Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/21/16
-
(ACC Mentioned) Workshop At HCDE Helps Educators, Students Understand Local Industry Through Hands-On Training
Jul 21, 2016 | The Observer
By Community Reports
Teachers throughout Harris County gained a better understanding of the chemical manufacturing industry and area chemical plants through a summer workshop from July 18-22 hosted by Harris County Department of Education and sponsored by the Texas Chemical Council. In turn, area middle and high schools benefit by learning how science applies to the workplace. -
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Lubricants Seals New HD Engine Oil Formulations Ahead Of API CJ-4 Sunset
Jul 20, 2016 | Concrete Products
By CP Staff
Shell Lubricants has timed an ambitious Rotella heavy-duty engine oil portfolio update with two new American Petroleum Institute diesel engine oil standards. Premiering in December, API Service Categories CK-4 and FA-4 succeed Service Category CJ-4 oils widely recommended among on- and off-highway diesel engine manufacturers over the past decade. -
(ACC Mentioned) Kirby Trying To Move Through Treacherous Waters
Jul 20, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Stephen Simpson
The inland barge industry seems to be past the worst of the crude oil correction, but it will take time for chemical supply increases to drive more demand. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals EPA Should Assess First Named by Green Group
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Asbestos, bisphenol A, phthalates and various flame retardants should be among the first 10 chemicals evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, an Environmental Working Group report urges. -
New Chemical Decisions EPA Making to Offer Signals by September
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers will soon gain insight into the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of new chemical authorities in the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a policy analyst said July 20. -
Unfinished Business On Chemical Safety
Jul 20, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Sen. Dianne Feinstein
In June, President Obama signed landmark legislation—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—to ensure the safety of commercial chemicals found in countless everyday products from furniture to clothing to cleaning supplies. -
Analysts: Chemical Companies Need to be Thorough Under New Oversight Law
Jul 20, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical industry observers say that company filings with the Environmental Protection Agency must become more detailed in the wake of newly signed chemical oversight legislation. -
President Signs Historic Toxic Substances Control Act Amendments
Jul 21, 2016 | Lexology
By Daniel Flynn and David A. Roth
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed a bill that extensively reforms the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA, which had remained substantially intact since its passage in 1976, provides the authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most important program for controlling risks to human health and the environment from chemical substances introduced into commerce. -
10 Common Chemicals The EPA Needs To Test For Safety
Jul 21, 2016 | Vocactiv
By Alexandra Ossola
The Environmental Protection Agency was just granted expanded powers, and it will use them to gather data on the safety of thousands of chemicals. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a few suggestions about where the agency should start, according to an article published Thursday. -
New York Governor Calls for State Ban on ‘PERC'
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) directed two state agencies July 20 to initiate regulations to ban the chemical perchloroethylene (PERC), which is primarily used in the dry cleaning industry. -
Wal-Mart Asks Suppliers to Remove Eight Chemicals
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner and Andrew Martin
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is asking suppliers to remove formaldehyde, triclosan and six other substances from their products, as part of an effort to eliminate controversial chemicals from household goods. -
Major Strides: Walmart Details Progress on Chemicals
Jul 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer Mcpartland
In 2013, Walmart published its Sustainable Chemistry Policy, which focuses on ingredient transparency and advancing safer product formulations in household and personal care products. EDF worked with Walmart as it developed its policy and has advised the company during implementation and data analysis. -
Preliminary Settlement Reached In US ‘Natural’ Advertising Lawsuit
Jul 21, 2016 | Cheimcal Watch
A US federal judge has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Unilever. It comes after allegations that the company falsely advertised its TRESemmé Naturals shampoo line as 'natural'. -
EPA Issues Toxic Release Data for Industrial Facilities
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual Toxics Release Inventory preliminary dataset for 2015. -
DHS Closes Chemical Program Backlog, Plots Future Steps
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A once-troubled chemical facility security program is back on track, a Department of Homeland Security official said July 20. -
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Urge Appellate Court to Grant Water Permit to Constitution Pipeline
Jul 20, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In a show of support for embattled Constitution Pipeline LLC, oil and natural gas organizations and others urged an appellate court to overrule regulators in New York State and issue a critical water permit for the project. -
Growing Opposition To Carbon Taxes In Washington
Jul 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Christine Harbin
When campaigning for president in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama famously said that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his plan to pass cap-and-trade. So it’s no surprise Congress rejected the policy. -
Experts See Optimism in Global Deal to Cut HFCs
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
Progress is being made in negotiations in Vienna for a global phase down of the super-pollutant hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and participants are optimistic, according to climate experts in a July 20 teleconference.
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
Jul 21, 2016 | The Observer
By Community Reports
Teachers throughout Harris County gained a better understanding of the chemical manufacturing industry and area chemical plants through a summer workshop from July 18-22 hosted by Harris County Department of Education and sponsored by the Texas Chemical Council. In turn, area middle and high schools benefit by learning how science applies to the workplace.
Included in the workshop were tours of chemical plants, an overview of the Houston Ship Channel and a consumer product bucket assembly of products produced by companies in the Houston area such as Ziploc baggies, Gorilla Gel, masking tape, Ivory soap and baby diapers. Educators take those buckets back into their classrooms to show students tangible items produced by industry.
Academic science specialists and industry experts presented a full scope of environmental viewpoints during the four-day workshop. The workshop ended with companies explaining about careers in the industry and educational requirements to qualify for the jobs.
Monty Heins, Dow Chemical Company employee and chairman of the East Harris County Manufacturers Association, represents about 90 companies in the association which collaboratively reach out in the community to recruit new workers. His overview of the Houston Ship Channel at the workshop helps equip the teachers with knowledge about professional opportunities for their students.
“We offer a spectrum of jobs in our industry but our workforce is our future,” he said. “It’s an important piece of what our organization does.”
Paul Tagliabue, Humble ISD Creekwood Middle School science teacher, said it’s every science teacher’s challenge to make real-world connections.
“This workshop is so relevant to our kids — this is our challenge — to make things relevant,” he said.
Baytown Nature Center teacher and naturalist Christina Butcher conducts field trips at the nature center with Goose Creek Consolidated students. She believes in the balance between nature and industry. Neighboring company Exxon Mobil is funding nature center field trips for preschoolers at the center. Chevron funds a summer science camp in the wetlands refuge.
HCDE science curriculum director Lisa Felske coordinates the workshop each year. She believes it’s important for teachers to meet industry professionals so that they can explain chemical industry processes to their students.
“Teachers get an overview of the cycling of plastics — from raw materials to manufactured products to plastic recycling,” she said. “They meet chemical engineers, plant managers and other industry professionals as they go on tours and take in the seminars.”
Teachers take the information back into the classroom and are empowered with first-person background information for their students, including details about everyday products that consumers use related to the chemical industry.
The workshop was sponsored by Covestro, the Association of Chemical Industry of Texas, Dow, INEOS Olefins & Polymers USA, LyondellBasel, Lubrizol, the American Chemistry Council, BASF, Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP, Ashland, Eastman, Kaneka, Purse Salt Baytown, LLC, REF-CHEM, TPC Group, Underground Services Markham, LLC, Underground Storage, LLC and OXEA.
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/humble/news/workshop-at-hcde-helps-educators-students-understand-local-industry-through/article_427cc06d-7a12-5fcb-aff4-0ec7bed80e79.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Shell Lubricants Seals New HD Engine Oil Formulations Ahead Of API CJ-4 Sunset
Jul 20, 2016 | Concrete Products
By CP Staff
Shell Lubricants has timed an ambitious Rotella heavy-duty engine oil portfolio update with two new American Petroleum Institute diesel engine oil standards. Premiering in December, API Service Categories CK-4 and FA-4 succeed Service Category CJ-4 oils widely recommended among on- and off-highway diesel engine manufacturers over the past decade.
Compared to CJ-4 products, which debuted just before major, regulation-driven changes took hold for on- and off-road diesel engines and exhaust treatment systems, CK-4 oils will exhibit improvements in three key areas for engines operating in normal to peak cycles: oxidation stability, owing to newer engines’ tendencies to operate at up to 10°C higher than legacy heavy-duty power; aeration control to curtail entrainment of air in lubricants; and, shear stability, protecting lubricants from being sheared out of grade—i.e., entering the engine as 15W-40 but transforming to 15W-30 toward scheduled drain.
“We have been working on CK-4 and FA-4 oils for more than five years, keeping in mind that meeting the new specifications was simply a starting point for Rotella,” says Shell Lubricants Global Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Oil Brand Marketing Manager Chris Guerrero. “Our real destination was to create our most technically advanced, hardest working products to date. These oils have been tested over millions of miles and thousands of hours on the road and in the field.”
While CK-4 oils suit most off-road and pre-2016 on-road diesel engines, FA-4 products will be geared to improving fuel economy in on-highway trucks, primarily running 2017 and later engines. The standard describes what API notes are certain lower viscosity oils specifically formulated for select, high-speed, four-stroke cycle diesel engines designed to meet current greenhouse gas emission standards. Along with wear protection features comparable to CK-4 products, FA-4 oils will exhibit additional performance in the face of high temperature, high shear conditions. The category will have limited backwards compatibility, as some older engines are not designed to operate with lower viscosity grades.
Shell Lubricants will effect new packaging of Rotella T4 Triple Protection 15W-30 and 10W-30 plus T5 Synthetic Blend 10W-30 grades—each reformulated with an eye to the CK-4 performance—in August, and plans to transition to new category labeling in December, when API commences CK-4 and FA-4 licensing. T5 Synthetic Blend 15W-40 and T6 Full Synthetic 5W-40 will also be reformulated to meet CK-4 specifications. FA-4-grade Rotella T5 Ultra [Synthetic Blend] 10W-30 and T6 Multi-Vehicle (diesel or gas engine) 5W-30 are likewise forthcoming by year’s end. Both oils will be clearly distinguished in new API Service Symbol “Donuts” accompanying Shell Lubricants packaging.An open, consensus, five-year-plus development process leading to Service Categories CK-4 and FA-4 was spearheaded by API Lubricants Group, American Chemistry Council and Truck & Engine Manufacturers Association representatives. Shell Lubricants Global OEM Technical Manager Dan Arcy, who chaired the API/ACC/EMA group during its main phase, notes that CK-4 and FA-4 are engineered to address performance requirements and operating conditions of engines complying with sharply reduced nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions thresholds attending Environmental Protection Agency 2010 and Tier IV diesel engine guidelines. Both oils will be positioned to contribute to anticipated, 2021–2027 model year targets for on- and on/off-road vehicles, including dumps and mixers, in EPA and National Traffic Highway Safety Administration’s “Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks.”
http://concreteproducts.com/news/9873-shell-lubricants-seals-new-hd-engine-oil-formulations-ahead-of-api-cj-4-sunset.html#.V5CLW_m7hBc
-
(ACC Mentioned) Kirby Trying To Move Through Treacherous Waters
Jul 20, 2016 | Seeking Alpha
By Stephen Simpson
SummaryThe inland barge industry seems to be past the worst of the crude oil correction, but it will take time for chemical supply increases to drive more demand.
Coastal barging is being disrupted by the lifting of the crude oil export ban, but demand for refined products is likely to be more stable for Kirby over time.
Most of my valuation methods suggest a fair value in the low $70s, which may pass for a value today, but the company/stock can ill-afford further negative guidance revisions.
I'm a little surprised that Kirby (NYSE:KEX) has held up as well as it has sincemy last update on the company. Down about 1% (though down as much as 30% at the depths of the January "we're all doomed!" market panic), Kirby has climbed back from the depths despite more of the guidance reductions and market deteriorations that kept me on the sidelines back in December of 2015.
I think it is still possible to argue for a fair value in the $70s, but investors are going to have to be patient and the market doesn't always (or even often) work that way. Significant capacity increases in U.S. chemical production capacity, concentrated along the Gulf Coast, should support higher demand for barging, as should demand for refined products. Crude oil, though, is not likely to be the positive influence it has been in the past, and that could complicate and delay the recovery. What's more, while it is always tempting to call a bottom, it can take a while for a business like Kirby's to move off of that bottom in a big way.
Crude Turns Cruel
The upswing in domestic crude oil production that began around 2010 was a real boon for a host of industries. As crude was being produced in areas that weren't traditionally crude-producing areas, producers didn't have easy access to pipelines and had to turn to alternatives like rail and barges to get oil to market. For barge operators, that meant that a relatively balanced market suddenly saw an influx of demand that sent prices and utilization much higher and eventually stimulated capacity additions.
Now things are different. Production has been declining, differentials (the differences in the price paid for oil in different locations) have been shrinking, and pipeline takeaway capacity has been increasing. With that, the inland barge industry has seen crude oil transport go from about 15% of active barges to less than 5%. While demand for chemicals has been fairly healthy, the pricing strength prompted by that crude surge has been getting wrung out of the market.
If you look at the reports on traffic through the locks monitored by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, you'll see that crude oil is way down (more than 20% for the locks/rivers I looked at, namely the ones I think most relevant to Kirby), chemicals are flat to up around mid-single digits and refined products are flat to down.
That's rough news for Kirby. No wonder, then, that inland barge ton-miles per boat were down 11% in the first quarter after a nearly 9% drop in the fourth quarter, helping push marine revenue down 10% and 7%, respectively, and causing meaningful margin erosion and operating income declines (down 24% and down 16%).
And it's not likely to get better. Not only is production volume weak given the low current oil prices, more pipeline capacity is coming online. The Bayou Bridge pipeline recently went operational and the Dakota Access pipeline project is underway, and although barging is much cheaper than rail (about 30% to 40% of the cost), pipelines are typically about a third cheaper than barges. What's more, the opening up of U.S. crude exports has hurt the coastal barging market by taking away the need to move oil from Corpus Christi to locations like Houston or St. James.
Better Living Through Chemistry?
The good news, such as it is, is that companies like Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) and Dow (NYSE:DOW) are looking to add quite a bit of chemical production capacity in the next three to five years. Ethylene production capacity should increase about 50% through 2019 and the American Chemistry Council has noted 225 projects worth $138 billion on the books in the next few years.
Not all of those will be located in the regions serviced by Kirby, but a lot of them will. Along similar lines, the ACC reported a nearly 4% increase in Gulf Coast chemical production in the first quarter of 2016, with Ohio Valley production lagging that rate only by a little bit.
Why does this matter? About 60% of Kirby's inland business comes from petrochemicals, while black oil is only about a fifth as large. Given Kirby's large position in the market (about 25% share of the inland barge market) and its weighting toward chemicals, growth in U.S. chemical production should help stabilize and re-grow the market even if crude traffic can never regain its prior status.
It's A Delicate Balance
There are too many moving parts to really know what's going to happen with barge traffic in the coming years. It seems unlikely that crude oil prices will move so high as to overwhelm pipeline capacity and create a repeat of 2010-2015 for barges, but some recovery is at least possible. I also think it is worth noting that areas of the country like Florida and New England don't have the refining capacity they need to serve their populations, so barging in refined products (around a quarter to 30% of the inland and coastal businesses) still makes sense.
Likewise, ethanol should remain a decent opportunity. The EPA has continued to push for greater incorporation of ethanol, and ethanol is not well-suited to pipelines. With about 90% of ethanol transported today by truck and rail, more of the 350 million-plus barrels of ethanol produced in the U.S. could find their way onto barges in the coming years.
Vessel supply is also well worth watching. Orders for tank barges have plunged, and Trinity Industries (NYSE:TRN) has been cutting back tank barge capacity, including closing its Madisonville, LA plant. While I don't think small operators are going to be in a rush to scrap older vessels unless/until pricing falls to a point where operating is a money-losing venture, it doesn't look like there should be intense pressure on Kirby's recent 90%-plus inland utilization rates.
Estimating The Value
It looks as though Kirby will see the roughly 10% decline in EBITDA between 2014 and 2015 worsen to a nearly 20% decline in 2016, and it could take five years (or more) to regain the 2014 high-water mark. I think 2016 will be the bottom for revenue, though the risk of a recession that would weaken crude oil demand even further and sap chemical demand can't be dismissed out of hand. Given that Kirby tends to lag the market (as contracts roll off and renew), a really meaningful improvement is probably not likely until the second half of 2017.
I still believe that long-term revenue growth in the neighborhood of 4% is a viable idea, but that is now off a lower base. Supply growth of chemicals should be the primary volume driver in the years to come, with refined product growth likely to be more sedate but still present. I just don't see how oil returns to what it was, so I think this is a scenario where the recovery will be protracted as those new chemical plants go online. I believe Kirby can generate decent cash flows in the intervening time and I expect more discipline on capital expenditures - Kirby needs to keep its fleet in good order, but I don't think the company is going to get crazy with newbuilds and will likely try to cover newbuilds with contracts.
Discounting those cash flows, I get a fair value in the low-to-mid $70s today. An 8.5x multiple on 12-month EBITDA drives a lower target (in the mid-$60s), but I question the practicality of using trough EBITDA like that. I'd also note that the company is currently trading at about 60% of its historical average price/TBV multiple. Granted, I've generally thought that Kirby was overvalued in the good times, but that level of discount may argue for undervaluation today. Using yet another metric, one driven by ROE, I believe Kirby can support a fair value in the low $70s, implying a price/book of 1.7 (versus price/TBV) on the assumption of long-term ROEs in the range of 11% to 13%.
The Bottom Line
My biggest concern with Kirby is that this is a well-run company that saw its financial performance pushed up to unrepeatable highs by what may well prove to be a once-in-a-generation event (the sudden surge of oil production from shale formations). Historically, both free cash flow generation and ROIC have been in an "okay to very good" range, but the valuation has long been a sticking point for me.
I do believe that increased domestic production of chemicals in the coming years will support healthy demand for Kirby's barges. I suppose upside into the $70s isn't bad for a stock right now, but this is still a name that I don't have an especially firm conviction about either way. The shares have already rebounded on stability in oil and increasing confidence that barge demand/pricing has bottomed out, but conservative investors will probably want to see a quarter or two more of no further guidance reductions before getting more interested in the shares - even if that comes at the cost of upside.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3989730-kirby-trying-move-treacherous-waters
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals EPA Should Assess First Named by Green Group
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Asbestos, bisphenol A, phthalates and various flame retardants should be among the first 10 chemicals evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency under the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, an Environmental Working Group report urges.
There are so many chemicals needing the EPA's oversight that any list of those posing the greatest risks would be subjective and incomplete, yet it is urgent the agency begin, the group wrote in its report, “ Under New Safety Law, 20 Toxic Chemicals EPA Should Act on Now.”
The report lists 10 chemicals that the group says EPA should evaluate first and 10 more that the EPA also should queue up for early action.
The EPA's selection of its first 10 chemicals and subsequent actions will signal whether the TSCA amendments provide the agency the authority it needs to get toxicity information and to manage risks of chemicals linked to serious health problems, David Andrews, a senior scientist with the working group, told Bloomberg BNA July 18.
As amended June 22 by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114-182), TSCA—for the first time—empowers the EPA to evaluate the risks of chemicals in commerce.
EPA List of First 10 Due in December
The EPA is to start with a list of 10 chemicals that must be released by Dec. 22, according to the statute's deadline. As the EPA completes its evaluations, the agency must add new chemicals to the rolling and, eventually, expanding list.
Liz Bowman, a spokeswoman for the American Chemistry Council , declined to comment on the implications of the first 10 chemicals EPA selects.
“We think that the 10 substances must be drawn from the existing TSCA Chemical Work Plan and that Work Plan substances for which EPA has had significant work underway are logical candidates for the first 10 substances under review,” she said by e-mail. The list of work plan chemicals to which she referred consists of about 90 chemicals that the EPA's chemicals office selected for risk assessment prior to TSCA being amended last month.
List Drawn From Work Plan
The environmental group's recommendations drew from the work plan list and includes some chemicals the agency already has begun to assess such as chlorinated phosphates and brominated fire retardants.
The EPA hasn't scheduled risk assessments for other chemicals the group recommends it evaluate that are on the work plan. These include bisphenol A and phthalates, which are used in plastics; p-dichlorobenzene, which is found in moth balls; and perchloroethylene, a solvent used in dry cleaning.
State legislatures already have begun to take action on some of these chemicals including BPA and some of the flame retardants.
“It's clearly not an accident that the [Environmental Working Group] list contains chemicals where states have taken action. States had to step up in the absence of federal action, and those actions have and will continue to provide guidance for EPA activities,” Sarah Doll, national director for Safer States, told Bloomberg BNA July 18.
“I anticipate states will continue to step up to create actual protections from toxic chemicals, even ones that EPA decides to evaluate,” she said.
Temporary Preemption Unavailable
State actions on the first 10 chemicals the EPA will evaluate won't be subject to a temporary preemption included in the Lautenberg Act, Andrews said.
Under Lautenberg, state laws and regulations generally are subject to a temporary “preemption pause” after the EPA has published the scope of its risk evaluation and while the analytic work is proceeding.
The first 10 chemicals the agency evaluates won't trigger this preemptive pause, but the EPA's final regulations or risk reviews for those chemicals would preempt state laws and regulations.
The Environmental Working Group will be among many organizations tracking not only the EPA risk evaluation but whether and when the agency's actions spur legal challenges.
Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney with the group, told Bloomberg BNA, “We expect almost certainly there will be some kind of legal challenge to some of EPA's conclusions from industry or advocates.”
Andrews said, “I'd be absolutely surprised if the chemical industry and individual companies that EPA regulates didn't challenge EPA at each step of process.”
Working Group Excluded Some Chemicals Due to Law
The working group chose to omit persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals from its list of the first substances the agency should evaluate, Benesh said.
Chemicals with these hazardous characteristics are already given a higher priority under the Lautenberg Act, she said.
Risk reviews for those compounds can skip the hazard assessment part of a risk evaluation and be regulated more quickly, Benesh said.
Antimony, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead, pigment yellow 83 and long- and medium-chain paraffins are among the chemicals that would be subject to expedit
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228635&vname=dennotallissues&wsn=495026000&searchid=28039664&doctypeid=1&type=date&mode=doc&split=0&scm=DELNWB&pg=0
-
New Chemical Decisions EPA Making to Offer Signals by September
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Chemical manufacturers will soon gain insight into the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of new chemical authorities in the amended Toxic Substances Control Act, a policy analyst said July 20.
By Sept. 22 at the latest, the EPA must have made some decisions about some of the new chemical notices that were pending when TSCA was amended, Dan Newton, senior manager for government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (SOCMA), said during a webinar the society held to discuss changes to TSCA.
Core provisions of that 40-year-old statute were fundamentally changed June 22 when President Barack Obama signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114–182).
The amendments prompted the EPA to put on hold June 22 more than 300 pending new chemical notifications, called premanufacture notices, or PMNs. The new chemicals have to be evaluated under the criteria provided by the new law, the agency said.
“The new law effectively resets the 90-day review period,” the EPA said, referring to the 90 days the previous and amended TSCA provides it to review new chemicals.
Types of Decisions
Within 90 days, or by Sept. 22, the agency must have made some decisions about some of those pending notices, Newton said.
The decisions, he said, could include that:
• one or more chemicals could enter commerce because it or they would be unlikely to pose an unreasonable risk;
• the chemical manufacturer must submit more data before the agency can make a risk determination; or
• the chemical could present an unreasonable risk that needed some kind of control before it could enter commerce.
The agency also could decide it needs more time to evaluate the new chemical and ask the manufacturer to voluntarily “stop the 90-day clock,” Newton told Bloomberg BNA after the webinar.
Any of those decisions will offer chemical manufacturers insights into the EPA interpretations of the new chemicals provisions of the Lautenberg Act, according to Newton.
Changes in New Chemicals Provisions
One of the biggest changes for chemical manufacturers is the EPA must make a decision about a new chemical before it can enter commerce, Newton said during the webinar.
Prior to Lautenberg, if the EPA did nothing during its 90-day review, a company could manufacture a new chemical when the 90 days ran out.
Under Lautenberg, chemical manufacturers must wait until EPA makes any of four risk-based decisions detailed in the law, he said.
The decisions are based on certain criteria, including the agency's evaluation of the conditions under which the chemical will be used. The EPA also must consider whether the new chemical would pose unreasonable risks to potentially susceptible populations, such as infants, children and the elderly, and potentially exposed populations, such as workers.
The types of data that the EPA asks for, if it seeks additional data from new chemical manufacturers with pending new chemical notices, could be indicative of how it interprets its responsibility to consider these criteria, Newton said.
He invited chemical manufacturers with pending PMNs to keep the chemical manufacturers society abreast of any decisions the agency makes.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228653&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228653&jd=94228653
-
Unfinished Business On Chemical Safety
Jul 20, 2016 | Huffington Post
By Sen. Dianne Feinstein
In June, President Obama signed landmark legislation—the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act—to ensure the safety of commercial chemicals found in countless everyday products from furniture to clothing to cleaning supplies.
The bill requires safety findings for any new chemicals before they’re allowed to be used in consumer goods, updating the Toxic Substances Control Act.
This law—the country’s most significant chemical-safety law—had not been updated since 1976.
However, there is a glaring gap in this law. It does not cover the thousands of personal care products on the market, including lotion, make-up, shampoo, shaving cream and perfume. Americans all of ages use these products every day.
These ingredients fall under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration, not the Environmental Protection Agency. The law governing their safety—theFood, Drug and Cosmetic Act—has not been updated since 1938.
The products on the market today are much different than those on the market in 1938. Our laws need an urgent update to ensure personal care products are safe and provide industry with rules of the road.
Due to these outdated safety rules, the FDA has prohibited or restricted only 11 substances, including mercury and chloroform, from use in personal care products. By contrast, the European Union has banned more than 1,300 chemicals from personal care products and restricted an additional 256.
The FDA is also unable to set limits on the concentration levels of chemicals in products.
The ingredient lists that appear on packaging don’t have to be posted online. The FDA doesn’t even have mandatory recall authority for products that may cause serious harm.
Many companies have voluntarily taken action to make the industry safer by eliminating or reducing the use of certain ingredients but a uniform safety standard is needed.
The Personal Care Products Safety Act would finally address these glaring safety loopholes. Consumer and health groups, including the Environmental Working Group, Endocrine Society and Good Housekeeping Institute, and a wide range of companies, including Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Unilever, L’Oreal and Revlon support the bill. This marks the first time federal legislation on this issue has earned the support of both consumer and industry groups.
A key component of the bill is an FDA review process for ingredients frequently used personal care products. FDA would review at least five chemicals per year, chosen based on input from consumers, medical professionals, scientists and companies.
An ingredient-review process is already in place in the European Union and companies are required to use only pre-approved colors and preservatives.
This process would address whether chemicals can continue to be used in personal care products, and if so, what the concentration limits should be.
FDA may determine that some chemicals, particularly endocrine disrupting chemicals, are not appropriate in any products, or are only appropriate in small amounts.
The key for many chemicals may be how much is used. We need to know at what concentration these chemicals are unsafe.
For example, after conducting a scientific review, the FDA may determine that a particular chemical is only safe at a concentration of one part per million. Going forward, all companies would need to reformulate their products so they contained no more than one part per million of that ingredient.
Companies would still have the power to adopt a stricter standard. They could use less of a particular ingredient, or not use certain ingredients at all, but the ingredient review process would finally create a uniform safety standard.
The bill would also require companies to register with FDA and provide a list of their ingredients with a range of concentration for each one.
Warning labels would be required for products not appropriate for children, and complete label information, including ingredients and product warnings, would be posted online to ensure parents can make informed decisions.
Lastly, FDA would be given the authority to recall products that cause serious harm.
These commonsense proposals are long overdue and the bill has the broad, bipartisan support needed to move forward. Consumers deserve to know that the products they and their families use every day are safe.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sen-dianne-feinstein/unfinished-business-on-ch_b_11096428.html
-
Analysts: Chemical Companies Need to be Thorough Under New Oversight Law
Jul 20, 2016 | Chem.Info
By Andy Szal
Chemical industry observers say that company filings with the Environmental Protection Agency must become more detailed in the wake of newly signed chemical oversight legislation.
Chemical Regulation Reporter indicated that companies can improve their chances of getting new materials to market by being especially thorough in their pre-manufacture notifications, which must be submitted to the EPA before they can manufacture or import a new chemical or use an existing chemical in a new way.
The filings, analysts said, will need to specify chemical properties, exposure levels and toxicities -- and back those claims with evidence. They should also address any regulations of similar chemicals by regulators in other nations.
The report comes weeks after President Obama signed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The bill, which was broadly supported by both industry and public health advocates, overhauls the provisions of the oft-maligned Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.
Experts told CRR that, among its other provisions, the bill gives the EPA greater authority to seek more information from companies, as well as to impose restrictions on their uses of new chemicals.
But the report also noted that the EPA is required to avoid impeding industry innovation under the new law. One new provision, in particular, could waive the previous 90-day waiting period as soon as the agency determines that new chemicals are unlikely to raise safety concerns.
https://www.chem.info/news/2016/07/analysts-chemical-companies-need-be-thorough-under-new-oversight-law
-
President Signs Historic Toxic Substances Control Act Amendments
Jul 21, 2016 | Lexology
By Daniel Flynn and David A. Roth
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed a bill that extensively reforms the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). TSCA, which had remained substantially intact since its passage in 1976, provides the authority for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) most important program for controlling risks to human health and the environment from chemical substances introduced into commerce.
The new law takes effect immediately. Any business that imports, manufactures, processes or distributes products in the U.S. should understand the new provisions in order to avoid adverse business consequences or potential enforcement exposure.
The most immediate impacts are related to the new chemical review process. Now, for the first time, the EPA is required to make an affirmative determination concerning risks to human health or the environment on all notices for new chemicals (PMNs) and significant new uses of existing chemicals (SNUs) before they can enter commerce. The standards that EPA is to apply when reviewing a PMN are more protective of human health and the environment than that previously required. The new affirmative determination requirement for PMNs and SNUs effectively “resets” the 90-day review period for PMNs pending as of June 22, 2016, the date the amendment was signed into law.
In the long run, the most significant aspect of the amendment is the increased power and responsibility given to the EPA to systematically address chemical substances already on the TSCA Inventory to deal with risks considered to be unreasonable. This aspect of the TSCA program will be taking shape over the next several years under an aggressive schedule imposed by the amendment. It begins with a requirement that the EPA establish a notification and reporting process for manufacturers, importers or processors of chemical substances that will allow the agency to identify “active” chemicals (those manufactured or processed over the last 10 years) and “reset” the TSCA Inventory. Thereafter, anyone seeking to manufacture, import, or process an “inactive” chemical substance will need to notify the EPA before doing so.
At the same time that the EPA is setting up the process to reset the Inventory, the agency must select 10 chemical substances for risk evaluations from a list of 90 on its Work Plan. It must have risk evaluations underway for at least 20 chemical substances within the first 3 ½ years.
The EPA must also set up a process for categorizing chemical substances for risk evaluations as “high priority” or “low priority.” These designations are to take between 9-12 months to complete. If the information available is insufficient to make the determination, the EPA receives an additional 90 days to complete its task and can require testing to fill the gap. If, at the end of the additional period of time, the agency still lacks sufficient information, the chemical substance is to be assigned a high priority.
If the EPA determines in a risk evaluation that a chemical poses an unreasonable risk, the agency must promulgate rules to regulate the manufacture, distribution, or use of that chemical to address the risk. If there is insufficient information to determine the risk for a particular chemical, the EPA can limit its manufacture, import, or use to the extent necessary to protect health and the environment while information is developed regarding its safety.
The new process for reviewing existing chemicals includes a 90-day period for industry to submit information regarding a chemical substance prior to the agency’s proposal of a priority for it. The public will have 90 days to submit comments after the priority is proposed.
In anticipation of the EPA’s upcoming rulemaking and actions on prioritization of chemical substances and risk management, companies should review their product lines and EPA’s TSCA Work Plan list of chemicals to determine whether important products are likely candidates for EPA high priority risk evaluations. Recently, under REACH (the European Union’s counterpart to TSCA), the EU conducted a massive evaluation of all chemical substances in commerce. As part of that review, companies that manufactured, imported, or used a given chemical substance being reviewed organized themselves into consortiums to share the burden of collecting the information and conducting the additional testing required. Companies who manufacture or import chemical substances here in the U.S. should plan for similar cooperative efforts to prepare for the chemical review process soon to be rolled out by the EPA.
The following are some additional key features of the new law:Requires the EPA to evaluate the safety of new and existing chemicals in commerce under a new risk-based safety standard to determine whether a chemical poses an “unreasonable risk” based on human health and environmental considerations, including risks to vulnerable population subgroupsExpands the EPA’s power to require companies to conduct health and safety testing via administrative orders and consent agreements, to supplement existing rulemaking authorityRequires the EPA to develop a plan to reduce and replace vertebrate animal testing and promote alternative test methodsAuthorizes the EPA to take a range of actions to address potential health and environmental concerns including imposing bans or limitations, or requiring additional testingBolsters transparency by establishing new confidentiality claims substantiation requirements, requiring the EPA to make a decision on all new claims and review continued viability of past claims and allowing the agency to share Confidential Business Information (CBI) with state/tribal governments, health/environmental professionals and first respondersPartially pre-empts state action on a chemical when the EPA has found a chemical to be safe or is regulating a chemical to address identified risk, and “pauses” state action when the EPA is evaluating a chemical subject to state law preservation and grandfathering provisionsAuthorizes the EPA to increase fees to the agency costs of implementing various aspects of the TSCA program, including new chemical review
In addition, for both pending and new notices, companies should understand that the EPA is required to engage in a more rigorous review process. Companies are therefore advised to review their current procedures and be positioned to provide appropriate levels of information to facilitate a “no unreasonable risk” determination from the agency.
Finally, companies should review their CBI procedures in light of the “new” TSCA and make any necessary modifications to ensure that CBI claims can be adequately substantiated. Companies should also review prior confidentiality claims, as the EPA is now required to revisit them under the new law.
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=06833968-ba75-4514-a65d-ad67b0c763a4
-
10 Common Chemicals The EPA Needs To Test For Safety
Jul 21, 2016 | Vocactiv
By Alexandra Ossola
The Environmental Protection Agency was just granted expanded powers, and it will use them to gather data on the safety of thousands of chemicals. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) has a few suggestions about where the agency should start, according to an article published Thursday.
In June, Obama signed a law that reformed the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), granting the EPA the authority to evaluate, limit or even ban certain compounds that might be hazardous to human health. Of the 85,000 chemicals in the EPA’s database, officials claim that about 1,000 of those need to be re-evaluated (though experts note that number could be higher, since the agency has assessment data for only a small percentage of the total chemicals). Ninety of those chemicals that already have some indication of detrimental health effects are on the EPA’s TSCA Work Plan.
The EWG chose 10 chemicals for the EPA to start assessing first because they are already found in lots of products, and the initial data about their effects on health and the environment are concerning. “These are chemicals that workers and even the general public come into contact with, those that had the potential for widespread population exposure and evidence that indicated concern,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at the EWG, tells Vocativ.
Some of these chemicals are already known to cause health problems—asbestos, used in car brakes and insulation, has been shown to cause cancer and lung disease; perc, used in dry cleaning, was found to be a “probable carcinogen.” Even for these clearly harmful chemicals, the EPA has never been able to issue a unilateral ban because it never had the power to do so.
Other chemicals on the EWG’s list, such as DEHA, found in plastic bottle and saran wrap, and P-dichlorobenzene, which turns up in mothballs and deodorant are woefully lacking in information. “For some chemicals on the list, such as Brominated phthalate fire retardants, the EPA did a scoping assessment and identified some data gaps. The EPA has to fill them to be able to compete and adequate evaluation,” Andrews says.
Even if the EPA did fast-track these chemicals as the EWG suggests, it’ll take at least three years to do the scientific studies needed to properly assess their health implications, then a few more for the EPA to manage the risk it presents to consumers and decide on its course of action.
The EWG has been critical of the TSCA reform: “The bill may not provide the EPA with the resources or clear legal authority it needs to quickly review and, if necessary, ban dangerous chemicals linked to cancer and other serious health problems,” EWG’s article reads.
In response to Vocativ’s queries about whether the EWG’s input will be taken into account, an EPA spokesperson responded: “The law requires us to identify 10 chemicals for review within 6 months of enactment which the agency intends to do. Several of the chemicals that EWG has identified are candidates. EPA plans to publish the list as required under the new law by mid-December 2016. The Agency welcomes input from all stakeholders on this and other issues related to implementation of this important new law. EPA’s first year implementation plan is accessible here.”
Even so, Andrews and his colleagues at EWG hope that their input will have some sway with the newly-empowered EPA. “The timeline [for testing and evaluation] will be on the order of years, it will be a slow process. But we’re hopeful there will be action,” Andrews says.
http://www.vocativ.com/342040/10-common-chemicals-the-epa-needs-to-test-for-safety/
-
New York Governor Calls for State Ban on ‘PERC'
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Gerald B. Silverman
New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) directed two state agencies July 20 to initiate regulations to ban the chemical perchloroethylene (PERC), which is primarily used in the dry cleaning industry.
Cuomo, as part of a larger announcement on worker safety and health, said the state departments of Environmental Conservation and Health should put the state “on a path” to ban PERC.
“The federal EPA says that PERC is a likely carcinogen and we have workers who work with it every day with little training and little protection because that is the job that they can get,” Cuomo said.
Nora Nealis, executive director of the National Cleaners Association, told Bloomberg BNA that she was “speechless” that the governor would propose such a move when PERC emissions are well below state requirements and occupational exposure is well below guidelines set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
“I don't see any basis for it,” she said. “I am speechless that he would take an industry that has worked so hard to be a beacon of how to do it right and pull the rug out from under them.”
Long-standing state regulations, she said, were “so expensive and so onerous and so detailed” that the number of dry cleaners in the state have dropped from 4,000 to 2,000. She estimated that 70 percent of cleaners use PERC and 30 percent use alternatives.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228647&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228647&jd=94228647
-
Wal-Mart Asks Suppliers to Remove Eight Chemicals
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner and Andrew Martin
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is asking suppliers to remove formaldehyde, triclosan and six other substances from their products, as part of an effort to eliminate controversial chemicals from household goods.
The chemicals on the list have “certain properties that can affect human health or the environment,” Wal-Mart said in a statement July 20. The retailer created the list with help from the Environmental Defense Fund, aiming to get suppliers to find alternatives, said Zach Freeze, Wal-Mart's director for strategic initiatives related to sustainability. The list was limited to eight high-priority chemicals so that Wal-Mart could make meaningful progress.
“We wanted to get started,” he said in an interview. “We knew it wasn't going to be a perfect list.”
Naming the chemicals follows Wal-Mart's announcement in 2013 that it would ask suppliers to reduce some substances in personal-care, cleaning and beauty products and promote alternatives. At the time, it didn't get specific about the list. The program is an example of widening scrutiny by merchants, manufacturers and legislators into the effect of chemicals, as well as a nod to heightened consumer concerns. In June, for instance, President Barack Obama signed a bill that overhauls the nation's laws governing chemicals.
Labeling Requirement
Under the Wal-Mart policy, manufacturers must list the targeted ingredients on packaging by 2018 and work to find alternatives. The program affects about 90,000 items made by 700 manufacturers. Already, Wal-Mart's suppliers have removed 95 percent of the chemicals on the list, by volume weight, from products sold in U.S. stores that are covered by the policy. Freeze declined to provide specific examples of how manufacturers replaced chemicals with greener alternatives.
Formaldehyde is a carcinogen found in resins for wood products, building materials, paints and some consumer products like cosmetics, and triclosan is a chemical used in antibacterial soaps, toothpaste and some cosmetics. Triclosan isn't known to be hazardous to humans, but some animal studies have shown that it alters hormone regulation, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The chemicals on Wal-Mart's list also include:
Toluene, a colorless liquid that is used in paint thinners, nail polish and fragrances; Diethyl phthalate, used to make plastic more flexible and in cosmetics, insecticides and aspirin; Nonylphenol exthoxylates, which are surfactants used in industrial applications and consumer products such as laundry detergent; Butylparabens, used as a preservative in cosmetics; Dibutyl Phthalate, a solvent; and Propylparaben, another preservative
The Environmental Defense Fund advised the retailer to identify chemicals that “the science was solid on” and were likely to be regulated, Michelle Harvey, the group's supply-chain director, said in an interview. The substances chosen are also among the most common, she said.
“This was a really big deal for Wal-Mart to tackle this issue,” Harvey said. “Chemistry is really hard.”
Sustainability Push
The chemical program is part of a broader sustainability initiative the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company started in 2005. The idea is to ultimately create zero waste, use only renewable energy, and sell products that are safe for people and the environment. But retailers also are responding to heightened consumer awareness of product ingredients and a growing preference for organic goods.
Target Corp. has also expanded its chemicals program, albeit with a different approach: The retailer last year quietly posted a list of hundreds of substances, including coal tars and bisphenol A, that it's encouraging vendors to remove, offering incentives for them to do so. Target awards points to products for cleaning, beauty, baby-care and personal-care products that list ingredients and avoid suspect substances in a bow to customer preferences, the company has said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228639&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228639&jd=94228639
-
Major Strides: Walmart Details Progress on Chemicals
Jul 20, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Jennifer Mcpartland
In 2013, Walmart published its Sustainable Chemistry Policy, which focuses on ingredient transparency and advancing safer product formulations in household and personal care products. EDF worked with Walmart as it developed its policy and has advised the company during implementation and data analysis.
This past April, Walmart announced that the company achieved a 95% reduction by weight in the use of high priority chemicals of concern. Today, Walmart shared considerable additional information detailing the progress made, including the identities of the initial high priority chemicals. Let’s unpack this.
Revisiting Walmart’s Sustainable Chemistry Policy
Broadly speaking, Walmart made three commitments in its 2013 policy:to increase transparency of product ingredients,to advance safer formulations of products, andto attain U.S. EPA’s Safer Choice certification [formerly Design for the Environment] of Walmart private brand products
The policy, which went into effect in January 2014, focuses on formulated household cleaning, personal care, and beauty products, sold at Walmart U.S. and Sam’s Club U.S. stores. A few months after releasing the policy, Walmart published a policy implementation guide that gave suppliers greater specificity as to Walmart’s expectations and, importantly, outlined the quantitative metrics Walmart would use to track and report progress.
How Walmart has fared so far“Transparency”:
Walmart’s policy requires its suppliers to be more transparent about the ingredients in their products in two ways. First, Walmart requires suppliers to submit “full product formulations” – the names and concentrations of all ingredients in a product – to WERCSmart, a 3rd party- managed product ingredient database. WERCSmart provides the retailer with aggregate information about the types and quantities of chemicals in the products on its shelves without divulging specific product formulation data.
Second, the policy requires suppliers to increase ingredient transparency to consumers by calling for disclosure of product ingredients online starting in 2015. Further, any Priority Chemical found in a product must be disclosed on the product’s packaging starting in 2018. Priority Chemicals (PCs) are Walmart’s designated chemicals of concern, drawn from 16 reputable regulatory and authoritative lists.
To track the first requirement, Walmart determined the number of products whose ingredients are fully accounted for in the WERCSmart database. According to the data, 94% of the product formulations are full formulations. This suggests that the other results Walmart presents today are based on real data.
To track ingredient transparency to consumers, Walmart polled suppliers about their online disclosure practices using the Walmart Sustainability Index, its annual environmental issues survey sent to suppliers. In 2015, 78% of respondents reported they disclose ingredients online for all their products. Walmart also breaks down the responses in more detailed ways, such as by department.“Advancing safer formulations of products”:
The bulk of Walmart’s policy focuses on providing safer products to customers by calling for the “reduction, restriction, and elimination” of Priority Chemicals (PCs), and for product reformulations to be undertaken using “informed substitution principles.” Because the list of PCs includes hundreds (if not thousands) of chemicals — as evidenced by Walmart’s reference list of regulatory and authoritative lists used to define its PCs — Walmart focused its suppliers’ attention on a shorter list of High Priority Chemicals (HPCs).
Today, Walmart identified the HPCs as propylparaben, butylparaben, nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), formaldehyde, dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, triclosan, and toluene. These eight chemicals and chemical classes appear on a number of authoritative lists (e.g. EU REACH Substances of Very High Concern) for their hazardous properties and are worthy of action by Walmart. The revelation of the identities of the chemicals was long-awaited and provides context to the rest of the information Walmart shared today.
To assess the portion of its chemical footprint[1] related to product sales covered by the policy, Walmart has measured progress in two ways: (i) the total weight of HPCs contained in products sold, i.e. pounds of HPCs going out the door, and (ii) frequency of use, i.e. the number of products on store shelves that contain HPCs and the number of suppliers using HPCs in their products. Walmart relied on RetailLink, its internal product inventory database, and WERCSmart, mentioned earlier, to make these calculations. Walmart has also computed and published this data for all Walmart PCs in the covered product categories.
Walmart reports a dramatic reduction in the total weight of PCs and HPCs going out the door. The total weight of HPCs dropped by 95% and PCS by 45%. The more than doubling of reduction of HPCs suggests that focusing attention on a subset of chemicals accelerated action.
Walmart attributes part of the success to its ability to determine which select set of suppliers used the majority (in pounds) of HPCs. This illustrates the utility of a product ingredient database that can provide aggregate information by supplier while not disclosing proprietary information.
As it relates to progress made in reducing the frequency of use of HPCs, the results were far more modest. Unfortunately, it appears that suppliers who use HPCs are largely still using them, though the aggregate mass has dropped. Overall, the percent of products containing HPCs dropped by only 3 percentage points (to 16%), while the percent of suppliers using HPCs increased slightly (to 39%). Meanwhile, the percent of products containing any Priority Chemical actually went up one percentage point (to 80%).
So while the weight amount of HPCs, and PCs more broadly, has dropped significantly, there is clearly much more work to be done to achieve complete elimination of these chemicals.“Safer Choice [formerly Design for the Environment] in private brands”:
Lastly, Walmart committed to increase the number of private brand product offerings bearing Safer Choice certification. As discussed in our recent blog, the Safer Choice Program is a voluntary program implemented by the U.S. EPA that seeks to recognize and bring consumer awareness to products that are leading the way when it comes to safer ingredients. This is the only commitment for which Walmart has not released quantitative data. The company reports that it has hit snags in making progress against this target but is still committed to the program.
Conclusion
Overall, Walmart has made major strides regarding the commitments set forth in its policy. Equally notable, it has set in place effective systems to measure and track progress over time – an ability that can’t be underestimated.
In our next blog, we’ll assess where Walmart’s progress rates against EDF’s five pillars of leadership for safer chemicals in the marketplace.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/07/20/major-strides-walmart-details-progress-on-chemicals/#more-5458
-
Preliminary Settlement Reached In US ‘Natural’ Advertising Lawsuit
Jul 21, 2016 | Cheimcal Watch
A US federal judge has preliminarily approved a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit against Unilever. It comes after allegations that the company falsely advertised its TRESemmé Naturals shampoo line as 'natural'.
The complaint alleged that the company's representation of the product was false and misleading because the named shampoos contained numerous synthetic ingredients including:ammonium laureth sulfate;dipropylene and propylene glycol;methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone; andfragrances.
The proposed agreement calls for a $3.25M settlement to be paid to the plaintiffs in the class-action suit, and to cover attorney fees and administrative costs.
Separately, two class action suits have been brought against Procter & Gamble. These concern allegations they advertised Pampers baby wipes as 'natural' when they are not.
One suit names Pampers 'natural clean' wipes. It alleges their advertising was "false and misleading" because they contain phenoxyethanol, an "unnatural and potentially harmful ingredient".
The second complaint alleges that advertising Pampers baby wipes as natural was "false, deceptive, and likely to mislead a reasonable person", because the product contains dimethicone, phenoxyethanol, and ethyhexyl glycerin.
The Honest Company and Kimberly-Clark are among the personal care products that have faced similar lawsuits in recent years.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently clamped down on claims that consumer products are "all natural" or "100% natural". But the agency's Green Guides do not offer guidance on the use of the term natural.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48721/preliminary-settlement-reached-in-us-natural-advertising-lawsuit
-
EPA Issues Toxic Release Data for Industrial Facilities
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
The Environmental Protection Agency released its annual Toxics Release Inventory preliminary dataset for 2015.
The dataset contains the inventory's most current information on toxic chemical releases at U.S. industrial facilities.
The data are used by a variety of research, advocacy, consulting and community groups to understand the quantity of releases in specific geographic locations and nationally.
This is the first year the nonylphenol category was included in the list of reportable chemicals. Nonylphenols are used to make other chemicals, in particular nonylphenol ethoxylates, which are found in home care, personal hygiene, automotive and other consumer products. The nonylphenol category was included because of the chemicals' potential to harm aquatic organisms.
The EPA said it will update the dataset several times during the summer and early fall based on information it receives from facilities to complete the characterization of emissions across the nation. Currently, the agency estimates the dataset to be 94 percent complete.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228652&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228652&jd=94228652
-
DHS Closes Chemical Program Backlog, Plots Future Steps
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A once-troubled chemical facility security program is back on track, a Department of Homeland Security official said July 20.
The Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program recently approved a backlog of site security plans, said David Wulf, the agency's director of infrastructure security compliance.
Wulf told the Chemical Sector Security Summit conference in Alexandria, Va., that he was “very pleased” by the progress.
The benchmark clears the way for the program to shift focus by seeking regulatory and legislative changes to boost its effectiveness, Wulf said. In addition, a congressionally mandated program to check the identities of individuals purchasing ammonium nitrate fertilizer is likely to be scrapped, Wulf told the conference.
A 2011 news report that the then four-year-old program had failed to conduct inspections or approve site security plans despite receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds prompted congressional oversight.
In 2013, a Government Accountability Office report predicted the DHS would take seven to nine more years to approve the plans.
Congress passed the Protecting and Securing Chemical Facilities from Terrorist Attacks Act in 2014, which reauthorized the CFATS program for four years while granting it new authorities meant to speed up approval of the plans.
Catching Up on Plans
Wulf credited the change and the department's hard work for catching up on the plans years earlier than expected.
Despite the benchmark, some audits have raised questions about how thoroughly plants are evaluated under the program. A 2014 report by then-Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) found much of the program's methodologies were unsubstantiated or inaccurate.
A GAO report in July 2015 also said the program had little way to check self-reported information filed by chemical companies.
Public interest groups also have questioned if DHS works too closely with the chemical industry.
Long-Term Authorization
The DHS is likely to seek multiyear or permanent authorization of the CFATS program in early 2017, Wulf said.
The agency also plans to overhaul the program's regulations—which were finalized in 2007—to simplify required processes. Officials also want to seek new legislation to remove a requirement that DHS issue a rule restricting ammonium nitrate fertilizer sales, which Wulf called unworkable.
The agency is in talks with the White House, congressional committees and industry groups on how to modify the mandate, Wulf said.
“We believe it would be prudent and likely more cost-effective to establish a broad framework that addresses multiple chemicals at point-of-sale,” Wulf said, noting the DHS is commissioning a study from the National Academy of Sciences on the issue.
DHS to Issue Notices in Fall
The DHS will issue the first of several notices of proposed rulemaking this fall updating the CFATS regulations, Wulf said. The agency will then hold a series of public listening sessions on possible changes.
Wulf said the agency will consider a broad range of changes, including changing the process through which chemical facilities are reviewed to make it “more user-friendly” and adjusting which chemicals subject a facility to the program's oversight. The agency also wants to allow facilities to file petitions declaring that the chemicals they store pose no risk, Wulf said.
“Really anything associated with the program and the proposed regulation is on the table,” Wulf said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228651&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228651&jd=94228651
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Groups Urge Appellate Court to Grant Water Permit to Constitution Pipeline
Jul 20, 2016 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
In a show of support for embattled Constitution Pipeline LLC, oil and natural gas organizations and others urged an appellate court to overrule regulators in New York State and issue a critical water permit for the project.
Last May, Constitution’s backers filed an appeal with the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit over the New York Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) refusal to issue a Section 401 Water Quality Certification under the federal Clean Water Act (see Shale Daily, May 16). The DEC denied the permit despite approval from FERC and a federal court to begin construction (see Shale Daily, March 20, 2015;Dec. 3, 2014).
In an amicus curiae brief filed Tuesday with the Second Circuit, the organizations supporting Constitution said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, not state regulatory agencies like the DEC, should be the ultimate arbiter over whether pipeline projects like Constitution proceed.
"Section 401 denials can...have effects beyond the specific project at hand by increasing the regulatory risk for pipeline investors, chilling new infrastructure development," Constitution's supporters said. "Obtaining FERC approval for a proposed pipeline is a long, thorough, and costly process.
"Denials like the decision under review are likely to make investors wary of risking the substantial time and money necessary to undertake that process, only to see a single state veto the project in the end -- perhaps on the very grounds FERC already considered. The resulting whiplash is particularly jarring where, as here, [DEC] actually participated fully in the FERC process."
The brief was filed by the Natural Gas Supply Association (NGSA), the American Petroleum Institute, the American Gas Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America and the Process Gas Consumers Group. Other signatories included the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council and the American Forest & Paper Association.
NGSA CEO Dena Wiggins called the DEC's actions "short-sighted" and said it would hamper the Empire State's economic growth potential. She added that NGSA's members saw "a clear need to speak up in opposition to New York's denial of [the] permit...
"Congress gave individual states a limited role in the approval process and gave FERC primary authority for reviewing pipeline projects, so that one state could not unilaterally veto FERC-approved projects and deprive others states' natural gas consumers of a useful and valuable source of competitive natural gas transportation."
Constitution is owned by subsidiaries of Williams Partners LP, Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., Piedmont Natural Gas Co. Inc. and WGL Holdings Inc. The approximately 124-mile, 30-inch diameter pipeline would transport Marcellus gas produced in northeast Pennsylvania to Schoharie County, NY, where it would connect with two existing interstate pipelines: Iroquois Gas Transmission and Tennessee Gas Pipeline. It would provide 650,000 Dth/d of takeaway capacity.
The saga over the Constitution Pipeline has lasted more than four years. It was proposed in February 2012, and its backers began the pre-filing process with FERC two months later (see Shale Daily, April 27, 2012; Feb. 22, 2012). A formal application to FERC was filed in June 2013 (see Shale Daily, June 17, 2013) and approved in December 2014. The project had an original in-service date of March 2015.
Last March, the company pushed the in-service date for the pipeline back to the second half of 2017 in order to comply with directives from FERC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect wildlife along the pipeline's route (see Shale Daily, March 10).
The appellate case is Constitution Pipeline Co. LLC v. DEC et al (No. 16-1568).
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/107138-industry-groups-urge-appellate-court-to-grant-water-permit-to-constitution-pipeline
-
Growing Opposition To Carbon Taxes In Washington
Jul 20, 2016 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Christine Harbin
When campaigning for president in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama famously said that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket" under his plan to pass cap-and-trade. So it’s no surprise Congress rejected the policy. But President Obama has remained determined, increasingly directing executive agencies to issue overreaching environmental regulations, and vehemently supporting a carbon tax. But just like the president’s proposed cap-and-trade, not everyone is on board for a carbon tax.
Opposition to a carbon tax is consistent on Capitol Hill. The House of Representatives recently passed with a vote of 237-163 a resolution sponsored by Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) expressing that a carbon tax would harm the national economy. The House passed a similar resolution back in 2013, also with 237 lawmakers casting a vote in opposition to a carbon tax. This signals a continued resistance to a tax that makes life more expensive for nearly every American.
The debate over carbon taxes is often wrongly oversimplified. The naïve view divides Washington into two discrete groups: (1) know-it-alls who support “climate action” and therefore support a carbon tax, and (2) knuckle-dragging climate science deniers. Looking more closely at the issue, the breakdown is far more complex, far less partisan, and far more interesting.
Opposition to the carbon tax is not isolated to a select group of lawmakers — even people and organizations that support climate action oppose a carbon tax. An advisor to ClearPath, a conservative organization tapped with engaging on climate issues, recently argued here in The Hill that the carbon tax is “political suicide to any Republican who would support it, has no real hope of success, and would only impose a cost on the economy with little to no environmental benefit.” Business magnate and philanthropist Bill Gates recently dismissed the carbon tax as an effective climate change mitigation strategy.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump also has been clear in his opposition on the issue, tweeting “I will not support or endorse a carbon tax!” this past May. The person he tapped to advise his campaign on energy policy, Rep. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), has said that he’s advising against any tax on carbon.
Perhaps more suggesting is that a surprising level of opposition also exists among Democrats. Although a carbon tax is central to President Obama’s agenda on energy and the environment, six House Democrats supported the recent Scalise resolution. Even when the president had large majorities in Congress during his first two years in office, he was unable to sign a carbon tax into law, despite his vocal support for one. And most recently, the Democratic National Committee rejected a proposal to endorse a carbon tax in its 2016 platform. It’s no wonder why. One study found that if a $25-per-ton carbon tax were implemented in 2013, it’d cost the average household nearly $1,400 per year through 2035.
Despite this consistent opposition on and off Capitol Hill, ideological hold-outs remain. Democratic elites, including President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders, continue to show unwavering support for carbon taxes. Further alarming, many in this category want the carbon tax in addition to EPA regulation.
Why do these hold-outs remain? It’s likely for reasons other than helping the environment — proponents see the tax as a way to raise revenue without cutting spending and to increase the size and scope of the federal government. After all, many climate change proposals at all levels of government include substantial increases in revenue – all at the expense of hardworking taxpayers.
Small businesses and working families — many of whom continue to struggle to get by — deserve an open and candid discussion about the real-life impacts of the controversial policies advocated by the Obama White House and the politically powerful green lobby. Thankfully, a bipartisan majority of Representatives in the House is listening.
Still, those who support new taxes on carbon have an obligation to be honest about the true costs. It’s simply wrong for lawmakers to prolong their pain by hiding tax hikes in legislation and regulation ostensibly intended to help the environment.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/288398-growing-opposition-to-carbon-taxes-in-washington
-
Experts See Optimism in Global Deal to Cut HFCs
Jul 21, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ben Remaly
Progress is being made in negotiations in Vienna for a global phase down of the super-pollutant hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and participants are optimistic, according to climate experts in a July 20 teleconference.
The Vienna meeting, which began July 15, aims to focus down the set of issues involved with passing an amendment for the universal phase down of the chemicals under the Montreal Protocol this October in Kigali, Rwanda. Experts in Vienna for the discussions said some preliminary agreements have been reached and parties have begun to narrow down the issues.
“It started yesterday [July 19] for the very first time actually negotiating the elements of a phase down, starting with a baseline, which is basically the starting point of a phase down and we will be moving through the discussions,” said Clare Perry, senior campaigner with the Environmental Investigation Agency.
Agreement Needed on Phase Down Steps
Perry says the parties will need to agree on the actual phase down steps and how far the phase down will go but that it's still early in the negotiating process.
“There's a very strong sense in the room that they [the parties] want this amendment, they want it this year in Kigali, and I think the main point to be resolved is how fast we will phase down HFCs,” Perry added.
Others in the teleconference echoed that optimism.
“Essentially every country is in a spirit of ‘let's get this done,'” said David Doniger, director of the Climate and Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Parties will need to reach an agreement on HFC emission baselines from which reductions would be made; freeze dates, or when those reductions would occur; reduction scheduling; funding for developing countries; and how far the reductions will go.
India's Amendment Considered
India's amendment proposal for developing countries stands as an outlier for its emission baselines proposed at 2028-2030 and freeze date of 2031. Experts say these dates coincide with the expiration of several patents of HFC alternatives.
“We're in the phase where we're doing hard bargaining. India is a very sophisticated negotiating country,” said Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development. “It will fight hard, but I think all parties are showing the flexibility to move towards a common position. Some will have to move a little further than others, and I think India is one of those.”
Doniger says patent challenges will likely be invalidated and will become a smaller problem than most people think.
He added that many developing countries feel, “If we act early, we can nip this problem in the bud,” but if efforts are delayed, resources will have been invested in outdated technology.
Global Preparedness Varies
Perry says there is a wide range of preparedness among developing nations for an HFC phase down and says the parties will need to find a solution that is “flexible, but ambitious enough so all countries are happy.”
“If we don't get close enough, there's discussion of having another extraordinary working group meeting,” which would be ahead of the 28th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol slated for Rwanda in October, Zaelke said.
Zaelke said that was a possibility because of the drive countries have shown in finishing the deal. If negotiators get far enough by the meeting's conclusion on July 23, there will be a text issued.
High-level talks for the meeting known as the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties run July 22-23 and the U.S. delegation will be led by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94228656&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94228656&jd=94228656
Industry and Association News
TSCA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested