Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/24/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Accelerated Again
May 24, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), expanded 1 percent in May following a revised 0.8 percent increase in April and 0.1 percent increase in March. -
(ACC Mentioned) Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc.
May 24, 2016 | The Recorder
By Ca. Sup. Ct.
Evidence at trial failed to support application of sophisticated intermediary doctrine to absolve asbestos supplier of liability for failing to warn of product's dangers (Corrigan, J.) -
(ACC Mentioned) House Expected to Pass TSCA Reform Bill by ‘Wide Margin’ Today
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Bolstered by support from the White House and several key House Democrat leaders, the final negotiated TSCA reform bill is set to be voted on by the US House of Representatives later today. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Lawmakers Reach Agreement on Chemical Safety Law
May 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
U.S. lawmakers are poised to approve landmark bipartisan legislation to update the 40-year old law that governs commercial substances. -
Congress Moves, Finally, on Toxic Chemicals
May 24, 2016 | The New York Times
By Editorial Board
Congress is finally getting serious about hazardous chemicals in household products and industrial goods. The House is expected to vote on Tuesday on a bill overhauling a 1976 chemical safety law that has made it hard for federal regulators to ban toxic substances, even known carcinogens like asbestos. The Senate is expected to follow later in the week. -
Historic Deal on TSCA Reform Reached, Setting Stage for a New Law After 40 Years of Waiting
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final reconciled bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s badly broken chemical safety law. -
EPA Chemical Data Reporting Rule Brings Challenges, Opportunities
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By James G. Votaw
Every four years, companies that manufacture or import chemical substances in the U.S. in quantities greater than 25,000 lbs./year by site must submit detailed manufacturing, processing and use information on each of these chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
White House Backs Bill to Overhaul Chemical Regulation
May 24, 2016 | Associated Press (in Philly Voice)
By Matthew Daly
The White House and top House Democrats said Monday they will support a bipartisan bill to overhaul regulation of asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, clearing the way for the bill's passage in Congress and signature by President Barack Obama. -
Pelosi, Hoyer, Pallone Support TSCA Deal
May 24, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) released a statement Monday saying they support a deal reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Global Health Officials to Consider Role in Improving Chemical Safety
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
This week’s World Health Assembly (WHA) will consider a resolution on the health sector’s role in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm). -
Regulating Cosmetics Globally
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The tenth meeting of the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR), taking place in July in the US, will provide a platform for the member jurisdictions to discuss the hot topics of the day. -
International Efforts to Regulate DecaBDE
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
This month, the European Commission published a draft regulation to restrict the use and marketing of the brominated flame retardant decaBDE - a substance widely used in the automotive, aerospace and textiles sectors. -
What is Unep's Chemicals in Products Programme?
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kevin Munn
Chemical Watch readers have, in recent years, become very familiar with the growing need for manufacturers of products to know about the chemicals issues related to their business. -
NGO Platform: Why Echa Permitted 'Meaningless' Data
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vito Buonsante
After a landmark decision, Echa has announced a major overhaul of its completeness check tool; which should be back up and running sometime this year. -
FDA Ponders Ban on Common Plasticizer in Food Products
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Food and Drug Administration is taking public comments on a petition seeking to ban a type of plasticizer in food products. -
Obama’s Ban On Plastic Microbeads Failed In One Huge Way
May 24, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Alexander C. Kaufman
Stiv Wilson chose his battle three and a half years ago. The problem is, he still doesn’t know who all his opponents are. -
Worst-Scoring Sunscreens For Kids
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Applying a safe, effective sunscreen to children is one key to protecting them from sun damage. Sunscreen should never be your child’s first line of defense against the sun, of course, and the reality is that some products fall short. -
EPA Boss Predicts Win in Legal Brawl Against 'Goliath'
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
To Gina McCarthy, the high-stakes legal battle over the Clean Power Plan feels like David taking on Goliath. -
LNG Terminal Project Bows Out After 11 Years of Planning
May 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Plans to develop a liquefied natural gas shipping terminal in far northern Maine have been put up for sale, marking a severe downturn in fortunes for a beleaguered project. -
Pipeline Rupture Spews Thousands of Gallons of Crude
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As much as 21,000 gallons of crude oil spilled yesterday after a pipeline ruptured along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border near Tracy, Calif. -
GOP Looks to Cut EPA Funding, Block Obama Environment Rules
May 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans on Tuesday released a $32.1 billion funding bill for the Interior Department and environmental programs that would cut Environmental Protection Agency regulatory funding and block key Obama administration rules. -
EPA Staff, Academics Weigh Role Of Ozone 'Exposure' In NAAQS Debate
May 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
As EPA and states move to implement the agency's new, tougher ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), agency staff and air quality researchers are debating how to differentiate personal "exposure" to ozone which could be many times less than levels of the pollutant in ambient air would otherwise suggest.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Activity Barometer Accelerated Again
May 24, 2016 | Powder & Bulk Solids
The Chemical Activity Barometer (CAB), a leading economic indicator created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), expanded 1 percent in May following a revised 0.8 percent increase in April and 0.1 percent increase in March.
All data is measured on a three-month moving average (3MMA). Accounting for adjustments, the CAB remains up 2.3 percent over this time last year, a marked deceleration of activity from one year ago when the barometer logged a 2.7 percent year-over-year gain from 2014. On an unadjusted basis the CAB jumped 0.3 percent in May, following a solid 1.7 percent gain in April.
In May, all four categories for the CAB improved for the second month in a row. Production-related indicators were positive, with improvement in plastic resins used in packaging and trends in construction-related resins, pigments and related performance chemistry still hinting at an ongoing strengthening of the housing sector. Equity prices further rebounded in May, joined by a firming in product prices. Inventories and other downstream indicators were positive. Trends suggest increased business activity into the fourth quarter.
The CAB has four primary components, each consisting of a variety of indicators: 1) production; 2) equity prices; 3) product prices; and 4) inventories and other indicators.
The CAB is a leading economic indicator derived from a composite index of chemical industry activity. The chemical industry has been found to consistently lead the U.S. economy's business cycle given its early position in the supply chain, and this barometer can be used to determine turning points and likely trends in the wider economy. Month-to-month movements can be volatile so a three-month moving average of the barometer is provided. This provides a more consistent and illustrative picture of national economic trends.
Applying the CAB back to 1919, it has been shown to provide a lead of two to 14 months, with an average lead of eight months at cycle peaks as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. The median lead was also eight months. At business cycle troughs, the CAB leads by one to seven months, with an average lead of four months. The median lead was three months. The CAB is rebased to the average lead (in months) of an average 100 in the base year (the year 2012 was used) of a reference time series. The latter is the Federal Reserve's Industrial Production Index.
The CAB comprises indicators relating to the production of chlorine and other alkalies, pigments, plastic resins and other selected basic industrial chemicals; chemical company stock data; hours worked in chemicals; publicly sourced, chemical price information; end-use (or customer) industry sales-to-inventories; and several broader leading economic measures (building permits and new orders). Each month, ACC provides a barometer number, which reflects activity data for the current month, as well as a three-month moving average. The CAB was developed by the economics department at the ACC.http://www.powderbulksolids.com/news/Chemical-Activity-Barometer-Accelerated-Again-05-24-2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) Webb v. Special Electric Company, Inc.
May 24, 2016 | The Recorder
By Ca. Sup. Ct.
Evidence at trial failed to support application of sophisticated intermediary doctrine to absolve asbestos supplier of liability for failing to warn of product's dangers (Corrigan, J.)
Full Article Found At: http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202758425193/Webb-v-Special-Electric-Company-Inc#ixzz49acyxvFF -
(ACC Mentioned) House Expected to Pass TSCA Reform Bill by ‘Wide Margin’ Today
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Bolstered by support from the White House and several key House Democrat leaders, the final negotiated TSCA reform bill is set to be voted on by the US House of Representatives later today.
In a House Rules Committee Hearing Monday evening, Congressman Fred Upton (R–Michigan) said: "When the House takes up this bill tomorrow, we expect it to pass by a wide margin.
"And we expect that the Senate will take it up shortly [afterwards] and pass it without amendment."
A deal to reconcile House and Senate TSCA reform bills was announced last week. It had bipartisan support in the Senate and backing from House Republicans.
Late support
But support from several Democrat leaders was absent until Monday, when the House released a final reconciled bill and a manager’s amendment from Congressman John Shimkus (R–Illinois).
Three key House Democrats announced support for the bill yesterday: House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D–New Jersey), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–California) and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D–Maryland).
In a joint statement, the three said they were able to secure provisions to authorise the EPA to "unilaterally demand testing on chemicals" of concern. However, they remain "concerned by Republicans' provisions limiting states' ability to act aggressively on TSCA substances".
"It is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it is a long-overdue step forward," they said.
The White House also issued a statement, saying it strongly supports the final agreement. "The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law," it added.
Preemption concerns remain
Congressman Paul Tonko (D–New York) – who issued a joint statement with Mr Pallone last week objecting to the bill – has not dropped his opposition. A spokesperson told Chemical Watch on Monday that he stands by his statement that the bill's updates to the nation's chemical law do not justify "the unprecedented, new limitation of states' authorities".
At Monday's hearing, Mr Pallone indicated that the preemption compromise "is not going to be something that satisfies everyone."
He added: "There definitely are going to be members tomorrow that will vote against the bill because they feel that their state is being preempted in a way that is not good for their citizens.
"But I believe that on the whole, we’ve come up with a bill – with the manager’s amendment, which I also support – that will make a significant dent" in the preemption issue, he said.
The negotiated bill is supported by the EPA and an array of NGOs and industry groups throughout the supply chain. These include the:
US Chamber of Commerce;
American Chemistry Council (ACC);
Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma);
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF);
Humane Society of the US;
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine;
American Cleaning Institute (ACI);
Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA); and
Toy Industry Association (TIA).
In a statement, the ACC said, "after years of inaction, we are confident 2016 will be the year US chemical regulation steps into the 21st century."
https://chemicalwatch.com/47593/house-expected-to-pass-tsca-reform-bill-by-wide-margin-today
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Lawmakers Reach Agreement on Chemical Safety Law
May 24, 2016 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Britt E. Erickson
U.S. lawmakers are poised to approve landmark bipartisan legislation to update the 40-year old law that governs commercial substances.
After many years of negotiations, the House of Representatives is expected to pass a bill on May 24 that would modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The Senate is expected to follow suit and send the legislation to the president for signature. The White House says the measure meets the Obama Administration’sprinciples for reforming TSCA.
The bill would change how thousands of chemicals on the market are regulated. It would give the Environmental Protection Agency sweeping new authority to request safety data from chemical manufacturers on substances that pose a risk to human health or the environment.
“This bicameral agreement represents a vast improvement over current law and takes a thoughtful approach to protecting people all across the country from unsafe chemical exposure while setting a new standard for quality regulation,” say Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy & Commerce committee, and John Shimkus (R-Ill.). Shimkus introduced an early version of the bill (H.R. 2576) that passed the House last year.
Called the Frank L. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, the measure “improves the safety of everyday products, from household cleaners to the material used to make our automobiles,” says Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works (EPW) Committee. The legislation is named after Lautenberg, a Democratic senator from New Jersey who introduced a breakthrough bill to reform TSCA just weeks before his death in 2013. That bill formed the foundation for S. 697, which cleared the Senate last year.
Negotiators from the House and Senate have been working for several months to hash out the differences between H.R. 2576 and S. 697. The final compromise legislation has the support of the chemical industry and some public health groups. But it doesn’t please everyone.
The bill “improves current law in many ways and, depending on implementation by EPA, should do some good,” says Andy Igrejas, national campaign director for the advocacy group, Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “Unfortunately, it still goes backwards in a few important ways that reflect the enormous lobbying and political strength of the chemical industry,” Igrejas says. In particular, it curbs state authority and weakens EPA’s authority to intercept imported products that contain toxic chemicals, he says.
In contrast, the American Chemistry Council, which represents much of the U.S. chemical industry, is firmly behind the bill. Cal Dooley, president and chief executive officer of the group calls the legislation “a true compromise that balances the interests of multiple stakeholders.”
http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/web/2016/05/US-lawmakers-reach-agreement-chemical.html
-
Congress Moves, Finally, on Toxic Chemicals
May 24, 2016 | The New York Times
By Editorial Board
Congress is finally getting serious about hazardous chemicals in household products and industrial goods. The House is expected to vote on Tuesday on a bill overhauling a 1976 chemical safety law that has made it hard for federal regulators to ban toxic substances, even known carcinogens like asbestos. The Senate is expected to follow later in the week.
The bipartisan legislation would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to review chemicals to determine whether they threaten human health or the environment. Regulators would be required to give priority to the riskiest chemicals, evaluate at least 20 substances at a time and finish each evaluation in no more than seven years.
The reviews would have to pay special attention to the harm the chemicals could cause to vulnerable groups like children, industrial workers, pregnant women and poor people. Substances commonly stored near drinking water sources would move to or near the top of the list.
These changes represent a big improvement over the 1976 law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, under which the E.P.A. has been able to ban or restrict the production or use of only five chemicalsout of the roughly 85,000 in use today. The 1976 law is written in such a way that it can be almost impossible for the E.P.A. to do a satisfactory job, in part because it does not require manufacturers to provide safety data before a product hits the market.
And courts have often interpreted the 1976 law in the industry’s favor. In 1989, the environmental agency banned most asbestos-containing products, but two years later the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned the ban for many products containing asbestos, some of which are still on the market. Asbestos-related diseases cause about120,000 deaths a year globally.
The latest bill is the product of painful compromises on both sides and, as with any compromise, is not perfect. The biggest potential problem is that it would pre-empt states from imposing restrictions on chemicals that the E.P.A. has reviewed or is in the process of evaluating. State laws and regulations enacted before April 22 would be allowed to stand and states could ask for waivers from pre-emption for laws or regulations enacted after that date.
Industry pushed for pre-emption because it is easier to deal with one federal regulator than a patchwork of state laws. States like California have often been more willing to ban and regulate dangerous substances and have had stronger legal authority to do so than the E.P.A., which is why some public interest groups and some state regulators are unhappy with the pre-emption provision. That said, pre-emption is unlikely to be a major problem as long as the legislation empowers the E.P.A. to do its job and the agency acts with urgency.
Under the measure, the chemical industry would contribute $25 million a year to help pay for the agency’s work. That’s a good start, but it will cover only a portion of the money the agency needs to review thousands of chemicals; the rest will come from the federal budget. A lot will depend on whether Congress continues to provide sufficient resources to the E.P.A., long a favorite target of anti-regulatory legislators.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/congress-moves-finally-on-toxic-chemicals.html
-
Historic Deal on TSCA Reform Reached, Setting Stage for a New Law After 40 Years of Waiting
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on a final reconciled bill to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), our nation’s badly broken chemical safety law. The final text of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was posted today, and is set to be voted on by the full House tomorrow, with Senate consideration expected to follow later this week.
Negotiations to reconcile the two chambers’ quite different reform bills, both passed last year, reached a feverish pace in the last few weeks, leading to today’s historic breakthrough.
The result is a final bill that, while a compromise, is a substantial improvement over current law. The bill adopts the comprehensive approach taken by the Senate bill, while sticking closer to the structure of current TSCA, as did the House bill. Negotiators adopted the House bill’s construct of risk evaluations over the Senate’s safety assessments and determinations, while largely adopting the Senate approach to reforming TSCA’s new chemicals program, establishing a prioritization process applicable to all chemicals, and updating the inventory of chemicals active in commerce. The bill’s chemical testing provision is more of an amalgam of the two bills and negotiators agreed to leave several sections of TSCA (e.g., exports and imports) largely untouched, as the House bill had done.
Overall, the new bill makes significant improvements to all of TSCA’s core provisions. Among its main features, the bill:
Mandates safety reviews for chemicals in active commerce.
Requires a safety finding before new chemicals are allowed on the market.
Replaces TSCA’s burdensome safety standard – which prevented EPA even from banning asbestos – with a pure, health-based standard.
Explicitly requires protection of vulnerable populations, like children and pregnant women.
Enhances EPA’s authority to require testing of both new and existing chemicals.
Sets aggressive, judicially enforceable deadlines for EPA decisions and compliance with restrictions.
Makes more information about chemicals available, by limiting companies’ ability to claim information as confidential, and by giving states and health and environmental professionals access to confidential information they need to do their jobs.
Requires EPA to reduce and replace animal testing where scientifically reliable alternatives exist that would generate equivalent or better information.
Requires EPA to prioritize chemicals that are persistent and bioaccumulative, and that are known human carcinogens and have high toxicity.
Preserves a significant role for states in assuring chemical safety.
The bill is the fruit of several years of negotiations, initially in the Senate, that started with the introduction in 2013 of the first bipartisan reform proposal by the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. David Vitter. Extensive negotiations led by Sen. Tom Udall and Sen. Vitter resulted in a significantly revised bill introduced a year ago, named in honor of Sen. Lautenberg. Further negotiated changes attracted significant bipartisan support in committee, and additional revisions were sufficient to attract 60 co-sponsors by the time of its passage in December by unanimous voice vote. Sens. Jim Inhofe, Barbara Boxer, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Cory Booker, Ed Markey and Dick Durbin each played significant roles in improving the bill keeping up momentum toward its passage.
The House process was much quicker but equally bipartisan, with a bill introduced in May and passed in June of last year, by the remarkable margin of 398-1. Representatives Fred Upton, Frank Pallone, John Shimkus, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Diana DeGette and Gene Green shepherded and supported moving the bill through the House and the bicameral negotiations.
This bill gives no one everything they wanted – neither Republicans nor Democrats swept the table. For EDF’s part, there are certainly provisions we don’t like that are aspects of the final compromise that was struck to secure passage. But we are very pleased that we can say that each major section of the final bill offers real improvements, and taken together, the final bill is a major improvement over current law. At long last, EPA will have stronger tools to protect Americans from toxic chemicals that impact the health of millions of Americans.
The bill has significant support in the health, environmental, animal welfare and labor communities, endorsed by these groups that represent 26 million Americans:
Environmental Defense Fund
The Humane Society of the United States
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
March of Dimes
Moms Clean Air Force
National Wildlife Federation
North America's Building Trades Unions
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
For more information, see our brief fact sheet and statement of support.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/05/23/historic-deal-on-tsca-reform-reached-setting-stage-for-a-new-law-after-40-years-of-waiting/
-
EPA Chemical Data Reporting Rule Brings Challenges, Opportunities
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Leader
By James G. Votaw
Every four years, companies that manufacture or import chemical substances in the U.S. in quantities greater than 25,000 lbs./year by site must submit detailed manufacturing, processing and use information on each of these chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 40 CFR Part 711. Information submitted under this Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Rule is used by EPA both as a stepping off point for assessing compliance with the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and also to compile and maintain the agency’s inventory of chemical substances in commerce in the U.S. (the TSCA Inventory). CDR reporting can be very burdensome because it requires a multidisciplinary effort within companies, and may require investigations and coordination with partners, as well as direct and indirect customers up and down product supply chains. The next CDR reports must be submitted electronically to EPA on or before September 30, 2016, covering chemical manufacture and import activities during the period 2012-2015.
The rule covers almost all chemical substances manufactured or imported in excess of the reporting threshold, but with limited exemptions for chemicals incorporated into manufactured articles, impurities, R&D chemicals, non-isolated intermediates, pesticides, foods, drugs, cosmetics, polymers, microorganisms and certain other products.
Reporting Requirements Expanded
Since the last reporting period in 2012, EPA has made several significant changes to requirements. This includes lowering the reporting threshold to 2,500 lbs./yr. for substances that are subject to particular, chemical-specific risk management rules or orders under TSCA, as well as requiring all reporting companies to provide detailed chemical processing and end use information for all uses down the chemical’s distribution chain. In the past, only the largest volume producers were subject to this extensive reporting. There are also important changes to rules otherwise allowing companies to prevent EPA from disclosing data claimed as confidential business information (CBI). In the past, companies could defer substantiating CBI claims until the claims were challenged, if ever. Starting with this cycle, companies will need submit substantiation (proof of likely competitive harm from disclosure) when the CDR report is submitted, at least for certain claims (e.g., chemical identity and processing, use and exposure chemical information).
Common Reporting Issues and Errors
Despite 25 pages of regulation and hundreds of pages of guidance documents, there are a number of challenging areas that complicate reporting and may cause reporting violations.
The most significant step in the CDR process is identifying which substances, if any, need to be reported. Most enforcement cases involve reportable chemicals that were inadvertently missed. In theory, fines can be as much as $37,500/day per missing report. And while penalties at that level are unlikely, total fines for missing reports often run to $50,000 and, more rarely, in excess of $100,000.
Importers can be particularly vulnerable to errors if they do not know the specific molecular identity and proportion of all individual chemicals in imported commercial mixtures. They typically must obtain that information from the supplier or arrange for the supplier to provide the information directly to EPA on a confidential basis. Importers also may fail to recognize reportable chemicals in manufactured items that do not qualify for the “articles” exemption. The exemption excludes only chemicals incorporated into manufactured items and not intended for release. The manufactured items must be formed to a specific design necessary to the item’s final function. For example, a metal ingot is not exempt because its design is unrelated to the final use of the metal. But if imported in the form of barrel for a pen, the metal (and any protective coating) would be exempt. On the other hand, the liquid ink in the pen would not be exempt and would be potentially reportable because the ink is intended to be released from the pen when used. All manufactured items should be evaluated for possible reporting obligations.
Companies also run into issues with incidental manufacturing and byproducts – chemicals produced unintentionally during other chemical manufacturing or processing operations (e.g., new metal compounds formed in chemical etching solutions when used, or calcium compounds formed in flue gas scrubbers). Depending on the circumstances, these may or may not be exempt when formed. Byproducts are potentially subject to reporting unless they are disposed of as waste, burned as fuel, or processed to extract a chemical substance that exists in the byproduct. But manufacturers are responsible for downstream uses. For example, even if the manufacturer sought to exempt the byproduct by treating it as a waste, the exemption would be lost if the waste hauler instead recycled the byproduct for a different commercial use. Similar to byproducts are chemical intermediates, which are exempt in limited circumstances. Care is required both to identify when these chemicals are formed during processing, and to reach appropriate conclusions about applicable exemptions.
CDR Presents Sustainability and Compliance Improvement Opportunities
Assembling and submitting comprehensive CDR information to EPA can be a burdensome paperwork exercise, with little or no apparent benefit to the reporting company. However, there are at least two opportunities for companies to extract significant value from the CDR information and process.
First, with a little additional effort, the CDR information collection and review can serve as the foundation for an affirmative compliance audit of a company’s chemical product compliance. It is not uncommon for CDR reviews to lead to the discovery of non-compliance (e.g., inadvertent import or manufacture of chemicals not on the TSCA Inventory). Indeed, in EPA’s CDR compliance inspections at individual facilities, the Agency reviews manufacturing and import documents to confirm the sufficiency of the CDR report, but it also takes the next step to confirm compliance with related TSCA obligations. For example, confirming the company has submitted the required TSCA compliance certifications for all chemical imports, or provided required export notices for chemicals subject to TSCA significant new use rules. Coupling the unavoidable CDR information investigations with a compliance auditing program (preferably designed and conducted with counsel) gives reporting companies the opportunity to find and correct compliance excursions without enforcement, often even where it becomes necessary or practical to affirmatively disclose the issue to EPA.
Second, CDR information may provide companies with useful insights into both their supply chains and the downstream uses and markets for their products. For example, importers may discover that a commercial product they distribute contains ingredients inconsistent with the company’s “green chemistry” or sustainability product policies. Chemical manufacturers may discover downstream uses of their products that represent previously unknown potential liability or reputational risks, or that otherwise warrant additional product stewardship efforts. On the positive side, newly discovered downstream uses also may present a range of new marketing opportunities for a chemical.
Start Early and Plan Thoroughly
While CDR reports can be submitted as late as September 1, given the need to assemble a multidisciplinary internal team and potentially to coordinate with and collect information from upstream suppliers, import customs brokers, contract manufacturers, process chemical reclaimers, and a range of downstream distributors and users, it is prudent to assemble a team, develop a work plan and schedule as early as practicable. The plan should be designed to timely meet both CDR obligations and any other compliance and sustainability objectives selected.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2016/05/24/epa-chemical-data-reporting-rule-brings-challenges-and-opportunities/
-
White House Backs Bill to Overhaul Chemical Regulation
May 24, 2016 | Associated Press (in Philly Voice)
By Matthew Daly
The White House and top House Democrats said Monday they will support a bipartisan bill to overhaul regulation of asbestos and other dangerous chemicals, clearing the way for the bill's passage in Congress and signature by President Barack Obama.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and two other high-ranking Democrats said they remain concerned that the bill limits states' ability to act aggressively on toxic substances.
But changes made by Democrats in recent days ensure the measure will protect families and communities from toxic substances, Pelosi said in a statement with House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Hours later, the White House said it strongly supports the legislation, which would be the first overhaul of the Toxic Substances Control Act since it was approved in 1976. A vote is expected in the House as soon as Tuesday.
"The bill is a clear improvement over the current TSCA and represents a historic advancement for both chemical safety and environmental law," the White House said in a statement.
The proposal will require the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate new and existing chemicals against a new risk-based safety standard that includes considerations for vulnerable people such as children and pregnant women, the White House said.
The bill also establishes clear and enforceable deadlines for the EPA to act; increases transparency of chemical information by limiting unwarranted claims of confidentiality by chemical companies; and provides funding for the EPA to carry out "these significant new responsibilities," the White House said.
Pallone had said last week he opposed an agreement reached by House and Senate negotiators, saying it was "weaker than current law." Pallone said he was especially concerned about provisions in the bill concerning state regulation of toxic chemicals.
New Jersey and other liberal-leaning states such as California, Massachusetts and Vermont have moved aggressively to regulate chemicals, and Pallone and other critics feared the federal bill could block state efforts even as it imposed the first-ever national standards for tens of thousands of chemicals, including formaldehyde and styrene, that are used in homes and businesses every day.
A proposal announced last week declares that any state law or rule in place before April 22 would not be pre-empted by federal law. The proposal also would allow states to work on some regulations while federal rules are being developed, a process that can take years.
States that do not regulate chemicals closely would follow the federal standard.
Pallone and Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y., said last week that "it would be better for us to not act at all than to pass the deal" proposed by House and Senate negotiators.
Pallone's opposition was especially notable, since the bill is named after a fellow New Jersey Democrat, the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
In their statement Monday, Pallone, Pelosi and Hoyer said that Lautenberg "dedicated his career" to fixing the toxic-substance law, adding: "We honor his memory in this bipartisan legislation bearing his name."
The measure "is not the bill Democrats would have written on our own, but it is a long-overdue step forward to protect families and communities from toxic substances," the three Democrats said.
The statement by House Democrats comes as Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders said he opposes the bill.
While the legislation allows Vermont and other states to continue enforcing existing state regulations to keep adults and children safe from toxic chemicals, "it makes it more difficult for states to set new, stricter standards," Sanders said. "That makes no sense. Federal chemical regulations should be a floor, not a ceiling. States should not be stopped from going above and beyond minimum federal safety standards."
Supporters say they hope to move the bill through Congress this week, with the goal of sending it to Obama's desk by Memorial Day.
http://www.phillyvoice.com/white-house-backs-bill-to-overhaul-chemical-regulation/
-
Pelosi, Hoyer, Pallone Support TSCA Deal
May 24, 2016 | Morning Consult
By Jack Fitzpatrick
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) released a statement Monday saying they support a deal reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Pallone, the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, had said last week that he wouldn’t support the bill. He cited “many” provisions that were weaker than the current law, specifically citing the language pre-empting further state regulations after the Environmental Protection Agency has taken action.
Monday’s statement indicated Pallone’s view had changed, although Democrats still have some reservations about pre-emption.
“Democrats remain concerned by Republicans’ provisions limiting states’ ability to act aggressively on toxic substances,” the statement said. “However, the bill grants EPA with significant new authority to protect the public from unsafe toxic chemicals. House Democrats succeeded in empowering the EPA to unilaterally demand testing on chemicals it suspects are unsafe for people or harmful to the environment. Recent changes Democrats made will reduce the harm of the state preemption provisions in the bill.”
The House Rules Committee will meet Monday on the final deal reconciling bills passed last year by the House and Senate.
https://morningconsult.com/alert/pelosi-hoyer-pallone-support-deal-chemical-regulations/
-
Global Health Officials to Consider Role in Improving Chemical Safety
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
This week’s World Health Assembly (WHA) will consider a resolution on the health sector’s role in the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm).
Argentina, Canada, Monaco, Panama, Thailand, the US, Uruguay and EU member states have submitted a draft resolution to the meeting in Geneva. It includes health sector activities to support the Saicm goal of minimising the risk of adverse impacts of chemicals by 2020 and participate in work to plan activities beyond 2020.
Senior health officials from the World Health Organization’s 194 members attend the WHA annually to review work and set new goals and tasks.
The draft resolution, which is expected to be discussed on Thursday, urges WHO members – and where they exist regional bodies – to take nine steps to support Saicm and chemicals and wastes management beyond 2020.
Roadmap
Specifically, the draft resolution also requests the WHO director-general to develop a roadmap with relevant stakeholders. This should outline how the health sector can contribute towards achieving the 2020 goal and to the relevant targets of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.
It should take account of the overall orientation and guidance document adopted at the fourth meeting of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM4), the process for developing Saicm beyond 2020, and build on the WHO’s existing work and Saicm’s health sector strategy.
By next year’s WHA, the draft resolution wants to see a roadmap outlining concrete actions. Speaking from the meeting, Carolyn Vickers, WHO team leader for chemical safety, said: "The timeframe will be compact, but we will be building upon earlier work. In particular, in 2015 WHO updated the Saicm health sector priorities through a survey of health sector stakeholders, and these were presented to ICCM4."
A document prepared for the meeting by the WHO secretariat notes that globally about 25% of human disease is linked to environmental factors, including chemical exposures. It says there is growing evidence that exposures before birth, and even in previous generations, may lead to disease later in life.
In addition, the WHO has published The public health impact of chemicals; knowns and unknowns. This estimates that 1.3m lives and 43m disability-adjusted life-years were lost in 2012 due to exposures to selected chemicals.
Burden of disease
Based on data collected for the recently-published report Preventing Disease through Healthy Environments, Ms Vickers said: "Data are only available for a small number of chemical exposures and people are exposed to many more chemicals every day." The report notes that the real burden of disease – and the associated demands on health systems – is unknown, but likely to be much greater than estimated.
It suggests effective interventions to prevent death and disease caused by chemicals, and the economic benefits to be gained. For example:
most of the estimated 193,000 deaths/year from unintentional poisonings are preventable, but only 47% of countries have a poisons centre;
lead exposure is estimated to account for 143,000 deaths/year worldwide, with the highest burden in developing regions. Addressing lead exposure would prevent 9.8% of intellectual disability, 4% of ischaemic heart disease and 4.6% of stroke in the population, yet many countries do not regulate lead paint; and
workers' exposure to carcinogens is estimated to cause between 2%-8% of all cancers. In the general population 14% of lung cancer is attributable to ambient air pollution.
The report also illustrates how children and the elderly are particularly vulnerable to chemical exposure.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47584/global-health-officials-to-consider-role-in-improving-chemical-safety
-
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The tenth meeting of the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR), taking place in July in the US, will provide a platform for the member jurisdictions to discuss the hot topics of the day.
Although these are still being decided, progress towards the use of alternative test methods is a common theme on the agenda. The ICCR has been discussing the issue since its first meeting in 2007 and member jurisdictions – EU, US, Canada, Japan and now Brazil – have been reporting back and sharing approaches ever since.
But are these meetings having any real impact on the ground? ICCR chair and director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), Dr Linda Katz, says there have been achievements, starting with regular reports on the latest approaches on alternatives to animal testing.
The first meeting also resulted in the creation of the International Cooperation on Alternative Testing Methods (ICATM), to allow discussions that focus specifically on addressing these issues in the member jurisdictions.
However, Dr Katy Taylor, director of science at Cruelty Free International, says her organisation is “not convinced”. The EU continues to lead the way with its ban on animal testing of cosmetic ingredients/products, and marketing of new cosmetic ingredients/ products tested on animals, but the others are lagging behind.
“We are pleased to see that the EU is keen to promote their efforts in the area of avoiding animal testing,” she says.
The NGO has suggested that the other member jurisdictions adopt a similar approach to the EU in implementing a ban on testing (phased if necessary) but, to date, the ICCR has “merely provided a platform” for discussing this and is not actively driving the idea forward. “At least not openly.”
“While we think the ICCR is, in principle, valuable in bringing together the key regions, its weakness is that it is explicitly a discussion forum for a non-committal exchange of ideas - which it probably has to be since decisions are made regionally or nationally,” she continues.
ICCR members:
Health Canada;
the European Commission Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship, and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises;
the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan;
the FDA; and
the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency.
“Our impression is that attendees, therefore, come in a somewhat passive frame of mind, willing to hear about the experiences of other countries but not particularly motivated to do anything differently,” she adds.
“It would be helpful if members of the ICCR were to construe their role a little more actively, still only consultative but with an explicit objective to assist members with recommended paths to phasing out animal experiments,” says Dr Taylor.
On the creation of ICATM, Dr Taylor says it operates in a similar “forum, voluntary manner” to the ICCR. However, it is more targeted towards mutual help with the validation of alternative methods, she adds.
“They are making progress but again the slightly ad hoc nature means that progress here is also a bit too slow for our liking.”
ICATM, comprised of the toxicology representatives to the committees on validation of alternative methods specific to each ICCR member, was established after the ICCR’s first meeting concluded that there was a need to “reduce, refine and replace” animals used in toxicity testing.
On its website, the EU Reference Laboratory for Alternatives to Animal Testing (EURL Ecvam), a member of ICATM, says the group recommended that a strengthening of “collaboration and communication in the design, execution and peer review of validation studies for scientific alternatives to animal testing” was needed.
Representatives from the committees developed a framework to “ensure a collaborative approach to this issue, and noted that such efforts should be supported by scientific experts from the regulatory bodies”.
The framework addresses three areas of cooperation:
validation studies;
independent peer review of the validation status of test methods; and
the development of formal recommendations on alternative testing methods.
Moving forward
In its most recent report on animal testing, In silico approaches for safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients, the ICCR members say that there are a number of drivers for moving away from testing toxicity of cosmetic ingredients in animals – such as the improved predictivity, cost, time and ethical implications – and for deriving data and estimates by alternative in vitro and in silico means.
Availability of such alternative methods is more crucial in Europe, it says, where animal testing of cosmetic ingredients/products, and marketing of new cosmetic ingredients/products tested on animals, is now banned.
However, despite the need and the drivers, it says, the current use of in silico approaches is largely limited to internal decision making, both at the industry and at the regulatory levels, in most ICCR jurisdictions, and has still not been fully adopted as one of the mainstream methods for the safety assessment of cosmetic ingredients.
What is the ICCR?
The ICCR is a voluntary international group of cosmetics regulatory authorities from Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan and the US.
The initiative, says current ICCR chair Dr Linda Katz, is an off-shoot of the Cosmetic Harmonisation and International Cooperation (CHIC) process, which was a quadrilateral collaboration involving Canada, the EU, Japan and the US.
Dr Katz, who is also director for the FDA Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), says that this collaboration built upon previous bilateral discussions between the US and EU dating back to the late 1990s, in an attempt to be more proactive regarding topics of mutual interest.
Today the purpose of the meetings is to “maintain the highest level of global consumer protection, while minimising barriers to international trade”.
Decisions of the ICCR are made by consensus and are intended to be compatible with the laws, policies, rules, regulations and directives of the respective administrations and governments.
Members implement and/or promote actions or documents within their own jurisdictions and seek convergence of regulatory policies and practices. The regulatory authority members of ICCR enter into constructive dialogue with their relevant cosmetics industry trade associations and public advocacy groups.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47564/regulating-cosmetics-globally
-
International Efforts to Regulate DecaBDE
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
This month, the European Commission published a draft regulation to restrict the use and marketing of the brominated flame retardant decaBDE - a substance widely used in the automotive, aerospace and textiles sectors.
It is known for its persistence, toxicity and global distribution through the atmosphere and is currently being considered for listing on the Stockholm Convention for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) – an international treaty that requires countries to eliminate or restrict its listed substances.
The Commission’s proposed regulation is significant because it is likely to affect how the substance is controlled globally, through the convention. If it becomes law, it would restrict the use of decaBDE in a concentration equal to or greater than 0.1% by weight.
But exemptions have been proposed, including for aircraft and spare parts for the automotive industry.
Joe DiGangi, senior science and technical adviser of the International POPs Environmental Network (Ipen), says both the proposed exemptions and concentration limit push policy in a “negative direction”.
“Instead of granting an exemption, the EU should insist that the auto industry retrofit new parts that do not contain decaBDE and that have already undergone testing and validation.”
A spokesperson for the Commission says the assessment by Echa’s Socio-economic Analysis Committee (Seac) concluded that a derogation for such spare parts was justified considering the low volumes involved, the progressive reduction in the quantity of decaBDE required - as vehicles reach their end-of-life and, therefore, fewer and fewer spare parts are required - and the level of compliance costs.
The Commission’s proposed regulation is significant because it is likely to affect how the substance is controlled globally, through the convention
“The derogation would allow the use of these vehicles over their whole life span rather than being prematurely discarded due to lack of spare parts,” the spokesperson adds.
The same concept, they note, is firmly enshrined in the End-of-Life Vehicles Directive and is often referred to as the ‘repair-as-produced’ principle.
Mr DiGangi, however, says the exemption highlights the weakness of the Seac committee, which “acts as an industry wish-list facilitator rather than critical evaluator of industry claims”.
Technicalities
At the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC-11) meeting in October last year, the 15 global car manufacturers of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (Acea) indicated that they will phase out decaBDE by mid-2018 at the latest.
But the association argues that retrofitting newly manufactured spare parts, that don’t contain decaBDE, into older vehicles is rarely possible because a complete vehicle and system test isn’t always an option.
Hyundai’s environmental affairs manager, Timo Unger, told Chemical Watch that this is because component performance depends on the working environment. For example, the sealing in a fuel pump of one vehicle might have different specifications to another because temperature, pressure or fuel can vary.
The reason they can’t always be tested is that these legacy spare parts are for the repair of vehicles that are no longer in mass production. They have already been phased out: “We cannot keep all different cars in stock simply to validate legacy spare parts,” says Mr Unger.
Keeping stock of all the different vehicle variants would not be a balanced approach, he adds: “Especially not if we consider the very low amount of decaBDE used in such legacy spare parts. We need to think about resource efficiency and costs.”
But Mr DiGangi argues that the objectives of REACH and the Stockholm Convention are not to grant exemptions for continued use of a POP simply because “an industry does not wish to absorb certain costs”.
Concentration limits
He also raised concerns with the Commission’s “weak” proposal for a 0.1%, or 1,000 parts per million (ppm), concentration limit.
This, he says, is 20 times higher than most of the listed POPs (50ppm) and the highest ever proposed at the Stockholm Convention. The EU, he says, has consistently pushed for weak international standards on concentration limits for waste streams, putting forward the same limit for fellow PBDE substances, PentaBDE and OctaBDE, both of which were added to the convention’s elimination list (Annex A) in 2009. It also proposed the same limit for HBCD.
In contrast, China pushed for 50ppm for PentaBDE and OctaBDE, while Iran pushed for 100ppm for HBCD. This, says Mr DiGangi, shows that both countries pushed for more “protective standards” than the EU.
“It’s now clear that the EU will once again lobby for this same weak standard [for decaBDE] at the Conference of the Parties (COP8) in 2017.” This is the meeting where the decision on whether to include the substance, as well as the details, is made.
But the Commission spokesperson says the limit value for decaBDE is the same as for other similar PBDEs already regulated under REACH (octabromodiphenyl ether).
The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
Adopted by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries on 22 May 2001 in Stockholm, Sweden. The convention entered into force on 17 May 2004. It is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from chemicals that remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of humans and wildlife, and have harmful impacts on human health or the environment.
A 1,000ppm limit value is also already applied under the POP Regulation for tetra-, penta-, hexa- and heptabromodiphenyl ether, but it applies only to articles made from or including recycled materials, or materials from waste prepared for reuse.
Mr DiGangi recommends that the EU, instead, pushes for a 50ppm concentration limit for decaBDE, largely because of its structural similarities to PCBs, another group of substances placed on the Stockholm Convention list in 2009. PCBs were added because they are immunotoxic and affect reproduction, as well as being a threat to the environment.
However, the Commission says the lower value of 50ppm applies to other, unrelated POP substances and “no comparison can be made to decaBDE”. The auto industry says a limit this low would actually have wider environmental effects. Acea’s environmental policy director, Tobias Bahr, told Chemical Watch that if a 50ppm was imposed, the vehicle ‘light fraction’ (after the shredder, everything excluding the metal of a car) would need to be incinerated.
And, with insufficient incineration capacity in many countries around the world, it means this waste stream would need to be transported, causing additional environmental burdens, he says.
But Mr DiGangi said that PBDE-containing auto wastes should be segregated and treated in compliance with convention obligations, which do not require incineration but rather destruction or irreversible transformation of POPs characteristics.
“There is an opportunity to operationalise the ‘polluter pays principle’ by obligating PBDE producers to pay the costs of complying with convention requirements,” he says.
Chemicals proposed for listing, under the convention
decabromodiphenyl ether (commercial mixture, c-decaBDE)
dicofol
short-chained chlorinated paraffins
pentadecafluorooctanoic acid, its salts and PFOA-related compounds
https://chemicalwatch.com/47562/international-efforts-to-regulate-decabde
-
What is Unep's Chemicals in Products Programme?
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kevin Munn
Chemical Watch readers have, in recent years, become very familiar with the growing need for manufacturers of products to know about the chemicals issues related to their business.
This understanding, that all stakeholders should have access to relevant and reliable information to make informed decisions about chemicals in products, has become very apparent. And access to information on Chemicals in Products (CiP) is a necessary step towards the sound management of chemicals in everyday articles, not only within manufacturing but also throughout the lifecycle of a product.
For some time now, stakeholders involved in the UN’s Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) have recognised this as fundamental to achieving its 2020 goal for the sound management of chemicals.
In October 2015, the Saicm community welcomed the CiP programme as a means to progress action on information needed to manage chemicals, contained in manufactured products. It was clear that this was a global issue and required collaboration on a worldwide scale.
Aims
The CiP programme offers a platform for stakeholders to showcase, to a global audience, their actions to know and manage chemicals in their products throughout their lifecycle. Building on policy goals and the lessons from extensive stakeholder actions to date, the CiP programme has three key objectives:
within supply chains, to know and exchange information on chemicals in products, associated hazards and sound management practices;
to disclose information of relevance to stakeholders outside the supply chain to enable informed decision making and action on chemicals in products; and
to ensure that, through due diligence, information is accurate, current and accessible.
Here is a simplified illustration of the product lifecycle, showing major stakeholder groups, product and materials flows and major potential channels for providing and requesting chemicals in products information:
Stakeholders
The UN Environment Programme (Unep) points to some typical examples of actions that it encourages stakeholders to share.
Brands, retailers, manufacturers of products and chemicals suppliers are encouraged to share how CiP information:
has been collected and used to eliminate a hazardous chemical from a product;
has been used to inform a consumer or NGO about product safety or possible precautions;
informs discussions with policy makers;
is used for benchmarking against internal corporate goals; and
is disclosed to publicly demonstrate progress in reducing risks from chemicals.
Public interest NGOs are encouraged to share:specific action that resulted in access to CiP information for a particular product; and
the use of such information for communicating and encouraging changes in behaviour and increasing knowledge.
Governments are encouraged to share action such as:
announcements of product regulation, including CiP information requirements;
use of this information, collected from industry, to formulate policy targets for product safety;
public-private partnerships that use the information to demonstrate progress beyond regulations;
public procurement procedures which are guided by such information.
As the global forum for advancing issues of sound chemicals use, the Saicm community offers an opportunity to engage with all stakeholders and for the development of robust solutions with broad buy-in.
Essentially, the CiP programme is the place to share actions, highlight successes and lessons and stimulate progress.
How it works
An organisation joins the CiP programme by sending a letter from management , stating that it agrees with the objectives and commits to take actions to achieve them. Periodically (preferably on an annual basis) the organisation should document actions and progress towards these. It is free to choose which it reports on. This information should be publicly available and Unep should be notified as to where details can be found as appropriate. Participation is made public, as well as the information on actions and progress towards the objectives.
Unep leads the CiP programme and does this by encouraging and supporting participants to join and share their actions. It maintains the programme website, bringing visibility to participants and providing access to supporting tools, guidance and documents.
It also manages the information provided by participants, and develops and implements CiP projects, focusing on particular product sectors and regions.
From Unep’s – in collaboration with NGO Clean Production Action – report The business case for knowing chemicals in products and supply chains
• Regulatory requirements, customer demands, media attention, non-governmental organisation advocacy, product recalls and market opportunities are driving companies to know more about the chemicals in their products and supply chains. The demand for increased transparency grows every day.
• The use of CiP information systems demonstrates clearly the value of knowing about chemicals contained in products. They continue to enable and stimulate companies and entire product sectors to realise benefits, from achieving product safety to leading product innovation.
• Most product sectors do not have sufficient information systems in place to enable the reliable exchange of chemical content information that is needed to meet current and future regulatory and customer demands.
• Active strategies to know and act upon information on chemicals in products generate long-term value for companies, their shareholders, the public and the planet.
• Brands and retailers that are passive—reacting when compelled by crises or regulations— hold hidden liabilities of chemicals of concern in their products. In the past, costs from these have run from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, have tarnished brand reputation, and resulted in loss of market share and valuation.
• From governments and consumers to retailers and brands, access to information and awareness of chemicals in products are driving companies and customers to prefer and select inherently safer alternatives, selections that make possible achieving the goal of the Strategic Approach to Integrated Chemicals Management (Saicm).
https://chemicalwatch.com/47566/what-is-uneps-chemicals-in-products-programme
-
NGO Platform: Why Echa Permitted 'Meaningless' Data
May 24, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Vito Buonsante
After a landmark decision, Echa has announced a major overhaul of its completeness check tool; which should be back up and running sometime this year.
It had become clear that substances could be allowed on the market, without vital information on health and environmental safety being provided as part of registration.
The decision by Echa’s Board of Appeal found that anyone could obtain a registration number for a substance, even when no meaningful information had been submitted in the registration dossier. Once they have the number, companies are free to place a product on the market.
In March, the Board of Appeal annulled a decision by Echa, which allowed a company to place charcoal on the market, without sharing data with other registrants of the same substance or providing the information the registration process requires.
The decision of the Board of Appeal (A-022-2013), while only directly affecting one registration dossier, has highlighted failures to comply with REACH and consequently should have a long-term impact on the way Echa processes registrations. The agency’s procedures disregarded two basic REACH principles: “no data, no market” and “one substance one registration” (Osor principle). This failure to apply the REACH Regulation potentially undermines its operation, its fundamental principles and goals and could lead to major health and environmental risks.
The agency admitted that, under the current system, a registration can be obtained by filling the required fields in their IT system with any text, even if completely meaningless. The justification provided by Echa, according to the decision, is that “the use of an automated system for the completeness check is a ‘practical necessity’ and helps to ensure the efficient processing of registrations.”
Echa was guided by the need to process the registration dossiers on time. This has led to them ignoring the aim of registration, which is to ensure that companies demonstrate that chemical substances they intend to place on the market are managed safely. The fact that a company could register a substance without providing any data, and without joining other registrants in sharing it, was not a concern for Echa.
One of the key elements of REACH is the “reversal of the burden of proof” in relation to hazard assessment and risk identification for all substances on the market, including existing substances. Through registration, industry became responsible for proving the safety of those substances. Companies, as economic operators, would have the incentive to provide the data because failing to do so would mean they couldn’t register their product.
Echa’s completeness check system has prevented the reversal in the burden of proof from working. The agency would give a registration number to any company filling its forms as long as they paid the fees related to the registration.
In fact, there is overwhelming evidence that many companies have not taken their obligation seriously. As shown by Echa’s statistics on dossiers that have undergone compliance checks, the majority are of poor quality. The German authorities have also done in depth screening of 1,814 registration dossiers and found that 58% of them were not in compliance, while for many others it could not conclude whether they were compliant or not.
Experience with the authorisation of substances of very high concern also shows that the Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) has had difficulties assessing the risk of the substance due to the poor quality of the information provided, particularly in relation to health and environmental exposure. This difficulty, rather than being caused by the authorisation process itself, is the consequence of the poor state of registration dossiers, particularly the chemical safety report (CSR).
Echa employs over 500 staff whose main activity is to manage information from registration of substances for the EU market. However, it has not been focusing on achieving high levels of health and environmental protection, as it should be - the main goal of REACH. Instead its aim has been the efficiency of the system.
This threatens to turn REACH into just a huge administrative exercise, where deadlines are met, but health and environmental protection become secondary.
ClientEarth and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) harshly criticised Echa for this approach in their2012 report assessing its responsibility in the unsatisfactory implementation of REACH.
The agency’s approach not only undermines chemical safety in the EU but also gives a competitive advantage to companies failing to provide sufficient information in their registration. Through its failure to carry out a meaningful completeness check, substances are allowed on the market regardless of the relevance of the information they submit.
Echa admitted, in the course of the proceedings of the case, that the IT system, used for performing completeness checks, is only designed to verify whether information has been entered. There is nothing in place to ensure this information is meaningful. It also admitted that, under the current completeness check system, it is possible to register a substance by providing data that has no relevance. Of course, it could then prioritise such substances for compliance check. But as it has never annulled a registration due to an error of this kind, the substance would likely remain on the market for years before any action were taken.
After the decision by the Board of Appeal, the agency has announced that it will rerun all completeness checks in order to annul decisions that granted a registration number to incomplete dossiers. It is not clear what the scope of this will be and, if the fields will be checked, including the information provided in the chemical safety report (CSR). Currently the content of the CSR is not examined; just the fact of details supplied is enough.
Ahead of Echa’s overhaul of the system, we would like to see it annul all the registration dossiers that are incomplete, but also make public information relating to the companies that have taken advantage of the system and provided deficient data.
ClientEarth has asked Echa to reveal the names of the companies not in compliance with REACH requirements, but it has always been reluctant. We now hope that it will be on the side of health and environmental protection as well as all those companies that have worked hard, invested resources and money to comply with REACH.
https://chemicalwatch.com/47569/ngo-platform-why-echa-permitted-meaningless-data
-
FDA Ponders Ban on Common Plasticizer in Food Products
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Pearson
The Food and Drug Administration is taking public comments on a petition seeking to ban a type of plasticizer in food products.
FDA granted review of the petition by the Environmental Defense Fund last month (Greenwire, April 14). It asks FDA to revoke approval of 30 chemicals known as ortho-phthalates that are used as food additives.
In requesting comments, the agency is seeking to decide whether ortho-phthalates do not pose a "reasonable certainty of no harm," the standard that is required for food additives.
The chemical industry has defended the safety of ortho-phthalates. However, some scientists and public interest groups maintain that a growing body of research shows health problems associated with the substances, including developmental problems in children.
The public comment period runs until July 19.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/24/stories/1060037770
-
Obama’s Ban On Plastic Microbeads Failed In One Huge Way
May 24, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Alexander C. Kaufman
Stiv Wilson chose his battle three and a half years ago. The problem is, he still doesn’t know who all his opponents are.
An environmental activist fixated on curbing plastic pollution in the oceans he loves to surf and sail, Wilson focused his efforts on eliminating microbeads, the tiny plastic particles most commonly used as exfoliants in facial scrubs, body washes and toothpastes. Polyethylene plastic beads don’t disintegrate or biodegrade, and about 8 trillion beads — enough to cover more than 300 tennis courts — end up in waterways across the United States every day.
In December, Wilson claimed victory when President Obama signed a bill outlawing microbeads from rinse-off cosmetics by mid-2017. Targeting those products was easy — the U.S. Food and Drug Administration already required companies to disclose such ingredients used on skin or teeth. But the narrowly focused legislation left open a gaping loophole, allowing companies to quietly continue using microbeads in myriad products, including detergents, sandblasting materials and cosmetics that can be left on the skin. Identifying all those firms proved impossible.
Now, as campaigners push for bans in the United Kingdom and Australia, they face the same challenge as the activists in America: figuring out which companies use tiny plastics in their products.
“We recognized that there were other products with microbeads, such as detergents, sandblasting materials and a few other applications, all of which we don’t ultimately know yet,” Wilson, director of campaigns at the environmental nonprofit Story of Stuff Project, told The Huffington Post.
“I was looking at patent records to see what patents had been filed for various applications, but it was really unclear — there are bazillions of products in the marketplace and it’s difficult to determine which have microbeads or not,” he added.
While companies like Unilever, Johnson & Johnson and Procter & Gamble — all of which must phase out microbeads from their consumer cosmetics — are household names peddling recognizable brands, most companies selling detergents and sandblasting materials are business-to-business firms, meaning they don’t have brands that environmental advocates can name and shame.
“We don’t really know what products they’re in or not because there are no FDA guidelines demanding that you disclose the ingredients,” Wilson added. “But we didn’t think we could win on all of them.”
Still, he had a plan. In 2014, by pushing for statewide bans in California and New York, he and his fellow campaigners hoped to force a de facto ban on microbeads around the country. No company, Wilson posited, would formulate one version of a facial scrub for the combined 58.5 million people in two of the most important U.S. markets, only to make separate products for shoppers in 48 other states.
It worked. In September, the California State Assembly passed a bill restricting the sale of personal products containing microbeads. The legislation cleared the way for President Obama to sign a bipartisan bill three months later.
“It was a very positive thing that Obama signed the Microbead-Free Waters Act,” Jeroen Dagevos, head of programs at the Amsterdam-based nonprofit Plastic Soup Foundation, told HuffPost by phone. “It’s really helping, but it’s not complete.”
Now, Wilson has teamed up with Greenpeace in the United Kingdom to push for a more comprehensive ban.
“At Greenpeace our main issue with [Obama’s ban] is that it covers only wash-off products, whereas we would like a ban here to cover any products that contain microplastics that go down the drain,” Greg Norman, press officer for Greenpeace UK, wrote in an email to HuffPost. “So we and our partners are pushing for something more wide-ranging from the U.K. government.”
The next step for the U.S., Wilson said, may be to push for a right-to-know bill that would force other companies manufacturing products with microbeads to disclose their ingredients.
The need for a complete ban seems increasingly urgent. The oceans will containmore plastic than fish by 2050, according to a January report from the world Economic Forum and the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, with analytical support from consultants at McKinsey. Microbeads wreak havoc on coral populations that eat the tiny particles, which then destroy the creatures’ digestive systems.
“Taking action on microbeads was an important first win,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group, told HuffPost by phone. “But it’s even more important to make sure we are really addressing environmental plastic pollution.”
“Everyone can visualize floating plastic bottles,” Andrews added, “but it’s harder to envision the damage these smaller pieces of plastic can cause.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-microbead-ban-fail_us_57432a7fe4b0613b512ad76b
-
Worst-Scoring Sunscreens For Kids
May 24, 2016 | Environmental Working Group
By Megan Boyle
Applying a safe, effective sunscreen to children is one key to protecting them from sun damage. Sunscreen should never be your child’s first line of defense against the sun, of course, and the reality is that some products fall short.
Here’s what to avoid:
Spray sunscreens. These products can be inhaled and may not cover skin completely.
SPF values above 50+. Products touting high SPF values try to trick you into believing they’ll prevent sun damage. Don’t trust them. SPFs of 30 to 50 are enough for even very pale skin.
Oxybenzone. This common sunscreen ingredient has been linked to hormone system disruption.
Retinyl palmitate. This ingredient may actually trigger damage to sun-exposed skin.
Here’s our list of the worst-rated sunscreens for kids from EWG’s 2016 Guide to Sunscreens.
Each of these has at least three strikes against it: sky-high SPFs and the potentially harmful ingredients oxybenzone and retinyl palmitate. Four are aerosol sprays that can harm sensitive young lungs.
Click here to learn more about how we made the list.
Keep these 13 sunscreens out of your shopping cart.
Banana Boat Kids Max Protect & Play Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 100
Coppertone Water Babies Sunscreen Stick, SPF 55
Coppertone Sunscreen Continuous Spray, Kids, SPF 70
Coppertone Sunscreen Lotion Kids, SPF 70+
Coppertone Foaming Lotion Sunscreen Kids Wacky Foam, SPF 70+
Coppertone Water Babies Sunscreen Lotion, SPF 70+
CVS Baby Sunstick Sunscreen, SPF 55
CVS Kids Wet & Dry Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70+
Equate Kids Sunscreen Stick, SPF 55
Hampton Sun Continuous Mist Sunscreen For Kids, SPF 70
Neutrogena Wet Skin Kids Sunscreen Spray, SPF 70+
Neutrogena Wet Skin Kids Sunscreen Stick, SPF 70+
Up & Up Kids Sunscreen Stick, SPF 55Visit EWG’s 2016 Guide to Sunscreens to learn more about the best-scoring sunscreens for kids.
Remember: it takes only a few blistering sunburns during childhood to double a person’s lifetime chance of developing melanoma, the most serious form of skin cancer. The best defenses against getting too much harmful UV radiation are protective clothing, shade and timing. Practice these sun safety habits to keep your children safe in the sun:
Cover up. Wide-brimmed hats or visors and loose-fitting shirts, shorts and pants block harmful UV rays.
Wear sunglasses. A good pair will help shield eyes from the UV radiation that causes cataracts.
Stay in the shade. Whenever kids are outdoors, keep them in the shade as much as possible. Keep infants under six months out of direct sun.
Schedule outdoor time. Go outdoors in early morning and late afternoon, when the sun is lower.
Want more tips? Visit EWG’s Sun Safety Campaign.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2016/05/worst-scoring-sunscreens-kids
-
EPA Boss Predicts Win in Legal Brawl Against 'Goliath'
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Robin Bravender
To Gina McCarthy, the high-stakes legal battle over the Clean Power Plan feels like David taking on Goliath.
The U.S. EPA administrator pointed to the biblical story about the righteous underdog's victory Saturday during a commencement speech at Vermont Law School. In the lawsuit over her agency's climate rule, "the list of attorneys representing the plaintiffs went for 22 pages," McCarthy said. That's about as many people as her entire agency employs, she joked. "Sometimes it feels like David and Goliath."
But, she added, "we will win all the way up through the Supreme Court." EPA "always" wins "when it's important," she said.
McCarthy noted that the massive case involving more than 150 parties suing EPA over the Clean Power Plan has generated two "first-of-a-kind legal decisions," referring to the Supreme Court's decision to freeze the rule and a federal appeals court's unusual decision to hear arguments before the full court rather than a panel of three judges.
"I will admit that I'd rather be bored every once in a while," McCarthy said. "But we'll deal with these issues moving forward."
She noted that 69 alumni of Vermont Law School -- which frequently tops environmental law school rankings -- are currently working at EPA.
McCarthy has a joint Master of Science in environmental health engineering and planning and policy from Tufts University, but no law degree.
"I've never liked lawyers until very recently," she said, to laughter. "If I was to describe my anxiety dream, it would be filled with lawyers. ... I am in Washington, living that dream."
She joked that the graduates have "learned firsthand what it means to be arbitrary and capricious," and urged them to take some time to feel pride before they start "cramming for the bar or heading to the bar."
McCarthy also praised President Obama's efforts on climate change and his tenure more broadly.
She noted the president's previous work as a constitutional law professor. "How boring is that?" she joked. "But he has not been boring. He's done pretty damn well for himself and for us."
She lauded his health care, economic and social legacy. "Today, anyone in America can marry whomever the hell they want to marry," she said.
She touted the work the Obama administration has done to clamp down on greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. And she said her agency has no plans to slow down this year. Obama has told her, "Gina, put on your sneakers because we're running across the finish line. There is no lame duckery in this administration," she said.
McCarthy urged the new lawyers to take chances in their careers. "If a door opens to you, walk through it," she said, noting that she never expected to become EPA's boss.
"I want you to take the job that you're not sure you can do," she told them. As the end of the Obama administration approaches, she said she expects to embrace "the next interesting thing that comes along" in January.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/24/stories/1060037761
-
LNG Terminal Project Bows Out After 11 Years of Planning
May 24, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Plans to develop a liquefied natural gas shipping terminal in far northern Maine have been put up for sale, marking a severe downturn in fortunes for a beleaguered project.
The Downeast LNG project proposes a relatively modest, 3-million-metric-ton-per-year LNG terminal on Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine, near the Canadian border.
Originally conceived in 2005 as an LNG import facility geared to serve gas-hungry markets in northern New England, the Downeast project proceeded so far as to win a favorable environmental review from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014. Developers changed course to propose adding export capabilities later that year, in a nod to the dramatic reversal that has taken place in U.S. natural gas supply (EnergyWire, July 24, 2014).
But the project has always faced loud local opposition, including from state and tribal constituencies in Maine and from Canadian officials, who have warned that they would not allow the passage of LNG tankers servicing the facility through Canadian waters.
Now, the question may be moot. Last week, George Petrides, chairman of the board of Downeast LNG, issued a press release announcing that the company would be put up for sale effective July 1.
"We have reviewed our strategy and decided that an industrial player or a specialized investor such as an infrastructure fund is better suited to continue the permitting process and eventual build-out of the project," Petrides said.
He acknowledged that "global LNG pricing has been low recently" but claimed that successful fundraising by other LNG developers indicates a potential market for the Downeast project portfolio.
The project's majority shareholder is a private energy investment firm called Yorktown Partners LLC, which Petrides said manages about $7 billion in investments.
There were signs last fall that the project was in trouble. In September, FERC said it was suspending the project's regular teleconference calls, and in October, project officials requested a freeze in the application process while they "undertook an economic analysis of market conditions and the associated impact on the proposed Downeast LNG project."
Robert Godfrey, a researcher with Save Passamaquoddy Bay who has opposed Downeast and other local LNG project proposals, welcomed the news that Downeast was bowing out.
"Downeast LNG and its investors at Kestrel Energy Partners and Yorktown Energy Partners have visited an unwelcome, decadelong pox on this international community," Godfrey said. "The project's lack of activity during the last six months, and the company's announcement that they lack qualification to complete the permitting, should require [FERC] to dismiss the project."
Downeast's project website -- a simple affair hosted by do-it-yourself website company WordPress -- does not show any news updates since July 2015.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/05/24/stories/1060037730
-
Pipeline Rupture Spews Thousands of Gallons of Crude
May 24, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
As much as 21,000 gallons of crude oil spilled yesterday after a pipeline ruptured along the Alameda County-San Joaquin County border near Tracy, Calif.
Over the weekend, a line between the cities of Coalinga and Martinez lost pressure, and a leak in the underground pipe was reported by Shell Pipeline Co. LP. Crude was spilling into the soil but was not near any waterways.
Shell officials said they have shut down their San Pablo Bay Pipeline and have a response team on the ground. The team is clearing away contaminated soil and keeping a close watch on local air, water and ground conditions.
The cause of the spill has not been determined, but officials said it should be fixed soon.
"Our primary focus continues to be the safety and health of the responders, for the protection of the environment and to minimize any further impact as a result of this release," said Ray Fisher, a company spokesman. "We are committed to the safe and thorough response and management of this incident".
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/05/24/stories/1060037764
-
GOP Looks to Cut EPA Funding, Block Obama Environment Rules
May 24, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
House Republicans on Tuesday released a $32.1 billion funding bill for the Interior Department and environmental programs that would cut Environmental Protection Agency regulatory funding and block key Obama administration rules.
The bill, which would cut $64 million in spending from current levels, is $1 billion less than President Obama requested in his budget.
Republicans are looking to cut the EPA’s budget by $164 million, a smaller cut than they’ve pursued in the past.
But the committee is targeting the agency’s regulatory agenda, saying it’s seeking a 6-percent funding cut. A host of Obama environmental rules, including those setting carbon limits on power plants, regulating methane emissions and defining bodies of water under the agency’s purview would also be blocked.
The committee last year looked to slice the EPA’s budget by $718 million. A year-end spending deal kept EPA funding flat, at $8.1 billion, and deleted all the policy riders attached to the bill.
This year's bill includes more than $2.1 billion for a clean water and drinking water state grant program, a fund the Obama administration had looked to cut in its budget request. GOP lawmakers have criticized Obama officials for requesting those cuts in their budget.
Republicans would keep funding mostly flat for the Office of Surface Mining in the bill, but aim to block an agency rule designed to protect streams around coal mining operations.
The bill also cuts funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service and directs the U.S. Forest Service to spend up to half its funding on wildfire prevention and suppression.
The Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee will mark up the bill on Wednesday. Lawmakers have not passed the appropriations bill through the House for several years. It hit the House floor last year, but faltered amid a debate over the display of the Confederate flag at national cemeteries.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/281042-house-looks-to-cut-epa-funding-block-obama-environment-rules
-
EPA Staff, Academics Weigh Role Of Ozone 'Exposure' In NAAQS Debate
May 24, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
As EPA and states move to implement the agency's new, tougher ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), agency staff and air quality researchers are debating how to differentiate personal "exposure" to ozone which could be many times less than levels of the pollutant in ambient air would otherwise suggest.
At a recent conference hosted by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in Washington, D.C., researcher Helen Suh of Northeastern University, an expert in the health effects of air pollution, argued that there is still a strong correlation between ambient levels of ozone and the personal exposures that actually trigger illness, at least in most areas in summer.
However, it is equally clear that personal exposures vary widely according to individual circumstances, making it difficult to make sweeping assumptions about ozone's real-world health effects, Suh said.
EPA set its ozone NAAQS Oct. 1 at 70 parts per billion (ppb) measured over eight hours, using a "form" that averages the fourth-highest ozone readings in a given area over three years. This is tougher than the prior standard, set in 2008, of 75 ppb that uses the same averaging time and form.
During the standard-setting process, opponents of a tougher NAAQS pointed to differences between ambient levels and actual exposures to argue against making the standard tougher, saying such a move would not result in discernible health benefits.
For example, Michael Honeycutt, director of toxicology with the Texas Commission On Environmental Quality, the state's air regulator, made this case in public comments on ozone NAAQS.
Speaking at the May 11 EPRI event, Suh said, "it is clear that personal exposures are much, much lower than ambient concentrations," yet NAAQS are based on the health risks of prolonged exposure to ambient levels.
Suh said ambient ozone is "a much poorer proxy" for personal exposure than ambient levels of other pollutants, such as fine particulate matter.
Ozone Exposures
Personal ozone exposures depend on a range of factors such as time spent outdoors and type of activity outdoors, where vigorous exercise or heavy work results in higher respired amounts of ozone and hence higher risk of adverse health effects.
In addition, Suh noted, indoor exposures differ according to ventilation of buildings, where buildings with doors and windows open experience ozone levels much closer to elevated ambient levels than those with windows closed and air conditioning running.
This ventilation factor can create regional differences in exposure, where some inhabitants of some regions that experience high summertime ozone generally stay indoors in air conditioning, hence avoiding high ozone exposures, while those living in other climates may receive higher ozone doses with the windows open.
Other factors include time of day, with high ozone levels typically associated with hot afternoons -- however, high wintertime ozone levels, such as those seen in high-altitude Western areas, may result in different exposure patterns, Suh noted.
Suh said her comments echoed similar observations by Lisa Baxter, an EPA research scientist.
NAAQS Attainment
Meanwhile, EPA Region 1 officials met with Connecticut meteorologists and air officials April 29 in Hartford, CT, to discuss how to attain the 70 ppb ozone NAAQS.
At the meeting, which included Region 1 Administrator H. Curtis Spalding and Rob Klee, commissioner of the state's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, officials discussed the state's ongoing ozone problem. Region 1 represents several Northeast states.
Even as ozone levels have fallen in other parts of the East Coast in recent years, Connecticut and metropolitan New York City appear to have more intractable ozone problems, and will struggle to meet the 70 ppb standard, Eastern air regulators have said.
Local weather patterns and transport of pollution from other states are factors in this problem, sources say, although others, such as the Midwest Ozone Group of Midwestern power utilities, say locally-sourced ozone is a significant factor in Connecticut.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-staff-academics-weigh-role-ozone-exposure-naaqs-debate
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested