that don't meet the new threshold by late 2017; Flores' bill would roll that date back to 2025, a point when federal regulators expected most counties to be in compliance regardless. The legislation would also replace the existing five-year cycle for review of air pollutant standards with a 10-year timetable and require states to submit implementation plans for meeting the new ozone threshold by 2026.
Unnecessarily naming nonattainment areas that are otherwise on track for compliance "places additional burdens on job creators, and businesses with expansion plans could face costly permitting requirements under assumed technologies that may be unavailable," Flores' office said in a one-page statement explaining the bill.
While EPA folded a grandfather clause into the new regulations that allows the granting of pre-construction permits at the 75 pbb threshold under certain conditions, it released state implementation plan requirements for that older 2008 standard only in February, the explanation added.
As a result, states and local governments "must now divert scarce resources to implement two different ozone standards," the statement said.
Welcoming the bill was the American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that contends that billions of dollars' worth of planned spending on new plants and other projects could be in jeopardy.
"Your bill addresses longstanding problems with the implementation process for new air regulations and will support manufacturing investment and hiring in the United States," Cal Dooley, the council's president and CEO, said in a letter yesterday to Flores. Under the legislation, Dooley added, facilities can keep applying for pre-construction permits under the 2008 standard until the designation process for new nonattainment areas is complete.
The bill has been referred to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where Flores is a member. Last year, legislation by House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) to speed up the pre-construction permitting process passed the House but died in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Greenwire, Nov. 20, 2014). Scalise reintroduced the measure this May as H.R. 2557. It is also awaiting action by the Energy and Commerce panel.
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Green Building Council Gives Steps for New Leed Credit
Nov 18, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US Green Building Council (USGBC) has released guidance, for achieving a credit under Leed v4 for material ingredient disclosure and selection of safer substances.
The guidance, the result of an 11-month effort from the USGBC's supply chain working group, details a compliance pathway for achieving a new credit, added to the most recent version of the green building standard Leadership in Energy & Environment Design (Leed v4).
The steps, for this credit: “option 3: product manufacturer supply chain optimisation”, include:publishing guiding principles “that include commitments to continual improvement, sharing of information, green chemistry and engineering”;implementing an environmental management system, based on the ISO-14001 standard; andensuring that suppliers of potentially hazardous materials also follow these guidelines.
According to the USGBC, the new guidance “focuses on rewarding manufacturer achievements, related to programmes that drive the environmental, health and safety management of hazardous ingredients within the supply chain.”
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), which participated in the USGBC working group with other supply chain stakeholders, was “pleased” with the guidance, saying it makes option 3 “actionable and science-based”.
Debra Phillips, ACC's vice president of Responsible Care and Value Chain Outreach, said that the ACC took part “to explore pathways that are based upon multiple attributes, including real-world exposure to the product, the product’s full lifecycle impacts and a complete understanding of how and why a particular chemical ingredient is used in a product.”
“Looking at just one product attribute, or just one step in the lifecycle, can lead to choosing products that might require more maintenance or decreased durability, or increased energy footprint in the manufacture and use phase,” she added.
However, Tom Lent, policy director at the Healthy Building Network, said that the credit was “neutralised under chemical industry pressure”, and called the guidance “a clear win for the ACC”. Mr Lent oversees the Pharos rating criteria, and headed a committee for the Health Product Declaration (HPD) Collaborative that developed the HPD standard.
“Put simply, this 'supply chain optimisation' option doesn't require a manufacturer to report on the health and safety of their supply chain nor to demonstrate that they have done anything meaningful to improve it,” he said.
The guidance “undermines the intent” of the credit, he added, and “[makes] it possible for manufacturers to get credit without either disclosing or optimising much of anything.”
It will be piloted with field tests, to ensure that participants find it “clear, usable, easily understood, and most importantly, transformational to their business.”
The first two options [within Leed for achieving material ingredient credit] rely on chemical disclosure tools like Health Product Declarations (HPDs) and GreenScreen, or certification programmes like Cradle to Cradle. They also require disclosure of ingredients in materials to either 100ppm or 1,000ppm (CW 5 November 2015).
-
Flake Introduces Measure to Kill New Ozone Standard
Nov 18, 2015 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
Sen. Jeff Flake on Tuesday introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to challenge EPA’s recently finalized ozone standard.
The Arizona Republican’s CRA resolution — which was introduced the same day the Senate approved two similar resolutions targeting EPA’s power plant carbon rules — lists 30 co-sponsors, all Republicans.
Congress has 60 legislative days after a rule is published in the Federal Register to pass a CRA resolution with a simple majority.
Flake’s home state is leading a multi-state lawsuit challenging the standard, arguing that it is too strict. Environmentalists are expected to challenge the rule as too lenient.
Flake’s office did not immediately respond to questions on when the resolution may reach the floor. It faces certain veto from President Barack Obama.
-
House Panel Approves Bills Undoing Obama Climate Rules
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The House Energy and Commerce Committee has approved legislation to block new power plant rules from the Obama administration.
The panel passed Wednesday two resolutions from Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) to undo the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan limiting emissions from existing power plants and a similar rule for new power stations.
Republicans and some Democrats have rallied against the rules, warning that they will raise energy prices, put grid reliability at risk and hurt the coal sector.
The resolutions — which, under the Congressional Review Act, would formally block the rules from taking effect — are their formal response to the regulations. Both passed on 28-21 votes.
“EPA’s rules seek to change fundamentally the way we generate, distribute and consume electricity across the country,” committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said.
“These resolutions are ultimately about protecting hard-working people from higher electricity prices, threats to grid reliability, and EPA’s economy-wide energy tax.”
America has regained its position as the global energy superpower, but there's more to do. Read More
The resolutions are similar to those passed on the Senate floor Tuesday night. The White House said Obama would veto any legislation that looks to stop the power plant rules, the cornerstone of his climate change platform.
Whitfield has previously acknowledged the likelihood of a veto. But during the committee meeting, he said the resolutions still have merit.
“Maybe the president will veto it, but the American people are upset about this because of the unprecedented action being taken, and it’s an opportunity for us to simply express the concerns we have,” he said.
Democrats have, broadly, supported the climate rules. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), the ranking Democrat on the energy panel said considering the resolutions is a waste of time, given Obama’s veto threat.
“For 45 years, industry has made doomsday claims that clean air regulations would destroy businesses and jobs, drive prices skyward, and cripple economic growth,” Pallone said.
“The path outlined in the Clean Power Plan and EPA's rule for new power plants, is the path to cleaner air, better health, a safer climate, and a stronger economy.”
-
Clean Power Plan Votes Waste Time that Could be Spent on Counterterrorism -- Democrats
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
Senate approval last night of two resolutions to kill U.S. EPA's flagship climate rules took place under the cloud of last week's deadly shootings in the French capital, in which "Paris" suddenly seemed to conjure scenes of terrorism rather than U.N. summits.
The chamber passed two Congressional Review Act resolutions last night, S.J. Res. 24 andS.J. Res. 23 -- both on a 52-46 vote -- which would veto the Clean Power Plan for existing units and the new power plant rule, respectively. The rarely used oversight law allows for Senate passage with a simple majority vote. The House Energy and Commerce Committee approved the same measures earlier in the day, and floor votes are expected soon.
Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota crossed the aisle to support the resolutions, while Republicans Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Susan Collins of Maine and Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against them. Kirk was the surprise, having said previously that he would support the resolutions.
Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), both 2016 presidential contenders, were not present.
The votes were aimed squarely at undermining the administration's position in the U.N. climate negotiations that kick off in Paris on Nov. 30. And Republicans predicted yesterday that they would get the message across.
"I think it sends a message that the president's moving in a direction that doesn't have the support of the American people," said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who sponsored S.J. Res. 24. "That's what it says."
But Senate Democrats said the resolutions are a waste of time, especially in light of the Paris attacks last Friday. The chamber should use its few remaining legislative days before the end of the year to shore up national security, they said, rather than launch a quixotic campaign against rules President Obama has promised to defend with his veto pen (E&ENews PM, Nov. 17). The Senate majority lacks the votes to override a veto.
"We have some critical legislative priorities and not a lot of time to accomplish them," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). "I think it is unclear to me, it is unclear to many of us, why in the world we would chew up valuable floor time on something that has zero chance of being enacted into law."
Schatz and other Democrats at a briefing with reporters yesterday said the majority would do better to focus on moving legislation that might become law, especially spending bills that would arm agencies with the funding they need to ensure that similar terrorist attacks don't happen in this country.
"Paris is still recovering from the terrorist attacks. The appropriations bills that would fund our [Federal Bureau of Investigation] and our homeland security are bottled up. And the majority leader wants to spend his floor time serving the coal industry and trying to undo the president's Clean Power Plan," Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said at the same event.GOP: Congress is acting on terrorism
A stopgap funding resolution expires Dec. 11. Democrats and Republicans are currently haggling over new spending levels for each of the 12 appropriations bills that were set under a budget deal passed last month. Conflict over policy riders -- including to stop implementation of environmental rules -- could also lead to a government shutdown next month.
The Clean Power Plan would deliver a substantial slice of the emissions reductions Obama has promised the world ahead of Paris, and disarming it would likely undermine not only the U.S. position in the talks but also the long-sought goal of reaching an emissions agreement to cover all major emitters. The French government has much riding on a successful conclusion next month, and its diplomatic corps has spent substantial resources laying the groundwork for it in capitals across the globe.
But that goal didn't come up when Senate leaders and members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee huddled yesterday morning with French Ambassador Gérard Araud in the Capitol, senators said.
The meeting focused solely on last Friday's attacks, which left more than 120 people dead. But while they mulled emerging proposals to tighten American security in the wake of the assault on Paris, including whether to change refugee-vetting laws, Foreign Affairs Democrats who met with Araud said the time Republicans have dedicated to their Clean Power Plan campaign should be spent on national security legislation.
"I think it would be timely for us to consider restoring the draconian cuts that were made in the Republican-passed bills to some of our federal law enforcement, local law enforcement and homeland security agencies," said Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who serves on both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.
"It would be my hope that we would take up a debate on how we would strengthen the capacity of the United States to do thorough background checks to better prepare state and local law enforcement to better enforce our existing laws," he added. "That might strike me as a higher priority than trying what will inevitably be an unsuccessful effort to roll back environmental regulations by the administration."
Republicans said the majority is moving to examine U.S. vulnerabilities in light of the Paris attacks even as it opposes the administration's climate agenda. The Senate Intelligence Committee held a hearing on the issue yesterday, with other briefings scheduled for this week. And it is unclear whether legislation to address refugee security or other issues is feasible this year.
"It's not as if Congress isn't acting on this terror threat," said Sen. Collins of Maine. "It seems to me as if the administration is not acting on the terror threat, and that is of greater concern."Government shutdown next?
Collins does not back the CRA resolutions. But she noted that appropriations bills are next on the Senate agenda, beginning with the transportation, housing and urban development bill produced by the subcommittee that she chairs.
"They're doing my bill next," she said. "I have no complaints."
Democrats have acted to block appropriations bills from coming to the floor individually as the two parties vie for how limited funds will be allocated.
"I think we can do more than one thing at once. I don't see it as a distraction," said Capito of her resolution.
The timing of the Paris conference demands that Congress weigh in now on the president's climate agenda, so that his message isn't the only one delegates hear, she said.
"What better time is there to express our opinion about what we think is an economically devastating and very questionable regulatory move that will have billions of dollars of impact to our own economy?" Capito said. "I think this is exactly the time we should be doing this."
Capito will chair an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing today to scrutinize administration plans to negotiate a climate deal next month in the French capital.
But Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) noted that this week's resolutions made a point that congressional Republicans have articulated numerous times before -- in legislation, in policy riders on appropriations bills and in hearings.
"We've had more re-votes -- voting the same issue over and over again -- instead of doing what we should do in passing an omnibus appropriations bill," Durbin said. An omnibus would come to the floor more quickly, he said, "if they would stop spending all their time on this sort of thing."
The fiscal 2016 spending bill is likely to arrive on the floor during the second week of December, when the Paris climate talks are in full swing, a reality that may keep members of Congress from attending the conference.
But while Republicans may try to load the bill with policy riders as a way of driving their anti-regulatory message home, the appropriations strategy carries more risk than yesterday's votes. Failing to enact funding legislation could shut down the federal government, and the White House has warned it will go to the mattresses for certain policies -- especially the Clean Power Plan.
Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) said there is a strong possibility that the appropriations bill will roll back EPA's controversial Waters of the U.S. rule.
"I think the Clean Power Plan is going to be tougher to get, both because I think there will be more Democrat pushback than on WOTUS and I think the White House obviously is going to fight harder on it, as well," he said. "We may be stuck on the CO2 rules until we get another administration."
-
Amid Record Global Temperatures, Senate Votes to Block Obama’s Clean Power Plan
Nov 18, 2015 | Washington Post
By Chris Mooney
Even as new data suggest that October of 2015 was a record-breaking hot month — with a 1.04 degree Celsius global temperature anomaly, the biggest monthly departure from average ever seen in NASA records — Senate Republicans led a vote to block President Obama’s flagship climate policy, the Clean Power Plan, and also another major EPA energy regulation of new power plants.
The largely symbolic votes, which have prompted strong resistance from environmental groups, took place on Tuesday evening after debate and speeches throughout the day.
There were two related resolutions under consideration. One, advanced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), was a resolution of disapproval, under the Congressional Review Act, saying that the Clean Power Plan “shall have no force or effect.” The bill has 48 co-sponsors, including Democrats Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The measure passed Tuesday evening:
The second, sponsored by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), would similarly disapprove of and repeal a rule governing emissions from new power plants. It also relies on the Congressional Review Act, which lets the body review major regulations issued by executive agencies and, potentially, block them. It passed by exactly the same margin.
The twin votes were unlikely to actually hobble the Clean Power Plan or other power plant regulations — the White House promptly announced Tuesday Obama would veto the resolutions. But they sent a strong message of resistance at a time when Obama, having just rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline, is trying to project climate leadership just weeks before a crucial summit in Paris.
Speaking on the Senate floor Tuesday, Capito invoked a “war on coal” and called the Clean Power Plan “the most expensive environmental regulation that the EPA has ever proposed on our nation’s power sector.”
Democrats had objected to the vote and, particularly, its timing.
“We are not here on the floor to discuss national security. We are here on the floor right now because the Republican leadership is taking a run at the president’s Clean Power Plan,” said Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in a Senate floor speech earlier Tuesday, objecting to the planned votes. “Paris has not recovered from the devastation of the other day, and we have important bills…that would improve the capacity of our Department of Justice, of our FBI, of our Department of Homeland Security to address these threats. And are we on those bills? No.”
In announcing that Obama would veto the resolution opposing the Clean Power Plan, the White House noting that “by nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded the planned votes, however, as did the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.
The overall message is that as Obama and his negotiators head to Paris for COP-21, there is considerable resistance at home to the key policy by which the U.S. itself promises to reduce emissions.
But then, the world already knew that. It has been a major theme throughout many years of international climate negotiations.
“I think they’re trying to create confusion and uncertainty before the international climate agreement is finalized, and it’s not going to work,” said Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii of the votes. “They have had success in the past in muddying the waters, but we are in a different place now in terms of the international participation, in terms of domestic political support for clean energy, and in terms of having a real clean energy program in America.”
“The outcome is certain from a legislative standpoint, but I think they’re just hoping that they can, make it seems as though this can be undone, and simply put, it cannot,” said Schatz.
-
EPA Head Vows to Defend Climate Rules to Lawmakers
Nov 18, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
The head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said the Senate’s Tuesday vote to kill the agency’s key climate change rule means she and the Obama administration need to do a better job explaining their vision for the energy sector and their goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from it.
At a Bloomberg Politics event Wednesday morning, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged that many lawmakers are skittish about the long-term impact of the Clean Power Plan, after senators voted 52-46 to undo it.
“The Senate vote yesterday is certainly something I’m going to pay attention to. Nothing Congress does is meaningless,” she said.
“We have to continue to do a better job of explaining to them that everything EPA is doing with this rule and everything else is protecting their kids’ future.”
McCarthy said the agency is going to push forward with its climate change work between now and the end of Obama’s presidency, a regulatory agenda that touches on everything from the power sector to emissions from cars.
“We want to continue to show that actions work, that they do not destroy the economy, that they work and we just have to focus on the science,” McCarthy said of debates over climate change science in Congress.
The Clean Power Plan, a rule designed to slash carbon emissions from the power sector 32 percent by 2030, has drawn scorn from Republicans and some Democrats, who worry about its impact on energy prices, grid reliability and jobs in the coal sector, which stands to be hit particularly hard by the rule.
Senators approved a resolution to block the rule on Tuesday, and a House committee is expected to clear its own on Wednesday. Obama has promised to veto any legislation blocking the rule, the cornerstone of his climate change agenda.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R) led the charge against the Clean Power Plan in the Senate. Both hail from states whose coal sectors have suffered under declining demand and have warned about the further impact of the EPA’s rulemaking.
McCarthy acknowledged that a transition to clean energy — like the one envisaged in the Clean Power Plan — will end up hurting coal-producing communities around the United States, and she said lawmakers should look to craft policies to help the economies in those areas.
But that doesn’t mean moving away from cleaner energy sources.
“Denying a transition that is already happening and denying climate change is not going to help those communities,” she said.
-
EPA Rule Hits the Road, Stops in Denver
Nov 18, 2015 | E&E - Energywire
By Bruce Finley
The Obama administration's Clean Power Plan is taking a road trip, stopping at Pittsburgh last week and now Denver.
The plan aims to cut nationwide carbon emissions by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. As part of the requirements, though, federal officials need to allow for public testimony.
At EPA's regional headquarters in Denver on Monday, the nationwide debate over climate change walked into the room in the form of 95 speakers.
Sierra Club environmentalists and Environment Colorado members came to urge a fast implementation of these cuts, calling the CPP "a life-saving set of protections that will curb the carbon pollution that disrupts climate, threatens communities by causing extreme weather and that is linked to life-threatening air pollution like the smog that triggers asthma attacks."
These environmental groups touted the climate change science and the job potential for research and installations in the growing renewable energy market.
Stuart Sanderson, Colorado Mining Association president, exemplified the other side of the argument.
"The EPA regulations will cost Colorado jobs, will cause electricity prices to soar and threaten the reliability of the electrical grid by mandating a wholesale restructuring of our electricity system for no appreciable benefit to the climate," he said.
Sanderson pointed to industry studies showing that many states, including Colorado, could see power costs increase 30 percent between 2022 and 2030.
Colorado leaders themselves are in the fight, with Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) supporting the Clean Power Plan and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman (R) fighting it in a multistate lawsuit. Hickenlooper is asking the state Supreme Court whether Coffman can continue to fight without his approval.
Future stops for the Clean Power Plan discussions include Atlanta and Washington, D.C.
This all comes just weeks before President Obama and thousands of others descend on Paris in an attempt to create a multinational agreement to lower emissions.
Obama said that the United States will be a leader at the talks and that these national cuts will help others make similar decisions to mitigate climate change.
"If we don't do it," Obama said, "nobody will" (Bruce Finley, Denver Post, Nov. 16).
-
Sensors: The Next frontier for Pollution Reduction
Nov 18, 2015 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Fred Krupp
Thirty years ago, several of our scientists snuck into our New York City headquarters on a weekend to take over the organization’s entire computer system and run data analytics on acid rain.
To make room for their calculations, they moved all our computer files off the system and onto magnetic tape. By Sunday night, they were scrambling to restore those files, hoping to finish before the office opened on Monday morning.
One of the scientists finally owned up to this recently – now that he works for a university and is no longer on my payroll.
“And today,” he said, “I could do it all on my phone!”
That’s the change that time has wrought.
When I lived in Connecticut in the 1970s, the governor shut down air pollution monitors in four cities because they showed elevated readings of heavy metals. That won’t happen today because in 2015, we have low-cost sensors providing pollution data directly to citizens and advocacy groups.
Unlike 30 years ago, when Environmental Defense Fund fought to reduce acid rain, no politician will be able to cut off access to the data needed to protect our environment and our health. Because now it’s showing up on a smart phone you’re holding in your hand, or on an inexpensive gadget you bought online.
Sophisticated, inexpensive sensors combined with powerful data analytics are transforming environmental protection – by giving people the power to see like never before.
We now have wristbands that measure our exposure to toxic chemicals, Google mapping vehicles that measure methane leaks in our neighborhoods, inhalers equipped with GPS that help identify asthma hot spots, and smart meters that track our energy use every 15 minutes.
This is how knowledge brings power.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Energy and Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested