Preview Newsletter
ACC AM Dec 16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Guest Column – Leonardo Trasande on EDCs
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leonardo Trasande
Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. The effects include neurodevelopmental deficits and disabilities, infertility, obesity and diabetes, immune dysfunction, allergy, asthma, cancers and birth defects. -
(ACC Mentioned) Hospital Giant Bans Antimicrobial Use
Dec 16, 2015 | Durability + Design
With insufficient evidence that antimicrobial coatings improve the fight against germs and an increasing concern about spreading toxins, a major health care company has decided to ban the products from its properties. “Health care interiors can be beautiful spaces designed to inspire health and healing,” said John Kouletsis... -
EPA Publishes Chemical Priorities for Risk Assessment
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency published Dec. 15 the list of chemicals and metals that it will begin to assess under its Integrated Risk Information System over the next few years. The “IRIS Agenda,” as it is known, had not been updated since 2012. The prioritized list of chemicals and metals was vetted through a lengthy process within the... -
US EPA's 'Next Generation' Enforcement
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Facing resource constraints, the US EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is tapping into the “power of technology” to meet its increasing workload, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra). -
Building An Agenda To Scale Up Green Chemistry
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
This month, the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), a cross sectoral, business-to-business network of companies and other organisations working to advance green chemistry, will release its Agenda to mainstream green chemistry. This is the result of more than two years of research, interviews and discussion among... -
Delays Expected For Vermont Chemical Reporting Deadline
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
It is “unlikely” that Vermont's Department of Health (DoH) will be able to accept reports, by 1 January 2016, for products which need to be reported under its chemical disclosure programme for children's products, as planned (CW 24 November 2015). In a notice sent by the DoH to programme stakeholders, the agency informed... -
House, Senate ‘Polluter Pays' Bills Announced
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
Two New Jersey legislators joined forces to target polluting businesses in legislation that would tax these corporations for the cleanup of Superfund sites, relieving taxpayers of the expense. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Dec. 14 that both bills would reinstate the excise tax on polluting industries ... -
NGO Platform: Electronics 'Hazardous From Inception'
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Ted Smith
Those of us who grew up in Silicon Valley have known since its origins that the electronics sector has been a chemical handling industry, muted by its self-promotion as the “clean industry”. In the 1970s, the Electronics Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (Ecosh) published a series of reports ... -
Testing And Assessing EDCs: A Global View
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Martina Duft
A consensus on the assessment of substances with an “endocrine disrupting potential”, so-called endocrine disruptors, is yet to be achieved and isn’t anticipated in the near future. This is despite decades of scientific research and extensive work within regulatory panels. -
Shell Seeks to Preserve U.S. Drilling Rights in Arctic
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Royal Dutch Shell Plc is seeking to preserve U.S. drilling rights in Arctic waters three months after halting oil and gas exploration indefinitely there because it failed to find meaningful oil or natural gas deposits. Europe's largest oil company filed a notice of appeal Dec. 15 challenging the U.S. Interior Department's Oct. 29 rejection of the ... -
Shell Fights To Keep Arctic Drilling Leases
Dec 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell is fighting the Obama administration’s decision not to extend its drilling rights leases in the Arctic Ocean. Shell filed an administrative appeal of the decisions Tuesday with the Interior Department, which in October rejected the company’s pleas to pause its leases that are due to expire in 2017 and 2020. -
Court Leaves Power Plant Mercury Rule in Place
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court opted to leave the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants in place, despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the agency erred in the first step of its rulemaking process (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, order issued 12/15/15). -
Appeals Court Leaves U.S. Mercury Pollution Rules In Place
Dec 15, 2015 | Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
A U.S. appeals court said on Tuesday Obama administration regulations limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants can remain in effect while the government revises the rules in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling. In a brief order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the regulations could remain in place... -
ITC Extension Could Provide Solar Industry Bridge To Clean Power Plan
Dec 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Esther Whieldon
Congress may throw solar developers a lifeline some say they need to thrive over the next several years until EPA rules kick in and boost demand for their carbon-free power. Democrats are demanding at least a five-year extension to the investment tax credit in exchange for a GOP push to lift the oil export ban as part of a year-end spending and tax ... -
Lawsuits Target EPA's Carbon Rules for Power Plants
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Mining Association and the Indiana Utility Group both filed lawsuits Dec. 15 challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AQ91) for new and modified power plants (Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1456, 12/15/15; Ind. Util. Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir... -
EPA Waives Response To Petition For New Review Of GHG Permit Program
Dec 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has waived its right to respond to a petition from a group of energy-intensive manufacturers who are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the agency's authority to set greenhouse gas limits in stationary source permits, suggesting the agency does not believe the court will agree to hear the case. -
Report Details Federal Revenue From Extractive Industries
Dec 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The Interior Department released new data today on federal revenues from extractive industries, the first such annual report as part of a voluntary international disclosure initiative. The report shows 31 U.S. companies in the oil, gas and mining industries disclosed payments of more than $8.5 billion to Interior in 2013. That funding accounts... -
Billionaire Climate Activist Targets GOP Presidential Candidates
Dec 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer will run a series of advertisements about global warming during the GOP presidential debate Tuesday in an effort to pressure the Republican candidates to embrace clean energy. “If you think there’s no solution to the climate crisis, think again,” Steyer says in the TV spot.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
-
(ACC Mentioned) Guest Column – Leonardo Trasande on EDCs
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Leonardo Trasande
Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. The effects include neurodevelopmental deficits and disabilities, infertility, obesity and diabetes, immune dysfunction, allergy, asthma, cancers and birth defects.
Landmark scientific statements by the Endocrine Society in 2009, and the World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Environment Programme (Unep) in 2012, have substantiated concerns about endocrine disease, caused by synthetic chemical exposures.
Most recently, a statement from the International Federation of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians (Figo)has called for efforts to prevent female reproductive disease, by limiting endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) exposures.
Scientific concerns about the WHO-Unep report were rebutted in a recent article in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, and the report was welcomed at the fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management (Saicm). More than 100 countries agreed, by consensus, on four key points: exposure to EDCs can result in adverse effects in humans and wildlife;the most critical window of exposure is during early life, when organ systems are developing;exposure, during early life stages, can result in adult-onset disease; andan important focus should be on reducing exposure.
Industry associations, representing global chemicals and pesticide producers, and a US business association, registered their disagreement with the “state of the science”, in a footnote. But this was the only dissenting voice.
A second scientific statement on EDCs by the Endocrine Society, published last month, documented that evidence has strengthened substantially since 2009 rather than diminished.
Unep director, Achim Steiner, has used Twitter to publicly stand by the scientific findings described in the WHO-Unep report.
In response to calls for stronger limits on EDC use, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) has released a number of principles for applying “sound science” to decide how government should act. Yet these principles hardly represent the best science that endocrinology and toxicology can offer; which is so urgently needed: Good laboratory practices are often not the best to study synthetic chemicals that are ubiquitous in the environment. Studies examining bisphenol A have inadvertently exposed animals, intended to be “unexposed”, and have rendered comparison to the “exposed” group meaningless.Current test guidelines ignore critical times in development when effects can be missed, often producing misleading results and incorrect policy decisions. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Good Laboratory Practices (GLP), for example, suggest testing female rodents at 22-42 days of life to evaluate effects on puberty. Yet earlier periods, even in the first two weeks of life, are critical for maturing the signalling pathways that lead to secretion of puberty-regulating hormones. Diethylstilbestrol (DES), the pharmaceutical used by many pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s that contributed to cancers in young girls, influences timing of puberty in rodents in that earlier window of vulnerability, and would be missed using this OECD test. Yet, we no longer debate the danger posed in using DES as a medication.Few disagree with the need for transparent decision making, use of the most advanced and modern technology and consideration of exposures, at levels commonly experienced in the environment. Endpoints for GLP studies have largely remained unchanged for over 60 years, and use insensitive toxicity outcomes, such as organ weight, that do not reflect human disease processes. Even in humans, we recognise that subtle changes, that have nothing to do with the sequence of the genetic code, can contribute to obesity and diabetes, among many other chronic diseases.Synthetic chemicals influence receptors that manage lipid and sugar metabolism, and represent an important third factor, along with diet and physical activity, in the rising obesity and diabetes epidemics across the world, yet are not considered in toxicity testing.Current testing protocols also use a limited range of doses, relying upon mathematical extrapolation that can produce unreliable scientific judgments.Protocols evaluating synthetic chemicals also assume the antiquated Paracelsian notion that the “dose makes the poison”, when the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences director, Dr Linda Birnbaum, has publicly emphasised the need to embrace non-linear and non-monotonic exposure-response relationships in setting regulatory policy.Some have proposed the label “endocrine active substances” for distinguishing synthetic chemicals with low potency that do not cause obvious harm, arguing that the body is able to compensate for its effects. They suggest we only limit use of chemicals which cause potent, obvious and measurable effects in animals, such as tumours. This is an unscientific and dangerous distinction. Low-grade disruption of the thyroid hormone, even in the “clinically normal” range, can contribute to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, when exposure occurs early in a child’s development and there is no opportunity for compensation. Exposure to perchlorate, a common water contaminant, in pregnancy has been found to influence cognitive function in children, well within the range, where thyroid hormone levels seem to be “compensated”.EDCs can also sensitise humans to the effects of other environmental stressors, and then produce harmful effects. Cancer is the prototypical disease that results when multiple insults accumulate over a lifetime, going undetected until resilient tissues are overwhelmed. Genetic factors can increase the likelihood that disease occurs but without the environmental trigger, this wouldn’t happen.
Returning to the idea that we need to use the best science available, terms such as weight of evidence are thrown around to dismiss the contribution of EDCs to disease. Last year, we assembled expert panels to critically and comprehensively review the literature, evaluating exposures for which the evidence for EDCs causing diseases and dysfunction were the greatest.
We used the WHO’s own criteria for evaluating human studies, which were built upon those for establishing cause and effect, first described by Sir Austin Bradford Hill some fifty years ago. It’s important to note that Bradford Hill himself embraced the uncertainty of scientific knowledge, emphasising that it “does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postpone the action that it appears to demand at a given time.” He even used the example of a carcinogen to suggest that “[o]n fair evidence, we might take action on what appears to be an occupational hazard.”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also embraced the uncertainty inherent in translating science to policy, when it described an approach to assessing probability of causation. Using this same approach, the expert panels identified thirteen exposure-outcome relationships for which there is substantial probability of causation.
Together there is more than 99% probability that EDCs contribute to at least one disease, and the costs of EDC exposure in Europe are likely to be over €150bn annually. The majority of these costs are due to exposures that adversely influence brain development, with pesticides contributing the largest portion.
The estimates, which we published in four peer-reviewed manuscripts in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, are likely to represent only a small subset of the true costs of EDCs in Europe. We examined fewer than 5% of all EDCs, estimated costs only for a subset of conditions linked to them, and did not include many indirect costs of chronic diseases, due to the substances.
A similarly large burden of disease may be attributable to EDCs in the US, as data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that exposure, in many cases, is equal to, if not higher than, that in the EU. These findings speak to the substantial health and economic benefits that can be obtained by applying the best science, and not simply “sound science”, to inform regulatory policy making.
Given that EDCs are used globally, our findings support the translation of research results into control actions that protect human health and the environment in all countries, as agreed by the consensus decision of more than 100 countries under Saicm.
-
(ACC Mentioned) Hospital Giant Bans Antimicrobial Use
Dec 16, 2015 | Durability + Design
With insufficient evidence that antimicrobial coatings improve the fight against germs and an increasing concern about spreading toxins, a major health care company has decided to ban the products from its properties.
“Health care interiors can be beautiful spaces designed to inspire health and healing,” said John Kouletsis, Kaiser Permanente’s vice president of facilities planning and design, in a statement the company issued Friday (Dec. 11).
“But lurking beneath the surface can be a surprising number of pollutants that are anything but benevolent.”
Infection Control
The company, based in Oakland, CA, said that coatings manufacturers often add antimicrobial chemicals to their products in an effort to control infections. But the Center for Disease Control (CDC), it says, “has found no evidence to suggest the products offer any enhanced protection from the spread of bacteria and germs, and that proper cleaning and hand washing are the best ways to prevent infections.
“Our thought is that if there’s a nonchemical way to solve a problem or there are greener products available that offer the same performance, we should pursue those as safer alternatives,” said Kouletsis.
The decision itself is not new. Kaiser Permanente—which it says operates 38 hospitals and more than 600 medical offices throughout the U.S.—began asking its architects and designers to stop using antimicrobial products in 2006. But it wasn’t until recently that the company had a formal policy against using them.
A spokesman for the American Coatings Association said the group still was determining what the formal policy will mean for those who manufacture coatings and paints.
“We’ve been communicating with our members in the paint and coatings industry to determine the potential impact,” the spokesman, who asked to remain anonymous, told Durability+Design on Tuesday (Dec. 15).
Durability+Design also attempted to contact the American Chemical Association but did not receive an immediate response.
Previous Bans
Decisions to stop using antimicrobials isn’t the first time the health management company has taken a stand against toxins in coatings or building materials. As reported in 2014, Kaiser Permanente decided to use only zero- or low-VOC coatings beginning in 2008. They also stopped using furniture containing toxic flame-retardants at its facilities.
That decision to stop the flame-retardants didn’t sit well with critics, who said the company might be compromising fire safety at its locations.
“It is unfortunate that Kaiser Permanente could be sacrificing fire safety when flame retardants, like all chemicals, are already subject to review by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies in the U.S. and around the world,” the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance said in a statement at the time.
“Industry continues to innovate to help meet the fire safety needs of modern life,” the group had said.
Others had congratulated the company on its decision after a university study had demonstrated that hazardous flame-retardant chemicals, such as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and non-PBDE flame retardants, was widespread in child-care facilities.
“Kaiser Permanente is creating national momentum in the health care sector for abandoning flame retardant chemicals in exchange for safer alternatives,” said Gary Cohen, president and founder of Health Care Without Harm and the Healthier Hospitals Initiative, at the time of the 2014 decision.
Accolades for Antimicrobial Decision
But the decision to stop using antimicrobial coatings came after years of research, too, the company said recently.
“Several years ago we stopped purchasing hand soaps that contain the antibacterial triclosan because it was found to be no more effective than washing with plain soap and water, and may cause hormone related health problems,” said Kathy Gerwig, Kaiser Permanente’s vice president of employee safety, health, and wellness, and the company’s environmental stewardship officer, in its recent statement.
“Removing antimicrobials from interior products is an extension of our longstanding efforts to create healthier environments for everyone.”
The company—which said it consulted with several experts before making its decision and referred to a 2003 CDC report on improving patients’ infection-related risks—said it is effective immediately. However, it will be enforced only on new construction projects and renovations.
That still could add up to a significant influence, the company said, because of the number of ongoing projects at its hundreds of facilities.
Nanocoating Changes
The news also is in line with other antimicrobial trends in the medical community.
The global use of antimicrobial nanocoatings is continuing to grow, according to a recent report. That report—“The Global Market for Anti-Microbial Nanocoatings 2015”—suggests that new legislation and growing microbial resistance against metal ions; antibiotics; and resistant statins has led to manufacturers seeking alternatives to traditional antimicrobial coatings.
“The development of antimicrobial agents with low toxicity and ability to inhibit microbial contamination is a key issue in the development of new coatings for healthcare, packaging and food and pharmaceutical production,” the market research suggests.
“The ability of nanoparticles to meet these has lead to their increased use in these and numerous other markets such as consumer electronics, textiles, water filtration and household care.”
As for Kaiser Permanente, the company said antimicrobials have found their way into “every corner” of the health care setting. They are now routinely added to paint and grout; ceramic tile; fabrics; glass; refrigerators; and toilet seats.
As a result, the company has listed 15 chemicals it said will be banned from its facilities, all of which are used in a variety of these products.
-
EPA Publishes Chemical Priorities for Risk Assessment
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency published Dec. 15 the list of chemicals and metals that it will begin to assess under its Integrated Risk Information System over the next few years.
The “IRIS Agenda,” as it is known, had not been updated since 2012. The prioritized list of chemicals and metals was vetted through a lengthy process within the agency that involved balancing divergent issues to include the availability of new information that would alter existing toxicity conclusions and the importance of a chemical or metal to regions and programs within the EPA.
IRIS assessments evaluate the human health effects of chemicals, the doses at which those health effects may manifest and the potency of any carcinogenic effects. That toxicity information can then be used by a wide variety of state, agency and other risk assessors as part of their risk assessment into a particular situation.
Offering advance notice of IRIS assessments provides the research community with an opportunity to communicate relevant ongoing research and anticipated timelines for its completion and publication.
The chemicals that the IRIS program will newly begin to assess listed in priority are:
• Group 1: manganese, mercury, methylmercury, nitrate and nitrite, perfluoroalkyl compounds, vanadium and compounds;
• Group 2: acetaldehyde, ammonia (oral), cadmium and compounds, uranium (effects not associated with radioactivity);
• Group 3: di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, dichlorobenzene isomers, methyl t-butyl ether (MTBE), nickel and compounds, styrene.
-
US EPA's 'Next Generation' Enforcement
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dinesh Kumar
Facing resource constraints, the US EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is tapping into the “power of technology” to meet its increasing workload, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (Fifra).
At Chemical Watch’s recent enforcement summit in Brussels, Rosemarie Kelley, acting deputy director in the OECA’s Office of Civil Enforcement, talked about the “next generation” of enforcement and compliance strategies the office is pursuing to accomplish its goals in light of budgetary shortfalls.
The TSCA audit policy has been “fairly successful” in bringing in hundreds of violation disclosures from companies each year, many of which have been corrected, Ms Kelley said. “However, in recent years, as our resources have become more constrained, it has become more of a challenge to process.”
To deal with it, it was necessary to modernise the audit policy, she said, and, in June, her office announced plans to move to an e-disclosure web-based system, which will receive and process violations. “We believe the plan strikes the right balance by automating the resolution of more routine violations … and deferring penalty mitigation decisions on more complex violations until any possible enforcement response occurs.”
Once the e-disclosure portal becomes operational, companies would need to register with the system and promptly disclose their violations online. The agency is likely to retain the current policy, which requires reporting within 21 days of discovery, and 60 days after that, submitting a compliance report certifying the violations have been corrected.
Another part of ‘next generation’ compliance is to “build drivers for a company to comply more readily”, Ms Kelley said. “So it is really focused on driving companies to compliance, without having an inspector show up at the door.”
One of the ideas being floated, in this regard, is the use of third-parties to certify compliance, she added.
Another development that will aid enforcement and compliance efforts is the project to move import processing to an electronic system, which is a US government-wide programme. That means that if a product is subject to regulations by different agencies, like the Food and Drug Administration and the EPA, companies only need to submit one import certification and the system will route it to the agencies concerned. “The agencies then do their reviews and you get one response back.” The system is due to come online in December 2016. Once operational, this will state that “you are compliant with TSCA or that the material or chemical is not subject to TSCA.” Another aspect of the next generation strategy is “innovative enforcement”, which Ms Kelley said is about using “data analytics to improve our targeting of companies that may not have complied with TSCA”.
Antimicrobials enforcement
Next generation compliance for antimicrobials, which are regulated under Fifra, aims to make rulemaking more straightforward, said Ms Kelley. “We have a lot of regulations and we are trying to make them simpler.” That may entail giving up regulating “a particular category if it is going to have a lot of exemptions or exclusions”. Then “we may not want to regulate it and just take it off the table.”
Under Fifra Regulations, antimicrobials must be labelled. The agency is working on making these clearer. “We are looking at something we call the smart labels project or the label matching project.” Some labels that accompany materials can run to over a hundred pages, she pointed out. What the agency is hoping to do, under the project, is to use optical character recognition software in mobile devices. So when inspectors go to facilities that sell antimicrobials, they can collect a digital image of the label, transmit it back to the agency’s headquarters for a scan to compare with that on file, which is submitted with the registration. The results are then sent back to the person on the field, so they “can make adjustments or communicate that to the company”, she said. For this to happen, “we have to issue a rule that requires registrants to submit their labels electronically, so that we have them in our database.”
Also being considered is a “smart tools project”, which along with the smart labels project, is being developed in tandem with the states, Ms Kelley said. The objective is to make sure that inspectors, at the federal and state levels, “have a set of tools that interact with each other so data can be shared across organisations”. The agencies are hoping to come up with systems that allow for electronic entry of all data in the field, which can then be transmitted to an internal system back in the office, she said. The plan is to have the systems allow public access to inspection records.
The single electronic portal for imports will have relevance for Fifra, for notices of arrival, which have to be submitted to customs in advance of importation. There are about 25,000 pesticide-related shipments a year into the US, she said. The agency has been handling them manually, looking at the submissions and determining whether the label is in compliance with that on file and then sending the approval to the company. In the single portal system, which is now being piloted, this will be done electronically. The notice of arrival will come in and be routed to the systems concerned, which will check against the database to see if it matches with the registration. “And that will be handled and processed automatically.” There will be an inbuilt mechanism for “tagging certain anomalies that will then be funnelled to us to look at manually.”
-
Building An Agenda To Scale Up Green Chemistry
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
This month, the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3), a cross sectoral, business-to-business network of companies and other organisations working to advance green chemistry, will release its Agenda to mainstream green chemistry.
This is the result of more than two years of research, interviews and discussion among GC3 member companies and other stakeholders. It outlines the council’s strategy and planned actions to accelerate research, innovation and the scale of green chemistry.
It will guide our work, in the coming years, as we collaborate with businesses, policy makers, investors, researchers and advocates.
In my previous article, I wrote about barriers that we have identified. These include: the complexity of global supply chains, the costs and time to implement and adopt new technologies, and limited investment, incentives, education and metrics. While discussing these barriers and drivers, the agenda focuses on how the GC3 and other stakeholders will push efforts to scale up globally.
The areas identified are:
enhance market dynamics. Building a comprehensive, ongoing understanding of enablers, market drivers and obstacles allows more effective intervention that creates market shifts to support its research, development and adoption.
support smart policies. Designing and advocating innovative state and federal policies can support the supply of, and demand for, green chemistry solutions.
foster collaboration. Facilitating the flow of information among suppliers and producers, as well as putting together partnerships to tackle priority challenges and supporting the collaborations necessary to grow it in the marketplace.
inform the marketplace. Disseminating information about the economic, health and business benefits, as well as the opportunities and funding that create a clearer case.
track progress. Improving metrics, data gathering and reporting progress provides a way of demonstrating the benefits and helps us understand where interventions are necessary to accelerate green chemistry. To support dialogue on designing appropriate metrics, the GC3 released a white paper on Measuring progress towards green chemistry.
The agenda also outlines actions that the GC3 will carry out to integrate green chemistry into research, education, policy and efforts to accelerate innovation. These include:
supporting innovative policies, such as the US Federal Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2015, that would create incentives, education, research and partnership opportunities, and support funding and technical support for research, adoption and manufacturing. The GC3 will be working with the American Chemical Society Green Chemistry Institute (ACS GCI) and others to organise briefings with policy makers to discuss a range of policies and incentives;
convening a national summit on green chemistry research and education, to elevate the importance of its focus in these areas [similar to the 2015 summit on climate change and health, hosted by the US White House and leading schools of public health]. It would build on existing efforts by the ACS GCI, Beyond Benign and the Green Chemistry Education Network to embed the approach in science, engineering, business and public health;
establishing collaborative supply-chain partnerships to accelerate research, development and adoption, such as the GC3’s Collaborative innovation project for preservatives in the personal care and household products sectors. The GC3 recently released a statement on criteria for new preservatives for personal care and household products that was developed with twelve major brands. It is now working with these, and major retailers Walmart and Target, to design green chemistry inspired preservatives, including an evaluation of how to take identified solutions to scale; and
developing innovative tools and resources to support education, research, collaboration and adoption. There is a need for easily accessible resources to build the community of researchers and practitioners. To help support this, the GC3 has recently launched two web-based portals. The Innovation Portal, developed with the ACS GCI, helps practitioners identify needs and opportunities for innovation, links research and business communities and educates the market about existing green chemistry solutions and R&D efforts. The Safer Chemistry Training for Business curriculum is a web-based course for continuing supply chain education to enhance practitioners’ understanding.
The agenda is focused primarily on the US. However, given the global nature of supply chains, it is critical to build collaboration that can advance the strategies, outlined in the agenda, worldwide. For example, the German government recently launched an International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre, to create synergies between initiatives globally. The centre has a specific focus on integrating green chemistry into the United Nations activities on chemicals management, such as the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). York University in the UK has established the Global Network of Green Chemistry Centres (G2C2) to foster collaboration between researchers and educators around the world. The GC3 will continue to work with these organisations.
While recognising the many challenges to mainstreaming, we remain hopeful that there are sufficient drivers, opportunities and energy to advance green chemistry in the coming years. However, we know this will require a more strategic, coordinated and collaborative approach.
-
Delays Expected For Vermont Chemical Reporting Deadline
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
It is “unlikely” that Vermont's Department of Health (DoH) will be able to accept reports, by 1 January 2016, for products which need to be reported under its chemical disclosure programme for children's products, as planned (CW 24 November 2015).
In a notice sent by the DoH to programme stakeholders, the agency informed responsible parties that they will have six months to report covered products from when the online portal is launched, “even if that six month period extends past 1 July 2016” – the reporting deadline detailed in the chemicals of high concern in children's products Rule.
The DoH reports that it plans to “continue to work on the development of the online reporting system, including appropriate beta-testing, with the intention of opening the reporting period in spring, 2016”.
The delay in getting the system launched, by 1 January, has been attributed to “unforeseen circumstances”.
During the implementing rule development process, industry stakeholders raised concerns with the DoH's product-specific reporting approach, and questioned whether the agency would be equipped to handle the volume of reports that would be submitted (CW 22 September 2015).
The rule took effect on 10 December.
-
House, Senate ‘Polluter Pays' Bills Announced
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Ware
Two New Jersey legislators joined forces to target polluting businesses in legislation that would tax these corporations for the cleanup of Superfund sites, relieving taxpayers of the expense.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Dec. 14 that both bills would reinstate the excise tax on polluting industries and expand the definition of crude oil in order to make oil from tar sands and shale subject to the excise tax. They also would make funds available to the Environmental Protection Agency on an ongoing basis, not subject to annual appropriations.
“The American taxpayer should not be paying for the mistakes of corporate polluters,” Pallone said. “There are Superfund sites that threaten public and environmental health in New Jersey and across the country that EPA would be able to clean up if not for the inadequate funding,” he said.
“The Superfund Polluter Pays Act will replenish the necessary funds by holding corporations accountable for their mistakes and environmental degradation,” Pallone said.
New Jersey has 113 Superfund sites on the EPA National Priorities List of most contaminated sites—more than any other state, Booker and Pallone said in a statement.
Introduced in June
The House bill (H.R. 2783) was introduced June 15 by Pallone, and the Senate companion measure (S. 2400) was introduced Dec. 14 by Booker.
Aides to Pallone and Booker told Bloomberg BNA the bills have many of the same provisions but are not identical. The House bill was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means, and the Senate bill will be referred to the Senate Finance Committee, an aide to Booker said.
Since the excise tax expired in 1995, annual appropriations for Superfund cleanups have declined from about $2 billion for fiscal year 1999 to about $1 billion in fiscal 2013, the Government Accountability Office said in a November report. Meanwhile, the number of Superfund sites increased from 1,054 in fiscal 1999 to 1,158 in fiscal 2013, according to the GAO (207 DEN A-5, 10/27/15).
‘Running on Fumes.'
“The federal Superfund tax is running on fumes, which has real implications for the people of New Jersey,” Judith A. Enck, administrator of EPA Region 2, said in a statement announcing introduction of the bills. “It is important to reinstate the lapsed Superfund fees as soon as possible,” she said.
Similar bills have been introduced regularly since the Superfund trust ran out of money in 2003 but have not advanced in Congress.
In July 2014, Booker introduced an identical bill (S. 2679) to the one introduced Dec. 14.
Roughly 50 percent of New Jersey's population lives within three miles of a Superfund site, according to the statement. Superfund sites are contaminated with toxic substances that can make their way into drinking water wells, creeks and rivers, backyards, playgrounds and streets, it said.
-
NGO Platform: Electronics 'Hazardous From Inception'
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Ted Smith
Those of us who grew up in Silicon Valley have known since its origins that the electronics sector has been a chemical handling industry, muted by its self-promotion as the “clean industry”.
In the 1970s, the Electronics Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (Ecosh) published a series of reports identifying the many hazardous substances used in manufacturing electronics and discovered that many workers had developed illnesses related to their toxic exposures. These findings were later chronicled by an investigative series by the San Jose Mercury News called “The Chemical Handlers” which was published 6 April 1980.
Further attention to the toxic hazards was prompted by the discovery of widespread groundwater pollution in the 1980s. This was attributed to leaking underground storage tanks at many of the flagship high-tech companies. It shocked residents in the area and led to a California Health Department study that confirmed that the birth defect rates in the most affected neighbourhoods were significantly higher than average.
The US EPA responded by naming 29 of the most polluted sites as Superfund sites, requiring strict cleanup measures. Engineers and industry officials who were paying attention learned the details of the health hazards in the 1984 publication, by Technology Review, of Dr Joseph LaDou’s article The not so clean business of making chips.
Three major epidemiological studies conducted by university researchers in cooperation with semiconductor companies all found elevated rates of miscarriages in female production workers in the 1980s and 1990s. A study based on IBM’s Corporate Mortality File of more than 30,000 workers found elevated rates of breast, brain and blood cancers.
Over the past several decades, Silicon Valley companies have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup and compensation costs. This lead some to assert that executives had finally learned that prevention was less expensive than cleanup. In fact, some US-based high-tech companies have helped in the effort to phase out a handful of highly toxic materials used in manufacturing, such as tricholoethylene, some glycol ethers and chlorofluorocarbons.
Similar patterns emerging in Asia
Recent revelations have confirmed suspicions that the same patterns of health hazards that were discovered in the US are now appearing throughout Asia and beyond: a recent court decision in Taiwan awarded more than $18m to workers and residents harmed by toxic exposure;following landmark court decisions in South Korea, Samsung has agreed to provide more than $80m to compensate scores of workers who developed cancers while at work;advocates for workers’ health have recently joined with human rights advocates to focus greater attention on workplace hazards. A recent report by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and wastes states: “I am afraid that many workers at Samsung Electronics have fallen victim to priorities that place profits before human rights. Victims, and family members of those now deceased, shared common stories of grave and irreversible health impacts including leukemia, lymphoma, brain cancer, breast cancer, thyroid cancer, miscarriage, hormonal complications and other diseases. The victims claim that they used or were otherwise exposed to hazardous substances every day, sometimes for 12 hours a day, with only one or two days off per month.”investigations by NGOs and governments have confirmed widespread dumping of hazardous electronic waste in Asia and Africa, which is causing much harm; andinvestigations by NGOs in China have documented enormous environmental pollution by electronics sub-contractors and have traced the contractors back to their brands, demanding that they reign them in.Civil society responds
In response to the growing concerns that electronics hazards had in fact been outsourced to the developing world, the UN developed a new initiative through the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) which focuses on “Hazardous substances within the lifecycle of electrical and electronic products.”Starting in Vienna in March 2011, this initiative has created a bold set of recommendations for cleaning up the lifecycle of electronics – from design to production to end of life. It places particular emphasis on phasing out the most hazardous materials and providing improved protections for the workers in the meantime. These recommendations were reinforced at the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4) in October in Geneva.
Saicm has spurred other related initiatives. In October 2012, the American Public Health Association endorsed a resolution on “Improving Occupational and Environmental Health in the Global Electronics Industry”. This was based largely on the Saicm recommendations, particularly the right to know, prevention through design and improved health surveillance.
In January, the International Campaign for Responsible Technology (ICRT) and Good Electronics convened over 60 representatives of civil society and government agencies from more than 15 countries at the Mercy Center in California.
Those who attended adopted A challenge to the global electronics industry to adopt safer and more sustainable products and practices and eliminate hazardous chemicals, exposures and discharges. This has since been endorsed by hundreds of civil society groups around the world. The challenge is framed around human rights protections and has six key points: be transparent;use safer chemicals;protect workers – focusing on increased health surveillance and improved industrial hygiene monitoring;guarantee participation;protect communities and the environment; andcompensate and remediate for harm to people and the environment.
The NGOs have followed up with an implementation guide Meeting the Challenge and have asked industry representatives to work with them to develop baseline data to measure compliance with the recommendations.
Electronics industry responds
During the past few years, some electronics brands have taken steps to address the growing occupational and environmental health concerns: Seagate has pioneered a reporting regimen with all of its sub-contractors which requires them to report full materials disclosure to a central data repository, so it now has full visibility of chemical usage in its supply chain;Hewlett Packard has adopted the GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals tool to carry out alternatives assessments to help promote the adoption of safer chemicals in their supply chain;Apple has banned the use of benzene and n-hexane in it final assembly factories and the use of halogens in it products.trade group the Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) has launched a chemicals management task force to identify gaps in current practices and to develop new initiatives to promote the use of safer chemicals.As more electronics brands and their suppliers pursue the goal of safer chemicals, a key question is emerging: is the chemical industry up to the challenge of developing truly green chemicals that can do the job necessary for safe high-tech production and products?
-
Testing And Assessing EDCs: A Global View
Dec 16, 2015 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Martina Duft
A consensus on the assessment of substances with an “endocrine disrupting potential”, so-called endocrine disruptors, is yet to be achieved and isn’t anticipated in the near future. This is despite decades of scientific research and extensive work within regulatory panels.
Different proposals have been put forward, varying considerably from each other, not least in that some are risk- and others hazard-based. Due to the lack of commonly agreed, or harmonised, scientific criteria for their evaluation, assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is mostly conducted on a case-by-case basis. This results in substantial uncertainty, regarding data requirements and corresponding testing and assessment strategies, for companies intending to submit, or support, global registrations for their substances.
Today, the World Health Organization’s international programme on chemical safety (WHO/IPCS) definition of an endocrine disruptor is nearly unanimously agreed. This describes an EDC as “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and, consequently, causes adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations.” Thus distinct adverse effects, and their causal relationship to substance exposure, need to be established.
In contrast, scientific criteria for EDC identification are still not clearly defined. Four options, being debated in Europe, are:
option 1: no policy change (interim criteria);
option 2: identification according to WHO/IPCS definition;
option 3: WHO definition plus additional categories; and
option 4: WHO definition with the inclusion of potency.
Regulatory developments
Europe
The European Commission has developed a community strategy for EDCs, and has established a priority list of substances for further evaluation. In 2014, it presented a roadmap on “defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the plant protection products Regulation and biocidal products Regulation”. As part of an impact assessment process, a public consultation was conducted, and the results published in a report in July.
Several member states have presented their individual proposals for assessing substances for endocrine disruption.
In 2011, Denmark presented a proposal on the “establishment of criteria for endocrine disruptors and options for regulation”, including a category setting (1 confirmed, 2a suspected and 2b indicated). This approach suggests a strict hazard assessment, following the legal requirement of ED as cut-off criterion.
In the same year, Germany and the UK issued a joint position paper on a “regulatory definition of an endocrine disruptor in relation to potential threat to human health”, suggesting they would include severity and potency in the assessment. In 2015, the German BfR (Federal Institute for Risk Assessment) proposed inclusion of further criteria like reversibility, specificity and consistency for human health, whereas the German UBA (Federal Environmental Agency) still supports a conservative hazard-based assessment for the environment.
In 2014, France published its national strategy on EDCs, which pursues a strictly hazard-based assessment, accompanied by a substitution policy. In general, European proposals take this hazard-based approach with endocrine-disrupting properties as cut-off criterion, with only a few exceptions.
Americas
The US EPA follows a different approach, a comprehensive, two-tiered screening programme which is followed by a regular risk-based assessment. This Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme (EDSP) is intended to cover oestrogen, androgen and thyroid hormonal systems with respect to human safety and that of wildlife.
Tier 1 aims at identification and classification of potential EDCs by in vitro and in vivo assays (series 890 - EDSP test guidelines), and tier 2 focuses on establishment of concentration - or dose-response relationships, with test guidelines still partly in development.
The agency published an initial list of chemicals for screening in 2009, followed by a second in 2010, which was updated in 2013. It stresses that they are not intended as lists of suspected chemicals, but instead are based on a potentially high level of exposure (pesticide active ingredients and high production volume chemicals, used as inert ingredients in pesticides).
A data review of tier 1 assay results, together with other scientifically relevant information (Osri), should lead to a decision on tier 2 testing. Results from tier 2 data reviews will in turn directly support risk assessments to evaluate registration and follow-up actions. Computational toxicology and exposure methods are promoted to develop a more efficient and robust screening programme. These are expected to be applied to a draft third list of chemicals in 2016.
Environment Canada has tied research on EDCs into numerous regional projects to gather knowledge on their environmental effects. The government cooperates with several international organisations, such as the OECD, Unep and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta) Commission for Environmental Cooperation. As a member of the OECD endocrine disruptors testing and assessment advisory group, Canada is involved in investigating the substances and the development of standard testing methods. Any progress made will feed into regulatory processes.
Argentina has recently announced support for risk benefit analysis, thus case-by-case risk-based assessment of EDCs. Brazil has backed a more hazard-based approach.
Asia
In China, a draft of an agro-industrial standard, “evaluation methods for pesticide endocrine disruptors”, became available in late 2014. It is currently under review by the Ministry of Agriculture and is expected to come into force soon. The guidance includes two tiers and seven toxicological study types and aims to evaluate probable endocrine-disrupting properties of pesticides.
Thailand has no specific legislation or regulatory programme for EDCs. However, the Hazardous Substance Act, B.E. 2535, may be used to deal with them. Within this legislation, chemicals are classified as type 1, 2, 3 or 4, based on toxicological data, dangerous properties, international obligations and requirements. Production, import, export and possession of type 4 compounds is prohibited. Hazardous substances are compiled in the notification list B.E. 2556.
South Korea and Japan have collaborated on EDCs since 2001. Between 2007 and 2011, South Korea pursued a five-year research plan, including a review of results and safety management of the substances. Since 2013, the country has been preparing and implementing its Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (K-REACH). This suggests that authorisation and restriction will come at a later stage, compared with REACH in Europe.
The Japanese Ministry of Environment promotes basic research on the mechanisms of endocrine disruption, environmental monitoring, as well as the development of test methods, hazard and risk assessment, management, communication and information sharing.
Several projects have been launched in Japan, during the last decade or so, such as SPEED’98 and ExTEND 2005/2010.
Japan has recently been collaborating with the US on the development of test guidelines for the US EDSP. Like the US, Japan seems to advocate risk-based assessment.
International organisations
The OECD conceptual framework provides a tool box for testing and assessing on five levels [not to be confused with a testing strategy]. In addition, the organisation promotes development and validation of methods via the OECD test guidelines programme. The OECD guidance document no. 150 (2012) for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption is very useful. This provides all available and non-available data and conclusions, and further implications for testing.
In 2012, the WHO and Unep report on State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals was published. It expressed serious concerns about EDCs as a “global threat” and urged action, such as improved testing and monitoring.
In 2013, the European Food and Safety Authority (Efsa) published a scientific opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors, citing critical effect, severity, (ir)reversibility and potency as part of their hazard characterisation. It also stated that risk assessment should make best use of available information. Levels of concern should not just be determined by the former, but consider risk management too.
The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety issued a memorandum on endocrine disruptors in 2014, supporting the Efsa opinion on scientific criteria.
Data requirements
In Europe, there are several pieces of relevant legislation. Non-approval of EDCs is laid down within the plant protection products Regulation (1107/2009). Exceptions may be granted if there is demonstrated negligible exposure, or it can be proved that there are no other means of combating a serious pest.
The biocidal products Regulation (528/2012) also foresees non-approval of EDCs. Exceptions could be the demonstration of negligible risk (note: not exposure), or the necessity of substances in question to combat serious pests, or disproportionate negative impacts of non-approval of the substance on society, when compared with the risks.
Meanwhile, until final scientific criteria are agreed, interim criteria apply to both regulations for toxicology (carcinogenic category 2, toxic for reproduction category 2). However, there are none in relation to wildlife.
Under the REACH Regulation (1907/2006), Article 57f, EDCs can qualify as SVHCs with an equivalent level of concern to persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) or carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMRs) substances. Thus they can be subject to authorisation, including socio-economic analysis.
The cosmetics Regulation (1223/2009) is currently under review but, so far, EDCs are not restricted. As soon as criteria for their identification are agreed, the review should be finalised.
No concise data requirements are foreseen for any European regulation, but studies can be requested at any time and the level of the assessment. Requested studies are mostly based on the OECD conceptual framework.
In the US, EDSP test guidelines are available for tier 1 and tier 2. As many of the specified studies per required endpoint vary according to the respective regulatory programme, it is conceivable a variety of studies could be requested for a particular substance. Depending on the test design and intention of the assays, this might lead to a broad range of results, along with substantial costs and animal consumption. A harmonised standard set of tests is, therefore, highly desirable.
Implications and recommendations
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), being negotiated between Europe and the US, aims to reduce trade barriers. In this regard, the harmonisation of assessment approaches is essential to avoid a situation where criteria and methods applied under one regulation could lead to a different result than under another. In parallel, the US and EU are seeking a ‘harmonised approach’ on EDCs in a pilot programme. European and US officials met in October 2014 to debate increasing cooperation on the substances.
In conclusion, the “weight-of-evidence” and expert assessments, tailored to respective regulatory programmes, are necessary to evaluate the endocrine-disrupting properties of substances. Studies should be set up with care to meet global requirements, and to avoid superfluous testing for the sake of animal welfare and mounting costs. Study results obtained for one regulatory programme will need to be considered and dealt with within any other.
For many regions, it is essential to have local representatives onsite in order to clarify and discuss requirements. It is common to find that relevant documents and information are only available in the national language, hence availability of, or cooperation with, native speakers is advantageous. This is especially true for Asia.
-
Shell Seeks to Preserve U.S. Drilling Rights in Arctic
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jennifer A. Dlouhy
Royal Dutch Shell Plc is seeking to preserve U.S. drilling rights in Arctic waters three months after halting oil and gas exploration indefinitely there because it failed to find meaningful oil or natural gas deposits.
Europe's largest oil company filed a notice of appeal Dec. 15 challenging the U.S. Interior Department's Oct. 29 rejection of the company's requests to stop the clock on Arctic oil and gas leases that otherwise expire between 2017 and 2020. The dispute is expected to undergo an administrative review, possibly delaying a final judgment until after the 2016 elections.
“We believe suspensions are warranted for reasons outlined in our original request,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said. “The appeal does not affect our recent decision to stop exploration offshore Alaska for the foreseeable future.”
Shell's request comes as other companies have abandoned Arctic oil exploration that is opposed by Greenpeace, Oceana, Sierra Club and other environmental groups that say the drilling risks damaging a fragile ecosystem. The Obama administration also has backed away from selling new leases, canceling two planned auctions, citing low industry interest.
Shell said in October it was considering options “to protect the remaining value of our assets and leases” in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska. Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden told reporters that Shell has other prospects in the region, though disappointing results at a critical test well condemned the company's Burger project, a Chukchi Sea site where it drilled for oil last summer.
Statoil, ConocoPhillips
Norwegian oil company Statoil ASA last month said it would abandon 16 solely held leases in the U.S. Arctic and relinquish its stake in 50 others it held in partnership with ConocoPhillips.
ConocoPhillips, meanwhile, has asked the Interior Board of Land Appeals to consider suspending its own leases—and effectively extend their life—after the agency's Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement rejected the request. That appeal is stayed while settlement talks are under way.
In general, leases expire at the end of their terms unless operators are “conducting operations” such as drilling, reworking wells or producing oil and gas. Federal law does not give the Interior Department authority to issue blanket extensions and requires companies to lay out a specific plan for drilling and developing leased acreage in order to get more time.
‘Circumstances Beyond Its Control.’
Shell has argued that “circumstances beyond its control” prevented exploratory drilling on its leases, citing regulations that restrict operations, the limited availability of Arctic-viable rigs and uncertainty about new federal rules for drilling in the region. In denying Shell's request for more time, the safety bureau said the company should have anticipated “the rigorous regulatory environment” governing exploratory oil drilling in the Arctic.
With Statoil's exit, seven companies now hold drilling rights in the Chukchi Sea, including Eni Petroleum Co., Iona Energy Co., OOGC America LLC and Repsol SA. Shell is the only one to have actively explored its holdings there, by drilling the initial part of a well in 2012 and boring another well last summer.
Holding on to the territory is not without costs. Companies pay escalating annual rents for their offshore oil and gas leases. An analysis by the conservation group Oceana suggests ConocoPhillips would have to pay an estimated $9.6 million between now and May 1, 2020, to hold on to its 61 leases in the Chukchi Sea. For Shell, which has 275 Chukchi Sea leases, the tab would be about $43 million. The estimates do not account for small variations tied to different effective dates for some leases.
-
Shell Fights To Keep Arctic Drilling Leases
Dec 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Royal Dutch Shell is fighting the Obama administration’s decision not to extend its drilling rights leases in the Arctic Ocean.
Shell filed an administrative appeal of the decisions Tuesday with the Interior Department, which in October rejected the company’s pleas to pause its leases that are due to expire in 2017 and 2020. “We believe suspensions are warranted for reasons outlined in our original request,” Shell spokesman Curtis Smith said, referring to the July 2014 applications the company filed to pause the leases.
Offshore drilling leases in the Arctic north of Alaska generally last 10 years, unless the leaseholder shows progress in its drilling.
Smith said the appeal does not change the fact that Shell does not plan on drilling in the lease areas for the foreseeable future.
Shell returned to the Arctic this summer for the first offshore drilling there by any company in years. It has spent nine years and more than $7 billion in the quest for oil and natural gas in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
When the drilling season ended, Shell declared that it did not find sufficient hydrocarbons to continue its exploration.
Interior used that decision to justify its rejection of Shell’s request to extend the leases, along with another request by Statoil for its own Arctic lease.
-
Court Leaves Power Plant Mercury Rule in Place
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
A federal appeals court opted to leave the Environmental Protection Agency's mercury and air toxics standards for power plants in place, despite a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the agency erred in the first step of its rulemaking process (White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 12-1100, order issued 12/15/15).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision, issued Dec. 15, means that power plants must continue to comply with the MATS rule while the EPA works to address the Supreme Court's holding that cost was a necessary factor for the agency to consider when deciding it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plant emissions of mercury (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 80 ERC 1577, 2015 BL 207163 (2015)).
The brief order, issued by Chief Judge Merrick Garland and Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Judith Rogers, does not include the panel's rationale for opting to remand MATS back to the agency without vacating the rule. However, the court did note that the EPA has said it intends to quickly address the Supreme Court's decision in Michigan v. EPA. Several attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that they expect whatever action the EPA takes on remand will eventually be the focus of new litigation.
A November proposal from the EPA found that the required consideration of cost, for which the agency largely relied on an existing cost analysis prepared during promulgation of the standards, doesn't alter the appropriate and necessary finding. The EPA is taking comments on that proposal through Jan. 15 and intends to issue a final supplemental finding (RIN 2060-AS76) in April 2016, the agency said in a Dec. 15 statement (232 DEN A-6, 12/3/15).
“EPA is very pleased with the court's decision to leave the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards in place,” the EPA said. “These practical and achievable standards are already cutting pollution from power plants that will save thousands of lives each year and prevent heart and asthma attacks.”
James Rubin, a partner at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, told Bloomberg BNA that the D.C. Circuit's decision to leave MATS in effect on remand will be disappointing for power plants that were hoping to get relief from compliance obligations while the EPA addressed the Supreme Court's decision. While most power plants have already come into compliance with the standards or opted to shut down, some power plants received a one-year extension from compliance obligations that gave them until April 2016. Operators of those plants will need to “keep moving” towards compliance, Rubin said.
Quick Decision by Panel
The court issued its order just 11 days after hearing oral arguments over whether the mercury standards should remain in place or be vacated.
Sanjay Narayan, managing attorney at the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA that he wasn't surprised by the speed of the court's action because the arguments were “pretty one-sided.” The Sierra Club is one of the environmental and public health organizations that intervened in the litigation in support of the standards.
During oral arguments, Michigan Solicitor General Aaron Lindstrom argued on behalf of state and industry petitioners that the mercury standards must be vacated because the EPA failed to fulfill the “substantive precondition” of an appropriate and necessary finding, which Congress required the agency to meet before regulating power plant emissions. Garland and Kavanaugh questioned counsel on both sides during arguments on the practical effects of vacating the standards versus leaving the standards in place on remand (234 DEN A-2, 12/7/15).
The 2012 MATS rule (RIN 2060–AP52, RIN 2060-AR31) was projected by the agency to cost $9.6 billion per year. While most plants have already made the required investments, Lindstrom argued that a decision to vacate the standards could help plants that received a one-year compliance extension and could help the power industry avoid about $158 million in ongoing annual costs attributed to compliance. Attorneys arguing in support of leaving MATS in place cited the public health protection offered by the rule as something that could have been disrupted if the court opted to vacate MATS.
Rubin said the court's decision to remand MATS without vacating the standards was largely a procedural decision and did not weigh in on the merits of how the EPA is proposing to address the Michigan v. EPA decision.
“I wouldn't read that necessarily as any kind of statement that EPA's proposed rule is valid,” Rubin said.
More Litigation Likely
Rubin said the next court action will likely come once the EPA issues its final supplemental “appropriate and necessary” finding, which will be a final agency action subject to judicial review.
Narayan agreed that there will be further litigation over the EPA's action on remand, which he expects the agency to be able to complete as scheduled by April. The relevant questions on the cost of regulating power plants were answered long before the Supreme Court made its decision in June 2015 because the EPA had already completed a full cost-benefit analysis that estimated the cost of complying with MATS, he said.
“It's not the kind of rulemaking where EPA needs to go out and do a whole bunch of research,” Narayan said.
Sean Donahue, who argued before the D.C. Circuit on behalf of the Environmental Defense Fund and other environmental petitioners, told Bloomberg BNA that the question before the EPA on remand is only one aspect of the MATS rule, whether it is appropriate and necessary to regulate after considering cost. That one issue will be the only one available for further judicial review once the EPA issues its final supplemental proposal, Donahue said.
Donahue said it will be a “very heavy lift” for opponents of the standards to successfully argue that the EPA considered cost but “didn't do it in the right way.” The Supreme Court in Michigan v. EPA declined to prescribe how the agency should consider cost, instead only mandating that the agency was required to do so.
However, during oral arguments in White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA, Kavanaugh said the EPA's use of “co-benefits,” the benefits of reducing fine particulate matter and other pollutants that are not directly regulated, would likely be the “key battleground” in future litigation over the EPA's action on remand. The EPA's cost-benefit analysis for MATS attributed as much as $90 billion in annual benefits to the rule, but only about $6 million of those benefits were attributable to reducing emissions of mercury and the other hazardous air pollutants directly regulated under MATS.
William Yeatman, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a Dec. 15 statement that future judicial review of the EPA's cost analysis will be “no cakewalk for the EPA.”
“Before the courts, the agency will have to justify costs of almost $10 billion annually as against ‘benefits' of about $6 million,” Yeatman said. “Although the courts afford agencies a great deal of discretion in their decision-making, EPA's ridiculous cost benefits ratio for the mercury rule will strongly tempt rejection during judicial review.”
Additionally, Stephanie Talbert, a Justice Department attorney, argued White Stallion Energy Ctr. LLC v. EPA on behalf of the EPA. Melissa A. Hoffer, assistant attorney general for Massachusetts, argued on behalf of intervening states that supported the standards and Brendan Collins, a partner at Ballard Spahr LLP, argued on behalf of Calpine Corp., Exelon Corp. and other industry groups that intervened on the EPA's behalf.
-
Appeals Court Leaves U.S. Mercury Pollution Rules In Place
Dec 15, 2015 | Reuters
By Lawrence Hurley
A U.S. appeals court said on Tuesday Obama administration regulations limiting emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants can remain in effect while the government revises the rules in response to a recent Supreme Court ruling.
In a brief order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the regulations could remain in place while the government responds to the high court’s June ruling that said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should have considered the compliance costs.
The high court voted 5-4 in June, with its five conservative justices in the majority ruling against the EPA. The justices left it up to the appeals court to decide whether the rule had to be thrown out altogether while the agency revised it.
The appeals court order on Tuesday noted the government has said it is on track to issue its finding on compliance costs by April 15, 2016.
According to the EPA, the rule, which went into effect in April, applies to about 1,400 electricity-generating units at 600 power plants. Many are already in compliance, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said.
The 2012 mercury regulation, which covered oil-fired plants as well as coal-burning ones, was challenged by Michigan and other states in addition to various industry groups, including the National Mining Association.
-
ITC Extension Could Provide Solar Industry Bridge To Clean Power Plan
Dec 15, 2015 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolff and Esther Whieldon
Congress may throw solar developers a lifeline some say they need to thrive over the next several years until EPA rules kick in and boost demand for their carbon-free power.
Democrats are demanding at least a five-year extension to the investment tax credit in exchange for a GOP push to lift the oil export ban as part of a year-end spending and tax package taking shape on Capitol Hill. That would keep the 30 percent credit in place at its current level past 2017, when it is scheduled to disappear for residential projects and see its value fall to 10 percent for others. The wind production tax credit, which expired last year, is also expected to see a five-year extension as part of a package, and both credits could be gradually phased out.
Details remained in flux ahead of the omnibus package's expected release Tuesday night. But Senate Democrats made clear that substantial renewable incentives would be necessary for enough of them to agree to back oil exports as part of an overall package.
"So all of these negotiations require a realistic pathway to the Clean Power Plan and beyond to make sure that wind and solar can compete and provide the new low carbon energy sources for our country,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said, referring to the EPA carbon rules.
Solar industry supporters say losing the ITC would be devastating, but opponents point to a rapid drop in solar costs to argue that the industry has matured to the point where it no longer needs federal incentives. Sources say Democrats have demanded at least a five-year extension as part of the year-end package.
Five years could be enough for the industry to keep growing until its cavalry arrives in the form of the EPA rules, which would allow states and utilities to shutter coal-fired power plants in favor of carbon-free sources like wind and solar, assuming it survives in court and is not thrown out by a future president. Compliance begins in 2022, but EPA is offering additional incentives to encourage states to start implementing clean energy policies as soon as 2020.
At the same time, solar costs are dropping fast, and they may achieve parity with conventional power by then, even without the tax credit, some experts said. A gap between the ITC's expiration and the Clean Power Plan compliance period could slow the pace of solar development, but a five-year extension may plug the hole. Solar is on par with traditional energy sources in parts of the country, and would become more competitive with such an extension, said Ethan Zindler, an analyst with Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
"We think prices of solar will continue to decline, and we think solar will be more economically competitive, and that does coincide with where the Clean Power Plan kicks in," Zindler said. "And we think it coincides with improving solar economy."
The solar industry says the tax credit is at least partly responsible for its rapid growth. Since 2006, when the ITC was enacted, solar has created 150,000 jobs, installations have grown by more than 7,800 percent, and the industry has injected $70 billion into the U.S. economy, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association. At the same time, solar costs have fallen from $12 per installed watt in 1998, to less than $4 last year, according to a report from Lawrence Berkeley National Labs.
Opponents say that track record shows the industry has matured and no longer needs federal support.
"Even people who believe in a stronger role for government should see these subsidies and promoting policies have been successful already," said Catrina Rorke, director of energy policy and a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, a free-market group. "How much more do we need? There has to come a time that we cut them off."
At least one developer agrees with that line of criticism. John Berger, CEO of residential solar company Sunnova, broke ranks with the rest of the industry to lobby against extension of the ITC.
"It's going to go away eventually, so instead of extending it for three or four years for no apparent reason, let's do it now," Berger said. "There will be a short period of time that's painful, but the money will eventually say, hey there's real money out there in solar."
Solar installations would fall by 70 percent from 2016 to 2017 if the ITC expired, according to a September forecast from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, with much of the decline coming from utility scale solar. But by 2022, capacity would be down just 10 percent, according to the forecast.
"We basically think at that point, the solar getting increasingly cost competitive in more markets by then," Zindler said.
The industry has come to depend on the ITC to secure "tax equity financing" from lenders. Under these deals, banks and a few other institutions with sufficiently large tax bills provide loans to solar developers in exchange for the tax credit and some return on capital. Deals using tax equity reached $4.5 billion in 2014, with more expected this year, according to the September Project Finance NewsWire.
The loss of the ITC would wipe out that form of financing, forcing parts of the industry to reconfigure their business models and lay off workers, industry supporters say. But a five-year reprieve from Congress could bridge the gap to the Clean Power Plan.
"The Clean Power Plan is going to provide some certainty in terms of the viability of solar going forward, but that might lacking if the ITC goes away. So a short term extension might provide a bridge," said Michael Ferguson, an associate director with Standard & Poor's.
If the credit disappears or steps down on schedule next year, smaller companies could go out of business, and cost declines would not continue along their current trajectory, potentially complicating future policy decisions, said David Burton, a tax attorney and partner at Akin Gump.
For lawmakers, it’s “kind of a question of what's your tolerance for how much you want to see the market decline and smaller and less well capitalized parties forced to exit," Burton said. “To the extent they want to be serious about a renewable portfolio standard, that standard becomes much more expensive. The Clean Power Plan also becomes much more expensive without the tax credits."
Some industry supporters wonder whether five years would be enough — especially given broader uncertainty around the future of the Clean Power Plan and its early-action incentives.
"While a short term ITC extension is better than no extension, it is unclear whether future incentives ... will provide the necessary indirect subsidy to help solar developers reached cost parity in all energy markets around the country,” said Cameron Prell, counsel with Crowell & Moring LLP.
-
Lawsuits Target EPA's Carbon Rules for Power Plants
Dec 16, 2015 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The National Mining Association and the Indiana Utility Group both filed lawsuits Dec. 15 challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide new source performance standards (RIN 2060-AQ91) for new and modified power plants (Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1456, 12/15/15; Ind. Util. Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1458, 12/15/15). The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and will likely be consolidated with similar challenges already brought by North Dakota, coal companies, a union and a power industry trade group (240 DEN A-2, 12/15/15). Separately, the Indiana Utility Group also filed a challenge to the EPA's Clean Power Plan (RIN 2060-AR33), which limits carbon dioxide emissions from the fleet of existing power plants (Ind. Util. Grp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1459, 12/15/15).
-
EPA Waives Response To Petition For New Review Of GHG Permit Program
Dec 15, 2015 | InsideEPA
EPA has waived its right to respond to a petition from a group of energy-intensive manufacturers who are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider the agency's authority to set greenhouse gas limits in stationary source permits, suggesting the agency does not believe the court will agree to hear the case.
Facing a Dec. 14 deadline to respond, the agency Nov. 24 filed a motion “waiving its right to file a response to the petition in this case, unless requested to do so by the Court.”
The agency's decision to waive its right to respond mirrors a similar approach recently taken by Colorado officials, who waived their right to respond to a cert petition from a free-market group seeking to overturn an appellate ruling that had upheld the state's clean electricity law. In that case, the Supreme Court on Dec. 7 rejected the group's cert petition, leaving in place a law that advocates say could ease states' ability to adopt similar standards to comply with EPA's GHG rule for existing power plants.
In the GHG permit case, the Energy-Intensive Manufacturers (EIM) Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Regulation, which represents iron and steel, paper and pulp, aluminum, glass, cement, and chemical interests, had filed a Nov. 5 petition for a writ of certiorari asking the justices to review the appellate ruling that backed EPA's plan to set a minimum level for when GHGs must be included in best available control technology (BACT) analysis for prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permits -- a rule the agency has said it will publish next June.
The agency's decision to waive its right to respond was not a surprise given the petition was considered a long-shot because the industry group was seeking to re-litigate EPA's Clean Air Act authority to regulate GHGs.
But even if the high court does not agree to hear the case, the petition's filing suggests industry groups will continue to challenge EPA's GHG permitting and related policy decisions, especially in cases where the agency may require increased use of energy efficiency, which the group says is difficult to implement.
In its Nov. 5 petition, the EIM Working Group urged the high court to overturn a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which remanded portions of the agency's GHG “tailoring rule” to EPA.
The rule had generally sought to set GHG emissions thresholds above which new and modified stationary sources would be subject to PSD permits under the air law. But the Supreme Court, in a 2014 ruling in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA, narrowed the rule's reach after finding that the agency lacked authority to require permits for facilities' GHG emissions alone.
The 2014 ruling appeared to leave the agency free to retain the portions of the GHG rule requiring facilities that were subject to permit requirements for conventional pollutants -- known as “anyway” sources. The high court said that EPA should craft a de minimis threshold but provided no direction for how the agency should proceed, and returned the litigation to the appellate court to implement consistent with its ruling.
D.C. Circuit
But on remand, the D.C. Circuit faced competing arguments from EPA and its critics for how to proceed. The court eventually agreed with EPA, scaling back the rule consistent with the high court's ruling and remanding it to the agency to develop its regulatory threshold for when GHGs trigger BACT reviews and permit limits, while leaving the rule in place.
EPA critics, however, including the manufacturers group, say the appellate court should have vacated the tailoring rule entirely because the D.C. Circuit has not addressed problems identified by the Supreme Court in UARG. Their Nov. 5 petition says that the high court in UARG “saw many problems” with GHG regulation of anyway sources, including that it is “almost entirely a scheme of industrial energy efficiency regulation” and the court viewed it an “open question whether efficiency could be regulated at all.”
But without a vacatur from the D.C. Circuit, EPA has not considered the difficulty it will face when it seeks to implement its permit requirements that will require adoption of energy efficiency mandates, the petition says.
The petition adds that EPA is relying on “reasoning that UARG invalidates and a reading of UARG that is not supportable” in insisting “nothing more is required -- in particular it need not conduct a rulemaking that addresses the issues identified in UARG or the more basic ones that Petitioner presented to EPA before UARG and again seeks an opportunity to present.”
But the questions the petition asks the high court to consider appear far broader than the narrow issue of EPA's planned permitting threshold, suggesting the petitioners are seeking to open the door to further curtail the agency's GHG permit program.
For example, the petition asks whether the D.C. Circuit decision “leaving in effect the allegedly 'automatically triggered' regulation of greenhouse gas emissions of large industrial ('anyway') sources under certain Clean Air Act permitting programs, and requiring nothing more of EPA, is consistent with” the high court's ruling in the case.
Or, the petition continues, “is vacatur of the relevant rulemaking and associated regulations required, and, further, is a valid scheme of regulation not 'automatically triggered,' but, rather, predicated upon EPA conducting a rulemaking to determine how -- and whether -- such regulation can be modified to confirm with UARG, to address the nullified or contradicted provisions of the programs' statutory components to stay within the bounds of EPA's implicitly delegated authority over greenhouse gases, and to determine whether the regulation contributes anything to reduction of greenhouse gases?”
-
Report Details Federal Revenue From Extractive Industries
Dec 15, 2015 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly
The Interior Department released new data today on federal revenues from extractive industries, the first such annual report as part of a voluntary international disclosure initiative.
The report shows 31 U.S. companies in the oil, gas and mining industries disclosed payments of more than $8.5 billion to Interior in 2013. That funding accounts for approximately 70 percent of the total $12.6 billion the department received that year in energy and mineral revenues.
Auditors were able to reconcile 100 percent of the reported payments with federal data, Interior said. The report itself is meant to provide transparency on payments made by extractive industries to the government.
"Providing data in an open and accessible format," Interior Secretary Sally Jewell said in a statement, "will empower citizens, inform public discussions, and expand the scope of future revenue reporting to ensure the American people receive a fair return for the extraction of oil, gas, minerals and renewable energy on public lands and waters."
The United States is a member of the international Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, or EITI, a voluntary initiative that seeks to facilitate the public disclosure of extractive industry payments and revenues.
Oil, gas and mining industry disclosure has been a priority of anti-poverty organizations such as Oxfam, which says that increased transparency helps reduce corruption in resource-rich countries.
The release of the Interior report and associated online data portal comes after a three-year effort by a stakeholder group responsible for overseeing U.S. involvement in EITI. DOI also released state-level revenue data.
Kris Sarri, Interior's principal deputy assistant secretary for policy, management and budget, called the international initiative a "key component of both U.S. global leadership and domestic efforts to continuously improve how we manage, account for and talk about natural resource revenue."
While Interior is moving ahead on EITI, the Securities and Exchange Commission last week issued a long-anticipated proposed rule requiring extractive companies listed on U.S. exchanges to report payments, taxes, royalties and fees to the government.
A federal court in 2013 struck down the SEC's first attempt at the rule on a challenge from oil and business trade groups (E&ENews PM, Dec. 11).
Industry opponents of the SEC's actions have pointed to EITI as evidence of their commitment to transparency; the SEC's rule would contain more stringent disclosure requirements.
-
Billionaire Climate Activist Targets GOP Presidential Candidates
Dec 15, 2015 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Tim Devaney
Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer will run a series of advertisements about global warming during the GOP presidential debate Tuesday in an effort to pressure the Republican candidates to embrace clean energy.
“If you think there’s no solution to the climate crisis, think again,” Steyer says in the TV spot. “In America, clean energy is already producing enough power for 18 million homes, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and supporting over a million jobs.”
“With bold leadership and an endless supply of wind and sun, we can do even more,” Steyer continues. “The goal is 50 percent clean energy by 2030. So what are we waiting for?”
The ad campaign, priced at more than $100,000, is backed by Steyer’s environmental group, NextGen Climate. It includes two television commercials, one digital ad, and print ads in USA Today and the Las Vegas Sun.
NextGen Climate, which claims in its ad that 72 percent of Republican voters support clean energy, is hoping to pressure the presidential candidates to get on board.
“Any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace clean energy is putting themselves at odds with the American people — and Republican voters,” Steyer said in a statement. “Investing in clean energy will help solve climate change, create millions of jobs and put more money in Americans’ pockets. Is the Republican presidential field really going to ignore this tremendous economic opportunity?”
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Energy and Environment News
Full Text of Stories Below
Add recipients
Suggested