Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/30/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes Bill Requiring Science in EPA Rules to Be Public
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A House-passed bill would require science and data used in EPA regulations or assessments to be made public. -
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes US EPA Science Transparency Bill
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives has passed a measure to bar the EPA from taking regulatory actions based on science that is "not transparent and reproducible". -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - March 2017
Mar 29, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry -- which had long been out of favor -- is finally getting its groove back. Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a decent performance in 2016, helped by continued strength across automotive and construction markets -- two major end-use markets for chemicals. -
US EPA Publishes Initial Mercury Inventory
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has published an initial inventory of mercury in commerce in the US, pursuant to section 8(b)(10)(B) of the new TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) US Senators Form Chemistry Caucus
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Four US Senators have announced the formation of a new chemistry caucus focused on issues dealing with the science and business of the chemicals industry. -
(ACC Mentioned) What You Need To Know About California's Cleaning Products Bill
Mar 29, 2017 | KCRA
By Mike Luery
California is now one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to require labels on cleaning products. -
California Bill Seeks Ingredients Labels on Cleaning Products
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California lawmakers are weighing first-time legislation to require the disclosure of chemical ingredients in cleaning products. -
EU Endocrine Disruptor Fights Could Lead To US Litigation
Mar 30, 2017 | Law360
By David Schwartz
There is a battle raging in the European Union on an issue that is recognized in the U.S. only by environmental scientists, policy wonks and activists: the regulatory status of endocrine disrupting chemicals. -
Home Depot: DIY Shouldn’t Spell Danger
Mar 29, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Mike Schade
A weekend home improvement project shouldn’t expose you or your family to dangerous chemicals. But right now you can walk into The Home Depot and other stores and buy paint strippers containing dangerous chemicals. -
Canada Provisionally Finds 2-Ethylhexyl 2-Ethylhexanoate Harmful
Mar 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
A Canadian draft screening assessment has found that 2-ethylhexyl 2-ethylhexanoate is harmful under section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa, 1999). -
Improve ‘Inefficient’ CLP Processes, Trade Bodies Say
Mar 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Industry associations have criticised the European Commission’s handling of substance processing and data under the classification, labelling and packaging Regulation (CLP). -
Trump Administration Asks Court to Halt Clean Power Plan Review
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump took yet another step toward dismantling his predecessor's climate change legacy, asking a federal appeals court halt its review of carbon-emission rules for power plants ( West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, motion filed 3/28/17). -
Greens Plan Legal Battle, Protests In Wake Of Trump's Order
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess and Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists and their allies are strategizing how to fight the Trump administration's assault on climate regulations in the courtroom and the court of public opinion. -
America's Gas Trade Is ‘LNG on Tinder’ as Cargoes Seek Buyers
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Ships laden with natural gas from America's shale basins are playing the dating game, taking the long way to Asia in an apparent search for buyers as seasonal demand drops. -
Pennsylvania Sues Townships Over Frack Well Bans
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania has sued two townships that voted to ban the storage of wastewater from shale-gas drilling within their borders, arguing that regulation of wastewater is the state's responsibility (Pa. Dept Envtl. Protection v. Grant Twp, Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 126 M.D. 2017, Memo filed 3/27/17and Pa. Dept Envtl. Protection v. Highland Twp., Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 123 MD 2017, filed 3/27/17). -
Dow Wraps up Construction on ‘Crown Jewel’ of Expansion Plans
Mar 30, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Dow Chemical has completed construction on a giant ethane cracker plant it calls the “crown jewel” of its $6 billion expansion plans in the Gulf Coast region. -
Trump's Climate Order Didn't Touch Several Obama-Era Programs
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Trump administration rolled back many of its predecessor's signature climate change measures with an energy-focused executive order, but the order was notably silent on several Obama-era climate programs that don't affect the energy industry. -
Pruitt Woos Conservatives On GHG Risk Finding But Offers No Firm Promise
Mar 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is offering assurances to his most conservative critics that he is committed to scuttling numerous Obama-era climate policies -- while leaving the door open to efforts to repeal the agency's landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding -- after a conservative columnist called for his resignation because of a lack of action so far on the finding. -
Delaware Sues EPA Over Delay Responding To Interstate Ozone Petition
Mar 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Delaware is suing EPA over its decision to delay a response to the state's Clean Air Act petition asking the agency to regulate emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant that Delaware says are hindering its ability to attain federal ozone standards, part of the First State's growing push to force EPA action on reducing upwind air pollution. -
DOE Climate Office Bans Use Of Phrase 'Climate Change'
Mar 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolf
A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communications, sources have told POLITICO.
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 Mentioned) House Passes Bill Requiring Science in EPA Rules to Be Public
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
A House-passed bill would require science and data used in EPA regulations or assessments to be made public.
The 228-194 vote March 29 was an unsurprising outcome, given passage of a similar bill by a 241-175 House vote last session.
Supporters of the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (H.R. 1430), sponsored by House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), said it would provide transparency into science used in certain Environmental Protection Agency actions. Critics said the bill would bog down further an already slow regulatory process and block the agency from using important science in its decisions.
The bill now heads to the Senate, where new Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) has indicated an openness to addressing the issue, a Barrasso spokesman said. The committee never held a hearing on last session's version of the bill, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2015 (H.R. 1030).
The measure, which would amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978, is supported by groups including the American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation. Opponents include the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Action Fund and American Geophysical Union.
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee approved H.R. 1430 March 9 by a 17-12 vote along party lines. The Congressional Budget Office hasn't released a cost estimate related to the bill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215028&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215028&jd=108215028
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Passes US EPA Science Transparency Bill
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US House of Representatives has passed a measure to bar the EPA from taking regulatory actions based on science that is "not transparent and reproducible".
Sponsored by Lamar Smith (R–Texas), the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) passed the chamber on a 228-194 vote.
If it becomes law, it would block the EPA from proposing, finalising or disseminating regulations, assessments, guidance and other actions unless all scientific and technical information relied upon to develop them is:the "best available science";specifically identified; andpublicly available in a manner "sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results".
Proponents of the measure say it will allow independent scientists a chance to validate studies EPA uses in support of its regulation. Mr Lamar said this opportunity for independent review "promotes sound science that will restore confidence in the EPA decision-making process".
But opponents across the aisle called it an "insidious" measure that would hamstring the agency's ability to select the highest quality science.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–Texas) said in floor debate that the EPA does not own or control the data for most of these scientific sources. It therefore lacks authority to publicly release it. This, in turn, would preclude the agency from using the "vast majority of peer-reviewed science in existence today" for its regulations, she said.
"In reality this bill isn't about science. It's about undermining public health and the environment.”"
She added that, among others, the American Chemical Society, the Environmental Defense Fund and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, oppose the measure.
It does, however, have the backing of such organisations as the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the US Chamber of Commerce and the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council.
The ACC said that by ensuring that the EPA "utilises high quality science and shares underlying data used to reach decisions, the HONEST Act can help foster a regulatory environment that will allow the US business of chemistry to continue to develop safe, innovative products that Americans depend on in their everyday lives."
The House passed a similar measure sponsored by Mr Lamar – the Secret Science Reform Act – in the 114th Congress. But this failed to gain traction in the Senate.
A separate science measure set forth by Mr Smith, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017, is scheduled for House consideration in the coming days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54793/house-passes-us-epa-science-transparency-bill
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemicals Industry Stock Outlook - March 2017
Mar 29, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)
The chemical industry -- which had long been out of favor -- is finally getting its groove back. Despite a spate of headwinds, the highly cyclical industry put up a decent performance in 2016, helped by continued strength across automotive and construction markets -- two major end-use markets for chemicals.
The fourth-quarter earnings season had been a good one for chemical stocks. We note that a number of companies in the space including prominent names such as Dow Chemical (DOW), DuPont (DD), PPG Industries (PPG), Celanese (CE) and LyondellBasell Industries (LYB) came up with better-than-expected earnings in the quarter. The outperformance was partly driven by an improving operating environment and strategic measures including productivity improvement, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to cut their exposure on other businesses that are grappling with weak demand. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities (exhibited by a wide swath of deals in the recent past) as chemical makers are increasingly looking for cost synergy opportunities and enhanced operational scale in a still-difficult global economic environment.
Moreover, cost-cutting measures (including plant closures and headcount reduction) and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to yield industry-wide margin improvements.
Notwithstanding some lingering headwinds including concerns over China's economy and weak demand in the energy space, the industry's recovery momentum is expected to continue in 2017, supported by continued strength in the light vehicles market, positive trends in the construction space and significant shale-linked capital investment.
The automotive sector continues its healthy run, backed by an improving job market, rising personal income, low fuel prices and attractive financing options. A recovery across housing and commercial construction markets has been another tailwind for the chemical industry.
While the European chemical industry remains stuck in a rut given lower prices, sluggish demand for European chemical exports and weak R&D investments, prospects in the U.S. look bright this year.
U.S. Chemical Industry Set for Solid Growth
The outlook for the U.S. chemical industry paints an encouraging picture. The American chemical industry remains on course for strong growth this year and the next despite several challenges including a strong dollar, soft export markets and a low oil price environment.
The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), an industry trade group, envisions national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017, further accelerating to a 4.8% growth in 2018. Chemical production increased across all regions of the country last year, per the ACC.
The trade group also expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.2% in 2017 on the back of advances in manufacturing and exports. Moreover, production in the specialties chemical segment is expected to pick up pace and rise 3% in 2017.
The ACC also expects American chemical industry's growth to transcend the nation's overall economic growth in the long haul. It sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2020.
The shale gas boom in the U.S. has also been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and has provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies including Dow Chemical, BASF (BASFY), LyondellBasell, Eastman Chemical (EMN) and Westlake Chemical (WLK) to pump in billions of dollars to beef up capacity. The ACC expects domestic chemical industry capital spending to increase at a 7% annual rate through 2021.
EU Chemical Sector in Limbo
The outlook for the European chemical industry looks jaded given a persistently challenging operating environment. Chemical makers in the European Union remain affected by lower prices, a challenging regulatory landscape and competitive disadvantages in terms of costs vis-à-vis the U.S. and Asia.
According to the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), chemical output in the European Union rose by a paltry 0.4% year over year in 2016. Chemical prices fell 3.6% for the year. Lower pricing and modest output growth also hurt chemical sales which slipped 3% during the first eleven months of 2016. CEFIC sees modest growth of roughly 0.5% in chemical output in 2017.
Although the Eurozone economy has gained traction of late, as evident from recent upbeat economic data, it still faces certain near-term risks. The region's growth prospects, in the short run, are likely to be stymied by political uncertainties caused by Brexit negotiations and elections in major member countries such as Germany and France.
Moreover, concerns about the impact of President Donald Trump's trade policies could hurt sentiment in the region. The European Central Bank has warned that potential protectionist policies under Trump administration could trigger financial instability and hurt EU's trade with the U.S. as well as global growth.
A Few Lingering Concerns
The chemical industry still remains mired by several headwinds. Chemical makers are still feeling the pinch of depressed demand across agriculture and energy markets. A strong dollar is also hurting U.S. chemical exports, reducing their attractiveness in overseas markets.
Concerns over China's future growth also remain sources of near-term uncertainties for the chemical industry. Persistent weakness in China -- a key market for chemicals -- is expected to remain as overhang on the chemical industry in the short haul. Sustained overcapacity, weak private investment and high levels of corporate debt are hurting the world's second-largest economy.
The outlook for the fertilizer and agricultural chemicals space also remains cloudy due to continued weakness in crop commodity prices, low farm income and sluggish economic conditions in certain emerging markets including Latin America.
Valuation Looks Bit Stretched
The Chemicals industry has modestly outperformed the broader market over the past one year. The industry has gained around 13.4% over the same time frame, while the S&P 500 index advanced 12.9%.
Going by the EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/ Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization) multiple, a preferred valuation metric for cyclical industries like chemicals, valuation for the Chemicals industry looks little stretched at the moment when compared to its own range and the broader market.
The industry has a trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA multiple of 11.6X, which is close to the high level of 11.8X it scaled in the past one year and is also above its own average of 10.6X over that period. Moreover, the industry compares unfavorably with the market at large, as the trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA for the S&P 500 is at 10.8X and the median level is 9.9X. As such, there seems to be little room for an upside moving ahead.
What Zacks Industry Rank Says
Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector (one of 16 Zacks sectors) which had a 2.5% share of total earnings for the S&P 500 in 2016. We rank all of the more than 250 industries in the 16 Zacks sectors based on the earnings outlook and fundamental strength of the constituent companies in each industry. (To learn more visit: About Zacks Industry Rank. )
We have three chemicals related industries -- Chemical Diversified, Chemical Plastics and Chemical Specialty -- at the expanded (aka "X") level. We put our X industries into two groups: the top half (industries with the best average Zacks Rank) and the bottom half (the industries with the worst average Zacks Rank). Our back-testing shows that the top 50% of the Zacks ranked industries outperforms the bottom 50% by a factor of more than 2 to 1.
The Zacks Industry Rank is #60 for Chemical Plastics (placing it at the top 23% of the 250 plus Zacks classified industries), #90 for Chemical Diversified (at top 36%) and #163 for Chemical Specialty (at bottom 33%).
Looking at the exact location of these industries, one could say that the general outlook for the chemical industry is leaning toward 'Positive.'
Q1 Earnings Picture Looks Encouragin
Looking at the overall results of the Basic Materials sector, earnings for the sector participants on the S&P 500 index for fourth-quarter 2016 rose 3.5% from the same period last year. However, total revenues for these companies slipped 0.6% in the fourth quarter.
Outlook for first-quarter 2017 looks encouraging as earnings are expected to accelerate to an 8.4% increase. Revenues are also forecast to rise 2.3% in the quarter.
For more details about the earnings of this sector and others, please read our ' Earnings Preview ' report.
Final Thoughts
The chemical industry is finally back on track after bearing the brunt of the global economic crisis. While the industry still remains saddled by several challenges, its upturn is expected to continue this year on sustained healthy momentum in the automotive space and an upswing in the housing market. Strategic initiatives including continued focus on cost and productivity, operational efficiency improvement and expansion of scale through acquisitions should also help chemical makers weather the macroeconomic and industry-specific headwinds in 2017.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemicals-industry-stock-outlook-march-2017-cm767532 -
US EPA Publishes Initial Mercury Inventory
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has published an initial inventory of mercury in commerce in the US, pursuant to section 8(b)(10)(B) of the new TSCA.
The initial report is comprised of readily available, previously published data on the supply, use, and trade of elemental mercury and mercury compounds. The agency says complete information is not available for some topics.
The EPA is required to publish an inventory every three years. Future reports are expected to include data gathered from manufacturers under a reporting rule, authorised under the Lautenberg Act. This will lay out timing and types of information needed, and must be promulgated by 22 June 2018.
The agency is not asking for comments on the initial inventory.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54791/us-epa-publishes-initial-mercury-inventory
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Senators Form Chemistry Caucus
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Four US Senators have announced the formation of a new chemistry caucus focused on issues dealing with the science and business of the chemicals industry.
The Senate Chemistry Caucus will work to "underscore the importance of employing sound science to create effective public policy". Through education and research programmes, it will also promote initiatives that encourage the development of chemical manufacturing and a new generation of chemists.
Co-chair Senator Chris Coons (D–Delaware) – who introduced the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act in the last Congress – said the caucus will "provide an invaluable forum for members of the Senate to promote science in policymaking."
The American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) lauded its formation, and the "growing interest in Congress to better understand the intersection of chemistry and public policy."
Mr Coons will co-chair the committee with Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R–West Virginia), Steve Daines (R–Montana) and Gary Peters (D–Michigan). Other senators agreeing to join the caucus are:John Boozman (R–Arkansas);Joe Donnelly (D–Indiana);John Neely Kennedy (R–Louisiana); andJoe Manchin (D–West Virginia).
Its establishment comes amid a flurry of activity in Congress aimed at improving the use of science in the regulatory process.
Members of the House formed the Congressional Chemistry Caucus last April.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54792/us-senators-form-chemistry-caucus
-
(ACC Mentioned) What You Need To Know About California's Cleaning Products Bill
Mar 29, 2017 | KCRA
By Mike Luery
Cleaning Product Right to Know Act passes Senate committee, advances
California is now one step closer to becoming the first state in the nation to require labels on cleaning products.
The legislation, called the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act, would mandate that manufacturers spell out exactly what chemicals are in the bottles.
Here's a closer look at at the proposed bill:
WHAT DOES THE BILL DO?
Senate Bill 258 requires cleaning products manufactured or sold in the state to disclose a list of ingredients on the product label and website. The chemicals must be depicted as an image that communicates the potential health impacts of toxic chemicals.
"Our bill would require that all the ingredients be posted in the label in a way that's easy to comprehend, easy to read for folks," the bill's author, Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Los Angeles, said.
WHO'S FOR IT?
Environmental groups are supporting the bill, along with many others.
Breast Cancer Prevention Partners spokesperson Nancy Buermeyer: I, like everyone, are exposed to cleaning products. I use them in my home. And I want to minimize the chance that I'm going to get sick.
Janitor Marvin Mongalo: He has worked with cleaning products all his life and said the chemicals have affected his health.
"Breathing problems," he explained. "And also problems like a rash on my skin because of the exposure to chemicals."
Sacramento mother Jessica Sheya: Being that I have small children, I'd love to know what's in those products. It would benefit in the case that if one of my children were to open it and something harmful happened to them, I could know exactly, if I was calling poison control, what are those ingredients that my child may have gotten into.
Sacramento consumer Jan Traversi: I think it's a pretty good idea. I'm not sure it would change too many people's minds in what they use. But, it would be good to know what you are using.
It might be important for people who have allergies or smells that are extremely strong.
WHO'S OPPOSED TO THE BILL?
The American Chemistry Council testified in opposition to the bill.
"The requirement that the label contain a pictogram that would be developed by Cal EPA really sends an incorrect message to consumers -- that the products they are buying as intended to be used -- would somehow be harmful to their human health and environment," spokesperson Tim Shestek said. "We think that's misinformation."
"You can't necessarily gauge the safety of a product just by the mere presence of a chemical in there," he added. "Just the mere presence of them being in the product does not necessarily mean that the product is harmful. I think the way the bill is drafted now gives the false impression to the consumer.
Some manufacturers also have concerns about having to reveal proprietary information.
HOW DID BILL'S AUTHOR RESPOND TO CRITICS?
Lara said he intends to work with the industry to alleviate concerns about labeling.
"We already do this in food and we do this in pharmaceuticals," he said. "So, there's precedent for this."
WHICH COMPANIES SUPPORT THE BILL?
Among those favoring the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act is Jenna Arkin, a chemist for Earth Family Products.
"We really feel that ingredient transparency is extremely important to consumers," Atkins said. "I'm also a new mom. "So for me, I believe it's also important that consumers have the right to know what's in the product they are purchasing."
When asked about the difficulty for companies to identify chemical ingredients, Arkin said, "Analytical chemistry is really advanced. It's very simple to find very precise and accurate information about ingredient composition."
WHAT'S NEXT?
SB 258 passed the Environmental Quality Committee Wednesday. Upcoming votes are expected in the weeks ahead in the Labor and Industrial Relations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee.
http://www.kcra.com/article/what-you-need-to-know-about-californias-cleaning-products-bill/9205709
-
California Bill Seeks Ingredients Labels on Cleaning Products
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
California lawmakers are weighing first-time legislation to require the disclosure of chemical ingredients in cleaning products.
The Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 cleared the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality March 29 on a 5-2 vote. The bill, S.B. 258 and authored by California State Sen. Ricardo Lara (D), now heads to the Senate Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations.
If enacted, cleaning product labels would have to include ingredients and health impact information, beginning Jan. 1, 2018. Manufacturers would have to provide more detailed information about the products on their websites. Employers also would have to disclose ingredients in cleaning products they use.
No existing law requires the disclosure of cleaning product ingredients, Lara said at the committee hearing.
“Cleaning products are used in nearly every household and workplace, and they contain thousands of chemicals, many of which cause acute and chronic health problems,” he said. Some of the ingredients are toxic and have been associated with asthma, birth defects, and cancer, he said.
S.B. 258 is widely supported by environmental and labor groups, but is drawing opposition from industry.
Lara said he is forming a workgroup to collaborate with all interested parties in hopes of winning industry support.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215041&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215041&jd=108215041
-
EU Endocrine Disruptor Fights Could Lead To US Litigation
Mar 30, 2017 | Law360
By David Schwartz
There is a battle raging in the European Union on an issue that is recognized in the U.S. only by environmental scientists, policy wonks and activists: the regulatory status of endocrine disrupting chemicals.
This debate could have dramatic implications for litigation in the U.S. Such litigation could involve claims that personal care products, food, household cleaners, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceutical products and occupational exposures are “disrupting the endocrine system” and thereby giving rise to a wide variety of adverse health outcomes.
If these allegations sound wide-ranging and vague, that’s because they are. If you are the least bit science-minded, the following questions come to mind. First: What does it mean to disrupt the endocrine system? And second: What kind of adverse health outcomes have been shown to be caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals?
These unanswered questions have not prevented unfounded and wholly unscientific assertions being made in the scientific literature. For example, Leonrado Trasande (pediatrics professor at New York University School of Medicine) recently wrote: “Research has suggested a more than 99 percent probability that these chemicals contribute to disease and disability.” This in the prestigious journal Nature, no less.
He also stated in that same piece that removal of certain endocrine disrupting chemicals “could help to prevent autism and loss of cognition.” No definitions, no scientific citations.
As Geoffrey Kabat so aptly states in his post in the Genetic Literacy Project: “When activists deftly exploit public anxiety, weak but fashionable hypotheses can take on a life of their own, becoming a 'regime of truth' that cannot be questioned. However, the self-serving overstatement of what is known is not without consequences.”
Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Regulatory Landscape in Europe
The European Union has introduced specific legislative obligations aimed at phasing out EDCs in water, industrial chemicals, plant protection products and biocides. This initiative dates back to a 2012 European Commission conference (Endocrine Disruptors: Current challenges in science and policy).
The report that was issued (State of the Art of the Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors) was finalized by a contractor hired by the European Commission at the end of January 2012. A listing of substances targeted for further evaluation (as to their role as endocrine disruption) is available.
The European Commission has been working on a proposal for science-based criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals. However, there has been a great deal of dissent in the scientific community about the adequacy of the proposed criteria to define what constitutes an endocrine disrupting chemical.
For example, a group of toxicology journal editors wrote a critical editorial concluding that the commission was proposing an approach lacking “adequate scientific evidence.” Following the publication of this open letter, a number of other scientists criticized its approach in two separate responses (see here and here).
Indeed, this is a highly-politicized issue in Europe going back to the European Parliament’s involvement in the original pesticides and biocides legislation. Therefore, high-quality science does not appear to be a priority, but rather a political fix.
To illustrate the political nature of the debate, since the proposal for criteria for endocrine disrupting chemicals was initially proposed in June 2016, the European Commission has not been able to gain agreement from its members on a set of criteria. Despite numerous votes that have been scheduled, as of March 1, 2017, a final vote has not been conducted.
Indeed, on Feb. 27, 2017, ten members of the European Parliament sent a letter to the European Commission asking to preserve the exception (referred to as a “derogation”) in the European Union's proposed endocrine disrupting chemical criteria. In this letter, they argue that a change from "negligible exposure" to "negligible risk" was "scientifically more robust" and they assert that it would minimize negative impacts on international trade.
Much of the scientific debate revolves around definitions. Interestingly, some of the same authors who were critical of the conclusions made by the toxicology journal editors offered some important criticisms of their own in a subsequent paper.
In this paper, these scientists offer the following four specific scientific issues that must be addressed to understand whether specific chemicals should be considered endocrine disrupting chemicals and whether or not these chemicals have well established health risks:
The lack of rigorous and reliable definitions of termsAppropriate scientific discussion of the role of the endocrine system and the action of hormones in the bodyEstablishing sufficient evidence of harm when talking about adverse eventsTransparent and systematic methods of reviewing the endocrine disrupting chemical literature
The problems that arise from the types of issues raised in this scientific piece are highlighted in the debate surrounding the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) and attempts to replace it. For example, when parents see the words “BPA-free” on a product intended for their infants, they make assumptions about the safety of the product.
Yet, other related chemicals that may have similar properties have been used as a replacement for BPA. Thus, without rigorous and proper definitions, we may, as one journalist put it, be playing “whack-a-mole” with hazardous chemicals.
Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Regulatory Activity in the U.S.
The regulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals in the U.S. has a long history, going back to the endocrine disruptor screening program (EDSP), which began at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s. The EDSP uses a two-tiered approach to screen pesticides, chemicals and environmental contaminants for their potential effect on estrogen, androgen and thyroid hormone systems. The EDSP is outlined in two Federal Register Notices published in 1998.
In 2015, the EPA released its reviews of the Tier 1 screening assay results for the first 52 pesticide chemicals in the EDSP, and for each chemical, the agency decided whether additional (Tier 2) testing is necessary.
Risk of Endocrine Disrupting Chemical Litigation in the U.S.
If personal injury or class action litigation proceeds in the U.S., it likely will not be against endocrine disrupting chemicals as a class. Rather, it is more likely that the plaintiffs bar will begin to characterize specific chemical agents as endocrine disrupting chemicals and use U.S. and European Union regulatory actions as a basis for the fact that these chemical agents are indeed harmful to human health.
As stated at the outset, a host of chemicals can be implicated, including personal care products, food, household cleaners, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceutical products and occupational exposures. Personal injury lawsuits are already proceeding against specific pesticides that are listed by regulatory agencies (and inappropriately accepted by many scientists) as endocrine disrupting chemicals.
While it is unclear exactly what types of injuries may be pursued by the plaintiff bar, based on statements made in the published scientific literature, as well as in the popular press, allegations may range from autism to birth defects to cancer.
It will be critical, therefore, for relevant product manufacturers and potential defendants in these law suits to be ready for the coming onslaught. For example, it will be important to maintain a detailed awareness of the voluminous scientific findings relevant to putative endocrine disrupting chemicals, including published research articles, book chapters and talks at symposia and scientific meetings.David Schwartz, Ph.D., is head of scientific support to counsel at Innovative Science Solutions, where he helps clients defend and support pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, medical devices, foods and dietary supplements in the courts, the regulatory arena and the market place.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.https://www.law360.com/articles/907342/eu-endocrine-disruptor-fights-could-lead-to-us-litigation
-
Home Depot: DIY Shouldn’t Spell Danger
Mar 29, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families.
By Mike Schade
A weekend home improvement project shouldn’t expose you or your family to dangerous chemicals. But right now you can walk into The Home Depot and other stores and buy paint strippers containing dangerous chemicals.
We recently sent a letter to The Home Depot, the biggest home improvement retailer in the world, asking executives to stop selling products containing these dangerous chemicals. We also shared with them this new fact-sheet with examples of products they sell containing these chemicals of concern.
But so far, The Home Depot has not responded to our letter or the thousands of people that have contacted the company over the past week. That’s why we need your help—contact the CEO of The Home Depot now!
Tell The Home Depot to stop selling paint strippers containing toxic methylene chloride (also known as dichloromethane or DCM) and N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP).Toxic chemicals linked to cancer and developmental harm
Long-term exposure to DCM has been linked to liver toxicity as well as liver and lung cancer. But even short-term exposure to DCM can be deadly. According to OSHA, paint strippers containing DCM have been linked to more than 50 deaths nationwide since the 1980’s—many from uses like refinishing bathtubs in poorly ventilated spaces. In fact, evidence has been piling up about this risk since the 1940’s. A chemical this dangerous shouldn’t be on store shelves. Just look at what the Center for Investigative Reporting found in its must-read story:
“The California Department of Public Health…said the continuing deaths suggest methylene chloride is “too hazardous to be used outside of engineered industrial environments” — exactly what the European Union concluded about the chemical in paint strippers. While these products can be bought at home-improvement and general retail stores across the U.S., the specialty respirators and polyvinyl-alcohol gloves needed to handle them safely cannot, the Department of Public Health says.
Even workers wearing respiratory protection have succumbed. Levi Weppler, 30, who left a widow pregnant with their first child, was among those found dead with a respirator on, slumped over the Ohio bathtub he was refinishing in 2011. The cartridge-style device he used to filter the air wasn’t enough: Only a full-face respirator with a separate air supply, or exhaust ventilation to remove the fumes, is sufficient, OSHA and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health say.”
Some companies have been marketing NMP as a safer alternative to methylene chloride, but the science shows it’s a clear regrettable substitute, which is why EPA is proposing restrictions on NMP. NMP exposure puts women of childbearing age and pregnant women at risk of harm to their fetuses. It has been linked to miscarriage, fetal death, decreased birth weight, and other fetal developmental effects.
Removing paint strippers containing these toxic chemicals from The Home Depot’s shelves will protect the health of their customers, especially women of reproductive age. Plus, it will help meet the rising consumer demand for safer and healthier products.EPA proposes nationwide restrictions on toxic chemicals in paint strippers
Recently the EPA proposed largely banning these toxic chemicals from paint strippers sold to consumers under the new chemical safety law. Scientists at the agency recognize how dangerous they are. So we’re working to make sure that EPA’s proposal becomes a final regulation. But that process could take years, especially under the Trump administration, and there’s no reason for The Home Depot to keep selling products containing these dangerous chemicals in the meantime. Methylene chloride-based paint strippers may also be regulated in the State of California.Safer alternatives are available
The good news is that safer alternatives are readily available. A recent report by Clean Production Action evaluated the safety of various alternatives to methylene chloride, and concluded that “Safer alternatives to methylene chloride for use in chemical paint strippers are widely available based on assessing the hazards of eleven chemical alternatives.”
The Massachusetts Toxic Use Reduction Institute has been working for years to promote safer alternatives and has compiled other useful resources.
Two years ago the Home Depot became the first major U.S. home improvement retailer to phase out added phthalates in flooring, spurring a major market movement away from toxic phthalates. We applaud their leadership in taking action on phthalates in flooring. Just like with phthalates, these chemicals pose unnecessary risks to workers and consumers. We hope The Home Depot will show the same leadership in also phasing out toxic DCM and NMP in paint strippers.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/03/29/home-depot-diy-shouldnt-spell-danger/
-
Canada Provisionally Finds 2-Ethylhexyl 2-Ethylhexanoate Harmful
Mar 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
A Canadian draft screening assessment has found that 2-ethylhexyl 2-ethylhexanoate is harmful under section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa, 1999).
The conclusion would lead the government to designate the substance as ‘toxic’ and add it to schedule 1 of the Act, triggering regulatory action to manage the risks. Correspondingly, the authorities have published a risk management scope document.
In Canada, 2-ethylhexyl 2-ethylhexanoate is used in cosmetic products, such as face make-up and foot lotion. In contrast, its use in cosmetics is prohibited in the EU. This is because it has a mandatory category 2 reproductive toxicity classification under CLP.
The Canadian assessment proposed to find that the substance meets the section 64 criterion relating to human health, on account of its reproductive toxicity.Reporting threshold
In contrast with previous assessments, the conclusion of harm was reached despite there being no reports of manufacture or import above the reporting threshold of 100kg/year.
Earlier this month, the Canadian government reversed its draft conclusion on 73 textile dyes based specifically on the threshold. The draft assessment found that the dyes were harmful but, in the final assessment, the government decided this was not the case. Instead, it ruled that eight low molecular weight dyes with potential to harm aquatic organisms were not used commercially in Canada because none exceeded the 100kg/year reporting threshold.Next steps
The government assessed calcium 2-ethylhexanoate as part of the same draft. It concluded that the substance was not harmful under section 64 of Cepa, 1999.
Occupational exposures were outside the scope of the assessment.
The government has initiated a 60-day public comment period for the assessment and the 2-ethylhexyl 2-ethylhexanoate risk management scope document. Interested parties have until 24 May to submit comments.
The final versions are expected in March 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54769/canada-provisionally-finds-2-ethylhexyl-2-ethylhexanoate-harmful
-
Improve ‘Inefficient’ CLP Processes, Trade Bodies Say
Mar 29, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
Industry associations have criticised the European Commission’s handling of substance processing and data under the classification, labelling and packaging Regulation (CLP).
Under the Regulation, harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) processes for substances registered for approval more than ten years ago are still under evaluation, within a legal framework that has “changed extensively”, Cefic, the Chemical Industries Association (CIA) and the European Association of Chemical Distributors (Fecc) say.
Alongside other industry bodies, NGOs and member states, they have submitted comments to the European Commission’s consultation on the regulatory fitness of chemicals legislation, excluding REACH.
Cefic flags "inefficiencies” in the CLH process, regarding changes that affect the existing elements of harmonised classification and labelling in Annex VI of CLP.
Historical records on these intentions need to be made publicly available, Cefic says. Such a registry would be of “great assistance” to companies when determining their classification globally, and identifying if they hold actual new data that challenges existing Annex VI elements.
Cefic also points to "coordination problems" between the procedures for CLP classification and adjustments for the Ecolabel criteria, which sometimes requires “fast-track derogations for which no established process is currently in place".
Meanwhile, Fecc says data requirements and applicability of classification methods are especially challenging for importers of chemical mixtures. More flexibility is needed to enable better utilisation of all relevant data on mixture properties, it says.C&L inventory
Further criticism is directed at the EU's classification and labelling (C&L) inventory – under CLP, substance manufacturers and importers must notify the classification of their substances to this.
But Cefic says solutions supporting bulk notifications are not efficient, which leads to a “significant compliance burden”, and there is “no clarity” on obligations related to substances that are no longer in a company’s portfolio.
The International Molybdenum Association recently called for an inventory database cleanup to remove erroneous information and asked for notifier details to be made public. But doing this could jeopardise confidential data, Cefic’s REACH director Erwin Annys has said.
Echa, in its second five-year report on the operation of REACH and the CLP, said the Commission should consider changing the latter law to allow the sharing of contact details of notifiers and registrants and to make notifications time-limited.
Meanwhile, Echa and metals trade body Eurometaux are leading a pilot project to encourage companies to come to agreed hazard classifications for the same substance.Global problem
Lack of harmonisation permeates the global platform, the associations say. The fact that various non-EU countries “implement different building blocks” of the Globally Harmonized System of classification and labelling of chemicals (GHS) is “not sufficiently addressed” in the CLP legislation and in practice, especially in labelling, Cefic says. This means more communication is needed in the supply chain, which incurs “significant costs”.
Another sore point for businesses is duplication of procedures to satisfy similar national requirements in other parts of the world, with data submissions under South Korea's K-REACH being a case in point. "Further efforts are necessary to ensure existing work done by businesses is recognised in other global emerging regulation," the CIA says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54786/improve-inefficient-clp-processes-trade-bodies-say
-
Trump Administration Asks Court to Halt Clean Power Plan Review
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Harris and Jennifer A. Dlouhy
President Donald Trump took yet another step toward dismantling his predecessor's climate change legacy, asking a federal appeals court halt its review of carbon-emission rules for power plants ( West Virginia v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1363, motion filed 3/28/17).
Trump, who famously called climate change a hoax in a 2012 tweet, signed an executive order March 28 that starts unraveling a raft of rules and directives to combat climate change. That's now been followed by a bid to temporarily place on hold a 26-state suit challenging the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's environmental agenda—the Clean Power Plan—so the new administration can dismantle it ahead of a ruling on its legality.
The request is the strongest sign yet that the U.S. may back away from Obama's commitment to a 197-nation climate change accord, though the White House hasn't taken that step.
Asking the court to halt its review is the easy part. The next steps could be more difficult. Since the rule was finalized, the new administration can't kill it out right and instead must go through the rule-making process again to undo it, said Villanova University law professor Todd Aagaard. The Trump administration is arguing that the court shouldn't waste resources deciding the case, when the EPA plans to revise or undo the rule anyway.
“The case is not moot simply because EPA is considering undoing the Clean Power Plan,” he said. “It won't be moot unless and until EPA actually finalizes a new rule to undo the plan.”
The Environmental Protection Agency will need about a year to administratively remove the CPP from the federal regulatory landscape, while justifying that reversal, allowing for public comment and still meeting its Clean Air Act obligations. The result will almost certainly be challenged by the same green groups and states that initially defended the rule.
“The EPA cannot simply dismantle the Clean Power Plan and leave nothing in its place,” New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, said Tuesday on behalf of 18 states that intervened in the court case in support of the rule. “This is not a situation where they can just junk the regulations.”
The Obama rule was designed to limit polluting coal-fired power plants in favor of green energy, such as wind and solar. Trump's EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, has asked the court, which heard arguments over the plan's merits in September, to put the case on hold while his agency and the administration review it.
“The Clean Power Plan is under close scrutiny by the EPA, and the prior positions taken by the agency with respect to the rule do not necessarily reflect its ultimate conclusions,” the EPA said in its court filing late Tuesday.
The Republican Pruitt, while serving as Oklahoma attorney general, was one of the first officials who sued in October 2015 to strike down the former president's plan to reduce carbon emissions to 32 percent below what they were in 2005. While 27 states had been part of that effort, North Carolina—whose new governor and attorney general are both Democrats—dropped out of the case.
Not Without Risk
New York, 17 other states and the District of Columbia intervened in that suit in the plan's defense.
The Pruitt-led EPA is essentially telling the court not to bother deciding the case because the plan won't go into effect. Judges don't have to agree. Schneiderman has promised to press for a ruling, a move that is not without risk for the plan's supporters.
If the Clean Power Plan is ultimately upheld by the courts, the Trump administration would have to acknowledge that it could stick with the plan but, as a matter of policy discretion, decided not to do so, Villanova's Aagaard said.
“Of course, if either the D.C. Circuit or Supreme Court were to hold that the Clean Power Plan is invalid, EPA wouldn't even have to undertake a rule-making to kill the plan -- it would already be dead,” he said.
The plan is “legally valid,” Schneiderman said, and it's “extraordinarily unusual” for one party to say it doesn't want a ruling so far along in the case.
Roiled Industry
The Obama rule roiled the energy industry when it was unveiled in 2015. The plan dictates specific carbon-cutting targets based on the amount of greenhouse gases states released while generating electricity in 2012. It followed the EPA's landmark 2009 determination that greenhouse-gas emissions endanger the public's health and welfare.
Pruitt, who has also discounted the role of carbon dioxide as the main driver for climate change, helped lead the charge for states opposing the plan in arguing that its goal to shift power generation away from coal and toward cleaner sources would force the creation of a “new energy economy.”
First to sue, though, was West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who hailed Trump's decision to roll back the regulations. In a phone interview, Morrisey called the plan “one of the most egregious and unlawful regulations that we've seen in many many years.”
Trump campaigned on a vow to bring back coal jobs. He told a crowd in Kentucky on March 20 that the administration will turn the EPA “from a job killer into a job creator.”
The Justice Department late March 28 also asked the D.C. Circuit to halt progress in litigation over EPA's carbon standards for new power plants, which established a requirement that any new coal-fired power plant be equipped with carbon capture technology (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, motion filed 3/28/17).
The administration's request comes about three weeks before the court is scheduled to hear oral arguments over the regulation on new power plants. The Clean Air Act required the EPA to establish standards for new power plants as a prerequisite for regulating existing plants through the Clean Power Plan.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215035&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215035&jd=108215035
-
Greens Plan Legal Battle, Protests In Wake Of Trump's Order
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess and Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmentalists and their allies are strategizing how to fight the Trump administration's assault on climate regulations in the courtroom and the court of public opinion.
A White House official acknowledged in a Monday briefing that lawsuits would likely result from efforts to halt or rescind rules, including U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan, potentially delaying their removal by years.
The Justice Department has already asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to pause litigation over the Clean Power Plan while the agency reviews it. States and environmental groups defending the rule said today they plan to challenge the move in court (E&E News PM, March 28).
Ann Weeks, senior legal counsel at the Clean Air Task Force, previewed green groups' position during a call with reporters today.
She argued that legal issues in the Clean Power Plan lawsuit are important to resolve whether or not the Obama administration's regulation survives at EPA.
"They're fundamental legal issues that, in fact, the administration should want the answers to before moving forward with another rulemaking," she said.
Weeks also noted that freezing the litigation would not conserve judicial resources, which have largely already been spent on hours of oral arguments and voluminous legal briefs.
Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger agreed, arguing that even though the rule is on hold, debate over the Clean Power Plan is still a "live controversy" for purposes of judicial review.
"And there's no reason for the court to put this decision off just because the government says it might want to change the rules," he said. "The government always has the option to change rules, but that isn't reason not to decide cases about rules that are already on the books."
Supporters of the Clean Power Plan are expected to file their formal opposition to DOJ's request to halt the litigation late next week.
Some court watchers have expressed skepticism about the approach, saying courts are not inclined to weigh in on a rule the administration is reconsidering (Energywire, March 29).
As for direct challenges to Trump's executive order, Sierra Club attorney Joanne Spalding noted that a coalition of groups filed suit today over part of the order that ends the Obama administration's moratorium on new coal leasing on federal lands. Spalding did not mention any other potential challenges to the order itself.'Take to the streets'
Green groups are also promising that President Trump will witness public opposition and protests against his actions this week.
"The best way to fight against these executive orders is to take to the streets," May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, said yesterday in a statement.
On April 29, activists will march from the Capitol to the White House, ending on the grounds of the Washington Monument. In an event dubbed the "Peoples Climate March," they aim to bring more than 100,000 demonstrators to Washington.
"From the upcoming congressional recess through the Peoples Climate March and beyond, we'll be putting pressure on lawmakers to defend the climate and building power to stop the fossil fuel industry for good," Boeve said.
Robert Verchick, president of the Center for Progressive Reform, noted that Trump's order "goes against the will of the American people."
The latest polling from Gallup on the environment shows a record number of Americans sounding the alarm about global warming.
Telephone interviews conducted March 1-5 with a random sample of 1,018 adults living in all 50 states show half the public categorized as "concerned believers" on climate change — a new high, up from 37 percent in 2015. The poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.
"Unfortunately, instead of listening to the public, President Trump has made endangering our health and lives a key priority of his administration," Verchick said.
National League of Cities President Matt Zone, a council member from Cleveland, said cities would continue leading the fight against global warming even if Washington will not.
"Local leaders are on the front lines of the fight against climate change every day, and we will continue to advocate for ambitious policies that address this global crisis, spur action at the local level and support our cities," Zone said.
The director of the American Lung Association's Healthy Air campaign joined leaders from the Catholic Climate Covenant, Consumers Union and the American Security Project yesterday for a call decrying the executive order.
Retired Brig. Gen. Stephen Cheney spoke to the "many benefits" of the Clean Power Plan, including mitigating greenhouse gases and furthering the transition to renewable energy. Most important, Cheney suggested, engaging on climate "maintains our leadership."
Cheney said the American Security Project will "always engage" in the rulemaking process, echoing remarks from public health, religion and consumer advocates.
http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/03/29/stories/1060052306
-
America's Gas Trade Is ‘LNG on Tinder’ as Cargoes Seek Buyers
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik
Ships laden with natural gas from America's shale basins are playing the dating game, taking the long way to Asia in an apparent search for buyers as seasonal demand drops.
Instead of taking a shortcut to China through the newly-expanded Panama Canal, the tanker Clean Planet sailed through Egypt after leaving Cheniere Energy Inc.’s Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana last month. Three other ships may taking a similar route, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Though the move makes the voyage almost a third longer, exporters may be able to turn a bigger profit by finding takers for these cargoes in Europe and the Middle East.
The shift to “slow steam” ships comes as spring begins in the Northern Hemisphere, spurring a seasonal slide in gas demand before hot weather boosts consumption by power plants. It's a development that underscores the flexibility of U.S. liquefied natural gas, which can be sent anywhere depending on market needs—a departure for a global industry dominated by shipments contracted for specific ports.
“You're trolling for buyers, you're keeping your options open, like LNG on Tinder,” said Madeline Jowdy, senior director of global gas and LNG at Pira Energy Group in New York. “There's really a swapping opportunity” for Chinese-bound cargoes to fill immediate demand that crops up, leaving another ship making the delivery to China instead.
Sailing by Europe and the Middle East via the Suez Canal and past South Asia boosts the number of potential customers to 30 from two, she said.
The Clean Planet tanker doesn't appear to have attracted an alternate suitor. The ship passed Singapore and was heading north into the South China Sea on March 28 with its destination still listed as the Zhuhai import terminal in China, according to vessel tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
The voyage east from the Gulf Coast to Shanghai is 3,773 nautical miles more than the trip through the Panama Canal, taking nine days longer and adding 34 cents per million British thermal units to an LNG cargo's price, said Anastacia Dialynas, an analyst at BNEF in New York. That includes a 2-cent premium to go through the Suez Canal.
The Palu LNG is another LNG tanker taking the scenic route. It recently made a delivery to India by skipping the Suez Canal and going around Africa's Cape of Good Hope instead, adding about 1,244 miles and three days, Dialynas said.
Three other tankers may be eschewing Panama for the Suez, she said. They include the Gaslog Skagen, which is in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Golar Kelvin in the Mediterranean, and the Oak Spirit in the Atlantic.
—With assistance from Dave Merrill.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215018&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215018&jd=108215018
-
Pennsylvania Sues Townships Over Frack Well Bans
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas
Pennsylvania has sued two townships that voted to ban the storage of wastewater from shale-gas drilling within their borders, arguing that regulation of wastewater is the state's responsibility (Pa. Dept Envtl. Protection v. Grant Twp, Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 126 M.D. 2017, Memo filed 3/27/17and Pa. Dept Envtl. Protection v. Highland Twp., Pa. Commw. Ct., No. 123 MD 2017, filed 3/27/17).
The two cases could revisit issues raised in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's landmark Robinson Township decision, which invalidated portions of the state's oil and gas regulations that preempted local zoning codes.
The Pennsylvania Department of Protection March 27 asked the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to invalidate the home rule charters of Grant Township, Indiana County, and Highland Township, Indiana County, because they both ban brine, “frack water,” flowback, tailings or other waste by-products of oil and gas drilling in the townships.
Pennsylvania argues the township's home rule charters are unconstitutional because they would impose fines on the department for carrying out its permitting obligations under the state's Oil and Gas Act, the state said. The state also asked for a preliminary injunction against the townships.
Pennsylvania on the same day issued a permit to Pennsylvania General Energy Co., to operate a well in Grant township.
Federal courts in the past have ruled against various efforts from Grant township to stop fracking activities.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215031&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215031&jd=108215031
-
Dow Wraps up Construction on ‘Crown Jewel’ of Expansion Plans
Mar 30, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
Dow Chemical has completed construction on a giant ethane cracker plant it calls the “crown jewel” of its $6 billion expansion plans in the Gulf Coast region.
Dow says the “world-scale production unit, with a nameplate capacity of 1.5 million metric tons…is designed to strengthen the competitiveness of its downstream consumer-led businesses.”
The cracker plant will produce ethylene, one of the primary building blocks of most plastics.
Like many new construction projects in the Gulf Coast area and in Texas specifically, the plant will take advantage of low-cost and abundant natural gas in the region.
Dow’s plant is one of many new ethane cracker plants in the works in Texas. France-based Total just announced this week that it plans to invest $1.7 billion in a petrochemical joint venture in Texas that will include an ethane steam cracker plant in Port Arthur. That project is expected to create at least 1,500 local jobs and start in 2020.
Meanwhile, Occidental Petroleum, ExxonMobil and Chevron Phillips Chemical are all in midst of building ethane cracker and other plastics plants in Texas.
Dow says its new ethylene plant will come online throughout this year and 2018.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/03/dow-wraps-construction-crown-jewel-expansion-plans
-
Trump's Climate Order Didn't Touch Several Obama-Era Programs
Mar 30, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The Trump administration rolled back many of its predecessor's signature climate change measures with an energy-focused executive order, but the order was notably silent on several Obama-era climate programs that don't affect the energy industry.
Trump's March 28 order either rescinded or began the process of rescinding numerous regulations on power plants, oil and gas drillers, coal miners and others in the energy sector.
But his executive order left untouched several other Obama-launched initiatives meant to combat climate change. These include measures that affect the chemicals, waste management, agriculture and aviation industries, and some of these measures impose significant costs on those industries.
The fact that Trump is willing to let these Obama-era measures stand—at least for now—indicates his White House may be taking a less dogmatic stance toward climate change than one would expect, given the many statements of climate skepticism that have come from administration officials and from the president himself.
The Trump administration did not respond on the record to a request for comment for this story.
Chemicals
The executive order leaves intact the Obama administration's ban on a type of refrigerant chemical called hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. These chemicals were targeted in Obama's 2013 Climate Action Plan because, while they are a small contributor to climate change, they are also highly potent greenhouse gasses that trap 1,000 times more heat in the atmosphere than the same amount of carbon dioxide.
The ban's exclusion from the executive order comes as little surprise, since just weeks earlier Trump administration attorneys went to court to defend it against a legal challenge from HFC manufacturers (Mexichem Fluor Inc. v. EPA, No. 15-01328 (D.C. Cir. 2/17/17)).
David Doniger, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Trump's defense of his predecessor's HFC ban betrays the White House's contradictory stance toward the issue of a warming planet.
“They seemed to a draw distinction: ‘Climate change is a hoax when it involves the energy industry, but not a hoax when it involves the chemicals industry,’” Doniger said at a March 22 D.C. Bar panel discussion.
Landfills
Though Trump's executive order took aim at a number of regulations on methane emissions, it didn't address a particular regulation on methane emissions from landfills that the Environmental Protection Agency finalized last year. The waste management industry is challenging this regulation in federal court, arguing that its emissions thresholds are too difficult to meet (Nat'l Waste and Recycling Ass'n v. EPA, No. 16-01371 (D.C. Cir. 10/27/16)).
The lead plaintiffs in this case said they didn't anticipate the Trump administration to pull back this EPA landfill rule in his executive order.
“There wasn't a big expectation on our part,” Anne Germain, a director with the National Waste and Recycling Association, told Bloomberg BNA. “The president is really trying to focus [deregulation efforts] on energy production and isn't targeting methane holistically.”
Aviation
Significantly, Trump's executive order did not instruct the EPA to rescind its 2009 finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, a landmark document that laid the basis for nearly all of the agency's climate regulations during the Obama era.
The order also did not nullify a much narrower EPA finding from last year on the pollution effects of greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes. This finding triggers a legal requirement that the EPA establish limits on airplane emissions.
The aviation industry has come out in favor of imposing these regulations on its own planes. It wants U.S. rules on greenhouse gases to be harmonized with soon-to-be-established international standards, which the industry will have to comply with regardless of what Trump's EPA does.
Agriculture
The executive order also gave no indication that Trump will put a halt to the work federal agencies have been doing on promoting biogas generation, another of the priorities listed in Obama's Climate Action Plan.
Since 2014, the EPA has been working with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy to help livestock farmers turn the waste from their animals into biogas fuel, rather than allowing it to decompose into climate-harming methane. A joint 2014 report from the agencies laid out a plan to promote this practice by allocating loans to farmers and grants to biogas researchers, among other measures.
Patrick Serfass, head of the trade group American Biogas Council, said his emerging industry was likely excluded from the executive order because of many other economic benefits to biogas generation, aside from reducing methane emissions.
“We don't have to talk about the climate benefits to make a really compelling point as to why it's important,” he told Bloomberg BNA. “We've stopped using our climate-related messages because the other ones are resonating more.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=108215030&vname=dennotallissues&fn=108215030&jd=108215030
-
Pruitt Woos Conservatives On GHG Risk Finding But Offers No Firm Promise
Mar 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is offering assurances to his most conservative critics that he is committed to scuttling numerous Obama-era climate policies -- while leaving the door open to efforts to repeal the agency's landmark greenhouse gas endangerment finding -- after a conservative columnist called for his resignation because of a lack of action so far on the finding.
In a March 28 interview with Breitbart -- the hard-line conservative news outlet formerly run by White House chief strategist Steve Bannon -- Pruitt said he will eventually respond to petitions that have been filed seeking to roll back the GHG endangerment finding, the legal basis for EPA's climate rules and an effective requirement of the Supreme Court's ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.
“I think that if there are petitions for reconsideration for the [endangerment finding], we’ll have to address those at some point,” Pruitt said in the interview. “Our objective, and our role, is to do what the law requires.”
He does not mention that there are currently as many as three petitions pending at the agency to reconsider the landmark risk finding.
Pruitt's comments underscore the political and legal awkwardness of President Donald Trump's executive order to review or scrap numerous climate policies, such as EPA's Clean Power Plan, but not the endangerment finding.
Many of the administration's most conservative supporters are concerned that the order does not go far enough in calling for officials to reconsider the endangerment finding, fearing it will undercut administration efforts to rescind climate rules.
Many observers have long asserted that the Clean Air Act still obligates the agency to act on GHGs even in the absence of the regulations Trump is seeking to roll back, meaning that the conservatives' hope of scrapping the GHG risk finding might be legally infeasible.
One of those critics, Breitbart columnist James Delingpole in a March 27 column argued that Pruitt should resign if he cannot follow through with efforts to scrap the finding.
He cited reports that Pruitt resisted including a reference to the endangerment finding in the executive order and suggested that he may have done so because he wants to appear more moderate as he is interested in running for the Senate seat expected to be vacated by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK).
Awkward Line
Pruitt in the interview with Breitbart emphasizes themes likely to appeal to a conservative audience amid an ongoing Senate confirmation battle over Trump's Supreme Court pick, defending “EPA originalism,” defined as adhering to Congress' original authorities.
Pruitt also touts plans to rein in alleged agency overreach. “We’re going to roll it back, those things that were unlawful, we’re going to roll back those things that were an overreach, we’re going to roll back the steps taken by the previous administration.”
Pruitt has walked an awkward public line on the GHG finding even while repeatedly criticizing specific Obama climate change programs, suggesting during his Senate confirmation process that getting rid of the finding is not a priority.
At the time, Pruitt did not rule out any EPA action on the issue but called the finding the “law of the land,” appearing to offer a political shield to lawmakers that they would not be branded climate skeptics simply for voting for him.
But since his confirmation, Pruitt declared in a CNBC interview that carbon dioxide is not a “primary contributor” to global warming, sparking widespread blowback from scientists and others and appearing to refute the EPA finding.
His Breitbart interview also wades into non-climate topics, including a stated goal of refocusing the agency away from climate change and on to 1,300 Superfund sites that have lingered on the agency's National Priorities List.
That goal, however, appears to clash with preliminary Trump administration budget requests that would impose a massive 31 percent cut on the agency and appears to include significant cuts to both Superfund and brownfields programs, based upon analysis by former EPA employees.
Sources outside the agency say they believe that Pruitt has successfully fought off some proposed brownfields-related cuts, but that budget threats in those areas remain.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/pruitt-woos-conservatives-ghg-risk-finding-offers-no-firm-promise
-
Delaware Sues EPA Over Delay Responding To Interstate Ozone Petition
Mar 29, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Stuart Parker
Delaware is suing EPA over its decision to delay a response to the state's Clean Air Act petition asking the agency to regulate emissions from a Pennsylvania power plant that Delaware says are hindering its ability to attain federal ozone standards, part of the First State's growing push to force EPA action on reducing upwind air pollution.
The suit filed March 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit challenges EPA's Jan. 23 decision to extend from Feb. 5 until Aug. 3 the agency's deadline to respond to the state's petition for it to directly regulate ozone-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions from the Conemaugh Generating Station, located in Indiana County, PA.
The petition submitted to EPA Nov. 28 is one of four such requests that Delaware has filed under section 126 of the air law, which allows states to ask EPA to directly regulate emissions sources that compromise attainment of national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) downwind.
Delaware says out-of-state emissions account for up to 94 percent of its ozone levels and are hindering its ability to meet the agency's 2008 ozone standard of 75 parts per billion (ppb) as well as the stricter 70 ppb ozone NAAQS issued in late 2015. The petition on the Conemaugh Generating Station claims that the facility “significantly contributes” to Delaware's nonattainment of both ozone standards.
A state official says the suit to force a response on the petition “is part of the bigger picture” of trying to reduce upwind pollution in order to help the state meet ozone NAAQS. The source notes that section 126 petitions are just “one tool in the toolbox” among others to help curb interstate air emissions.
While section 126 sets an initial 60-day deadline for responding to petitions, it gives EPA authority to extend that deadline. The agency in a Jan. 23 Federal Register notice said that it was extending the deadline to early August because “the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to complete the necessary technical review, develop an adequate proposal, and allow time for notice and comment, including an opportunity for public hearing.” Nor could EPA respond to public comment on the issue in such a short time, EPA said.
But the state source says EPA lacks a legal basis for its decision, arguing that the authority to extend the deadline only applies once the agency has issued a proposed response to the petition -- something EPA has not done. “They have no proposal. They did nothing, other than to extend the deadline,” the source says.
States' Petitions
Although EPA has issued similar deadline extensions to respond to section 126 petitions before, the state source claims those were also based on flawed legal claims. Delaware missed filing deadlines to challenge those decisions, but “just because it has not happened before” does not mean a lawsuit cannot happen now, the source says.
Delaware's other section 126 petitions target the Brunner Island, PA, power plant, filed July 7, Harrison Power Station, WV, filed Aug. 8, and the Homer City, PA, power plant, filed Nov. 10.
Connecticut also filed a petition June 1 over emissions from the Brunner Island plant, and when EPA failed to act on the petition by an extended deadline of Jan. 25, the state and Sierra Club issued the agency notices of intent to sue (NOIs) on March 9 and 10, both giving EPA 60 days' notice of their intent to file suit to force a response.
The Delaware source says such a suit “would be a viable option for us as well,” and that the state is “not done yet” issuing section 126 petitions targeting out-of-state sources of ozone air pollution.
Other states also have section 126 petitions outstanding, with Maryland petitioning EPA Nov. 16 asking the agency to directly regulate 36 electric generating units in five states.
Further, the town of Elliot, ME, filed a petition in 2013 targeting sulfur dioxide emissions from Schiller Station power plant in New Hampshire. While EPA has not responded formally to that petition, the agency did address issues related to the power plant's air operating permit in the context of an objection to the permit sought by Sierra Club, and agreed to additional air monitoring in the town.
But the state source says section 126 petitions offer only a partial solution to addressing the problem of interstate air pollution. “This will not be an adequate way of doing it,” the source says.
OTC Expansion
In another effort to address interstate ozone pollution, nine member states of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC), a 12-state area in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic where tougher pollution controls apply than elsewhere, are petitioning EPA under air law section 176(A) to expand the OTC zone to another nine states.
However, the agency has already proposed to deny the move. A public hearing on the issue, originally scheduled for March 14, has now been rescheduled for April 13.
There is considerable skepticism among East Coast states that the Trump EPA will address interstate ozone transport as the Obama EPA attempted to with its Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) emissions trading system. CSAPR does not apply to the 2015 ozone standard of 70 ppb, and so far EPA has issued computer modeling on the “significant contribution” of upwind states to problems meeting this standard, but no regulation. EPA is taking public comment on the Jan. 6 notice of data availability on this issue through April 6.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/delaware-sues-epa-over-delay-responding-interstate-ozone-petition
-
DOE Climate Office Bans Use Of Phrase 'Climate Change'
Mar 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Eric Wolf
A supervisor at the Energy Department's international climate office told staff this week not to use the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction," or "Paris Agreement" in written memos, briefings or other written communications, sources have told POLITICO.
Employees of DOE’s Office of International Climate and Clean Energy learned of the ban at a meeting Tuesday, the same day President Donald Trump signed an executive order at EPA headquarters to reverse most of former President Barack Obama's climate regulatory initiatives. Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list, but they had started avoiding climate-related terms in their memos and briefings given the new administration's direction on climate change.
ICCE is the only office at DOE with the words "climate" in its name, and it may be endangered as Trump looks to reorganize government agencies. It plays a key role in U.S. participation in the Clean Energy Ministerial and Mission Innovation, two international effortslaunched under Obama that were designed to advance clean energy technology.
The ICCE office has regular contact with officials from foreign countries, whichmay have led to the more aggressive action on language than in other offices, a source said. At the meeting, senior officials told staff the words would cause a "visceral reaction" with Energy Secretary Rick Perry, his immediate staff, and the cadre of White House advisers at the top of the department.
A DOE spokeswoman denied there had been a new directive. "No words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the Department,” said DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler.
Another DOE source in a different office said that although there had been no formal instructions about climate-related language in their office there was a general sense that it's better to avoid certain hot-button terms in favor of words like "jobs" and "infrastructure."
A State Department official reported a similar mood.
"We have definitively not received anything on banned words, not even orally," the State official said. "But people are doing a lot of reading into tea leaves. People are taking their own initiatives to not use certain words based on hints from transition people. Everyone is encouraged to finding different ways of talking about things. There's a sense that you'd better find a way to delink" from the previous administration's talking points.
News of the DOE office's word ban drew criticism from one green group.
“What exactly is this office supposed to call itself now? The international C****** office? Ignoring the climate crisis will not make it go away, will not create jobs in the booming clean energy economy, and will not make our country great," Liz Perera, climate policy director at Sierra Club, said in a statement.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/03/climate-change-banned-at-doe-office-154699
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