Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 4/22/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Most Commodity Resins See a Price Uptick in March
Apr 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Higher regional demand drove up North American prices for most commodity resins in March. -
(ACC Mentioned) Home Improvement Projects Drive Sales of Spray Foam Insulation
Apr 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Catherine Kavanaugh
Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) sales topped $1 billion in 2015 by most estimates after another solid year of growth due to increased activity in construction and home improvement projects. -
(ACC Mentioned) SI Group Honored for Social Practices
Apr 22, 2016 | The Times and Democrat
By Gene Zaleski
An Orangeburg chemical company has received an award for corporate social responsibility.EcoVadis announced that SI Group received its Silver Award ahead of Earth Day, which is today. -
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Designates Styrene as Known Carcinogen
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California regulators today finalized adding styrene to their list of chemicals known to cause cancer, in a move that has faced industry opposition. -
California Lists Styrene as Carcinogen Under Prop 65
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed styreneon Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer. -
US EPA’s David Dix on the Agency's Approach to EDCs
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By David Dix
The US EPA has been at the forefront of employing sound science for screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting potential. Much has happened over the past 20 years, since the broader scientific community became aware that chemicals may pose a significant risk... -
Global PFCA Emissions are 'Cause for Concern'
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Leigh Stringer
Production of long-chain PFCA and fluoropolymer substances – used across many industries for their strength, durability and resilience – has expanded from developed countries to the emerging economies in continental Asia. -
TTIP - A Straitjacket on EU Chemicals Law?
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Pelle Moos
As envisioned by the European Commission, regulatory cooperation is set to be at the heart of a future TTIP agreement as the nebulous mechanism driving alignment of EU and US rules – all with an eye to cut costs for business. -
Taking Read-Across to the Next Level
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Emma Davies
Echa is allocating more resources to read-across, a commonly used alternative approach to fill data gaps for REACH registrations. -
REACH – A Never-Ending Story
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Emma Chynoweth
After two decades immersed in chemical policy, Dick Sijm, who leads the REACH Bureau at the Dutch National Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM), is moving on. -
Ingredient Transparency in the Fragrance Industry
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Elaine Burridge
The global fragrance industry is a multi-billion dollar market and highly dependent on protecting its trade secrets, namely the complex combination of ingredients used in a variety of products. -
E&E Daily's Koss Discusses Challenges Ahead for Energy Bill Conference
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E TV
This week, the Senate passed a bipartisan energy reform package. Next up: conferencing with the House on a final bill, which is expected to pose challenges for lawmakers as key differences exist between the chambers' packages. On today's The Cutting Edge,E&E Daily reporter Geof Koss discusses... -
EPA Defends Emissions Inventory Against Industry Critics
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is defending its new inventory of greenhouse gases against criticism from the oil and gas industry. -
Democrats Unveil Bill to Block Atlantic Seismic Tests
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
A group of Democratic senators yesterday introduced a bill that would prohibit oil and gas seismic surveys along the East Coast. -
Getting The Energy Regulatory Balance Right
Apr 22, 2016 | Forbes
By Wayne Winegarden
Sensible environmental regulations play an indispensable role ensuring that public lands are sustainably managed. But, as Earth Day’s 47th anniversary is celebrated, it is important to recognize that sensible regulations should also encourage the responsible development... -
Take a Hard Look at How Candidates’ Energy Policies Will Affect Health, Climate Change
Apr 22, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ambassador Ron Kirk and Christine Todd Whitman
Watching the political theater that our election season has become, you’d be forgiven if you thought that all matters of public policy were black or white – however, many issues, such as how we move toward a carbon-free energy mix, are much more complex than the candidates... -
DHS Seeks Paperless Route for Guarding Utility Data
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Some of the most sensitive data to pass through the Department of Homeland Security often leaves a paper trail -- but perhaps not for much longer. -
What I Learned by Living Through a Toxic Chemical Spill in New Jersey
Apr 22, 2016 | NJ Spotlight
By Trisha Sheehan
The EPA is poised to pass new rules about dangerous chemicals and carcinogens, but they don’t do nearly enough to protect our children -
States Vie for 'Tiny Slice' of Crude-by-Rail Oversight
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Montana safety regulators hadn't kept up with booming oil train traffic from the Bakken Shale play, according to an unflinching audit last October. -
U.S. and 170 Other Nations Sign Historic Climate Agreement
Apr 22, 2016 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Secretary of State John F. Kerry joined the leaders of 170 nations Friday morning in signing an agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions as part of a global effort to ward off potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Most Commodity Resins See a Price Uptick in March
Apr 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Higher regional demand drove up North American prices for most commodity resins in March.
Materials with prices on the rise included polyethylene, polypropylene, suspension PVC and PET bottle resin. In engineering resins, North American nylon 6 and 6/6 prices have declined since the start of the year. And in the recycled resins markets, high density PE prices are up in the last six months, while prices for recycled PP have dropped.
PE prices surged an average of 5 cents per pound, canceling out price drops totaling that same amount that had hit the market in January and February. U.S./Canadian sales of high density PE were up almost 10 percent in the first two months of the year, according to the American Chemistry Council in Washington.
Domestic HDPE sales were up only 1.3 percent, but export sales skyrocketed 48 percent for the two-month period. In the U.S./Canadian linear low density PE market, two-month sales grew 7 percent, with domestic growth of 3.5 percent boosted by a 20 percent uptick in exports.
West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices began March around $36 per barrel, but soon approached $42. Per-barrel prices then fell to $37 by the end of the month, but again had rallied to $41.50 in late trading April 13. Crude oil prices are used as an international price-setter for PE, even though most PE made in North America is based on natural gas.
On the supply side, the Braskem Idesa joint venture has opened a major new PE plant in Mexico. Some of that plant’s output will be shipped to the U.S.
Regional PP prices ticked up an average of 1 cent per pound in March, although some buyers saw different outcomes. Prices had been flat in February after experiencing four consecutive price increases from October through January. Those increases had totaled 10 cents per pound.
“March pricing continues to be negotiated with varying outcomes,” Resin Technology Inc. market analyst Scott Newell said in an email. “Imports are here and are grabbing market share. This has created competitive situations in which many PP producers are responding with lower prices.
North American PP sales grew almost 3 percent in the first two months of 2016. Domestic sales growth of just over 4 percent was lessened by a 53 percent drop in export sales.
The regional suspension PVC market saw prices jump an average of 4 cents per pound in March, as several planned and unplanned production outages caused resin supplies to become tight.
“Weather has been improving, which usually helps PVC demand in construction, but there’s been limited volume [of resin] available because of the outages,” an industry source said.
Regional PVC prices had been flat in February after dropping an average of 1 cent per pound in January. Major PVC suppliers now have announced an additional increase of 3 cents per pound effective April 1.
U.S./Canadian PVC sales grew more than 9 percent in the first two months of the year, with export sales growth of almost 28 percent improving a modest 2 percent domestic growth rate.
The biggest March turnaround came in the PET bottle resin market, where North American prices rose after months of decline. The 2-cent-per-pound PET hike ends a streak in which prices for the material had slipped for six consecutive months before being flat in February. Prices had fallen a total of 13 cents per pound during that six-month skid.
The North American PET market continues to struggle with overcapacity, but warmer spring weather typically increases demand for both carbonated soft drinks and bottled water — PET’s two main end markets.
Higher feedstock prices also played a role in the PET increase, according to a recent report from the PetroChem Wire consulting firm. U.S. PET producers adjusted invoicing to match rising crude oil prices and their effect on PET production, the report said.
Polystyrene was the only commodity resin to see no North American price movement in March. Benzene feedstock prices fell almost 4 percent to $1.77 per gallon, but that wasn’t enough of a decline to move the needle on PS resin prices. Regional PS prices had fallen an average of 2 cents per pound in February, ending a streak of four consecutive months in which prices for the material had been flat.
North American PS sales were flat in the first two months of 2016. Strong PS demand growth, however, was reported in the electrical/electronic end market, where two-month sales jumped almost 12 percent.
The 8-cent-per-pound nylon price drop seen since January resulted mainly from lower feedstock costs. Demand for nylon remains solid, especially from the automotive sector.
“Prices are catching up to lower feedstock costs,” said Paul Blanchard, a market analyst with IHS Chemical in Houston. “For nylon, supply is a bit long so there’s also some competitive pressure on base resin prices.”
In the North American recycled resins market, strong demand for recycled HDPE has lifted prices in the last six months. Prices for natural, post-consumer HDPE pellets and flake are up an average of 10 cents per pound in that period. Prices for mixed-color grades of both post-consumer and post-industrial HDPE pellets and flake are up 5 cents in that span as well.
For recycled PP, however, prices have softened by an average of 5 cents per pound in that six-month stretch. Tight supplies of prime PP in the region have not helped recycled PP demand, a recycling executive in the Midwest told Plastics News. That’s because PP demand growth has been in food-contact applications, where recycled PP often cannot be used, he said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160422/NEWS/160429927/most-commodity-resins-see-a-price-uptick-in-march
-
(ACC Mentioned) Home Improvement Projects Drive Sales of Spray Foam Insulation
Apr 22, 2016 | Plastics News
By Catherine Kavanaugh
Spray polyurethane foam (SPF) sales topped $1 billion in 2015 by most estimates after another solid year of growth due to increased activity in construction and home improvement projects.
Manufacturers reported some 460 million to 490 million pounds of SPF, which is used for roofing and insulating, were sold last year in the U.S. and Canada, according to Rick Duncan, technical director of the Spray Polyurethane Foam Alliance (SPFA) of Fairfax, Va. At a cost of roughly $2.25 a pound, SPF reached the milestone of being a $1 billion market in 2015.
“It’s difficult to give precise numbers but we’ve been seeing continued strong growth over the last decade,” Duncan said in a telephone interview, noting that the American Chemistry Council helps track sales by pounds of SPF chemicals sold and not dollars.
Duncan said he is still waiting for final numbers but it looks like residential insulation applications drove sales growth again.
“I have year-over-year data from 2013 to 2014 and we’re seeing growth on the residential side on average of about 15 percent. If you go back to 2013 over 2012 it’s about the same, about 16 percent,” Duncan said. “When you look at the housing market and the construction market, it’s not growing at that rate so we’re getting a lot of retrofit and we’re gaining market share.”
SPF competes mostly against fiberglass and cellulose for residential uses, and against foam boards on the commercial side in the U.S. insulation market, which is projected to grow 6.6 percent a year through 2019 to $10.3 billion, according to Freedonia Group Inc., a Cleveland-based industry market research firm.
“Fiberglass and foamed plastic are by far the most prevalent types of insulation, together accounting for 93 percent of the market by value,” Freedonia analyst Nick Cunningham said in a news release.
Fiberglass will remain the market leader by weight, he added, pointing to a forecast that shows demand reaching 4.5 billion pounds valued at $4.9 billion in 2019. Demand for foamed plastic insulation is projected to grow to 2.4 billion pounds valued at $4.7 billion in 2019.
Unvented attics popular
The use of SPF in residential attics is one application that’s on the rise. Homes have been built with ventilated attics — usually screened vent holes under the eaves — for centuries to allow warm air and moisture to escape and to keep the roof cold in the winter, which stops the formation of ice dams.
However, the acceptance of unvented, conditioned attics has been increasing since 2006, when the International Residential Code started permitting them, partly in response to builders wanting to locate HVAC equipment up there. SPF is one of the building products used to turn attics into conditioned spaces so HVAC systems can operate efficiently and homeowners can pick up storage area that’s about the same temperature as the rest of the house.
SPF comes in open- or closed-cell foams and either can be used for unvented attics. Closed-cell SPF, which is more rigid and stronger, often is recommended for the pitched part of the roof.
“Insulation is put right under the roof deck in the pitched part of the roof and spray foam is best for that because it adheres and stays in place,” Duncan said. “There are tens of thousands of homes now insulated that way and it can save about 10 to 15 percent on your heating and cooling costs. That’s pretty substantial. And for places like Florida, California and Texas, where you have no basements, it adds a conditioned storage space to the house and people really like that. You can put stuff up there without worrying about candles melting or things getting ruined by the heat.
“Unvented attics have really helped our industry when we talk about that 15 percent growth. We’re seeing that a lot of homeowners are using unvented attics as a retrofit.”
Sales of SPF for home improvement projects are strong enough to outweigh uncertainties about new home construction, Duncan added.
“We’re seeing some information that the housing market is getting better and then we see other reports that it is not,” he said. “We’re not too concerned because we’re seeing a lot of growth from retrofit. People are staying in existing homes and saying let me make my house more efficient. How can I do that? And SPF in the attic is the easy way.”
Roof benefits, too
SPF actually started as a low-slope roofing material for commercial buildings in the 1960s, but sales didn’t take off for another 30 years when it became popular as an insulation product. These days, about 10 percent of sales are for roof applications.
“Spray foam puts the insulation and water seal down in one operation and then you cover it with a coating to protect it from the sun and you’re done,” Duncan said. “It’s a lot less labor intensive, and in some cases less expensive, than most roof systems. But it really hasn’t grown that much.”
New certification programs and training for contractors have provided more variety in the way roofs are assembled, but weather limitations remain.
“You can only spray foam in dry weather and it has to be warm,” Duncan said. “There are very few spray foam roofing contractors in Seattle because it rains so much and they don’t have a lot of time to spray. But it’s very popular in Arizona and Texas, where it’s dry and they can work all year.”
Closed-cell SPFs also are finding their way into roofing systems in hurricane-prone areas, where they are applied underneath plywood roof decks to increase the wind-uplift resistance up to three times.
“That means if you take an older home in Florida, let’s say built before 2000, and if you spray just 2 inches of closed-cell foam underneath that plywood, it will not lift off in a Category 3 hurricane whereas it would in the past,” Duncan said. “And, the closed-cell foam provides a water barrier. Most houses will lose their shingles and underlayment in a hurricane, and that causes the roofs to leak. When water gets inside the houses your drywall fails and the interior of the house can be totaled even if the roof is in place without shingles. With the closed-cell foam it seals off the plywood and the home will survive. You’ve got to put new shingles on but the inside of the house stays dry.”
Although SPF competes against foam board as an insulation product, upstream chemical manufacturers that supply both markets are urging manufacturers to work together when it comes to wall systems.
Dow Chemical Co.’s Building Solutions and BASF SE both are promoting high-performing wall systems made with foam board as the sheathing instead of oriented strand board and about 3 inches of closed-cell SPF in the wall cavity to seal air leaks and add strength. SPF replaces fiberglass insulation in this construction method.
“We think those two products together make the best residential frame wall that you will find,” Duncan said.
Certifying contractors
A lot of contractors got into the SPF business during the construction slowdown, despite the high start-up costs. Spray foam rigs sell for $50,000 to $100,000, and although the process looks as easy as spraying paint, Duncan said it isn’t.
“We had carpenters and electricians say, ‘I’m not doing any work but I hear spray foam is growing — let’s get into that,’” he said. “But unless they were properly trained they often failed.”
To keep the profession from getting a black eye from SPF jobs gone awry and to address concerns of the Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA), the alliance created a professional certification program in 2013. More than 1,000 people have since been certified to various levels.
“We’re trying to raise the bar,” Duncan said. “Some manufacturers will certify their customers but when they do bad work, they don’t always uncertify them. We said that’s not sufficient so we created a program that follows the international standard and is based on industry consensus. And, we do revoke certification if someone isn’t doing something safely.”
For example, one certification was revoked for six months when a contractor posted a YouTube video of himself applying spray foam without personal protective equipment, such as face masks, Duncan said.
To obtain SPFA certification, each installer must be trained by the factory for two to three days. A business can’t send just one person for training and then have them train their co-workers when they get back.
Other challenges
SPFA also is helping contractors meet new OSHA requirements for working in confined spaces like manholes, tanks, crawl spaces and attics. New regulations aimed at preventing worker deaths and injuries — there are about 8 fatalities and 800 injuries annually — went into effect recently following a temporary stay of enforcement but the National Association of Home Builders says it “continues to negotiate with the agency to clarify the rule’s application to residential home building.”
In general, the rule requires employers to evaluate job sites, control physical hazards, monitor atmospheric hazards, and train workers and supervisors to handle emergencies.
“So many people are working in attics now and not doing it safely,” Duncan said. “Not just the spray foam people but those working on HVAC systems, the cable guys installing wires, and others. If you don’t step in the right place, you’ll put your foot through the ceiling, which is a hazard. There are also trip hazards or you could bump your head on the rafters. It can get too hot or if there’s a fire, how do you escape.”
Training contractors to avoid these problems is important, Duncan said, otherwise government regulators will start requiring them to obtain permits to work in attics.
“That would mean a lot of administrative details that would really escalate the cost of doing any work in the attic,” he said. “You have to have someone stand outside the door and monitor who goes in and out. You have to have a rescue team on duty. We’re telling our people if you don’t want to do those things then there are general safety requirements to follow in advance. It’s an education process.”
The alliance also is dealing with concerns about flame retardants used in foam.
“The one we use has been evaluated by the European Union, which says it is not a problem,” Duncan said. “But chemically it’s similar to flame retardants that are a problem so we’ve been grouped together and the [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] is looking at what we’re using.”
The alliance also is working with EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to develop methods to measure emissions from foam that could affect the air quality inside buildings.
“Those groups are asking us to characterize and measure certain emissions that come from spray foam when it is used as a building product,” Duncan said. “The industry is developing special tests just for the chemicals used in spray foam. We’ve been working on that for 3 to 4 years. It’s still ongoing but we’re getting close to the end.”
The SPF industry also is tackling concerns from architects and specifiers about its petroleum-based products, which come in 55-gallon drums, and whether they are bad for the environment.
“We do use petroleum but we did a life cycle assessment of our product over the 60-year life of a building where it was used to insulate air seals and you save about 250 times the energy used to make the spray foam,” Duncan said. The payback is huge. Not a lot of products can say that if you look at, for example, the petroleum used to make carpeting or other building products where there’s no payback. We have a positive payback.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20160422/NEWS/160429925/home-improvement-projects-drive-sales-of-spray-foam-insulation
-
(ACC Mentioned) SI Group Honored for Social Practices
Apr 22, 2016 | The Times and Democrat
By Gene Zaleski
An Orangeburg chemical company has received an award for corporate social responsibility.
EcoVadis announced that SI Group received its Silver Award ahead of Earth Day, which is today. EcoVadis is an international organization that provides sustainability ratings for global supply chains.
SI Group was ranked among the top 13 percent of more than 25,000 worldwide companies assessed by EcoVadis.
EcoVadis’ Corporate Social Responsibility scorecards rate suppliers’ environmental, ethical and social practices across 150 purchasing categories and 110 countries.
“Operating a sustainable and socially responsible organization is a long-term commitment,” said Frank Bozich, president and CEO at SI Group.
“Our collaboration with EcoVadis represents a vital component of our broader global sustainability efforts,” Bozich said. “We’re honored to have received this rating, as this achievement both recognizes the investments we have made in systems that support our sustainability efforts and also establishes a new baseline from which we will continue.”PauseCurrent Time0:00/Duration Time0:00Loaded: 0%Progress: 0%0:00Fullscreen00:00Unmute
The EcoVadis methodology covers 21 individual criteria across four themes, including: environment; fair labor practices; ethics and fair business practices; and supply chain.
The methodology is built on international corporate social responsibility standards, including the Global Reporting Initiative, the United National Global Compact and ISO 26000, covering 150 spend categories and 140 countries.
In addition to the EcoVadis rating, SI Group has been a member of the American Chemistry Council’s Responsible Care program for more than 25 years.
Responsible Care is an environmental, health, safety and security performance initiative aimed at improving the health and safety of employees, communities and the environment as a whole, moving the industry toward a safer and more sustainable future.
The SI Group purchased the former Albemarle plant in April 2014. The Orangeburg plant employs about 270 people and has about 100 contractor employees.
Founded in 1906 and headquartered in Schenectady, New York, SI Group is a family-owned company with over 2,700 employees worldwide. SI Group operates 20 manufacturing facilities on five continents with $1.6 billion in annual sales.
http://thetandd.com/news/local/si-group-honored-for-social-practices/article_864052c2-8584-5279-b8d6-1cc859278227.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Calif. Designates Styrene as Known Carcinogen
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
California regulators today finalized adding styrene to their list of chemicals known to cause cancer, in a move that has faced industry opposition.
Styrene is a widely used industrial chemical, with about 10.24 billion pounds produced in the United States in 2011 by companies like Bayer MaterialScience, Shell Chemical LP, BASF, Dow Chemical Co. and Lyondell Chemical Co., according to EPA data.
The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, part of the California Environmental Protection Agency, said today it is finalizing the listing because the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, previously identified styrene as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" in 2011. The office administers the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, also known as Proposition 65.
Beginning today, styrene joins an official list "known to the state of California" to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm. The action finalizes what was first proposed last year (Greenwire, May 6, 2015).
A congressionally mandated review by the National Research Council later found the decision was supported by "sufficient" evidence from animal studies and "convincing relevant information from mechanistic studies" (Greenwire, July 29, 2014).
U.S. EPA is continuing to review styrene under its Integrated Risk Information System to determine if it poses a health risk.
State law provides several mechanisms by which the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment can add a chemical to the Proposition 65 list. In this case, the agency says that because NTP found it causes cancer, that report can be cited as what's known as an "authoritative body" listing. Since it first proposed the action last year, industry groups have tried to argue that the NTP report did not meet the state's standards for such an action, but regulators have rejected the claim.
Though styrene is used in the production of polystyrene plastics and resins, it is not the same as polystyrene, which is used in food containers. The industry maintains that consumers get insufficient exposure to styrene from polystyrene containers to result in a health risk.
Under state law, the action will require manufacturers to post warning labels in areas where styrene is present. However, the agency also proposed setting 27 micrograms per day as the level at which there is no significant risk from styrene. The agency is seeking public comments on the threshold until June 6. If finalized, companies will not have to warn the public if they can show exposure levels are below the threshold.
Industry groups warned that the proposal will confuse and scare the public.
The listing "has the potential to result in unnecessary public alarm concerning the safety of the thousands of products made from styrene and styrene-based resins," Jack Snyder, executive director of the Styrene Information and Research Center, said in a statement. "Consumers can and should continue to use those products with confidence in their safety."
Mike Levy, a senior director for the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, said in a statement that consumers should recognize the "important and obvious differences between styrene and polystyrene."
"Styrene is a liquid, and polystyrene is an inert solid plastic," Levy said. "They are fundamentally unalike and display distinctly different properties."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060036112/search?keyword=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
California Lists Styrene as Carcinogen Under Prop 65
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed styreneon Proposition 65 as a substance known to the state to cause cancer.
It was added via the authoritative bodies listing mechanism, based on the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) 2011 designation of styrene as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen", in its 12th Report on Carcinogens (RoC).
The listing takes effect from 22 April.
In a separate notice, Oehha has proposed to adopt a No Significant Risk Level (NSRL) of 27 micrograms per day for styrene. The NSRL represents the safe harbour level below which warning is not required under Prop 65.
The proposal to list styrene was opposed by the Styrene Information Research Center (Sirc). In comments endorsed by several industry groups, Sirc said that the human data does "not support an association between exposure to styrene and human cancer", and that the agency has no basis for listing styrene under the authoritative bodies mechanism.
But the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Environmental Health countered that the NTP’s findings satisfy the regulation’s scientific sufficiency criteria. They urged Oehha to complete the listing.
Oehha, in response to stakeholder comments, said that based on the NTP's conclusions and the data it used to reach them, Oehha has "determined that styrene meets the sufficiency of evidence criteria".
In March 2013, Oehha withdrew a proposal to list styrene via the labour code listing mechanism, while the National Research Council (NRC) completed review of the NTP carcinogen designation. This was upheld in July 2014.
Styrene is used in a variety of applications, including:
· food contact materials;
· building insulation; and
· composite products.
Styrene’s mandatory classification in the EU does not include cancer.
Warning for exposure to styrene will be required one year from the date it was listed. Comments on the proposed NSRL will be accepted through 6 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46871/california-lists-styrene-as-carcinogen-under-prop-65
-
US EPA’s David Dix on the Agency's Approach to EDCs
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By David Dix
The US EPA has been at the forefront of employing sound science for screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine-disrupting potential. Much has happened over the past 20 years, since the broader scientific community became aware that chemicals may pose a significant risk of disrupting endocrine pathways in humans and wildlife.
These efforts started with the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 that included a legislative mandate for the creation of the EPA Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Also in 1996, an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required screening of drinking water contaminants for possible endocrine effects.
The EPA developed a two-tiered approach to endocrine disruption screening and testing, in the years following the passage of these amendments, and in 2015 completed screening of 52 chemicals for potential endocrine bioactivity.
The EDSP has transformed to using predictive toxicology and systems biology approaches, incorporatinghigh throughput and computational methodologies for pathway-based endocrine screening and testing.
This occurred through coordination among EDSP’s partners including EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), the (National Toxicology Program) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), and the Toxicology in the 21st Century (Tox21) collaboration between EPA, National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Benefits of this transformation include faster screening of more chemicals, decreased costs and less use of animals. In 2015, 1,800 chemicals were screened using newly developed oestrogen receptor pathway data, and, in coming years, the EDSP will have similar data for up to 3,000 chemicals in the oestrogen, androgen and thyroid pathway.
In addition to the transformation in screening and testing, changes have occurred in data accessibility and in terms of collaboration, contributing to validation and international acceptance. EDSP data are available to the public via the EPA’s endocrine disruption website, ToxCast, and other sources promoting transparency and stakeholder participation and collaboration. These data have accelerated progress within toxicological science and assisted with the prioritisation of chemicals in regulatory assessment.
Researchers and governmental bodies worldwide have made use of these data in their activities. Research partnerships, such as Tox21, have also been formed or strengthened in recent years. International and intergovernmental efforts are also taking place in forums such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
As with any transition within a large public organisation and programme, peer review and stakeholder input is essential to implementing successful change. The EPA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) public peer reviews help validate new science going into the EDSP.
In addition, the EPA has contracted the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to form expert committees on ‘Incorporating 21st century science into risk-based evaluations’, and ‘Unravelling low-dose toxicity: case studies of systematic review of evidence’. Stakeholders and the public also have the opportunity to participate and comment on various Federal Register notices as they are released on progress, in transition to using these new approaches within the EDSP.
The integration of 21st century chemical screening and testing methodologies within existing regulatory programmes, such as the EDSP, will also require some targeted bridging activities. In July 2015, the EPA and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) hosted a workshop entitled ‘Strengthening the scientific basis for chemical safety assessments’. During this workshop, experts in the fields of toxicology, epidemiology and risk assessment discussed gaps between traditional toxicological assessments, based primarily on animal testing, versus a more integrated approach incorporating mechanistic and human data in support of more predictive toxicology. These gaps include considerations of epidemiological data, multiple exposures, mixtures, chronic low-dose exposures, life stage and multigenerational effects, and population variability in risk assessments. Both the EPA and NIEHS are committed to addressing these gaps and fostering predictive toxicology, based on biological pathways and integration of 21st century science into the chemical assessment process.
Continued collaboration across the EDSP, the US government, and with stakeholders and international partners, is essential for fostering science-based chemical safety decisions that are protective of human health and the environment.
Acknowledgements and Disclaimer: This article was supported by Cooperative Agreement Number X3-83555301 from the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health, but does not necessarily represent the official views of the EPA or ASPPH.
This article was co-authored by Whitney Weber, Association of Schools and Programmes of Public Health (ASPPH), fellowship programme participant, US EPA.
David Dix is EPA director of the Office of Science Coordination and Policy
https://chemicalwatch.com/46853/us-epas-david-dix-on-the-agencys-approach-to-edcs
-
Global PFCA Emissions are 'Cause for Concern'
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Leigh Stringer
Production of long-chain PFCA and fluoropolymer substances – used across many industries for their strength, durability and resilience – has expanded from developed countries to the emerging economies in continental Asia.
These are the findings of a report by the OECD, Working towards a global emission inventory of PFASs, presented at last year’s International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4).
It shows that, in the last two decades, emissions of long-chain PFCAs – a subgroup of PFASs – from fluoropolymer production sites have almost been eliminated in the US, Western Europe and Japan. But the expansion of production to countries such as China, India and Russia has completely offset these reductions, achieved by the former major global manufacturers.
The OECD’s principal administrator, Eeva Leinala, told Chemical Watch that the results show that while some companies in certain countries have achieved significant reductions, overall “we’re not tackling the problem at all”.
Due to their high performance and costs of switching to alternatives, the production and use of these chemicals continue, she says.
According to the OECD’s website, the worldwide presence of long-chain PFCAs, such as PFOS and PFOA, combined with their persistence, bioaccumulative and toxicity (PBT) properties, makes this trend a particular concern.
There is an urgent need, the report says, to capture this ongoing geographical shift of industrial sources, as a basis for future action towards global elimination of long-chain PFASs.
Fluoropolymers are used in many products, including wire and cable insulation for computer and cell phone circuits and hoses for aircraft and cars. Fluorosurfactants are used in firefighting foams for extinguishing aircraft and oilfield fires and processing chemicals for semiconductor manufacture.
PFOA
The OECD says PFOS and PFOA, widely used long-chain substances, are persistent, widely present in humans and the environment and can cause adverse effects in laboratory animals, including cancer and developmental and systemic toxicity.
PFOA – a processing aid in the manufacture of certain fluoropolymers – has been of particular concern because it has been identified as one of the main sources responsible for the majority of emissions from long-chain PFCAs.
In 2013, Echa’s Member State Committee agreed that PFOA and its salts are substances of very high concern (SVHCs), based on their PBT properties.
The European Commission took a further step, last year, by announcing that it will submit a proposal for the listing of PFOA and its compounds in Annex A of the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). If listed, this would see a ban on their production and use, as well as import and export, by countries signed up to the convention.
Industry association, the FluoroCouncil, says a listing on the convention could prevent the trend of increasing emissions in new producing countries from continuing: “While the convention process to list PFOA can take years and may result in exemptions for limited applications, this nomination, coupled with regulatory actions underway in the US and EU, and the availability of successful alternatives, makes it clear that PFOA and related long-chain substances are becoming obsolete chemistries.”
The voluntary approach
In the meantime, the FluoroCouncil says production, use and global trade of these chemistries will continue, without commitments to eliminate “product content and facility emissions” similar to those achieved by participants of the US EPA-led voluntary initiative, the PFOA Stewardship Programme.
Under the programme, FluoroCouncil member companies have eliminated the chemicals from facility emissions and product content on a global scale, it says.
One of the council’s goals has been to support regulators’ global transition away from PFOA and related long-chain substances, toward alternative chemistries that “reduce environmental impacts, such as short-chain fluorochemicals”.
While many downstream users have adopted these, “inefficiencies in many of the regulations on long-chain chemistries have not encouraged downstream users to accelerate the transition to short-chain chemistries.”
The trade body adds that comprehensive science-based regulation and programmes that phase out PFOA and its related substances, while providing alternatives with improved environmental profiles, are the fastest and most thorough means to complete this transition.
Short-chain vs long-chain
The council’s website refers to certain research papers that conclude that the short-chain PFASs studied are not expected to harm human health or the environment. Compared to the long-chains, the short-chain substances are eliminated more rapidly from the body and are less toxic, it says.
But, while the industry promotes and encourages the transition to short-chain fluorochemistry, some NGOs say studies are emerging on their adverse effects.
Joe Digangi, senior science and technical adviser of the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), told Chemical Watch that the OECD’s report notes a gap in its results. The report says that “multiple overlooked sources of PFCAs have been identified, but can currently not be quantified, due to a lack of information.”
Mr Digangi says that “since the ‘overlooked sources’ constitute the industry’s new substitutes, the study ignores the rising use of the shorter-chain C6 and C4 compounds – both of which are starting to look as inappropriate as the C8 compounds as more data becomes available,” he says.
He points to recent studies of PFHxS, a short-chain C6 substance, that suggest the substance can have various adverse effects such as reduced fertility in humans and thyroid disruption.
“If the OECD wants to be relevant, then the industry’s cynical substitutes have to be part of the mix,” he adds.
Failed action
Mr Digangi says this shift demonstrates that voluntary measures, in a few countries, are not effective overall at reducing global pollution.
“The rise in PFCA production in China, India, and Russia reflects what I call the ‘leftovers’ problem. When a chemical comes under regulatory threat in the US, EU and/or Japan, companies either move production of it elsewhere or competitors in China, India and others start up production to fill the void,” he says.
The products are exported, adds Mr Digangi, and the production typically makes a “pollution mess” in China, which the Ministry of Environment usually bears responsibility for cleaning up.
“A few years later, the market shrinks or the substance gets nominated to the Stockholm Convention, and the pattern begins again with the next ‘leftover’ substance. DecaBDE has been
Ms Leinala says that, since there is such a huge variety of these substances, it would be “prudent to take a group approach and consider it as a whole category of chemicals”.
“There is the argument that if you have an agreement, regarding a particular substance, will the shift move to another substance within the group?”
“Countries do have questions about the alternatives to the ones that they end up regulating. Are we moving to safer alternatives for the long term?” she adds.
Mr Digangi says the chemical industry in China, India and other emerging economies will never be truly sustainable until it rejects the developed world’s “leftovers” and proactively goes for safer green chemistry substitutes that compete directly with US, EU, and Japanese companies in their markets.
International efforts, however, are being made to tackle the issues related to long-chain fluorochemicals. PFCs, which encompass PFCAs as one of its chemical family groups, are on the agenda of the UN’s global initiative, the Sound Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
This has led to the OECD and Unep setting up the Global PFC Group, which was established to facilitate the exchange of information on PFCs and to support a global transition towards safer alternatives.
The group operates under a ICCM mandate and brings together experts from developed and developing countries in academia, governments, industry and NGOs. The group’s work has mostly focused on long-chain PFCs. However, at ICCM4, countries specifically requested for short-chain PFASs to be included in its work.
One of the challenges for the group has been to engage with more non-OECD countries to raise awareness of the issues.
“To effectively eliminate emissions of these chemicals, we need a combination of voluntary approaches and backing that up with regulatory restrictions, either nationally or perhaps at the global scale,” says Ms Leinala.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46838/global-pfca-emissions-are-cause-for-concern
-
TTIP - A Straitjacket on EU Chemicals Law?
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Pelle Moos
As envisioned by the European Commission, regulatory cooperation is set to be at the heart of a future TTIP agreement as the nebulous mechanism driving alignment of EU and US rules – all with an eye to cut costs for business.
The European Consumer Organisation (Beuc) has repeatedly highlighted that regulatory cooperation is not simply a tool to eliminate superfluous administration. As we explained in our recent position paper ‘The incompatible chemistry between the EU and US’, regulatory cooperation is infact one of the most worrying aspects of TTIP, due to its potential to freeze progress on reducing consumer exposure to harmful chemicals. In essence, our concern is that the focus on reducing non-tariff barriers will be used as a backdoor mechanism to weaken consumer and environmental protections.
This is why Beuc is calling for the exclusion of chemicals from the scope of TTIP’s horizontal Regulatory Cooperation chapter.
New Commission proposal will entrench the Better Regulation agenda in TTIP
In response to the controversy, the Commission recently published a revised chapter on regulatory cooperation. This new version includes some welcome improvements, such as a more assertive emphasis on the right to regulate and a clearer recognition that regulatory cooperation should be voluntary.
Nonetheless, fundamental flaws persist. Chief among these is a new chapter on Good Regulatory Practices. Previous versions of the Regulatory Cooperation chapter included a section on this. Allegedly, this section has now been elevated to a separate chapter to accommodate US demands.
If adopted, this chapter would entrench important aspects of the Juncker Commission’s Better Regulation agenda in a future TTIP agreement.
But why is this a problem? Because once written into TTIP, the Good Regulatory Practices chapter will bind EU decision makers to a particular vision of Better Regulation that narrowly reflects the current Commission’s agenda.
For the Juncker Commission, Better Regulation equals less regulation
Under the Juncker Commission, the Better Regulation agenda is no longer merely, or even primarily, an exercise meant to remove unnecessary administrative burdens for businesses. Rather, the unequivocal focus is on reducing the overall costs of regulation to businesses – riskily, at the expense of consumer and environmental protections.
Core elements of this agenda include new guidelines for impact assessments that, in practice, place a strong emphasis on monetising the costs and benefits of legislative measures. At the same time, stakeholder consultation procedures have been extended, without addressing the information asymmetries between industry and public interest groups.
Predictably, the result to date has been significant delays in developing and implementing regulatory measures to protect consumers and the environment. The inexcusable delays in regulating endocrine disrupting chemicals illustrates perfectly how the Commission’s use of impact assessments threatens to undermine the EU’s current hazard-based approach and to freeze the enactment of stronger chemicals regulations.
Institutionalising delaying mechanisms in TTIP
If codified in TTIP, the EU will be inescapably bound to these Better Regulation procedures, well beyond the Juncker Commission’s term in office. As a result, TTIP would straitjacket future EU chemicals policy. The Good Regulatory Practices chapter will entail numerous obligations for EU policy makers – obligations which will provide a wealth of opportunities for stakeholders to water down new regulations and to activate reviews of existing ones.
As outlined by the Commission, this chapter will create a number of different delaying mechanisms, for example, through its demand for transparent planning, stakeholder consultation, impact assessments and retrospective evaluation of regulatory acts. These provisions will all offer opportunities to raise concerns about both current legislation and future regulations that threaten to compromise progress on regulating chemical risks.
We know, for example, that impact assessments that seek to monetise the costs and benefits of regulations notoriously underestimate the benefits to society of protective laws, and favour the kind ofinefficient risk-based approach to chemicals regulation pursued in the United States. Speculative and inaccurately inflated trade ‘impact assessments’ could, therefore, be used to question existing EU processes regulating toxic chemicals, or to impede the development of new, stronger chemicals regulations.
With this new chapter, the Commission, in short, looks to institutionalise delaying mechanisms that will leave consumers exposed to poorly or unregulated risks – because, regrettably, the right to regulate never translates as an obligation to do so; and our experience demonstrates that well-organised pressure can successfully block regulation, even where it is long overdue – just think of the scandalous mess surrounding endocrine disrupting chemicals.
For those of us who wish to see the EU develop better, more ambitious policies to address harmful chemicals, the new Good Regulatory Practices chapter is thus unwelcome news.
The threat to EU chemicals laws persists
The negotiating parties have repeatedly claimed that TTIP does not threaten the EU’s high standards of protection. Given that the primary objective of TTIP and the Better Regulation agenda is the elimination of regulatory costs to businesses – not the development of more ambitious EU policies to protect consumers from harmful chemicals – these claims have never been particularly convincing.
Even if TTIP does not weaken EU chemicals laws, and that is a big if, there is still the risk of delays in implementing policies to reduce chemical risks. The European Parliament has notably instructed the Commission to ensure that TTIP’s horizontal chapters do not impact the REACH Regulation and its implementation. The Commission claims that it will respect this recommendation.
All REACH processes, however, need sufficient resources and political commitment to ensure their proper implementation. Should TTIP and the Commission’s Better Regulation agenda combine to impede the pace and scope of these processes, can the Commission really be said to be respecting Parliament’s recommendation? We believe not, and that is why Beuc insists on the exclusion of chemicals from the scope of TTIP’s Regulatory Cooperation and Good Regulatory Practices chapters.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46851/ttip-a-straitjacket-on-eu-chemicals-law
-
Taking Read-Across to the Next Level
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Emma Davies
Echa is allocating more resources to read-across, a commonly used alternative approach to fill data gaps for REACH registrations. Last year, the agency published its read-across assessment framework (RAAF), which sets out a structured approach, using six different scenarios.
Read-across is a means to predict REACH information requirements for physico-chemical, human health and/or environmental properties for target substances, using test information on reference or source chemicals.
The technique can be adapted to meet different needs, explains US consultant Terry Schultz, who helped to put together the read-across strategy as well as leading case studies for an EU alternative testing project called Seurat-1.
So-called “narrow-domain” read-across, with a single target chemical and one to three source substances, is suited to REACH, he suggests. Meanwhile, “wide-domain” read-across describes a “one-to-many” or “many-to-many” approach and can aid screening and priority setting, he explains. Mr Schultz has a particular interest in what he terms “intermediate-domain read-across”, which picks out behaviours that separate chemicals from a group.
Academics and industrialists alike have welcomed the framework. “The RAAF levels the playing field. No other competent authority or regulator has come up with a structured approach to read-across,” said Nicholas Ball from Dow Chemical Company, US, speaking at a read-across workshop in February,organised by the Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT-Europe), EU-ToxRisk and Cefic-LRI.
Mr Ball is one of an international team of academics and industrialists brought together by CAAT, Johns Hopkins University, to develop good read-across practice guidance (GRAP), based partly on Echa data.
At first glance, read-across may appear straightforward: using information on one chemical to predict a property for another with a similar structure. In reality, read-across is “more difficult and often subjective”, write the researchers, led by Mr Ball, Mark Cronin from Liverpool John Moores University, UK, and Jie Shen from the US Research Institute for Fragrance Materials.
In July 2015, the GRAP team analysed available Echa data to estimate that about one fifth of all published compliance check decisions involved read-across. Its analysis reveals three common areas where cases have failed to pass muster: lack of scientific supporting information; scientific plausibility; and challenges relating to substance identity.
Some cases showed registrants attempting to build a hypothesis using “unsubstantiated statements”. In several cases, registrants had referred to data on a source substance, yet failed to include it in their dossier. “Ensuring all necessary data are included in the dossier, with the appropriate explanation of what each study is providing in terms of support for the use of read-across, is a somewhat simple, but critical element to the preparation of a read-across justification,” write Mr Ball and his colleagues.
Topical science
The RAAF principles were used to assess read-across case studies at an Echa topical scientific workshopheld earlier this month, on new approach methodologies in regulatory science.
A session on defining hazard assessment focused on two read-across case studies from Seurat-1, co-funded by the EU and Cosmetics Europe; the project concluded in 2015 but the case studies have yet to be published.
The first case study is on a set of linear perfluoro alkyl acids (PFAAs), with PFOA as the source chemical. The Seurat-1 team chose substances with limited or no biotransformations, with toxicity caused by the parent compound. Concerns over differences in half-life for PFOA in humans (two-three years) and rodents (10-20 days) led the scientists to limit the category to chemicals with six to 10 carbon atoms, so that the eight carbon PFOA source sits in the middle.
The second case study covers beta-unsaturated alcohols, with toxicity caused by metabolites. “The beta-unsaturated alcohols provide an excellent example of an instance where the primary issue for establishing similarity is metabolic activation,” explains Echa.
Seurat-1 researchers performed read-across in two steps, beginning with a “traditional” approach based on similarities in chemical structures and existing data from 90-day rat oral repeated dose toxicity tests. Next, the teams evaluated the “added value” of data from in vitro and in silico methods, with some information provided by the US screening programme ToxCast (at the time, ToxCast had 800 in vitroassays for PFAA molecules with six to 11 carbons). Other information came from Seurat-1 experiments; for example, in silico data from the “Cosmos” project showed the chemicals binding to PPARgammareceptors to induce toxicity.
Both case studies illustrate that “alternative data” strengthen read-across assessment and reduce uncertainty. They also show that additional biological evidence can help to confirm similar modes of action across a group, say the Seurat-1 researchers. For example, fibrosis tests using a Seurat-1 liver-on-a-chip correctly predicted that four of the beta-unsaturated alcohols are toxic to the liver.
Using alternative methods for read-across needs a hypothesis for a mode of action for chemical toxicity, explains Elisabet Berggren from the Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, which was involved in the case studies. This allows targeted testing, which in turn needs well-defined test systems, relevant concentrations and exposure scenarios, she adds.
Lessons learned
In March, Mr Schultz presented “lessons learned” from Seurat-1 at GlobalChem 2016 in Washington, DC. The Seurat-1 case studies strengthen the message that grouping substances, based on similarities in molecular structure and chemical properties, is “often not sufficient to justify a read-across prediction”, said Mr Schultz. In particular, information on toxicokinetics (changes in a chemical’s concentration as the body metabolises it) and toxicodynamics (interactions with a biological target) would be valuable.
A current lack of toxicokinetics understanding and data are “major limitations” to using read-across for repeated-dose endpoints, he concluded. This is partly because animal tests are not designed to give sufficient toxicokinetics information to help support read-across, explained professor Cronin at the CAAT workshop. However, he pointed to promising advances in the cheminformatics field.
The case studies demonstrate that reducing uncertainty boosts confidence in a prediction. Transparency and weight of evidence both reduce uncertainty, as does the “ability to do hypothesis-based testing, especially with rapid and inexpensive methods”, he said.
Meanwhile, the GRAP authors focus on the possibility of defining uncertainty. “While levels of uncertainty could be defined, there is difficulty in obtaining regulatory acceptance of such approaches,” they caution. “One thing that has become apparent, with the publication of the RAAF, is the very low levels of uncertainty that are currently accepted for a successful submission.”
Uncertainty can be described in several ways, from uncertainty in a hypothesis to uncertainty in data, professor Cronin, who coordinated Seurat-1’s Cosmos project, told the CAAT workshop-. “It will be very difficult to get the level of uncertainty to be very low in a large number of read-across scenarios and it is an area where further effort is required.”
Low or no toxicity
The GRAP group highlights the part-icular difficulty of developing categories and read-across for chemicals with low or no toxicity. Without detailed toxicity and potency data, it is hard to find the boundary between toxic and non-toxic or a sudden change in a property with only a small alternation in structure, known as an activity cliff, for a class of chemicals.
Another “very significant and very poorly addressed area” for grouping is for mixtures and substances of unknown or variable composition (UVCBs). Here, difficulties defining substance identify will continue to be a significant barrier to acceptance of read-across within groups of UVCB substances, predict the GRAP authors. It is difficult to see past the “impasse” where poorly-defined substances still need to be grouped for read-across, based on structural similarity, they write. Creating a biological profile, using conventional and in vitro data, may help but would require acceptance of the associated uncertainty, they add.
Echa has made some headway, approving test proposals for groups of hydrocarbon solvents and resins and rosins. “We have found ways to deal with very complex chemicals in the context of testing proposals. It was a very painful process for industry as well as for Echa, to go through the complex categories for resins and rosins, but we found a way,” said Norbert Fedtke from Echa, speaking at the CAAT workshop.
Grouping nanomaterials is also fraught with difficulties, although a recent strategy for grouping nanoforms of a substance, published by Echa, the JRC and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, may help.
The stepwise approach hinges on collecting high quality physico-chemical data for each nanoform.
All about the data
Many resources are available to aid read-across, including an OECD Qsar Toolbox, a Cefic Ambit tool, and sources of in vitro data such as US programmes Tox21 and ToxCast.
Recently, a team from Johns Hopkins collected and sorted Echa information for a new, searchabledatabase, intended to aid read-across. The system allows users to see where substances fit in the “chemical landscape”, for example, whether they neighbour known toxic chemicals.
Echa has raised concerns that the data needs to be published in a way that respects company ownership, and so the database will not be made public until the two sides have reached agreement.
The Johns Hopkins team, led by CAAT director Thomas Hartung, also plans to create a spin-out company called ToxTrack. Professor Hartung recalls a time when he needed convincing of the importance of read-across. “Now the more I get into it, the more excited I get.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/46840/taking-read-across-to-the-next-level
-
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Emma Chynoweth
After two decades immersed in chemical policy, Dick Sijm, who leads the REACH Bureau at the Dutch National Institute for Health and Environment (RIVM), is moving on. Before taking up his new post at the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority, he talked to Chemical Watch’s managing editor, Emma Chynoweth, about the advances made, and what still needs to be done to ensure the safe use of chemicals.
Emma Chynoweth: Mr Sijm, you have been involved with EU chemical policy for 20 years, what’s been achieved in that time?
Dick Sijm: For the most part, making industry responsible for providing safety data and safe-use information on their substances has worked. Industry took up the responsibility and registered many chemicals under REACH and, as a result, there is a lot of information available now, also in the public domain.
Echa has done an excellent job communicating that information – especially with the recent introduction of ‘infocards’, ‘brief profiles’, in addition to the source data for all registered substances. This is not just for the EU, this has global value.
In addition, companies are avoiding chemicals when they are identified as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) and placed on the REACH candidate list. Stopping use of these substances is not in the legal text, it is something that the businesses take up – they simply want to avoid using them.
Another important outcome, is that chemical safety has moved beyond the environment, health and safety departments of chemical companies – it is now on the radar of CEOs because it has become a business issue.
It is critical that these leaders do not see the final 2018 REACH registration deadline as the end of the story. REACH should be viewed like a healthcare system, it never ends. It needs to stay ‘between the ears’ of company bosses.
The fact that REACH has become a business issue for companies, operating in the EU, is one of the clearest advantages of the Regulation – especially when comparisons are made to approaches taken in other jurisdictions.
Furthermore, CLP has resulted in lots of information on the safety of chemicals. One achievement is the C&L Inventory, the other is the number of harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) decisions. The rate of the new CLH decisions has slowed since CLP was introduced, but compared to the previous legislation, CLHs have enormous benefits for how substances have to be handled in many other types of regulation, including in REACH, cosmetics, RoHS and occupational safety and health, food contact materials and medical devices.
EC: And what are the biggest challenges at present?
DS: One of the hardest parts of REACH is dealing with the socio-economic implications of regulatory action. We don’t have sufficient information on alternatives, costs, let alone how societal impact needs to be weighed and, thus, do not have a mathematical equation to tackle this – it is a matter of taking it case-by-case.
Another important gap, identified during discussions on potential SVHCs and on authorisation applications, is the lack of information and communication on exposure. Exposure science is in its infancy.
Some industrial branches, such as metals, have better exposure data. This is because many metals face authorisation, and industry has investigated exposure because it is one way to manage risk. But for other companies, the information is minimal.
Authorities have a few tools from regulation – such as the authorisation process – to demand good exposure data. But this should be there already with communication on hazardous chemicals, and here I’m talking about the extended safety data sheet.
But in real life it has been difficult. Industry should take responsibility, but this problem needs something else to drive it – for example, EU or national programmes to assess exact exposure data or better ways to predict it.
On this topic, the steps taken by up and downstream companies in the Expert network on exposure scenarios (Enes) should also be recognised. Although, as yet, many companies are not participating in this.
There needs to be more communication to explain the benefits of understanding and managing exposure. And that needs to come from those that are already advanced.
EC: How will REACH contribute to the 2020 goal to minimise the negative health and environmental impacts of chemicals?
DS: REACH and CLP are contributing in a very significant way to the 2020 goal, by generating information on all hazardous chemicals and trying to reduce the risks associated with their use. The number of registrations under REACH is a highlight, but it should be recognised that not all the hazard information is complete.
Where REACH asks for additional data – through the evaluation process – it can take time if the registrants need to submit testing proposals, which aim to avoid unnecessary animal testing. Usually these tests are for data on very relevant toxicological endpoints that can take time to deliver, for example, carcinogenicity, mutagenicity and reprotoxicity. Overall, we are expecting it will be a further 5-7 years before we have this information. But science is producing data on substances all the time – companies should make sure that they use it.
Information relating to substances’ persistence, bioaccumulation and toxicity (PBT) is also poor. No company has assessed a chemical for PBT for registration; we have to require it. As such, the authorities are taking the initiative to identify PBTs, when it is a registrant’s responsibility.
EC: What about criticism of the authorisation process?
DS: The authorisation system is good, but we are struggling with it, partly because of the way some companies react to the identification of SVHCs. Companies say that they have dealt with risky substances, like CMRs. But, if this was true, when faced with authorisation, they would not say the process will cost them their business. Another recognisable issue for companies is the uncertainty in advance of obtaining the authorisation.
Rather than countering authorisation with economic arguments, I would like companies to say: “We are aware of the risk. We can deal with it, and will seriously look for alternatives.” As it is now, the authorities decide on SVHCs, and then there are the political discussions in which economic arguments seem to prevail, and companies complain of losing their business. At the political level, the human health and environmental protection issues should be weighed together with the economic discussions.
I think part of the reason authorisation costs are high, is that companies do not have the exposure data they need – it should be in their registration dossiers. Also, companies argue that authorisation is not necessary if risks can be managed through other legislation, like that for worker safety. But it is clear they do not actually have reliable exposure data.
Further, what do we really know about the impact of chemicals on the general public? Studies have shown massive potential impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on public health. But there is not enough data, gathered by authorities, to know for sure what these are. One example, in cosmetics, is where RIVM collects information on consumer complaints and sometimes identifies chemicals that cause problems. But wider reporting has to increase, especially for workers because company doctors often do not recognise occupational diseases or relate health effects to chemical exposure. Or they fail to pursue these effects.
EC: Are you frustrated by any aspects?
DS: Why does it take so long to implement provisions for nanomaterials and EDCs? Even though there are scientific challenges, the principles have nearly been agreed for several years. I think too much lobbying from some industrial sectors has caused delays.
There may need to be additions or revisions to REACH and CLP to deal with EDCs, nanomaterials and mixtures. Also regulators need to develop a regime to tackle low tonnage substances. The 2012 REACH Review recognised the need for more information – for example, on mutagens where there is concern about worker exposures.
The EU Refit regulatory fitness check is a big deal – there is so much there. The current EU fitness check on chemical regulation, excluding REACH, is taking a close look at the Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) and how it interlinks and impacts other legislation in Europe. There are many discussions and ideas, but no concrete workplan. It needs to focus on elements that will result in concrete actions by 2017, beginning with nanomaterials and EDCs.
EC: What are your hopes for REACH in the longer term?
DS: I hope that REACH and CLP will continue to present all important information on toxicology and safe use. We also need to be able to consider the waste phase, so we know what steps should be taken for the circular economy, regarding information on chemicals and safety. We are not there.
Another hope is that Echa, and companies, take the intelligence from REACH and CLP to use in occupational safety and health, and other legislations, such as the industrial emissions Directive, cosmetics Regulation, and general product safety Directive.
Summing up, I would say REACH is not perfect, but the process has started.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46844/reach-a-never-ending-story
-
Ingredient Transparency in the Fragrance Industry
Apr 22, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Elaine Burridge
The global fragrance industry is a multi-billion dollar market and highly dependent on protecting its trade secrets, namely the complex combination of ingredients used in a variety of products.
Consumers, however, are demanding to know more about the products they use and the ingredients they contain. Major consumer products companies are starting to take note of the calls by consumers and NGOs to disclose, with some taking steps to better inform users.
P&G says over the past few years it has added information online, including its decisions to stop using ingredients such as triclosan and phthalates. Since 2012, the conglomerate has published a list of substances it uses in its fragrance formulations. Early this year it added two new lists – one with more than 140 ingredients it does not use, and a second containing the ingredients it uses to design its product scents.
US cleaning products firm, SC Johnson, went a step further last year, when it became the first major consumer packaged goods company to offer product-specific fragrance disclosure, sharing more than 99.9% of ingredients in most fragrances.
Then in February this year, the family-owned company launched the Glade Fresh Citrus Blossoms collection, disclosing 100% of fragrance ingredients down to the component level.
“We hope to continue to work with our suppliers to further expand the amount of fragrance information we can share, ultimately aiming to reach 100%,” says Kelly Semrau, SC Johnson’s vice president of global corporate affairs.
NGOs, including Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Women’s Voices for the Earth (WVE), have applauded their efforts. However, progress remains slower than they would like.
WVE’s director of science and research, Alexandra Scranton, is seeing a real shift in consumer concern about product safety as well as a pull from companies to make fragrance houses disclose their ingredients.
She says anecdotal evidence points to a “veil of secrecy” at fragrance houses which are refusing, with some exceptions, to disclose their ingredients. Ms Scranton says the fragrance industry’s argument about protecting intellectual property is outdated. She believes that, given today’s ability to reverse engineer and analyse competitors’ products, disclosure would not have a negative impact on the industry and poses a harmful barrier to the public’s right to know. “A simple list of ingredients is clearly ascertainable by independent means and, thus, simply does not meet the definition of a trade secret,” she says.
In addition to the fragrance industry’s protection of its trade secrets, the problem also concerns a legal loophole.
In the US, for example, fragrance ingredients can be listed collectively as “fragrance” and the Fair Packaging and Labelling Act stipulates that companies should not be forced to disclose trade secrets. Similarly, in Europe, perfume mixtures are labelled collectively as “perfume”, with the exception of 26 specific ingredients, which have to be listed by name according to the Cosmetics Directive.
Personal care products were first brought under the umbrella of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with the passing of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In an attempt to bring the legislation up to date, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Susan Collins introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act in April 2015.
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says this bill seeks to reform a $71bn industry, which is currently regulated by approximately two pages of federal law that has been updated only once in the past 78 years.
According to the NGO, women use an average of 12 personal care products per day, exposing themselves to 168 unique chemical ingredients — not counting the dozens of often toxic yet undisclosed chemicals in fragrance.
The issue is that “fragrance” is a generic name for the combination of many hundreds of individual chemicals that can be used to create a single scent.
Nneka Leiba, deputy director for research at EWG, says the law has not kept pace with the chemicals used today, noting that there are more than 3,000 ingredients that can be incorporated into a fragrance.
Around 12 years ago, EWG developed its Skin Deep database, to give consumers an online tool to search for toxic ingredients in cosmetics and personal care products. The database, which contains around 65,000 products, gives a product an overall score from one to ten (with one being the best), based on its content.
Then in late 2015, EWG launched a certification programme for personal care products which, if they comply with stringent and verified criteria, can display the “EWG verified” mark. To gain the verification, items must be free of substances on its “unacceptable” list, such as parabens, phthalates and perfluorinated chemicals, among others, and meet the limits outlined in its “restricted” list. Companies must also fully disclose the ingredients on their packaging and on their websites.
Ms Leiba says a wealth of companies have sought verification since the launch. “We have about 120 products from around 11 companies that have been verified so far,” she says.
In its November 2015 fragrance industry report, Unpacking the fragrance industry: policy failures, the trade secret myth and public health, WVE notes that the International Fragrance Association’s (Ifra) Transparency List of chemicals used in the sector contains many substances that are restricted or banned by government agencies and/or retailers, or are included on authoritative lists of chemicals of concern.
For instance, in its review of UN GHS classifications of fragrance chemicals, 190 have been assigned as a ‘danger’ in their safety data sheet, 1,175 were given the signal word ‘warning’, 44 required the skull and crossbones pictogram to indicate acute toxicity, and 97 needed the GHSO8 pictogram indicating a hazard to human health.
Ifra, however, in a 2013 report prepared for the European Commission about the importance of protecting the industry’s trade secrets, says its mission is “to promote the creation and enjoyment of fragrances that are safe for humans and environmentally sound”, adding that it maintains a rigorous safety programme to which Ifra members must adhere.
While the association says it promotes consumer safety, it believes that full disclosure of fragrance formulae would provide no meaningful health benefits and would seriously damage the European fragrance industry’s competitiveness in the global market.
Ms Scranton argues that fragrance companies gain competitive advantage from other factors, such as marketing, design or celebrity endorsement, not just the formula.
Ms Leiba points out, it is not the actual recipe that needs to be disclosed, just the individual ingredients. “Some companies are already disclosing their ingredients and there has been no backlash so far about trade secrets, although I know some are concerned about this,” she says.
Both EWG and WVE will continue to push for better consumer education and believe that more companies will start to disclose their ingredients, following in the footsteps of P&G and SC Johnson. “We are in talks with other companies to do this, and we hope to see more fragrance disclosure soon in response to consumer demand for this information,” says Ms Scranton.
https://chemicalwatch.com/46843/ingredient-transparency-in-the-fragrance-industry
-
E&E Daily's Koss Discusses Challenges Ahead for Energy Bill Conference
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E TV
This week, the Senate passed a bipartisan energy reform package. Next up: conferencing with the House on a final bill, which is expected to pose challenges for lawmakers as key differences exist between the chambers' packages. On today's The Cutting Edge,E&E Daily reporter Geof Koss discusses the main points of contention heading into the conference and talks about the timeline for getting a final bill to the president's desk.
Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to The Cutting Edge. This week the Senate passed a bipartisan energy package. Next up: conferencing with the House on a final bill. E&E Daily's Geof Koss is here with details on next steps and the key differences between the two chambers' packages. Geof, thanks for coming on the show.
Geof Koss: Hi, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Geof, let's first put the Senate's bill into context. It's the first energy package in almost a decade. How significant is the bill in terms of what it accomplishes and how it address some controversial energy issues?
Geof Koss: I think it's important to look at that context because it's been almost 10 years since Congress has legislated on energy and in the intervening years we've had a fracking boom. We have now cheap natural gas. We have cheap solar. The regulatory landscape under President Obama is far different from 2007 when President George Bush signed that law.
So a lot has changed. I think that actually helped pave the way for this legislation. Congress has been fighting over climate change and that made it impossible to do a lot on energy, but I think people are starting to realize that things do need to happen so we can catch up with some of the technology changes that have happened.
So the bill itself, I think Senators Murkowski and Cantwell really tried very hard to use a process that took input from members of both sides. I think Senator Murkowski said this week there's about 80 senators have provisions in the bill in some form. There's about 64 amendments that were added during the two-month floor debate, which was interrupted for a while.
Basically, let's see. We've got efficiency, which is always a very popular area. Remains popular on both sides of the Capitol and among members of both parties. We've got the Shaheen-Portman efficiency bill, which they've been trying for years to get that done.
We've got the recommendations from the Department of Energy's Quadrennial Energy Review focused on upgrading infrastructure. We've got a supply title looking at renewables, traditional energy sources, and we've got a permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is a popular program, but there's some controversy involved with that as well.
Monica Trauzzi: There's so much emphasis on the fact that this is bipartisan, but is everyone happy with it? What's the reaction been?
Geof Koss: If you look at the final vote in the Senate was 85 to 12. I think the 12 Republican senators who opposed it, a lot of them had concerns about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There are a lot of very conservative senators including some on the committee; Mike Lee, who's really opposed to that part.
Environmentalists have been not super-thrilled with the bill. I think they acknowledged that there's some good stuff in here on renewables and some other programs, but they're concerned about provisions that will put a deadline on the Energy Department to finalize applications for natural gas exports, which they're very concerned about.
There was an amendment added on the floor that basically instructs the Obama administration to consider biomass as a renewable energy source. That's also a lot of controversy, and they're very upset about that as well.
Monica Trauzzi: You've been doing some key reporting on the key differences between the House and Senate legislation. What do you see as the most controversial issues that might be difficult to overcome during conference?
Geof Koss: The Land and Water Conservation Fund is going to be a good one because House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop does not want to see that program permanently reauthorized without major reforms. I think there are some changes in the Senate bill to how the program operates, but I don't think it's going to go far enough to satisfy him. That's going to make it hard to get a lot of the conservatives in the House to support this bill.
At the time when the House passed their own bill, I guess it was December, there were only, oh gee, I think there were only nine Democrats ultimately supported the bill. One of the concerns is that it doesn't do enough to address climate change.
I spoke with Frank Pallone, who's the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, this week. He said that he really wants to see actual money included on the bill to upgrade infrastructure, including the electric grid and pipelines. That is going to be a tough thing to do. Anything that spends money is going to run into opposition in the House.
Also, to get the bill through the House in December, they added a few things on the floor including crude oil exports, which brought along a lot of conservatives there. The crude oil export ban was repealed last December in a later law. So that's something that's not going to be in there.
So I think it's going to be tough to strike a balance to get people on board.
Monica Trauzzi: Sounds like it could get a little sticky. So on timing, what are we looking at? How does this all move and eventually get to the president's desk?
Geof Koss: Well, I talked to Ed Whitfield, who's one of the relevant chairmen on the Energy and Commerce Committee, this week and Lisa Murkowski, and they both want to get going on a conference as quickly as possible because this is an election year. Congress isn't going to be here a lot. They're going to have a very long August recess. Murkowski would like to see a bill finished and sent to the president's desk before the August recess. That may be a heavy lift.
Also, she doesn't want to see this slide into the lame duck because this could be a tough vote. Heritage Action for America, which has been very opposed to the bill, I'm sure they're going to be working very hard to whip up opposition to it in the final product in the House.
So it could be that it does slide to the lame duck because no one's going to want to take a tough vote before November.
Monica Trauzzi: All right. We'll end it right there. Thank you as always and thanks for some great reporting.
Geof Koss: Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: More Cutting Edge coming next Friday. We'll see you then.
http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2121/transcript
-
EPA Defends Emissions Inventory Against Industry Critics
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Amanda Reilly
U.S. EPA is defending its new inventory of greenhouse gases against criticism from the oil and gas industry.
The inventory showed the industry's methane emissions rose by about 30 percent. In 2014, EPA said, natural gas systems were the nation's largest source of the potent greenhouse gas; a prior draft had ranked the industry third.
Industry accused EPA of playing politics with data to justify upcoming methane regulations over existing oil and gas operations (E&ENews PM, April 19).
In a statement to Greenwire, EPA maintained its inventory update was nothing unusual.
"It is EPA's standard practice to update the Inventory to incorporate extensive, newly-available and improved data," EPA said in the statement.
The agency said it had obtained "substantial amounts of new information" from "a number of channels." New data came from EPA's greenhouse gas reporting program; industry organizations; and studies done by academic, government and industry-affiliated researchers, the agency said.
That new data shows the oil and gas industry's methane emissions were much higher than previously estimated, according to EPA.
According to the new inventory, natural gas systems in 2014 emitted 176.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, up from 175.6 million metric tons in 2013. Emissions from the sector have trended upward since at least 2010 (E&ENews PM, April 15).
The oil and gas industry says EPA overestimated both the number of potential sources in the sector and the rate of methane emissions from those sources. Trade organizations for the industry have also charged that EPA ignored concerns that they laid out in public comments on a draft of the inventory.
EPA said it reached out to the industry in developing the inventory.
"EPA conducted extensive engagement and communication with stakeholders on updates to oil and gas sector emissions estimates," EPA said, "including a workshop for stakeholders in November 2015 and publication of memos describing updates under consideration and requesting stakeholder feedback."
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/22/stories/1060036092
-
Democrats Unveil Bill to Block Atlantic Seismic Tests
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Emily Yehle
A group of Democratic senators yesterday introduced a bill that would prohibit oil and gas seismic surveys along the East Coast.
S. 2841 comes a little more than a month after the Obama administration announced it would not open Atlantic waters to oil and gas drilling (Greenwire, March 15). But permits for seismic tests, which use air guns to create images of the geology beneath the seafloor, are still winding their way through the authorization process.
The surveys have faced opposition in coastal communities, where residents are concerned about their effect on fishing and marine life. Scientists say the loud air guns can change the behavior of whales and possibly other marine life.
New Jersey Democratic Sens. Cory Booker and Robert Menendez introduced the Senate bill along with Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).
The full bill was not available at press time, but Booker and Menendez attached a similar provision to the Energy Policy Modernization Act last year. That amendment blocked seismic testing for methane hydrates in the Atlantic Ocean.
"Offshore drilling and fossil fuel exploration of any form in the Atlantic Ocean is an economic and environmental threat to New Jersey, and I'm going to do everything I can to stop it," Booker said at the time.
S. 2841 is broader, prohibiting all seismic surveys related to oil, gas and methane hydrate activities along the outer continental shelf in the north Atlantic, mid-Atlantic, south Atlantic and Straits of Florida.
Scientists also occasionally use seismic tests for research purposes, which the bill does not appear to affect.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/04/22/stories/1060036111
-
Getting The Energy Regulatory Balance Right
Apr 22, 2016 | Forbes
By Wayne Winegarden
Sensible environmental regulations play an indispensable role ensuring that public lands are sustainably managed. But, as Earth Day’s 47th anniversary is celebrated, it is important to recognize that sensible regulations should also encourage the responsible development of new and existing energy sources.
Without cheap and affordable energy, not only would we be poorer and less healthy, our environment would also be worse off. As people become wealthier they are able to create cleaner production processes, devote a greater share of their income toward environmental causes, and tend to care more about broader environmental issues.
For instance, the Korean peninsula is geographically similar, but divided by an arbitrary political line. The same is true on the island of Hispaniola (where Haiti and the Dominican Republic are also divided by an arbitrary political line). A 2013 story in The Economist, noted how forests on the poorer side of these regions were significantly worse off. More broadly, The Economist illustrated that regions with higher incomes planted more forests and saw healthier biodiversity than regions with lower incomes.
These cases exemplify how policies that thwart economic growth can also lead to adverse environmental outcomes. These lessons are not just applicable to broader economic policies, they also apply to federal and state oil and natural gas regulations.
Oil and natural gas regulations on federal lands, and many state lands, are excessive. These regulations create no additional environmental benefit, but impose consequences such as lost jobs, lost income, and lost economic vibrancy. A forthcoming report I authored from the Pacific Research Institute documents the consistency of these negative impacts across areas with overly-burdensome regulations on oil and natural gas production. Several themes emerged across the case studies.
First, as the old adage goes, time is money. For instance, drilling for oil and natural gas on state lands in California, or federal lands nationally, are subject to long delays. When coupled with the large price volatility inherent in the oil and natural gas markets, the costs from delays create significant risks for producers and discourage production on these lands.
Second, prohibitions are costly. For instance, New York State bans fracking – hydraulic fracturing techniques that inject fluids into the cracks of rock formations allowing more oil and gas to be extracted. Drilling bans, by definition, eliminate all activity related to the oil and natural gas sector in the banned areas. As illustrated in the border communities between New York and Pennsylvania, states that impose complete production bans face bleaker economic outcomes than those states that enable responsible use of the latest drilling technologies.
Third, regulatory uncertainty matters. California also exemplifies this problem. California overly-empowers activists whose ultimate goal is to completely eliminate the production of oil and natural gas. The constant threat that current or future production projects will be thwarted due to new regulatory impediments (such as the threat from local fracking bans) increases the risks for producers, and decreases the production of oil and natural gas.
Fourth, states are better positioned to regulate oil and natural gas production in their borders than the federal government. State regulators not only have greater local knowledge, but the divergence in regulatory approaches enables states to learn from one another and implement the most effective regulatory structure. In contrast, the federal government often defers to one size fits all regulations that will fail to incorporate important local environmental considerations.
Finally, the overall regulatory environment matters. As the disproportionate production along the North Dakota side of the North Dakota-Montana border exemplifies, the broader regulatory environment can discourage production, just as these overly burdensome regulations discourage any business from expanding its activities. Higher workers compensation costs, an overly litigious legal environment, and expensive land use regulations all raise the costs on oil and natural gas production leading to less overall economic activity.
When regulatory authorities impose overly-burdensome costs, or unnecessarily ban modern drilling techniques, the economic contribution from the upstream energy industry is diminished. The costs from diminished economic growth are many and, ironically, can include worst environmental stewardship. The lesson for policy is clear: It is imperative that regulators get the balance right.
Wayne Winegarden, Ph.D. is a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pacific Research Institute and a contributing editor to EconoSTATS. His paper “Regulating the upstream energy industry: Getting the balance right” is forthcoming from the Pacific Research Institute in May 2016.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/econostats/2016/04/22/getting-the-energy-regulatory-balance-right/#7cc0f4c82b12
-
Take a Hard Look at How Candidates’ Energy Policies Will Affect Health, Climate Change
Apr 22, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Ambassador Ron Kirk and Christine Todd Whitman
Watching the political theater that our election season has become, you’d be forgiven if you thought that all matters of public policy were black or white – however, many issues, such as how we move toward a carbon-free energy mix, are much more complex than the candidates make them out to be. Especially when we consider the climate change repercussions that are tied to our energy choices, it’s clear that we simply must evaluate all our clean air options thoroughly, and this should include a comprehensive discussion about all the benefits of nuclear energy.
Some candidates do not have realistic policy recommendations in place and that will ultimately affect the health of Americans. Just the other day, we were reminded of this link between health and energy again when a report released by the Obama administration linked climate change to increased risks for asthma, deaths from extreme heat, and to lowered nutritional value in some crops due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This report was built on evidence from more than 100 scientists and researchers.Many times, the campaign trail doesn’t allow room for things like nuance and consequences. That’s the case with candidates who have recently been discussing nuclear energy, which has many more benefits than are fully explored during a stump speech.
A recent analysis our organization conducted found nuclear energy provides 63 percent of our carbon-free energy and that, nationwide, carbon emissions from the electricity sector would be 27 percent higher without nuclear energy. This proves the United States will not be able to meet proposed federal carbon emission-cutting goals without maintaining our existing nuclear energy fleet. However, states are not taking action to save at-risk plants — as evidenced by recently announced closures of the FitzPatrick facility in New York and Pilgrim facility in Massachusetts. When the Pilgrim Nuclear Station comes offline in 2019, Massachusetts will have a 6.4 million megawatt-hour shortfall of clean energy. This is enough electricity to power more than a quarter of the homes in the state.
To achieve a sustainable energy future that protects our heath, we must support an all-of-the-above energy portfolio that includes the continued use of safe, clean and affordable nuclear energy.
Most people wouldn’t assume that we – a former Bush cabinet member and a former Obama cabinet member – would agree on anything. However, we have found common ground in the belief in an all-of-the-above energy policy that places strong value on carbon-free energy sources is the best option for the health of our families and for everyone. And, as former public servants ourselves, we both believe it is still possible for us to come together and help make smart decisions that improve the quality of our air and slow climate change by encouraging candidates that support clean-air energies such as solar, wind and nuclear energy.
Dirty air is not just a talking point – it’s a real issue with real impacts on human health. As emissions increase and global temperature rises, more and more people will have serious health impacts, and we will see increased weather-related deaths. This Earth Day, we must ensure candidates understand this is the biggest environmental challenge of our time, and as citizens, we support actions to mitigate climate change. That means we – and they – must also support nuclear energy.Kirk is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. He previously served as U.S. trade representative and mayor of Dallas. Whitman, former Environmental Protection Agency administrator, is co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. She also previously served as governor of New Jersey.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/277277-take-a-hard-look-at-how-candidates-energy-policies
-
DHS Seeks Paperless Route for Guarding Utility Data
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Some of the most sensitive data to pass through the Department of Homeland Security often leaves a paper trail -- but perhaps not for much longer.
DHS announced yesterday that it's considering updates to how it handles information from electric utilities and other critical infrastructure operators.
The agency said it hopes new procedures can "step towards meeting the challenges of evolving technology," such as automated information-sharing programs that allow cyberthreat data to pass instantly between government and private-sector computers.
Those technologies weren't around in 2006, when DHS first laid out the way to handle "protected critical infrastructure information." The PCII label is designed to shield security sensitive information from the public eye, through Freedom of Information Act exemptions and other safeguards.
"After 10 years of operation, changes are needed to transition the managing of submissions, access, use, dissemination and safeguarding of PCII to state of the art technology that operates within an electronic environment," DHS said in its notice.
In other words: It may be time to go paperless. While such a move hardly seems revolutionary in the digital age, DHS is still seeking comment "on how many potential submitters would not have access to the internet," in case a rule would saddle them with additional costs.
DHS's advance notice of proposed rulemaking offers regulators a way to suss out weak spots in current standards and float controversial ideas before committing to a concrete proposal. For instance, DHS raised the possibility of sharing PCII with foreign governments, something barred by current rules.
The agency is accepting public comments on the notice until July 20.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/22/stories/1060036084
-
What I Learned by Living Through a Toxic Chemical Spill in New Jersey
Apr 22, 2016 | NJ Spotlight
By Trisha Sheehan
The EPA is poised to pass new rules about dangerous chemicals and carcinogens, but they don’t do nearly enough to protect our children.
A few years ago, I was home with my two children when a plume of vinyl chloride, a toxic and highly carcinogenic chemical, drifted through my New Jersey neighborhood. My sons began to complain of watery eyes, burning throats, and head pain, and I felt dizzy, tired, and clumsy. I found out on the news that 23,000 gallons of vinyl chloride had spilled following a train derailment in a nearby town.
I will never forget that day. It sent me on a journey to learn about toxic chemicals -- and how they are stored, transported, and regulated in the U.S. What I learned is disturbing.
More than one hundred million Americans across the country live near factories, water-treatment plants, and other industrial sites that make or use dangerous chemicals such as vinyl chloride. These are high-risk zones. People are in danger of injury, illness, or even death in the case of leaks, spills, explosions, or sabotage at these facilities.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a long-awaited safety rule for chemical facilities. Unfortunately, the EPA’s proposed rule fails to require a switch to safer chemicals and technology where they are available and affordable -- which is in many instances.
Many safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals exist; but because facilities are not required to use safer chemicals or technologies when available, they continue to do what they’re doing, which involves placing millions of children at risk where they learn and play. One in three American schoolchildren attends a school that sits within a vulnerability zone. This means that one-third of all children are at risk of being exposed to explosions, fires, and toxic chemicals throughout every school day.
Dangerous facilities are within walking distance of many of our homes and schools. They can be made safer. The EPA must require chemical facilities to switch to safer chemicals and technologies that are both available and affordable.
I hope that in the future, no mother will have to watch her children suffer from the health impacts of a chemical disaster, as I have. Please, join me in raising your voice for safer chemical facilities, before the EPA makes its final decision about this new rule.
Trisha Sheehan is deputy field manager of Moms Clean Air Force.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/16/04/21/op-ed-what-i-learned-by-living-through-a-toxic-chemical-spill-in-new-jersey/
-
States Vie for 'Tiny Slice' of Crude-by-Rail Oversight
Apr 22, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Montana safety regulators hadn't kept up with booming oil train traffic from the Bakken Shale play, according to an unflinching audit last October.
That investigation's findings frustrated Roger Koopman, who helps direct Montana's rail inspection program as a member of the Public Service Commission (PSC).
Commissioner Koopman said he has felt "hampered" by laws that make it difficult for state regulators to enforce rules without being dragged into court.
"The dilemma we have is that over the years, the federal government has pre-empted most of what the states can do ... to where there's just a tiny slice left over," he said. "I'm not knocking the [Federal Railroad Administration], but there needs to be more encouragement of involvement by the states, and regulation by the states, where states simply know more and maybe have more of a stake in the matter."
On Tuesday, Koopman voted in favor of a six-month plan to examine rail safety risks and potential areas for PSC action. He said he's keen to follow up and prevent the study from becoming an exercise in "bureaucratic paper-pushing" but suggested that ruling without deliberating risked leading the commission down a legal dead end.
"We want to recognize what our proper role is, where we can support and encourage other agencies and the private companies," he said, noting that they all shared the goal of saving lives and avoiding environmental catastrophes.
The risk of disaster has goaded many state and local officials across the United States into acting where they can. Dozens of mile-long trains carrying highly flammable crude crisscross the country each week, one of the more visible signs of the North American oil and gas renaissance. A series of fiery accidents involving crude tank cars has drawn calls for closer oversight from communities along rail lines.
But overseeing freight giants such as BNSF Railway Co. and Union Pacific Railroad is largely a role for the federal government.
"We're at an important moment, because I think a lot of folks and communities are directly affected by the rail traffic that goes through their towns," said Jayni Hein, policy director at the NYU School of Law's Institute for Policy Integrity. "They're understandably frustrated that states and localities have such limited power to do anything directly regulating rail safety."
Public safety
Two laws -- the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 and the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970 -- bar state regulators from superseding the authority of the federal Surface Transportation Board or FRA, respectively.
"Both laws have somewhat broad pre-emption provisions, and it does make it harder for states to find areas that aren't pre-empted by federal law," Hein explained. "Generally, the states are trying to do what they can within the contours of what they're allowed."
Hein said states typically retain the most authority in areas involving information sharing and disclosure, track inspections, and emergency response.
She cited a 2014 measure in California to require railroads to prove they have the ability to clean up and respond to a worst-case oil train spill. Railroads challenged that law in court, but a federal judge threw out the suit last year as unripe.
Washington state's Utilities and Transportation Commission recently passed a similar rule that would make railroads show they have the means to address a "reasonable" worst-case oil incident.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) said in a Feb. 9 statement announcing the new regulations that they show "we are serious about rail safety and will take what action we can on a state level to address the dangers posed by oil trains." The railroads' first round of UTC filings are due next month.
UTC spokeswoman Anna Gill said the financial reporting requirement was the "most challenging pre-emption issue we faced" while working on the new regulations, which also set requirements for private crossings on oil train routes, among other measures.
"Economic regulation is the federal government's responsibility. Because state's authority is focused primarily on crossing safety, there was some concern with our need for financial information from the railroads transporting oil as a commodity," she said. "In the end, we were able to make the connection that, as a matter of public safety, the UTC needs to know that railroads have the financial resources to cover the costs associated with a major oil train derailment."
Paying the piper
State and local authorities often consult with federal regulators before forging ahead with rules, experts say.
One federal transportation official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss a thorny legal topic, said the government receives at least a few calls per month from state, county or city officials seeking guidance on pre-emption.
"We would get all sorts of almost wacky questions at times," the official said, noting that the government can't offer legal advice but still tries to field questions. "One state wanted to require that the train carrying crude had a firefighter on board ... something that probably wouldn't work or be all that helpful if [an accident] did happen."
The official added that the underlying concerns were understandable, even if that particular solution was impractical.
Rather than making sure emergency responders are immediately on-hand, the lead safety agency for crude-by-rail in transit -- the FRA -- has focused efforts elsewhere: requiring shippers use thicker tank cars, for example, and fleshing out track inspection programs where possible.
FRA allows states to "deputize" additional inspectors who undergo special training, granting them a level of authority in line with their federal counterparts.
At least 30 states have taken advantage of that program, including Montana. But Montana's PSC only has funding to keep two dedicated inspectors on staff, one only part-time.
As Commissioner Koopman put it, "at the end of the day, somebody has to pay the piper ... if there is the general conviction that we need to put more inspectors out there."
Meanwhile, Koopman's staff will continue to study where the PSC can add its own piece to the rail safety puzzle without stepping on any toes.
"Up until now, we have limited authority, and we're trying to carve out just where our place is in this," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/04/22/stories/1060036082
-
U.S. and 170 Other Nations Sign Historic Climate Agreement
Apr 22, 2016 | Washington Post
By Darryl Fears
Secretary of State John F. Kerry joined the leaders of 170 nations Friday morning in signing an agreement to lower greenhouse gas emissions as part of a global effort to ward off potentially catastrophic impacts of climate change.
The event, at the United Nations headquarters in New York, coincided with Earth Day and marked “the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement in a single day,” said U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
“We are breaking records in this chambers, and this is good news. But there are also records being broken outside,” Ki-moon said, referencing the hotter-than-ever recorded temperatures of the first three months of 2016. Other events tied to climate change also have triggered sharp concern globally: Greenland’s massive ice sheet has experienced more melting this spring than researchers have ever seen. Coral reefs known for their eye-catching colors are turning white in warming seas, with the Great Barrier Reef experiencing unprecedented bleaching right now.
“We are in a race against time,”Ki-moon said.
The signing at 10:50 a.m., an hour behind schedule due to dignitaries’ lengthy speeches, was for a commitment to abide by the accord reached by an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states at climate talks in Paris late last year. Negotiators there agreed to take steps to prevent global temperatures from rising by no more than 2 degrees Celsius — 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit — by the end of the century. Island nations that took part in the talks argued that an even tougher mark of 1.5 degrees Celsius was needed to avoid devastating sea-level rise.
“This is a day to commit ourselves to actually winning this war,” Kerry stressed in his remarks near the end of the event’s opening ceremony. As 2015 closed as the warmest year since the start of the industrial age, the nations in Paris heeded the mounting evidence: “Nature is changing due to our choices,” Kerry said.
The power of the climate accord, he noted, is the message it sends to the private marketplace to make sustainable goods and technology to battle global warming. “What it’s going to do is unleash the private sector,” he said.
The Obama administration faces a difficult fight with members of Congress to implement the U.S. greenhouse gas reduction goals. Many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical about whether human activity is causing climate change — despite overwhelming consensus by the world’s leading scientists — or whether the planet is even warming long term.
Longtime skeptic Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has said the declaration by the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change “proves that the U.N. is more interested in advancing a political agenda than scientific integrity.”
But with their actions in New York on Friday, leaders from China, Brazil, France, Congo, Italy, Morocco and other nations affirmed that climate change is indeed real and vowed to address it.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada drew a large round of applause when he declared that developed nations such as his, the United States and those in the European Union are responsible for much of the emissions that drives climate change and should therefore help poor nations that are mostly suffering as a result.
“Canada’s ambition cannot end at home” with its own actions to curb carbon dioxide levels and other emissions, Trudeau said. “We have a role to play with poor nations, too. They should not be punished for something they did not do.”
The largest round of applause followed the appearance of award-winning actor Leonardo DiCaprio, a vocal and longtime environmental advocate who was among the last speakers. DiCaprio compared climate change to the overriding crisis of Abraham Lincoln’s time, slavery.
“Yes, we have achieved Paris,” DiCaprio said, addressing the politicians and officials before him. But “it will mean nothing if you return to your countries and fail to push beyond the promises of this agreement.”
After 21 years of meetings, talks and debates, DiCaprio said, the time for talk is over. “Our planet will not be saved unless we leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/04/22/united-states-and-170-nations-sign-historic-climate-agreement/
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested