Preview Newsletter
AM ACC 3/21/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Divided over Future of US Conflict Minerals Rule
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Companies and industries affected by the US conflict minerals rule have different views on whether the conflict minerals reporting rule should be maintained, modified or fully repealed. -
(ACC Mentioned) Iowa Preemption Bill Under the Radar
Mar 20, 2017 | Iowa State Daily
By Nolan Wright
In my last column, I addressed a proposed bill in the Iowa Legislature, House Study Bill 92. The primary concern of the bill is the overruling of any and all local minimum wage ordinances at the city and county level. -
(ACC Mentioned) MRFF Research Program Plans to Partner with US MRF for Flexible Packaging Recycling Pilot
Mar 20, 2017 | Packaging Business Review
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) research program has unveiled plans to collaborate with a US material recovery facility (MRF) and the community it serves for a flexible packaging recycling pilot. -
(ACC Mentioned) First K-REACH Registration Deadline 'May Be Postponed'
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
South Korea's June 2018 deadline for registering the first tranche of substances under the K-REACH legislation may be postponed because many still lack a lead registrant, says a leading law firm. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges EPA to Weigh New Formaldehyde Data for Risk Assessment
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is urging EPA to consider what it calls new "game changing" research on formaldehyde's potential to cause leukemia before the agency finalizes a long-running assessment of the common chemical's public health risks... -
US EPA Further Delays Formaldehyde Rule Implementation
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has further delayed the effective date of its regulation on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products to 22 May. -
Experts Call for Global Standard to Communicate Chemicals in Products
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
The need for much more information on which chemicals are in finished products featured highly in a panel discussion at this week's Chemical Watch Global Business Summit in Amsterdam. -
EU member States Approve Authorisation for Uses of Chromates
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have agreed to grant four companies authorisation for uses of certain chromates listed as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH Annex XIV. -
New Flame Retardant Threat Documented in Great Lakes
Mar 21, 2017 | Great Lakes Echo
By Lucy Schroeder
A flame retardant has been discovered in sediment of the Great Lakes for the first time, and researchers say it may be here to stay. -
Industry Renews Plea for Speedier Exports
Mar 21, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
A trade group representing various aspects of the natural gas industry is calling on the Trump administration and Congress to expedite the approval process for exporting liquefied natural gas. -
Power Plant Climate Case Gets Judges, but Will It Be Argued?
Mar 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration could be racing against the clock to roll back the EPA's climate change regulations after a federal appeals court assigns judges to hear an upcoming argument over federal carbon dioxide limits for new power plants. -
Dakota Access Could Flow Oil This Week; Court Rejects Native American Challenge
Mar 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The contentious $3.8 billion, nearly 1,200-mile Dakota Access Pipeline project (DAPL) withstood another legal challenge over the weekend and its supporters indicated it could be flowing its first Bakken Shale crude oil supplies before the end of the week. -
Rising U.S. Gas Exports a ‘Silver Lining’ for Canadian Producers
Mar 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Polson
Although natural gas producers in Canada have been knocked sideways by the U.S. shale boom, some relief may be at hand. -
School Board Voting Tuesday on Exxon-Saudi Petrochemical Plant
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
A Texas school board north of Corpus Christi is set to vote Tuesday on tax breaks that could help decide whether a $10 billion petrochemical complex is built. -
(ACC Mentioned) E&C Dems Blast Trump Admin's Rule-Stalling Tactics
Mar 21, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration is flouting the Administrative Procedure Act with last-minute stalling tactics to keep environmental and energy efficiency regulations from taking effect, several House Democrats charged yesterday. -
Deputy Urges Employees to Stay Focused Despite Looming Cuts
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
Acting U.S. EPA Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn today tried to soothe agency employees' anxiety over President Trump's proposed budget cuts that could slash nearly a third of EPA's funding. -
Trump's Energy Executive Order Delayed Again
Mar 20, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia and Anthony Dragana
The White House has again delayed the release of a wide-ranging executive order that would start the process of rolling back former President Barack Obama's climate regulations, two sources familiar with the issue told POLITICO. -
GOP Lawmakers Poised to Tout Support for Climate Policy
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
A group of House Republicans is poised to tout their support for a resolution acknowledging anthropogenic climate change and pledging to work “constructively” toward solutions, suggesting a small GOP constituency in the House willing to address the issue... -
CASAC Panel Supports EPA's Softening of Sulfur Oxides Risk Assessment
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of an EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) panel are supporting the agency's decision to soften some of its risk assessment's conclusions on the adverse health effects of sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions after earlier faulting EPA for overstating risks... -
Trump's 'Two for One' Order Sparks Early Clash over EPA Rulemakings
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Industry groups and environmentalists are clashing over how -- or whether -- EPA should implement President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) requiring agencies to “identify” two rules for repeal for every new rule they propose, with an industry group insisting... -
California Lawmakers Eye Carbon Tax amid Cap-and-Trade Woes
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
Even as California continues to embrace cap-and-trade as its centerpiece program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers are questioning the effectiveness and impacts of the program and exploring either a broad carbon tax or a "cap-and-tax" system after 2020.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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 Mentioned) Industry Divided over Future of US Conflict Minerals Rule
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
Companies and industries affected by the US conflict minerals rule have different views on whether the conflict minerals reporting rule should be maintained, modified or fully repealed.
Thousands of comments were submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) enquiry into Section 1502 of Dodd-Frank, which requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the SEC on whether their sourcing of tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold (3TG) is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) or neighbouring countries. But while stakeholders throughout the supply chains of regulated industries shared support for the intent of the rule, there was a sharp divide over its future.
The Information Technology Industry (ITI) Council – whose members include Apple, Amazon, Dell, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, Samsung and Panasonic – said it was concerned to hear the rule may be repealed.
"The federal conflict minerals law – while not ideal – has advanced due diligence practices related to minerals sourcing in central Africa, and has brought desperately needed attention to the plight of civilians in the DRC and neighbouring countries,” it said.
Absent collective action, and the unremitting pressure it brings to bear on global supply chains to institute necessary reforms, we may lose the fragile progress on clean minerals sourcing that we have collectively achieved."
Several ITI member companies have committed to continuing conflict minerals due diligence and reporting efforts regardless of the law.
By contrast, the Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of leading US companies – including ITI members Apple, Dell and IBM – want the rule scrapped. This is because it requires disclosure of information that is "not material to investors", it said, and a securities law is "not the appropriate avenue to properly address this objective."
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (Mema) also called for full repeal. It said the rule imposes a tremendous burden on companies throughout its highly complex supply chain – including privately-owned SMEs who supply to publicly traded companies – but has failed to fulfil its intended effect in the DRC.
"While the humanitarian goals of the original legislation are laudable, the rule has instead led to job losses in legitimate mining operations in the region … [while placing] unnecessary, onerous cost on business with no benefit to the region the rule is attempting to help," it said.
The American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) questioned the effectiveness of a rule it says carries an annual compliance cost of $50,000-100,000 per member company.
Section 1502 has demonstrated that "spending a lot of resources and time to implement a poorly designed regulation, instead of focusing on voluntary initiatives that work, has created questionable results," it said.
Improvement efforts
Meanwhile, other industry groups urged reconsideration of specific aspects of the rule.
The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) called for shifting the mandatory compliance burden from downstream users to the importers, smelters and refiners (ISRs), as they have more accurate information on sourcing.
The Association Connecting Electronics Industries (IPC) asked the SEC to consider the adoption of a de minimis threshold in their rules. It also suggested following the EU conflict minerals Regulation's approach of making downstream company participation voluntary.
The Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) and the National Retail Federation urged an examination of the obligations of a company "contracting to manufacture", such that only 'true manufacturers' are bound by the reporting requirements.
And the American Chemistry Council (ACC) submitted comments requesting written confirmation that the SEC does not consider the use of chemical compounds derived from 3TG minerals to be covered by the rule.View from the ground
Despite concerns from some in industry that the rule is not serving its intended purpose, a wide collection of NGOs and thousands of individuals submitted comments warning of the dire implications a repeal could have on the DRC.
These sentiments were echoed in comments from Martin Kabwelulu, Minister of Mines in the DRC.
In a letter to the SEC, he wrote that the Dodd-Frank rule has had an important impact on sourcing of 3TG throughout the world. And the DRC government, he said, considers the suspension or review of the conflict minerals rule to increase "real risks which, in the long run, will jeopardise the stability and security of the DRC and, in turn, the security of the United States".
These include:
· escalation of activity by armed groups;
· weakened business practices with regard to responsible sourcing of minerals; and
· encouraging neighbouring countries not to implement tools to combat the illegal exploitation of natural resources.
"Despite its weaknesses and constraints, the DRC government, through the Ministry of Mines, recognises that Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act provides a major opportunity to break the link between recurring conflicts, the production and trade in minerals in the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as to foster the responsible commitment of companies operating" in the region, he added.
The DRC government intends to send a delegation to Washington to further discuss the rule.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54569/industry-divided-over-future-of-us-conflict-minerals-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) Iowa Preemption Bill Under the Radar
Mar 20, 2017 | Iowa State Daily
By Nolan Wright
In my last column, I addressed a proposed bill in the Iowa Legislature, House Study Bill 92. The primary concern of the bill is the overruling of any and all local minimum wage ordinances at the city and county level.
Currently, four counties have passed bills raising minimum wage to varying levels. Many of Iowa’s local news outlets have focused on the wage aspect of this bill, but the bill itself also includes provisions regarding topics with little relevance to wage laws, such as "containers" and certain local civil rights.
These last points are less momentous than legislation concerning minimum wage, seeing as most laws in Iowa regarding discrimination and workers’ rights are at the state and federal levels. Nonetheless, opponents of the bill have reacted with confusion and worry over such peculiar legislation.
In response to these criticisms, the bill was amended late last month. Instead of removing all local discrimination laws, it will focus on removing local laws concerning housing discrimination.
The most well-known case where this law has negative repercussions is in Marion, Iowa, where a local law prevents landlords from discriminating against renters based on how they receive money; whether it be from a job, pension or disability payment.
Renters claim that these restrictions prevent them from making financially sound decisions as to who they should provide leases to. On the other side of this debate, veterans’ rights groups have countered that such discrimination goes too far and that economic decisions cannot infringe on basic needs such as housing.
Republicans lawmakers, however, have taken a more palatable approach. The main argument from officials supporting the bill, such as John Landon of Ankeny, is that the existence of these laws on the local level makes such policies risky and unchecked — without the uniform control of state legislature.
Therefore, two important points need to be drawn — what real causes for concern there are over the elimination of local civil rights, and how this bill fits into a national movement that isn’t receiving as much attention as it should.
Iowa is far from the only state where Republican lawmakers are trying to stop local governments from exceeding regulations put in place by the state, with preemption bills cropping up in Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Alabama and 15 other states. Iowa is merely the latest state to join this multi-year movement.
And it’s in these other states that one can see reflections of HS 92. Four years ago in Wisconsin, state laws struck down legislation that had been passed in Madison protecting low-income renters. Plastic bag laws, like those soon to be struck down here in Iowa, are under similar attack in other states.
While the laws being struck down are generally regional, they also are typically popular with constituents, such as a Cleveland law recently nullified that required businesses to hire locally.
Republican lawmakers are not doing this to appeal to their constituents. In many states, they actually result from businesses contributing to Republican campaigns — in Wisconsin, the American Chemistry Council, which profits greatly from American dependence on plastic bags, was a primary contributor to many Republican lawmakers who supported the bill. The National Federation of Independent Business, which is largely funded by the Koch brothers, has also been known to fund campaigns where states are voting on preemption bills.
A major reason lawmakers are so quick to follow the desires of lobbyists is that these movements are being largely kept under the radar. Now, more than ever, national attention is primarily focused on the federal government and not on local changes. If people can realize how these local shifts are part of an equally powerful force, maybe attention can be shifted. If this happens, states have a real chance at making lawmakers accountable again.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_3615c7c0-0c1e-11e7-9a30-2b1340662feb.html
-
Mar 20, 2017 | Packaging Business Review
The Materials Recovery for the Future (MRFF) research program has unveiled plans to collaborate with a US material recovery facility (MRF) and the community it serves for a flexible packaging recycling pilot.
MRFF is providing technical support and financial stewardship for upgrading the US MRF that takes part in the pilot.
The research program is seeking a partner facility for the pilot, which will process about 20 tons per hour and meets other essential criteria.
RRS developed an economic feasibility model to add flexible packaging to a MRF’s sorting capabilities, helping to take collective decision for pilot partnership.
The model offers customized outputs, which enables to evaluate the costs and benefits related with adding flexible packaging to single-stream recycling systems in a pro forma format.
At present, the flexible packaging includes MRF infeed from curbside collection, which involves shipping of material to a landfill rather than recovering it for energy production or remanufacture.
Depending on the availability of local end markets and quality of sortation, the MRF flexible packaging pro forma will be changed by location.
RRS is carrying out advanced optical sorter testing with equipment manufacturers to further improve the value proposition for different factors.
It is also conducting commodity end-use market assessment to describe product bale specifications for the Association of Plastic Recyclers.
MRFF project members include The Dow Chemical Company, The Dow Chemical Company, LyondellBasell Industries, Nestlé Purina PetCare and Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Plum Organics, Procter & Gamble and SC Johnson,
It also includes Sealed Air, and Target as well as the Association of Plastics Recyclers, Flexible Packaging Association, The Plastics Industry Association, and the American Chemistry Council.
MRFF project director and RRS vice president Susan Graff said: “Flexible packaging is often disposed of as a contaminant of paper products. MRFs were not originally designed to sort this light weight format into a high quality product.”
http://recyclable.packaging-business-review.com/news/mrff-seeks-partner-for-flexible-packaging-recycling-pilot-200317-5766961
-
(ACC Mentioned) First K-REACH Registration Deadline 'May Be Postponed'
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Geraint Roberts
South Korea's June 2018 deadline for registering the first tranche of substances under the K-REACH legislation may be postponed because many still lack a lead registrant, says a leading law firm.
Speaking on Monday at Chemical Watch's Global business Summit in Amsterdam, Mayer Brown partner Jean-Philippe Montfort said that although "it is not something anyone has told me", he expects the government to scrap the deadline – due to apply to 510 priority existing chemicals (Pecs) – and fit it into the recently announced proposed changes to the law.
"2018 Pec registration is not going very well, it is dragging, industry is late," he told the conference. "The problem is that by January 2017, only 285 of the Pecs had a lead registrant".
Another "clear problem", he said, is the efforts of EU REACH data owners to share data with Korean registrants. The former are "very frustrated", and get very little feedback, or late responses, from consortia in South Korea.
Difficulties arise, said Mr Montfort, when several consultancies in South Korea are involved with chemicals of the same family. And lead registrants and consortia have sometimes asked to only pay for access to REACH data if, and when, the country's National Institute of Environmental Research (Nier) accepts the data.Joint registration difficulties
Mr Montfort also said that the reason the Korea Petrochemical Industry Association (KPIA) put out a public request last November for data on 49 Pecs was that they could not agree terms with EU consortia. KPIA has cited difficulties in understanding the different systems and conditions of joint registration, analysing the data gaps, and discussing and negotiating fees.
The problems with data sharing are such that there is some talk of abandoning joint submission as too complex, said Mr Montfort.
Dossiers and testing requirements in the two jurisdictions are generally comparable, he said, so existing EU REACH data should normally be useable in South Korea. As such, he advised companies to check the validity of EU data for K-REACH purposes.
But he warned that the position of the South Korean authorities remains unknown on issues such as risk assessment and data-waiver justifications.
Pricing, he said, is also a big issue, with reasonable EU offers resisted by South Korean consortia. "Perhaps there is a role for Cefic or the American Chemistry Council to build trust?"
https://chemicalwatch.com/54567/first-k-reach-registration-deadline-may-be-postponed
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges EPA to Weigh New Formaldehyde Data for Risk Assessment
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Lara Beaven
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is urging EPA to consider what it calls new "game changing" research on formaldehyde's potential to cause leukemia before the agency finalizes a long-running assessment of the common chemical's public health risks, raising concerns that the agency has stopped considering the new data before the analysis is completed.
EPA has spent the past six years reworking a draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of formaldehyde after a 2011 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report criticized the agency's draft assessment and faulted IRIS procedures generally. The agency's last public draft of the assessment relies on a controversial 2010 study, known as the Zhang study, to conclude that exposure to formaldehyde could cause leukemia. The National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have reached similar conclusions.
Industry has long criticized the study, arguing that it has not been replicated, that its findings are unique and implausible, without a biological explanation.
In a March 7 letter to Tina Bahadori, director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which oversees the IRIS program, ACC reiterates its concerns that EPA is continuing to rely on the Zhang study and is ignoring newer research "that further calls into question any causal association between formaldehyde exposure and [acute myeloid leukemia (AML)] or other lymphohematopoietic malignancies."
Bahadori assured ACC during a Feb. 21 meeting that the formaldehyde IRIS assessment has been substantially revised to incorporate new scientific evidence generated since 2010 and that all of the NAS recommendations have been addressed and incorporated, the letter says. But ACC remains "concerned that the revised formaldehyde IRIS assessment might not achieve an acceptable level of scientific rigor," the letter says.
The chemical industry group says it was surprised to learn that the "stopping rule" for the assessment has already been invoked, meaning the agency has set a fixed date when IRIS staff cease performing regular literature searches for new studies relevant to an IRIS assessment, and will instead only add to the assessment those new studies that would alter its conclusions.
Bahadori's immediate predecessor, Ken Olden, developed the stopping rule process as part of his efforts to make assessments move more efficiently through the IRIS pipeline.
ACC's Concerns
"We are disappointed in the continued lack of transparency by the Agency on how and when the stopping rules are applied and the Agency's lack of commitment to using a weight of evidence approach for chemical assessments," ACC writes. "As such, ongoing research and research currently undergoing peer review may be arbitrarily and inappropriately excluded from the assessment."
The letter includes an appendix referencing nearly two dozen studies that ACC says it believes are "'game-changing' (i.e., critical to the revised formaldehyde IRIS assessment) and they must be reviewed for pertinence and impact on the assessment's conclusions."
ACC calls on EPA to perform a critical systematic review of all the data included in the formaldehyde IRIS assessment, including the research listed in ACC's appendix, before any revised formaldehyde IRIS assessment undergoes external review.
"We believe that a revised formaldehyde IRIS assessment that fails to reflect a transparent weight of evidence assessment that fully and critically evaluates and integrates evidence from studies published since the release of the 2010 draft assessment, will not be scientifically robust and may include erroneous conclusions," the letter says, referencing NAS' recommendation that a systematic review is needed to support a weight of evidence approach.
Among the newer research ACC highlights is a 2015 scientific publication re-examining the data underlying the Zhang study that concluded the data did not demonstrate a statistically significant association between formaldehyde and AML; recent scientific publications indicating significant methodological limitations of the Zhang study; and a series of published, peer-reviewed studies that "demonstrated conclusively that environmental (or exogenous) formaldehyde that is inhaled or ingested does not reach the bone marrow (where transformations giving rise to leukemia occur). These studies clearly call into question the biological plausibility of a causal connection between exogenous formaldehyde exposure and leukemia," ACC says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/acc-urges-epa-weigh-new-formaldehyde-data-risk-assessment
-
US EPA Further Delays Formaldehyde Rule Implementation
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has further delayed the effective date of its regulation on formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products to 22 May.
The rule, along with four other Obama-era regulations, has been paused in keeping with a 20 January 'regulatory freeze' memorandum issued by the White House. This directed agency heads to temporarily postpone the effective dates of all regulations that had been published in the Federal Register, but had not yet taken effect, and to consider extending those delays beyond 60 days.
The EPA had previously said that the rule would take effect from 21 March. But it says it is putting the rule on hold until May to "give recently arrived agency officials the opportunity to learn more about these regulations and to decide whether they would like to conduct a substantive review of any of those regulations."
"Given the length of the confirmation process for the EPA administrator and the fact that the agency lacks Senate-confirmed officials elsewhere, the new administration has not had the time contemplated by the January 20 Memo for this review," it added.
Should the agency decide to conduct a substantive review of the regulation, it will issue a notice to begin the process and to again delay the effective date.
The agency is not accepting public comment on the new effective date. This, it says, would be "impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest."
https://chemicalwatch.com/54568/us-epa-further-delays-formaldehyde-rule-implementation
-
Experts Call for Global Standard to Communicate Chemicals in Products
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
The need for much more information on which chemicals are in finished products featured highly in a panel discussion at this week's Chemical Watch Global Business Summit in Amsterdam.
Looking back over ten years of international chemicals management – and forward to the next ten – several members of the panel said there is a growing need for a system to provide such information.
Timo Unger, environmental affairs manager at Hyundai Motor Europe, recognised the value of UN Environment Programme (Unep) guidelines, tools and processes in different sectors. But, he said "it's likely that industry will start to recognise the need for a harmonised way to collect information across many sectors, as it will be more efficient and cost effective. In ten years from now, if we have one or two or three common standards, we will be able to collect data in simple and complex supply chains, and share data between different sectors."
Cefic director of REACH and chemicals policy, Erwin Annys, agreed: "The chemical industry will continue to be a provider of solutions. When confronted with [the question] 'where are our chemicals in products?' we need not only a harmonised solution, but a globally harmonised solution, because we are importing articles from all over the world."
Achim Halpaap, head of Unep’s chemicals and waste branch, called for a common approach to defining safety globally and "doing away with two worlds, where one has top class products that are safe, and the other has second class products. We want a global system to bring all countries to a high level of chemicals management and a mechanism at a global level to start harmonising our risk management procedures."
Anna Lennquist, senior toxicologist at NGO ChemSec, said the trend for more information and transparency will continue under regulations like REACH, as well as from industry and voluntary measures. "We need better supply chain information; people need to know what they are dealing with in order to handle it correctly."
Needs of SMEs
Susanne Baker, head of environment and compliance at trade group TechUK, said SMEs must not be left behind in the discussion and debate around REACH. Research done in 2012 by her previous employer EEF, the UK manufacturers federation, found that SMEs were "terrified" by the Regulation's complexity. Trade groups in member states, she said, need to raise awareness and communicate with SMEs, as well as feed their concerns back to member states and the European Commission. Without an engaged SME community, she said, "we were in danger of seeing supply chains collapse and SME business models being undermined in the longer term."
Dow Chemical's global product safety and compliance director, Lorraine Francourt, predicted that automation and digitisation would see the loss of many traditional jobs – but she said the younger generation should focus their attention on solving the world's challenges, including responding to the chemicals in products question.
She is also hopeful that the circular economy would be a success, and as a result, fewer raw materials would be consumed.
Circular economy centre stage
Greenpeace campaign strategist Yannick Vicaire urged the European Commission to set up a directorate general to oversee the circular economy agenda,. It should have, he said, divisions covering areas such as clean production, green chemistry, producer responsibility and business model change.
Frustrated by what he sees as insufficient progress under the REACH authorisation framework, he urged member states to do more.
Mr Annys said that overall, he has been impressed by the pace at which Echa has reached decisions under REACH, praising the agency's "extremely holistic approach, reflecting the fact that many of the parts of REACH – whether it be registration, evaluation or risk management – impact each other".
Cutting through complexity was a key theme for Bjorn Hansen, head of DG Environment's chemicals unit. "Very often," he said, "we just get drowned by so much information that we forget, or we don't see, what are the really important bits. You can only say that when you have made mistakes over the years."
The day REACH was adopted was memorable, he said. "It contained 80% of the ideas we put into it. It was based on a lot of years of experience."
https://chemicalwatch.com/54570/experts-call-for-global-standard-to-communicate-chemicals-in-products
-
EU member States Approve Authorisation for Uses of Chromates
Mar 21, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
EU member states have agreed to grant four companies authorisation for uses of certain chromates listed as substances of very high concern (SVHC) under REACH Annex XIV.
The substances are ammonium dichromate, chromium trioxide, potassium dichromate and sodium dichromate.
At the 17 March REACH Committee meeting, member states backed granting authorisations to the following companies for these conditional uses:
· Arlanxeo Netherlands for use of sodium dichromate as a corrosion inhibitor in ammonia absorption deep cooling systems. The recommended review period is 12 years, expiring on 21 September 2029;
· Micrometal for use of ammonium dichromate as photosensitiser for the production of micro components. The recommended review period is 12 years, expiring on 21 September 2029;
· Rimex Metals for use of chromium trioxide as an oxidising and hardening agent in the manufacture of coloured stainless steel. The recommended review period is ten years, expiring on 21 September 2027; and
· Sofradir for two industrial uses of potassium dichromate. The first is for mixtures during the steps of initial and final etching of CZT (cadmium zinc telluride) layers in the production of opto-electronic components gathering a readout and an infrared detecting circuit with the MCT (mercury cadmium telluride) technology. The recommended review period is seven years, expiring on 21 September 2024. The second use is for mixtures during the etching of both InSb (indium antimonide) substrate sides in the production of opto-electronic components gathering a readout and an infrared detecting circuit with InSb technology. The recommended review period is four years, expiring on 21 September 2021.
In February the Committee approved an application to authorise the use of lead chromate in the production of pyrotechnical delay devices contained in ammunition for self-protection systems of navy frigates.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54545/eu-member-states-approve-authorisation-for-uses-of-chromates
-
New Flame Retardant Threat Documented in Great Lakes
Mar 21, 2017 | Great Lakes Echo
By Lucy Schroeder
A flame retardant has been discovered in sediment of the Great Lakes for the first time, and researchers say it may be here to stay.
Researchers sampled sediment from lakes Michigan, Ontario and Superior to track organophosphate esters, a group of chemicals that are used as flame retardants. All three locations showed that the concentration of one of them—TCPP—has increased rapidly since 2000. It has replaced a more toxic flame retardant that was phased out.
TCPP does not degrade easily in the environment, said An Li, a professor in the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences at the University of Illinois in Chicago. It contains chlorine which prevents it from degrading to simpler molecules.
“When you have chlorine in it, it is not only more toxic, it is persistent—which means nature may not be able to degrade it,” Li said. “It does not disappear easily in nature.”
Li collaborated with several other scientists to study the organophosphate contamination in the Great Lakes in a recently published study in Environmental Science & Technology.
The TCPP that is not broken down in the sediment may be released into the lake water over time, she said. And that’s bad for fish that are exposed to it.
“If they are buried deep into the sediment, fish cannot get access to them, that is great,” Li said.
Other researchers have also found evidence of organophosphate flame retardants in herring gull eggshells. These Canadian scientists said the chemicals may be accumulating from mother gulls eating fish contaminated with organophosphates then passing it to their offspring. However, they said more research is required to see if that is true.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality does not monitor organophosphates in the water but is just beginning to look into their toxicity said Dennis Bush, unit supervisor of the department’s Water Toxics Unit.
Flame retardants are a class of chemicals that are added to plastics and fabrics to prevent fires from starting. They can be found in a range of products such as televisions, furniture, paints and even babies’ toys.
Flame retardants enter the environment through wastewater discharge or air pollution. They are then transferred to the water and eventually sink to the sediment at the bottom of the lakes.
“We don’t know what to do because it is built into consumer goods and we are just trying to catch what they use,” Li said. The authors of this study emphasized the need to establish a baseline for organophosphate concentration.
The International Joint Commission, which provides policy recommendations for the United States and Canada, released a report last November suggesting policies to reduce flame retardant contamination in the Great Lakes.
The binational agency hopes for managing these flame retardants becomes a model for addressing chemicals of mutual concern, said Frank Bevacqua, the agency’s public information officer.
The commission recommends restricting manufacturing of fire retardants, reducing spills and monitoring levels in the environment. It also suggests finding less toxic substitutions or eliminating flame retardants.
“It is important to make sure we are not making similar mistakes as we replace chemicals that have been persistent,” Bevacqua said.
Public and environmental health advocates recommend industries avoid replacements that are persistent chemicals.
“One simple guideline is to stay away from the halogenated flame retardants,” said Gillian Miller, staff scientist at the Ecology Center, a nonprofit organization in Ann Arbor. Halogenated flame retardants have chemical structures containing chlorine or bromine.
There are still some gaps in knowledge about the effects of organophosphate flame retardants, Miller said. No institution is comparing toxicity for the wide range of organophosphate flame retardants.
Flame retardants are necessary for some products that are inherently flammable, such as building insulation, Miller said. Other products, such as furniture, may be able to use alternatives like wool or cotton that do not require flame retardants. The Ecology Center encourages manufacturers to assess the chemicals they use.
“Otherwise we are going to keep seeing everything they put in products in the environment and in humans,” Miller said
http://greatlakesecho.org/2017/03/21/new-flame-retardant-threat-documented-in-great-lakes/.
-
Industry Renews Plea for Speedier Exports
Mar 21, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
A trade group representing various aspects of the natural gas industry is calling on the Trump administration and Congress to expedite the approval process for exporting liquefied natural gas.
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) — which represents producers, developers, shippers and terminal operators — outlined their request yesterday in a series of letters to policymakers.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the group called for "expedited approval" of pending applications to export LNG both to nations that both have and do not have trade deals with the United States.
Under federal law, DOE must judge whether such exports meet a "public interest" test; nations that have free trade deals automatically qualify.
"Ensuring a prompt approval process will bolster the nascent U.S. LNG export industry, thereby strengthening our economy, improving our natural security, bettering America's position in the global energy market, and providing jobs for hardworking American men and women," Charles Riedl, the group's executive director, wrote to Perry.
"As other countries also work to develop their own LNG industries, a lengthy approval process for U.S. export permits hinders America's position in the market and undermines the investment proposition for domestic projects," he said. "Any further delays in approving and exporting U.S. natural gas will mean missing out on the significant benefits outlined above."
CLNG and other industry groups for years have called for faster action at DOE in reviewing export applications. The House and Senate during the 114th Congress both passed legislation that would impose a "shot clock" for making final decisions on exports.
The House bill would have given DOE 60 days to decide after receiving a final National Environmental Policy Act review on an application from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The Senate's bill would have allowed DOE 45 days to make a decision.
Despite broad support in both chambers for LNG exports legislation, the surprise election of President Trump dampened House enthusiasm for completing conference talks with the Senate on unifying competing energy reform packages (E&E Daily, Nov. 18, 2016).
In a letter to the authors of the Senate bill — Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) — Riedl expressed "hope that you will once again seek opportunities to advance legislative language that improves and expedites the LNG export approval process."
In a separate letter to new House Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Riedl asked for "support for legislation to codify a clear and efficient regulatory path for LNG exports, a measure that held broad bipartisan support in the previous Congress, but unfortunately was not passed."
Murkowski and former House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.), who now leads the Subcommittee on Energy, have both said they would like to resurrect their respective energy bills, with upcoming infrastructure legislation being one possible vehicle.
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/21/stories/1060051770
-
Power Plant Climate Case Gets Judges, but Will It Be Argued?
Mar 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The Trump administration could be racing against the clock to roll back the EPA's climate change regulations after a federal appeals court assigns judges to hear an upcoming argument over federal carbon dioxide limits for new power plants.
Challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency's carbon dioxide new source performance standards will be heard by Judges Sri Srinivasan and Cornelia Pillard—both appointed by President Barack Obama—and Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson, a President George H.W. Bush appointee (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, argument panel assigned 3/20/17).
Assigning the argument panel shows that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is ready to move forward with the case despite expectations the new administration would seek to revoke or reconsider the rule.
The Trump administration has promised to roll back the Obama EPA's climate initiatives, with an executive order giving that direction expected soon. But the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in the case April 17. So far, the Trump administration has not asked the court to either delay the case or send the carbon dioxide standards back to the EPA for reconsideration.
Readying to Defend Rule
Supporters of the EPA's carbon dioxide standards are preparing to defend the rule if the case does continue to argument.
“We're preparing to go forward. We're expecting this hearing to happen. We'll see what they will argue,” Vera Pardee, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity, told Bloomberg BNA.
The carbon dioxide standards for new power plants (RIN:2060-AQ91) were issued jointly with comparable limits for existing units, known as the Clean Power Plan (RIN:2060-AR33). Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate carbon dioxide from new power plants before it can regulate the existing fleet.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was among the leading challengers to the Clean Power Plan when he served as Oklahoma's attorney general.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107543598&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107543598&jd=107543598
-
Dakota Access Could Flow Oil This Week; Court Rejects Native American Challenge
Mar 20, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
The contentious $3.8 billion, nearly 1,200-mile Dakota Access Pipeline project (DAPL) withstood another legal challenge over the weekend and its supporters indicated it could be flowing its first Bakken Shale crude oil supplies before the end of the week.
An appeals court last Saturday refused a request from two Native American tribes for an emergency order that would prevent oil from flowing through DAPL, which traverses North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and into a south-central Illinois transportation hub that will send the supplies to the East and Gulf Coasts.
A three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied a motion by the Standing Rock Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes, noting that they had failed to "satisfy the stringent requirements for an injunction pending appeal." As a result, DAPL could start operations while ongoing legal action by the tribes is pending.
Cross-motions by the tribes and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers seeking a summary judgment could be resolved in the next three or four weeks, according to Christi Tezak, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners LLC. "While the litigation may continue, the pipeline would most likely be in service and delivering oil while the courts consider the merits of the Sioux' challenges and/or potential appeals," Tezak said.
The Midwest Alliance for Infrastructure Now (MAIN), which supports the project, said it "expects construction of the pipeline to be completed within the next few days and oil to move through the double-walled pipeline under the lake early [this coming] week."
"The courts' consistent support of the pipeline in these proceedings is the result of the company's and Army Corps of Engineers' dogged compliance with all applicable laws and regulations," said MAIN spokesperson Craig Stevens. "Although it is frustrating that those opposing DAPL are using the courts in a seemingly endless attempt to thwart this lawful project, we are heartened that the judges have continued to rule on the merits."
Judge Patrick Millett, concurring with the denial of the two other judges on the court of appeals panel, Brett Kavanaugh and Robert Wilkins, noted that the tribes’ basis for seeking an injunction was tied solely to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), even though the district court had yet to decide whether it was going to allow the RFRA claim in the case. "That means that the tribe is asking this court to grant an injunction pending appeal on the basis of a legal claim that, at this procedural juncture, has not yet even been accepted as an issue in the litigation," Millett said.
"Further weighing against a grant of injunctive relief is the tribe's unexplained untimeliness in raising the religious freedom act preliminary-injunction claim."
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/109822-dakota-access-could-flow-oil-this-week-court-rejects-native-american-challenge
-
Rising U.S. Gas Exports a ‘Silver Lining’ for Canadian Producers
Mar 21, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jim Polson
Although natural gas producers in Canada have been knocked sideways by the U.S. shale boom, some relief may be at hand.
“Were it not for a drastic expansion in U.S. gas exports, there would soon be no need for Canadian gas south of the border,” the Conference Board of Canada, a research group, said in a report on March 20.
Contractual obligations for liquefied natural gas shippers mean that U.S. exports will rise more quickly than domestic production, particularly in some regional markets, according to the report. That suggests there could still be demand for Canadian gas south of the border even though overall exports to the U.S. have slumped by about a third in the past decade.
LNG export terminals along the Gulf Coast could even end up being customers for Canadian producers. Cheniere Energy Inc., which shipped the first cargo from the lower 48 states last year, said this month it's agreed to take supplies from the Montney shale play, which straddles Alberta and British Columbia.
Higher U.S. exports and industrial domestic demand will help push Canadian benchmark gas prices near the C$4 ($3) mark by the end of 2021, the report showed.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=107543591&vname=dennotallissues&fn=107543591&jd=107543591
-
School Board Voting Tuesday on Exxon-Saudi Petrochemical Plant
Mar 21, 2017 | Fuel Fix
By Jordan Blum
A Texas school board north of Corpus Christi is set to vote Tuesday on tax breaks that could help decide whether a $10 billion petrochemical complex is built.
Exxon Mobil Corp. and the state-owned Saudi Basic Industries Corp., or SABIC, are proposing the massive chemicals and plastics plant be located adjacent to the Portland and Gregory communities, and about one mile from local schools. The project has led to substantial community opposition from residents who see their smallish bedroom community turning into an industrial corridor.
As expected, the San Patricio County Commissioners Court approved property tax breaks for the project on Monday in a 4-1 vote, touting the jobs and tax revenues the project will bring. The Gregory-Portland School Board is scheduled to vote on Tuesday evening. Exxon Mobil and SABIC are seeking about $460 million in property tax breaks from the governmental entities.
School Board President Randy Eulenfeld doesn’t support the location of the project, but he also wants the schools and community to benefit if Exxon and SABIC decide to build there no matter what. The school board would actually receive an extra $1.63 million a year on average for more than 15 years if it grants the tax breaks.
“It’s a difficult thing when your community starts going through a change,” Eulenfeld said Monday.
The largest proposed petrochemical project in Texas would be built from scratch and would include the world’s biggest ethane cracker, which turns a component of natural gas into ethylene, the primary building block of most plastics, as well as other plastics manufacturing operations. The companies say the site will include green spaces and a half-mile buffer around the plant, which could begin operations as soon as 2021. The 1,400-acre site is mostly cotton fields now.
Exxon and SABIC announced in July they would form a joint venture to build a Gulf Coast petrochemical plant to take advantage of Texas cheap and ample natural gas produced from the shale boom. After considering three other sites – one in Texas, two in Louisiana – they came to favor Gregory-Portland in San Patricio County because of its access to natural gas pipelines, as well as the proximity to ports, railways, highways and housing.
The companies say the project would create 11,000 temporary construction jobs and about 600 permanent positions.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/03/21/school-board-voting-tuesday-on-exxon-saudi-petrochemical-plant/
-
(ACC Mentioned) E&C Dems Blast Trump Admin's Rule-Stalling Tactics
Mar 21, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Sean Reilly
The Trump administration is flouting the Administrative Procedure Act with last-minute stalling tactics to keep environmental and energy efficiency regulations from taking effect, several House Democrats charged yesterday.
"Judicial precedent makes clear that changing the effective date of a rule is a substantive amendment of that rule," House Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and three other panel members wrote in a letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.
Any such changes are therefore "subject to all of the requirements for rulemaking — including publication thirty days before the effective date and notice and comment," the letter continues.
The four singled out a flurry of U.S. EPA announcements since last week that further delay the effective dates of a half-dozen Obama administration regulations by as much as three months.
Besides asking Mulvaney to let the regulations take effect, they are seeking copies of all communications among EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, other agency political appointees and trade groups — such as the American Chemistry Council — that are lobbying hard to scrap new industrial safety requirements.
The Democrats similarly highlighted the Department of Energy's decision to continue a freeze — published in today's Federal Register — of five energy conservation regulations that will last into the summer or later.
Those delays come on top of a blanket two-month governmentwide regulatory pause — ordered on Trump's first day in office — that expires today. OMB is the final gatekeeper for major new federal rules.
Other signers of the letter were Rep. Doris Matsui of California; Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois, the ranking member on the Energy Subcommittee; and Rep. Paul Tonko of New York, the top Democrat on the Environment Subcommittee.
The Democrats released the letter after the close of normal business hours. Representatives for Mulvaney, EPA and DOE did not reply to emailed requests for comment late yesterday.
Obama-era rules at issue
All of the regulations at issue were published in the Obama administration's final two months.
The EPA safety rule — intended to reduce the odds of serious accidents in chemical plants, refineries and other industrial facilities — took years to develop and had been scheduled to take effect today.
Following a reconsideration petition from industry groups, however, Pruitt last week stayed implementation until June 19 to give EPA time to take another look (Greenwire, March 14). The agency "will prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking in the near future" that will give both the public and the industry coalition a chance to comment on issues raised in the industry petition, he wrote.
Yesterday, Pruitt also pushed back the effective dates of five other EPA final rules for another two months, until May 22. The rules cover air quality modeling, formaldehyde emissions standards and other issues (Greenwire, March 17).
In imposing the added delay without public notice, Pruitt cited a "good cause" exception in federal law, adding that seeking public comment "is impracticable, unnecessary and contrary to the public interest."
He also cited a lack of Senate-confirmed staff at EPA as grounds for needing more time to decide whether a thorough review of any of the five regulations is warranted. For any such review, the agency will at a minimum publish another Register notice addressing any further delay in the regulations' effective dates, he indicated.
John Lucas, acting general counsel at the Energy Department, also referenced the good cause exception in today's Register notice.
A delay in the effective date of new ceiling fan efficiency standards until the end of September, for example, will not affect the January 2020 compliance date, Lucas wrote. Seeking public comment, he added, "is also impracticable given the timing of [Secretary Rick Perry's] confirmation and the March 21 effective date established by the prior temporary postponement."
http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/03/21/stories/1060051771
-
Deputy Urges Employees to Stay Focused Despite Looming Cuts
Mar 20, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Kevin Bogardus
Acting U.S. EPA Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn today tried to soothe agency employees' anxiety over President Trump's proposed budget cuts that could slash nearly a third of EPA's funding.
In an email sent agencywide and obtained by E&E News, Flynn said it's "critical" that EPA employees not lose sight of the agency's vital work. He also reminded agency workers that nothing is final on EPA funding until Capitol Hill has its say.
Flynn gave a recap of what Trump's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint proposes for EPA: $5.65 billion in funding for the agency, 31 percent — or $2.6 billion — less than fiscal 2017 funding, leading to 3,200 fewer jobs at EPA.
"As we go through this time, it's important for all of us to remember several things," Flynn wrote in the email.
"First, we are in the early stages of a long budget development process, and funding levels will not be finalized until Congress acts. Second, your work — the mission of the Agency — is very important, and it's critical that you continue to focus on the important work you do. And finally, remember you are part of a strong EPA team, one that has worked together to accomplish great things in the past and will continue to do so in the future."
Concluding his email, Flynn said he was "very proud" to be one of their EPA colleagues and thanked them for their dedication and hard work.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had pushed for more funding to the agency, only to receive greater cuts from the White House. Several former Obama-era EPA officials have questioned whether Pruitt has much sway in the Trump administration, given the size of the cuts to his agency (Greenwire, March 20).
Trump's budget cuts for EPA have been blasted by environmental groups and federal worker unions, among others.
"The proposed cuts at the EPA show a clear disdain for the mission of the agency. The work of EPA employees has led to noticeable and verifiable improvements in our country's natural resources," Tony Reardon, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, said in a statement today.
"A cut of this size is a huge step backwards in environmental safety and health and puts at risk the health of American citizens today and that of future generations."
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/20/stories/1060051753
-
Trump's Energy Executive Order Delayed Again
Mar 20, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Andrew Restuccia and Anthony Dragana
The White House has again delayed the release of a wide-ranging executive order that would start the process of rolling back former President Barack Obama's climate regulations, two sources familiar with the issue told POLITICO.
President Donald Trump is expected to sign the order by the end of the month, and possibly as soon as later this week.
People close to the White House were told that the order would be signed today, but that timing slipped. The order's release has been repeatedly delayed over the last few weeks, but the precise reasons for the delay are unclear.
A draft version of the order obtained by POLITICO calls on EPA to rewrite Obama's climate regulations for power plants, and mandates the withdrawal or review of rules on fracking and methane, among other things.
A White House spokeswoman declined to comment, saying she had no announcements on scheduling.
WHAT'S NEXT: The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals could rule any day on a wide-ranging lawsuit from states and industry groups seeking to overturn the Clean Power Plan. And Trump is expected to sign the order directing EPA to undo it as soon as this week.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
GOP Lawmakers Poised to Tout Support for Climate Policy
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
A group of House Republicans is poised to tout their support for a resolution acknowledging anthropogenic climate change and pledging to work “constructively” toward solutions, suggesting a small GOP constituency in the House willing to address the issue even as the vast majority of Republican lawmakers cheer the Trump administration's climate deregulatory agenda.
Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Ryan Costello (R-PA) and Brian Mast (R-FL) are slated to hold a March 20 press conference on their recently introduced resolution that commits lawmakers “to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.”
The three lawmakers are among a broader group of 16 who introduced the resolution March 15. A similar measure introduced last year eventually garnered support from 16 GOP lawmakers.
Several of the lawmakers are also members of the Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group comprised of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats. Curbelo is one of the group's co-chairs.
Their support for the resolution stands in sharp contrast to the positions taken by most Republicans -- and Trump administration officials. For example, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt drew widespread criticism recently when he doubted that carbon dioxide is a “primary” contributor to global warming.
By contrast, the GOP resolution raises concerns about the impacts of climate change. It notes a “marked increase in extreme weather events” and exacerbated “local, regional, and national environmental and human health impacts” due to climate change.
“[I]f left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long-term fiscal challenges that we face as a Nation,” the resolution reads.
And it echoes several long-held claims from environmentalists and Democrats that are often scorned by Republican policymakers, including that climate change poses a national security threat. For example, the resolution quotes the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review's statement that “the effects of a changing climate are 'threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions.'”
And in a nod to Republican values, the resolution notes that any climate policies “should not constrain the United States economy, especially in regards to global competitiveness.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/gop-lawmakers-poised-tout-support-climate-policy
-
CASAC Panel Supports EPA's Softening of Sulfur Oxides Risk Assessment
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Members of an EPA Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) panel are supporting the agency's decision to soften some of its risk assessment's conclusions on the adverse health effects of sulfur oxides (SOx) emissions after earlier faulting EPA for overstating risks, suggesting the agency might not seek to tighten its SOx air limits.
The panel held a March 20 call to discuss EPA's second-draft integrated science assessment (ISA) that will inform the agency as it considers whether to strengthen, maintain or weaken the “primary,” or health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2), which serves as the “indicator” for SOx. The Obama EPA in 2010 updated the SO2 standard to limit emissions at 75 parts per billion (ppb) over one hour.
On the call, panelists praised EPA for weakening some of its conclusions from an earlier draft on SO2's health effects, following the panel's earlier findings that the agency was overstating risks.
The draft ISA retains its primary conclusion that SO2 causes short-term respiratory effects, but backs away from the earlier draft's conclusions that various other health effects are “suggestive” of a causal relationship with SO2 exposure. Instead, EPA says there is “inadequate” evidence to suggest such a relationship.
The softened conclusions could help the Trump administration conclude that there is no need to tighten the existing SO2 standard, which is a permissible outcome of the NAAQS review process. EPA in a proposed consent decree with environmentalists says it is aiming to complete the review by Jan. 28, 2019.
CASAC Debate
CASAC debated the weakened conclusions on SO2's risk, with panelist David Peden, of the University of North Carolina, saying that the revised ISA is “consistent with the causal framework” that EPA uses to determine which health problems pollutant cause. There is “tremendous attention to asthmatics” in the ISA, but “that was appropriate,” given the increased propensity of asthmatics to suffer respiratory effects, he said.
A number of panelists had earlier expressed concerns over the likelihood that in some health studies, adverse effects are wrongly being attributed to SO2 when in fact the effects result from co-pollutants -- such as particulate matter -- which are found in the same polluted air and “confound” the studies' results.
Aaron Cohen, of the joint industry and EPA-funded Health Effects Institute, said the new draft ISA is “a more critical and I think accurate assessment of the inability to control for confounding by co-pollutants.”
However, panelist Richard Schlesinger, of Pace University, noted that in several studies featured in the ISA, there still seems to be overstatement of the strength of causal relationships.
In a number of cases there “seems to be an overreach” in concluding that SO2 is to blame for effects, he said. For such studies, he suggested a “reduction in enthusiasm.”
Review Timeline
The Clean Air Act requires that the agency review its NAAQS for criteria pollutants such as SO2 every five years, meaning that the review of the SO2 standards is already long overdue.
EPA's SO2 review should have been completed in 2015, but the agency in response to environmentalists' lawsuit is floating a consent decree that would set a Jan. 28, 2019, deadline to complete the review.
According to the timetable in an EPA staff presentation to the panel, EPA intends to finalize the ISA by the end of 2017. The Obama EPA in the Jan. 17 Federal Register announced a proposed consent decree agreement with environmentalists, which if finalized would require EPA to propose a rule on whether to revise the SO2 NAAQS by May 25, 2018, and to complete its review by Jan. 28, 2019.
EPA staff in the presentation to CASAC said, “[W]e anticipate that this action will be subject to a court-ordered deadline.” Should the Trump EPA opt not to finalize the consent decree, it would face the possibility of a shorter court-ordered schedule, given the agency has already missed its statutory deadline.
The decree further would set a deadline of July 14 for EPA to propose a new primary NAAQS rule for nitrogen dioxide (NO2), to be finalized by April 6, 2018. Similar to NO2, the Obama EPA in 2010 introduced a novel one-hour NAAQS set at 100 ppb. CASAC and EPA staff have so far also not indicated much willingness or scientific basis for tightening the NOx standard.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/casac-panel-supports-epas-softening-sulfur-oxides-risk-assessment
-
Trump's 'Two for One' Order Sparks Early Clash over EPA Rulemakings
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Industry groups and environmentalists are clashing over how -- or whether -- EPA should implement President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) requiring agencies to “identify” two rules for repeal for every new rule they propose, with an industry group insisting that the order prohibits an Obama EPA air toxics proposal from advancing while environmentalists stridently oppose such a stance over a similar rule.
In comments submitted late last month, the American Bakers Association (ABA) charged that an Obama EPA proposal issued late last year to tighten air toxics standards for nutritional yeast manufacturing is inconsistent with the Trump order's requirements and “must be supplemented and re-issued for public comment in full compliance with the President’s directive.”
Meanwhile, environmentalists are warning that any administration effort to weaken or abandon an Obama-era proposal to strengthen air toxics requirements for chemical recovery combustion sources at “Kraft, Soda, Sulfite and Stand-Alone semichemical” wood pulp mills as a result of the order's requirements would be met with litigation and stiff resistance.
“EPA cannot lawfully or rationally rely on that executive order in this rulemaking, nor can the agency allow that order to influence development of the final rule,” the environmental groups said in their comments. “An executive order cannot override a statute, limit the authority delegated and the legal responsibilities provided to the EPA Administrator by federal law, add factors that are impermissible under the statute, or delay statutorily required agency action,” the groups say.
Trump's EO 13771, signed Jan. 30 and published in the Federal Register Feb. 3, requires agencies to “identify at least two” existing rules for repeal for every new rule proposed or promulgated. The order further prohibits any additional incremental costs for new regulations in fiscal year 2017.
The order has drawn scathing criticism from environmental and public health groups who charge that even though it exempts from its requirements rules required by statute -- as many EPA rules are -- it is still unlawful. Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups have sued the administration, alleging in part that the order violates Clean Air Act requirements for EPA to issue air and climate regulations.
Many industry groups and attorneys have also raised concerns, warning that the order would likely create regulatory confusion, complicating development of new rules required by statute and jeopardizing some existing rules that industry groups support.
In recent comments to the Office of Management and Budget, several industry groups urged the administration to prioritize provisions that require agencies to offset new regulatory costs over its requirements that agencies identify rules for repeal.
Industry Leverage
While some in industry fear the uncertainty the executive order may spur, others, like the ABA, are nevertheless relying on the order as leverage to pressure EPA to soften pending rules governing National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
While interim implementation guidance OMB issued “provides for certain limitations” on the Trump EO, “EPA has not identified any limitations which would apply in the context of the Yeast NESHAP,” ABA says. The group believes that the proposed rule is a 'significant regulatory action,' and that the Trump EO should apply “full force” to the air toxics rule. “Indeed, this rulemaking is a perfect example of agency action that should fall within the scope of President Trump’s regulatory reform initiative.”
EPA's proposed rule the group is fighting is a risk-and-technology review (RTR) rulemaking, required under the Clean Air Act eight years after EPA regulates air toxics from an industry sector for the first time. If the agency finds “residual” health risks, or new control technology that is cost-effective, or both, it can tighten regulations.
But in this case, the agency proposed to impose new regulatory burdens on the sector even though EPA found no additional health risks that require mitigation. Instead, the agency proposed tightening compliance requirements to ensure that emissions standards apply at all times, to eliminate regulatory exemptions for excess emissions during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) when controls are not effective.
ABA raised a host of substantive concerns with the agency's proposal, saying the agency was correct to leave actual emissions standards unchanged, but wrong to change the “form” of the standards -- which in effect tightens them, removing SSM exemptions.
Notwithstanding the results of the RTR, “EPA is proposing significant changes to the current form of the emissions standard as well as removing certain aspects of the standard that EPA incorrectly characterizes as mandated by its revised [SSM] policy. ABA is greatly concerned that EPA has not sufficiently analyzed the practical effects of the Proposed Rule on regulated facilities,” the group says.
“Because EPA’s proposal could have the effect of materially changing the emissions standard, without any record basis on which to do so, the Proposed Rule would be illegal if adopted as proposed,” ABA says.
EPA's proposed NESHAP rule for chemical recovery combustion sources at certain pulp mills took a similar approach as the rule governing yeast manufacturing facilities, finding no additional risks after an RTR but imposing tougher regulation anyway.
Industry groups objected to this approach. In Feb. 28 comments on the pulp mills proposal, the American Forest & Paper Association (AFPA) says EPA was wrong to suggest tightening monitoring procedures for “opacity” -- a measure of air emissions -- or equipment operating parameters.
The group says, “we believe there is no evidence to support changing the opacity operating parameter limit and monitoring exceedance levels which could cost $200 million in additional capital and not be cost effective by any definition.”
The SSM Coalition, an alliance that includes AFPA and several other major industry associations, in Feb. 28 comments expressed concerns with specifics of the rule and with the Obama EPA’s approach to RTRs more broadly.
The coalition's primary concern is the Obama EPA practice of stripping regulatory exemptions for periods of SSM from regulations.
The coalition is “concerned with the approach EPA is taking” both in the rule, but also for “various rules under the same statutory authority that are in the active rulemaking stage or that are scheduled for review in the near future."
However, Sierra Club and environmental justice advocacy groups in their Feb. 28 comments say it is “essential” that EPA remove the SSM exemptions, but also go further in reducing emissions. “EPA’s proposal does not do nearly enough to control toxic pollution and to meet the agency’s legal duties; it must strengthen the emission standards before finalizing,” the groups say, suggesting a possible legal challenge to the stringency of the final rule once issued.
The groups also warn against relying on the EO. The groups say it would be unlawful for EPA “to consider or apply” the EO to the pulp mills rulemaking “in any way” without providing public notice and comment opportunity required by the air act.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/trumps-two-one-order-sparks-early-clash-over-epa-rulemakings
-
California Lawmakers Eye Carbon Tax amid Cap-and-Trade Woes
Mar 20, 2017 | Inside EPA
Even as California continues to embrace cap-and-trade as its centerpiece program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, some Democratic and Republican lawmakers are questioning the effectiveness and impacts of the program and exploring either a broad carbon tax or a "cap-and-tax" system after 2020.
"Markets likes certainty. So regulations, mandates and a carbon tax give us more certainty," state Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D) told a March 15 hearing of an Assembly budget subcommittee. “Why not move in that direction . . . if our ultimate goal is to incentivize a change in behavior, and not revenue?"
As reported by Inside Cal/EPA's Curt Barry, Garcia is one of a growing number of Democrats in the legislature who are questioning whether to continue the cap-and-trade program after 2020, mainly because of concerns that the program is not reducing pollution in disadvantaged communities and may actually be increasing emissions in some of those areas.
Environmental justice advocates, who are backed by some Democrats in their opposition to continuing cap-and-trade in its current form after 2020, call for a "cap-and-tax" system. That would place a declining GHG cap on industry, as well as natural gas and fuel suppliers, while also requiring facilities to pay a tax on each ton of GHG emitted.
On the other side of the aisle, Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R) expressed interest during the same hearing in pursuing more discussion about a carbon tax as long as a significant portion of the revenue would be "returned" to households and businesses to help them offset the higher cost of energy they would face.
Despite their minority in both houses of the legislature, at least a handful of Republicans may be needed to approve a GHG program bill by the two-thirds vote margin sought by Gov. Jerry Brown (D).
Patterson said that for any Republican to consider backing such a measure, there would have to be a "direct return" of money to people in the state that have had to pay more for energy because of the state's GHG regulations.
But Brown has proposed that lawmakers this year pass a bill by a two-thirds vote authorizing the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to continue operating the cap-and-trade program until at least 2030 to help achieve the state's target of cutting GHGs 40 percent below 1990 levels by then.
The two-thirds vote threshold, which is required to establish new taxes in the state, is expected to shield the program from future legal challenges that it is an illegal tax. This would provide much more certainty to the private sector that the California program will be operating long into the future, supporters of the proposal say.
A state appellate court is scheduled to rule by the end of next month on industry's current litigation against CARB that charges the cap-and-trade program is an illegal tax because the 2006 law that authorized the system was not passed by a two-thirds margin.
Experts say the pending litigation and uncertainty about whether lawmakers will pass legislation authorizing cap-and-trade beyond 2020 have been the main reasons the state's recent quarterly GHG allowance auctions have only generated a fraction of the revenue collected through previous auctions.
CARB, meanwhile, is recommending in its pending GHG regulatory scoping plan against the cap-and-tax option in part because it would impose additional costs on regulated entities, including "onsite investments" to reduce emissions at a higher cost or requiring reductions in production. In addition, the tax would have to be absorbed by the company or passed on to consumers, the board says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/california-lawmakers-eye-carbon-tax-amid-cap-and-trade-woes
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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