Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 6/20/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Speciality Chemicals Continue 2nd Quarter on Soft Note, ACC Says
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) continued the second quarter of 2016 on a soft note, slipping 0.3 percent on a three-month moving average... -
White House Unveils Manufacturing Push to Slash Emissions
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A Los-Angeles based coalition will lead a new $140 million "smart" manufacturing institute backed by the White House as President Obama launches a week of "creativity and invention," the administration announced this morning. -
(ACC Mentioned) Congress Strengthens Toxic Substances Control Act in Rare Bipartisan, Pro-Environment Move
Jun 20, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Nithin Coca
According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the bill, which passed the Senate and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama soon, is the first major environmental legislation in over two decades. -
(ACC Mentioned) Reform in Australia: Benefit or Burden?
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Charlotte Niemiec
A year ago, the Australian government proposed sweeping amendments to the way it intended to manage chemicals, particularly the way the national chemicals agency, Nicnas, regulated the import of new substances. -
Obama to Sign Chemical Safety Law Wednesday
Jun 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Politico Staff
President Barack Obama will sign a recently passed chemical safety bill into law on Wednesday, the White House announced today. -
3 Things You Should Know About the Most Important Environmental Law Passed in Decades
Jun 20, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Jack Pratt
Something that cynics will find remarkable just happened: A big, bipartisan majority in Congress passed the most important new environmental law in decades—The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed by the Senate on June 7. -
Guest Column – American Chemical Society's David Constable
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By David Constable
For many in the green chemistry community, the thought is that by passing a variety of policies and regulations, you can remove a range of chemicals from use and, in the process of doing so, you will readily identify better, safer, alternative chemicals. -
Chemical Testing on Animals? Try Mini-Organs, Big Data, and Other Options First, Says Congress
Jun 20, 2016 | Fusion
By Renee Lewis
Millions of mice, rats, fish, birds and other animals are killed in the name of science every year in the United States. A new bipartisan bill that passed the U.S. Senate on June 7 and now awaits a presidential signature to become law aims to curb this practice... -
California Adopts Dermal Maximum Dose Level for BPA
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
The agency did not receive any comments during its consultation on the MADL. The regulation will take effect 1 October. -
Putting Toys to the Test
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Kelly Franklin
The US approach to ensuring toys are safely produced and sold to consumers is causing concerns for the US toy industry. -
Fragrance Ingredients: The Right to Know
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Alexandra Scranton
In recent years, manufacturers of fragranced products, and the industry as a whole, have started to accept the need to disclose ingredients. Consumers, particularly women, are asserting their right to know about chemicals they are exposed to in scented... -
New Study Rates Best and Worst Garden Hoses: Lead, Phthalates & Hazardous Flame Retardants in Garden Hoses
Jun 20, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
High levels of toxic lead and phthalate chemicals are still present in many garden and yard water hoses today, according to researchers at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center. The new research also discovered that half of the vinyl (PVC) hoses tested... -
Enviros Say Tougher RGGI Caps Are Worth the Price Tag
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Environmental advocates pushing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to strengthen its carbon limits say recent modeling on the Northeast cap-and-trade program backs up their arguments. -
Oil and Gas Responsible for Ethane Emissions Spike -- Study
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
Levels of a gas that causes ground-level ozone, which triggers asthma and respiratory problems in some people, have been rising steadily in the Northern Hemisphere. -
Utica Oil Production Declined In First Quarter As Ohio Operators Focused on NatGas
Jun 20, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
For the first time since it began tracking quarterly production data in early 2014, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) reported late Friday a sequential drop in first quarter oil production statewide, reflecting the commodities downturn and a shift... -
Los Angeles-Area Heat Wave, Gas Shortage Test Grid
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
A heat wave in Southern California today and tomorrow is stressing the power grid and could be the first test of whether natural gas shortages this summer will lead to rolling blackouts in the state. -
NIST Treads Carefully as Key Cyber Framework for Energy Evolves
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Changes are in store for a major cyberdefense document used in the energy, chemical and banking sectors, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. -
Retro Analog Tech a Danger to U.S. Power Grid
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Cris Thomas
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee recently introduced legislation intended to improve cybersecurity for the U.S. power grid by reintroducing “retro” analog technology to grid control systems. -
Union Pacific Decries Oil by Rail's 'Unsustainable' Patchwork
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
One of the biggest freight railroads in the United States is fed up with local attempts to regulate the transport of crude oil and other commodities, according to a letter sent to regulators last week. -
Week Ahead: EPA Chief on Hot Seat over 'Secret Science' Claims
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy will face off against an old foe on Capitol Hill next week. -
Clinton Climate Push Will Get Sanders Voters, Define Trump
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
“No good deed goes unpunished” is a familiar saying in Washington these days. It means that our politics are often so reactionary, and interest groups so powerful, that doing the morally right thing usually entails a political cost, not a benefit. -
4th Circuit Mine Discharges Suit May Pose New Test for CWA Permit 'Shield'
Jun 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is weighing a case over a West Virginia coal mine's discharges into nearby waters that could pose a new test for the Clean Water Act's (CWA) "shield" against enforcement for CWA permit holders... -
Bill to Eliminate N.Y. Emissions Dies in State Senate
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
The New York State Senate has quietly killed legislation that would have required the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major sources to zero by 2050.
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Speciality Chemicals Continue 2nd Quarter on Soft Note, ACC Says
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
The Specialty Chemicals Market Volume Index, a tool created by the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com) continued the second quarter of 2016 on a soft note, slipping 0.3 percent on a three-month moving average (3MMA) basis in May. The trend has been choppy and May’s decline was preceded by a revised 0.5 percent decline in April and a 0.2 percent drop in March. Weakness in oilfield chemicals and mining chemicals has weighed on overall volumes. Of the twenty-eight specialty chemical segments we monitor, eight expanded in May, with plastic additives and plasticizers experiencing large gains (1.0 percent or more) in underlying market volumes.
The overall specialty chemicals volume index was off 1.8 percent year-over-year (Y/Y) also on a 3MMA basis. Year-earlier comparisons were generally in the 4.0 percent to 6.8 percent range during 2012-2014 but since February 2015 they have fallen below that range as the downturn in the oil and gas sectors affected headline volumes. In addition, the strong U.S. dollar has adversely affected a number of export-oriented customer industries. Weakness spread to other segments as well and year-earlier comparisons have been negative since second quarter 2015. Still, on a Y/Y basis, gains are fairly widespread among most market and functional specialty chemical segments. With few exceptions, however, year-earlier comparisons have been moderating.
Specialty chemicals are materials manufactured on the basis of the unique performance or function and provide a wide variety of effects on which many other sectors and end-use products rely. They can be individual molecules or mixtures of molecules, known as formulations. The physical and chemical characteristics of the single molecule or mixtures along with the composition of the mixtures influence the performance end product. Individual market sectors that rely on such products include automobile, aerospace, agriculture, cosmetics and food, among others.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemicals-continue-2nd-quarter-on-soft-note-acc-says/
-
White House Unveils Manufacturing Push to Slash Emissions
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
A Los-Angeles based coalition will lead a new $140 million "smart" manufacturing institute backed by the White House as President Obama launches a week of "creativity and invention," the administration announced this morning.
The Smart Manufacturing Leadership Coalition -- an association open to companies, educators, groups and government agencies -- will lead the newly minted Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute.
It's the ninth such hub the Obama administration has created among multiple federal agencies to slash emissions and improve efficiency with the manufacture of everything from cars to appliances.
In 2013, the president called for the creation of the Nationwide Network for Manufacturing Innovation after his council of advisers on science and technology released a report on boosting the country's manufacturing edge.
In a conference call with reporters this morning, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz spoke about boosting production while addressing power needs and pollution concerns.
"Given the fact that a third of the nation's energy consumption is in manufacturing, this has a potentially very, very significant impact," he said.
Obama will make the coalition announcement today during remarks at the upcoming SelectUSA Investment Summit in Washington, D.C., as part of a weeklong series of events highlighting administration "innovative progress" over the past eight years.
The White House said today it was on track to meet the president's goal to create 15 manufacturing institutes before he leaves office.
The White House said five new manufacturing hub competitions at the departments of Energy, Defense and Commerce would invest almost $800 million public and private dollars in several topic areas, including "revolutionizing the ways materials can be reused and recycled."
Competitions will help determine who ultimately runs a given institute, as well as its partners. For the administration, the hubs are a way to create jobs as well as cut emissions.
The White House said the U.S. manufacturing sector added more than 800,000 jobs since February 2010. Many congressional lawmakers are concerned about a looming "skills gap" with manufacturing as seasoned workers retire (E&E Daily, April 13).
Integrating IT
The Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute is focused on integrating information technology into the manufacturing process via devices like smart sensors that reduce energy use.
In one example, the White House said the institute would partner with the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) to test advanced sensors in the production of carbon fiber, a durable and lightweight material with potential applications in equipment such as wind turbines. Of the $140 million, $70 million is already-appropriated federal funding, DOE said.
The smart manufacturing institute will partner with more than 200 companies, universities, national labs and nonprofits. Microsoft Corp., Alcoa Inc., Corning Inc., the California Chamber of Commerce, the University of Virginia and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory are among the partners.
The institute also announced today it would launch five centers focusing on tech transfer and employment in regions around the country. They mainly will be headed by universities in California, Texas, North Carolina and New York, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The University of California, Los Angeles, will host that state's center.
The five new hub competition topics:
· The Modular Chemical Process Intensification Institute, led by DOE, aims to revamp the manufacturing process for chemicals and refining fuels by streamlining the number of steps to produce a given product. As an example, the White House said one approach could allow natural gas refining "directly at the wellhead."
· The Reducing Embodied Energy and Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) in Materials Manufacturing Institute, also led by DOE, aims to reduce the total lifetime energy use of manufactured materials via reuse and recycling.
· Two other competitions will be led by the Department of Defense. One will focus on advancing technology on robots for manufacturing. The other will target technologies that repair cells and tissues.
· An additional Department of Commerce institute will be an "open topic" institute, which may cover any area not currently targeted by an institute.
The nine existing institutes have committed to almost $2 billion in investments, with more than half the total coming from non-federal sources.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039098
-
Jun 20, 2016 | Triple Pundit
By Nithin Coca
According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the bill, which passed the Senate and is expected to be signed into law by President Barack Obama soon, is the first major environmental legislation in over two decades.
The bill passed with bipartisan support, championed by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.) and Republican David Vitter (La.). The former is a recognized environmental champion. The latter? A major surprise, as Sen. Vitter is a member of a party which has, too often, allowed empty rhetoric and special interests to dominate over science. One of his colleagues brought a snowball in the Senate chambers, as a prop to ignore climate change.
The key thing that this bill does is allow regulators access to information needed to ensure the safety of products in commerce, while also being able to safeguard confidential business information. It also empowers the Environmental Protection Agency, which strongly supported the bill, to better evaluate, manage and assess risk-associated chemicals in our market. It even sets time-bound deadlines for the EPA to take action.
This is important, because we live in a world where over 90 percent of manufactured goods include at least one chemical. Forty years ago, when the Toxic Substances Control Act was first passed, this was not the case, which is one reason why the outdated bill was in dire need of updating. This law has the potential to have a real impact in making our environmental cleaner.
Perhaps one reason the bill passed with such diverse, bipartisan support is that it was supported not only by environmental nonprofits like EDF, but by many in the business community as well, who understand that clear, safe regulations can actually benefit them too.
“This legislation will offer the kind of predictability, consistency and certainty that manufacturers and the national marketplace need, while also strengthening oversight and providing consumers with more confidence in the safety of chemicals,” said Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council, in a press statement.
The bill was named in honor of former New Jersey Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, who spearheaded its progress in the Senate up until he passed away in 2013. While passing such an important bill is a major step, all is not said and done, of course, because now comes the hard part – making the law work and ensuring our environment is free of deadly chemicals.
“Implementing the new law will take the same level of hard work and dedication it’s taken to get us to this point – and that will be a real challenge in an area fraught with contention and conflict,” said Richard Denison, a lead senior scientist at EDF, in a blog post.
Still, the EPA now has a new tool in its arsenal to protect us from dangerous chemicals. Let’s also hope that this also becomes a blueprint for how Republicans and Democrats can come together on environmental issues. Because I hear there’s this really big challenge, climate change, that could use some major Congressional action (and amajority of Republicans agree).
http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/06/congress-strengthens-toxic-substances-control-act-rare-bipartisan-pro-environment-move/#
-
(ACC Mentioned) Reform in Australia: Benefit or Burden?
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Charlotte Niemiec
A year ago, the Australian government proposed sweeping amendments to the way it intended to manage chemicals, particularly the way the national chemicals agency, Nicnas, regulated the import of new substances.
At the time, the assistant minister for health, Fiona Nash, said the reason for the reforms was to introduce a “more proportion, risk-based framework”. It was expected that changing the system would also save industry around A$23m a year and benefit all companies, “from cosmetics manufacturers to those making household cleaning products”, according to Ms Nash.
Initially, industry said it welcomed reform, but public responses to the first and second consultation papers indicate the welcome is waning and equivocal. Industry, government and NGOs have weighed in and, while most agree reform is needed, there are clashes over the specifics. Some of the concerns flagged so far relate to the use of international risk assessments, the proposed matrix banding, overlooking of existing chemicals and the attitude towards endocrine disruptors (see box).
The premise
Nicnas said the idea was to make it easier for companies to import lower-risk chemicals that are new to the Australian market. As the Australian equivalent of Echa in the EU, Nicnas is responsible for assessing and registering new and existing chemicals, and maintaining the country’s chemical inventory (AICS).
The agency said the number of chemicals subject to pre-market approval was expected to decrease by more than 70% as a result of the reforms. It explained that approximately 9,000 “new” chemicals (those not listed on the AICS) are introduced into the country each year under exemption provisions of the Industrial Chemicals (notification and assessment) Act 1989 (ICNA Act). A further 300 new chemicals each year currently do not fall under these exemption provisions and must be assessed by Nicnas before introduction. Following the reforms, the hope was that pre-market assessments by Nicnas would drop from approximately 3.3% of all new chemicals to 0.75%.
Matrix banding
One aim of the reforms was to balance requirements in proportion to the risk of a new chemical. As the assessment priorities were to shift to “higher-risk” chemicals this would make it easier for companies to import chemicals of lower risk.
Nicnas planned to classify chemicals into one of three categories, ranging from very low-risk chemicals (with no notification requirements) to high-risk chemicals (requiring stringent notification and reporting). Following responses from industry, this has been changed to exempted, reported and assessed chemicals, respectively.
But the Plastics and Chemicals Industries Association (Pacia) says the benefits afforded to exempted chemicals will be limited to those transhipped through Australia or used in small-scale R&D activities. If unchanged, this will result in the majority of chemicals being classified as ‘reported’. This will increase regulatory burden and complexity over the existing scheme, for chemicals that carry a very low risk, it says.
Furthermore, Australian importers of some raw materials will be subject to full regulatory burden, even though products manufactured or sold on the market would contain concentrations of these below the proposed thresholds, Pacia says. But this does not apply to importers of similar competing products manufactured overseas.
This, combined with a shift to a post-introduction audit regime, will result in importers opting for the more stringent ‘assessed’ option, which will require increased resources and negate the promised savings to industry, it adds.
Cosmetics
The cosmetics industry claims it will be severely affected by the reforms and many of the responses to consultation paper two were from this sector.
Cosmetics Europe says the high level of information required to import formulated cosmetics will discourage companies, particularly SMEs, from innovating in Australia. This, it says, will increase complexity and is “out of step with other global economies” (see box).
Johnson & Johnson largely agreed, saying it was “quite disappointed” with the paper and the “lack of consideration” of the cosmetic industry’s concerns.
Estée Lauder says the proposals only increase complexity and cost for industry. Its main concern is “the level of data requirements and the extremely conservative approach on evaluating chemicals, especially the low-risk chemicals used in formulated cosmetic products.”
Endocrine disrupting chemicals: big concern to ACC
Kelly Franklin, North America Editor
The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) director of regulatory and technical affairs, Alexa Burr, says that the trade group’s interest in Nicnas reforms is “both from a trade perspective, and for their potential to serve as a precedent for risk-based chemical regulation globally – in particular, in the Asia Pacific region.”
In general, the trade group supports the “general direction” of the reforms. This includes a favourable outlook on the approach to regulatory cooperation, reduced need for animal testing, and the increased transparency between regulatory systems that have been proposed.
It also appreciates Nicnas addressing “many” of the initial comments it raised in response to consultation paper one, such as the chemicals agency raising the threshold for pre-market assessment, and the creation of an online information system with the capacity to submit internationally harmonised Iuclid-based notifications directly.
The latter “is a very practical action that will significantly help streamline industry’s submission process, by reducing unnecessary duplicative notification,” it says.
ACC areas of concern
But, in response to the second consultation paper, the ACC’s feedback highlighted two areas that the trade group remained “very concerned” with:
· the inclusion of endocrine disruptors in risk matrices and hazard classification criteria; and
· the non-acceptance of assessments from the US EPA.
Regarding endocrine disruptors, Nicnas says that stakeholder feedback has indicated they are “of significant concern to the community”.
“To maintain human health and environmental protections, known endocrine disruption has been included in the new chemicals matrix so that known endocrine disruptors would not be permitted to be introduced without a pre-market assessment by Nicnas,” says consultation paper three.
Building on bilateral relationship
The third paper also indicates that “while stakeholders expressed strong support for Nicnas accepting [US EPA] assessments, no additional information was provided to enable Nicnas to change the outcome of the initial evaluation against the criteria.”
The chemicals agency will, however, “build on its current bilateral relationship with the US EPA to further explore the extent to which assessment materials from US EPA could be adopted by Nicnas in the future.”
International risk assessments
Many responses criticise the complete rejection of US risk assessments but, so far, Nicnas hasn’t budged on the issue. While the reforms will include the use of many international risk assessments, such as those from the EU, Canada and China, Nicnas does not consider the US a “trusted source”, it says. This is because there are “issues relating to transparency … and differences in regulatory coverage”.
The agency says the US EPA does not publish assessment reports or evaluate the public health risk from the use of cosmetics. Therefore, US assessments do not fulfil the criteria proposed for Australian chemical management.
Nevertheless, public responses to this emphasise the importance of data sharing and urged Nicnas to reconsider.
The NGO perspective
Cruelty Free International says the proposals for this “hazard-focused regulation” will lead to a heavy burden on industry. Giving the EU as an example, it says: “Tremendous administrative effort is expended to fill the hazard endpoints of the Iuclid database, while exposure considerations receive little attention. This has led to a heavy burden on industry, including an increase in unnecessary and misdirected animal testing.”
It adds that the majority of substances to be registered may have already been in other jurisdictions. This existing risk assessment information should be used as a mandatory requirement, to prevent additional animal testing.
But some NGOs feel the reforms aren’t stringent enough. Friends of the Earth (FoE) calls paper two “a deeply disappointing document”. The proposals call for a significant amount of voluntary or self-regulation but “there is substantial evidence that the vast majority of self-regulatory approaches fail to meet promised outcomes or legitimate public expectations.”
FoE recommends that any self-regulation should be mandatory, enforceable and enforced, and subject to regular audits and review.
Existing chemicals rules
Consultation paper one proposed that the new Nicnas assessment scheme would replace both the Inventory Multi-Tiered Assessment and Prioritisation (Imap) scheme and the priority existing chemicals (Pec) process, as well as secondary notification assessments. Instead, Nicnas will be able to assess or reassess any existing chemical itself. This process will start when the reforms are rolled out between 1 September 2016 and 1 September 2018.
But NGO National Toxics Network (NTN) says the proposed reforms are “fundamentally unacceptable” as they do not address the existing, unassessed chemicals listed on the AICS, which comprise 85% of substances. These, it says, represent the greatest volume and number of chemicals with unknown hazards and unquantified risks.
“The reform process makes no mention of how it proposes to manage [these] … Instead, this entire reform process focuses on the 7% of chemicals that are new chemicals,” says NTN.
It adds that it is concerned that the proposed reforms will abolish the Pec assessment process and “the issue of unassessed existing chemicals will now just be swept under the carpet.”
However, Nicnas’s initial announcement said that changes to the way existing chemicals are assessed are in the pipeline. The Pec assessment process will be replaced with “a more concise assessment process”, focused on particular concerns about a chemical.
Other reforms in the works
In addition to the Nicnas reforms, Australia announced a standard last month designed to ensure there is a nationally consistent and streamlined approach to the environmental risk management of industrial chemicals, across all states and agencies.
The Department of Environment (DoE) says the current framework for managing hazardous chemicals in Australia is fragmented and inconsistent, which leads to duplications and inefficiency. Currently, the government is responsible for undertaking risk assessments of chemicals and setting management standards. But states, territories and local governments are responsible for the management of chemicals at the local level. They may choose which of the government’s recommendations to implement.
While Nicnas is responsible for the risk assessment process – and will continue in this role – the standard will set procedures for the process itself.
The DoE says risk management measures will be developed in consultation with government and industry over the coming months, but it plans to implement the standard in 2018.
Six ways to streamline the system
Luke Buxton, Europe Editor
In its response to Nicnas’s first consultation paper on implementing the reforms, Cosmetics Europe said that the reforms reveal an “additional requirement” imposed on cosmetic and personal care products that already comply with the EU Cosmetics Regulation. This creates “disproportionate burden and costs for the industry without additional gain in terms of consumer protection and safety or meaningful consumer information.”
It “strongly encouraged” Nicnas to automatically consider products as low risk if they already own a safety assessment and comply with the EU regulation, and not to impose any additional requirements for their ingredients.
It welcomed the agency’s risk assessment-based efforts but, in its response to the second paper, the association says Nicnas should act as an “assessment agency only”, rather than a risk manager.
In such a role, it should accept “trusted assessments” from international agencies, such as those from China, the EU, Canada and the US.
After the release of the second paper, Cosmetics Europe said it is “most particularly worried by” the prohibitively small volume thresholds, the focus on end use and the requirement for full hazard characterisation to categorise a chemical as exempt.
The association wants Nicnas to consider the following key concepts:
o
a more realistic categorisation by using material safety data sheets (MSDSs) for non-hazardous chemicals currently eligible for self-assessment;o polymers should be treated as exempted chemicals, based on the OECD definition and EU regulatory system under REACH;
o a more realistic (higher) introduction volume for categorisation of chemicals should be set out. In the EU, the REACH Regulation is not applicable for chemical substances of less than one tonne per year;
o a differentiation – and appropriate regulatory treatment of – chemicals in formulated products, versus single chemicals, should be applied; and
o retention of the existing ≤1% cut-off for formulated products to accommodate ingredients included at one percent.
As a “show of good faith”, the association also urges Nicnas to consider the introduction of early reform measures, which has been previously suggested by industry association Accord.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48093/reform-in-australia-benefit-or-burden
-
Obama to Sign Chemical Safety Law Wednesday
Jun 20, 2016 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Politico Staff
President Barack Obama will sign a recently passed chemical safety bill into law on Wednesday, the White House announced today.
H.R. 2576, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, updates the Toxic Substances Control Act for the first time in 40 years, giving EPA new authority to regulate thousands of chemicals used in a variety of products.
The president is scheduled to sign the bill at a ceremony at 11:15 a.m. in the South Court Auditorium at the White House.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy
-
3 Things You Should Know About the Most Important Environmental Law Passed in Decades
Jun 20, 2016 | EcoWatch
By Jack Pratt
Something that cynics will find remarkable just happened: A big, bipartisan majority in Congress passed the most important new environmental law in decades—The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, passed by the Senate on June 7. It finally fixes the biggest problems with America’s badly broken chemical safety system.
Here’s what you need to know:
1. Deadly Chemicals Can Now Be Banned
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will finally have the power to ban dangerous uses of known carcinogens such as asbestos and formaldehyde.
Amazingly, until this reform, the government lacked authority to restrict these and other deadly chemicals, including many used in everyday household products.
2. New Chemicals Will Be Screened
Most people think chemicals have to be shown to be safe before they’re put in products we buy in the store, such as couches, clothes and cleaning products. But that’s just not true.
With this reform, the 700 or so new chemicals that come on the market every year will finally have clear a safety bar first—and Americans will no longer be guinea pigs.
3. Industry Can No Longer Hide Health Threats
Companies used to be able to claim any information they submitted to the EPA, including secret health studies of chemicals, to be “confidential business information.” No more.
The new law stops this practice and allows only legitimate trade secrets, never health information, to be protected from public disclosure.
But what happened in Congress goes beyond these much-needed health protections for Americans. We witnessed Congress work across the aisle for the common good. That gave me new hope.
Jack Pratt is Environmental Defense Fund’s chemicals campaign director.
https://ecowatch.com/2016/06/20/chemical-safety-act/
-
Guest Column – American Chemical Society's David Constable
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By David Constable
For many in the green chemistry community, the thought is that by passing a variety of policies and regulations, you can remove a range of chemicals from use and, in the process of doing so, you will readily identify better, safer, alternative chemicals.
Some believe that substitution of chemicals, for example, bisphenol A, brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated compounds, and others that perform a particular function, is a relatively straightforward thing to do. The thinking is that either alternatives exist, or are easily and rapidly commercialised. The problem is that neither is true; in most cases viable (technically and economically), safer alternatives don’t exist, and commercialisation of new chemicals is a seven to ten-year odyssey that is fairly expensive, especially if you are attempting to avoid running afoul of legislation like REACH.
It is true that, in much of the world, you see little change in the types of chemicals produced by the high-volume chemical manufacturing industry – think plastics and the things that go into them or basic chemical building blocks. In the US, unless some new regulation comes along, industry will continue to produce these chemicals, focusing on complying with existing regulation and demonstrating that they are being produced without significant risk to human health or to the environment.
If new legislation comes along, most industry effort is expended in heading it off, and then fighting the regulations in court in the event they become law. This part of the chemical industry does not invest in research that changes the types of chemicals or molecules that are produced, since doing that would affect their business and they would have to put money into and help develop new markets and products, throughout a rather complex supply chain. Regulation does not promote innovation in this case.
Chemical regulations for lower-volume chemicals have appeared on various lists, and there have been a number of these chemicals removed from the market over many years; such as those found in the specialties/fine chemicals/pharmaceuticals/crop protection sectors that generally take a one-chemical-at-a-time approach. For example, a few surfactants, plasticisers and brominated flame retardants.
In the US, apart from TSCA, there has been no substantive movement of chemicals legislation, nor is there legislation that is promoting systemic changes towards greener or more sustainable chemistry. For example, with the so-called California green chemistry regulations, emphasis is on performing an alternatives assessment for a select number of what are considered by regulators to be the most inherently hazardous chemicals. How an alternative assessment will be done remains an issue and it is very likely that the outcome for any substance evaluated will be fought in the courts. Industry generally adopts a wait-and-see approach before deciding what to do. In this instance, regulations stifle innovation because no one wants to do anything for fear that a new regulation will come along and prevent the commercialisation of a new compound. Or they will argue that there are no technical and/or economically viable alternatives and fight to keep what they have.
One other sad fact is that for many parts of the chemical industry, regulations like REACH have helped push the nastiest chemistries to other nations where great chemical regulations may be on the books, but they are not enforced.
Finally, any new technology or chemical alternative, regardless of whether it is introduced in response to a regulation or to develop a new market, has an uphill battle to become profitable. If it is a displacement chemical, that is, it is displacing an existing substance, it will be resisted if it is not a drop-in substitute, or if it is perceived as taking away an existing market along with all the jobs that go with it.
If it is a drop-in replacement, but it has a different supply chain, it will also be resisted because of the established and trusted supplier relationships that may be affected. To my knowledge, there are no chemical regulations that attempt to incentivise or assist in the inevitable market re-alignment that accompanies new innovations.
This is not a black and white issue but a very complex one, with many different drivers and no simple solutions. Regulations however, are a very blunt instrument and they don’t incentivise the people who are most responsible for innovations in chemistry. Perhaps there is an opportunity to establish regulations that promote innovations in chemistry R&D, supported through public-private partnerships?
Disclaimer: This is the opinion of Mr Constable and does not necessarily reflect the views of the American Chemical Society or of the ACS GCI.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48108/guest-column-american-chemical-societys-david-constable
-
Chemical Testing on Animals? Try Mini-Organs, Big Data, and Other Options First, Says Congress
Jun 20, 2016 | Fusion
By Renee Lewis
Millions of mice, rats, fish, birds and other animals are killed in the name of science every year in the United States. A new bipartisan bill that passed the U.S. Senate on June 7 and now awaits a presidential signature to become law aims to curb this practice in favor of more animal-friendly—and often quicker and cheaper—forms of chemical testing.
Both animal rights groups and the toxicologists who test chemical safety, sometimes on animals, support the update, which is part of a broad-sweeping reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—a 40-year-old law that governs chemicals and regulates their safety.
The bill provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with more authority to require review of untested chemicals, and encourages the use of modern alternatives to traditional animal testing.
Millions of mice, rats, fish, birds and other animals are killed in the name of science every year in the United States. A new bipartisan bill that passed the U.S. Senate on June 7 and now awaits a presidential signature to become law aims to curb this practice in favor of more animal-friendly—and often quicker and cheaper—forms of chemical testing.
Both animal rights groups and the toxicologists who test chemical safety, sometimes on animals, support the update, which is part of a broad-sweeping reform to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)—a 40-year-old law that governs chemicals and regulates their safety.
The bill provides the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with more authority to require review of untested chemicals, and encourages the use of modern alternatives to traditional animal testing.
“It’s not only about not using animals for ethical reasons, it’s about costs and how long it takes—four-five years for cancer testing,” Hartung said.
The TSCA reform bill would modernize the scientific approach to testing chemical substances by using data to screen the chemicals deemed most likely dangerous to human health.
“It’s a tiered approach to testing, and it would specify how to set priorities for chemicals that need to be tested,” William Farland, an expert on toxicology at Colorado State University and chair of the Society of Toxicology’s TSCA Task Force, said. Farland and the task force worked for years with congressional members and their staff to ensure the science of toxicology was included in discussions around the TSCA reform bill.
As part of the bill, the EPA would create a database of validated alternatives to animal testing that would be updated as the science evolved. Also, the EPA would be expected to fund research and development of new alternatives to animal testing.
While some of this was already being done by the EPA and toxicologists informally, the new law would take it further faster, experts agreed.
“Writing this into law is one way to encourage the EPA to do and fund research that will increase alternative tests that are available,” Farland said.
“It’ll encourage others to develop those types of tests, and will stimulate the idea that we’ll be able to get some of the answers we need without using whole animal tests,” Farland added.
As toxicologists, Farland said, “it’s in our interest to make sure the bill is written in a way that encourages the best science and gives the EPA the kinds of tools that can help it stay up to date.”
Researchers are increasingly developing viable alternatives, Hartung said.
“There is big data coming to toxicology,” Hartung said, adding that computational approaches are already being widely used by European regulators.
“It’s a very progressive approach by which a lot of information is used to characterize a chemical and find out (how it behaves),” Hartung said. “This approach will help characterize more chemicals to prioritize the few for which more extensive testing is necessary.”
For example, the most recent chemical legislation in Europe brought together data on some 15,000 chemicals. For one, this analysis helped show that a computational approach using that data predicts skin irritation as well as animal tests do.
Another alternative to animal testing is to grow your own human organs. CAAT announced in February that it had grown mini-brains, and Hartung said others had developed mini-livers and other organs.
Growing mini-organs has never been easier thanks to the discovery that skin cells could be transformed into embryonic stem cells—avoiding the controversy of getting stem cells from embryos, Hartung said.
“These stem cell models really opened up fantastic models for many organs, and it’s only started being integrated into testing but we expect over the next few years that a lot of these methods will lend themselves to be used in (chemical substances) testing,” Hartung said.
“I’ve really been astonished at how fast some of these developments have taken place,” Hartung said.
While human mini-organs may seem better for testing than animals of another species, testing on isolated organs still doesn’t work as well a whole biological system.
“We have to have a way to test chemicals in biological systems,” said Farland. “We don’t want to wait until we see something happen in humans so we need to use surrogates for those tests, and typically those have been on animals.”
In addition to being used for chemical safety tests, animals—most often mice or rats—are still used to test pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and medical procedures.
In some cases, there’s no existing alternative to seeing a chemical’s effect on a biological system “with the ability to transport that chemical, metabolize, or change that chemical into something else, and seeing the different susceptibilities of different organs—an animal becomes integral for all of that information,” Farland said.
Hartung agreed with that, saying that alternative methods do exist, “but there’s clearly some aspects of safety assessment where there’s no reasonable alternative method.”
But animal rights advocates countered that animal testing wasn’t always predictive of a chemical’s effect on human health.
“The predictivity of animal tests, even between like species, is only around 50%,” said Sara Amundson, executive director of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “There’s no possible way of actually assessing 80,000 plus chemicals for human and environmental consequences without utilizing 21st-century science.”
Amundson said the the TSCA update is “not meant to replace all animal testing tomorrow, but it is certainly the precursor to ensuring that good 21st century science that happens to minimize the use of animals is considered.”
http://fusion.net/story/316262/congress-puts-chemical-testing-on-animals-to-the-test/
-
California Adopts Dermal Maximum Dose Level for BPA
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has adopted a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) of three micrograms per day for bisphenol A (BPA) from dermal exposure from solid materials.
The agency did not receive any comments during its consultation on the MADL. The regulation will take effect 1 October.
BPA was listed a reproductive toxicant under Proposition 65 last year. Warning for exposure to the substance above safe harbour levels has been required since 11 May 2016. The MADL represents the safe harbour level below which warning is not required to be provided.
A MADL for oral exposure – which includes exposure to BPA from food contact materials – has yet to be developed.
The Can Manufacturers Institute and the North American Metal Packaging Alliance have both called on Oehha not to allow its emergency regulation that allows for point-of-sale BPA warnings to expire prior to adoption of an oral MADL.
The agency has said that it is waiting for federal research on BPA to finish before establishing an oral safe harbour level. This research is scheduled for completion in 2017 or 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48152/california-adopts-dermal-maximum-dose-level-for-bpa
-
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Kelly Franklin
The US approach to ensuring toys are safely produced and sold to consumers is causing concerns for the US toy industry. Children’s products must have a children’s product certificate (CPC) before they can be sold. Furthermore, third-party testing is required when a product is brought to the market, when there is a change to its materials, and also on a periodic basis over specific timeframes.
But is third-party testing having the desired effect in the US and how does it compare to the EU’s approach?US: CPSIA
Consumer concern in 2007 over a number of high-profile lead paint violations – including a recall of close to two million Mattel toys – helped pave the way for the US Congress to pass the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) the next year.
The CPSIA brought the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) a host of new regulatory and enforcement tools to address product safety. Included in these were new restrictions on lead and phthalates in children’s products, as well as third-party testing and certification requirements.
The Toy Industry Association (TIA) says that it is “supportive of the concept of mandatory third-party testing”, including requiring periodic retests of products, and tests when a material change is made. And it says that industry “by and large [was] doing exactly this, long before the passage of the Consumer Products Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA).”
But the CPSIA requires these third-party tests to be conducted, and certificates of compliance to be issued. This, according to the TIA, is needed even when it is known that a specific substance will not be present, such as testing for restricted phthalates in polypropylene.
As such, the industry group says that the mandatory testing under CPSIA “increased testing costs markedly, without making products any safer”. This, in turn, diverts resources from other compliance activities. “The focus on testing, and testing alone, is problematic because testing is emphasised at the expense of other steps,” says the trade group. This could include such safeguards as production process controls, which they say are “also a key part of a well-functioning quality system”.
Costs and benefits
According to the TIA, the burden of this testing is “significant”. It estimates that the annual incremental costs are approximately $1bn – across an industry that generates about $22bn in annual retail sales.
But a spokesperson for the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) says that the third-party testing and strict safety standards for children’s products “has led to fewer recalls and greater safety for consumers, especially children”. It notes that the number of recalls for lead in toys has “dropped dramatically” since 2008.
According to CPSC data, there were 19 toy recalls in 2008 involving lead. By 2010, that number had dipped to just three, and recalls due to lead have stayed under four per year since that time. The US NGO Public Interest Research Group – which issues the annual Trouble in Toyland report, analysing chemicals in toys – says the commission’s data “shows that the CPSIA has had a role in reversing a dangerous trend”.
The TIA points out that the same high-profile lead recalls in 2007-2008, that drove the passage of the CPSIA, were also of significant concern to industry, and contributed to a renewed global commitment to ensuring product compliance and safety.
An increased CPSC focus on port interdiction efforts, since then, has also helped ensure that noncompliant products are identified, before entering domestic commerce. The TIA asserts that both of these factors have had at least as significant an impact on recall numbers as has third-party testing.EU: toy safety Directive
The European Commission says it is not considering a similar third-party testing approach because the EU toy safety Directive’s requirements are among the “most ambitious worldwide”.
The toy safety Directive allows the manufacturer to certify the conformity of their toys with the applicable safety requirements without involving a third party, says a European Commission spokesperson.
“To be able to do so, they must follow the harmonised European standards covering all relevant safety aspects of the toys,” the spokesperson says. However, if the manufacturer prefers to go for third-party certification they are free to do so.
According to the spokesperson, experience in the EU has shown that these rules are “adequate for the toy sector”.
“Having a mandatory third-party certification for all toys, therefore, does not appear necessary or proportionate.”
An evaluation, performed by an independent consultant in 2015, confirmed that the toy safety Directive is an effective tool for toy safety and did not suggest a revision of the testing and certification procedures, according to the Commission.
Introduction of mandatory testing in the US
In the US, children’s products subject to a rule, standard, ban or regulation, administered by the CPSC, must have a children’s product certificate (CPC) before they can be entered into commerce. Testing is required when a product is brought to the market, when there is a change to its materials, and also on a periodic basis over specific timeframes.
Total lead content in accessible parts is limited to 100 parts per million (ppm) for all children’s products. Lead in paint and surface coatings is limited to 90ppm.
For phthalates, the CPSIA permanently prohibits children’s products containing more than 0.1% of DEHP, DBP and BBP. Interim bans, above threshold levels, are also in place for DINP, DIDP and DnOP.
There are also solubility limits for several heavy metals in children’s products: antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and selenium.
Competitive impact
Agreeing, the European toy industry association,TIE, says the introduction of mandatory third-party testing for toys “doesn’t make toys safer for children”. Instead, it says, it causes unnecessary extra costs for the reputable toy manufacturers that “already take great care that their products comply with the stringent EU toy safety rules”.
“Mandatory third-party testing would provide yet another competitive advantage to those manufacturers that do not care about following the rules.”
The TIE says that introducing this would not prevent these “rogue players” from putting substandard toys on the market. It would, instead, like to see “better, smarter market surveillance and well-funded enforcement of existing rules, with real penalties for willful offenders.”
However, Michael Warhurst, executive director of UK-based NGO, CHEM Trust, says that the US brought in third-party testing requirements because even the reputable companies were not following the rules.
Placing responsibility, he says, in the hands of the manufacturer is not guaranteed to deliver the appropriate level of safety. The only way to achieve this, he adds, is through more transparency on how toy companies are doing this.
In addition, he says, there are questions on exactly how to define reputable versus non reputable companies, and that it’s “very clear” that there is no comprehensive surveillance system in place.
“I suspect if you tested all the toys in a non-branded bargain shop/household goods shop on the average downmarket UK high street, a pretty significant number would be found to be illegal,” he says.
“This is, of course, accentuated by the lack of effective, coordinated and well resourced enforcement action in the UK for example,” he adds.Chemical requirements of the EU’s toy safety Directive
· Toys must comply with all applicable EU chemical legislation, including REACH; the restriction on heavy metals and compounds; the compositional and labelling requirements of the EU cosmetic Directive
· Toys and their components must not contain carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for reproduction (CMR) classified substances
· Toys must not contain 55 specified allergenic fragrances
· It also includes a restriction on nitrosamines and nitrosable substances (EN 71-12), TCEP, TCPP, TDCP and bisphenol A (BPA) in toys, intended for children under 36 months, or in other toys, intended to be placed in the mouth
International view
Regarding support for international adoption of mandatory testing, the TIA says that, while it does not take issue with the concept of such testing, “given the continuing unintended consequences and wasted costs, created by the CPSIA testing mandate, our preference would be for other jurisdictions to maintain regulatory regimes that focus on compliance.” That is, that jurisdictions require performance to a certain set of standards, without mandating how compliance is achieved.
The toy industry says that such an approach would minimise superfluous testing that does little to contribute to a product’s safety, and allow allocation of those resources “in a manner which is most effective in establishing and maintaining compliance, considering the specifics of the individual product and supply chain involved.”
But Mr Warhurst says a balance needs to be found between the importance of checking that toys are safe and the cost of this process.
One option, he says, would be to “fuse the two systems in some way”.
“For example, ensuring that toy companies had to make testing certificates available (for example on the web, accessible by product barcode), so you could see what testing had actually been done - this could potentially include first or third-party testing.”
He says that it could then be made unlawful to sell toys in Europe that did not have this information available.
“You could then scan the barcode of a toy in a shop, and if no record of testing was found then this toy would be viewed as illegal, without having to go through the expense of analysis.”
This system, he says, would still require a level of testing and enforcement: “The European Commission could publish a report each year of what testing had been done by different member states – similar to a league table.”US burden relief
Congress’s 2011 passage of Public Law 112-28 awarded the CPSC additional powers, including increased discretion for it to enforce the Consumer Products Safety Act (CPSA).
It also directed the agency to seek ways to reduce the burdens imposed by third-party testing, “consistent with assuring compliance with any applicable consumer product safety rule, ban, standard, or regulation”.
Since that time, the CPSC has taken steps to promulgate rules allowing for certain testing exemptions. These have included lead in certain textiles and untreated wood in toys.
But to date, there are concerns about the success of these actions. The TIA says, of the efforts to reduce third-party testing burdens, “unfortunately, we have concerns that CPSC’s standard for doing so has perceptibly migrated from ‘a reasonable degree of certainty of compliance’ to ‘an absolute certainty that noncompliance will not occur’, a bar no amount of data can surmount.”
The TIA says that the CPSC’s progress on testing has provided “some level of relief”, but they maintain that “much more” could be done.
One specific issue the industry has flagged up is an exemption from phthalate testing, for a number of specific plastic resins such as polypropylene, as they are never plasticised. Removing this step would have a “significant positive impact” on testing costs.
According to comments submitted during the CPSC’s rulemaking process, to lift testing requirements on untreated wood, the TIA had said that the exemption has “limited applicability” to toys on the market today, and that measures to reduce phthalate testing burdens would provide the greatest relief to the industry.
In its comments, the trade group indicated that the average phthalate test costs $400 per material, as compared to the heavy metals tests, which can be as low as $47. It implored the agency to “provide meaningful assistance to companies and products most impacted”.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48104/putting-toys-to-the-test
-
Fragrance Ingredients: The Right to Know
Jun 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Alexandra Scranton
In recent years, manufacturers of fragranced products, and the industry as a whole, have started to accept the need to disclose ingredients. Consumers, particularly women, are asserting their right to know about chemicals they are exposed to in scented products they use every day, and manufacturers are responding.
Currently, most consumer product ingredient lists only reveal the presence of fragrance by listing the ingredient “fragrance” or “parfum”. But these terms may represent a combination of up to 100 different chemicals, which until recently have rarely been disclosed. While manufacturers make assurances that their fragrances are safe, consumers have been sceptical of the secrecy around fragrance ingredients and are asking for more details to support those claims.
But how to disclose that information is a matter of much debate. Some manufacturers have claimed that disclosing a list of up to 100 unfamiliar chemical names on each product would be confusing to consumers. No doubt there are fragrance chemicals that the average person is exposed to everyday but has never heard of. Is it useful to have all that information? The answer lies in carefully examining two of the main reasons why consumers have been demanding product-specific fragrance ingredient disclosure.
The first is allowing consumers to identify and avoid fragrance allergens that cause individual reactions. Take the recent study, published last year in the British Journal of Dermatology, Prevalence of fragrance contact allergy in the general population of five European countries: a cross-sectional study. It found that 37% of over 12,000 people surveyed reported avoiding a scented personal care product, due to an adverse skin reaction at some point in their lives.
Despite the common occurrence of these reactions, without disclosure, a person cannot identify which fragrance ingredient in that product caused it. One can only identify “fragrance” as the problem. With a full list of fragrance ingredients, identifying the problem ingredient is simplified, and the consumer will know which scented products they should avoid to prevent a future skin reaction.
The second is allowing consumers to avoid chemicals of concern such as carcinogens, reproductive toxins, neurotoxins and respiratory irritants. Women are increasingly interested in reading product labels and avoiding chemicals of concern. A 2015 survey of 1,000 US mothers, carried out by US marketing firm Influence Central, found that 73% of those surveyed, “often do research to understand the safety of ingredients to which their family is exposed”. Another 2015 poll, by skin care products company Kari Gran, found that 60% of women in the US report that they regularly read labels on personal care products in order to avoid those that contain certain chemicals like sulfates, parabens and PEG compounds. Having a full list of fragrance ingredients will allow these sophisticated label readers to further protect their health, by avoiding chemicals of concern in the scented products they purchase.
But not all consumers are asking for this information. Some currently buy food and personal care products without ever looking at the ingredients list, relying instead entirely on other marketing information on the label. The list of complex chemical ingredients on the label is simply ignored, but causes no confusion to the shopper by its presence. Others, like those in situations described above, carefully read labels based on research they have done on ingredients that may affect their health. These label readers have already honed the skill of identifying the handful of ingredients they are looking for (or looking to avoid) among a long list of other ingredients they may or may not be familiar with. Again, the long list of ingredients poses no confusion when you know the specific ingredient name you are searching for.
The most relevant ingredients of concern will differ for each person, making disclosure of the full list of fragrance ingredients of vital importance. However, providing fragrance information supplementary to this may well be beneficial. For example, allergens, like the 26 which currently must be disclosed in products in the EU, could be highlighted in a different colour within the full list. Additional marketing language explaining a company’s “No List” of fragrance chemicals of concern that are not used in the product may also be useful to consumers.
Product-specific fragrance ingredient disclosure is still a relatively new concept for product manufacturers, as well as for consumers. As we embrace this new paradigm, creativity and innovation is needed as consumers become familiar with fragrance ingredients and better understand the impacts on their health.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48107/fragrance-ingredients-the-right-to-know
-
Jun 20, 2016 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
High levels of toxic lead and phthalate chemicals are still present in many garden and yard water hoses today, according to researchers at the Ann Arbor-based Ecology Center. The new research also discovered that half of the vinyl (PVC) hoses tested contained electronic waste (e-waste) vinyl contaminated with toxic chemicals.
32 garden hoses from 6 national retailers (including The Home Depot, Lowe’s, and Amazon) were tested for lead, cadmium, phthalates, bromine (associated with brominated flame retardants); PVC plastic; antimony, and tin (indicating organotins). Water from select hoses was also tested. Such chemicals have been linked to birth defects, impaired learning, liver toxicity, premature births and early puberty in laboratory animals, and hormone disruption, among other serious health problems. Results were released today atwww.HealthyStuff.org.
The report calls on national retailers and manufacturers to phase out the use of lead, phthalates and contaminated vinyl scrap plastic in garden hoses.
“Even if you actively avoid putting harmful chemicals into your yard or garden in the form of pesticides, you could still be adding hazardous chemicals into your soil by watering with one of these hoses,” said Gillian Miller, Ph.D, staff scientist at the Ecology Center. “The good news is that none of these chemicals are necessary in garden hoses, and a number of safe hoses are available.”Examples of the worst products include:
· The Home Depot retailed HDX 15ft Utility Hose containing phthalate plasticizers and 6.8% (68,000 parts per million) lead
· Walmart retailed Swan Hose Reel Leader 5/8 in x 6 ft Hose containing phthalate plasticizers and 0.52% (5,200 parts per million) lead
· Lowes retailed Apex NeverKink 5/8 in x 50 ft containing a mixture of chemical hazards commonly associated with e-waste: phthalate plasticizers, lead (366 ppm), antimony (1,779 ppm) and bromine (1,592 ppm)Best products:
Top rated hoses were all polyurethane hoses. Big Boss AquaStream Ultra Light; Pocket Hose Dura-Rib II; Room Essentials Coil Hose with Multi Pattern Nozzle; Water Right Professional Coil Garden Hose.Highlights of Findings
· PVC (vinyl) hoses frequently contained elevated lead, bromine, antimony, and phthalates in the flexible hose part. Non-PVC hoses did not contain these contaminants.
o 29% of the PVC hoses (7 of 24) contained at least 100 ppm and as high as 68,000 ppm lead.
o Phthalates were found in 75% of PVC hoses tested (18 of 24).
· Bromine >1000 ppm and antimony >500 ppm were found in 50% of PVC hoses. Recycled electronic waste vinyl was found in a number of PVC hoses, resulting in high levels of bromine (indicating brominated flame retardants), lead, antimony, and tin (indicating organotin stabilizers).
· BPA and lead were found to leach from the hoses into water.What Was Found in the Water
· Half of the hoses (3 of 6) whose water was tested contained lead. Three of the samples contained 13, 19, and 20 ppb lead, respectively. The EPA action level for drinking water is 15 ppb.
· Lead was not detected in the water from the drinking-water-safe hose tested.
· BPA as high as 87 ppb was found in two of the hose water samples.
· A previous study found the phthalate DEHP at 25 ppb in one sample of hose water, which is four times higher than federal drinking water standards. EPA and FDA regulate DEHP in water at 6 ppb.The market has started to shift to safer materials and products:
· The study found a large reduction in the number of metal hose fittings with elevated lead, from 40% of tested hoses in 2011 to 15% of hoses in 2015.
· The ten hoses labeled “Drinking water safe” were free of significant lead, bromine, antimony, and tin. 30% (3 of 10), however, contained phthalates.
· Polyurethane hoses labeled safe for drinking (2 tested) contained no chemicals of concern.What You Can Do
· Read the labels: Buy hoses labeled “drinking water safe”. The label “lead-free” is a good choice in most cases, but not all: While none of those hoses had bromine or lead in any of their parts, some contained phthalates. The label “lead-free couplings,” however, refers only to the hose fittings, which means the flexible hose part may contain lead. Many of the hoses with “lead-free couplings” contained hazardous elements and phthalates. Avoid hoses with a California Prop. 65 warning that says “this product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects and other reproductive harm.”
· Buy a PVC-free hose: Polyurethane and other non-vinyl hoses are much less likely to contain chemicals of concern. If the label doesn’t list the material of the hose, it is most likely PVC. Visitwww.HealthyStuff.org for sample products.
· Let it run: Always let your hose run for about five seconds before using, since the water that’s been sitting in the hose will have the highest levels of chemicals.
· Avoid the sun: Store your hose in the shade. The heat from the sun can increase the leaching of chemicals into the water. If you do store it in the sun, let the water run cool before use.
· Don’t drink water from a hose: Unless you know for sure that your hose is phthalate-free and drinking water safe, don’t drink from it. Even low levels of lead may cause health problems. Some PVC hoses labeled drinking water safe contain phthalates.
· Take action: Write to retailers and garden hose manufacturers, and ask them to “mind the store” and eliminate these toxic chemicals in garden hoses.
“Gardening hoses appear to be a dumping ground for highly contaminated e-waste. Over one-third [38%] of the hoses have the fingerprint of recycled e-waste being used,” said Jeff Gearhart, Research Director, HealthyStuff.org. “Products designed to handle water should never have e-waste material used as filler just to save a dime.”
“Big retailers like The Home Depot should get toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates out of garden hoses and other products,” said Mike Schade, Mind the Store Campaign Director of Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. “It’s unconscionable that in the year 2016 these chemicals are still found in products on store shelves. Parents shouldn’t have to worry whether the garden hoses their children and pets drink from contain chemicals that may harm their health.”
For more details on what the Ecology Center researchers found, and what you can do to avoid toxic chemicals this gardening season, visit www.HealthyStuff.org.
Since 2007 researchers at the Ecology Center have tested over 15,000 consumer products, including pet products, vehicles, handbags, jewelry, back-to-school products, toys, building products, food cans, and children’s car seats.
http://saferchemicals.org/newsroom/new-study-rates-best-and-worst-garden-hoses/
-
Enviros Say Tougher RGGI Caps Are Worth the Price Tag
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Power Plays
By Emily Holden and Rod Kuckro
Environmental advocates pushing the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative to strengthen its carbon limits say recent modeling on the Northeast cap-and-trade program backs up their arguments.
The nine RGGI states have been meeting to sort out what program changes they might need to make, including to comply with U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan. The states could meet overall goals with some changes or could exceed the rule's targets, and how they deal with the rule could affect prices across the country.
According to charts presented by ICF International in a RGGI webinar Friday, 2031 firm power prices in the system could be around $51 per megawatt-hour (in 2012 dollars) in the least stringent scenario -- just meeting Clean Power Plan goals.
They could be $57 per megawatt-hour in the toughest scenario: capping emissions from all sources of power and aiming for 5 percent annual decreases in carbon.
Allowance prices could range from around $7 per ton of carbon to nearly $30 per ton, according to the graphics.
While some states may be hesitant to sign on to those goals, the Sierra Club and the Acadia Center say the far higher emissions reductions would be worth the money.
Peter Shattuck, clean energy initiative director for Acadia Center, said while RGGI electricity prices could be $6 higher with the harder goals, emissions reductions would be three times bigger -- looking like almost 20 million tons more of carbon per year.
"You can get much more of a reach at lower cost than I think folks would often assume," Shattuck said.
In other words, what looks like an 11 to 12 percent increase in power prices would result in 30 percent more carbon reductions, said Mark Kresowik, who is with the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign. Kresowik also noted states would be reinvesting allowance revenue into key programs.
ICF International modeled the emissions and price impacts of RGGI states complying with the rule with and without capping emissions from new plants. The firm also looked at the effects of the system reducing emissions 2.5 percent per year versus 5 percent per year. And analysts considered including or removing a cost-containment reserve that would introduce extra carbon allowances when prices reach a certain point.
The analysis incorporated lower renewable energy prices than a previous round of modeling, which Shattuck said "confirms the trend that cheaper emissions reductions are within reach and they're often even cheaper than anticipated."
The environmental groups that want tougher targets -- backed by research from Synapse Energy Economics -- say the 5 percent annual cuts would put states on track to reach their individual climate goals.
New York, for example, wants to reach 50 percent renewables by 2030. But it's likely not all nine RGGI states would be on board for the tougher targets. Maryland's governor recently vetoed legislation to raise the state's renewable power standards.
CPP events this week
Tomorrow and Wednesday, the Deloitte Energy Conference meets in Washington, D.C. Speakers include utility CEOs and the head of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. On Wednesday, EnergyWire reporter Rod Kuckro joins a panel on coordinating the Clean Power Plan between the federal and state levels and power-sector stakeholders.
On Wednesday, EPA chief Gina McCarthy testifies at the House Science Committee on "ensuring sound science" at her agency (E&E Daily, June 20).
Also Wednesday, the United States Energy Association holds a discussion on the North American Electric Reliability Corp.'s assessment of the Clean Power Plan, focusing on the rise of wind and solar power and the decline of coal.
On Thursday, McCarthy gives the keynote speech at the Energy Efficiency Forum, co-sponsored by the USEA and Johnson Controls. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and PSEG CEO Ralph Izzo also will speak.
In case you missed it
· Republican-controlled committees in the House and Senate advanced spending bills that would slash programs to curb climate change. But while the House measure would block spending on the Clean Power Plan, the Senate measure would not (ClimateWire, June 17).
· EPA proposed more details for its Clean Energy Incentive Program (E&ENews PM, June 16).
· Pennsylvania's Republican-led Legislature passed a bill that would give it more of a say on the state's Clean Power Plan strategy (ClimateWire, June 17).
· Battle lines are emerging in California's fight over extending carbon caps (ClimateWire, June 16).
· Bill Becker discussed the National Association of Clean Air Agencies' new guidance on the rule with E&ETV (OnPoint, June 14).
· Ohio's new Public Utilities Commission chairman will have to navigate conflicting views on the Clean Power Plan in his state (EnergyWire, June 14).
· The CEO of the Electric Power Research Institute told attendees at the Edison Electric Institute conference in Chicago that the rule is achievable (EnergyWire, June 14).
To read more about the Clean Power Plan, visit E&E's Power Plan Hub.
http://www.eenews.net/interactive/clean_power_plan/column_posts/1060039053
-
Oil and Gas Responsible for Ethane Emissions Spike -- Study
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Gayathri Vaidyanathan
Levels of a gas that causes ground-level ozone, which triggers asthma and respiratory problems in some people, have been rising steadily in the Northern Hemisphere.
Much of the gas, ethane, is being emitted by oil and gas fields in the United States, finds a newstudy published last week in Nature Geoscience.
"Ozone is a beast in terms of its behavior, properties in the atmosphere," said Detlev Helmig, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "It's a very strong oxidant, it hurts tissues, anything that's living, and it's a greenhouse gas."
Between 2009 and 2014, ethane levels have increased by 0.42 teragrams every year, reversing a trend of steady decline in place since the 1970s.
"We are very, very certain that this increase in ethane is from oil and gas production," Helmig said. "We are not aware of any other significant ethane sources in the world."
The study negates a perceived environmental victory. For about four decades, levels of non-methane hydrocarbons such as ethane and propane dropped despite significant growth in industry, populations and vehicle usage. Many environmentalists were proud of the achievement, Helmig said.
So when Helmig and his colleagues noticed a spike in emissions at their global network of 44 monitoring stations, they were surprised. Worried they might be doing something wrong, they repeatedly analyzed the data, only to find the same patterns.
The monitoring stations closest to and immediately downwind of the United States had the greatest rates of ethane increase. It was a clear indication that most of the emissions were from North America, Helmig said.
"If you are close to a pizzeria, you will smell pizza there better than a quarter of a mile away," he said.
What about methane?
Lori Bruhwiler, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory, who was not affiliated with the study, called it a "good paper."
"I think it's very intriguing, I totally believe that they are seeing increased leakage [of ethane] from U.S. oil and gas emissions," she said.
Hinrich Schaefer , an atmospheric scientist at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand, who is not affiliated with the study, said that its results are confirmed by other recent studies that have also found rising levels of ethane in the atmosphere.
The study also hints at another worrisome possibility: that levels of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is often co-emitted with ethane, might be rising rapidly due to oil and gas extraction. Methane is 86 times as potent as carbon dioxide at warming the planet in the two decades it persists in the atmosphere.
Scientists have noticed that global methane levels have been climbing since 2007, but they do not yet know the underlying cause. Some studies, including a recent one by Schaefer, have suggested wetlands are the culprit (ClimateWire, March 11). Another possibility are oil and gas fields in the United States.
The new study does not study whether oil and gas is responsible for the observed methane rise, Bruhwiler cautioned. The reason is that scientists do not know the ratio at which ethane and methane are co-emitted from various gas fields in the United States, she said. That knowledge is necessary before scientists can quantify methane emissions based on this study, she said.
"I think that opens the door for some interesting work to be done on exactly how methane emissions relate to these other non-methane hydrocarbons from oil and gas," she said.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039064
-
Utica Oil Production Declined In First Quarter As Ohio Operators Focused on NatGas
Jun 20, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
For the first time since it began tracking quarterly production data in early 2014, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) reported late Friday a sequential drop in first quarter oil production statewide, reflecting the commodities downturn and a shift to better economics in the Utica Shale's dry gas window.
Never a bastion for liquids production, Utica oil volumes have nevertheless been on the rise since 2011, when the first commercial production was reported from just five wells drilled by Chesapeake Energy Corp. (see Shale Daily, April 3, 2012). Until the Friday report, oil production had increased, going from just 46,326 bbl in 2011 to a high of more than 6.2 million bbl in 4Q2015 (see Shale Daily, March 9). ODNR said shale wells in the state produced about 5.5 million bbl in 1Q2016, which was still an increase from the 4.4 million bbl reported during the year-ago period.
Low commodities have pushed shale drillers almost exclusively to their dry natural gas acreage, where low breakeven prices, prolific wells and, in some cases, better infrastructure have helped them weather the downturn (see Shale Daily, April 7). Natural gas production in the state was up again in the first quarter, setting a record of 329.5 Bcf, compared to 183.6 Bcf in 1Q2015 and 303 Bcf in 4Q2015. Ohio law does not require the separate reporting of natural gas liquids or condensate, those are included in oil and gas totals.
ODNR's first quarter report listed 1,351 horizontal shale wells, of which 1,302 reported production. That's up from the 877 that reported production in 1Q2015 and the 1,230 in 4Q2015.
There are currently 2,183 Utica wells permitted in the state and 1,751 drilled, compared to the 1,926 permits issued and the 1,497 wells that were reported drilled at about the same time last year, according to ODNR data. Marcellus Shale activity has remained unchanged year-over-year at 44 Marcellus wells permitted and 29 drilled.
The average amount of oil produced by each well was 4,213 bbl in the first quarter, while the average amount of gas produced by each was 253.1 MMcf, according to ODNR. The average number of first quarter days in production was 85.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/106814-utica-oil-production-declined-in-first-quarter-as-ohio-operators-focused-on-natgas
-
Los Angeles-Area Heat Wave, Gas Shortage Test Grid
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Greenwire
By Anne C. Mulkern
A heat wave in Southern California today and tomorrow is stressing the power grid and could be the first test of whether natural gas shortages this summer will lead to rolling blackouts in the state.
Energy officials and utilities yesterday asked residents to cut back on electricity consumption as near-record temperatures bake the region. Downtown Los Angeles is expected to hit 100 degrees Fahrenheit today, the National Weather Service in Los Angeles said. The record for June 20 is 106 degrees.
Lancaster, in the valley north of L.A., could hit 107 degrees. The record there is 111 degrees.
"We strongly encourage customers to conserve electricity as long as it does not jeopardize their health," said Marcie Edwards, general manager of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. "Doing simple things such as turning up your thermostat to 78 degrees and turning off your lights will save electricity use and reduce the risk of outages."
Power outages could occur as a side effect of the methane leak from October through February at the Aliso Canyon underground natural gas storage site in Los Angeles County. That disaster triggered a moratorium on operator Southern California Gas Co. injecting more fuel at the site, until all 114 wells there pass safety checks and state officials sign off.
The state as a result faces a shortage of a key fuel used to make electricity. California relies heavily on gas-fired power plants on hot days because they can ramp up quickly to fill peak demand. Because natural gas moves slowly through pipelines, Aliso Canyon has played a big role locally in supplying needed fuel.
State and local officials project there could be 14 summer days when demand for electricity exceeds supplies. If that happens today or tomorrow, the state's grid manager, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), will tell the large utilities to "shed load." That's done to prevent the larger grid from crashing.
Utilities would then cut electricity to neighborhoods, similar to what happened in 2000 and 2001 as the state struggled with a newly deregulated electricity system and power shortages driven by market manipulation.
Systemwide energy demand today and tomorrow is expected to top 46,000 megawatts, CAISO said. That total is slightly below the system peak demand last year of 47,358 MW. The all-time record peak of 50,270 MW was set in July 2006.
"Conservation efforts by consumers are key to reducing stress on the system and to help avoid service disruptions," said Steve Berberich, CEO and president at CAISO.
CAISO, LADWP and others asked residents to turn water heaters down to 120 degrees, use major appliances after 9 p.m. or early in the morning, and turn off pool pumps.
The California Energy Commission and the state's Department of General Services told managers at state-run buildings and facilities -- including parks, hospitals and prisons -- to cut back on power use. Those locations should turn off all lighting "not necessary for safety or productivity," DGS said. They also advised everything from shutting down unneeded computers, printers and other electrical equipment to unplugging coffee makers and break room electronics.
The heat wave comes as "a massive high pressure area is going to build across the Southwest," NWS said in a web briefing. "It is very unusual, if not rare, for this kind of high pressure to be occurring in the month of June over this region, at this strength."
The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services also issued an alert warning people they could suffer health effects as a result of high temperatures and telling them to drink water and take other precautions.
Air pollution rules waived
Meanwhile, the independent hearing board of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), a Los Angeles-area air authority, has granted LADWP a temporary exemption from air pollution regulations this summer to avoid rolling blackouts. The utility will be allowed to burn diesel fuel in three of its four power plants.
LADWP said it needed the exemption "to prevent possible rolling blackouts to more than 2 million customers this summer due to inadequate supply of natural gas fuel to operate its power plants," because of shortages tied to the methane leak at Aliso Canyon.
Under the 90-day exemption, LADWP can burn diesel fuel, rather than natural gas, in electrical generating units in Long Beach, Wilmington and Sun City. After testing, it can run the plants on diesel fuel only if the natural gas supply to LADWP is curtailed by SoCal Gas.
"The operation of LADWP's units on diesel fuel will ensure a continuous supply of electricity to protect the health and safety of Los Angeles residents and businesses," Wayne Nastri, SCAQMD's acting executive officer, said in a statement.
He said it would cause less air pollution than if hospitals, police stations and businesses turned on backup generators, which have few if any pollution controls.
The hearing board put stipulations in place including that LADWP must submit a plan to mitigate excess emissions created by burning diesel fuel. The utility also must pay $1.5 million and an additional $100,000 for each day diesel fuel is used, up to a maximum of $2.9 million. The penalties will be used to install air filters and purchase electric buses for schools near the generating stations.
SCAQMD's hearing board is an independent, five-member quasi-judicial panel. It voted 3-1 last week to grant the variance.
The remaining 13 power plants in the region are not operated by LADWP and can only operate on natural gas, SCAQMD said. CAISO manages the electricity generated by most of the other plants. LADWP is not part of CAISO.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039076
-
NIST Treads Carefully as Key Cyber Framework for Energy Evolves
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Changes are in store for a major cyberdefense document used in the energy, chemical and banking sectors, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
NIST's "Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity," often simply referred to as "the framework," came out in 2014 as part of a White House push to protect key sectors from looming cyberthreats. The framework's voluntary guidelines are aimed at helping organizations "identify, protect, detect, respond and recover" from cyberattacks on critical systems such as the power grid or oil and gas pipelines.
NIST, a nonregulatory part of the Department of Commerce, requested comments on version 1 of the framework earlier this year and hosted a workshop at its Maryland headquarters to discuss potential updates in April.
Matt Barrett, the framework's program manager at NIST, said the tweaks now being considered would "refine and clarify" the document's first version rather than overhaul it. "We don't want to freak anyone out -- we're not going to do anything to disrupt folks who are already using" the framework, he said of the changes, which aren't likely to be finalized until early 2017.
This month's carefully worded notice reflects NIST's delicate role as convenor of the framework. On one hand, NIST has said it hopes to get as many critical infrastructure operators participating in the framework as possible, with the goal of enhancing U.S. cybersecurity. On the other hand, NIST doesn't actually keep track of how many organizations use the framework, a move the agency says could come across the wrong way as a push toward mandatory enforcement. "When we start counting adopters, sometimes people feel a little creeped out about that," Barrett said.
About 43 percent of U.S. critical infrastructure companies are on track to have adopted the document by the end of the year, according to a recent survey by the independent research firm Tenable Network Security.
Many of the framework's existing users have requested that NIST offer more tips on handling supply chain security, a category that has come under scrutiny in the electric sector recently.
Still, Barrett said he doesn't expect big shifts in NIST's approach. For instance, an idea to hand over management of the framework to some private-sector group was largely dismissed by commenters in the latest round of input.
"I think the majority of the framework will be the same in 2020 as it is today because we were so careful about it up front," Barrett told EnergyWire. "What we'll see is an increasing number of, 'Here's how you use the cybersecurity framework to do XYZ' -- for instance, here's how you use it to do supply chain risk management."
Foreign countries have turned to the standardized language in the framework for hints on how to approach their own critical infrastructure sectors. Ukrainian energy regulators, responding to an unprecedented cyberattack on the power grid in December, have indicated they may take parts of the framework for use in enforceable regulations (EnergyWire, Feb. 1).
"Regulators are always going to borrow applicable pieces of best practice, and I picture our framework in the best practice space right now," Barrett said.
But he added that what other countries opt to do with the framework "is largely out of our hands" and would not influence the U.S. approach, which remains voluntary.
"People sometimes do wacky stuff when things are mandatory," he said, suggesting some might take a "hyperconservative" approach while others ask, "'What's the minimum I need to do in order to avoid the regulatory penalty?'"
"Our message is, let's keep the cybersecurity framework in the voluntary space," he said.
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039054
-
Retro Analog Tech a Danger to U.S. Power Grid
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Cris Thomas
Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee recently introduced legislation intended to improve cybersecurity for the U.S. power grid by reintroducing “retro” analog technology to grid control systems. Specifically, the Senators want to reengineer the last-mile of the grid by replacing the modern automated controls currently in place with older analog controls. Their goal is to prevent a Ukraine-style cyber attack from causing a nationwide blackout that lasts weeks or even months.
An admirable goal, but the proposed solution is shortsighted. Instead of spending millions of dollars and two years trying to downgrade grid technology, we should look for ways to improve security for the technology in use today and invest in the development of new, even more secure technologies for the future.
The Securing Energy Infrastructure Act of 2016 (S.3018) has four main points:Directs the National Labs to conduct a two year $10 million pilot program to identify new technology, including analog devices that could isolate parts of the grid from cyber attack.Establishes a working group to evaluate proposed by the National LabRequires the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on the results of the programFurther defines what a ‘covered entity’ is in relation to critical infrastructure of the energy sector
One of the sponsors of S.3018 was quoted as saying, “We can learn something from what happened in Ukraine,” referring to last December’s cyber attack on the Ukrainian power grid. Ukrainian power companies were able to quickly restore power despite having most of their critical computers wiped by malware because the lineman at each of the impacted electric companies physically drove out to each substation and switched them to manual control.
Here’s the problem: humans make mistakes, a lot of them. In fact, human error contributed to two of the largest power outages in recent memory, the Southwest Blackout of 2011 and the Northeast Blackout of 2003. Humans are also inefficient. This is especially true when it comes to things like automatically rerouting power distribution in the case of load imbalances as well as other complex tasks. Human mistakes and inefficiency come with a cost, a cost that consumers ultimately pay with their pocketbooks through higher electric fees and higher taxes. That’s why we computerized the electric grid in the first place.
This is also why the world has been removing and updating analog systems across all industries almost as fast as we can blink. Telephone calls, for example, are no longer routed over copper lines. Even those few holdouts who still have a physical landline to their house, that wire only goes as far as the local central office where the call is transferred to a data network.
The solution is not to cling to the past simply because we are afraid of the future. We know the security of the systems controlling our electric grid are inadequate and out of date. The solution should be to encourage innovation and deploy new and better technologies.
Instead of spending two years and $10 million dollars exploring ways to downgrade critical systems with even more outdated tech, we should instead invest that time and money into transforming security for the technology currently in place, and into building next-generation security features directly into the technology we will have in five or ten years from now. We should also make a greater effort at applying the cybersecurity lessons we have learned over the last 20 years on the internet directly to the electric grid. The problems are well known, but are left to fester because of an unequal application of knowledge and a lack of resources. $10 million and two years can go a long way to change that.
Cris Thomas is a strategist for Tenable Network Security.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/283831-retro-analog-tech-a-danger-to-us-power-grid
-
Union Pacific Decries Oil by Rail's 'Unsustainable' Patchwork
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
One of the biggest freight railroads in the United States is fed up with local attempts to regulate the transport of crude oil and other commodities, according to a letter sent to regulators last week.
Union Pacific Railroad Co., which delivers crude by rail to refineries and transfer terminals along the West Coast, said it is "concerned" about the "proliferation of state and local regulations, rules, conditions, permits, and approvals that impact rail transportation."
In recent years, refiners, oil logistic firms and freight rail companies have faced a wave of pushback against new infrastructure for hauling crude and ethanol (EnergyWire, March 19, 2015). Local and state authorities, alarmed by an uptick in fiery accidents involving mile-long crude trains, have sought to impose their own safety requirements on companies moving hazardous materials through their backyards.
In a letter delivered to the Surface Transportation Board on Friday, a lawyer representing UP weighed in on one such conflict in Benicia, Calif.
There, refiner Valero Energy Corp. is seeking permission to add 70,000 barrels per day of crude unloading capacity at an existing refinery. But Benicia planning commissioners have sought additional guarantees from the company, such as pledges that Valero will use state-of-the-art tank cars for hauling crude and that the tracks en route will be equipped with the latest leak-detection technology.
Valero, and now Union Pacific, contend that such conditions are pre-empted by federal regulations at the Surface Transportation Board under a 1995 law designed to prevent localities from interfering with interstate commerce.
UP suggested that the fights over crude-by-rail terminals could amount to an "indirect" attempt to regulate interstate rail transport in violation of that law, the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.
"The problem is not community or commodity specific, and continues to expand across the country," the railroad said. "The patchwork of state and local rules such an approach would create is unsustainable."
Environmental groups fired back against the railroad's claims over the weekend.
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney Jaclyn Prange said in an emailed statement that STB "has consistently recognized that federal law does not override local zoning and environmental protections merely because a particular project may receive shipments by rail, and for good reason.
"The expansion of federal authority urged by Union Pacific and Valero, if adopted, could have far-reaching implications for local governments' ability to protect their citizens from the impacts of any sort of facility -- a refinery, a garbage dump, a Walmart -- that, somewhere along the line, involves rail transport," she said.
STB has not yet decided whether it will intervene in the Benicia case. Interested parties have until early July to weigh in on the proceeding, which could set a precedent for other crude-by-rail battles in New York, Oregon and elsewhere across the country (EnergyWire, Feb. 16).
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039055
-
Week Ahead: EPA Chief on Hot Seat over 'Secret Science' Claims
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy will face off against an old foe on Capitol Hill next week.
McCarthy is slated to testify before the House Science Committee on Wednesday about the use of "secret science" at the EPA. The topic is one near and dear to committee Chairman Lamar Smith's (R-Texas) heart.
Smith sponsored a bill last year requiring the EPA make public the research it uses to write environmental rules. Republicans have long accused the EPA of using so-called secret science to write rules without giving the public and their opponents the opportunity to scrutinize the research.
The Obama administration pushed back against Smith's bill when the House passed it last spring, saying it would "impose arbitrary, unnecessary, and expensive requirements" and impede the EPA. The agency itself doesn't comment on pending legislation, but McCarthy is likely to vigorously defend her agency's scientific work in the face of criticism from committee Republicans on Wednesday.
Other congressional committees will consider a hodgepodge of environmental issues next week.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will consider implementation problems for the Renewable Fuel Standard, a favorite target for many Republicans. The House Natural Resources Committee will meet to scrutinize the role of the National Environmental Policy Act in the permitting process.
In the Senate, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee will hear from Neil Kornze, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, who will testify on the BLM's land use planning strategies. The Environment and Public Works panel will consider compliance measures for the new EPA ozone standards.
The energy community continues to wait on a formal decision in the Senate to join an energy reform bill conference committee with the House. The Chamber of Commerce on Monday sent the Senate a letter urging members to move quickly on forming a conference committee, and despite some behind-the-scenes work this week, members were apparently no closer to voting than they were before the letter.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/283945-week-ahead-epa-chief-on-hot-seat-over-secret-science-claims
-
Clinton Climate Push Will Get Sanders Voters, Define Trump
Jun 20, 2016 | The Hill - Contributors Blog
By Paul Bledsoe
“No good deed goes unpunished” is a familiar saying in Washington these days.
It means that our politics are often so reactionary, and interest groups so powerful, that doing the morally right thing usually entails a political cost, not a benefit.
But once in a blue moon the stars align so that a major policy choice that is in the best interests of the American people also happens to provide a leading candidate a major political boost. This rare dynamic is about to play out for the Clinton campaign regarding the policy and politics of climate change.
With Bernie Sanders continuing to egg on his idealistic supporters and demand liberal policy concessions from Hillary Clinton, Clinton needs to emphasize issues that appeal to younger and more progressive voters in the Democratic base that Sanders has not only energized but also emboldened to consider not voting for her in November. Climate change is uniquely suited to do this, since it’s at the very top of concerns among younger and far left voters Clinton has had trouble attracting in the primaries.
Equally, making climate change a key issue in the fall will expose the absurdity of Donald Trump’s bizarre assertions on climate change. Trump has repeatedly called climate change a ‘hoax’ including several times suggesting it is somehow perpetrated by the Chinese: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive," he has tweeted. And again on Twitter: “Global warming is an expensive hoax!" And “Is our country still spending money on the global warming hoax?"
More recently Trump asserted that he would “renegotiate” the Paris Agreement on climate because he claimed it required action by the US but not other countries. In point of fact, Paris does precisely the opposite, gaining climate action commitments from more than 195 countries, most of whom have never before pledged to detailed emissions curbs, something the US economy is already doing. Thus the Paris Agreement is distinctly in America’s economic and environmental interests. Further, other nations will not renegotiate an agreement that took years to produce, and experts have noted that the US could not withdraw from this executive agreement in the next president’s first term, in any event.
Trump’s deluded pronouncements on climate fit firmly into the broader, key narrative which the Clinton campaign will use against The Donald: He is unfit for office, since he refuses to deal with the facts on major issues, let alone develop responsible policies, and so poses a profound danger to the American people.
Whether the issue is his unsettling assertion that rattled markets about simply “printing money” to cover US debts, Trump’s reckless foreign policy suggestions that our key allies will be on their own when it comes to nuclear weapons policy and that he will cozy up to Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin, or his ignorance regarding the science and policies of climate change – the Clinton message will be that Trump is dangerously unhinged. Not fit for any office, let alone the Oval.
That said, Clinton still faces serious challenges within the Democratic Party regarding climate change. Bernie Sanders has made putting a price on carbon a litmus test of sorts, repeatedly challenging Clinton on the issue during the primaries. He is seeking a showdown on the topic in Philadelphia, pushing for a carbon tax to be included in the Democratic Platform to be adopted at this year’s Convention.
Clinton has no intention of falling into the electoral trap of advocating energy or carbon taxes, which would simply hand the Republicans and Trump an attack issue without in any way furthering the possibility of responsible carbon pricing. In fact, actually advocating for such policies in the hothouse campaign atmosphere would reduce the already small chance they could be enacted into law as part of budget negotiations next year, by energizing opponents of the measure.
If the efforts to gain carbon pricing in 1993 and 2009 show us anything, it is that on its own carbon pricing is political liability. Democrats suffered huge mid-term losses in the 1994 and 2010 elections, losing their majorities each time, as Republicans made energy taxes a key campaign issue. Even under the best political circumstances, any carbon price must be part of broader tax reform, and explicitly offset by other tax reductions. But again, Clinton will be clear that she has no intention of raising energy taxes at all.
Instead, Clinton will advocate strong climate policies in keeping with those begun by President Obama, including enforcing the Clean Power Plan carbon regulations which would likely be upheld by the Supreme Court, including a 9th Justice appointed by Clinton herself.
Other policies will probably include additional tax incentives for clean energy deployment, a major climate-friendly transportation infrastructure bill, aggressive international policies to help major developing countries decarbonize, a focus on “super greenhouse gas pollutants” like HFCs, methane, and black carbon, and perhaps additional incentives for carbon capture and storage. Many of these are issues Clinton worked on extensively as Secretary of State and as a US Senator.
The Clinton campaign will continue to emphasize the need for an aggressive, responsible climate change policy throughout the summer right up to November, in large part because Secretary Clinton believes the issue is critical to protecting our economy and our people. The fact that climate advocacy is uniquely good politics – helping to appeal to the left of the Democratic Party while also exposing Donald Trump’s ‘know nothing’ extremism – will only strengthen its appeal.
Paul Bledsoe is president of Bledsoe & Associates, a global energy and climate policy consultancy. He was communications director of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/283896-clinton-climate-push-will-get-sanders-voters-define
-
4th Circuit Mine Discharges Suit May Pose New Test for CWA Permit 'Shield'
Jun 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
By David LaRoss
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is weighing a case over a West Virginia coal mine's discharges into nearby waters that could pose a new test for the Clean Water Act's (CWA) "shield" against enforcement for CWA permit holders, with advocates seeking to build on an exception to the limit set in a 2014 4th Circuit decision.
The case questions whether the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection's (WVDEP) mandate for CWA permit holders not to violate any of the state's water quality standards -- including for conductivity, a measure of salinity -- takes precedence over the fact that regulators knew the Fola Coal company's mine would discharge contaminants that can raise conductivity yet the state chose not to limit the discharges in the permit it issued to Fola.
The permit shield is a CWA provision that says a facility cannot be held liable for pollution discharges as long as it follows the terms of a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
If the environmentalist group Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition (OVEC) succeeds in the case, it would broaden the liability facilities face in some cases when they release pollutants not clearly forbidden by their permits.
However, such a ruling might only apply widely within West Virginia, where state law requires all CWA permits to include language banning discharges that "cause [a] violation of applicable water quality standards" as a supplement to numeric limits on specific pollutants. In other states, whether to add such a mandate is up to regulators' discretion.
The 4th Circuit case, OVEC v. Fola Coal, is the coal company's appeal of a Jan. 27, 2015, ruling by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia Chief District Judge Robert C. Chambers. In his decision, the judge said that even when a permit writer mistakenly assumes there is no need to limit releases of a particular pollutant, the discharger can still be held liable under West Virginia's law if those releases harm water quality.
"[Q]uite simply, permit holders are obliged under the law to comply with numeric and narrative water quality standards. WVDEP's forward-looking assumptions . . . cannot be used to shield an operator from liability for discharges that later defy those assumptions and are ultimately discovered to cause or materially contribute to impairment," the ruling said.
Chambers continued that Fola's release of conductivity-boosting pollutants constitute a CWA permit violation even though WVDEP was aware the mine would release contaminants that increase conductivity and chose not to limit them in the permit it crafted.
Chambers held that Fola's conductivity discharges violated its permit, despite the lack of a clear conductivity limit, backing OVEC's claims that nearby waters were impaired by high conductivity, despite the coal company's argument that WVDEP's preferred test showed no impairment.
Permit Shield
If the 4th Circuit agrees with Chambers, it would further limit the CWA's permit shield in cases such as the permit issued to Fola's mine by WVDEP.
Under the 4th Circuit's landmark 2001 ruling, Piney Run Preservation Association v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, MD, the permit shield applies even when a facility releases pollutants not specifically limited in its permit terms, as long as regulators "reasonably contemplated" that such a discharge was possible.
However, another 4th Circuit panel in 2014 held that Piney Run does not protect a facility from CWA enforcement if it failed to properly test for and document the pollutant in question.
Both sides in OVEC agree that WVDEP was aware of the potential for Fola to raise conductivity in nearby waters. Instead, Fola is claiming that the proper course of action is for West Virginia to revise the permit terms when it discovers that the limits as crafted are inadequate, and that the permit holder should still be shielded from liability for its operation under the original terms.
"West Virginia has repeatedly made it clear that permittees like Fola are shielded from CWA liability if they comply with the express effluent limits in their NPDES permits. There is no evidence that West Virginia ever intended a contrary result," the company said in its April 13 opening brief.
Fola argues that the state's permit condition is "subject to multiple interpretations. Under Piney Run, the district court should have looked to extrinsic evidence to determine the correct interpretation, but it labored instead to ignore such evidence."
It is also claiming that its discharges have not raised conductivity in local waters beyond what the state allows, and that the district court used a metric rejected by WVDEP to decide that the discharges violate water quality standards.
'Narrative' Provision
However, OVEC is countering in its briefs that the meaning of the permit's "narrative" provision is clear and requires Fola and other West Virginia permittees to be held liable for discharges that contribute to impairment in nearby waters, regardless of whether they follow the document's numeric limits.
"To give effect and meaning to the narrative permit condition, and read it consistently with the numerical permit limits, it must be interpreted as requiring some level of compliance," the environmentalists said in their May 20 response to Fola.
The advocates' suit against Fola is part of a broader push to establish liability for mining facilities' discharges that boost conductivity in West Virginia waters. For instance, in OVEC, et al. v. Gina McCarthy, et al., now pending in the same West Virginia southern district court that decided the Fola Coal case, OVEC and its allies are seeking to force EPA to craft or compel the state to craft novel water limits for conductivity from mining pollution.
Environmentalists are claiming in that suit that the CWA requires EPA to set conductivity limits in six total maximum daily load (TMDL) waterbody cleanup plans for impaired watersheds that receive discharges from coal mining operations.
They have also argued that WVDEP's listing of impaired streams, which included streams with high conductivity associated with mining, should trigger EPA's non-discretionary duty to develop the TMDLs.]
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/4th-circuit-mine-discharges-suit-may-pose-new-test-cwa-permit-shield
-
Bill to Eliminate N.Y. Emissions Dies in State Senate
Jun 20, 2016 | E&E Climatewire
By Elizabeth Harball
The New York State Senate has quietly killed legislation that would have required the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from major sources to zero by 2050.
The "New York State Climate and Community Protection Act" was considered the most ambitious climate change legislation in the nation when it passed the Democrat-led New York Assembly 94-43 earlier this month, earning praise from green groups and opposition from the business community.
The divided Senate did not bring the measure for a vote before the end of the legislative early Saturday morning.
"We are thankful the state Senate thought better than to pass this overly broad, misguided and likely unconstitutional legislation," Zack Hutchins, director of communications for the Business Council of New York State Inc., said in a statement.
The bill would have set in stone a proposal by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) to get 50 percent of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2030. It also would have affected a wide range of greenhouse gas sources like fossil-fuel-fired power plants, natural gas storage facilities and oil refineries.
And while the measure didn't explicitly lay out how New York would meet the targets, it would allow the state to establish market-based mechanisms like a cap-and-trade system.
In addition to its aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets, the bill included language intended to protect disadvantaged residents and unions. That helped galvanize a broad coalition of environmental justice groups and unions under the umbrella of the organization NY Renews to launch an aggressive lobbying campaign to push the state Senate for a vote.
NY Renews Campaign Director Paul Getsos said he was not discouraged that the bill didn't pass.
"No one expected this coalition to go so far so quickly and get this amount of broad-based support for very ambitious climate and climate justice action," Getsos said.
Getsos added that the bill's success in the Assembly "sets us up very well for coming back next session and winning some good, strong legislation in our communities and for all New Yorkers."
The bill was opposed by the Business Council of New York State, which called it "unworkable and unrealistic" in a legislative memo and raised concerns that it would drive emissions sources to other states.
Assemblyman Steve Englebright (D), who introduced the bill, dismissed these concerns in an interview this week, citing the potential for climate-change-related damages in the state.
"Ultimately, climate change has to be addressed ... or we will have a damaged economy," Englebright said.
Getsos said the fact that groups felt the need to lobby against the bill was in itself a victory.
"They got scared because we really moved the ball down the court on this," he said. "I think that's a testament to how far this coalition has come in such a short time."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/06/20/stories/1060039069
Industry and Association News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested