Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 7/25/2016
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S Specialty Chemical Market Volumes Fell in June, ACC Says
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
U.S. specialty chemical market volumes declined in June by 0.4%, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The June decline follows a 0.3% drop in May and a 1.1% April. -
First Decisions on New Chemicals Made Under Amended TSCA
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency on July 22 issued its first regulatory decisions for new chemicals using the criteria of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act. -
Prioritisation Under New TSCA Intended To Be ‘Broad’
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Prioritisation of substances under the newly reformed TSCA is intended to be conservative, and is likely to err on the side of designating substances as high priorities. -
EPA Issues First Decisions Mandated Under The New TSCA
Jul 22, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today, EPA posted on its website risk determinations for four new chemicals it has reviewed under the new standards prescribed by the Lautenberg Act. While the premanufacture notices (PMNs) for these chemicalswere received by EPA prior to the June 22 signing of the new TSCA, EPA has reviewed them in the context of the new requirements. -
EPA Releases First Determinations for New Chemicals Under New TSCA
Jul 25, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Bergeson & Campbell
On July 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted on its website the first four Section 5(a)(3) determinations for premanufacture notices (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) (new TSCA). -
Achieving Regulatory Reform And Improving Chemical Safety Laws
Jul 22, 2016 | Black Hills Pioneer
By Sen. Mike Rounds
In South Dakota, we understand that overregulation and too much bureaucracy hinder economic growth and productivity. We work best when government gets out of the way, and we have low unemployment and a strong economy to show for it. -
10 Hazardous Chemicals in Consumer Products The EPA Should Regulate Now
Jul 22, 2016 | Tree Hugger
By Melissa Breyer
When progress and technology meet consumerism and a love of convenience, we have the perfect storm for manufacturers to make oodles and oodles of consumer products riddled with hazardous chemicals. -
Great Lakes Advisers Urge Industry to Tackle Flame Retardants
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
An advisory group wants the International Joint Commission to ask the United States and Canada to make the electronics, appliances, furniture and other industry sectors responsible for ensuring that toxic flame retardants do not enter the Great Lakes. -
OECD Publishes Safety Data Summaries on Four Nanomaterials
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently published four summary reports on human health and environmental safety data for manufactured nanomaterials studied in a high-profile international testing program launched a decade ago. -
N.Y. Issues Ventilation Rules for Nail Salons
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
Nail salons in New York will be required to meet industry ventilation standards to control worker exposure to fumes and dust from hazardous chemicals, under final rules announced July 22 by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D). -
Commission Study Says REACH, CLP and BPR Account for a Third of Total
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The main pieces of EU chemicals legislation – REACH, CLP and the Regulations on biocides and pesticides – together account for almost a third of the total regulatory costs borne by Europe's chemical industry, says a European Commission report. -
Democratic Platform Opposes Arctic, Atlantic Drilling
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Democrats oppose drilling off the coasts of the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans and will support changes to fossil fuel leasing on public lands, according to their 2016 presidential party platform. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Congress Clears The Way For Limits On Drone Flights Near Chemical Plants And Refineries
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The Senate gave final congressional approval on July 13 to bipartisan legislation that paves the way for restrictions on the operation of drones near chemical plants, oil refineries, and other “critical infrastructure” facilities. -
(ACC Mentioned) State To Levy Fee On Rail Cars Carrying Dangerous Chemicals
Jul 22, 2016 | AP (in the Merced Sun-Star)
California plans to levy a $45 fee later this year on rail cars carrying dangerous chemicals across the state. -
(ACC Mentioned) Video: Tiny House Made of Plastic Building Materials Travels the Country
Jul 22, 2016 | BWW
By TV News Desk
Plastics Make It Possible is a consumer-facing campaign from the American Chemistry Council that teaches people about how to recycle plastics and how plastics benefit us in our everyday lives. Last summer, we worked with Zack Giffin, the co-host of the FYI Network's TINY HOURSE NATION to build a tiny house in Boulder, CO to demonstrate how plastics benefit the consumer in building and construction and can overall provide cost savings, in houses both big and small. -
EPA Wants to Fix Flawed Ozone Implementation Rule
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency wants an opportunity to address legal flaws in a regulation governing implementation of the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion (South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, motion filed 7/21/16). -
‘Early Freeze Date’ Key to HFC Cuts, Kerry Says
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Developed and developing countries are close to sealing a deal to rapidly phase down hydrofluorocarbons, a climate pollutant that must be reduced to meet the Paris climate deal's goal of holding global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), Secretary of State John Kerry said July 22. -
A Sequel to the Paris Climate Accord Takes Shape in Vienna
Jul 23, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
When negotiators from nearly 200 countries gathered outside Paris in December for the United Nations summit meeting on climate change, they reached the first agreement to take action on curbing their planet-warming pollution.
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S Specialty Chemical Market Volumes Fell in June, ACC Says
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Engineering
By Scott Jenkins
U.S. specialty chemical market volumes declined in June by 0.4%, according to the latest Weekly Chemistry and Economic Report from the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, D.C.; www.americanchemistry.com). The June decline follows a 0.3% drop in May and a 1.1% April.
Of the 28 specialty chemical market segments monitored by ACC, 11 expanded in June (compared to 10 expanding in May and 8 in April). Two remained the same, and the other 15 declined. Large gains (1.0% or more) were observed only for rubber processing chemicals, the ACC report says. Smaller gains were seen in adhesives and sealants, antioxidants, corrosion inhibitors, food additives, industrial and institutional cleaning chemicals, lubricant additives, mining chemicals, plastic additives, plasticizers and water management chemicals, the report says.
The overall specialty chemical market volume is 1.4% lower than last year at this time, on a three-month-moving-average basis, ACC says.
http://www.chemengonline.com/u-s-specialty-chemical-market-volumes-fell-in-june-acc-says/?printmode=1
-
First Decisions on New Chemicals Made Under Amended TSCA
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
The Environmental Protection Agency on July 22 issued its first regulatory decisions for new chemicals using the criteria of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act.
The EPA concluded chemical manufacturers may make or import four new chemicals, because none is “likely to present an unreasonable risk.”
The four chemicals, identified by generic names, will be used in lubricants, added to plastics and used to make other chemicals including polymers.
The EPA's decisions and the information it released about them are part of the changes brought about by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. Law No. 114–182), which amended TSCA when it became law on June 22.
Lautenberg Sheds Light on New Chemicals Program
Prior to Lautenberg, a new chemical—one that had never been made or sold in the U.S. before—could simply enter U.S. commerce after 90 days unless the EPA raised objections.
Information about the chemical, the rationale that prompted the agency to raise objections or not, and details on controls it may or may not have requested a manufacturer to take were, typically, a “black box,” Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, told Bloomberg BNA July 22.
Now the agency must review all new chemicals and make a specific decision about whether they would pose an unreasonable risk.
The agency may, as it did with these four chemicals, decide a chemical is not likely to present an unreasonable risk. It also could conclude the chemical may pose an unreasonable risk warranting some type of restrictions or controls. The EPA also could conclude it has insufficient data to make a conclusion and order the manufacturer to submit additional information on toxicity or exposure.
The reasoning behind the agency's decision must be public under Lautenberg.
A new EPA webpage contains its new chemical decisions, called “determinations,” and provides links to documents that provide more detail for each chemical reviewed.
The information EPA posted contains an unprecedented amount of transparency about the reasons the agency reached its decisions and the methods it used to make them, Denison said.
Denison said he also liked that the agency in its decision documents described not only the manufacturer's intended use of a new chemical but also known or reasonably foreseeable applications.
Early in Process; Many Decisions to Come
Denison and Dan Newton, a senior manager with the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, said it is early to know how future decisions will play out.
Chemical manufacturers must submit premanufacture notices at least 90 days before they would like to make or import a new chemical. The decisions EPA announced addressed four of 58 of the notices it received from April 1 through April 29, according to information the agency published in the Federal Register June 2 (81 Fed. Reg. 35,351).
Nevertheless, Newton said, “this is certainly a good start.”
“EPA selected low-hanging fruit; the chemicals are low hazard,” Newton told Bloomberg BNA. “We are still in the beginning of a new process, so things can change.”
Newton commended the EPA for the speed at which it arrived at those four decisions.
The agency announced its determinations soon after the 90-day new chemicals review period established under TSCA, he said. That is noteworthy, because the agency announced a temporary hold on all new chemical decisions for PMNs that were pending before it on June 22, when the Lautenberg Act became law.
It is unclear how swiftly the agency will act with the other pending new chemicals it is reviewing, Newton said.
Lynn Bergeson, managing partner of Bergeson & Campbell PC, told Bloomberg BNA: “On the whole, the process seems to be efficient, but stakeholders will need to monitor the website.”
Newton urged new chemical submitters to pay close attention and be ready to share their experiences with their respective trade associations and the agency.
“We need to keep lines of communication open with the agency to help make the transition seamless,” he said.
More Information Said to Be Helpful
Denison said he would like the EPA to post more information as it releases additional new chemical assessments and determination documents.
The Lautenberg Act requires the EPA to explicitly review the risks chemicals pose to potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
The agency gave limited and inadequate considerations of such populations in these first four decisions, he said.
In the future it also would be useful for the EPA to clarify whether the chemical it analyzed would work well with the particular toxicity, exposure or other models it used to predict the chemical's characteristics, Denison said.
Like all models, the agency's have limitations, and it would be useful to know the extent to which a model would be expected to accurately predict how a new chemical would behave in the environment, an organism, or people.
Other documents the agency develops also should be released, Denison said.
The agency routinely analyzes the compound structure and other available information for a new chemical and prepares internal reports examining issues such as how the substance may move through the environment and how it could expose plants, wildlife or people and potential health effects.
Those structure activity, engineering and exposure reports are seldom released to the public and when they are they are heavily redacted, Denison said.
The information those reports contain would be helpful even if it must be redacted, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346749&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346749&jd=94346749
-
Prioritisation Under New TSCA Intended To Be ‘Broad’
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Prioritisation of substances under the newly reformed TSCA is intended to be conservative, and is likely to err on the side of designating substances as high priorities.
This is according to legal and environmental experts speaking at a recent Chemical Watchwebinar on the impacts of the recently enactedFrank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. This modernised TSCA for the first time in 40 years.
Charles Auer, a consultant and former director of the EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), explained to webinar attendees that Section 6(b) of the new TSCA applies a risk-based screening process to designate high versus low priority substances.
Chemicals must be designated as high-priority substances if the EPA administrator concludes – without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors – that the substance "may present an unreasonable risk because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use". This includes to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation (Pess).
All high priority chemicals must then proceed to risk evaluation.
Mr Auer noted that "insofar as all commercial chemicals have some type of potential route of exposure, one interpretation of this provision is that the prioritisation standard devolved to a hazard-based requirement.
"It seems clear to me that Congress intends that prioritisation be conducted broadly and conservatively, as 'sufficient information to establish' strikes me as a pretty robust requirement to satisfy."
This, he said, could have the effect of "pushing uncertain chemicals into the high-priority designation category."
Indeed, according to records submitted by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), Senate Democrats said that the prioritisation provisions "are intended to ensure that the only chemicals to be designated low-priority are those for which EPA both has sufficient information and, based on that information, affirmatively concludes that the substance does not warrant a finding that it may present an unreasonable risk."False negatives
According to Mr Auer, "the drafters' purpose may have been to structure prioritisation to avoid false negative calls – that is, risky chemicals that are missed. But the combination of what seems to be a hazard-based standard and a 'sufficient to establish' requirement, could produce many false positive high priority chemicals, which regardless require risk evaluation."
However, the Environmental Defense Fund's lead senior scientist, Richard Denison, argued that if prioritisation is going to err in one direction or the other, then it "ought to capture things that may later turn out not to be significant risks." Otherwise, such substances could effectively get set aside.
The risk evaluation step may ultimately determine that a chemical does not present a risk, and needs no further controls, he noted. "In other words, there’s a greater concern I have about false negatives – chemicals that really should have gone through a bigger evaluation – than I have about false positives, because there is a step that occurs after a chemical is identified as a high priority," he added.
The EPA is required to develop a prioritisation rule within the first year of the law's enactment that will set this system in place.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48744/prioritisation-under-new-tsca-intended-to-be-broad
-
EPA Issues First Decisions Mandated Under The New TSCA
Jul 22, 2016 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Today, EPA posted on its website risk determinations for four new chemicals it has reviewed under the new standards prescribed by the Lautenberg Act. While the premanufacture notices (PMNs) for these chemicalswere received by EPA prior to the June 22 signing of the new TSCA, EPA has reviewed them in the context of the new requirements. (Unlike reviews of chemicals already in use, which may take some years to conduct, EPA reviews of new chemicals are generally to be completed within 90 days, which is why we’re already seeing these appear so soon after enactment.)
These decisions are notable in that they are the very first formal decisions EPA has made under the new law. Based on an admittedly quick review of the decisions, I’ll offer a few observations.
A number of positive aspects of EPA’s review and posting are apparent:For the first time, an affirmative safety decision has been made by EPA for these new chemicals, reflecting a central reform of new chemical reviews that is required under the new law. In each case released today, EPA’s determination is that the chemical “is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.” (I expect EPA chose relatively “easy” cases for this debut.)These decisions have been made public, as required under the new law, which was a rarity under the old law.Summaries of the bases for the decisions have also been made public, both in the table provided on the website (see above link) and in 3-page “determination documents” for each substance. These documents provide, in one place, clear descriptions of:intended, known and reasonably foreseen uses of the chemical;a summary of EPA’s findings;descriptions of the criteria used and results of its analysis or consideration of:environmental fatepersistencebioaccumulation potentialhuman health hazardenvironmental hazardpotential exposurespotentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations
This, in my view, constitutes an unprecedented level of transparency for a program that has often felt like a “black box” in the past.
That’s all good news. But there are other concerning features of the reviews that bear mention:
Confidential information. Substantial amounts of information were claimed confidential – and kept so by EPA, including:the identities of the companies submitting the PMNsthe identities of the substancesthe specific uses of the substances (with one exception)
This is not atypical with PMNs, but such confidential business information (CBI) claims are now subject to a range of new requirements under the Lautenberg Act. It is not clear the extent to which such claims were scrutinized by EPA in these cases, and as the PMNs were submitted and the claims asserted prior to the signing of the new law, it’s not clear these particular claims would have been subject to the new requirements. Going forward, however, we will be seeking assurance that EPA is applying the new CBI requirements to applicable claims in PMNs and also reflecting them in its reviews and decision documents regarding those PMNs.
Estimated, not measured, data. Essentially all of the environmental fate, hazard and exposure information on which EPA based its decisions is predicted, not measured, and is derived using its suite of estimation models, structure-activity relationships or read-across. Use of such information is the traditional way in which EPA has conducted reviews in the past when companies fail to provide any or adequate safety data in their PMNs (true in a large majority of cases), and it may well not be adequate going forward as the basis for EPA to make the requisite affirmative safety finding.
While they can be useful, such estimation approaches and models have significant limitations, don’t work well for some classes of chemicals (e.g., certain heavily halogenated compounds), and aren’t available or reliable for some important health endpoints (especially chronic human health effects). Just one example is that EPA’s persistence models typically only examine a chemical’s persistence in air, water soil, and sediment, and its bioaccumulation model is based on uptake from water. Yet some chemicals (e.g., the “Teflon chemical” PFOA) that are “passed” by those models can nonetheless persist and build up in people’s blood.
In the absence of public knowledge of the identities of the chemicals, it’s difficult if not impossible to independently judge whether sole reliance on such information was adequate in these four specific reviews. And assuming these cases are relatively “easy ones,” they should not be viewed as representative, and the approach EPA deemed adequate here should not be viewed as precedent-setting.
A number of observers have called on companies to provide more safety information up front in their PMNs, in order to increase the likelihood of smooth reviews under the Lautenberg Act. We would echo that call and will be watching this issue closely going forward. In addition, the Lautenberg Act provides EPA with ready authority both to require testing in order to obtain adequate information on which to base its decisions, and to either block or condition commencement of manufacture pending receipt of that information.
Need for more than just summaries. As much as we welcome the greater transparency and extent of documentation of EPA’s review of these four cases, the determination documents EPA has provided are still only summaries and really only provide EPA’s interpretation of the information and analysis it has conducted. The PMN review process routinely generates more detailed review documents that provide its model inputs, outputs and assumptions. But in the past these have rarely been made public, and when they are available, they are heavily redacted due to CBI claims — in our view, overly so.
EDF urges EPA routinely to make its more detailed PMN review documents public, and to redact only information that is truly confidential.
Cursory consideration of exposure and exposed subpopulations. EPA’s reviews of exposure potential appear incomplete and insufficient, as well as its identification of potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations. (The law now includes an explicit requirement that EPA account for and mitigate against unreasonable risks to such subpopulations.) In all four cases, EPA noted that exposure potential was not even estimated due to predicted low bioaccumulation and hazard potential. Among other issues, this amplifies the concern we have over EPA’s heavy reliance on limited estimation models for bioaccumulation and hazard, when that in turn leads EPA not to further consider exposure potential.
In addition, in at least one case the basis of EPA’s identification of workers as the only potentially exposed subpopulation seems wholly inadequate. That chemical’s intended use is listed (generically) as “plastic additive.” This begs many questions, for example: which plastic(s), for what uses? Is there potential for the additive to migrate out of the plastic, which could lead to all kinds of potential exposures to a variety of subpopulations? What about releases in post-use waste management of such plastics?
Going forward, EDF urges EPA to do a more thorough review of the exposure side of the risk equation.
So, these first decisions by EPA under the Lautenberg Act are welcome and appear to represent real progress in a number of respects. We recognize the pressure EPA was under not to unduly extend its reviews of PMNs that had been filed prior to the law’s passage. Going forward, however, and in dealing with less “easy” cases, EPA needs to do more to ensure and communicate that its review is based on information sufficient to make the affirmative finding the new law requires: whether each new chemical is or is not likely to present an unreasonable risk.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2016/07/22/epa-issues-first-decisions-mandated-under-the-new-tsca/
-
EPA Releases First Determinations for New Chemicals Under New TSCA
Jul 25, 2016 | The National Law Review
By Bergeson & Campbell
On July 22, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted on its website the first four Section 5(a)(3) determinations for premanufacture notices (PMN) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Pub. L. No. 114-182) (new TSCA). All four of the new chemicals were determined to satisfy the "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determination at Section 5(a)(3)(C). It is notable that all four determinations relied on structure activity relationship (SAR) analyses and data on analogs.
In all four cases, EPA found low potential for health hazards and low potential for environmental hazards (low/low). EPA estimated that each substance has some degree of persistence (from limited persistence to very persistent) and that all four have a low potential for bioaccumulation. Based on our experience with the new chemicals program under TSCA prior to new TSCA, when EPA made a low/low hazard call and either a low potential for persistence or a low potential for bioaccumulation, EPA "dropped" the submissions from further review, avoiding the time and expense of performing exposure assessments on substances of low potential hazard.
Under new TSCA, to make a Section 5(a)(3)(C) determination, EPA must identify potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations (PESS) that are relevant under conditions of use. In these four Section 5(a)(3)(C) determinations, EPA identified known or reasonably foreseeable uses in addition to the uses identified in the PMNs. EPA identified the PESS under the intended use as workers for all four cases. We note that EPA identified consumers as a PESS if the substance notified in P-15-0281 was to be used as a lubricant or lubricant additive (the known or reasonably foreseen use that EPA identified). Even considering the PESS, EPA has concluded that a low hazard finding is sufficient to support a "not likely to present" finding under Section 5(a)(3)(C) and did not perform a formal exposure assessment. Since EPA has published the Section 5(a)(3)(C) findings, per Section 5(g), the submitters of these four PMNs may commence manufacturing without waiting for the remaining portion of the 90-day review period to expire.
PMN
Generic name
Use(s):
Intended
Known/foreseenPersistence
Bioaccumulation
Health Hazard
Environmental Hazard
P-16-0281
Fatty alcohols-dimers, trimers, polymers
Reactive polyol
Lubricant and lubricant additivePersistent
Low
Low
Low
P-16-0292
Depolymerized waste plastics
Intermediate for use in manufacture of polymers
Lubricant and lubricant additiveVery Persistent
Low
Low
Low
P-16-0301
Propyl silsesquioxanes, hydrogen-terminated
Intermediate
Lubricant and lubricant additiveLimited Persistence
Low
Low
Low
P-16-0302
Organic modified propyl sisesquioxane
Plastic additive
Finishing agentVery Persistent
Low
Low
Low
Commentary
EPA determined that all four new chemicals satisfy the "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" determination under Section 5(a)(3)(C). The conditions of use for these chemicals indicate industrial scenarios that would point to workers as the PESS. The potential exposure to workers was not estimated. Instead, the determination of not likely to present an unreasonable risk hinges on the low hazard potential for these chemicals. Three of the four chemicals were estimated to be persistent with two categorized as very persistent. The chemicals were estimated to have low potential for bioaccumulation. No information was provided about potential releases to water.
It is reassuring that the SAR was used to reach determinations about persistence, bioaccumulation, and hazard potential, including mention of category analysis. This suggests that EPA intends to maintain SAR as a basic component in its evaluation of new chemicals consistent with the provisions at Section 4(h) to reduce vertebrate animal testing and to maximize the use of existing hazard information.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-first-determinations-new-chemicals-under-new-tsca
-
Achieving Regulatory Reform And Improving Chemical Safety Laws
Jul 22, 2016 | Black Hills Pioneer
By Sen. Mike Rounds
In South Dakota, we understand that overregulation and too much bureaucracy hinder economic growth and productivity. We work best when government gets out of the way, and we have low unemployment and a strong economy to show for it. Unfortunately, this tried-and-true principle has seemingly been lost at the federal level: we have more than 1 million federal regulations on the books today and are writing new ones at the rate of 3,500 per year. I have spent a good part of my time in the Senate seeking to reform the regulatory environment and reduce the regulatory burden placed on Americans today.
While many efforts have been road blocked by a regulation-hungry president and his Democrat counterparts in Congress, there is at least one regulatory reform success story. After years of hard work, this summer the House and Senate passed — and President Obama signed into law — the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act. The Lautenberg Act is the first major reform of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) since it was enacted 40 years ago. TSCA is the law that gives the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to review and regulate chemicals in commerce. I applaud Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Chairman Jim Inhofe, Senator David Vitter, Senator Tom Udall and the entire committee for their diligence in seeing this law enacted.
The Lautenberg Act will help make sure South Dakota families are protected from harmful toxic chemicals by creating safeguards and oversight requirements. Over the last 40 years, the shortcomings of the well-intended but broken TSCA law have made it difficult for the EPA to monitor the safety of chemicals found in products American families use every day.
It will also support millions of jobs and spur economic growth by providing regulatory certainty for American businesses. For too long, job creators and manufacturers have suffered from inconsistent guidance of what chemicals can be used in their products. Now, they will have the certainty they need to safely invest in new manufacturing endeavors.
When working on the Lautenberg Act, the Senate EPW Committee, of which I am a member, took into account the oversight that we have been regularly conducting over the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and addressed problems we found in these laws in order to make TSCA a smarter, more conservative regulatory agent that won the support of all principal stakeholders. As a result, the Lautenberg Act will require that the EPA's regulatory decisions be based on the best available science and require the agency to show their work to the public and Congress.
Further, no longer can chemical regulations that are the result of cherry-picked data justify a politically-motivated regulatory outcome that is forced on job creators at the state or federal level. Instead, the EPA will need to justify its decisions by a substantial evidence standard and by using transparent scientific information while also taking into account costs when proposing any potential regulation.
The Lautenberg Act both protects public health and strengthens our economy, including the $8 billion chemical industry that impacts more than 7 million related American jobs and is the catalyst for almost all U.S. manufacturing. It is proof that regulatory reform is possible, even under the current political environment. I will continue working with my colleagues to achieve similar reforms in other areas of government.
http://www.bhpioneer.com/opinion/achieving-regulatory-reform-and-improving-chemical-safety-laws/article_acf78334-5039-11e6-8e67-97319239aec2.html
-
10 Hazardous Chemicals in Consumer Products The EPA Should Regulate Now
Jul 22, 2016 | Tree Hugger
By Melissa Breyer
The new chemical safety law prompts EWG to list the highest-priority toxic chemicals that desperately need review.
When progress and technology meet consumerism and a love of convenience, we have the perfect storm for manufacturers to make oodles and oodles of consumer products riddled with hazardous chemicals. But with the recent passing of a new chemical safety law – the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act – the EPA now has the tools necessary to ensure the safety of chemicals and significantly strengthen health protections for consumers.
But of the tens of thousands of chemicals on the market, muses the consumer watchdog organization, Environmental Working Group (EWG), most of which were never tested for safety, which should the EPA tackle first?
With this in mind EWG poured over the mess of chemicals out there and came up with a list of high-priority chemicals that they think the EPA should act on quickly. It includes chemicals used on American household daily; from detergents and household cleaners to clothes, mattresses, furniture, and toys.
“After decades of stagnation, the EPA can now ban or restrict the use of toxic chemicals, and order companies to conduct safety testing when more information is needed,” said EWG Senior Scientist David Andrews. “It's important that the agency act promptly to eliminate or reduce Americans’ exposure to industrial compounds linked to cancer, birth defects, hormone disruption and other health problems.”
To start with, the EPA has 90 chemicals known to pose health risks on a list called the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Work Plan.
“The Work Plan list represents opportunities for assessment and regulation where EPA action is overdue,” said EWG Senior Scientist Johanna Congleton. “In some cases, such as with some kinds of flame retardants, the initial EPA review was hindered by the lack of safety and exposure data. The EPA must now use its expanded authority to fill in these critical information gaps.”
The scientists from EWG poured over the chemicals on the Work Plan, examining numerous U.S. and international studies and consulted with fellow experts in environmental health. They considered “each chemical’s health risks, how widely Americans are exposed to it and the likelihood of EPA action under the new law.”
The following 10 chemicals that EWG is recommending for high-priority review are like a who’s who of deleterious villains, most of which have been covered by TreeHugger before. Of course with so many chemicals out there any list is bound to be somewhat subjective and at the very least, incomplete – but a start is encouraging.
Asbestos: The cancer-causing substance is still found in automobile brake pads and clutches, vinyl tiles, and roofing materials. While some uses have been banned since 1989, no new risk assessment is scheduled.PERC: This probable carcinogen appears in dry-cleaning fluid, spot removers and water repellents.
Phthalates: These chemicals are linked to early puberty in girls and other reproductive harms. They show up in PVC plastic, toys and plastic wrap.
BPA: This carcinogen is linked to infertility, developmental risks and diabetes. BPA is used in food cans and other food containers, as well as cash register receipts.
Chlorinated phosphate fire retardants: These chemicals turn up in upholstered furniture, foam cushions, baby car seats and insulation. They are linked to possible nerve and brain damage.
TBBPA and related chemicals: This potential carcinogen and endocrine disruptor is seen in electronics, auto parts and appliances.
Brominated phthalate fire retardants: These chemicals are linked to developmental toxicity, and appear in polyurethane foam for furniture and baby products.
1-Bromopropane: This probable carcinogen is used in aerosol cleaners and adhesives, and is linked to reproductive harm.
DEHA: This probable carcinogen is found in plastic wrap and PVC plastic. It is also linked to developmental toxicity.
P-dichlorobenzene: This probable carcinogen is detected in moth balls and deodorant blocks. It is linked to liver and nerve damage.
http://www.treehugger.com/health/10-hazardous-chemicals-consumer-products-epa-should-regulate-now.html
-
Great Lakes Advisers Urge Industry to Tackle Flame Retardants
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Menyasz
An advisory group wants the International Joint Commission to ask the United States and Canada to make the electronics, appliances, furniture and other industry sectors responsible for ensuring that toxic flame retardants do not enter the Great Lakes.
U.S. and Canadian regulations banning the manufacture, import and use of most polybrominated diphenyl ethers have significantly decreased PBDE concentrations in the Great Lakes, but action is needed to address the potential release of the substances from products that are already in use, John Jackson, a member of the bilateral commission's Great Lakes Water Quality Board, said July 21.
“We're worried that they could go up again when those products go out of use and are disposed of,” Jackson said in a webinar on the advisory board's recommendations to the commission. “What happens to the product at the end of its life should be part of the life cycle cost.”
The recommendation calls for a phased approach, starting with electronics, appliances, carpets, mattresses and furniture producers, he said. The second phase would address construction, renovation and demolition wastes, he said.
The advisory group also is recommending requiring industry to obtain advance approval from government for proposed alternatives to the flame retardants in their products, Jackson said. “This is how we can avoid the problem of the substitutes being as much of a problem,” he said.
And it is calling for the IJC to urge the governments to develop plans to reduce, and eventually eliminate, releases of the ethers to the Great Lakes from the recycling and disposal of end-of-life products, he said. Recycling is a controversial issue, as recycling products containing the chemicals does not end the threat they ultimately pose, he said.
Other recommendations include establishment of a product registry of products containing polybrominated diphenyl ethers, further research and monitoring on the end-of-life stage of those products, and ongoing monitoring of the Great Lakes to assess concentrations of the toxic substance, he said.
The advisory group's recommendations are open for public comment through Aug. 5, 2016.
U.S., Canada Designate Chemicals of Concern
The U.S. and Canadian governments have already addressed the advisory group's recommendation to designate polybrominated diphenyl ethers as “chemicals of mutual concern” under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, Jackson said. Strong action on them could provide a model for how the governments protect the environment from the other substances, he said.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Canadian Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna announced May 31, 2016, the identification of eight substances as the first eight chemicals of concern under the 1972 bilateral agreement on the Great Lakes.
The other substances are:
• hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), a flame retardant used in polystyrene foam that is used as building insulation;
• perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and long-chain perfluorocarboxylic acids (LC-PFCAs), used as a surfactant, water, oil and grease repellent and spreading and wetting agent;
• perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), used to manufacture paper, plastics and textiles, in electroplating and in commercial products such as fire-fighting foam and consumer products such as carpets;
• mercury, which is found in consumer products such as batteries and light bulbs;
• polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), used until the late 1970s in electrical equipment and heat transfer and hydraulic systems; and
• short chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), used in rubber manufacturing, as a component in metalworking fluids, and as plasticizers and flame retardants in plastics, paints and sealants.
Once chemicals of joint concern are identified, the agreement commits the governments to develop joint strategies to address them, including research, monitoring, surveillance and/or pollution prevention or control measures. It also requires them to issue a progress report every three years.
Canada has designated all eight substances as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Action, which requires the government to develop risk management activities to address their release to the environment.
Jackson said polybrominated diphenyl ethers, widely used as flame retardants since the 1970s, are persistent, toxic and bioaccumulative. They are considered toxic to the development of the human nervous system, and pre-natal exposure has been linked to lower IQ levels and increased risk of hyperactivity, he said.
They are present in the Great Lakes ecosystem in sediment, water, air, wildlife and humans, with the highest concentrations in Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, he said.
The chemicals are used in the manufacture of electronics and electrical equipment, appliances, clothing, carpets, construction materials, pipes and fittings, automobile components and upholstery.
Canada has banned the manufacture, import, use and sale of polybrominated diphenyl ethers, but not manufacture or import of products containing them. The United States still allows their use and sale, but has voluntary bans on manufacture and import of products containing the compounds.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346722&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346722&jd=94346722
-
OECD Publishes Safety Data Summaries on Four Nanomaterials
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rick Mitchell
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development recently published four summary reports on human health and environmental safety data for manufactured nanomaterials studied in a high-profile international testing program launched a decade ago.
The OECD released summaries of dossiers on endpoint data for multiwalled carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, single walled carbon nanotubes and silicon dioxide as reports Nos. 68, 69, 70 and 71, respectively, in the Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials.
Endpoints are effects, such as toxicity, that have been or can be measured, Peter Kearns, principal administrator of OECD's Environment Directorate, told Bloomberg BNA July 22. He said regulators can use endpoint data to conduct hazard assessments for particular substances in their jurisdictions.
According to Kearns, the new reports summarize data released last year for 11 nanomaterials on the website of OECD's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials.
“The dossiers themselves are pretty large, so these summaries are being prepared to make the information more accessible,” Kearns said.
The WPMN Sponsorship Program for the Testing of Manufactured Nanomaterials has since 2007 pooled expertise and funding from OECD member countries, non-member countries and other stakeholders to conduct safety testing for a priority list of 13 manufactured nanomaterials that are either in commerce or close to commercial release.
Two More Summaries Coming
Two more summaries, on titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, are expected to be published before mid-September, according to Kearns.
The working party's dossiers present testing data on 59 endpoints, including environmental exposure and fate endpoints such as biodegradation and bioaccumulation, and for hazards, including aquatic and terrestrial effects.
For human health hazards, they include endpoints for factors such as acute toxicity, sensitization, mutagenicity and carcinogenicity.
Full data for endpoints for other substances tested—silver nanoparticles, titanium dioxide, cerium oxide, zinc oxide, dendrimers, nanoclays and gold nanoparticles—are available on the WPMN's site. Data for iron nanoparticles and aluminum oxide are not yet available.
The OECD said the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials Sponsorship Program aims to generate endpoint data, based on actual testing that preferably uses OECD test guidelines, which can in turn be used for hazard assessment.
The goal is to be able to evaluate the best ways to characterize the physical-chemical properties of nanomaterials; determine if the OECD test guidelines are applicable to nanomaterials or if modifications or new methods are needed; and see how far properties of a nanomaterial differ from the bulk chemical equivalent, if available, with respect to human health and environmental safety.
To contact the reporter on this story: Rick Mitchell in Paris at correspondents@bna.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Greg Henderson at ghenderson@bna.com
For More Information
Information on the OECD's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, including full dossiers for 11 materials, is available at http://src.bna.com/g2n.
Report No. 68 on multiwalled carbon nanotubes is available at http://src.bna.com/g2q.
Report No. 69 on fullerenes is available at http://src.bna.com/g2r.
Report No. 70 on single walled carbon nanotubes is available at http://src.bna.com/g2s.
Report No. 71 on silicon dioxide is available at http://src.bna.com/g2u.
The website for the OECD's Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials is athttp://src.bna.com/g3w.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346748&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346748&jd=94346748
-
N.Y. Issues Ventilation Rules for Nail Salons
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By John Herzfeld
Nail salons in New York will be required to meet industry ventilation standards to control worker exposure to fumes and dust from hazardous chemicals, under final rules announced July 22 by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D).
The rules, which Cuomo said create the strictest nail salon ventilation requirements in the U.S., grew out of a drive announced by the state in May 2015 to improve labor conditions at nail salons after a series of press reports focusing on wage abuses and health hazards in the industry.
A state Health Department report supporting the final rules found that some 30 toxic chemicals or chemical categories are commonly used in nail products, including acetone, dibutyl phthalate, toluene, formaldehyde and other volatile organic compounds.
But the report said that nail salon product formulations change too often to set a complete list of chemicals used, and pointed to a study that identified some 100 chemicals that may be found in the products.
Set to take effect Oct. 3, the rules adopt as mandatory the voluntary industry standards set for nail salons by the 2015 International Mechanical Code, published in May 2014 by the private International Code Council.
They call for fresh outdoor air adequate to remove chemicals, vapors, fumes, dust and other air contaminants from the salon and flush them outside without recirculating. The code also requires specific exhaust systems at all manicure and pedicure work stations.
Five Years to Comply
Newly licensed salons must meet the requirements before opening, but salons licensed before the effective date will have five years to comply.
“Nail salon workers have been grossly exploited and exposed to dangerous chemicals with little or no protection,” Cuomo said in a statement. “These new regulations will make nail salons in New York the safest for employees and consumers anywhere.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346755&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346755&jd=94346755
-
Commission Study Says REACH, CLP and BPR Account for a Third of Total
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The main pieces of EU chemicals legislation – REACH, CLP and the Regulations on biocides and pesticides – together account for almost a third of the total regulatory costs borne by Europe's chemical industry, says a European Commission report.
Conducted as part of the Commission's Better Regulation agenda, the cumulative cost assessment (CCA) was carried out with the support of Cefic.
Total regulatory costs, says Cefic, doubled between 2004 and 2014 to almost €9.5bn.
The report says the total cost of EU legislation amounts to 12% of the "value added" of the EU chemical industry. Compared with gross operating surplus, the additional cost reaches 30%. This, Cefic says, indicates that the cost of regulation is a "significant factor shaping the profitability of the chemical industry".
"Europe needs to focus on its competitiveness, of which the regulatory burden is a big factor," says Cefic director general Marco Mensink.
René van Sloten, Cefic's executive director of industrial policy, told Chemical Watch the assessment is "not a deregulation-orientated exercise. It gets the facts on the table and serves as a tool to make things better." This echoes what Mr Mensink said at Cefic's better regulation workshop in April.
The Commission, however, stresses that the report "is only a first step and does not allow us to draw direct conclusions on the competitiveness of the chemicals industry". They warn that although the report sheds some light on the cost of chemicals legislation, it is part of a much broader fitness check of regulation that also evaluates the benefits of such legislation. These, it says, "must be taken into account before drawing any policy conclusions and without compromising the high level of health and environmental protection.One-third the cost
The report groups legislation into seven packages on the basis of their general and specific policy objectives:chemicals;energy;emissions and industrial processes;workers' safety;product-specific;customs and trade; andtransport legislation.
Of these, the biggest contribution (33%) comes from emissions and industrial process legislation, such as the emissions trading Directive. This is followed by chemicals (29%) and workers' safety (24%).
The regulatory cost for product-specific legislation, including the Directives on toys and the restriction of hazardous substances RoHS in electrical and electronic equipment, plus Regulations on food contact materials and construction products, accounts for just 1%.
Costs related to CLP and REACH will decrease after 2017 and 2018 respectively, says the report. However, the cost of compliance with the biocides and pesticides Regulations will continue to rise Those for workers' safety and transport legislation "should remain stable”.
The CCA notes that such assessments do not necessarily provide fully comprehensive statistical data because it is often impossible to collect data directly from companies in some sectors.
CHEMTrust executive director Michael Warhurst says the study "depended on reported costs from the chemical industry, which has a long record of overestimating the financial cost of regulation. Cefic describes these costs as 'high', even though they give no data from other countries to compare them with."
Cefic says the results were "subjected to a plausibility test in a workshop with other companies and validated by means of a broader online consultation".
Mr Warhurst adds that it is "vital that these Regulations are followed by all players in the market, so CHEMTrust would like to see a substantial increase in resources going to monitoring and enforcement."
Dolores Romano of the European Environmental Bureau said the survey only shows "one half of the story", and that chemicals regulation is vitally important to ensure that chemicals on the market in the EU become safer.
Phase two of the assessment, which is already underway, will focus on the international comparison of cumulative regulatory costs, including with China, India and the US. It is expected to be finished in around 12 months.
https://chemicalwatch.com/48742/chemical-regulations-in-europe-a-significant-burden-says-cefic
-
Democratic Platform Opposes Arctic, Atlantic Drilling
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Democrats oppose drilling off the coasts of the Arctic and the Atlantic Oceans and will support changes to fossil fuel leasing on public lands, according to their 2016 presidential party platform.
In addition, the document, dated July 21, calls for phasing down fossil fuel extraction from public lands and instead making “our public lands and water engines of the clean energy economy.”
“Democrats will work to expand the amount of renewable energy production on federal lands and waters from wind in Wyoming to solar in Nevada,” the party platform says.
The platform also calls for the U.S. to take the lead in combating climate change, calling the problem a global emergency.
Fighting Climate Change
“While Donald Trump says that climate change is a ‘hoax’ created by and for the Chinese, Democrats recognize the catastrophic consequences facing our country, our planet, and civilization,” the 55-page document says. “We are committed to a national mobilization, and to leading a global effort to mobilize nations to address this threat on a scale not seen since World War II.”
The platform, which is non-binding but serves as a statement of the party's goals, is expected to be approved by delegates at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia that begins July 25.
Unlike the 2012 Democratic Party platform, which called for increasing the use of natural gas, the 2016 version does not mention the fuel source other than to call for the streamlined development of renewable energy over natural gas plants. The omission comes as environmentalists increasingly oppose natural gas because of concerns about climate change and fracking.
“We believe hydraulic fracturing should not take place where states and local communities oppose it,” the 2016 platform said. The document also called for reducing methane emissions from all oil and gas production by at least 40 percent to 45 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 “through common sense standards for both new and existing sources and by repairing and replacing thousands of miles of leaky pipes.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346754&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346754&jd=94346754
-
Jul 25, 2016 | Chemical and Engineering News
By Glenn Hess
The Senate gave final congressional approval on July 13 to bipartisan legislation that paves the way for restrictions on the operation of drones near chemical plants, oil refineries, and other “critical infrastructure” facilities.
The legislation would require the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to establish procedures for chemical plants and refineries, as well as for energy production, transmission, and distribution facilities, to petition the agency to limit or ban operation of unmanned aircraft close to a facility.
The provision is included in a bill (H.R. 636) that authorizes FAA programs at current funding levels through September 2017. The House of Representatives approved the measure on July 11, and the Senate passed the legislation by a vote of 90-4 on July 13. President Barack Obama signed the bill into law on July 15.
Drones, unmanned aircraft flown remotely, have surged in recreational popularity. This has raised concerns that a drone could accidentally crash into an industrial facility, hit power lines, or be used by a terrorist to surveil potential targets.
Another worry is the threat of industrial espionage through aerial photography. Industry’s anxiety is focused on the possibility that “enterprising individuals will take aerial photos at these sites and try to sell them to competitors,” says John J. Durkay, legal counsel for the International Safety Training Council, which trains contractors and employees at chemical and refining plants in southeastern Texas.
“Drones photographing units can compromise facility trade secrets.” Durkay tells C&EN.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents major U.S. chemical companies, urged Congress to restrict drone use around the industry’s facilities.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i30/US-Congress-clears-way-limits.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) State To Levy Fee On Rail Cars Carrying Dangerous Chemicals
Jul 22, 2016 | AP (in the Merced Sun-Star)
California plans to levy a $45 fee later this year on rail cars carrying dangerous chemicals across the state.
The move follows several oil train derailments in the country, including in neighboring Oregon. A recent analysis conducted by the Office of Emergency Services found gaps in California's ability to handle such spills, prompting the state Legislature to order the fee program.
Railroad companies call the proposed fee illegal. Federal law prohibits states from imposing constraints on interstate commerce of railways.
The state compiled a list of 25 of the most hazardous materials shipped by rail. Each car carrying one of those materials will face the $45 fee. The list includes substances dangerous to humans by direct contact or because they are highly flammable, like oils, petroleum gases, fertilizers, acids and other chemicals.
Money collected — an estimated $10 million annually — will go to a fund designed to help the state improve its response capabilities, particularly in the gap areas identified in the analysis.
"When one of these trains derails, it puts lives, property and the economy at risk," State Fire and Rescue Chief Kim Zagaris said. "Right now, we don't have the surge capacity to deal with a major spill."
Twelve new, specially-trained hazmat teams will be created through the fund to cover these geographic regions. Some large fire departments already have similar teams.
Railroad and dangerous chemical shippers contend that the need for hazmat teams is overstated, suggesting that very few trains derail and most spills are small.
The Sacramento Bee's review of the state's rail spill database found that hundreds of hazardous material spills happen annually (http://bit.ly/29SrmCz). A Roseville railyard saw 50 reported spills in 2015. And, while large spills are relatively rare, they can be harmful to wildlife and rural economies, The Bee found.
Under California's plan, companies that own the chemicals will pay the fee, rather than railroad companies.
Still, railroad companies, including major shippers Union Pacific and BNSF, say the fee interferes in their business transactions. They would be expected to collect the money from their shipping customers and send it to the state.
"No state can regulate the rates or charges a railroad collects from its customers," Union Pacific assistant vice president Phillip Christensen wrote in an email to The Bee. "This kind of 'economic regulation' is categorically prohibited" by federal interstate commerce law.
An organization representing hazardous materials shippers, the American Chemistry Council, said members are worried the state's fee implementation could lead to rail fees in other states with no certainty about where the money would go.
Despite these complaints, state Office of Emergency Services officials said they expect to impose the fee this year. They said conversations with railroad companies and hazardous materials shippers will continue as they fine-tune the fee program.
http://www.mercedsunstar.com/news/business/article91295592.html#storylink=cpy
-
(ACC Mentioned) Video: Tiny House Made of Plastic Building Materials Travels the Country
Jul 22, 2016 | BWW
By TV News Desk
Plastics Make It Possible is a consumer-facing campaign from the American Chemistry Council that teaches people about how to recycle plastics and how plastics benefit us in our everyday lives. Last summer, we worked with Zack Giffin, the co-host of the FYI Network's TINY HOURSE NATION to build a tiny house in Boulder, CO to demonstrate how plastics benefit the consumer in building and construction and can overall provide cost savings, in houses both big and small.
The house then traveled to Los Angeles, CA and was a museum exhibit at the California Science Center for three months and has since traveled to Pittsburgh where it will be featured as an exhibit at Carnegie ScienceCenter through September 11.
To showcase the durability and unique elements of the house, we created a unique mini-documentary that showcases the houses travel from Boulder, CO to LA and Pittsburgh and highlights the house all over Pittsburgh including at PNC Park, Primanti Bros. and even as a night club in the Southside. You can view the video in full below:http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/videoplay.cfm?colid=1382901
http://www.broadwayworld.com/bwwtv/article/VIDEO-TINY-HOUSE-Made-of-Plastic-Building-Materials-Travels-the-Country-20160722
-
EPA Wants to Fix Flawed Ozone Implementation Rule
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Environmental Protection Agency wants an opportunity to address legal flaws in a regulation governing implementation of the 2008 ozone standards of 75 parts per billion (South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1115, motion filed 7/21/16).
The agency specifically is concerned with the “anti-backsliding” provisions for the 1979 one-hour ozone standard in areas that attain the 2008 standards. The implementation rule provided that anti-backsliding measures, which are intended to ensure air quality does not deteriorate, would not be required for areas that meet the 2008 ozone standards, which generally are more stringent than the one-hour standard.
The EPA, in a motion filed July 21, asked a federal appeals court to vacate and remand those portions of the implementation rule, which the agency conceded are not sufficiently supported by the record.
“EPA believes it did not adequately describe in the final rule or in the rulemaking record the scientific and other factual bases for the agency's determination that initial attainment, or future redesignation to attainment, of the generally far more stringent 2008 [standards] ensures that areas are in actual attainment of the one-hour [standard] as well.”
In addition to anti-backsliding requirements for the one-hour standard, the EPA's implementation rule revoked the 1997 ozone standard and established various requirements for state pollution plans outlining their plans to bring nonattainment areas into compliance with the 75 ppb standards. The implementation rule is being challenged by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and a coalition of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club.
The EPA motion only applies to the anti-backsliding provisions related to the one-hour standard. The agency said it plans to file a brief opposing most of the challenges raised by the petitioners, which include opposition to the revocation of the 1997 standards and a provision that allows states to include areawide emissions averaging programs in their pollution plans to address reasonably available control technology requirements for major sources in certain areas.
The agency's response brief is due Sept. 7.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346744&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346744&jd=94346744
-
‘Early Freeze Date’ Key to HFC Cuts, Kerry Says
Jul 25, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Developed and developing countries are close to sealing a deal to rapidly phase down hydrofluorocarbons, a climate pollutant that must be reduced to meet the Paris climate deal's goal of holding global temperature rise to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), Secretary of State John Kerry said July 22.
Kerry said the deal should combine an “early freeze date” for peaking HFC emissions with “rapid action to phase down” use of the refrigerant as well as more funding for developing nations to transition to climate friendly alternatives.
Negotiators are essentially working from four proposals including a U.S.-backed option to begin the phasedown in 2019. Speaking in Vienna at high-level talks under the Montreal Protocol, Kerry said the parties have essentially “already agreed that 2016 is the year” to amend the protocol to cut HFCs.
The nearly 200 nations that are parties to the protocol still need to adopt an amendment to make such steep reductions, which they hope to reach at an October summit in Kigali, Rwanda.
“Amending the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs is one of the single most important unitary steps that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change and to protect the future for people in every single corner of the globe,” Kerry said. Each year, emissions of HFCs amount to the equivalent of a gigaton of carbon dioxide being poured into the atmosphere, Kerry said, roughly equal to the annual carbon dioxide from nearly 300 coal-fired power plants.
G-7 Nations Pledging Support
On the need for more funding for developing nations, the U.S. and other Group of Seven industrialized nations have already “stated our promise” to increase support under the Multilateral Fund available under the protocol, Kerry said in remarks to the high-level segment of the Montreal Protocol negotiations being held through July 23 in Vienna.
What appears to be progress in the HFC negotiations comes as President Barack Obama and Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto pledged cooperation on clean energy and climate change following talks between the two leaders that concluded July 22. The two countries will launch a workshop this fall to promote cuts of methane emissions from the oil and gas sector in keeping with a June pledge by the U.S., Canada and Mexico to cut those oil and gas sector emissions 40 percent to 45 percent by 2025.
Mexico also vowed it would begin to adopt methodologies to estimate the social costs of carbon—accounting for health and other impacts from each ton of carbon pollution—for use in Mexico's regulatory actions, a practice already taken up by various U.S. regulatory agencies during the Obama administration.
“Mexico's adoption of this practice would be a step toward the ultimate goal of creating a low-carbon continent” for the U.S., Canada and Mexico, according to a statement from Greg Dotson, vice president for energy policy at the Center for American Progress.
Talks With Saudi Arabia, Pakistan Bear Fruit
Kerry provided some insight into the dynamics of the HFC negotiations late July 22 in remarks to industry representatives as well as nongovernmental organizations. The secretary said he had especially promising discussions with two key countries that have expressed concern over the quick phasedown—Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Pakistani negotiators appeared “ready to sign the agreement then and there.” and the Saudis appear to “very cooperative and on board,” Kerry told the NGOs, adding that he expected negotiators are about to “break the dam a little bit here” on roadblocks to getting a final deal in October in Rwanda.
But he cautioned that negotiators are not there yet. “No premature celebrations, folks,” Kerry said, adding that as promising as the international negotiations appear to be, “things [can] surface from a different corner than you expect it.”
Negotiators are not expected to formally agree to a deal to cut HFCs at the Vienna meetings, formally the Extraordinary Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, but rather at the Oct. 10-14 Rwanda summit, which will serve as the 28th Meeting of the Parties (MOP-28) to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Baselines, Freeze Dates Major Issues
Among the issues developed and developing nations will need to resolve in an amendment: emission baselines from which reductions would be made; the freeze dates for when those reductions would have to begin; reduction scheduling; funding for developing countries; and how far and fast the reductions are to be made.
Hydrofluorocarbons—which are used as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, solvents and fire retardants—were originally developed as alternatives to ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). But HFCs are now considered a significant greenhouse gas contributing to rising global temperatures, potent greenhouse gases with long atmospheric lifetimes and an extremely high global warming potential compared to carbon dioxide.
A significant phasedown of HFCs could avoid up to a half–degree Celsius of warming this century, or roughly one-quarter of the 2 degree global temperature goal nearly 200 nations agreed to at a December climate summit in Paris.
The climate accord calls for keeping global warming to “well below” a 2-degree Celsius rise compared to pre-industrial levels and for the parties to “pursue efforts” for a 1.5 degree Celsius limit (2.7 F).
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=94346750&vname=dennotallissues&fn=94346750&jd=94346750
-
A Sequel to the Paris Climate Accord Takes Shape in Vienna
Jul 23, 2016 | The New York Times
By Coral Davenport
When negotiators from nearly 200 countries gathered outside Paris in December for the United Nations summit meeting on climate change, they reached the first agreement to take action on curbing their planet-warming pollution.
This weekend in Vienna, with far less attention, negotiators from those same countries neared a deal that many environmentalists have called the most significant action this year to reduce global warming.
While the Paris agreement aims to reduce the use of coal and oil, which produce the carbon dioxide emissions that are the chief cause of global warming, negotiators in Vienna pushed ahead on a deal to ban the use of hydrofluorocarbons, chemicals used in air-conditioners and refrigerators. Although they contribute only a small percentage of the world’s greenhouse gases, these chemicals, known as HFCs, can trap heat in the atmosphere at levels a thousand times higher than carbon dioxide can, according to published scientific studies.
Negotiations to ban HFCs have dragged on for seven years. But the draft language emerging from the Vienna talks could lead to a final deal ready to be signed during an October conference in Kigali, Rwanda.
The deal would be an amendment to the Montreal Protocol, the landmark 1989 environmental treaty designed to close the hole in the ozone layer by banning ozone-depleting coolants called chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs.
In response, chemical companies developed HFCs, which do not harm the ozone. But the substitute had the wholly unexpected side effect of increasing heat trapped in the atmosphere, which worsened climate change.
The Montreal treaty allows nations to amend it to ban substitute chemicals that have negative environmental effects even if they do not harm the ozone. And American chemical companies such as Dow, DuPont and Honeywell have already begun to patent climate-friendly HFC substitutes.Continue reading the main story
Scientists estimate that an increase in average global temperatures of three degrees Fahrenheit could tip the planet into a dangerous future of rising sea levels, devastating droughts, extreme storms and shortages of food and water. Studies show that banning HFCs worldwide could prevent an increase of nearly one degree over the next century.
“Amending the Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs is one of the single most important unitary steps that we could possibly take at this moment to stave off the worst impacts of climate change and to protect the future for people in every single corner of the globe,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in a speech to negotiators in Vienna on Friday.
As diplomats worked on drafting the amendment, scientists at NASAannounced this past week that 2016 was on track to be the hottest year on record, with 2015 and 2014 ranking second and third.
An amendment to the Montreal Protocol would have the force of law in almost every country, which could give it more potency than the Paris Agreement, a legal hybrid that lacks the binding force of a treaty. While some portions of the Paris Agreement are legally binding, the specific actions taken by countries to reduce their emissions are voluntary. And there are already questions about whether some countries will follow through on their Paris pledges.
In Brazil, the impeachment proceedings against President Dilma Rousseff have thrown the fate of her Paris promise into question. Rodrigo Duterte, the new president of the Philippines, said this month that he would not honor the Paris agreement. And in the United States, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, has vowed to “cancel” the Paris accord.
Most countries support some form of a deal to phase out HFCs, but some with developing economies, led by India, are pushing for a slow timeline. While the United States wants a deal that would phase out production of the chemicals in five years, Indian diplomats are pushing for 15. They say the costs of new substitute coolants will disproportionately affect the residents of developing countries in warm climates, where the use of air conditioning is expected to soar in coming decades.
“An earlier date would impose economywide costs on India,” said Arunabha Ghosh, the chief executive of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water in New Delhi. “The cost of alternative refrigerants are eight to 10 times what is available.”
President Obama, who has sought to make climate change prevention a cornerstone of his legacy, has spoken at length with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India about reaching a deal, and Mr. Kerry flew to Vienna on Friday to personally engage in the negotiations. In his speech on Friday, he pledged that a final deal would include assistance from rich countries to help poorer ones deal with the cost of transitioning to the new chemicals, although he did not specify a dollar amount.
Final details of timing and financial aid are expected to be established at the October meeting in Kigali.
Many large American chemical companies are pushing hard for the amendment. Final passage of the deal could create a new market for their coolants in refrigerators and air-conditioners around the world.
“Our member companies pushed for this amendment for years,” said Francis Dietz, a vice president of the Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute, a lobbying group. “It’s sort of unusual for industry to spend a lot of time trying to get regulated. But we knew regulations of HFCs were coming down the pike, and we’re ready.”
Honeywell, the New Jersey-based multinational company that produces everything from aerospace systems to home thermostats, has already invested $900 million in developing and patenting an HFC substitute, now being made in two recently built plants in Baton Rouge, La. A third plant in Louisiana is planned for next year, in anticipation of a booming demand for the products after passage of the Montreal Protocol amendment.
“We began developing replacements for HFCs years ago,” said Ken Gayer, a vice president with Honeywell. Mr. Gayer said the company was already planning to make the new cooling products in India and China.
The deal’s support from major businesses has blunted much of the criticism that many Republicans in the United States typically bring to debates about efforts to control global warming. Obama administration officials have pointed out that the Montreal Protocol itself, which was largely negotiated by President Ronald Reagan, has long enjoyed bipartisan support. Those circumstances, and the relatively low profile of the Vienna talks, appear to have kept the HFC amendment out of the political fray that often surrounds climate change policy.
Gina McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, who has led the United States delegation in Vienna, noted the change.
“It’s very different from the Paris climate meetings,” she said. “It’s not been the same political dynamics as in that world.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/world/europe/vienna-sequel-paris-climate-accord.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Congressional Hearings - There are no relevant hearings to report at this time
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested