Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/20/16
-
(ACC Blog) 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference Draws Nearly 1,000 Professionals To Baltimore
Oct 19, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
“Our driving force is CPI,” remarked CPI Steering Committee Chair Tom Feige at the Opening Session of the 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference. “We have an association of people and resources that support a material that is vital to our society.” -
'Backlog' Of EPA New Chemical Reviews Could Complicate TSCA Efforts
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is facing several challenges in working through what one industry source calls a “backlog” of reviews for new chemicals that it is pursuing in accordance with the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with the law's new evaluation requirements potentially complicating the agency's ability to process the long queue of reviews. -
EPA Toxics Chief Says TRI Program Will Help Implementing TSCA Reform
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones says a recent decision to return the agency's Toxics Release inventory (TRI) reporting program to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) will assist with implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) mandates for chemical reviews and other requirements. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Exposure To Endocrine Disruptors Cost $340 Billion To US
Oct 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro EU
By Giulia Paravicini
A British medical journal study today said exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost the U.S. economy some $340 billion a year, mainly in health costs and lost earnings from disease. -
New Data On The Financial Cost Of Cosmetic Chemical Exposure In The US
Oct 19, 2016 | Cosmetics Design
By Deanna Utroske
According to newly published research, daily use of consumer goods and packages made with endocrine-disrupting chemicals results in hundreds of billions of dollars in health care expenses and lost wages every year in this country. -
Plastic Chemicals Have A $340 Billion Price Tag
Oct 19, 2016 | Capital Wired
By Germaine Hicks
Plastic chemicals seem to affect a large number of Americans every year, while they also come at a high price: $340 billion. -
California BPA Forum Agenda Announced
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry has released the agenda for its 4 November forum on alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) used in cans. -
EPA On Track To Propose California Mercury Water Criteria
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has begun developing mercury water quality criteria to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife in California, putting the agency on track to meet a June 30, 2017, deadline contained in a 2014 consent decree with environmentalists. -
High Praise for Toxics Release Inventory at 30
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Thirty years after coming into existence, the Toxics Release Inventory database received high praise from activists and academics at an Oct. 19 TRI national training conference. -
Investors: Chemical Issues A Material Risk
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
“As part of our environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) analysis, we look at what the most material risks are for specific companies in specific sectors, and chemical safety and regulatory issues concerning chemicals are growing material risks,” says asset management firm Impax’s Lisa Beauvilain. -
The Purpose Of A Risk Management Option Analysis
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Ying Zhu
As part of the European Commission’s SVHC Roadmap to 2020, the risk management option analysis (RMOA) was introduced as a step in the decision-making process for authorities. -
The Unhealthy Emphasis On Economics
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Adela Maghear
In June, I attended the European Commission’s workshop in Brussels on the strategy for a non-toxic environment, part of the 7th Environment Action Programme (7EAP). -
Guest Column – Uta Jensen-Korte
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Uta Jensen-Korte
With the ten-year anniversary of REACH next year, it is interesting for those of us who have been in the Brussels bubble since the beginning to look back at how chemicals policy has evolved. -
Skanska’s Approach To Chemicals
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
“The commercial availability of alternatives and the focus on substitution of substances of concern varies a lot between the different home markets,” says Eva-Lena Carlén-Johansson, manager of sustainability projects at Sweden headquartered construction company Skanska. -
Branching Out Across Asia
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
From its beginnings in the EU, regulations restricting the use of hazardous substances in electronics have trickled across the globe. -
(ACC Mentioned) LSU Center For Energy Studies, Economics And Policy Research Group To Host Energy Summit
Oct 20, 2016 | LSU Now
By CJ Carver
The University’s Center for Energy Studies along with the University’s Economics & Policy Research Group will hold the Energy Summit 2016, “Managing through Energy Challenges” on Oct. 26 in the Energy, Coast & Environment Building on campus. -
Podesta Welcomed Fossil Fuel 'Loathing' — Emails
Oct 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
John Podesta vowed to "beat" fossil fuel interests intent on defeating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while refusing to cut industry ties, according to emails said to be hacked from his personal account. -
Fracking's Unlikely Friend In Hillary Clinton
Oct 30, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
In the latest case of unlikely allies, Hillary Clinton supports hydraulic fracking and has no intention of banning it or shutting down the oil and gas industry. -
Regional Efforts Prove Beneficial in Sparking Northeast Energy Gains
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha Kessler
Rapid developments in technology, competitive markets, low gas prices and state-level policy choices have led to significant changes within the electric power markets in the Northeast, a new study finds, noting, for example, that coal-fired generation in the region has declined more than 80 percent since 2005. -
Hastings: Clean Energy And The Irony Of The Red State Of Texas
Oct 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Marilu Hastings
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month heard oral arguments on the legality of the Clean Power Plan, a pillar of the Obama Administration's climate protection strategy. The plan requires states to develop strategies to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sends Chemical Plant Safety Rule to OMB for Review
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency has advanced a contentious rule to boost security at high-risk chemical facilities, sending the proposal to the White House for review, records show. -
Plant's Poor Safety Practices Led to Fatal Blast, Board Says
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A fatal explosion at a Louisiana olefins plant could have been prevented if the plant's operator had implemented stronger process safety management practices, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Oct. 19. -
Air Force Reports Chemical Spill in Water at Colorado Base
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Water laced with perfluorinated chemicals was accidentally discharged at Peterson Air Force Base into a sewer system in Colorado Springs and flowed into a creek, Air Force officials reported. -
Shelter-in-Place Order Lifted After Chemical Lime Spill
Oct 19, 2016 | AP (In ABC News)
Officials in a Cincinnati-area township have lifted a shelter-in-place order after a chemical lime spill. -
EPA Rejects Delaware NAAQS SIP Credit For Out-Of-State Emissions Cuts
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is rejecting Delaware's novel to plan to gain credit in its state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for emissions “offsets” obtained from multiple other states, saying the First State failed to properly link the sale of offsets to areas upwind that are hindering its air quality. -
Clinton Could Resort to Using Clean Air Act to Set Carbon Tax
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Continued congressional inaction on climate change could ultimately prod Hillary Clinton, if president, to go it alone and impose a carbon tax using existing Clean Air Act authority, the head of the World Resources Institute said Oct. 19.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference Draws Nearly 1,000 Professionals To Baltimore
Oct 19, 2016 | American Chemistry Matters
“Our driving force is CPI,” remarked CPI Steering Committee Chair Tom Feige at the Opening Session of the 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference. “We have an association of people and resources that support a material that is vital to our society.”
The strength and momentum driving the industry forward served as the common thread linking together the 18 technical sessions, 73 technical presentations, 66 table top exhibits, 22 poster presentations and eight Professional Development Program courses at the 2016 Polyurethanes Technical Conference held in late September in Baltimore, Maryland.
In a keynote panel discussion to kick off the conference’s first day, COO of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Mahesh Ramanujam and President and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) Cal Dooley explored the path forward towards meeting ambitious sustainability goals with the products of chemistry. Drawing on their experience and unique perspectives, both executives emphasized the vital need for their industries to join forces in in advancing industry-wide sustainability. Dooley also announced the formation of an executive-level task force to spur conversations about sustainability among leading chemical suppliers and manufacturers.
he competition for the prestigious Polyurethane Innovation Award at this year’s conference also reflected the pioneering spirit at the core of the industry. The three Innovation Award finalists – Dow’s VORA Zzz™Ultra-High Airflow and Moisture-Wicking Foam Technology, Huntsman’s VITROX® HC 98010 Polyol with SUPRASEC® 9801 Isocyanate, and Shepherd Chemical Company’s BiCATs™ 8840 and 8842 Water Stable Bismuth Catalysts for Polyurethane Formulations– were presented at the Opening Session. After tallying the conference attendees’ votes and combining the tally with the expert judges’ scores, Shepherd’s winning entry was announced during the Closing Session.
This year’s 73 technical presentations examined important sustainability, automotive and construction issues facing the industry. Topics spanned from the push for global harmonization of automotive volatile organic compound (VOC) standards to the latest advancements on the use of spray polyurethane foam in construction applications.
Regulatory issues also featured prominently this year – the Regulatory Roundtable included presentations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the European Diisocyanate and Polyol Producers Association (ISOPA). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) also presented during the conference’s technical sessions. At the Closing Session, attendees received an informative chemical management update from ACC Vice President of Regulatory and Technical Affairs Mike Walls. Walls spoke about the historic Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act that fulfilled TSCA reform and was signed into law this summer.
During the course of three and a half days, nearly 1,000 industry professionals gathered to network with colleagues, learn about the next, cutting-edge polyurethane advancements, and develop lasting relationships to strengthen the industry and propel it forward. For more information about this year’s conference and to watch video interviews, check out the ICIS interactive publication.
Join us next year in New Orleans next October as CPI celebrates the landmark 60th year of the longest-running polyurethanes industry event in North America! To receive the latest 2017 conference updates, follow CPI on Twitter and LinkedIn.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2016/10/2016-polyurethanes-technical-conference-draws-nearly-1000-professionals-to-baltimore/
-
'Backlog' Of EPA New Chemical Reviews Could Complicate TSCA Efforts
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Bridget DiCosmo
EPA is facing several challenges in working through what one industry source calls a “backlog” of reviews for new chemicals that it is pursuing in accordance with the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), with the law's new evaluation requirements potentially complicating the agency's ability to process the long queue of reviews.
The new chemical program “was the most immediately affected part of the chemicals program” as a result of TSCA reform, says an EPA spokeswoman, because the agency must now make an affirmative finding on new substances' safety prior to their commercial use. Under section 5 of the original 1976 TSCA, EPA did not have to issue findings on the safety of new chemicals entering the marketplace, although it had power to do so.
A company could under the prior TSCA begin manufacturing and sales of a new chemical after 90 days barring an EPA finding that the chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” but the agency was not required to make an affirmative finding of safety for a substance to be used in commerce.
Companies submit premanufacture notices (PMNs) to EPA, and almost 90 percent of them do not lead to limits on the chemical, EPA says on its website. Regulatory options include a consent order with testing mandates, limits on some releases, or other provisions. Another option is a significant new use rule to “require notice to EPA before chemical substances and mixtures are used in new ways that might create concerns.”
The TSCA overhaul requires EPA to review all new chemicals and make an affirmative finding on each substance's safety. EPA may find that the chemical is not likely to present a significant risk; it may find that there is “insufficient information” to make a safety determination or that it may present an unreasonable risk.
EPA has deemed new chemical notices that were in process at that time to be resubmitted, rather than require that companies physically resubmit, restarting the 90-day clock for review of those chemicals.
For the 200 or so substances in the process of reviews under section 5 as of the law's effective date of June 22, chemical companies sought and received a suspension of the 90-day review period while orders are being developed. The agency had previously made decisions to develop orders or to seek additional information from the companies, based on a finding that each chemical “may present an unreasonable risk.”
EPA's Decisions
Additionally, EPA has made interim decisions or final findings for most of the roughly 115 PMNs submitted within the 90-day review period when TSCA reform was enacted, for which the clock restarted at 90 days, the spokeswoman says.
Of those, EPA found that 23 chemicals were“not likely to present an unreasonable risk,” 72 chemicals “may present an unreasonable risk” requiring a section 5(e) order to require exposure controls and or the development of information. A total of 29 determinations were based on intended use of the chemical, and 43 were based on reasonably foreseeable uses alone, EPA says. For 12 of the chemicals, there was insufficient information to complete the reviews, and eight submissions were withdrawn by the company that filed the PMN.
EPA is continuing to review new chemical submissions received after June 22, the spokeswoman says, but the backlog of PMNs still at the agency is sparking concern from the industry source.
But the source notes that at least 72 new PMNs have been filed after June 22, and the new law's mandates are likely to cause an increase in section 5(e) orders, which could result in the backlog becoming “quickly unmanageable.”
EPA's spokeswoman points out that the finding of “insufficient information” and the requirement that the agency issue an affirmative safety finding did not exist under the previous TSCA and “thus will increase the number of chemicals subject to orders,” although actual requirements posed for chemicals submitted under section 5 has not changed.
One environmentalist notes that the affirmative finding requirement is a new mandate that will likely require some time for EPA to adjust to having to make, and that if the agency does find a chemical “may present an unreasonable risk,” it is “important that EPA take the time to address those concerns.
Industry's Concerns
Chemical sector officials raised initial concerns on EPA's plan to implement regulatory revisions for addressing new chemicals under section 5 in situations where a new substance has already been submitted for review under the old TSCA, though others said that undergoing reviews under the new law provides long-term certainty.
“There were several hundred chemicals at different stages of the review process, and new submissions being made every day, at the rate of about 1,000 per year,” the agency spokeswoman says. “The EPA’s goals were to implement the new provisions in Section 5, the part of the law covering new chemicals, consistent with the law, and to implement decisions in a time frame that comes as close as possible to that experienced prior to the new law.”
But EPA acknowledges that the approach included a number of challenges, such as “Doubling up on review processes to reconsider pre-enactment decisions in light of the new standard for 'resubmitted' PMNs, while keeping pace with new submissions, developing a process for implementing the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding and new documentation and publication requirements; implementing the mandate that EPA must make an affirmative safety determination for both “intended and reasonably foreseen” uses, and implementing new “insufficient information to make a reasoned evaluation” findings, the spokewoman says.
Dimitri Karakitsos, senior counsel for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which drafted one of the bills that became the foundation of the law, said in an Oct. 13 interview that EPA under the old law made internal decisions on new chemical PMNs, even though they were not made public. TSCA reform sought to codify those types of reviews only with public notice requirements and so is not a “major overhaul to the system,” he said.
Karakitsos, now with Holland & Knight's Public Policy & Regulation Practice Group in Washington, D.C., said that Congress sought to preserve the section 5 review process, which many agreed was successful, including the 90-day review period.
Now that EPA will be publicly issuing affirmative determinations, Karakitsos said, it is important that EPA make sure those are well-documented and supported, but that the agency should be able to strike a balance between making sure the system remains credible and continuing to adhere to the 90-day time frames.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/backlog-epa-new-chemical-reviews-could-complicate-tsca-efforts
-
EPA Toxics Chief Says TRI Program Will Help Implementing TSCA Reform
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA toxics chief Jim Jones says a recent decision to return the agency's Toxics Release inventory (TRI) reporting program to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) will assist with implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act's (TSCA) mandates for chemical reviews and other requirements.
“Implementing this law will be a be a big job and I'm glad that TRI staff and managers are here to help,” Jones said during Oct. 19 keynote remarks at an agency-sponsored TRI conference in Washington, D.C.
TRI is a mandatory program requiring companies to annually report their toxic releases of more than 650 listed chemicals under authority granted in the Emergency Planning & Community Right To Know Act. EPA says the data inform waste reduction efforts and encourage industrial facilities to manage production-generated toxic waste through recycling or energy recovery rather than releasing it to the environment.
EPA last February moved the program from the Office of Environmental Information back to the OCSPP, where it debuted in 1986. The agency stressed that the move would not change TRI's reporting requirements.
Jones, assistant administrator of OCSPP, described ways that EPA's TSCA and TRI programs could influence each other, “by considering TSCA priority chemicals for addition to TRI listings, and conducting analyses on TSCA priority chemicals that are already on the TRI chemical list.”
Section 6 of the new TSCA law signed June 22 directs EPA to categorize existing chemicals -- those already on the market -- as high or low priority, and then perform risk evaluations of the high priority chemicals. Within five years of enactment, EPA must ensure that at least 25 high- and 25- low priority chemicals had been identified, with an interim period of three years for having listed at least 20 substances within each prioritization category.
In addition, there are new deadlines for EPA to restrict high-priority substances within two years of completing and publishing a safety assessment and determination under section 6 of TSCA.
Jones appeared to suggest that one action the agency could take on high priority chemicals is listing them for mandatory reporting as part of the TRI program. It is unclear what analyses he thought should be conducted of priority chemicals using TRI data, which represent annual totals of releases into air, water and land from more than 20,000 industrial facilities across the United States.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-toxics-chief-says-tri-program-will-help-implementing-tsca-reform
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study: Exposure To Endocrine Disruptors Cost $340 Billion To US
Oct 18, 2016 | PoliticoPro EU
By Giulia Paravicini
A British medical journal study today said exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost the U.S. economy some $340 billion a year, mainly in health costs and lost earnings from disease.
The study in the Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology says the estimate is “not an exaggeration but an underestimation of the annual economic cost since health damages attributable to the chemicals range from obesity and diabetes to fertility problems.”
The report noted that the cost estimate is lower in Europe because of tighter regulations, at around $220 billion annually.
The headline figure was immediately challenged by the American Chemistry Council, arguing that the paper’s conclusion were “speculative at best and based on incomplete, inaccurate information about the relationship between chemicals and human health.” The ACC added that the method used for the study has “been widely criticized by economists, scientists and even the European Commission.”
At the EU level, environment ministers met Monday to discuss the Commission’s latest proposal to regulate EDCs. Austria and Belgium joined Sweden in their criticism of the current proposal, forcing the Commission to come up with an amended pitch in the next few weeks.
http://www.politico.eu/pro/study-exposure-to-endocrine-disruptors-cost-340-billion-to-us/
-
New Data On The Financial Cost Of Cosmetic Chemical Exposure In The US
Oct 19, 2016 | Cosmetics Design
By Deanna Utroske
According to newly published research, daily use of consumer goods and packages made with endocrine-disrupting chemicals results in hundreds of billions of dollars in health care expenses and lost wages every year in this country.
In an article published this week online in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology (one in a group of journals meant to put science in context for the medical community and society at large), a team of researchers from across the US and Europe outline the financial expense of health issues linked to incidental chemical exposure.
Of course only a fraction of that exposure comes from personal care and cosmetic products and packages. But whenever the industry—one focused on benefiting and beautifying—is linked to issues of ill health, it’s news.
The article, titled, “Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population based disease burden and cost analysis,” “adds to the growing evidence on the tremendous economic as well as human health costs of endocrine-disrupting chemicals,” explains lead investigator Leonardo Trasande, an epidemiologist and professor at NYU Langone Medical Center.
The total annual cost (an estimate “made based on population and costs in the USA in 2010,” according to the article abstract) of contact with endocrine-disrupting chemicals is $340bn.
Separating those costs out by condition, the team reports that neurological conditions account for $282bn, endometriosis and fibroids $43bn, premature death costs $8bn, obesity and diabetes $5bn, and men’s reproductive conditions $2bn.
Where’s the risk?
Data from the research also shows that the majority of risk comes from exposure to flame retardants. $240bn of the total $340bn in health and lostwage expenses comes from contact with endocrinedisrupting chemicals used as flame retardants.
Exposure to chemicals used as pesticides amounts to $42bn. And somewhere in the remaining $58bn are endocrine disrupting chemicals used in personal care and beauty product formulations and packaging.
But that number ($58bn) isn’t just for the cosmetics industry. $56bn of it is attributed to chemicals in bottles and cans across all sectors. And the other $2bn is attributed to “other mixes of chemicals.
What to do?
The researchers do make some recommendations. “Based on our analyses, stronger regulatory oversight of endocrine disrupting chemicals is needed, not just in Europe, but in the U.S.,” Trasande says is a NYU press item about the article
He believes that “this oversight should include not only safety tests on the chemicals' use in the manufacture of commercial products before the chemicals receive government approval, but also studies of their health impact over time once they are used in consumer products.”
Curiously, given the data above, the suggestions for consumers focus on not microwaving or dishwashing plastic food containers and “switching to all natural or fragrancefree cosmetics.”
http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Regulation-Safety/New-data-on-the-financial-cost-of-cosmetic-chemical-exposure-in-the-US
-
Plastic Chemicals Have A $340 Billion Price Tag
Oct 19, 2016 | Capital Wired
By Germaine Hicks
Plastic chemicals seem to affect a large number of Americans every year, while they also come at a high price: $340 billion.
These chemicals can be found in household items such as flame retardants, pesticides, detergents, tin cans, cosmetics, and plastic bottles just to name a few. People exposed to these dangerous chemicals receive from the United States government more than $340 billion which are spent on treatments.
Such a tremendous amount of money is twice as high as the $163 billion spent by the European Union. To address this issue, the EU has adopted new regulations that reduce people’s exposure to these chemical disruptors.
A group of experts from the Langone Medical Center has conducted a study to find out the effects of these chemicals. Based on their findings, these chemical disruptors attack hormones, leading to development abnormalities, reproductive disorders, and neurological dysfunctionalities.
According to researcher Leonardo Trasande, his team analyzed urine and blood samples from many patients who took part in a national examination survey. This analysis revealed that all patients had endocrine disruptors in their bodies.
Then, they calculated the total costs of direct and indirect treatment as well as lost earnings. It turned out that United States spent $340 billion every year. It is worth mentioning that just five percent of all known endocrine disruptors have been measured in the study, while the costs of emotional welfare such as human suffering have not been taken into account.
Since 2008, these chemicals have been restricted by the UE, whereas they affected around 43,000 Americans leading to developmental disabilities. Based on the study findings, EDC exposure contributes to dysfunction and disease across the United States, leading to annual costs of over two percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Such a high discrepancy between the U.S. and Europe underlines that public healthcare policies must improve as American citizens should have access to chemical disruption screening of the endocrine system.
By limiting the exposure, they can prevent these chemicals from causing any harm. Experts strongly recommend people to eat organic food, avoid dishwashing in plastic containers, microwaving, canned goods, and pesticide use. Any plastic household items might contain chemicals potentially dangerous for your health.
http://www.capitalwired.com/plastic-chemicals-340-billion/214457/
-
California BPA Forum Agenda Announced
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
California's Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry has released the agenda for its 4 November forum on alternatives to bisphenol A (BPA) used in cans.
The agenda for Identifying and evaluating alternative materials: the case of BPA-free can linings includes:discussion of the functional requirements of can linings and how the food packaging supply chain operates;assessing chemical migration from can linings, including high-throughput techniques for understanding human exposure;evaluating the toxicity of BPA and its alternatives; andapplying information to decision making around material selection.
The meeting is co-sponsored by the California EPA (CalEPA), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and federal partners.
Interested persons may register to attend the event in person or via webcast.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50431/california-bpa-forum-agenda-announced
-
EPA On Track To Propose California Mercury Water Criteria
Oct 20, 2016 | Inside EPA
EPA has begun developing mercury water quality criteria to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife in California, putting the agency on track to meet a June 30, 2017, deadline contained in a 2014 consent decree with environmentalists.
In the agency's list of rulemakings launched in August but announced this month, EPA says that in 12 months or less it will propose “aquatic-dependent wildlife criteria applicable to waters under the state of California's jurisdiction to protect aquatic-dependent wildlife from exposure to mercury.”
The August Action Initiation List says the new criteria will not supercede the criteria already in place in specific waterbodies in California, and will rely “on the latest science and information regarding mercury bioaccumulation and toxicity as well as California-specific information such as species and habitat information.” EPA also says it will take into account applicable agency policies, guidance and legal requirements, the notice states.
The rulemaking stems from a settlement with two environmental groups, Our Children's Earth Foundation and Ecological Rights Foundation, that required EPA to set selenium criteria for the Golden State by Nov. 16, 2016, and mercury criteria by June 30, 2017. In both instances, EPA will conduct Endangered Species Act consultations with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service within nine months of the proposal and finalize the criteria within six months of concluding the consultation or determining the criteria will have no effect on any listed species or their habitat.
http://insideepa.com/news-briefs/epa-track-propose-california-mercury-water-criteria
-
High Praise for Toxics Release Inventory at 30
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
Thirty years after coming into existence, the Toxics Release Inventory database received high praise from activists and academics at an Oct. 19 TRI national training conference.
The conference was held almost 30 years to the day after President Ronald Reagan signed the law that requires companies to report their releases of toxic chemicals to the Environmental Protection Agency, which then compiles these reports into a publicly available database.
Beverly Wright, a sociology professor at Dillard University who specializes in urban environmental justice issues, said the creation of the TRI database was “a lifesaver” for many African American neighborhoods located near industrial sites.
“We'd been saying there's something in the air that's making us sick,” Wright said at the conference. “And it was thought to be just the disgruntled raging of an unhappy community.”
Future of Program?
With the program entering its fourth decade, many of the attendees of the conference agreed that it should begin to build on its formative successes.
Environmental consultant Mark Greenwood, an EPA alumni who used to work on the TRI program, said the EPA should expand on its efforts to move the database beyond releases of pollution to also include data on companies’ pollution prevention efforts. He also said the EPA needs to improve its risk communication efforts by placing the TRI's data in context rather than just reporting it to the public without explanation.
Ultimately, one of the most important things the EPA can do with TRI is to simply ensure it continues to exist, according to Paul Mohai, an environmental policy professor at the University of Michigan. Mohai pointed out that, because the EPA reports its localized TRI data annually, people currently under 30 years of age will be able to gain a nearly complete picture of the environmental toxins they have been exposed to throughout every period of their lives.
“Imagine the possibilities for doing longitudinal studies,” Mohai said. “There's no other data like it.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078599&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078599&jd=99078599
-
Investors: Chemical Issues A Material Risk
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
“As part of our environmental, social, corporate governance (ESG) analysis, we look at what the most material risks are for specific companies in specific sectors, and chemical safety and regulatory issues concerning chemicals are growing material risks,” says asset management firm Impax’s Lisa Beauvilain.
Impax invests in companies that provide solutions to resource and environmental challenges, such as energy efficiency, water infrastructure, pollution control, waste management technologies and sustainable food.
The firm’s exposure to chemicals-related issues is through its speciality chemicals, packaging, food and water treatment companies.
To analyse and monitor the management of chemicals at a company, Impax first asks them a set of questions:
Does the company understand that these issues are material risks? Is it discussing the regulations, and those upcoming, that could require it to phase out certain substances from its portfolios or products?
Is there detail, and again an understanding, of how a regulation could impact a certain chemical and therefore the company’s revenue – and is it one of the main chemicals it uses or produces? This is something that is rarely disclosed, says Ms Beauvilain.
Has the company thought about, and does it disclose, strategies around substituting a toxic chemical that is under regulatory scrutiny? Are they carrying out, or hiring a service provider, to assess alternatives?
As a basis for these discussions, the company uses the NGO ChemSec’s SIN List (Substitute it Now), to “give us an idea of which substances are, or could be, regulated under REACH,” says Ms Beauvilain, its head of sustainability and ESG.
The SIN List adds chemicals likely to be banned or restricted in the near future. They will have been identified by ChemSec as SVHCs, based on the criteria established under REACH.
“We can use the list to ask companies if they are using any of these substances, if so are any of those significant for the company, and do they have a strategy for phasing them out or replacing them?”
For something as complex as chemicals, says Ms Beauvilain, the SIN List is helpful because, for investors, who aren’t chemists, going down to the substance level and monitoring scientific discussions is not really possible. “We have so many factors, risks and issues that we’re looking into at the same time.”
Helene Soyer-Nogueira, analyst at investment rating firm, Vigeo,
says chemicals management and the assessment of risks and hazards are quite technical issues. “As such they have been considered as expert domains, reserved for qualified professionals and scientists, remote from the public’s understanding and interests.”Slowing progress
Impax does follow policy debate as much as possible, such as the concerns and discussions around endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
She says that a few years ago there was “good momentum from the private sector in managing these issues”.
“For chemicals, and REACH, for example, the aim was for the number of chemicals added to the candidate list to grow exponentially. It has grown but it has slowed and this is partly due to the economic crisis but also the significant lobbying by the chemical sector.”
She says the ongoing scientific and regulatory debates, such as those on EDCs, have slowed progress.
Managing risks, says Ms Beauvilain, is what investors look out for and, unfortunately, because of this regulatory slowdown, the management of hazardous chemicals is not as high a priority as it should be for companies.
But hopefully with countries like France, Sweden and Denmark pushing the agenda on, it will at some stage be at the forefront of companies’ and investors’ risk management plans.Collaboration
Imax has been engaging with other investment companies, Aviva Investors, BNP Paribas, WHEB Investors, on chemicals management since 2012.
At the beginning, companies were saying they hadn’t been asked questions around chemicals management before, says Ms Beauvilain. But the group has seen improved disclosure since then, especially with the companies we had discussed these issues with.
“We have been considering this issue for some time as part of our ESG risk assessment, and through our work with other investment firms, we decided to be more proactive in this area,” says Helena Viñes Fiestas, head of sustainability research, BNP Investment Partners.
“We have been engaging with companies in the chemical sector to encourage them to improve their disclosure. In particular, we are keen to see chemical substance regulatory exposures; the use of ‘intermediary’ classifications; and company initiatives to substitute substances with lower toxicity alternatives.”
Ms Viñes Fiestas says the firm has also started engaging with European authorities. Shifting focus
Over the last decade, there has been a positive drive towards safer management of chemicals. This, says Ms Soyer-Nogueira, is partly due to stricter regulations, such as REACH and the reform of US TSCA, or state legislation on safer chemicals, but also consumer and NGO pressure.
“Consumers are also more and more aware of the issue [of hazardous chemicals] and their concerns are growing, whether regarding the use of agrochemicals, the use of specific chemicals from particular products, such as bisphenol A in baby bottles or phthalates in household products and cosmetics.”
Furthermore, she says, they tend to be expressing their concerns through their consumption choices.
Overall, the chemical sector is a “good corporate socially responsible (CSR) performer”, says Ms Soyer-Nogueira, with relevant commitments and initiatives taken to address its main risk factors. These, she says, are namely accidental pollution, product safety, employee safety, as well as energy use and the reduction of GHG emissions. “In this domain, chemical companies have made considerable progress over the last decade for example.”
However, current and future challenges for the chemical industry are the development of safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals and of bio-based chemicals.
“This aspect is still only emerging,” says Ms Soyer-Nogueira.
Some companies have already launched initiatives and developed and marketed bio-based chemicals. But very few have adopted clear policies, with even fewer setting quantitative targets to develop such products, and disclose performance indicators.
The investment community is keeping a firm eye on the progress of chemicals management within companies, especially as regulatory frameworks are introduced or become stricter.
Downstream sectors, such as textiles, cosmetics, are particularly exposed to risks linked to the mismanagement of chemicals, both from the perspective of consumers and investors.
As an ESG rating agency, Vigeo takes into account stakeholders’ feedback in its evaluations. The Greenpeace report, A little story about the monsters in your closet, released in 2014, claimed to have found hazardous and potentially hormone-disrupting chemicals in 82 children’s clothing and footwear products from 12 companies. This, for example, caused an adverse impact on the reputation and brand image of the companies targeted in it, says Ms Soyer-Nogueira. Providing another example, she says, some major food companies have faced allegations over the toxicity of microwave popcorn.
“Such controversies involve critical reputational and legal risks for companies, as well as operational setbacks when millions of products have to be recalled,” she adds.
“This is why our analysis of such sectors is taking into account, more and more, the global aspect of product safety, and we are also interested in initiatives such as the chemical footprint project (CFP) to help positively discriminate companies taking the lead on these aspects.”
The CFP aims to establish meaningful measurement of overall corporate performance towards safer chemicals in products and supply chains. Dr Mark Rossi, project lead and co-founder of NGO Clean Production Action (CPA), says the CFP provides the first-ever common metric of its kind for publicly benchmarking corporate chemicals management and profiling leadership companies.
The CFP, as with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP), will foster transparency and disclosure, says BNP Investment partners’ Ms Viñes Fiestas. “It allows investors and other stakeholders who are not experts, to use it in risk management processes as it provides quantitative, specific chemical information.”
According to Ms Soyer-Nogueira, it is the chemicals sector that can take the lead on the green revolution, substituting hazardous chemicals with bio-based alternatives. “We see this is only just starting. The chemicals sector could be frontrunners in the development of sustainable goods and services.”
https://chemicalwatch.com/50375/investors-a-material-risk
-
The Purpose Of A Risk Management Option Analysis
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Ying Zhu
As part of the European Commission’s SVHC Roadmap to 2020, the risk management option analysis (RMOA) was introduced as a step in the decision-making process for authorities.
Associated with it, is the public activities coordination tool (PACT), published by Echa. This lists the substances for which a RMOA or an informal hazard assessment for persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic/very persistent and very bioaccumulative (PBT/vPvB) or endocrine disruptor properties is under development or has been completed since February 2013, when the the SVHC Roadmap was launched.
An RMOA is a case-by-case analysis, conducted by the authorities (member states or Echa if requested by the European Commission), to:
· conclude if a substance should be identified as a concern; and
· if additional regulatory instrument(s) should be proposed, to manage the risks from its use to human health or the environment, as well as which instruments to use.
The substances in scope are:
· carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMRs);
· endocrine disruptors;
· sensitisers: respiratory and/or skin;
· specific target organ toxicity, repeated expoure (STOT RE);
· other human health related toxic effect/endpoints;
· PBT and vPvB; and
· other environmental toxicity.
The main conclusions that will be drawn are one, or multiple choices, of the following:
· identification as an SVHC – entering the candidate list, before being prioritised for REACH authorisation;
· REACH restriction;
· REACH substance evaluation;
· CLP harmonised classification and labelling;
· other EU-wide measures; and
· no need for follow-up regulatory action at EU level.
According to the PACT list, 325 RMOAs have been registered since September 2014 by various authorities, and 146 have been finalised.
The most active authorities seem to be Denmark (73), Sweden (56), Germany (58), France (54), followed by the Netherlands (30) and Echa (18).
Of the 146 finalised RMOAs: 68% reached the conclusion that regulatory risk management actions should be initiated; with 20% concluding that there was no need at the moment; 19% are on hold. Forty-seven per cent of the initiated regulatory actions were SVHC identification, 34% were restrictions, 8% were harmonised classification and labelling procedures and 10% were other regulations.
Influencing the outcome
From a company point of view, there is an urgent need to actively manage regulatory risks. This is because any of the actions being decided can mean considerable investment to improve current operational conditions; significant obsolescence management and/or replacement cost; potential supply chain disruption; as well as dramatic market reactions. Therefore a strategy-level analysis and action plan is recommended to determine the potential risk management options that the authorities may apply and how to act accordingly. This exercise can be described in roughly four steps:
· monitoring
· analysing
· intervening
· strategic planning
Monitoring
The PACT list is the main one to be followed. It gives the first signal of which substances the authorities are working on, and whether there may be impact on the business. Knowing which authority is working on what is also important for potential intervention activities.
Analysing
Companies can put themselves in the authorities’ shoes and make the RMOA themselves. But it is important to understand that those for potential SVHCs normally look at the full range of uses for a given substance. For individual companies or sector trade associations, it may be difficult to get the big picture. However, the main data source for the authorities, namely the registration information, is largely available to the general public through Echa’s dissemination tool as well. In addition, companies need to know the decision criteria and related timelines.
The goal of the analysing step is to make a realistic prediction of the RMOA outcome and the associated timetable. This will contribute to the intervention and the strategic planning steps.
Intervening
The idea of intervention is to provide the right information to the right party at the right time. There are some things companies can do:
Keep the registration dossier up to date and accurate
Updating the registration dossier, to reflect the most current understanding, is particularly important for information that is used as selection criteria. For example, information on hazardous properties that may change the classification or qualification to a PBT, vPvB and/or endocrine disruptor, as well as information on the uses and volumes. It is also important, under REACH, to coordinate this work with the substance information exchange forum (Sief), because every registrant needs to update the information in order for the change to be taken into consideration.
Participate in the public consultations with the most useful information
The public consultation is the only official route to provide the decision makers with information that is not available in the registration dossier. The information concerning the use conditions, volumes, alternatives, as well as the socio-economic effects can help authorities to make the most proportionate regulatory decisions.
In addition to individual companies’ activities, the trade associations often play an important role in lobbying for a more appropriate regulatory option. For example, a use already regulated by specific EU laws that aim to protect human health or the environment may give grounds to claim an exemption from the authorisation list (Annex XIV), based on REACH Article 58(2).
Strategic planning
In addition to the intervention activities, companies should develop a regulatory roadmap as part of their strategic planning. This may address key issues such as:
· processes to be designed or optimised on the substance and use information collection;
· mitigation of regulatory risks along the supply chain;
· timely obsolescence management;
· cost-effective replacement plan;
· portfolio optimisation; and
· effective public communication.
The road forward
Since February 2013, more than 300 RMOAs have been initiated and over 100 have reached a conclusion. Industry has mostly welcomed this step as an opportunity to influence the regulatory pathway, at an early stage. The main concern has been the lack of a harmonised approach, for example, in how data is collected from the public and in criteria set by the various authorities.
Increasing disatisfaction with the authorisation process, especially from the downstream user sectors, has also put more pressure on the outcome of an RMOA.
In addition to the financial burden and complexity of the authorisation process, the downstream user sectors have argued that there is a considerable mismatch between the timeline for REACH authorisation (sunset dates) and the feasible substitution of chemicals. This, they say, is due to the lack of suitable alternatives and industry specific substitution environment.
Interestingly, two recent RMOA outcomes seem to illustrate this concern, firstly, the case of 1,2-dibromoethane. Echa considered all SVHC roadmap 2020 criteria qualified the substance for the candidate list. However, the Commission intervened, citing the lack of feasible alternatives as the main reason to halt the SVHC identification process. In the case of berryllium, the German authority reportedly argued against authorisation, due to the lack of alternatives, the high formal burden for industry and that the benefit for worker protection was unclear. Although these cases are encouraging to industry, more systematic approaches, such as the widely promoted Cross-Industry Initiative for better chemical regulation (CII) or the Eurometaux RMOA framework, haven’t been adopted by the authorities so far.
In an ideal world, considerations on the suitability of alternatives and socio-economic factors should be addressed in the authorisation process. Authorisation as a new regulatory process still needs considerable streamlining to reach the level of predictability with reasonable cost burden that can be comprehended by the industry. The authorities are encouraged to continue their effort to streamline and simplify this process. This will also make the harmonisation of the RMOA approach and criteria easier and reduces the burden on authorities.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50378/reach-clp-hub-the-purpose-of-a-risk-management-option-analysis
-
The Unhealthy Emphasis On Economics
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Dr Adela Maghear
In June, I attended the European Commission’s workshop in Brussels on the strategy for a non-toxic environment, part of the 7th Environment Action Programme (7EAP).
Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, discussions focused on finding economically sustainable strategies for substituting chemicals of concern.
At the workshop, some speakers invited participants to leave the past behind and think of the future in terms of innovative chemical substitution and its financial implications.
Finding alternatives to hazardous chemicals to prevent future exposures is, of course, very important. It is also true that scientists have decided to take on the challenge of redesigning pharmaceuticals with the concept of “benign by design” in mind. But this can sometimes mean changing the very structure of the original molecule, because they still have to function as a drug.
We all want green chemicals that are biodegradable and that don’t harm the environment. But are we there yet? Definitely not, due to the fact that the process of redesigning old molecules takes time.
While this process continues, one must take into consideration that people have been exposed to toxic chemicals for several decades now, which, without question, requires consideration of the past. The consequences of past exposure to chemicals are visible long into the future, with impacts on future generations.
According to a 2012 Unep report, thousands of active chemical substances, together with their metabolites and transformation products have been found in water, soil, sewage, and other environmental matrices over the last few decades, impacting both wildlife and human health. The environment is already heavily polluted and with chemical production increasing, we are more exposed every day.
Just as we are dealing with the consequences of past chemical exposure today, so too will today’s pollution affect future generations.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to empower patients, the healthcare sector and community actors to influence policy makers to take action. Chemical exposure is not just a bad memory from the past; it is happening right now across the world.
Through air pollution, exposure to chemicals kills over seven million people each year, according to a recent WHO report. But taking measures to protect the environment from chemical pollution doesn’t seem to be a priority for policy-makers and legislators.
In the EU, there is a fragmented policy approach towards chemicals and their presence in the environment, which continues to threaten the health of citizens.
There is a need to encourage innovation in terms of finding new ways to tackle chemical exposure in its early stages. People, when sick, seek their healthcare professional; they do not knock at the door of industry, governments or regulators.
These people in need of healthcare aren’t thinking about this economics when they arrive at the hospital. Currently, it seems that industry and government officials only see one side of the story, the one that benefits their interests, and, of course, nobody wants to be held responsible for the suffering of people who have been affected by exposure to chemicals.
In the view of stakeholders and regulators, the waste treatment costs and those related to finding new alternatives for hazardous chemicals represent huge investments for industry and society in general.
However, according to WHO, the real economic burden is in the costs associated with treating the effects of chemicals in people. The organisation reports that, per year, occupational cancer deaths in Italy were estimated to cost around €360m in indirect economic loss, and this amounted to €456m for healthcare. The report says occupational lung and bladder cancer cost the Spanish national health system €88m. In France, it says, occupational respiratory cancers were also shown to be a considerable economic burden. The total cost of occupational asthma in the UK was estimated at between £95m and £135m.
Legislation is currently needed to limit the discharge of chemicals into the environment.All stakeholders involved in the production, management, and legislation of chemicals need to think, not only about a future in which ‘green’ chemicals will be produced, but to take steps to tackle today’s chemical exposure.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50379/ngo-platform-the-unhealthy-emphasis-on-economics
-
Guest Column – Uta Jensen-Korte
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Uta Jensen-Korte
With the ten-year anniversary of REACH next year, it is interesting for those of us who have been in the Brussels bubble since the beginning to look back at how chemicals policy has evolved.
Around 1997, when I joined Cefic, politicians, NGOs and industry raised concerns that the existing regulatory system for managing chemicals was not working well. A major issue, especially for politicians, was the fact that thousands of existing substances were produced and used without there being sufficient information about their properties.
The chemicals legislation then was not delivering as expected. Out of the 110 priority substances, only four risk assessments were finalised. At the same time, industry claimed that the high requirements for new substance notifications were stifling innovation and some of these resources could be better used to develop safer new substances and placed into the existing substances Regulation (ESR).
In April 1998, more discussions and concerns resulted in European environment ministers meeting in Chester, UK, with a plea for a community approach to the safe management of chemicals.
The European Commission then committed to launching a stocktaking exercise of the existing chemicals legislation. The result, which was presented in November 1998, identified some shortcomings in the application and efficiency of the legislation dealing with risk assessment and risk management.
The European Environmental Council, made up of member state environment ministers, backed up these findings in December. And in June 1999 the Council concluded that the EU needed a new integrated and coherent chemical strategy to increase the protection of human health and the environment.
At the end of 1999 the Commission presented fundamental elements for a future chemicals policy and committed to prepare a white paper, which was published in 2001.
At the beginning of this process, the chemical industry supported the need for a new chemicals strategy. However, when further details became available, voices of caution were raised. As we all know, the devil is in the details.
During that time, the chemical industry promoted its voluntary Responsible Care programme, which aims for continuous improvement of health, safety and environmental performance. Two further voluntary initiatives were launched, the ICCA (International Council of Chemicals Associations) High Production Volume (HPV) initiative and the Long-Range Research Initiative (LRI). These were introduced to increase knowledge about chemicals and related research. Other sectors launched similar initiatives.
All these developments kept us very busy, especially when the Commission working groups were set up to seek the view of stakeholders and member state authorities on the development of REACH. We became busier still, when a public consultation began on the draft REACH Regulation in May 2003. This was a challenging time, not only because we needed to carefully understand the details but because to arrive at a joint view within the whole chemical industry is not an easy task.
More than 13 years on and I sometimes get the impression that some regulators and other stakeholders are again starting to raise similar concerns to those in 1998. This is a worry in itself.
REACH is still quite young and further experience needs to be gained before any new chemical strategy or any revision can be considered. We all know the Regulation has its strengths, as well as some weaknesses, but they can be tackled by other means.A harmonised system
When joining the European Commission’s DG Enterprise, now DG Grow, in November 2004, my responsibilities changed. I was asked to join forces with colleagues from DG Environment to identify how the United Nation’s GHS could be incorporated into European law.
When I started work at the Commission, the first version of the GHS was just adopted and there was no experience of implementing it.
Some believed the task would be complex but others, including myself, knew that it would be impossible to identify areas where improvement would be needed if the big trading blocs did not start implementing GHS.
Because GHS was perceived as an international standard, and as a very technical piece of legislation, it helped in the drafting of the EU’s Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP).
During the drafting phase, some general principles were applied:CLP respects the general principles of the GHS;it introduces the GHS criteria for data interpretation, classification and labelling; andit uses the GHS building block approach and other ‘optionalities’ to adapt the system to European needs and ensures consistency with the region’s transport rules.
In June 2007, the Commission proposal was adopted. Then, both the Environment Council as well as the European Parliament considered the CLP Regulation as a high priority and worked to a tight time schedule to secure a final adoption, not too long after REACH.
Meanwhile, the work with the Environment Council working group and the European Parliament was constructive, but an extremely challenging task lay ahead: dealing with all the comments and amendments, received by both institutions, and to come to a compromise text of the co-legislators. In summer 2008, we managed to agree on a common text to enable a first reading agreement.
The final CLP Regulation was published on 31 December 2008, making the European Union one of the leaders in implementing the GHS.
Since then, more and more countries have followed and implemented the GHS globally. This means we are coming closer and closer to a globally harmonised system for hazard classification and labelling, with a set of criteria for both transport, supply and use. This is a big step forward.
However, some stakeholders, especially those not so deeply involved in the making of the system, are complaining that there are differences in the implementation across the world. There are reasons for these, some are justified others less so. But GHS is still a new system and further experience has to be gained. For example, the transport sector started harmonisation of its provisions in the 1950s and it is still not complete.
Working together with representatives of the institutions, members states authorities and other stakeholders, in order to negotiate to find a common view was sometimes a challenge, but it was more often rewarding. I learned that good and justified arguments are listened to, though not always taken into account. Having a good network, being trusted and reliable, as well as always having a coherent approach are important requirements.
Any views or opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of my former employers like Cefic, the European Commission or Fecc.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.https://chemicalwatch.com/50380/guest-column-uta-jensen-korte
-
Skanska’s Approach To Chemicals
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
“The commercial availability of alternatives and the focus on substitution of substances of concern varies a lot between the different home markets,” says Eva-Lena Carlén-Johansson, manager of sustainability projects at Sweden headquartered construction company Skanska.
This largely depends on the country. Clients in Nordic countries, for example, are often more aware and concerned about hazardous chemicals, she says.
Because of this, the chemicals agenda at Skanska’s Swedish business unit is further developed than others, she says. “Here we have a number of good examples of substituting substances of concern, with alternatives available in the market,” says Ms Carlén-Johansson.
“Supported by clients with strict requirements, we can pursue and provide possible technical solutions.”
The growing knowledge and experience among staff at Skanska’s Swedish business unit is being disseminated to other units around the world to help the company’s overall work on chemicals management.The company’s main business markets are in Europe, especially Sweden, the UK, Norway, Finland, Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as North America.How Skanska’s Swedish business unit manages chemicals of concern
When identifying chemicals of concern, the REACH candidate list is an important tool for Skanska, helping it prioritise which substances to phase out, says Carl Enqvist, green development leader at Skanska Sweden. He says substances on the list are at the “very top of that prioritisation”.
However, lists can be difficult to work with when it comes to “covering the large amount of hazardous chemicals in use and those that are continuously introduced,” he adds.
“The lists grow and become several pages long, making them hard to work with. Instead the Swedish construction industry is focused on the hazardous properties that we want to phase out.”
All substances with carcinogenic effects, for example, need to be phased out: “We direct our attention to the property/effect of chemicals instead of the Cas and chemical name, which makes the work more manageable.”
This approach to hazard, says Mr Enqvist, is guided by the Basta database of building and construction products that meet the system’s “more stringent chemical composition criteria”. The aim of the database, which is jointly owned by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute and the Swedish Construction Federation, is to phase out substances with particularly hazardous properties from construction products.
Skanska in Sweden, as well as by the majority of the Swedish construction sector, use the system’s chemicals criteria as a basis for managing chemicals. Basta’s criteria are based on REACH, where substances of very high concern are specified.
Based on this, Skanska Sweden has developed its own chemical database where all substances used are assessed on their composition and hazardous properties.
For these assessments, third party assessment tools such as Basta, as well as those developed by Byggvarubedömningen (BVB), a business association of Sweden’s major property owners and building contractors, and the consultancy SundaHus, are often used. These employ the same basic criteria, with just a few minor differences.
This makes it clear to the manufacturer, says Mr Enqvist, what is required of them as “everyone is asking for the same thing”.Manufacturers
Another factor in successful substitution, he says, is close cooperation with the manufacturer. “It’s a good thing that the chemical criteria in these systems are so similar, and that the main actors on the market ask for the same thing.”
This makes it predictable for the manufacturers. However, turning to manufacturers outside Sweden and other Nordic countries, makes this more challenging. “They are simply not used to the questions on product composition in the same way as Swedish companies or larger companies that operate in Sweden.”
Some companies, he says, have started to launch new products in Sweden or other Nordic countries first as the region is a tough market with lots of environmental demands and criteria to meet.
For example, knowing the Basta criteria, and ensuring a good dialogue with construction companies in Sweden, gave construction products manufacturer Hilti a good understanding of what was sought after in a resin-based adhesive system that anchors construction.Design
Another important step is to design hazard-free products. If products are chosen after design, says Mr Enqvist, you may well be drawn into a corner with limited options. For example:
it might be that the main construction feature, such as a façade, is relying on support chemicals, such as sealers and adhesives; or
the required sealing product might be the only one that is applicable with the guarantees for the entire façade system, making substitution much harder.
“Looking for alternatives and substitution options,” he says, “needs to be done as early as possible when there is still time and control of the intended product must therefore be done as early as possible.”
In many cases, he says, this is overlooked and time constraints at later stages in the construction process might hinder a substitution that could have been possible earlier on.
Research and development also takes time, he adds, so it’s important to keep asking for alternative products. Putting pressure on the manufacturers speeds up this process. “There needs to be a demand for these new products.”
Nothing drives this process better, he says, than clients that ask for, demand and put a price on construction free of hazardous substances. “We have seen a big shift over the last decade. Clients are more informed in general, and with the help of systems like Basta, BVB and SundaHus they can make these demands in contracts without being chemical experts.”Substitution
Skanska’s Carl Enqvist gives some examples of chemicals of concern being substituted in the construction sector:there has seen an increase in sealing foams free of isocyanates over the last few years;there has seen an increase in sealing foams free of isocyanates over the last few years;taps and brass fittings containing lead are being replaced with stainless steel alternatives. Lead sheets for radiation shielding are being swapped for barium sulfate sheets; andsome volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and substances hazardous to aquatic life, that are used in paints, markers and adhesives, are being substituted.
Read Chemical Watch’s recently released Business Guide to Safer Chemicals, second edition, for more on the approaches taken by companies and regulatory authorities to move to less hazardous substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50376/skanskas-approach-to-chemicals
-
Oct 20, 2016 | Chemical Watch
By Charlotte Niemiec
From its beginnings in the EU, regulations restricting the use of hazardous substances in electronics have trickled across the globe.
The EU RoHS Directive (RoHS 1) was adopted in February 2003. It restricted six substances in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) (see box). And, in March last year, four phthalates were added in a revision known as RoHS 2.
Three years after the first EU version was issued, China published its Management Methods for the Control of Pollution from Electronic Information Products (Order No 39). Largely known as China RoHS 1, it imposed restrictions on the same six substances as the EU RoHS.
In July this year, China also published a ‘RoHS 2’ version – the Management Methods for the Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Products. The revision was long-awaited. Expected to be released as far back as 2013 by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), it has gone through four consultation periods.
Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Asia Summit in Hong Kong in September, Michael Kirschner of consultant Design Chain Associates said China RoHS 1 had essentially failed. It set out a mandatory certification mechanism for electronic information products (EIPs) that required every component of every product to be tested for hazardous substances. And, because of this, hundreds of thousands of components would have to be tested.
Unlike the EU’s RoHS2 Regulation, China’s equivalent does not restrict any additional substances. The major change is that it now applies to all electrical and electronic products (EEPs) – RoHS 1 applied only to EIPs. The MIIT did not issue a definition of what it classed an EIP, but published a 30-page list of products and their components that must comply. This was called the EIP classifications and explanations note, or key catalogue. If a product was not listed, it was considered exempt.
Under RoHS 2, the expanded range of products will be listed in a compliance management catalogue.
EU RoHS
Substances restricted under the EU RoHS Directive:
· lead;
· mercury;
· cadmium;
· hexavalent chromium;
· polybrominated diphenyls (PBB); and
· polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).
Substances added in March:
· bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)
· butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP);
· dibutyl phthalate (DBP); and
· diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP).
There are two phases to the revisions. The first requires labelling and disclosure. During this, manufacturers must highlight if a product contains hazardous substances on a table, to be printed on the label. But, Mr Kirschner says, this doesn’t apply to all products. It applies to finished goods that are sold on the market, but not to those that may be the finished goods of one company, but which could be incorporated into another product by another company. Therefore, components are no longer in scope.
Furthermore, packaging required marking under RoHS1, but does not under RoHS2.
The second phase is restriction. Under this, the product will no longer be allowed to contain the six substances covered by the Regulation:
· lead;
· mercury;
· cadmium;
· hexavalent chromium;
· polybrominated diphenyls (PBB); and
· polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE).
This will take another regulation or standard to define a “conformity assessment system”, similar to the EU, for the restricted use of hazardous chemicals. The yet-to-be-published regulation will define the methodology and requirements.
RoHS1 required compulsory product certification but the new name, Mr Kirschner says, suggests the conformity assessment regime will be less onerous. It will need a declaration explaining how the product meets the requirements and components will not have to undergo testing.
But the second phase depends on the compliance management catalogue, which has not yet been published.
Many questions remain unanswered. Industry hopes they will be, when the catalogue and associated guidance are published. Until then, all correctly labelled products can still be manufactured or sold in China. Mr Kirschner says there is still a tremendous lack of clarity. This will make the ministry produce more explanations. But, in the near term, “most requirements remain the same for manufacturers that are already compliant” with RoHS 1.
Dr Aidan Turnbull, of centralised web database BOMcheck, points out that the catalogue will tell you whether there are exemptions for the continued use of the substance(s) in specific materials applications and components.Singapore
Early last month, Singapore’s Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources (MEWR) published its first RoHS-like regulation. Modelled on the EU Directive, it will restrict the same six substances. The Regulation will take effect on 1 June next year.
However, Singapore’s restrictions will, for the time being, apply to a much narrower range of products. These include mobile phones, laptops, refrigerators, air conditioners, television sets and washing machines. As in the EU, batteries are excluded from the scope, as are products designed only for industrial use. And the rules do not apply to secondhand items.
Before selling products in Singapore, manufacturers and importers of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) must submit a RoHS declaration of conformity. Products containing other hazardous substances can still be manufactured for export, but the manufacturer will need to apply for a hazardous substance licence from the National Environment Agency (NEA). This is similar to the EU granting authorisation.Taiwan
Meanwhile, more news has emerged on Taiwan’s steps towards implementing a similar regulation. Its version – CNS 15663 – was first proposed in 2013, but has still not reached the final stage, despite compliance deadlines set for this year.
Unlike other countries, Taiwan plans to stagger the products coming into scope, with drinking fountains, which are considered EEE products, set to comply this year. IT equipment, word processors and wireless items will come into scope over the next few years. All must comply by 2018. The standard will eventually cover 102 products, which will need to:be registered and obtain a registration of product certification (RPC);include the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection (BSMI) mark and a RoHS label on the packaging; andcomply with the relevant testing standards.
Exemptions follow those of the EU and include batteries, military equipment and equipment not powered by electricity.India
India’s draft e-waste (Management) Rules, published last year, came into effect on 1 October.
These focus slightly more on the disposal of hazardous waste, but require all producers and manufacturers of EEE products to apply for “extended producer responsibility” (EPR) authorisation within three months.
The rules cover the collection, storage and processing of EEE wastes. This includes components, consumables and spare parts, but excludes batteries and radioactive waste. It covers the six substances covered by the EU’s RoHS.
Priti Mahesh, senior programme coordinator at Indian NGO Toxics Link, says the new draft rules better define the implementation of the RoHS Directive. This includes establishing a self-declaration and random checking system.Japan
Japan does not have a single regulation that is equivalent to EU RoHS. Instead, under the Act on the Promotion of Effective Utilisation of Resources (the recycling law), it forces companies to use a special mark if designated electrical/electronic products contain the same six substances. This must include a content threshold.
The designated products are computers, televisions, air conditioners, microwaves, tumble dryers, washing machines and refrigerators.
Manufacturers and importers of these products must display the mark on the product, its packaging and catalogue, and on their company website, in the way specified by the Japan Industrial Standards (JIS) C0950. This is the “marking for the presence of the specific chemical substances for electrical and electronic equipment”. It is also known as J-Moss.
Unlike the EU, which restricts the use of six substances in most electronics, the Japanese law and standard requires companies to indicate the presence of such chemicals in the seven designated products.
Also, the law relating to the prevention of mercury pollution to the environment places bans and restrictions on mercury mining, manufacture and use.South Korea
The country’s Act for Resource Recycling of Electrical and Electronic Equipment and Vehicles came into effect in April 2007. It is narrower in scope than EU RoHS and applies to ten EEEs: televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners, computers, audio systems, mobile phones, printers/copiers, fax machines and vehicles. It restricts four substances in vehicles: mercury, lead, cadmium and hexavalent chromium.
In 2013, a revised set of rules was issued that changed the recycling targets and required reports on the performance of materials substituted. The aim was to boost manufacturing of sustainable and recyclable products.
Unlike other jurisdictions, no marking, testing or certificate on the product or its packaging is required under the law. However, manufacturers are required to submit a materials declaration form to confirm that products are compliant. This can later be uploaded to their website.
Aiden Turnbull, director of BomCheck, will be speaking on the requirements, enforcement actions and new substance restrictions under the EU’s RoHS at Chemical Watch’s US Regulatory Summit, held on 27-28 October in Washington, DC.
https://chemicalwatch.com/50373/branching-out-across-asia
-
Oct 20, 2016 | LSU Now
By CJ Carver
The University’s Center for Energy Studies along with the University’s Economics & Policy Research Group will hold the Energy Summit 2016, “Managing through Energy Challenges” on Oct. 26 in the Energy, Coast & Environment Building on campus.
The summit, which lasts the entire day will cover the the current and future situation currently of energy-related industries in Louisiana. More specifically, the summit’s topic spans the obstacles the energy industry in Louisiana has faced recently, such as the price of energy and the amount of excess energy that is available in the market.
“We’ve got people from oil and gas industries, the American Chemistry Council, [policy makers and] a regulatory affairs representative,” said Marybeth Pinsonneault, communications manager for the Center for Energy Studies. “We’ll also have our roundtable of Louisiana economists … We’ve got these guys who will be able to answer questions from our participants.”
The purpose behind the summit, and the University’s Center for Energy Studies itself, is to address energy issues in our state and region through inviting industry representatives, legislators, faculty, students and the general public to stay abreast of current events, said Pinsonneault.
This year’s annual summit, which has taken place for more than 10 years, includes a range of events.
In terms of the industrial aspect of energy, the agenda for this year’s summit includes: Robert Gardner, manager for corporate strategic planning with ExxonMobil, discussing ExxonMobil’s energy outlook; Mike McKenna, president of MWR Strategies, providing an overview of the national political implications of recent energy challenges and Martha Moore, senior director for economics and policy analysis for the American Chemistry Council, delivering insight into petrochemical industry concerns, as well as new industry opportunities.
Alternatively, environmentally-focused programming at the summit includes: Jim Krane, Wallace S. Wilson Fellow in Energy Studies at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, discussing climate risk and fossil fuels; Allen Fore, vice president for public affairs at Kinder Morgan, providing an outlook for energy infrastructure and Lopa Parikh, senior director for federal regulatory affairs at the Edison Electric Institute, providing insight into baseload generation development in the current challenging energy environment.
There will also be a roundtable discussion focused on the implications energy and the economy have on Louisiana featuring David Dismukes, executive director and professor at the University’s Center for Energy Studies; Dek Terrell, professor and executive director of the University’s Economics & Policy Research Group; Loren Scott, CEO of Loren Scott & Associates and Professor Emeritus at LSU and Eric Smith, associate director of Tulane Energy Institute.
“[We’re] going to be addressing something that’s going on here in the Gulf of Mexico,” Smith said. “[It] involves the amount of financial security that the operator … has to provide to guarantee the government that, when he’s finished, that the … wells he’s drilled and the platforms he’s installed … all of that material gets removed and the Gulf bottom restored to, if not its original condition, at least as close to it as we can get.”
http://www.lsunow.com/daily/lsu-center-for-energy-studies-economics-and-policy-research-group/article_00be2a56-9660-11e6-b6b8-7353f3599bfb.html
-
Podesta Welcomed Fossil Fuel 'Loathing' — Emails
Oct 19, 2016 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Northey
John Podesta vowed to "beat" fossil fuel interests intent on defeating Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton while refusing to cut industry ties, according to emails said to be hacked from his personal account.
When the environmental group Greenpeace in February asked Clinton to sign a pledge rejecting fossil fuel donations, campaign chairman Podesta declined. Instead, the campaign crafted a statement of support for environmental goals and struck a defiant tone against opponents.
In a Feb. 3 email to senior policy adviser Maya Harris, Podesta wrote that "fossil fuel interests have pledged hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat [Clinton] and we welcome their loathing and will take them on and beat them."
The emails reveal how Clinton advisers said she would not sign Greenpeace's petition based on a "no-pledge-signing policy." They also noted the group was also asking the campaign to cut ties with the fossil fuel industry.
Clinton's team soon realized she had signed a separate pledge from billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer's NextGen Climate political action committee to achieve 50 percent carbon-free energy by 2030 (E&ENews PM, March 3).
A number of House and Senate Democrats, the Union of Concerned Scientists, GreenLatinos, Green for All, Climate Hawks Vote, and other outside environmental groups supported the NextGen resolution.
"As you know (and suggested), we've been trying to follow a no-pledge-signing policy. Not to mention, Greenpeace's pledge includes a commitment not to accept contributions from fossil fuel interests," Harris wrote.
"I am told they intend to be aggressive in pressuring candidates to sign their pledge," she wrote, "and may be more so with HRC since they will view the NextGen petition as undermining our no-pledges policy."
The issue would again and again bring Clinton frustration on the campaign trail against her primary rival, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
In April, Clinton lost her temper during a campaign event in New York with a Greenpeace activist who asked the former secretary of State to reject donations tied to the fossil fuel industry (Greenwire, April 1).
In a video circulated online, a clearly agitated Clinton said: "I have money from people who work for fossil fuel companies."
Clinton then pivoted to blame Sanders for the dust-up, saying she was "so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I'm sick of it."
Eva Resnick-Day, the organizer for Greenpeace USA who asked Clinton the question, took to social media in March to present her point of view.
The activist said that she wasn't affiliated with Sanders and that Greenpeace wanted all candidates to sign a pledge against fossil fuel donations.
"When we launched the campaign, Sanders signed the pledge immediately. Hillary's campaign responded, but did not sign," she wrote in a blog post.
In the following weeks and months, Sanders repeatedly criticized Clinton over energy money, and Greenpeace would repeatedly highlight its report showing her campaign received more than $1.3 million connected to 58 lobbyists with fossil fuel ties.
Clinton's campaign still has not authenticated individual emails but tied the leak in an emailed response to the Kremlin, the website WikiLeaks and her Republican rival, presidential nominee Donald Trump.
"While Donald Trump cheers on and encourages [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's attempt to influence our election through a crime reminiscent of Watergate, others like Senator Marco Rubio have condemned the attack and refuse to indulge in WikiLeaks' propaganda campaign," wrote Glen Caplin, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign.
"Even after being briefed by U.S. intelligence before the first debate on Russia's role in the hack, Trump has oddly chosen to coddle Putin by deflecting blame. The question tonight is whether Trump will finally admit the hack is happening, condemn Russia and tell the American people what his campaign knew and when they knew it."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2016/10/19/stories/1060044551
-
Fracking's Unlikely Friend In Hillary Clinton
Oct 30, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Chris Tomlinson
In the latest case of unlikely allies, Hillary Clinton supports hydraulic fracking and has no intention of banning it or shutting down the oil and gas industry.
Bernie Sanders must be angry that Wikileaks didn't release transcripts from her private, paid speeches while the Democratic primary was still raging.
"My view is I want to defend natural gas. I want to defend repairing and building the pipelines we need to fuel our economy," Clinton told the Building Trades Union in September 2015. "I want to defend fracking under the right circumstances."
She also dismissed environmentalists who support the "Keep It In The Ground" movement, which wants to stop new drilling or mining for fossil fuels. They wrongly believe it's the only way to prevent climate change.
"They say, 'Will you promise never to take any fossil fuels out of the earth ever again?'" the Democratic nominee reportedly said. "No. I won't promise that. Get a life, you know?"
This places Clinton firmly in the main stream of environmental and energy thinking. Climate change is real, and we must reduce carbon emissions, but that involves drilling for more natural gas, not less. If we lose the natural gas released by fracking, the U.S. would need to burn more coal. That would do much more damage to the environment than a few leaky gas wells.
This new insight into her politics might also help explain why Houston energy executives are giving their cash to Clinton instead of Trump, according to reporting by my colleague James Osborne in Washington. Energy workers recognize that a political pragmatist with environmental leanings is a far safer bet than a unpredictable, political unknown.
Following these revelations, some environmentalists may be questioning whether they should vote for Clinton. But most Americans should be reassured that a Clinton victory doesn't mean an end to the most profound energy revolution this nation has experienced since Spindletop.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/outside-the-boardroom/article/Fracking-s-unlikely-friend-in-Hillary-Clinton-9981692.php
-
Regional Efforts Prove Beneficial in Sparking Northeast Energy Gains
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Martha Kessler
Rapid developments in technology, competitive markets, low gas prices and state-level policy choices have led to significant changes within the electric power markets in the Northeast, a new study finds, noting, for example, that coal-fired generation in the region has declined more than 80 percent since 2005.
And, the report by consulting firm M. J. Bradley & Associates, said many of the Northeast states have set ambitious mid-term and long-term carbon-reduction goals, with most aiming to achieve an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The report examines the issues surrounding how those goals can be met, noting such challenges as how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond the electric sector, to include transportation and buildings.
The report highlights the progress our region has achieved on clean energy, while identifying a number of critically important next steps for a 100 percent clean future, Josh Block, a spokesman for the Conservation Law Foundation, told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 19.
“Particularly important are the questions of how we connect population centers with large scale renewables in a sustainable manner and how we build a truly modern electric grid,” he said. “We cannot rest on our laurels but instead must continue to lead the way.”
One area of focus in the report is the decision by the Northeast states to adopt a competitive utility market structure and to become the first region to implement a market-based carbon-trading program, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). These changes put the Northeast well ahead of federal efforts to address carbon emissions from the electric sector and helped the region switch to clean energy while reducing carbon emissions, the report said.
Energy Transmission
Release of the report, which the authors said is intended to help inform policy makers and other stakeholders, comes just weeks after the six New England governors and five Eastern Canadian premiers took time to discuss the need to find ways to address energy transmission throughout the region in addition to the need to develop a joint strategy on climate change.
The provincial and state leaders are expected to adopt a joint climate strategy during their meeting in 2017.
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker (R) said at that meeting that the New England states are seeking ways to collaborate. He cited as one example a procurement agreement between Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island that could serve as a model for other joint efforts.
Baker also noted however, that most of the governors have many legislative issues that need to be considered when trying to forge energy policy.http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078603&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078603&jd=99078603
-
Hastings: Clean Energy And The Irony Of The Red State Of Texas
Oct 19, 2016 | Houston Chronicle
By Marilu Hastings
The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last month heard oral arguments on the legality of the Clean Power Plan, a pillar of the Obama Administration's climate protection strategy. The plan requires states to develop strategies to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Opponents of the Clean Power Plan, including Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, argue that the plan violates the Clean Air Act, overreaches federal authority, is too expensive, and will cause reliability problems in the delivery of electricity.
Proponents of the Clean Power Plan argue that reducing emissions from the power sector is one essential step the United States must take to address climate change and demonstrate our commitment to the Paris Climate Agreement that the U.S. agreed to last month.
Although counterintuitive to many, the state of Texas is a leader in the nation's transition to clean energy. And, whether for or against the Clean Power Plan, I'm confident Texas' "red state" approach can inform other conservative, market-oriented states that seek to establish clean energy programs but are reluctant to rely on singular regulatory strategies - demonstrating that companion strategies are critical for a robust transition to a clean energy future.
Some states are moving forward with compliance plans despite the legal delay. Other states, including Texas, don't realize that the path to a clean energy economy does not necessarily rely on the Clean Power Plan. A court decision to strike down the rule will not reverse the policy and market forces that have driven a clean energy transition already underway in Texas.
On the surface this may seem like a simple Texas story and not relevant to the national discussion about carbon dioxide emission reduction. However, the road to a clean energy economy in Texas matters. If Texas were a nation, it would be the world's sixth-largest emitter of carbon dioxide, although we fare much better on an emissions per person basis.
If Texas can meet the Clean Power Plan requirements without the regulation in force, it may help inform other disinclined states to follow suit.Quite simply, Texas's approach to cleaning up the electric sector can be an example for the entire world. Ironically, the state that is the most aggressive opponent of the Clean Power Plan has also utilized prudent, well-designed policies and then unleashed the power of the market to cut emissions, ensure reliability and manage consumer costs.
And, despite the best efforts of our state leadership to the contrary, this strategy has worked so well that a recent study by The Brattle Group conducted on behalf of the Texas Clean Energy Coalition shows that the state will surpass the requirements of the plan whether or not the regulations are implemented.
The study found that if natural gas prices remain stable and solar energy prices continue to drop, the state is headed toward a cleaner power sector. The low price and flexibility afforded by natural gas generation are greater threats to coal than carbon reduction regulations.
The analysis shows that ERCOT, Texas's main grid operator, will cut carbon dioxide emissions by 28 percent below 2005 emission levels between 2016 and 2035, or 61 million tons per year.
These reductions will result in no new costs to consumers over 2014 electricity prices, effectively shutting down the perennial argument that clean energy costs too much. A forthcoming study, also by The Brattle Group, is expected to show that, in general, reliability concerns are also unfounded.
Texas is uniquely endowed with an ample supply of natural gas, wind and solar potential, and has the opportunity to reliably and affordably power the state with Texas-only energy resources. The good fortune of abundant natural resources, however, is not enough to accomplish a clean energy economy.
The route that Texas took to achieve the projected clean energy outcome is a story of well-timed enabling policies, "build it and they will come" infrastructure investment, and a deep belief in allowing energy markets to function with limited interference.
It might come as a surprise, even to Texas policymakers, that the red state is in a position to surpass the requirements of the Clean Power Plan at no appreciable new cost. Republican majority decisions beginning more than a decade ago are paying big clean energy dividends today.
The Texas case is an important example of how states and the world can move to clean energy using a robust set of options that are consistent with conservative values and without overreliance on complex federal regulations.
Hastings is vice president of the Austin-based Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, where she leads the foundation's strategic grantmaking programs focused on clean energy, shale sustainability, land conservation, sustainability education and water. She was appointed by U.S. Secretary of Energy Dr. Ernest J. Moniz as a member of the National Petroleum Council for 2016-2017.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Hastings-Clean-energy-and-the-irony-of-the-red-9984286.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Sends Chemical Plant Safety Rule to OMB for Review
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
The Environmental Protection Agency has advanced a contentious rule to boost security at high-risk chemical facilities, sending the proposal to the White House for review, records show.
EPA sent the rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget Oct. 14, according to records posted this week. The development leaves the agency on track to meet its goal of finalizing the rule by the end of the year.
The proposed rule (RIN:2050-AG82) is an integral part of an interagency effort that stemmed from a fatal explosion at a West, Texas, fertilizer storage site in 2013. President Barack Obama later issued an executive order directing federal agencies to work together to identify crucial chemical safety gaps.
EPA's proposal would, among other things, require independent third-party audits; root cause investigations for incidents and near misses; analysis of safer chemicals and technologies, and more coordination and data sharing with local responders.
Proposal Called Compromise
The agency has described the proposal as a compromise forged over more than two years of public input, but the proposal has taken flak from both sides.
The plan has drawn criticism from some chemical safety watchdogs, who contend it doesn't go far enough to address risks from large facilities. Meanwhile, industry groups and some Republican lawmakers argue the rule will be burdensome for companies and could be a security risk if too much information is made available to the public.
By statute, OMB is supposed to review the proposal within 90 days.
Industry, Watchdogs Promise Engagement
Groups affiliated with the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters have requested four or five meetings with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Ron White, a public interest environmental health consultant, told Bloomberg BNA on Oct. 19, in hopes of producing a tougher proposal.
Each meeting will focus on different aspects of the rule, including environmental justice, national security and safer alternatives analysis, White, the former director of regulatory policy at the now-defunct Center for Effective Government, said.
“There will be a lot of emphasis on the very limited scope of facilities that are going to be required to even do an analysis of safer alternatives,” White said, “Let alone the fact that none of them will be required to actually implement them if they were found to be technologically and economically feasible.”
Activists see the meetings as “a rescue mission to make sure that they fully recognize and try to rectify the huge loopholes” in the proposed rule, Greenpeace Legislative Director Rick Hind told Bloomberg BNA.
Industry Criticizes Proposed Rule
Industry groups have warned the proposed rule isn't feasible for companies.
“Many of the changes would unnecessarily impose significant costs and burdens on the regulated community,” Daniel Moss, the director of government relations at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates, wrote in public comments filed May 13.
In a statement to Bloomberg BNA on Oct. 19, the American Chemistry Council said it planned to make its case to OMB.
“We don't believe that EPA has properly or adequately supported many of the new requirements that would be imposed on ACC member companies and others that already strive to operate safely and in full compliance with the law,” the group said.
More Analysis Should be Required at Tier II, III Units
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) has also weighed in to support a stricter rule.
Boxer, the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a letter to EPA on Sept. 29 that the proposed rule “falls short of what is needed to reduce the risk to local communities.”
Boxer said EPA should require all Tier II and Tier III chemical facilities to conduct safer technology and alternatives analyses within five years. EPA should then require sites to implement the changes if feasible, Boxer wrote.
The rule “is a rare opportunity to save lives and protect children's safety by preventing catastrophic chemical disasters,” Boxer wrote. “If the rule is not strengthened, every day another generation of children will grow up at risk.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078602&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078602&jd=99078602
-
Plant's Poor Safety Practices Led to Fatal Blast, Board Says
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
A fatal explosion at a Louisiana olefins plant could have been prevented if the plant's operator had implemented stronger process safety management practices, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board said Oct. 19.
At a press conference in Baton Rouge, La., the board released a case study of the blast, which killed two workers and injured 167 others at the Williams Olefins LLC chemical plant in Geismar, La., on June 13, 2013. CSB Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland blamed the company's lax safety practices at the time of the incident.
The explosion occurred when the supervisor, Scott Thrower, opened water valves in an attempt to fix a problem in an offline reboiler unit, the CSB found. The action caused the release of a vapor cloud which ignited, causing an explosion that killed one worker, 29-year-old Zach Green. Thrower suffered severe burns and died at a hospital the next day.
If the company had installed a pressure-release valve, Thrower would not have needed to operate it manually, CSB investigator Lauren Grim said.
Sutherland said the plant cooperated with CSB's investigation and has made changes in the years since.
Keith Isbell, a spokesman for parent company The Williams Companies Inc., said in a statement the incident “was a tragedy for the affected individuals, the plant and the community.”
“As the CSB indicates in this report, the plant has made positive changes and implemented improvements in process safety management at the Geismar facility since the 2013 incident,” Isbell said. “Moving forward, Williams is committed to continuous improvement of its process safety programs.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078598&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078598&jd=99078598
-
Air Force Reports Chemical Spill in Water at Colorado Base
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tripp Baltz
Water laced with perfluorinated chemicals was accidentally discharged at Peterson Air Force Base into a sewer system in Colorado Springs and flowed into a creek, Air Force officials reported.
Officials at Peterson Air Force Base said Oct. 18 they discovered the discharge of about 150,000 gallons of wastewater containing the chemicals during a routine inspection Oct. 12 and reported it to Colorado Springs Utilities within 24 hours. The water was released from a fire training area retention tank that held elevated levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) found in a firefighting foam used at the base for emergency response, the Air Force said in a statement.
The water spilled into a sewer system that flowed into one of the utility's wastewater treatment plants, Steve Berry, a spokesman for Colorado Springs Utilities, told Bloomberg BNA. The plant does not have the ability to effectively treat PFCs, a term that refers to a group of toxic chemicals.
The effluent was released into Fountain Creek, Berry said. The Environmental Protection Agency's Region 8 office in Denver and the Water Quality Control Division of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment were investigating.
Recirculated Water
The retention tank is part of a system used to recirculate water to the fire training area, the Air Force said.
Col. Douglas A. Schiess, 21st Space Wing commander at Peterson, said the Air Force is investigating to determine how the discharge occurred and whether there are gaps in procedures or training. “Peterson Air Force base and the U.S. Air Force are committed to protecting the environment and communities in which we call home,” he said.
PFCs were discovered earlier this year in well water south of the base. The Air Force spent $4.3 million to filter and provide drinking water to affected residents while an investigation was conducted.
Bigger Regulatory Question
The foam that was in the retention tank “is used at facilities all over the country,” Berry said. “There is a bigger picture question about whether that foam needs to be regulated.”
The contaminated wastewater went through the utility's wastewater treatment plant, exited the plant and flowed into an irrigation district canal leading to Fountain Creek. “Neither our treatment plant, nor others around the country, can treat PFCs,” Berry said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078600&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078600&jd=99078600
-
Shelter-in-Place Order Lifted After Chemical Lime Spill
Oct 19, 2016 | AP (In ABC News)
Officials in a Cincinnati-area township have lifted a shelter-in-place order after a chemical lime spill.
West Chester Township officials say 60,000 pounds of lime spilled shortly before 6 p.m. Wednesday at Superior Environmental Solutions.
The spill created a dust cloud and township officials advised residents to stay indoors because lime can cause skin and eye irritation and respiratory problems. Officials also recommended that people in the area shut their doors and windows and turn off their heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. Some nearby businesses were evacuated as a precaution.
Firefighters used water on the lime to turn it into steam and the scene was cleared several hours later.
There were two injuries reported.
Superior Environmental Solutions is an industrial cleaning company.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-chemical-lime-spill-creates-dust-cloud-ohio-42923362
-
EPA Rejects Delaware NAAQS SIP Credit For Out-Of-State Emissions Cuts
Oct 19, 2016 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
EPA is rejecting Delaware's novel to plan to gain credit in its state implementation plan (SIP) for attaining ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for emissions “offsets” obtained from multiple other states, saying the First State failed to properly link the sale of offsets to areas upwind that are hindering its air quality.
The decision, in a Federal Register notice slated for publication Oct. 20, is a set-back for Delaware, a member of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states that have long struggled to attain EPA's ozone standards.
Several OTC member states have sued EPA to try and force a response to their petition to expand the group to include more upwind states and force stricter ozone limits on those states.
EPA in its “Action Initiation List” (AIL) of rules launched in August -- but only publicly released this month -- says it will respond to the petition within 12 months, though that could be in the next administration.
Until the agency decides on whether to expand the OTC, states such as Delaware are looking at all possible options for reducing emissions and attaining the ozone NAAQS, which was most recently tightened to 70 parts per billion (ppb) in October 2015. Delaware had crafted a SIP detailing the emissions control strategies it would implement to meet the ozone standards, and sought EPA approval for its plan to buy offsets from other states.
The SIP would allow Delaware businesses to obtain pollution offsets, required under Clean Air Act new source review (NSR) permitting rules, which must offset the emissions increase from a new pollution source or modification to a source and provide a net air quality benefit, according to EPA's website.
The offsets could have been bought from any area within Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin -- but EPA said the plan fell short of air law requirements.
EPA's Rejection
“Delaware’s revised regulation enables sources in Delaware seeking NSR permits to obtain emission offsets from sources located in other areas, including areas outside of the State of Delaware, irrespective of the areas’ nonattainment status as compared to Delaware's nonattainment status for the same national ambient air quality standard,” EPA says in the Register notice.
“Second, the revised regulation also permits sources seeking NSR permits in Delaware to obtain emissions offsets from areas without a determination that the other areas 'contribute to a violation' of the NAAQS in Delaware where a source seeking a NSR permit would be located,” as required in air law section 173 and its implementing regulations, EPA says.
The air law requires that offsets are obtained from another nonattainment area of equal or higher classification than the area in which the source is located, and that emissions from such other nonattainment area contribute to a violation of the NAAQS in the nonattainment area where the new or modified source is locating or located, EPA says.
EPA said Delaware improperly relied on modeling from 2011 from its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to support its case. CSAPR is a program that caps emissions of ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter (PM)-forming sulfur dioxide from power plants in order to help states attain the ozone and PM NAAQS.
“[T]he CSAPR modeling Delaware cites in its comments was conducted in 2011 and does not consider subsequent changes in emissions or contributions from sources in upwind states. As the modeling is not based on current emissions or contribution levels from other states, it cannot be used to meet the requirement for showing contribution to nonattainment in Delaware at the time a source would be seeking offsets for a NSR permit,” EPA says.
OTC Expansion
In 2013, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, later joined by Pennsylvania, petitioned EPA to expand the OTC area to include to include Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and all of Virginia.
Currently, the OTC includes Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, the northern part of Virginia, and Washington, D.C.
EPA had 18 months under the air law to respond, but failed to do so, drawing a lawsuit from North Carolina seeking a response. Sources say the state wishes to quickly rule itself out of any OTC expansion. That suit, Donald van der Vaart v. Gina McCarthy, is now in abeyance in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolinapending settlement talks.
EPA has excluded North Carolina from its updated CSAPR power plant emissions trading program, which tightens the program's NOx caps. The agency concluded that the state does not have a “significant contribution” to downwind states' problems attaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS, set at 75 ppb. EPA has not yet issued any rule aimed at curbing interstate pollution sufficiently to meet the tougher 2015 limit of 70 ppb.
Having grown impatient with EPA's delay in responding, six Northeastern states -- New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont -- sued EPA Oct. 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asking the court to compel a response.
Now, EPA in August AIL says it will complete its response to the OTC petition in “12 months or less,” although it is unclear whether this will happen under the Obama administration or under the next president.
http://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-delaware-naaqs-sip-credit-out-state-emissions-cuts
-
Clinton Could Resort to Using Clean Air Act to Set Carbon Tax
Oct 20, 2016 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
Continued congressional inaction on climate change could ultimately prod Hillary Clinton, if president, to go it alone and impose a carbon tax using existing Clean Air Act authority, the head of the World Resources Institute said Oct. 19.
“If you imagine eight years from now we've still got no congressional action whatsoever and you've got a strong president, I'll bet that strong president even before [then] will try to go this route,” WRI President Andrew Steer said at a forum held by Resources for the Future.
The strategy draws scoffs from many legal scholars and industry attorneys and relies on what Steer calls a “very peculiar” Section 115 of the act. It permits the Environmental Protection Agency to direct states to cut air pollution crossing international boundaries—as long as other nations take reciprocal action.
Steer, previously the World Bank's special climate change envoy, argues the Paris climate pact means other countries have in a sense taken such action on carbon pollution.
‘Other Countries Are Acting.’
“Whereas every lawyer two years ago would say this absolutely could not be applied to carbon emissions, since the Paris deal, you can make the case that other countries are acting,” he said.
That strategy could be a long-shot if the Supreme Court blocks the EPA's power plant carbon pollution limits, which the court stayed in February, said RFF President Richard Newell,. He told reporters a Section 115 strategy “is not in the cards right now.”
“But if Hillary Clinton wins and there isn't any appetite in Congress for doing anything on climate, we'd expect her administration to continue to march down a road of regulation,” Newell, former head of the Energy Information Administration, said, setting emissions limits for petroleum refiners, iron and steel producers, and other sectors.
“Then we'll get to the point where industry says, ‘You know what, we actively want a carbon price,’ ” Newell said.
Congressional Republicans are well aware of the potential for a future administration to wield such a tool; Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill in February—the Energy Sovereignty Act (H.R. 4544)—to eliminate Section 115 of the act.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=99078595&vname=dennotallissues&fn=99078595&jd=99078595
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested