Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/24/2017
-
(ACC Blog) Connecticut Launches Statewide Campaign to Increase Plastic Film Recycling
Feb 24, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
On Tuesday, the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), in partnership with the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environment Protection (DEEP) kicked off a statewide awareness campaign to increase the recycling of plastic wraps, bags and film packaging (collectively known as plastic film). -
(ACC Mentioned) 2017 Starts With Resin Pricing Volatility
Feb 24, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
If processors buying polypropylene, solid polystyrene or PET bottle resin were hoping for a calm start to 2017, they soon had to change those plans. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trending: Dell Releases Ocean Plastic Packaging as New Plastics Economy Takes Shape
Feb 24, 2017 | Sustainable Brands
Plastics are an important part of the global economy and have many practical applications for everyday life, but their indisputable benefits are countered by their environmental drawbacks — especially in terms of ocean pollution. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC’s Dooley: Stakes are High for Getting TSCA Implementation Right
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley has said the stakes are "very, very high" for getting the implementation of the newly reformed TSCA right. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limiting Asbestos Chemical Evaluation to Six Forms Under TSCA
Feb 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is limiting its review of asbestos under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the definition of asbestos in the statute, agency staff announced at a recent stakeholders meeting where speakers clashed over which uses EPA should pursue. -
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Working to Fix Chemical Backlog from Updated TSCA
Feb 24, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical manufacturers say a backlog of chemicals awaiting EPA approval is hurting business, and the US economy at large — and now the EPA is working to correct this problem, Bloomberg reports. -
EPA Rejects Fluoride Ban but Details New TSCA Path to Revive Request
Feb 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is rejecting health groups' petition seeking a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ban on drinking water fluoridation after finding it lacked adequate evidence of neurological risks to justify a ban, but the agency is also offering guidance on how to craft petitions to win reviews of potential bans under last year's revised TSCA. -
2017 Outlook: US EPA on Moving TSCA Reform Forward
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Jim Jones
Last year brought the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a historical moment that marked the biggest change in chemicals policy in the US for more than 40 years. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Will We Manage Chemicals Globally Beyond 2020?
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Hearing that a new substance is added to the Chemicals Abstract Service (Cas) registry every 1.4 seconds, puts the scale of global chemicals production into perspective. -
NGO Platform: Ceta Threatens Protection Against EDCs
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Aleksandra Terzieva
Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in the European Parliament to promote the EU-Canada trade and investment deal, Ceta. -
2017 Outlook: Echa's Geert Dancet On a Decade of REACH
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geert Dancet
On 1 June, it will be ten years since REACH entered into force, when 40 pieces of legislation across Europe were replaced by this one groundbreaking law. -
2017 Outlook: Unep On Advancing the Chemicals Agenda
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Achim Halpaap
In February 2017, the rather specialised topic of persistent organic pollutants captured the attention of the global media. A study led by Dr Jamieson of Newcastle University, published in Nature, Economy and Evolution, was the focus of interest. -
2017 Outlook: ICCA Communicating Chemicals Safety Downstream
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Peter Smith
The growing public debate around chemical safety is welcomed by industry, and Echa continues to make great strides in making information on safety more harmonised and available. -
Will Va. Keep Paying for the 'Cost' of Obama's Climate Regs?
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A quiet battle is raging in Virginia over how much the state's biggest utilities can charge customers now that federal climate standards are on the chopping block. -
Approval of California NatGas Power Plant Recommended
Feb 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As an outgrowth of a phased-in statewide closure of coastal water-cooled power plants, a California Energy Commission (CEC) member on Thursday recommended approval of a natural gas-fired generation project by AES Southland Development LLC. -
Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Expected to Drive Growth in U.S. Natural Gas Trade
Feb 22, 2017 | US Energy Information Administration (in Real Clear Energy)
The United States is expected to become a net exporter of natural gas on an average annual basis by 2018, according to the recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO2017) Reference case. -
CPAC: 'Tide is Turning' in Battle Against Enviro 'Scumbags'
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Conservative activists enthused by Donald Trump's ascent to the White House cheered on climate change deniers yesterday at the first full day of the Conservative Political Action Conference. -
Ivanka and Jared Saved the Paris Agreement — For Now
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to say yesterday if President Trump remains committed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change. -
6 Ways President Trump Can Make American Energy Great Again
Feb 23, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Neil Auerbach
The Trump administration has had a busy few weeks since the inauguration, but the action is just getting started on the energy side.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Connecticut Launches Statewide Campaign to Increase Plastic Film Recycling
Feb 24, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
On Tuesday, the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP), in partnership with the Connecticut Department of Energy & Environment Protection (DEEP) kicked off a statewide awareness campaign to increase the recycling of plastic wraps, bags and film packaging (collectively known as plastic film).
A recent statewide survey showed why this CT WRAP campaign is so important: Data showed that nearly half of CT residents didn’t know that many flexible plastic items, such as wraps and bags, should be taken to grocery or retail stores for proper recycling—and should not be placed in curbside bins.
Plastic film is collected for recycling at grocery locations in almost all communities across the U.S., and a lack of awareness could contribute to this material being recycled incorrectly or not recycled at all.
The good news is the WRAP CT campaign has a lot of support.
Connecticut State Senator Ted Kennedy, State Representative Mike Demicco, DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee, and scores of WRAP Champions and recycling coordinators from all over the state attended Tuesday’s launch event.
WRAP, which is an initiative of ACC’s Flexible Film Recycling Group, has partnered with cities and counties in Wisconsin, Washington, and North Carolina to run successful consumer awareness campaigns.
Tuesday’s launch marks the WRAP’s first statewide campaign.
Earlier WRAP campaigns in WI, WA and NC surveyed residents at the beginning and end of their campaigns, and all cases demonstrated an increase in public awareness of plastic film recycling.
These campaigns also demonstrated 25%-125% increases in plastic film recycling with little-to-no increase in contamination (read more about the WI campaign results and WA campaign results).
Between WRAP’s prior successes and the high attendance at the CT launch event, all signs point to a successful campaign in CT.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/02/connecticut-launches-statewide-campaign-to-increase-plastic-film-recycling/
-
(ACC Mentioned) 2017 Starts With Resin Pricing Volatility
Feb 24, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
If processors buying polypropylene, solid polystyrene or PET bottle resin were hoping for a calm start to 2017, they soon had to change those plans.
North American prices for PP surged 10 cents per pound in January, as polymer-grade propylene feedstock was in tight supply. That move was a sharp reversal from a combined 11.5 cents in price drops that market had seen in the last three months of 2016.
The PetroChem Wire consulting firm in Houston said that propylene prices in December did not reflect a tight market, because the situation was masked by year-end destocking. When demand resurfaced in January, propylene buyers found they had to pay dramatically higher prices.
PetroChem Wire added that the run-up in propylene costs caught PP buyers off guard and caused some to lower their order volumes for January. North American PP sales ticked up 0.4 percent for the year to almost 17.3 billion pounds, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales fell 2.5 percent, with exports surging up 114.8 percent.
Regional PS prices also jumped up an average of 5 cents per pound in January. That hike wasn’t completely unexpected, as prices for benzene feedstock had climbed for two straight months. North American benzene prices shot up 33 cents to $2.67 per gallon. Prices for that material also had increased 11 cents in December, but the market couldn’t settle on an increase amount for PS resin.
As a result, regional PS prices were flat in December. PS prices in the region had fallen 2 cents per pound in November after being flat in October. Several factors have caused benzene prices to move up by almost 20 percent in the last two months, according to Robin Chesshier, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas.
Those reasons include tight supplies, lack of imports, stronger demand, pull from higher prices in other regions and a move from oil-based naphtha back to natural gas-based ethane as a precursor. Ethane produces less benzene per unit than naphtha does.
PS maker Americas Styrenics LLC now is seeking an increase of 8 cents per pound effective Feb. 1. North American PS sales for full-year 2016 essentially were flat at just under 4.4 billion pounds, according to ACC.PET on the rise
North American PET bottle resin prices also were up in January, climbing an average of 3 cents per pound. That marked the fifth consecutive monthly price increase for the material.
Higher feedstock prices were cited as reasons for the increase by market watchers contacted by Plastics News. Regional PET prices had increased by 2 cents per pound in December after absorbing 1-cent increases in each of the previous three months.
The late-year hikes surprised some market watchers, as bottle resin demand typically declines in winter months, along with sales in its leading bottled water and carbonated soft drink (CSD) end markets. Processors now may be stocking up on material in advance of warmer summer months.
Bottled water overtook soda in U.S. consumption for the first time in 2016, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp. consulting firm. Bottled water accounted for 20.5 percent of the overall U.S. beverage market last year, according to BMC, almost a full percentage point ahead of CSD at 19.8 percent.
For the year, bottled water consumption grew 8.5 percent, while soda consumption dropped 1.7 percent. Overall, plastic accounted for 41.2 percent of all beverage packaging units in 2016, up from 36.5 percent in 2012.
Regional prices for polyethylene and PVC resins were flat in January, but market watchers said there’s a good chance that prices for both materials will be higher in February, mainly as a result of higher prices for ethylene feedstock.
Net price changes for full-year 2016 showed North American PVC prices up an average of 7 cents per pound and prices for all grades of high density, low density and linear low density PE up an average of 4 cents per pound.Engineering resins
In the engineering resins market, North American prices for nylon resins are under upward pressure. BASF SE has announced increases of 28 cents per pound for nylon 6 resins since Jan. 1. The firm also planned to increase prices for compounds based on those materials by 7 cents per pound on Jan. 30.
Solvay Group and DuPont Co. also have announced global price increases of 13-15 cents per pound for their nylon resins and compounds. In a news release, Solvay officials said that the dramatic rise of raw materials costs is affecting the entire nylon value chain.
DuPont officials added in a news release that the increases “are needed as a result of rapidly rising costs of certain key raw materials.” One market watcher said the BASF price move was “too aggressive” and that the firm already was seeing “market pushback.”
North American nylon 6 resin prices already had climbed an average of 10 cents per pound since August, due in part to tightness of caprolactam feedstock. BASF in September announced plans to remove more than 200 million pounds of annual caprolactam production in Europe by early 2018. Higher benzene prices also are putting upward price pressure on nylon resins, market watchers said.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170224/NEWS/170229955/2017-starts-with-resin-pricing-volatility
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trending: Dell Releases Ocean Plastic Packaging as New Plastics Economy Takes Shape
Feb 24, 2017 | Sustainable Brands
Plastics are an important part of the global economy and have many practical applications for everyday life, but their indisputable benefits are countered by their environmental drawbacks — especially in terms of ocean pollution. Recognizing the seriousness of the problem, more and more companies are finding new and innovative ways to tackle plastic pollution both at the source and at end-of-life.
Tech giant Dell is the latest company to join the band of businesses combatting ocean plastic pollution with new products and packaging derived from recycled materials. The program demonstrates an important step towards achieving its 2020 goal of 100 percent sustainable packaging and tackling a growing environmental problem.
As an industry first, Dell has developed packaging trays made with 25 percent recycled ocean plastic content as part of a new commercial-scale pilot program. The company recycled plastics from waterways and beaches for use in the new packaging tray for its Dell XPS 13 2-in1 beginning April 30. In 2017, its ocean plastics pilot is expected to keep 16,000 pounds of plastic from entering the ocean.
“I have been in supply chain and operations for twenty years and this is the first time my 10-year-old daughter has gotten excited about what I do,” said Kevin Brown, Chief Supply Chain Office for Dell. “This new packaging initiative demonstrates that there are real global business applications for ocean plastics that deliver positive results for our business and planet. We look forward to working across industries for broader impact.”
To create the packaging, Dell’s partners intercept ocean plastics at the source in waterways, shorelines and beaches before it reaches the ocean. It then processes and refines the used plastic, mixes the ocean plastic (25 percent) with other recycled HDPE plastics (the remaining 75 percent) from sources such as bottles and food storage containers. The resulting plastic flake is then molded into new packaging trays.
The new packaging will be accompanied by consumer education materials and a No. 2 recycling symbol, designating it as HDPE, to ensure packaging doesn’t end up back in the oceans.
Dell’s pilot program follows a successful feasibility study launched in March 2016 in Haiti. Since 2008, Dell has included post-consumer recycled plastics in desktops, and last month reached its 2020 goal of using 50 million pounds of recycled materials in its products. Dell’s Packaging team designs and sources its product packaging to be more than 93 percent recyclable by weight so that it can be reused as part of the circular economy. The company is currently the only to offer computers and monitors that contain e-waste plastics and recycled carbon fiber.
The company has increasingly focused on adopting a circular approach — where materials from someone else’s waste stream can be used as inputs into products and packaging.
In partnership with actor Adrian Grenier and the Lonely Whale Foundation, Dell has helped to increase understanding of ocean health issues, using virtual reality technology to bring people closer to the issues facing the oceans. A recent study reported between 4.8 and 12.7 million metric tons of mismanaged plastic waste entered the ocean in 2010 alone. Dell has published a white paper on sourcing strategies and plans to convene a cross-industry working group that will address ocean plastics on a global scale.
“I am so proud to see the goal of my partnership with Dell fully realized in this program. Not only are we keeping plastics from entering our ocean, but we are also educating consumers and leading by example through developing new and innovative business systems. The health of our ocean affects the health of our families and our communities, this is one example of our collective ability to protect it,” Grenier said.
Meanwhile, NatureWorks has joined forces with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation to drive forward the Foundation’s initiative to create a global plastics system based on circular economy principles.
Among other things, the plan calls for exploring and adopting renewable feedstocks — thereby eliminating fossil fuel-derived plastics — and reducing leakage of plastics into the environment, all amidst the broader context of creating an effective after-use plastics economy by improving the economics and uptake of recycling, reuse and controlled biodegradation for appropriate targeted applications.
During the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, the foundation released new report The New Plastics Economy — Catalyzing Action, which provides a transition strategy for achieving the goals of the New Plastics Economy initiative. The strategy includes guidelines for new types of packaging, improved technology and processes for reuse and innovations in material types and characteristics. The goals and strategies outlined in the new report are endorsed by more than 40 leading organizations representing the entire global plastics industry.
“We welcome the partnership of biopolymers producers such as NatureWorks to our New Plastics Economy initiative,” said Rob Opsomer, lead for the Foundation’s initiative. “We look forward to working with NatureWorks and all our participants on ways for the global plastics industry to support new materials innovation, design better packaging, increase recovery rates and introduce new models for making better use of packaging.”
“Last year, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation presented at Davos a report that for the first time outlined a comprehensive, truly global perspective on plastics innovation needs at a societal level and included a vision of the business opportunity for industry,” said Marc Verbruggen, President and CEO of NatureWorks. “After working with the Foundation for several years and as a technology and market leader in the bioplastics industry, we felt that stepping up to a three-year partnership was essential to support and provide input into the foundation’s game-changing vision of the future.”
Finally, public officials in Connecticut have teamed up with plastic makers and retailers to launch a new campaign aimed at increasing recycling rates of plastic wraps and bags.
Launched by the Flexible Film Recycling Group of the American Chemistry Counciland the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the campaign is designed to increase awareness about the environmental impacts of plastic waste and proper disposal.
Across the country, more than 18,000 retail stores collect plastic film for recycling, but consumer awareness remains low. A recent survey of Connecticut residents found that only half are aware that certain plastic items should be brought to grocery or retail stores for proper recycling. “When plastics bags or wraps are put in curbside bins, it makes recycling more difficult, time consuming and expensive, which winds up costing all of us more money,” said Rob Klee, Connecticut’s DEEP commissioner. The new campaign is designed to change that, with information being made available at PlasticFilmRecycling.org.
The Connecticut campaign is part of WRAP (Wrap Recycling Action Program), a public-private partnership that promotes recycling of plastic wraps and bags. The partnership includes the FFRG, the DEEP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, GreenBlue, the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, Association of Plastics Recyclers, brand companies, retailers and state and local governments. WRAP has set a goal to double plastic film recycling — approximately 2 billion pounds — by 2020.
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/products_design/libby_maccarthy/trending_companies_continue_drive_forward_new_plastic
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC’s Dooley: Stakes are High for Getting TSCA Implementation Right
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and CEO Cal Dooley has said the stakes are "very, very high" for getting the implementation of the newly reformed TSCA right.
Speaking at the ACC's GlobalChem conference in Washington, DC, Mr Dooley said the rest of the world is watching as the US implements the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. And this presents an opportunity to join with such countries as Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Taiwan, China, and India to demonstrate that the US has a chemicals management approach that is "the superior alternative."
TSCA, he said, can provide the appropriate level of safety assessment and consumer confidence, but in "the most cost-effective manner to ensure that the chemical industry can continue to be developing the products and the innovations that respond to consumers’ demand."
Mr Dooley said the US has "clearly become the most globally competitive region in the world" due to its feedstock advantage. And with TSCA, an opportunity exists also "to ensure that we are the most globally competitive because of the regulatory environment that we have in the United States."
Implementation concerns
But in order to protect the US chemical industry's lead in global competitiveness, he said, the EPA must get the new law's implementation right. And he said the ACC sees "modifications of some of their early actions that can ensure that we can have an implementation of TSCA that is consistent with the Congressional intent."
"Most troubling", he said, are the changes that have been seen to the new chemicals programme under section 5 of the law.
He said that the backlog of pre-manufacture notices (PMNs) at the EPA has doubled over the past six months – from 331 to 668 – while the agency has only reached determinations on a few dozen. This is stunning, he said, from an agency that typically reviewed 1,000 PMNs a year.
On prioritisation, he said that the trade group has been "concerned and troubled" by reports from the EPA that they cannot designate a chemical as a low priority because they must consider all of its potential uses.
The ACC also sees work to be done on risk assessment, to ensure that effective protocols and highest quality science are at the center of the agency's evaluations.
Political climate
Mr Dooley said that a Republican-controlled government "creates some opportunities for our industry".
But he told members of the press that regardless of the administration, the ACC is focusing on taking an "an intellectually consistent" approach to advancing policies that address its needs as well as those of the environment, health and safety.
"We pride ourselves … on taking that intellectually consistent approach based on sound science," he said in remarks. "And we now, I think, also have the opportunity to work with a new and incoming administration that we have confidence will also be receptive to ensuring ... that the implementation of TSCA is done in a way that is consistent with the Congressional intent."
Mr Dooley also said that it's unlikely that implementation will change significantly under a new administration, especially given that restoring confidence in the EPA's authority over chemicals was a key priority with TSCA reform.
But the political landscape, he said "gives us more opportunities than we've ever had in the past to play a little more offence.
"We have to do it [with] a very judicious and responsible and science-based approach".
https://chemicalwatch.com/53812/accs-dooley-stakes-are-high-for-getting-tsca-implementation-right
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limiting Asbestos Chemical Evaluation to Six Forms Under TSCA
Feb 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
EPA is limiting its review of asbestos under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the definition of asbestos in the statute, agency staff announced at a recent stakeholders meeting where speakers clashed over which uses EPA should pursue.
TSCA Title II, Section 202, defines six forms of asbestos: chrysotile, crocidolite, amosite, anthophyllite, tremolite, and actinolite. And EPA staff at the meeting seeking comment on which uses of asbestos and nine other existing chemical substances should be included in agency risk evaluations under TSCA said EPA would limit its asbestos review to those six forms.
"So first off, I just want to denote we're defining asbestos as its defined currently under statute under Title II, and that is the 6 fiber types historically regulated since Title II was passed," Brian Symmes, acting director of the National Program Chemicals Division in EPA's toxics office, said during a presentation at the Washington, D.C., meeting.
Symmes' announcement at the Feb. 14 meeting answers one in a series of questions about the asbestos review raised by J. Michael Showalter, a partner with the Chicago-headquartered law firm of Schiff Hardin, in a blog shortly after EPA announced that asbestos would be among the first 10 substances reviewed as part of the new TSCA process last November. In the November 2016 posting on the firm's site, Showalter asked which asbestos substances EPA would be assessing, given that the TSCA definition of "asbestos" applies to six forms of the mineral fiber while courts have accepted a broader definition from the agency.
Further, Showalter asked how EPA will regulate a naturally occurring substance, and whether the extensive product liability litigation over asbestos will complicate the agency's efforts.
In a Feb. 15 phone interview, Showalter explained that TSCA's definition of asbestos, including just the six specified forms, "was always under-inclusive, at least back to the W.R. Grace case."
In that case, EPA sued W.R. Grace for releasing asbestos at its Libby, MT, mine and surrounding community, where the company mined for decades vermiculite contaminated with a form of asbestos known as Libby amphibole. Grace's sales of the vermiculite, processed into insulation and fertilizer, spread the asbestos across the country. Grace ceased mining operations in Libby in 1990, and filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001 after a 1999 series of news reports publicized respiratory illnesses in workers. The company emerged from bankruptcy in 2014. EPA finalized its cleanup plan for the Libby, MT, area, now a Superfund site, last year.
The problem in the legal case, Showalter said, is that the Libby form of asbestos is "a similar fiber but not in the six-fiber definition" as outlined in TSCA Section 202. During the course of the case, "Grace had experts in" who raised this issue, Showalter said, adding that "natural substances don't fit neatly into boxes."
In the W.R. Grace criminal enforcement suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in 2007 rejected defense arguments that the two substances at issue in the case -- winchite and richterite, also known as "Libby vermiculite" -- were not "asbestos" because they fell outside the TSCA definition.
TSCA Definition
While the TSCA definition can be under-inclusive, in a sense, it is also over-inclusive, Showalter said, noting that it is not practical nor economically viable to perform repeated mineralogy tests on large amounts of natural materials, such as gravel removed from a quarry.
Asked whether EPA is limited by the TSCA definition of asbestos, Showalter said EPA would "not be constrained by the old part of TSCA" because "anything outside of the 'six fiber' definition could be viewed as a new chemical. EPA could then evaluate it like any other substance" through its TSCA Section 5 premanufacturing notice review process.
"Using the 'six-fiber' definition in the short term is conservative if only because those terms have been around for years, people understand what falls within them, and there is precedent as to how to evaluate whether something is or is not one of them," Showalter said.
An EPA spokesperson did not answer questions about whether EPA is bound to use the Title II definition of asbestos or if the agency could look more broadly at asbestos forms. "EPA is in a period of public comment on uses of asbestos," an agency spokesperson responded in an email. "These comments will help inform the scope of EPA's risk evaluation for the chemical."
A key component to EPA's new TSCA reviews revolves around the chemical substances' uses or "reasonably foreseen uses," as directed in the statute. EPA recently released preliminary documents for each of the first 10 substances identifying what it believes to be current uses of those substances, and is seeking comment on them. Symmes also sought to clarify that the asbestos review will consider only current industrial uses of asbestos, not historical uses.
"We have looked at a variety of sources to try and determine what uses are currently ongoing," Symmes said. "I should note that these uses are uses that have been identified as currently in commerce. This does not reflect the vast number of uses and applications that occurred historically, or the asbestos that is continuing to be managed in place in buildings, schools and homes across the U.S."
Symmes identified the largest use of imported asbestos in the United States as "chlor-alkali plants and the use of asbestos diaphragms -- according to the U.S. Geological Survey this remains the major use of imported asbestos. Current estimates indicate that nearly 100 percent of imported raw asbestos goes into chlor-alkali facilitates." These facilities separate and produce chlorine and caustic soda, according to Symmes' presentation slides.
Symmes outlined a number of other uses of asbestos which the agency believes are ongoing, such as roof coatings, brake blocks, imported brakes, gaskets and building materials. "We are of course soliciting information on whether these uses are continuing to be ongoing, and whether there are other uses we have not discovered in our search as we move forward," Symmes added.
Potential Risks
One concerned industry representative, Christina Franz of the chemical trade association American Chemistry Council (ACC), argued that EPA should not evaluate the risks of chlor-alkali uses of asbestos. The "use of asbestos in chlor-alkali production was not part of the 1989 risk management rule on asbestos because [they] were very well controlled," Franz said. "EPA should make clear in its scoping document that this is a particular condition of use that does not need a full risk evaluation since the agency has already concluded that this particular use does not present an unreasonable risk."
Franz further called for EPA in its releases of the risk evaluations to provide disclaimers. "The public needs to know that not all of the uses mentioned in the use dossiers pose a risk. The use dossiers need disclaimers to this effect so that the public is not misled about what the information means. For example, not all conditions of use of asbestos need a full blown risk assessment. EPA, you do have discretion to focus on certain conditions of use in these risk evaluations, and EPA should use that discretion."
By contrast, advocacy groups called on EPA to quickly move to ban asbestos, with one representative arguing that EPA should speed a ban by skipping risk evaluation of asbestos entirely and moving directly to a risk reduction rule. Linda Reinstein, with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, reminded EPA staff that the agency "spent decades on research to ban asbestos in 1989. You're well armed with the facts to move this forward. . . . In fact in the new TSCA, there's actually section 7, where you can actually skip the evaluation and go straight to rulemaking."
TSCA Section 7 allows the EPA administrator to file a civil suit in any U.S. district court "for seizure of an imminently hazardous chemical substance" or "for relief . . . against any person who manufactures, processes, distributes in commerce or uses or disposes of, an imminently hazardous chemical substance . . ." It does not mention asbestos specifically.
Reinstein also urged EPA not to exempt the chlor-alkali industry from future rulemakings. "Chlor-alkaline industry submitted a letter in August of 2016 to you folks, talking about how they work to ensure the safe use of asbestos. Safe use is impossible."
Reinstein pointed to EPA's latest Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) information, which EPA collects from a number of required industry sectors, who must report to the agency on total releases of specified chemicals and substances over specified thresholds. Reinstein noted that in total, TRI reported "nearly 13 tons of asbestos releases ... Generally related to building renovation, abatement work and the production of chlorine and caustic soda."
She continued, "It's apparent, its abundantly apparent, that the chlor-alkailine industry wants another exemption, just like they had in 1989. That's wrong. There are safer substitutes, and they know that."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-limiting-asbestos-chemical-evaluation-six-forms-under-tsca
-
(ACC Mentioned) Pruitt Working to Fix Chemical Backlog from Updated TSCA
Feb 24, 2017 | Environmental Leader
By Jessica Lyons Hardcastle
Chemical manufacturers say a backlog of chemicals awaiting EPA approval is hurting business, and the US economy at large — and now the EPA is working to correct this problem, Bloomberg reports.
American Chemistry Council president Cal Dooley tells Bloomberg the number of manufacturer requests to the EPA to make new chemicals has doubled from 331 to 658, and the backlog is caused by an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Last year Congress updated the 40-year-old law, requiring new testing and regulation of thousands of chemicals used in everything from cleaning products to paint thinners and clothing. Unlike the old TSCA, the amendment requires the EPA to test all existing and new chemicals to determine if they pose a threat to human health or the environment. It also gives the agency authority to request additional toxicity data from manufacturers.
Only 33 new chemicals have been allowed to enter commerce since the law was amended, Dooley said, adding: “This is stunning for a program that has historically reviewed about 1,000 substances annually.”
Manufacturers say the changes to the TSCA are stifling innovation because the EPA now takes so long to review chemicals.
“This is serious for industry as we rapidly need to bring new innovative systems to the market,” Lynn Ann Dekleva, who manages product stewardship and regulations at DuPont, told Bloomberg.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, EPA acting assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention, said EPA administrator Scott Pruitt is working to address manufacturers’ concerns.
“You have his commitment we’ll be working to get that process closer to where it should be,” Cleland-Hamnett said.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2017/02/pruitt-working-fix-chemical-backlog-updated-tsca/
-
EPA Rejects Fluoride Ban but Details New TSCA Path to Revive Request
Feb 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
EPA is rejecting health groups' petition seeking a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) ban on drinking water fluoridation after finding it lacked adequate evidence of neurological risks to justify a ban, but the agency is also offering guidance on how to craft petitions to win reviews of potential bans under last year's revised TSCA.
In a notice scheduled for publication in the Feb. 27 Federal Register, EPA argues that the Nov. 23 petition to ban drinking water fluoridation -- a single use of a class of chemicals -- is inconsistent with the agency's obligation under the recently revised TSCA to conduct comprehensive reviews of specific chemicals and address risks from all uses.
EPA's denial outlines general obligations petitioners should meet in seeking chemical restrictions under the updated version of the toxics law that took effect in June, potentially giving the groups another chance to seek the ban.
“This requirement includes addressing the full set of conditions of use for a chemical substance and thereby describing an adequate rule under TSCA section 6(a) -- one that would reduce the risks of the chemical substance 'so that the chemical substance or mixture no longer presents' unreasonable risks under all conditions of use,” the agency says.
“Rather than comprehensively addressing the conditions of use that apply to a particular chemical substance, the petition requests EPA to take action on a single condition of use (water fluoridation) that cuts across a category of chemical substances (fluoridation chemicals),” the agency adds.
Groups including the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Food and Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network petitioned EPA in November for a ban of the decades-old practice of adding fluoride to drinking water to reduce cavities.
Petitioners argued that fluoride in drinking water often exceeds doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects, and that TSCA allows for a “more targeted” ban than under federal drinking water law.
The groups do not mention that water fluoridation is a local decision, made by individual water utilities and localities. Instead, they call on EPA to use its TSCA section 6 authority to prohibit the use of fluoride as a drinking water additive because they say that use presents an unreasonable risk.
Fluoride Study
A study released last fall, “Developmental Neurotoxicity of Fluoride: A Quantitative Risk Analysis Towards Establishing A Safe Daily Dose of Fluoride For Children” concluded that “exposure of the developing brain to fluoride should be minimized.”
The authors, led by former EPA scientist William Hirzy, call for additional research, but argue that given current information “implementation of protective standards and policies seems warranted and should not be postponed while more research is done.”
In the denial, EPA argues the groups provided insufficient evidence that drinking water fluoridation poses neurological risks, and also failed to adequately counter the public health benefits of the practice that dates to the 1940s.
“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S.,” the denial says. “EPA does not believe that the petition has presented a well-founded basis to doubt the health benefits of fluoridating drinking water.”
The denial says that the revised TSCA law created a pipeline for the agency to prioritize existing chemicals for risk evaluation, and notes the agency's limited resources for reviewing a backlog of such substances. While groups may seek to add chemicals to the pipeline, the agency argues they must provide sufficient basis that addresses all uses.
“[T]he Agency wishes to emphasize that its denial does not preclude petitioners from obtaining further substantive administrative consideration, under TSCA section 21, of a substantively revised petition under TSCA section 21 that clearly identifies the chemical substances at issue, discusses the full conditions of use for those substances, and sets forth facts that would enable EPA to complete a risk evaluation under TSCA section 6(b) for those substances.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-rejects-fluoride-ban-details-new-tsca-path-revive-request
-
2017 Outlook: US EPA on Moving TSCA Reform Forward
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Jim Jones
Last year brought the reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a historical moment that marked the biggest change in chemicals policy in the US for more than 40 years.
When President Obama signed the Frank R Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA), which amended the old version of the law, in June last year, my optimism for chemical safety in the US reached a new level. Implementation is now well under way and we have a chemicals regulatory programme that we can be proud of.
Spurring innovation
By the time this is published, I will have left my position as assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP). What impressed me, while in this job, is just how much innovation is coming out of US industry in terms of green chemistry. What was missing in the US was a robust regulatory programme for chemicals that present risks. This meant there wasn’t a level playing field and it reduced the capacity for forward thinking companies to break through with better, safer chemicals.
Over the last few years, companies have been developing innovative alternatives. But they could always be out competed with chemicals that were very cheap to buy but didn’t meet safety standards.
We now have a comprehensive approach where the innovators in the green chemistry space are going to have a level playing field. It will take a while because the programme will take some time to get up and running and mature; but chemicals on the market are going to have to meet safety standards, which has never been the case.
Therefore I’m very optimistic for chemical safety, the chemicals industry in the US and that we will be a more meaningful player on the global stage as well.
LCSA implementation
Since President Obama signed the LCSA, we’ve been able to hit the ground running. We have been working on some of the key aspects, of what is now in the law, for a couple of years. We currently have some actions under section 6, which are beginning to move into the regulatory arena. For example, we proposed a restriction on TCE for various uses, such as certain sprays and degreasing applications. And last month we finalised a nanoscale materials reporting rule, completing a process that began more than 11 years ago.
We also selected the first ten existing chemicals that will be subject to risk evaluation under the new TSCA. The new law requires the EPA to publish scoping documents on how each substance will be assessed. These documents must be published by June, so we’re holding some public meetings this month to start the process.
And we released two proposed rules, laying out how the agency will prioritise substances and conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA.
The two rules will implement the requirement to prioritise and assess existing chemical substances, and then manage any identified risk those chemicals may pose.
We also issued a proposed rule, setting out how the agency will designate substances as active or inactive on the TSCA inventory. This requires companies to report which substances have been manufactured, imported and processed within the past ten years.
New chemicals programme
The new chemicals programme has been one of the most challenging aspects of the reform law because, not only did changes to it become effective on 22 June, but the review window for new substances is so short: just 90 days. So the need to be up and running with the programme was immediate. And even though all other aspects of the law were effective upon enactment, for some of them, the first deadline was in a year or two or three years. Whereas for new chemicals it’s three months.
There are two things that all of us are grappling with:
First is our need to determine how to evaluate a chemical in order to make an affirmative finding of its safety. We’re getting our arms around this versus the old programme where if we saw something that made us anxious we intervened. Now we have to affirmatively find whether there are concerns on every individual chemical that we assess. Part of the struggles we’ve been having relates to how to put into place the systems and processes to do that.
The other issue is that, in the making of an affirmative finding, we are coming to regulatory conclusions that are not exactly what they were under the old law, meaning there may be more testing required or restrictions imposed. This is because we are identifying issues that have a risk basis to them, which is the whole point of the requirement.
We had an all-day meeting in December, which was open to the public but predominately attended by industry, to try to sort through some of the challenges we’re experiencing. We’re committed to working with the industry to get to a place which is more predictable in terms of review timings, as well as outcomes of decision making. I’m confident that within the one year anniversary of the law, there will be a much clearer understanding of the programme amongs all parties.
New administration
I can’t speak for the new administration because I’m not part of it. But what is worth pointing out is, since the election, we have seen a bipartisan letter sent from leaders in the Senate, in particular, to the Trump team, encouraging them to focus on effective implementation of TSCA. This is a reflection of the fact that Congress passed this new law with overwhelming bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate. And as I articulated, throughout the development process of the legislation, the most important elements for laws like this is that you have a manageable and workable safety standard, which this law has, and that you have deadlines. And these must be independent of who’s in charge. This law has very clear deadlines.
The next administration will put its own interpretation on various aspects of the statute but the deadlines make things clear. I haven’t heard anyone expressing a desire to change the newly passed law but there is a lot of interest on working with us on implementation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53841/2017-outlook-us-epa-on-moving-tsca-reform-forward
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Will We Manage Chemicals Globally Beyond 2020?
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Hearing that a new substance is added to the Chemicals Abstract Service (Cas) registry every 1.4 seconds, puts the scale of global chemicals production into perspective. This statistic set the scene for a meeting on whether the UN’s global chemicals programme, the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm), should be replaced, amended or kept as it is in order to effectively manage this ever-expanding market beyond 2020.
The overarching message from this first of three meetings was that the Saicm model works well but needs to be improved to accelerate progress.
Many of those involved in international discussions on chemicals agree that Saicm’s goal of achieving sound chemicals management globally by 2020 will not be met and therefore a more aspiring framework will be required going into the next decade.
In preparation for this first meeting, the bureau of the fifth International Conference on chemicals Management (ICCM5), led by German government representative Gertrud Sahler, put together a paper setting out a series of topics to discuss. These included addressing emerging and ongoing challenges; sustainable chemistry; the idea of establishing a body to address the relationship between science and policy; a post-2020 governance structure; the 2030 sustainable development agenda; measuring progress; and financing.
It was acknowledged by many that this first meeting would likely act as a starting point for discussions and ideas, rather than finding consensus on specific topics. The scope, structure and financing of a post-2020 framework were issues commonly highlighted and debated throughout the three days in Brazil.
Scope
The meeting considered the idea of taking into account the Saicm Overall Policy Strategy, the Overall Orientation and Guidance (OOG), including the 11 basic elements and six core activity areas.
The OOG, through these elements and activities, provides direction and identifies approaches for all Strategic Approach stakeholders to achieve sound chemicals management.
Another aspect brought up was the time frame for a future framework. Many believed that the a beyond 2020 framework should be timeless and not limited to 2030, like the UN’s sustainable development agenda. However, it should take it into account. The meeting acknowledged that there are several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) where clear connections can be made and where measurable indicators and targets could be developed.
The WHO’s health sector roadmap should also be taken into account and a specific roadmap for chemicals and waste should be considered.
It was often mentioned that the chemicals agenda needs to become a higher political priority. With the adoption of the 2030 agenda, issues related to chemicals should be linked to a number of relevant areas, including new emerging issues, climate change, a broader health agenda, institutional strengthening and vulnerable people, particularly indigenous people, women and children.
Unep’s head of chemicals and waste branch, Achim Halpaap, told Chemical Watch that to ensure a beyond 2020 approach is strategic and focused “we suggest developing a small number of goals and related targets, following the model of the SDGs and 2030 sustainable development agenda”.
He highlighted the overarching international framework for biodiversity – the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This is centred around five goals and 20 targets. “This model has received widespread support and could also be relevant for international chemicals and waste management,” said Mr Halpaap.
But, he said, one of the top priorities should be to develop a goal and targets to fill the gap in developing basic national regulatory systems to manage chemicals and waste safely. “While chemicals production and use has moved globally, regulatory capacities have not with equal pace. This is a gap the beyond 2020 approach needs to address.”Governance
It’s worth noting that the majority of meeting participants largely support Saicm’s voluntary, mutli-stakeholder, multi-sectoral approach. There are no binding agreements and many people, groups and organisations from governments, industry, NGOs and civil society are invited to participate, rather than there just being closed discussions between government officials.
Joe Digangi, senior scientific advisor at NGO the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen) told Chemical Watch there is broad agreement that the multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach gives Saicm a “special value and should be preserved”.
Greg Skelton, senior director of regulatory and technical affairs at the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and representative of the International Council of Chemicals Associations (ICCA) said the programme has made some important progress. “There is obviously still a long way to go, but we think the multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral nature of Saicm has led to collaboration that would not have happened otherwise.”
Saicm, he added, has built trust between stakeholders who are all working towards the same goal. “We might have different views on how to reach the goal but it’s acknowledged that all those in the process want to improve the management of chemicals around the world.”
However, some have called for a stricter framework to be adopted. In 2013, a report released by the Center for International Environmental Law (Ciel) advocated a new legally binding framework to “bring greater coherence, coverage and coordination” to international chemicals management.
And in 2012, in the run up to the Rio+20 summit, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) called for a legally binding treaty on chemicals. The ICCA responded to this proposal, saying that because of the positive contributions achieved through Saicm, it did not see the need to develop a new international regime and “would not support any effort to exclude non-governmental stakeholders from direct participation in decision making”.
Speaking to Chemical Watch on the meeting ‘s sidelines, David Azoulay, senior attorney and environmental health programme director at Ciel, said Saicm’s non-binding approach offers advantages to the process: “It allows the discussion of issues that would be much more difficult under a legally binding setting because governments are more reluctant to open talks that could lead to new obligations or commitments.”
It also helps develop legal, grassroot or policy strategies because it isn’t as constrained by legally binding processes, he said.
However, on the “other side of the coin”, because there are no legally binding obligations the level of political attention and priority is much lower. He added that international funding mechanisms often prioritise legally binding agreements.
“There would be great value, therefore, in discussing how to establish a governance structure that retains the positive aspects of a non-legally binding policy process, while at the same time being able to integrate and benefit from some legally binding commitments.”
A report by a group of Nordic countries set out possible framework options to adopt in 2020. This includes the idea of a mixed approach that combines elements of multi-stakeholder participation with some legally binding commitments. It likens this to the Paris Climate Change Agreement adopted in 2015 and takes a similar approach.
As a next step, the meeting agreed that the Saicm secretariat would develop a governance option paper in time for the second meeting in 2018.
Funding
Running alongside this discussion, was the need for increased funding.. The majority of Saicm stakeholders agree that the programme is, and always has been, underfunded. The basis for financing the sound management of chemicals and waste is Unep’s ‘integrated approach’ – this comprises of mainstreaming the issue to gain political prioritisation, industry involvement and dedicated external financing.
The main external financial mechanisms are the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Special Programme, which is a Unep coordinated funding platform.
Both mechanisms receive financial contributions from ‘donor’ countries and have taken over from the Quick Start Programme (QSP). Launched with Saicm in 2006, the QSP’s purpose was to support initial “enabling capacity building and implementation activities” in developing countries but is set to close in 2019.
In the sixth financial replenishment of GEF, chemicals and wastes represented 12.5% of the total amount – $554m. This is spread across all chemicals-related international programmes: persistent organic pollutants (POPs) $375m; mercury $141m; Saicm $13m; and ozone depleting substances $25m. “Saicm, which has the broadest mandate, has the smallest allocation,” says Ipen.
The Special Programme meanwhile has a funding pot of around $14m.
On the sidelines, some government representatives told Chemical Watch that although these financial mechanisms are welcome, they are not adequate to achieve the Saicm objective. One said it can take up to five years to receive the money from the GEF, after an application has been submitted. Statements by the African, Asia-Pacific and Latin American and Caribbean groups (Grulac) all highlighted funding as one of the most important issues to address during the post-2020 discussions.
Latin America and Caribbean countries called for the “appropriate allocation of financial resources” in order to ensure the participation of as many of the region’s countries as possible.
“The sound management of chemicals and wastes requires adequate, predictable and a sustainable financial mechanism to enable the implementation of Saicm activities,” says the African group statement.
And, it continues, it is the private sector that should be providing this financial support. Industry, it added, needs to “own up and do more with regards to the environmentally sound management of chemicals”. “We therefore, suggest that Saicm could play an active role in the application of the extended producer responsibility principle to the chemical industry.
“The chemical industry could do more to financially support the effective implementation of relevant Saicm activities as well as support the capacity building for mainstreaming of sound chemicals management priorities across governments and national development policies and plans for strengthening national chemicals management capacities.“
In 2015, the ICCA agreed to provide its first significant funding to the Saicm secretariat. The organisation committed $15,000/year for two years and last year its board of directors agreed to extend ICCA’s support of Saicm at the same annual rate through until 2020. It has also said it continues to roll out its Responsible Care initiative – which encourages companies to adopt robust health, safety and environmental protection policies around the responsible use of chemicals.
All of this, however, comes significantly below the $1bn/year that Ipen estimates is needed to fully implement Saicm “in a meaningful way”.
Released during the meeting, a study, commissioned by the German Federal Environment Agency (UBA) and supported with funding from the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB), listed the perspectives of nearly 40 governmental and non-governmental stakeholders from developed and developing countries. Through interviews, the stakeholders gave opinions on the strengths and weaknesses of Saicm and on options for enhancing it beyond 2020.
On the topic of financing, almost all interviewees noted that the current level of financing Saicm is far from sufficient.
One idea to increase the level of funding was to focus on linkages between the sound management of chemicals and other issues like climate change or biodiversity, health and agriculture, and try to access funds operating in these fields.
This was a point often brought up during the meeting. The EU, in its opening statement, said the development of the new framework provides a “unique opportunity to enhance cooperation and coordination in the chemicals and waste cluster and forge strong links to other areas, such as biodiversity and climate change”.
However, the study said interviewees familiar with the UN system were cautious about the expected results. “[The interviewees] noted it could help provide some funds for some projects, but that it would do little to close the huge gap to other fields relevant for sustainable development.”
Funding will continue to be a key theme throughout the intersessional process and while the first meeting set the scene, and opened up discussion points, it will be the next meeting in 2018 that will begin the formulation of concrete ideas and proposals of how to move closer to Saicm’s goal.
The next meeting is in March 2018 and final discussions will take place in 2019. The aim is to come to an agreement on a post-2020 framework in time for ICCM5 in 2020, where it will be adopted.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53835/how-will-we-manage-chemicals-globally-beyond-2020
-
NGO Platform: Ceta Threatens Protection Against EDCs
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Aleksandra Terzieva
Last month, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in the European Parliament to promote the EU-Canada trade and investment deal, Ceta. The visit came a day after the Parliament voted ‘Yes’ to the agreement. As far as the health of Europeans is concerned however, Canada is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It has repeatedly warned the EU against taking a precautionary approach to regulating endocrine disruptors (EDCs) — harmful chemicals that have been linked to a wide range of diseases, including cancer birth defects, and other developmental disorders.
Should Ceta be adopted, Canada and companies doing business there can challenge EU EDC laws based on provisions within the agreement that favour investment over health. Ceta would also establish opaque and unaccountable processes that threaten to further delay, stop, or reverse EU efforts to regulate EDCs.
Fighting the precautionary approach
Over the past two years, Canada has raised concerns about the EU approach to EDCs at every meeting of the WTO’s Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee. The approach is mandated by EU law, but Canada considers it an unnecessary barrier to trade and a violation of WTO commitments.
In comments to the European Commission on its proposed EDC criteria, Canada argued that potential exposure, or how likely it is that harm would occur, should be a consideration. This would run counter to the EU’s pesticide regulation, which has already determined that, based on their inherent properties, identified EDCs should be banned from pesticides. This would also contravene internationally accepted principles of risk assessment, which distinguish between the identification of a hazard and the assessment of risk from that hazard.
The EU EDC impact assessment notes that “the pressure on the EU is mounting as demonstrated by the growing number of WTO members taking the floor to express concerns or to question the EU’s ongoing work on” defining the EDC criteria. It then observes that this pressure “makes the EU position very difficult” and concludes that to achieve compliance with WTO obligations, the European Commission should include additional risk considerations into EDC criteria.
Notes from a meeting, obtained by a journalist through a freedom of information request, reveal that the Commission is prioritising these trade concerns over health concerns. Last July a Commission official acknowledged to ambassadors from the US, Canada and other countries, that it proposed to establish maximum residue levels for pesticides containing EDCs in an effort to “address the concerns”.
Indeed, the proposed revisions to EU pesticides legislation lower the level of protection applied to EDCs. In particular, the Commission last year proposed an amendment to the annex of the pesticide regulation that would allow the EU to set higher maximum residue limits for EDC pesticides. The proposed revisions included a derogation for substances that involve ‘negligible risk’, instead of ‘negligible exposure’, thereby widening an existing limited exemption into a major loophole. The Commission presented a revised proposal to identify EDCs in February, without revising or withdrawing the pesticides’ derogation. Therefore, the amendment should still be on the member states’ table. This has been controversial and has yet to receive approval from the member state expert committees.
This change would be particularly welcomed by transatlantic trading partners, who continue to disregard the large body of scientific evidence showing there is no safe level of exposure for these chemicals. As legal experts for the European Parliament confirmed last autumn, however, the proposed amendment would exceed the Commission’s delegated powers and violate its mandate under the pesticides regulation.
Canada’s position on EU regulations is clear – it is continuously pushing for a higher level of risk of environmental harm in Europe. Ceta’s entry into force would exacerbate these risks, as it prioritises trade interests over the protection of human health and the environment. The deal contains provisions that would risk placing the decision-making powers of the EU and its member states in a legislative straitjacket.
New rights to sue the EU
Defenders of Ceta argue the agreement will not undermine the EU’s ability to maintain its high standards, including those related to protecting people from dangerous substances like EDCs. Indeed, the deal does reference “high levels of protection” for health and the environment, and encourages both parties to promote and enforce this.
However, trade rules and the majority of provisions of the agreement favour industry. Under the trade deal, while it will be possible for Canadian companies, or companies operating in the country, to sue the EU and its member states for stricter health and environmental regulations before a dispute resolution and arbitration panel ruling on the interpretation and implementation of the agreement, it is not possible for the EU or any public interest group to sue Canada for having weak regulations on EDCs. In addition, these unenforceable standards are qualified by much more exacting standards for trade. WTO obligations, reaffirmed in Ceta, require that measures to protect human health, such as the EDC criteria, be imposed “only to the extent necessary”. Such measures must not create “unjustified barriers to trade”. And they must also be based on “sufficient” scientific evidence.
Ceta also requires that the EU accept Canadian measures, for example those related to food safety, as equivalent to its own as long as Canada can demonstrate that its measures achieve an “appropriate” level of protection. These terms are subject to interpretation by panels comprised of corporate lawyers empowered to judge EU regulatory decisions, such as those regarding EDC pesticides.
The trade deal states that the lack of fully scientific certainty should not be a reason for implementing cost-effective measures to protect against a potential harm and affirms the parties’ right to regulate in the public interest. Yet these provisions do not modify Ceta’s trade rules nor protect the EU’s measures from challenge under them.
Previous dispute settlement cases have blocked laws aimed to protect the public against exposure to dangerous substances and have imposed a significant financial burden on governments. For example, Ethyl Corporation sued Canada over a ban on the imports of the gasoline additive MMT, a suspected neurotoxin. The case resulted in a settlement, whereby Canada reversed the ban and agreed to pay US$13m to the corporation.
Also, the EU failed to successfully invoke the precautionary principle in the WTO disputes, launched by the US and Canada. These concerned bans on the import of meat containing artificial beef growth hormones. The panels determined that a ban was not based on a risk assessment, as required by the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement and granted Canada and the US the right to impose over $100m in total extra annual tariffs on goods coming from the EU.
Recent comments by the European Commission reinforce the point about how much power the dispute resolution and arbitration panels will have over EU law. They affirm that if EU legislation is found to be inconsistent with Ceta, “then the EU would get a certain period of time to bring itself into conformity.”
This means that either the EU would face a financial burden, or it would have to reverse decisions to implement strict measures of protection of health and the environment. This threatens to reverse the status of the EU as a global leader in the area of environmental health — including on EDC policy.
In addition, the agreement establishes processes that pose additional burdens to policy makers. Ceta would require regulators in the EU, upon request by Canada, provide comprehensive information justifying new regulations related to food safety. Additionally, Canada can request recognition of its regulations as equivalent to regulations in the EU. And Ceta would require EU regulators to respond. This response would include a detailed explanation of the reasons for rejecting the proposal. Since these provisions are enforceable, they create new bases for attack through dispute resolution.
The agreement also creates a Ceta joint committee, which is led by the trade ministers of both parties. This committee would have enormous powers to amend the agreement, adopt binding interpretations and change or undertake the tasks assigned to specialised committees.
This is particularly worrying. Important areas of the agreement remain undeveloped and the decisions of this joint committee, which are binding on the parties, enjoy limited democratic scrutiny. Ceta committees would have the power to define important commitments, such as the guidelines for determining and recognising equivalence, which are to “be agreed at a later stage”. Proposals for recognising equivalence could potentially include EDC pesticides in the future. Leaving that decision in the hands of a committee lead by trade officials, and the failure to impose sufficient democratic scrutiny over these binding decisions threatens to trade away public health measures to bolster investment and private profit.
On 15 February, nearly half of the European Parliament failed to give its consent to the agreement. While the Parliament approved Ceta, it didn’t adopt a joint accompanying resolution saying why it approved it. The European Parliament’s opposition is remarkable.
The deal now needs to be ratified by 38 parliaments , and it can be subject to referendums and referral to courts. European governments should reject the deal as it stands, and the EU should continue to reform its trade policy to ensure a sustainable future. This is a necessary step in order for the EU to protect its citizens from dangerous substances, such as EDCs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53843/ngo-platform-ceta-threatens-protection-against-edcs
-
2017 Outlook: Echa's Geert Dancet On a Decade of REACH
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geert Dancet
On 1 June, it will be ten years since REACH entered into force, when 40 pieces of legislation across Europe were replaced by this one groundbreaking law. During this time, we have managed to change the mindset of all those involved, in making chemicals safer – the burden of proof has been shifted from regulators to industry.
We have made, and continue to make, steady progress in protecting human health and the environment from the risks related to hazardous chemicals. While these achievements are certainly worth celebrating, I am conscious that this is a journey without an end and we are only really just getting into our stride.
Final stretch for 2018 registration deadline
To meet the goals of REACH, we need to know what chemical substances are on the European market and about the hazards they present. This is something that the third and final registration deadline in 2018 will help us to do.
This deadline is extremely important for European businesses. Even if your company is not affected directly, it almost certainly is indirectly. If a distributor fails to register a substance that is crucial for your product or professional business, it could have serious consequences for you.
Therefore, we need to make sure that any company manufacturing or importing substances in low volumes, between 1-100tonnes per year, is aware of its registration obligations and acts in time. This is one of the big challenges for us in 2017.
If companies have not started to prepare yet, they need to now. And Echa is providing the support through our REACH 2018 webpages. We will also have an entire week dedicated to REACH 2018 in May.
2017 hot topics
Chemical safety has been increasingly discussed by policy makers and in the media, but it is also now gaining the attention of Europe’s citizens.
I would like to mention two hot topics that have engaged people particularly. One is the safety of glyphosate and another the identification of endocrine disruptors.
Our Committee for Risk Assessment is preparing its opinion on the classification of glyphosate. Although we have until November to finalise this, I hope it will be ready before the summer. The opinion is important for the European Commission, when they decide on whether to approve glyphosate as a pesticide. It will also present valuable scientific analysis on a hotly debated topic for the rest of the world.
For endocrine disruptors, we need strong scientific criteria to identify them. Industry, regulators and civil society organisations all agree on this.
The substances can have serious effects on our health and the environment and we must do our best to minimise harm. I look forward to the criteria that the Commission is currently finalising, related to pesticides and biocides. However, I hope that once these are approved, they would work for all chemical legislation, including REACH.
We at Echa are continuing to work with our colleagues at the European Food Safety Authority to have guidance ready for applicants and the authorities, when the criteria are published.
REFIT evaluation
Any system or legislation needs to be revisited to make sure that it works as planned. For REACH, the review is done every five years, which means that the European Commission is carrying out the second review as we speak. I am looking forward to seeing the results of their deliberations. Echa is committed to protecting human health and the environment from the toxic effects of chemicals and if there are ways in which we can do that better – we are ready to do it. The final evaluation is expected to be published by the end of this year.
Finally, for me personally 2017 will be a very special year. It is the last year of my mandate as Echa’s executive director. It has been a challenging and inspiring ten years and I have enjoyed being on this journey. I believe that we are on the right path to improving chemical safety in Europe and, while we continue to work towards this, I also wish you all a happy and successful year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53840/2017-outlook-echas-geert-dancet-on-a-decade-of-reach
-
2017 Outlook: Unep On Advancing the Chemicals Agenda
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Achim Halpaap
In February 2017, the rather specialised topic of persistent organic pollutants captured the attention of the global media. A study led by Dr Jamieson of Newcastle University, published in Nature, Economy and Evolution, was the focus of interest. It found staggering levels of polychlorinated-biphenyl (PCB) in amphipods living between 7- 10,000m below sea level in the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana trench.
What was previously considered to be a pristine environment, unaffected by human beings, is now known to contain living organisms with some of the highest PCB concentrations. Measured by researchers these were close to 1,900 nanograms (ng) per gram of tissue analysed, dwarfing concentrations of PCB concentrations in clean coastal environments (1ng), or in polluted areas like the Liao rivers in China (100ng). The Economist succinctly concluded that: “What Dr Jamieson’s work shows beyond peradventure is that no part of Earth’s surface is safe from the activities of Man”.
This year’s outlook on international chemicals and waste management purposely starts with a reference to this path-breaking study. The research findings remindsus about the ubiquitous nature of chemicals and chemical pollution in our environment. They also remind us about unfinished business that needs to be tackled by government and stakeholders as a matter of priority to implement an important target of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda: “to achieve, by 2020, the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their lifecycle, and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil, in order to minimise their adverse impacts on human health and the environment”.
This is a key year for advancing the international chemicals and waste agenda, and it creates opportunities not to be missed. February 2017 already witnessed the first meeting on the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) and chemicals and waste beyond 2020 in Brazil. In May 2017, the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm Conventions will hold their important “Triple COPs” meetings back-to-back. In September, the first meeting of the Conference of Parties of the Minamata Conventions is expected to take place following the 50th ratification expected to come in during the course of 2017. Last, but not least, environment ministers will gather in Nairobi in December to discuss pollution as the main theme for the third United Nations Environment Assembly (Unea-3).
Beyond 2020 Intersessional process
The first meeting under the Intersessional Process for Considering Saicm and the Sound Management of Chemicals and Waste Beyond 2020 took place from 7-9 February. More than 250 stakeholders participated, representing governments, the private sector and civil society organisations. Taking into account that Saicm’s original mandate will end in 2020, the stakeholders started to explore a possible global platform for promoting sound management beyond 2020. Specifically, delegates focused on the vision and scope of a future platform; the voluntary, multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach; the process for responding to new and emerging issues; financing implementation; linkages to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and the role of sustainable and green chemistry in the beyond 2020 agenda.
The next intersessional meeting will take place in early 2018. By that time, a series of regional meetings will have taken place and initial insights from the second edition of the Global Chemicals Outlook will be available, as a substantive contribution to deliberations. One of the key challenges over the next year will be to expand the stakeholder base for the beyond 2020 process and to engage with other sectors and topics addressed in the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, such as climate change, biodiversity, and safe and affordable housing.
Triple COP
From 24 April to 5 May, the BRS COPs will meet in Geneva to agree on actions under the three conventions, with each COP taking decisions pertaining to their individual conventions, and some decisions taken jointly by all three. The meetings should be both exciting and challenging. Most importantly, concrete steps will be taken to make our world safer with less cancer, birth defects, immune and reproductive system dysfunctions, and other adverse effects on health and environmental due to these toxics.
The COPs meeting will feature a technology fair and a joint high-level segment. The latter will bring together ministers from around the world to consider the theme of detoxifying the future, through sound management of chemicals and wastes. Topics include chemicals and wastes and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), implementation through partnerships, and reducing pollution and waste, while enabling economic and social prosperity. The high-level segment is to produce key messages that among other things should help inform the post-2020 process of the Saicm.
Under the Basel Convention, prevention and minimisation of the generation of waste is the subject of a new guidance to assist Parties prepared by the expert group on environmentally sound management (ESM) for consideration by the COP developed. This group also prepared a set of practical manuals for the promotion of the environmentally sound management of wastes and revised fact sheets on specific waste streams. Other work under COP consideration includes two new and four updated technical guidelines for ESM of POPs, a glossary of terms to provide further legal clarity to improve the implementation of the Convention and the application of technical guidelines and guidance documents developed under the Convention, and guidance on dealing with illegal traffic.
Under the Rotterdam Convention, the COP will consider for the first time listing three chemicals in Annex III, recommended by the CRC: carbofuran (a pesticide), carbosulfan (a pesticide) and short-chain chlorinated paraffins or SCCP (an industrial chemical). An additional chemical, tributyltin, already listed as a pesticide, will be considered for the use category of industrial chemical. If listed these chemicals would be included in the prior informed consent (Pic) procedure which requires exporting countries to not allow shipments of a listed chemical to a Party that has indicated that it does not want to receive such shipments. To deal with chemicals recommended for listing by the CRC on which the COPs is not able to reach consensus on, like chrysotile asbestos, the COP will consider the outcomes of a process to identify options for improving the effectiveness of the Convention. In a related matter, the COP will consider proposals submitted by several parties to amend Articles 16 (Technical Assistance) and 22 (Adoption and Amendment of Annexes) of the Convention.
Under the Stockholm Convention, the COP will consider listing two chemicals in Annexes A (elimination), B (restriction) and/or C (unintentional production) of the Convention: decabromodiphenyl ether (industrial chemicals) and SCCP. An additional chemical that is already listed in Annex A, hexachlorobutadiene (industrial chemical), will be considered for inclusion in Annex C. The COP will also look at the outcomes and recommendations of an expert group that prepared the most recent report on the effectiveness of the Convention. This will serve as the basis the COP effectiveness evaluation and possible action aimed at improving the Convention’s effectiveness on a broad range of issues including the global monitoring plan, national implementation plans and reporting, polychlorinated biphenyls elimination, DDT use, stockpile management, and the need for technical and financial assistance. Regarding the latter, the COP will assess the financial needs of parties and evaluate the effectiveness of the Convention’s financial mechanism in supporting these needs.
The Rotterdam and Stockholm COPs will again consider possible adoption of a mechanism for dealing with compliance as called for in each Convention.
Minamata Convention on Mercury (COP1)
Following the adoption of the treaty in October 2013, and global efforts to implement the Convention early, significant progress has been made over the last year. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Minamata Convention on Mercury (COP1) is scheduled to take place from 24-29 September 2017 in Geneva, Switzerland. The Conference will culminate with a high level segment entitled “Making mercury history”. The convening of the Conference is subject to the prior entry into force of the Minamata Convention. This requires the deposit of 50 instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by states or regional economic integration organisations. Currently, 128 countries have signed and 38 have deposited instruments for ratification.
Following the request from the seventh session of the intergovernmental negotiating committee, the secretariat has taken steps to seek input from governments and interested stakeholders on a number of issues to be considered at COP1. The draft guidance on interim storage of mercury other than waste mercury has been prepared and is available for comment. Concerning the effectiveness evaluation, initial draft versions of the roadmap for the Conference of the Parties towards the availability of comparable monitoring data, as well as a draft report with recommendations on establishing arrangements are also subject to commenting.
Unea-3
Pollution from chemicals and waste will also receive attention at the next global gathering of environment ministers at the Unea-3, 4-6 December 2017. Its theme will be pollution and responding to the troubling statistic that an estimated eight million premature deaths a year result from exposure to polluted air, soil and water. An important aspect of the meeting will be to forge new action and partnerships with the private sector. More information will be available in mid-2017, but they should already be considering how organisations, or companies, can engage in Unea-3 and the concerted global action at global, national and local levels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53837/2017-outlook-unep-on-advancing-the-chemicals-agenda
-
2017 Outlook: ICCA Communicating Chemicals Safety Downstream
Feb 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Peter Smith
The growing public debate around chemical safety is welcomed by industry, and Echa continues to make great strides in making information on safety more harmonised and available. Nevertheless, there is a demand, particularly in the business-to-business sphere, for greater clarity on the safe use of substances, and less confusion. For this reason, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is prioritising a drive to harmonise the way safety data is collected and disseminated, to improve both safety and trust and respond to this growing call for information.
Chemical industry associations, working through the ICCA, are promoting common principles for communicating chemical safety downstream.
The initiative was developed, using as its base an ICCA survey of chemical companies in the US, Europe and Asia. This identified factors, like the dynamic regulatory environment and growing public awareness about chemicals in products, which can lead to a lack of clarity on which products are safe for which applications. As a consequence, detailed information on the composition of supplied products is more frequently requested by all kinds of stakeholders across the value chain. Industry also receives lists of chemicals their customers wish to see reduced or eliminated from their products, despite the lack of science or risk basis for doing this. And while the assessment of product hazards and risks is well established, players across the value chain are now taking this even further, including them, for example, in company policies. They can be pivotal in purchase decisions.
Software interoperability must be improved
The ICCA project, to enhance informed business-to-business purchasing decisions downstream, based on the chemical risk profile, exposure and properties, is important. At the moment, software that chemical companies use to inform clients about the safe application of their products is heterogeneous. The growing number of software platforms can compromise clarity, when customers are trying to compare safety information, for example. Conclusions regarding the same product can sometimes differ, with no explanation or lack of transparency on how these were reached.Another challenge for industry, caused by this lack of clarity around chemical safety, is the regulatory uncertainty it can cause. Unpredictable, subjective and changing perceptions of different products can impact industry’s capacity to build a commercial strategy that works for the long term and best serves client industries that rely on their products.
Promoting better harmonisation
As part of the ICCA project, evaluators examined the way chemical safety information is communicated across the supply chain. For example, how a chemical producer delivers information to a customer industry that needs to make a decision on which product to use, such as in the electronic or automotive industries. The ICCA used its work to develop common voluntary principles which all software producers can integrate into their templates, aiming to both improve the commonality between programmes but also increase the likelihood that client industries, across the value chain, will be better informed on safety.
Next steps in 2017
Led by Cefic product stewardship manager, Stéphane Content, the ICCA is promoting a balanced approach to chemicals management and product selection decisions, including those based on safety, science and lifecycle considerations and performance throughout the value chain. It will work towards reducing the complexity caused by the multitude of the approaches to assessment and encourage company transparency, by promoting harmonisation based on these sound principles.
The ICCA has identified the electronics sector as a priority, to test the communication principles through the supply chain. A first workshop was organised in May 2016 in Europe and the concepts proposed were welcomed.
A second initiative was organised in the US at a leading electronics trade show. A next step will be to hold an event in Asia, this year, to spread the message in this important chemical manufacturing region.
Project leaders are working with different industry software suppliers to inform them about these principles and encourage their integration. The response has so far been positive. Further outreach in the form of education, capacity building and initiatives, to bring together the chemical industry with all relevant stakeholders, will be undertaken throughout 2017 as awareness grows around the implementation of the principles.
https://chemicalwatch.com/53839/2017-outlook-icca-communicating-chemicals-safety-downstream
-
Will Va. Keep Paying for the 'Cost' of Obama's Climate Regs?
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
A quiet battle is raging in Virginia over how much the state's biggest utilities can charge customers now that federal climate standards are on the chopping block.
A small bipartisan group of state lawmakers, joined by former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) and the Southern Poverty Law Center, have called on Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe to help reverse a 2015 law that froze base electricity rates.
The measure prohibits Dominion Virginia Power and Appalachian Power Co. from raising — or even lowering — their rates for five years and keeps state regulators from reviewing whether they are making too much in profits. The law was spurred by a controversial assumption that U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan would raise power bills, although Virginia faced modest goals under the rule.
Since 2015, the likelihood that the Clean Power Plan will ever go into effect has nosedived. Power companies nevertheless want to keep the rate freeze in place, and critics say it's because they are raking in significant profits.
State Sen. J. Chapman "Chap" Petersen (D) sponsored legislation to repeal the rate freeze, but it quickly died in committee.
"This would actually make a difference," Petersen said. "This is money you put back into people's pockets." Petersen says an independent analysis found the law is costing Dominion's customers about $300 million per year in unnecessary payments.
The unlikely alliance between some conservatives and public interest groups highlights Dominion's political power in Virginia. The fight also shows how uncertainty over the future of federal climate rules may complicate energy planning debates in states around the country.
McAuliffe seeking safety in numbers?
The Virginia General Assembly wraps up this weekend, but Petersen wanted McAuliffe to add language to repeal the law to related legislation that lawmakers would then review in a brief session in April.
The governor seems unlikely to do so.
McAuliffe's office did not respond to requests for comment, but he argued on local radio shows this week that the original bill "overwhelmingly passed" and he couldn't have vetoed it. He added that he negotiated a good deal with Dominion, getting the company to invest more in solar power and low-income communities.
"Today the Clean Power Plan is still in effect. We don't know what's gonna happen. And until that happens, you know, not much is gonna be done. But I am paying attention," he said, according to a transcript of an interview with WTOP.
"I have said publicly that I'm concerned now, because if the Clean Power Plan does go away, that was the reason for the bill and the increased costs, that we ought to look at it. But that hasn't happened yet today."
McAuliffe added that he asked Petersen to tell him how many lawmakers might back a repeal, which Petersen said is a ridiculous request. He thinks the governor's support would give Democrats and perhaps a handful of Republicans political cover to go up against Dominion.
A 'one-man audience'
The courts are reviewing the Clean Power Plan, and even if they uphold it, President Trump and U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have signaled they will reverse the rule. The process could take years and face legal scrutiny, but in the meantime, states and companies will not have to comply with power-sector carbon standards anytime soon. Virginia lawmakers also have prevented the state Department of Environmental Quality from spending money to prepare for the regulation.
Despite that calculus, utilities echoed McAuliffe's stance that the Clean Power Plan isn't truly dead yet.
Dominion spokesman David Botkins said the law is "stabilizing electricity rates ... while promoting renewable energy."
"The Clean Power Plan is not dead," Botkins continued. "It still exists, and a federal appeals court is now reviewing it. President Trump says he opposes it, but Virginia's governor and attorney general support it. No one actually knows what comes next. It would be irresponsible to throw out Virginia's laws before anyone knows what the rules will be going forward."
John Shepelwich, a spokesman for Appalachian Power, said he wouldn't comment on legislative action that hasn't happen yet.
But he added that "since the base rate freeze was put into place, our customers have seen their bills remain essentially stable for the same amount of power used."
Environmental advocates argue that the companies are trying to protect their profits. In Virginia, utilities regulated by the State Corporation Commission can't exceed a certain margin of profit. Corrina Beall, legislative and political director for the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club, said Dominion was pushing that maximum when the bill passed in 2015.
Beall called the original stance that the Clean Power Plan would raise bills a "straw man argument," contending that the impacts on Virginia would have been modest. The state had one of the least stringent carbon requirements in the country.
Petersen added that if in 2015 Dominion was really worried about increased operational costs, the company would have wanted to maintain an opportunity to raise rates, not freeze them.
He said any action this session is now in McAuliffe's hands.
"It's really a one-man audience. That's the governor," Petersen said Wednesday, adding that he thinks the governor is "passing the buck."
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/24/stories/1060050500
-
Approval of California NatGas Power Plant Recommended
Feb 24, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
As an outgrowth of a phased-in statewide closure of coastal water-cooled power plants, a California Energy Commission (CEC) member on Thursday recommended approval of a natural gas-fired generation project by AES Southland Development LLC.
AES's Alamitos Energy Center in Long Beach, CA, was recommended for approval of a 1,040 MW gas-fired combined cycle and simple-cycle air-cooled generation facility by CEC Commissioner Karen Douglas as part of a presiding member's proposed decision. The full five-member CEC will take up the proposed new power facility later this year.
Douglas and a fellow CEC member, Janea Scott, earlier this month concluded that the AES plans for the Alamitos site would have “no significant impact on the environment and will comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards." AES originally submitted its request for approval of the facility in 2015.
The plant, which would not use seawater for cooling, would be sited on 21 acres at the 71-acre Alamitos site occupied by a 1950s-era gas/oil steam turbine plant with a 1,950 MW capacity. The facility uses the "once-through cooling," which theCalifornia Water Resources Control Board is phasing out of use.
Last year, California regulators approved the replacementof a coastal gas-fired baseload power plant with gas-fired peaking units in Carlsbad, CA, as a statewide ban on seawater cooling for coastal plants continued to draw closer.
Since the seawater cooling ban was established five years ago, Virginia-based AES developed plans to repower and transform its sites along the Southern California coast over a 10-year period, but the effort has stirred up concerns among residents in nearby beachfront communities.
At Alamitos, AES originally planned to modernize the facilities but later changed that to building a new facility with a smaller footprint on part of the site.
In making the proposed decision, Douglas and Scott emphasized that their action is not a final decision. The full CEC will take up the proposal at its April 12 meeting in Sacramento. Before that, a committee conference by the two assigned commissioners will be held March 1 in Long Beach to gather comments from the general public.
Earlier this month in regard to another proposed new coastal gas-fired power plant before the CEC,three state lawmakers urged the power plant siting commission to reconsider the need for new gas-fired peaking generation units in Oxnard, CA, 50 miles west of Los Angeles, to replace some obsolete gas-fired baseload units. The Puente Power Plant is a project proposed by independent power producer NRG Energy Inc., which has a contract to supply peaking power to Southern California Edison Co.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109532-approval-of-california-natgas-power-plant-recommended
-
Liquefied Natural Gas Exports Expected to Drive Growth in U.S. Natural Gas Trade
Feb 22, 2017 | US Energy Information Administration (in Real Clear Energy)
The United States is expected to become a net exporter of natural gas on an average annual basis by 2018, according to the recently released Annual Energy Outlook 2017 (AEO2017) Reference case. The transition to net exporter is driven by declining pipeline imports, growing pipeline exports, and increasing exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG). In most AEO2017 cases, the United States is also projected to become a net exporter of total energy in the 2020s in large part because of increasing natural gas exports.
In 2016, the United States was a net importer of natural gas, with net imports of 0.9 trillion cubic feet (Tcf), or 2.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). As several LNG export projects currently under construction are completed, LNG exports are expected to make up a growing share of natural gas exports and to surpass pipeline exports of natural gas by 2020.
The Sabine Pass facility in Louisiana became the first operating LNG export facility in the Lower 48 states in 2016. By 2021, four LNG export facilities currently under construction are expected to be completed. Combined, these five plants are expected to have an operational export capacity of 9.2 billion cubic feet per day. After 2021, projected U.S. exports of LNG grow at a more modest rate as U.S. natural gas faces growing competition from other global LNG suppliers.
U.S. exports of natural gas by pipeline to Mexico are also expected to increase. U.S. exports to Mexico have doubled since 2009 and are projected to continue rising through at least 2020 as pipeline projects currently under construction are completed.
U.S. imports of natural gas, most of which come by pipeline from western Canada, are projected to continue declining. In addition to importing less natural gas from Canada, primarily from Alberta, increasing amounts of natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica basins in the Northeast and Midwest regions of the United States are expected to flow to eastern Canadian provinces.
Despite these trends, the United States is expected to remain a net importer of natural gas by pipeline from Canada through 2040 in all but one case in the AEO2017 analysis. In the High Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, higher natural gas production leads to greater exports of natural gas, and the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by pipeline to Canada by 2030.
The growth of natural gas exports, especially from new LNG terminals, sustains continued growth in U.S. natural gas production. In the Reference case, natural gas production is projected to grow through 2020 at about the same rate (3.6% annual average) as it has since 2005, when production of natural gas from shale formations began to grow rapidly. After 2020, natural gas production grows at a lower rate (1.0% annual average) in the Reference case as net export growth moderates, energy efficiencies increase, and natural gas prices slowly rise.
Natural gas production and trade vary with different assumptions for resources and technology, macroeconomic growth, and world oil prices. In the High Oil and Gas Resource and Technology case, larger natural gas resource estimates and improved drilling technology lead to higher domestic natural gas production, lower U.S. natural gas prices, and therefore, greater natural gas exports. Most of the increase in natural gas trade is from LNG exports, which grow to 8.4 Tcf (23 Bcf/d) in 2040.
However, LNG exports are highest in a case with high world oil prices. In the High Oil Price case, when consumers move away from petroleum products when other energy sources become economically favorable, global LNG demand increases and U.S. LNG exports reach 9.2 Tcf, or 25 Bcf/d. Compared with other LNG suppliers, U.S. LNG has the advantage of domestic spot prices that are less sensitive to global oil prices.
Conversely, in a scenario with more pessimistic assumptions for oil and gas resources and technology or a scenario with low world oil prices, LNG exports still increase, but remain below Reference case levels through 2040.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30052#.WK-o40OdAj0.twitter
-
CPAC: 'Tide is Turning' in Battle Against Enviro 'Scumbags'
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Emily Holden
Conservative activists enthused by Donald Trump's ascent to the White House cheered on climate change deniers yesterday at the first full day of the Conservative Political Action Conference.
The annual event at an expansive resort hotel just outside Washington, D.C., draws thousands of party leaders and motivated Republicans from around the country. This year's agenda hews with previous ones that have featured opponents of mainstream climate science. But speakers said the tables have finally turned for their cause.
"The people who portray people like us as selfish, greedy, nature-hating scumbags. No, they are the scumbags. We are the good guys," said James Delingpole, from the London office of the conservative Breitbart News Network. "And thank goodness, thanks to Donald Trump, the tide is turning and we're about to win this battle."
The packed room of several dozen people erupted with applause. After hearing presentations calling into question climate change trends identified by scientists and the government, attendees asked how they can spread the word.
One questioner wanted to know whether conservatives should offer up climate change deniers who have been "prosecuted publicly" to counter a narrative of scientists planning marches for science. Another woman said that in the name of the environment, climate advocates and the government are urging population control and trying to "suppress people's fertility." One person asked whether anyone would be held accountable for the "Climategate" manufactured controversy, when opponents of the climate movement in 2009 seized on hacked emails of scientists that they claimed proved a widespread conspiracy.
Linda Champney, who said she believes most climate science is cherry-picked, asked for tips on how to bring skeptics to speak at her teenage son's school.
"This would silence my 15-year-old," she said. A stay-at-home mom who also buys and sells vintage goods in Great Falls, Va., Champney explained later that her son attends a liberal private school that is "very good about bringing in different opinions." But she said most kids aren't exposed to alternative viewpoints about climate change.
A call to end the social cost of carbon
Champney said that while she is conservative and gets much of her news from sources like Breitbart, her husband is "extremely liberal" and mostly reads The Washington Post. They often disagree but still swap information and discuss politics, she said. She also has heated talks with her children, who have different political outlooks.
"If someone came into a science classroom, it might seem a little bit too aggressive, but I love the format where maybe you have somebody on one side and somebody on the other and then they were forced to defend those charts," she said. "That's pretty hard evidence there."
Conservatives like Champney who believe questioners of climate change have been pushed out of the spotlight for years said this could be their time to shine.
Steve Milloy, another speaker who said he served on President Trump's EPA transition team but was not on the administration's official list, said government scientists are not objective.
"I think EPA needs to be removed from science," he said, arguing that government has corrupted the scientific process for use as a political tool.
Panelists said it's critical for Trump or Congress to eliminate a finding that carbon pollution endangers public health and nix the potential for future climate regulations.
John Walke, the clean air director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who was criticizing the panel on social media while watching remotely, said that idea is "aspiration more than prediction."
There's been a rift within the Trump administration over whether to try to gut the finding, but insiders have said it would be nearly impossible legally and could be embarrassing if unsuccessful (ClimateWire, Jan. 31).
A generational divide?
CPAC is typically a crowded and energetic event where party activists come together to learn about how to rally the base. But this year, the mood is nearly frenetic. Attendees said having Trump as president and Republicans controlling Congress is cause for celebration.
Other sessions at the conference focused on greatly reducing the size and influence of the federal government, expanding fossil fuel use and fighting the news media. Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon, took to the main stage to criticize reporters as the "opposition party."
Some speakers argued that fossil fuels are far more efficient and cost-effective than renewable power and always will be, even if green power technology continues to advance.
Mark Mills, adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said power companies are investing in renewable energy only because they have mandates and tax credits. He said he does not believe those sources of energy can stand on their own.
A recent study by the University of Texas, Austin, however, suggests natural gas and wind power are the cheapest forms of power, even after stripping out all incentives.
Mills found fault with that study, arguing that it doesn't take into account that it takes far more wind turbines to equal the same amount of energy produced by natural gas.
As he answered questions about his thoughts on the power system after a discussion, eager attendees interrupted with their own ideas about why they think renewable energy is bad for consumers.
On the sidelines, younger conservatives were slightly more hesitant to rule out climate action.
Matthew Freney, a sophomore at St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia, said he doesn't believe humans are causing climate change and argued that the Earth has warmed and cooled repeatedly in the past.
But, he said, "in the long run, whether it's real or not ... we're better safe than sorry." That said, Freney would only support "minimal regulation" that doesn't affect the economy.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/24/stories/1060050511
-
Ivanka and Jared Saved the Paris Agreement — For Now
Feb 24, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Evan Lehmann
White House press secretary Sean Spicer declined to say yesterday if President Trump remains committed to withdrawing from the Paris Agreement on climate change.
The suggestion of a shift in position comes after Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, two close advisers to the president, worked to remove references to the global climate deal from a new executive order, according to a source. The measure, aimed at dismantling carbon policies initiated by the Obama administration, is expected to be released soon but no longer contains language opposing the Paris Agreement.
Moving to quit the international pact is increasingly seen by Republicans as a knottier effort than staying in and, instead, potentially downplaying U.S. commitments struck by the former administration on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The agreement isn't legally binding.
"The question is, for businesses, is it worth the political and economic capital that you would have to invest to take the U.S. out of Paris? I think the answer is probably no," said Frank Maisano of Bracewell LLP, a firm representing energy companies.
As a candidate, Trump pledged to "cancel" U.S. involvement in the global pact, which entered into force in November with a goal to keep temperature rise "well below" 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit from preindustrial levels. Trump described it as "bad for U.S. business" and said the deal allows "foreign bureaucrats" to decide how much energy Americans can use.
Trump modified his views after the election, telling The New York Times that he has an "open mind" about the agreement struck in Paris. Spicer declined yesterday to reaffirm the president's past commitments for withdrawal when asked about it by E&E News.
He directed inquiries to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who suggested during his confirmation hearing last month that the United States might be better served by remaining a member.
"I will leave that to Secretary Tillerson," Spicer said yesterday. "That's a conversation that he's having with [Trump] as far as where we are on that."
EOs do kill the Climate Action Plan
An official with the State Department indicated last night that no decision has been made about withdrawing from the 196-nation agreement, which was recently lauded by an executive with Exxon Mobil Corp., of which Tillerson was CEO until January, as an admirable effort to confront the "global challenge" of climate change.
The State Department official said the agency "continues to review" the Paris Agreement.
The efforts by Kushner and Ivanka Trump to remove antagonistic language about the agreement from the upcoming executive order seem to support perceptions that the couple is a moderating influence on the president, who has described global warming as "bullshit" and a "hoax."
The Wall Street Journal first reported the involvement of Kushner and Ivanka Trump. A source said the couple successfully worked to remove the language about a week ago.
The executive order once targeting the Paris Agreement is a broad directive to agencies to increase fossil energy development. It calls for a review of the Clean Power Plan, implemented under former President Obama to cut carbon emissions from power plants 32 percent by 2030. The Supreme Court stayed the rule in February 2016.
The executive order also "knocks out" Obama's Climate Action Plan, a broad framework issued in 2013 for carbon reductions across several economic sectors, according to a source. It also targets a moratorium on new coal leases on federal land, enacted under Obama.
Some environmental groups were encouraged by the idea that Tillerson's influence over climate policy could be growing. These same groups aggressively opposed the former oilman's nomination as secretary of State, arguing that he could use his position to reward the fossil fuel industry as much as the American people.
"Rex Tillerson was and remains unfit for this office, but he could still salvage this country's global standing by ensuring that the United States honors its commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement," said Naomi Ages, a climate specialist with Greenpeace.
http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/02/24/stories/1060050512
-
6 Ways President Trump Can Make American Energy Great Again
Feb 23, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Neil Auerbach
The Trump administration has had a busy few weeks since the inauguration, but the action is just getting started on the energy side. In the White House’s America First Energy Plan, President Trump pledged to make our country energy independent, create millions of new jobs, and unleash new U.S. wealth through an energy revolution. As energy policy is further shaped and implemented, here are some ideas for President Trump and his team to consider.
Address energy demand
The most urgent problem facing U.S. energy producers is lack of demand, more so than increasing supply or decreasing the regulatory compliance burden. U.S. energy producers are plagued by low prices, which may be good for the U.S. economy as a whole, but not for energy industry participants just trying to generate a profit.
Over the past two years, more than 100 companies engaged in U.S. oil and natural gas production have gone bankrupt, as investments in the sector have plunged hundreds of billions of dollars in value. Record U.S. natural gas production lowered wholesale prices, both for natural gas and for coal, causing a price war that has only recently begun to abate. Dramatic increases in supply under the Trump administration plan are likely to reverse a recent positive pricing trend. For the Trump administration to achieve its goal of increasing U.S. energy production, demand has to increase as well.
One place to look at is exports. The administration should focus on streamlining bureaucratic red tape and negotiating trade deals to increase coal and natural gas exports. Over 160 million tonnes per annum (MMtpa) of liquid natural gas export capacity is in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approval cue, or in the pre-filing stage. Only a portion of the liquid natural gas terminals in the approval cue should be built, but once on line, new markets for domestic natural gas will cause prices to rise, both for natural gas, as well as coal.
Natural gas prices in the $4 million to $6 million British Thermal Units (MMBtu) range would bring marginal natural gas producers back into production, and would help coal and renewable energy producers generate sufficient profits to encourage increased investment. With energy policy tuned into markets, energy prices could be kept in check, ensuring the U.S. remains a magnet for manufacturers attracted by the country’s competitive power prices.
Don’t rock the boat
Looming corporate tax reform, coupled with downward marginal tax rate adjustments, may chill the environment for tax based investing. We don’t need to depress the environment any further. Just over one year ago, a compromise was brokered in Congress, in which the oil import ban was lifted in exchange for extensions of the investment tax credit and production tax credit for renewable energy.
Following that compromise, the solar industry set records, both for new installations and employment growth. Under the compromise legislation, the wind and solar industries have accepted that tax credits will gradually step down and disappear over the next several years. The administration should couple an “all of the above” energy strategy with a “steady as she goes” approach, supporting the status quo on energy tax breaks across the board.
Avoid a border adjustment tax
A border adjustment tax, under active discussion by House Republicans, would hit imported products with a 20 percent tax while exempting U.S. exports from the same tax. Prices on imported oil as well as imported equipment used in the petroleum and natural gas industry would all rise (assuming the incidence of tax would be passed on to the consumer), resulting in an increase in core inflation. The border adjustment tax would be best kept away from goods that affect core inflation, including energy.
Clean up the trade war mess
The United States has already lost the trade war with China on clean energy. Today, China has 110 gigawatts (GW) of solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing capacity, 30 percent more than current global demand, while the United States only has 1.5 GW of solar PV manufacturing capacity. Since the trade war started in 2011, China’s manufacturing capacity nearly quadrupled, while U.S. manufacturing barely moved.
The U.S. should acknowledge that it lost the trade war and clean up unnecessary tariffs littering the landscape. Negotiating an increase in Chinese investment in U.S. manufacturing would be a good bargaining chip in bilateral trade negotiations.
Show leadership in energy technology
The U.S. should maintain its leadership position in energy technology innovation and not cede it to China or any other country. Through renewed investment in the National Labs of the Department of Energy, the federal government can and should play a key role in supporting both clean energy technology innovation (i.e. solar, wind, bio, geo, nuclear) and fossil fuel innovation (i.e. natural gas fracking, oil shale, clean coal).
Try a revenue neutral carbon tax
Former U.S. Secretaries of State James Baker III and George Shultz outlined an idea for a carbon tax in a recent opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, making a case for garnering bipartisan support. Many conservatives have warmed to the idea. Making the tax revenue neutral should soften opposition from Republican lawmakers. Their proposal to pay a carbon dividend back to taxpayers largely addresses the core inflation problem discussed above in relation to the border adjustment tax.
A revenue neutral carbon tax that would discourage carbon dioxide emissions without involving the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is worthy of serious consideration. Proposing a carbon tax while swinging the axe at the EPA would demonstrate a commitment to environmental stewardship, not through the heavy hand of government regulation, but by the clever hand of tax policy.
Neil Auerbach is chief executive officer of Hudson Clean Energy Partnersand executive chairman of Sunlight Financial. He is an advocate for clean energy policy and has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
https://origin-nyi.thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/320873-6-ways-to-make-american-energy-great-again
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested