Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 3/30/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Export Outlook: Expected to Soar as Shale Strengthens Industry
Mar 30, 2017 | Industry Week
By Steve Minter
As Zacks noted in a recent research note, the U.S. chemical industry is “in the process of gradual healing after being badly shaken by the Great Recession.” -
(ACC Mentioned) Got Plastic Bags? WRAP Aims to Step Up Recycling Education
Mar 30, 2017 | The Newtown Bee
By John Voket
Public Works Director Fred Hurley, who oversees Newtown’s landfill operations and the local recycling program among his duties, recalls how almost 40 years ago, light plastic bags and food wrappers were causing a big headache. -
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Back TSCA Prioritization Proposal But Seek Tweaks
Mar 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups are generally supportive of EPA's proposal for how it will prioritize the thousands of existing chemicals for risk evaluation, and appear largely joined by California's environmental agency, though they are recommending tweaks to EPA's approach, while industry groups are outlining their concerns with the agency's proposal. -
TSCA Pre-Prioritisation Affords Safer Alternatives Opportunities, Says EPA
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s Jeff Morris says that the TSCA pre-prioritisation process will afford the chemicals industry a “tremendous opportunity” to determine early on whether it should pursue safer alternatives for substances of potential concern. -
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Amendment: Upcoming Inventory Rule
Mar 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Jennifer A. Van Wie
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Amendment), which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was signed into law. -
EPA Releases Inventory Report of Mercury Supply, Use, and Trade in the U.S.
Mar 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued in the Federal Register a notice releasing its initial inventory report of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States pursuant to Section 8(b)(9)(10) of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
Echa Draft Substitution Strategy Due by the Summer
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa expects to complete a draft of its strategy on substitution by the summer, with the final version slated for the end of the year. -
Echa Round-Up
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The agency has received three newly submitted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossiers for: -
Trump Ignores Science with Executive Order Dismantling Clean Power Plan
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chellie Pingree
In 1953, the CEOs of the country’s largest cigarette companies met at the Plaza Hotel in New York to talk through an impending crisis. -
What Trump's Order Means for CRA, Litigation on BLM Rule
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and Ellen M. Gilmer
Efforts to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule under the Congressional Review Act are not dead following President Trump's "energy independence" executive order, the American Council for Capital Formation said yesterday. -
Pipeline Foes Challenge 'Stale' Environmental Review
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are taking the Trump administration to court over the recent approval of the Keystone XL pipeline. -
The White House’s Claim That the Carbon Emissions Rule ‘Could Cost Up to $39 Billion a Year’
Mar 30, 2017 | Washington Post
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
President Trump has started rolling back Obama-era environmental protections, including directing federal regulators to rewrite federal rules to reduce carbon emissions. -
Change Isn't a Spectator Sport: Renewable Energy Can Happen Without Washington
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Matt Tomich
You don't have to invoke any new political divisions to explain President Trump's roll-back of Obama's Clean Power Plan or his reversal of Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. -
US Osha May Delay Submitting Regulatory Plans for 2017
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) may need to delay submitting its regulatory plans for this year as it waits for the head of the US Department of Labor to be confirmed. -
Officials Blame Mechanical Failure for Explosion at Dow Plant
Mar 30, 2017 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
An investigation into a 2016 explosion at a Massachusetts chemical plant that seriously injured four employees has pinpointed a culprit for the accident. -
Energy Department Tells Staff Not to Use Phrase 'Climate Change': Report
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Briefing Room Blog
By Brooke Seipel
Staffers at the Department of Energy's (DOE) international climate office have been asked to stop using the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" and "Paris Agreement," Politico reported Wednesday. -
EPA Mistakenly Criticizes Trump’s Executive Order
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apologized Thursday after mistakenly sending a news release that criticized President Trump’s executive order on climate change policies.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) US Chemical Export Outlook: Expected to Soar as Shale Strengthens Industry
Mar 30, 2017 | Industry Week
By Steve Minter
As Zacks noted in a recent research note, the U.S. chemical industry is “in the process of gradual healing after being badly shaken by the Great Recession.” The healing continued in February, when the most recent Chemical Activity Barometer, published by the American Chemistry Council, showed a 0.4% increase. Year over year, the CAB is 5.0% higher than in February 2016.
Not only was there improvement in all the production indicators but exports of chemicals were also on the increase. Given that the CAB is considered a leading indicator for the U.S. economy, the council said it “continues to hint at gains in U.S. business activity through the third quarter.”
Last fall, Moody’s Investors Service raised its outlook for the North American and EMEA chemicals industry to stable from negative. The agency said earnings are likely to rise through next year as the industry benefits from cost-cutting and acquisitions, as well as from global economic growth.
"The upward outlook revision for the North American and EMEA chemicals industry is based on diminished global macro risks, the still-strong performance of diversified and specialty chemical companies, and the apparent bottoming of several commodity chemicals," says Moody's analyst, Joseph Princiotta. "Diversified and specialty producers should continue to see above-average earnings, while most other chemicals companies will post at least breakeven results over the next few months."
U.S. chemical production was off by 0.4% in 2016, according to the Federal Reserve. The American Chemistry Council expects chemical production, excluding pharmaceuticals, to grow 3.6% this year and 4.8% in 2018. Kevin Swift, ACC’s chief economist, said “affordable and abundant supplies of natural gas” will continue to offset “significant headwinds, including an overall drop in business investment, a rebalancing in the oil and gas sector, soft export markets and a high dollar.”
According to the ACC, output gains in 2016 were led by agricultural chemicals, coatings and other specialties, as well as bulk petrochemicals and organics and plastic resins, all areas aided by renewed competitiveness arising from shale gas. Advances in manufacturing and exports during 2017 and beyond will drive increased demand for basic chemicals and improving manufacturing activity is expected to support growth for most specialty segments.
Of course, the chemical industry is a hugely important sector for the U.S. economy. According to government data, the industry has more than 10,000 firms that produce more than 70,000 products. In 2015, the U.S. chemical industry had sales of nearly $800 billion and directly employed more than 810,000 workers. It also supports more than 2.6 million workers in its supply chain. By 2020, ACC projects, the industry will have sales of more than $1 trillion.
Exports Fueled by Shale Revolution
In 2015, the chemical manufacturing sector had $184 billion in exports, accounting for 14% of all U.S. exports. According to the ACC, chemical industry exports are expected to increase an average of 7% through 2021.
Top Destinations for US Chemical Exports in 2015 (in millions)
What is driving export growth for the chemicals industry? Among the factors are the energy revolution in the U.S., with shale gas playing a critical role. Exports of chemicals linked to shale gas are projected to reach $123 billion by 2030, notes ACC, more than double the total in 2014. That will drive the trade surplus from these chemicals to increase from $19.5 billion to $48.3 billion by 2030.
Companies are investing in facilities that will add more than 100 million metric tons (MMT) of new capacity to the U.S. chemical industry by 2025, according to research from IHS. “Much of that new capacity will be converted to plastics, significantly increasing the U.S. net export position for these materials,” IHS states.
U.S. facilities will be increasing production of ethylene, propylene, methanol, ammonia and their derivatives, such as plastics and fertilizer, IHS noted. This domestic fertilizer production will replace imports from South America, the Black Sea and the Middle East. The U.S. shale gas impact on liquid bulk chemicals is “less pronounced than for solids but still significant,” the firm states in its report, IHS Chemical U.S. Bulk Chemical Export Expansion Analysis.
Recent production additions have resulted in a 10 million metric ton (MMT) increase in bulk liquid chemicals in the last year, and by 2025, U.S. bulk liquid chemical additions will expand by more than 25 MMT, IHS Chemical said. The most notable bulk liquid chemical additions will be in methanol.
“Chemical producers are clearly looking to take advantage of continued low natural gas prices in the U.S., which is enabling the significant expansion of these methane-based projects,” said Chris Geisler, director, chemical consulting at IHS Chemical and author of the analysis. “With so many projects coming online, this phenomenal growth is changing the global trade landscape. Currently, the U.S. is a major importer of methanol, but by 2018, the U.S. will be a major net exporter of methanol, which is a significant shift for the U.S. industry.”
IHS says the vast majority of new olefin chemical production will be converted to solid plastic resins and exported. With the exceptions of the ammonia and fertilizer production chains, it says, the vast majority of expansion will be centered in Texas and Louisiana.
“Solid fertilizer and plastics trade will change substantially in the U.S., as well as bulk liquids trade for products such as caustic soda, methanol and ethylene glycol,” IHS’s Geisler said. “This capacity expansion means there will be significant uptick in chemical trade activity and logistics considerations for not only producers and traders, but also the key ports, terminals and logistics providers, primarily on the Texas and Louisiana Gulf Coast.”
“As these chemical products expand, we expect to see increased marine, rail and truck traffic, primarily in the U.S. Gulf Coast, but possibly later, that activity will expand to several of the East and West Coast ports and terminals,” said Geisler.
With more than 275 new chemical production projects announced since 2010 with a total value of more than $170 billion, ACC’s Swift says, “The United States remains the place for chemical companies to invest.” Capital spending in the industry surged 21.0% in 2015, reaching nearly $44 billion, and accounting for more than one-half of total construction spending by the manufacturing sector.
By 2021, ACC forecasts, capital spending will reach $70 billion, contributing to four consecutive years of job growth in the industry.
http://www.industryweek.com/trade/us-chemical-export-outlook-expected-soar-shale-strengthens-industry
-
(ACC Mentioned) Got Plastic Bags? WRAP Aims to Step Up Recycling Education
Mar 30, 2017 | The Newtown Bee
By John Voket
Public Works Director Fred Hurley, who oversees Newtown’s landfill operations and the local recycling program among his duties, recalls how almost 40 years ago, light plastic bags and food wrappers were causing a big headache.
“Right after they built the first regional trash-to-energy plant in Bridgeport, they had issues with light plastics getting caught up in the machinery and causing everything from breakdowns to fires to even a couple of explosions,” he said. “Even 40 years ago, light plastic films and bags were a problem for the trash industry.”
According to Sherill Baldwin, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection’s WRAP coordinator, light plastics are still playing havoc on crews and machinery at waste sorting facilities across the state. Add to that results of a statewide survey of consumers, which found most people in Connecticut are not aware of where and what to recycle, and an opportunity presented itself.
Those factors led the DEEP to initiate Connecticut WRAP (Wrap Recycling Action Project), an innovative public/private partnership that promotes recycling of plastic “film” beyond bags. The partnership comprises public officials, municipalities, recycling officials, retailers, and grocers including all three of Newtown’s grocery stores, plastics makers, and a company called Trex, which makes recycled plastic lumber products, and other recycling advocates.
Grocers and retailers — including Newtown’s Stop & Shop, Caraluzzi’s Market, and Big Y — accept everything from plastic grocery bags, newspaper bags, produce bags, bread bags, dry cleaning bags, and even zipper bags for recycling. They also accept plastic wraps from water bottle cases, diapers, bathroom tissue, and paper towels, as well as bubble wrap and shipping pillows.
The only condition is these plastic bags and wraps must be clean and dry and placed in easy-to-identify storefront recycling bins. Then, through the WRAP program, these plastic bags and wraps get recycled into products such as new grocery bags, benches, and decking.
About a month ago, DEEP Commissioner Rob Klee was joined at a Middletown grocery store by State Senator Ted Kennedy and State Representative Mike Demicco, two of the co-chairs of the General Assembly’s Environment Committee, who spoke about the importance of increasing plastics recycling.
They revealed that a recent survey of Connecticut residents found that only half are aware that certain plastic items should be brought to grocery or retail stores to ensure proper recycling. Plus, few residents are aware of the various types of plastic bags and wraps that can be recycled.
They also made note of the challenges improperly recycled flimsy plastics can pose to the heavy machinery and personnel who sort recycling.
“When plastic bags or wraps are put in curbside bins, it makes recycling more difficult, time consuming, and expensive, which winds up costing all of us more money,” Mr Klee noted. “Recycling plastic bags and wraps at participating retailers diverts materials from the landfill and creates useful new products. This supports the state goal of diverting 60 percent of our trash from the waste stream by 2024.”
“We’re asking everybody in Connecticut to spread the message, pitch in, and recycle plastic bags and wraps by taking them back to participating stores,” said Sen Kennedy. Rep Demicco added that he hopes “Connecticut can be a leader in recycling and a role model for other states.”
With the recycling of flexible plastic film becoming one of the fastest growing areas of recycling, last June the state sought and initiated a partnership with the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Flexible Film Recycling Group (FFRG), Ms Baldwin said.
The DEEP WRAP coordinator said recapturing and recycling more plastic bags and flexible film packaging materials will accomplish a number of immediate and long-term goals.
Consumers who take the extra effort to collect applicable plastic film and bags will contribute toward reducing solid waste disposal costs, reducing the contamination of other materials contained in single-stream recycling bins, and will create jobs.
A major focus of the new partnership will be to increase voluntary participation in the recycling of plastic bags, wraps, and other film packaging at supermarkets, grocery stores, and other retail locations. Encouraging Connecticut’s retailers to offer this opportunity — and building greater public awareness of it — will reduce the volume of plastic bags and film inappropriately deposited in curbside recycling containers.
“Cleaning up our single stream recycling and making our recyclables more marketable is a very high priority,” said Mr Klee. “Plastic bags and other film packaging are recyclable and have real value — just not in our curbside bins. Residents should bring plastic bags and other polyethylene film material to participating retailers, such as grocery stores, which have established collection programs to maintain the quality of film for recycling. Our partnership with ACC’s WRAP program will strengthen that recycling network and make more people aware of it.”
Recycled polyethylene film can be used to manufacture products such as durable outdoor lumber for decks and fences, and new packaging materials.
Connecticut follows Wisconsin and North Carolina in becoming the third state partner of WRAP. Successful WRAP initiatives can be seen in the states of Washington and Wisconsin, which have demonstrated that greater awareness of store drop-off programs helps reduce film contamination in curbside bins and at local materials recovery facilities (MRFs).
In Vancouver, Wash., the WRAP campaign helped to more than double collection of plastic film packaging through return-to-retail recycling programs, according to a new case study conducted with the City of Vancouver’s Environmental Resources Division. The study also found a 75 percent decrease in plastic bag contamination at a local MRF.
Nationally, plastic film recycling collection has increased by 79 percent since 2005. At least 1.17 billion pounds of postconsumer film was recovered in 2014, and the recycling rate grew to 17 percent.
The FFRG, a collaboration working to double the recycling of post-use polyethylene film by 2020, represents materials suppliers, brand owners, manufacturers, and recyclers. In Connecticut, partners include waste authorities, municipalities, recycling processors, haulers, and retailers.
https://newtownbee.com/got-bags-wrap-aims-to-step-up-recycling-education/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Environmentalists Back TSCA Prioritization Proposal But Seek Tweaks
Mar 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Environmental groups are generally supportive of EPA's proposal for how it will prioritize the thousands of existing chemicals for risk evaluation, and appear largely joined by California's environmental agency, though they are recommending tweaks to EPA's approach, while industry groups are outlining their concerns with the agency's proposal.
The stakeholders' comments were submitted before a March 20 deadline in response to EPA's Jan. 17 proposal, which lays out a four-step process for implementing a mandate under the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that the agency screen existing chemicals as either high- or low-priority for the purposes of further review.
Existing chemicals are those that were in commerce in 1976 when the original TSCA was enacted, and were at that time largely grandfathered under the law. The overhaul requires EPA to prioritize and assess this backlog of chemicals, and directed EPA to draft several rules by June 2017 laying out a framework to implement this. EPA says its goal in the prioritization proposal is a "pipeline" that will help the agency wade through the backlog of thousands of chemicals in commerce.
Section 6(b)(1) of the revised TSCA requires EPA to establish a risk-based screening process and criteria that EPA will use to identify chemical substances as either high-priority substances for risk evaluation, or low-priority substances for which risk evaluations are not warranted at the time.
The first action in EPA's proposed four-step process, what the agency calls the "pre-prioritization process," generated significant comments from stakeholders, with environmentalists and California's EPA generally supporting the proposal. EPA in January described this as an initial step in which it would narrow the pool of potential chemicals using the new statutory criteria.
The remaining steps in the proposed four-step prioritization process continue with an initiation phase in which the agency would announce a candidate chemical ahead of a 90-day public comment period. Then, under the third step, EPA would propose to designate a chemical as high- or low-priority, publish the proposed designation, information, analysis, and basis for the decision, and take a second round of public comment for 90 days.
Under the fourth and final step, EPA would either finalize a high-priority designation and initiate a risk evaluation, or finalize a low-priority substance, which would mean a review would not be necessary until or unless the agency received new information on that substance that indicated potential increased risks.
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) writes in its March 20 comments that the pre-prioritization step is needed, pointing to requirements in the law that it says require EPA to have some information about the chemical it is prioritizing as high or low priority for assessment, and the strict deadlines for completing the prioritization process, which then leads directly to the risk assessment deadlines. Relevant documents are available on InsideEPA.com. (Doc. ID: 200324)
"Due to the data needs coupled with the deadlines set forth by Congress, we agree with EPA that it must generally have all or most of the data needed to designate a chemical as low-priority or conduct a full risk evaluation -- which must address all conditions of use -- at the outset of the prioritization process," EDF writes. "Given these demands, we fully support EPA's proposed pre-prioritization stage to gather needed data."
EDF urges EPA to use this step to gather information from companies, particularly studies they may have already submitted to other regulatory agencies, such as in Europe, and to order new studies if there are data gaps. The group also encourages EPA to remove consideration of substitutes to chemicals being prioritized -- a consideration EPA had suggested as a way to reduce the incidence of regrettable substitution. But EDF says that at this stage of the prioritization process, consideration of substitutes is too early. The Natural Resources Defense Council, in its separate undated comments, also encourages EPA to delay its consideration of alternate chemicals.
But California EPA, in March 20 comments, expresses its support for EPA's consideration of possible substitutes in the prioritization process, though Deputy Secretary for Science Gina Solomon does not specify where in the process CalEPA would like to see that occur. "Such an approach would provide a benefit by removing, rather than substituting, hazardous chemicals. In addition, it would conserve Agency as well as stakeholder/industry resources by avoiding time and resource intensive re-iterative risk evaluations by Agency and costly (and reiterative) switches to other chemicals by industry. To this end, EPA could consider requesting stakeholder input early in the process to help identify likely substitute chemical candidates."
The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition -- which broke with EDF in its support of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century that overhauled TSCA when signed into law last June -- agrees the initial pre-prioritization step is necessary. The group argues that "EPA should add other toxicity and exposure triggers to this list. These should include literature reports of potential mutagenicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive effects, developmental neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, endocrine effects and sensitization. Similar triggers should be used for potential ecotoxicity."
Further, the coalition encourages EPA to consider the lists of chemicals of concern identified by other EPA offices, agencies and authorities, such as the Hazardous Air Pollutants list or the Toxics Release Inventory Database.
The Coalition, CalEPA and EDF also support EPA's approach to consider the conditions of use of chemicals in the prioritization process, already an issue of concern for industry based on EPA's new approach to its new chemical pre-manufacture review process.
Since the Lautenberg Act was signed into law last June, EPA had completed just 33 of these reviews by the time of the annual industry GlobalChem conference last month, Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council said at the event. Before the new law, EPA completed reviews of some 1,000 new chemicals each year.
The new chemicals review process has stalled because the new law requires EPA to reach an affirmative finding about each new chemical that it reviews regarding its potential health risks, and EPA has interpreted the statute's language that it must review all reasonably foreseeable uses of the chemical. During the GlobalChem conference, EPA's acting toxics chief, Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, told attendees that she and her staff are considering all options to deal with the backlog, but that agency staff must be able to meet the statute's requirements.
The environmental groups are praising EPA's approach to the conditions of use interpretation in the proposed rule. The new law requires EPA by June 2017 to develop criteria and a final implementing rule outlining how agency staff will prioritize as high priority those chemicals that "may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment," and as low priority, not requiring assessment at the time, those that do not meet that standard.
EPA has proposed an approach wherein all of a chemical's potential uses must meet the unreasonable risk standard in order for the chemical to be deemed low priority, while just one use not passing muster will flag a chemical as high priority. The environmental groups generally praise this proposed approach, while industry groups are protesting it.
The coalition argues that "since the prerequisite for high-priority listing is a determination that a chemical 'may present an unreasonable risk,' a chemical will qualify as low priority only if it can be demonstrated to lack the potential for unreasonable risk. . . . like high-priority designations, low priority listings apply to the chemical as a whole, not specific uses, and thus must be based on a finding of no unreasonable risk across all the conditions of use. Demonstrating the absence of unreasonable risk for all activities that fit the definition of 'conditions of use' is essential because low priority chemicals will not be subject to risk evaluations and will be perceived as 'safe' by users and the general public."
The groups add that they support EPA's approach to designations, but add that low priority designations should be peer reviewed to "provide an essential safeguard against unwarranted 'false negatives.'"
By contrast, industry groups are arguing that EPA should treat high and low priority designations similarly. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce in its March 20 comments urges EPA to "reconsider its treatment of low priority chemicals, as the bar is set extremely high for designating chemicals as low priority. . . . It is imperative that EPA give high priority and low priority chemicals the same treatment."
The business lobby adds that "It would be in EPA's best interest to adjust that proposal so that EPA is just as likely to designate a chemical as high priority as it is to designate one as low priority. . . . This would allow EPA to make low priority designations based on the likelihood that only certain condition(s) of use of a chemical have a low potential for risk, rather than the lofty standard of 'all.' This would benefit EPA as well, considering it would be able to conserve its resources and focus on fewer and less cumbersome high priority designations."
An industry coalition raises similar points, arguing in its March comments that EPA should release a supplemental proposal for comment, since the agency does not have time to withdraw and re-do its proposal given the June 2017 deadline. Among its many concerns, the group argues that it "does not agree [with EPA] that 'a large number' of chemicals will meet the high-priority definition. . . . The term 'may present an unreasonable risk' is used throughout TSCA and is not intended to cast a broad net."
https://insideepa.com/inside-epa/environmentalists-back-tsca-prioritization-proposal-seek-tweaks
-
TSCA Pre-Prioritisation Affords Safer Alternatives Opportunities, Says EPA
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA’s Jeff Morris says that the TSCA pre-prioritisation process will afford the chemicals industry a “tremendous opportunity” to determine early on whether it should pursue safer alternatives for substances of potential concern.
Speaking at Chemical Watch’s Safer Chemicals in Products conference in San Francisco, the director of EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) explained that the process – as laid out in the agency’s proposed prioritisation framework rule – will help guide the EPA in determining which subset of active substances have criteria that signal they may be a concern.
These factors include certains hazards, exposures, or whether it’s a PBT or carcinogen, for example.
Once identified, the agency will review the data available for those substances, to determine if it is sufficient to move toward risk evaluation. Having an adequate dataset at the time of declaring a substance a high priority is essential, he noted, due to the law’s tight deadlines.
But Dr Morris said that this process will not be short: it will comprise reviewing the list of active chemicals, identifying which trigger a concern, and then filling data gaps.
And the latter step will involve going out with rules to require testing, having that data generated – which in some cases, he said, could include two year bioassays – reviewing this, and finally looking at the whole database to determine whether, indeed, a certain chemical is a high priority for risk evaluation.
“Optimistically, that is going to take five to seven years for any given chemical,” he said.
Signals to industry
Many in industry have criticised this pre-prioritisation approach, saying that it lacks sufficient transparency and does not afford opportunities for stakeholder input.
But Dr Morris said that the identification of substances and issuance of test orders, during pre-prioritisation, show not only which substances have triggered concern, but also the specific endpoints with data gaps the agency has determined need to be filled.
And all of those are "signals, five to seven years out [ahead], that that part of the chemical space needs further evaluation”, he said.
Waiting to act until the formal prioritisation and risk evaluation stage, he said, may be “a bit late”.
Further, he said, when companies begin to understand the resource implications of filling data gaps for chemicals that may be of concern, that also will “help contribute to that notion of whether [manufacturers] want to go down that road for every single chemical or every single set of chemistries in a sector, or whether there are other ways of meeting the industry’s needs that may be in safer chemistries”.
Without prejudging existing chemistries prior to risk evaluation, said Dr Morris, thinking about the pre-prioritisation process with safer chemistries in mind could be “very, very useful”.
“I think that this is a tremendous opportunity up front,” he added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54788/tsca-pre-prioritisation-affords-safer-alternatives-opportunities-says-epa
-
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Amendment: Upcoming Inventory Rule
Mar 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Jennifer A. Van Wie
On June 22, 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (the Amendment), which amends the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was signed into law. Under this amendment, EPA was authorized, amongst other things, to evaluate its existing inventory of chemical substances on specific timelines. The proposed rule – the Inventory Rule –will require manufacturers to notify EPA of chemicals manufactured and processed in the past 10 years. EPA will use this information to update the TSCA inventory of chemical substances, and to determine which chemicals are active and still being manufactured and processed and which chemicals are “inactive” in commerce. The purpose of the update to the TSCA inventory is to better position the agency to set priorities for risk evaluations.
The EPA notification requirement is triggered by EPA’s publication of the final rule, which the TSCA amendments provide must be completed by June 2017 (the Inventory Rule). Pursuant to the Amendment and under the proposed Inventory Rule, domestic manufacturers and chemical importers will have 180 days after the final Inventory Rule is published to tell the EPA which chemical substances they have made or imported in the prior 10 years. The Amendment also contemplates notification by U.S. companies that process chemical substances, and who would have up to one year after the Inventory Rule is published to do so.
Recently, several companies and associations asked the EPA to give importers of chemical mixtures more time, up to one year, to complete the required notification. However, allowing this additional time is not considered under the Amendment, and it is not clear whether the agency has the authority to provide the additional time.
Companies that manufacture and import chemical substances should be aware that this inventory rule is coming and plan accordingly. As a best practice, proactively reaching out to your supply chains in order to create a current, accurate inventory will expedite and ease compliance with the Inventory Rule.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/toxic-substances-control-act-tsca-amendment-upcoming-inventory-rule
-
EPA Releases Inventory Report of Mercury Supply, Use, and Trade in the U.S.
Mar 30, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On March 29, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued in the Federal Register a notice releasing its initial inventory report of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States pursuant to Section 8(b)(9)(10) of the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Specifically, the report is a “compilation of readily available, previously published data on the supply, use and trade elementary mercury and mercury compounds,” and its purpose is to “identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury.” The report itself is available in Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0127-002 on http://www.regulations.gov. The notice states that EPA is not soliciting comments on this report.
The report states that it is focused on commodity mercury, as opposed to mercury that is handled and discarded as waste, and that in some cases the information is outdated. The report is organized in three parts:
Introduction, which includes U.S. laws affecting supply and trade of Mercury; and sources of information;
Elemental mercury, which includes supply of elemental mercury, sources of supply, use of elemental mercury (including mercury-added products and manufacturing processes), and trade of elemental mercury; and
Mercury compounds, which includes supply, use, and trade of Mercury compounds.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-releases-inventory-report-mercury-supply-use-and-trade-us
-
Echa Draft Substitution Strategy Due by the Summer
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa expects to complete a draft of its strategy on substitution by the summer, with the final version slated for the end of the year.
The agency is developing the strategy to become better informed, when handling restriction proposals and applications for authorisation, and to help companies improve the way they identify and assess alternatives to hazardous chemicals.
It is working in collaboration with the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, which produced a series of recommendations on safer alternatives in a report commissioned by Echa in 2016.
In an interview with Chemical Watch at its Global Business Summit in Amsterdam on 22 March, Echa’s head of risk management implementation unit Matti Vainio said a draft should be available “within a couple of months”. It will be based on three areas that were identified in the Lowell report:
capacity building: this involves identifying the most pressing needs for alternatives assessment, the level of expertise, types of training or reference material, and whether online training or workshops, for instance, would be most useful;
funding schemes: targeted finance for innovation must be available as early as possible; the candidate list could be a “trigger” for funding; and
network development: this would involve players in the supply chain and ‘match-making’ producers of alternatives with potential clients, involving member states. Existing networks, such as Network of REACH SEA and Analysis of Alternatives practitioners (NeRSAP), could be used. An open NeRSAP meeting will take place on 18-19 May in Helsinki.
Collaboration
Substitution should be an “integral part” of a chemical company’s everyday research and development policy, Mr Vainio said, but little is communicated on this subject. “We do not know what companies really need.”
The agency is embarking on an information gathering exercise – in collaboration with stakeholders – to identify which of the three areas, and others that may be suggested, should be developed and to what extent. The agency “cannot and should not” do it alone, Mr Vainio said.
In March, Echa met with people from the European Commission, NGO ChemSec, consultancy Anthesis-Caleb UK and metals association Eurometaux. These people, Mr Vainio said, have experience with innovation, R&D and its relationship with substitution.
The meetings were designed to gauge “if there is a genuine need and possibility to come up with something that would make a difference”.
At a later stage, the agency must decide what its role in the strategy will be. “We wish to discuss our role with the Commission because we are working closely with them and they have many things going on that link to what we are doing, including the circular economy, for instance.”
It must also discuss the strategy with its management board, as well as member states, he said.
A training programme on substitution could also be considered, which would be “geared towards specific industry sectors” with a similar programme for member states, Mr Vainio said. “That should become more concrete during the year.”
Funding examples
Under Horizon 2020 – the EU programme for research and innovation from 2014 to 2020 – DG Research has funded a €10m pilot project in Finland, which is looking at alternatives for hazardous substances in the electroplating industry.
An ‘innovation workshop’ organised by Echa on 25 January, attended by electroplaters, suppliers and customers, providers of alternatives and funding support organisations, generated eight project ideas that could be funded.
Supply chain workshops could be repeated in other member states and for different industries, Mr Vainio said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54812/echa-draft-substitution-strategy-due-by-the-summer
-
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Submitted CLH proposals
The agency has received three newly submitted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) dossiers for:
2-butoxyethanol. Submitted by Germany, it proposes a future Annex VI entry of acute toxicity 3 and 4, skin irritation 2, eye damage 1, STOT RE 2 and acute toxicity estimates oral: 500 mg/kg bw, dermal: 300 mg/kg bw, and inhalative: 3 mg/L/4h;
theophylline. Submitted by the Netherlands, it proposes a future Annex VI entry of reproductive toxicity 1B; and
trimethoxy(methyl)silane. Submitted by Sweden, this proposes a future Annex VI entry of skin sensitiser 1B.
Harmonised classification and labelling intention
Echa has also added a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) intention to its registry for phosphine. France is proposing a future entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation addressing acute toxicity. Submission of the dossier is expected on 16 June.
Enforcement Forum elects new chair and vice chairs
The Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement (Forum) has elected Katja vom Hofe as its new chair; and Sinead McMickan and Szilvia Deim as vice chairs.
REACH-IT update
Echa's dossier submission tool, REACH-IT, is to be updated on 25 April, and will not be available from 20 April (pm) until 25 April (am) to enable changes to be made, the agency says. Any regulatory deadlines affected by the closure will be moved to 25 April.
The aim is to expand the system's capacity in advance of the 2018 deadline. The update also has a new submission type for alternative chemical name requests under the CLP Regulation.
Likewise any completeness check deadlines falling during the Easter holiday closure – 14 to 17 April – will be moved to the 18 April.
Echa says registrants should keep an eye on messages in REACH-IT, in the days running up to the closure.
Iuclid 5 website closure
Echa will be shutting down the Iuclid 5 website on 30 March. Relevant content has been transferred over to the Iuclid 6 website. Ahead of closure, users should download any additional information they may need from the site, for example, copies of the legal entities created, which will no longer be available.
The agency says this is "the end of the road for only the Iuclid 5 website". All information concerning the application will now be maintained in a single location, on the Iuclid 6 website.
Data-sharing guidance
Echa has released translated versions of its updated Guidance in a nutshell on data sharing (v2.0).
Readership survey
The agency has sent out a survey on what readers think of its news products. Open until 14 April, it asks for views on Echa's weekly and newsletter. Subscribers to the news service who have not received a link to the survey are advised to contact the agency.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54739/echa-round-up
-
Trump Ignores Science with Executive Order Dismantling Clean Power Plan
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Congress Blog
By Chellie Pingree
In 1953, the CEOs of the country’s largest cigarette companies met at the Plaza Hotel in New York to talk through an impending crisis.
The scientific community had reached a broad consensus that smoking was the cause of the country’s skyrocketing rate of lung cancer. The companies met with public relations firms to figure out how to head off this disastrous news for their industry.
Their answer was an effective one: fabricate scientific disagreement. They paid skeptics to refute scientific studies, created an institute to churn out contrary pseudoscience, and sowed seeds of doubt in lawmakers.
Politicians obliged, using the so-called scientific controversy as a rationale for inaction. Legitimate science continued to mount, but it would be more than a decade before Congress passed any laws to address the dangers of smoking. How many lives were lost while politicians looked the other way?
President Trump has repeated their mistakes by ignoring overwhelming evidence of climate change and prolonging our dependence on fossil fuels. The executive order he signed this week to unravel President Obama’s Clean Power Plan was just his latest show of disregard for the public health and safety crisis facing our country and planet. He also appointed a chief climate change denier to run the Environmental Protection Agency, picked the CEO of a fossil fuel giant for Secretary of State, and proposed a budget that slashes or eliminates funding for climate change research and mitigation.
Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised at President Trump’s latest action given that he once tweeted climate change is a Chinese hoax and he tried to debunk the world’s top environmental scientists by going outside one day when it was cold.
In my home state of Maine, we know climate change is not a theory or a hoax. It’s a harmful reality we see every day and that threatens the future of our state in many ways. We simply can’t afford to ignore it.
Given its geographic location and natural resource jobs, Maine is uniquely susceptible to the effects of climate change. Our corner of the Atlantic, the Gulf of Maine, is warming faster than 99 percent of the world’s oceans. On top of that, prevailing winds make our state the “tailpipe of the nation”—meaning that we breathe air already polluted by states to the west.
All these facts have real consequences for everyday Mainers—their health, and their livelihoods. Polluted air means we have higher-than-average asthma rates. Warming temperatures have led to outbreaks of tick-borne Lyme disease. Warming waters are hurting our commercial fishermen, as lucrative stocks move northward to colder waters and other fisheries suffer from an influx of invasive species, disease, and ocean acidification. Rising sea levels and stronger weather events have wreaked havoc on our communities. And cold winters are not a sure thing anymore, putting a drain on vital ski and snowmobile tourism industries.
Our state is dealing with the crisis in many ways. Scientists are studying the trends closely, communities are preparing for the future, the fishing industry is working to diversify, and innovative businesses are looking at ways to generate clean energy from sustainable sources.
But they need help. This problem is bigger than our state—than any one state. Our country needs national leadership and action. President Obama’s Clean Power Plan provided hope that we could avoid some of the future harms of climate change while pivoting toward a clean energy economy that already employs 3 million Americans. Turning our back on that progress will have disastrous effects.
I don’t know whether President Trump actually believes the misinformation he spreads about climate change. It doesn’t matter. As other politicians did 60 year ago, he ignores the facts at our country’s peril.
Rep. Chellie Pingree represents Maine’s 1st District in the House of Representatives and serves on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/326485-trump-ignores-science-with-executive-order-dismantling-clean
-
What Trump's Order Means for CRA, Litigation on BLM Rule
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King and Ellen M. Gilmer
Efforts to repeal the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule under the Congressional Review Act are not dead following President Trump's "energy independence" executive order, the American Council for Capital Formation said yesterday.
As the CRA resolution stalled in the Senate, ACCF this month launched a campaign to strike from the books BLM's regulation curbing natural gas venting, flaring and leakage from production sites on public lands. If the upper chamber were to vote in support of the CRA resolution, the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule would quickly disappear, along with any possibility that BLM would reintroduce a substantially similar regulation.
Trump's direction to the Interior Department to suspend, revise or rescind four rules, including the methane rule, is a much lengthier process, ACCF said.
"Unraveling the methane rule at the agency level would require months of staff work and would undoubtedly face vigorous legal challenges from environmental groups, which could delay its repeal for up to two years," ACCF wrote in a statement yesterday. "On the other hand, Senate passage of a disapproval resolution under the CRA — something the House has already accomplished — would be quick and efficient, saving the agency both time and resources."
In a legal sense, rescinding a rule under the CRA is a far cleaner process, said Mark Barron, a partner at the law firm BakerHostetler.
"If they get 51 votes to repeal the regulation, then the regulation goes away, and that's the end of it," he said.
The order did little to move the needle, particularly with respect to the methane rule's future, Barron said.
"It was already widely known that the Trump Administration did not support the venting and flaring rule and I think most folks anticipated that, if the CRA did not pass, BLM would move to rescind the rule through the regulatory process," he wrote in an email to E&E News. "The debate since the election has never been whether the rule would be discarded, but whether it would be discarded quickly and easily in Congress or through the time consuming and expensive process of administrative rulemaking (and subsequent litigation). The Executive Order doesn't do anything to change that analysis."
Hogan Lovells attorney Hilary Tompkins, the former solicitor for President Obama's Interior, read the executive order as a change in strategy.
"It does provide an alternative approach, and I think they were reading the tea leaves in Congress and the Senate on that CRA, and they've kicked it back to the executive branch to find an alternative approach," she said.
A revised rule could keep the elements of the regulation that strengthen BLM's royalty collection process, said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
"That's much more productive than CRA," she said.
Environmental lawyers saw a silver lining in the White House's direction. Groups that opposed CRA repeal have asked BLM to tweak the rule, rather than allowing Congress to eliminate it.
"The fact that this executive order shows that President Trump himself wants the Bureau of Land Management to use a scalpel to change the methane waste prevention rule is yet another sign that the oil and gas lobbyists who are asking Congress to use a sledgehammer to get rid of the rule using the Congressional Review Act are just too extreme," said Joel Minor, an Earthjustice attorney representing environmental intervenors in litigation over the methane rule.
The regulation went through years of comment and technical review and is therefore deserving of a more thorough examination before it is killed, said Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center.
"The current administration might not like it, but it does have the authority to go through a new rulemaking process," he said.
A window of opportunity to pass the CRA resolution through the Senate could open up after the chamber votes on Supreme Court justice nominee Neil Gorsuch, ACCF said.
The Senate has until the week of May 8 to nullify the rule with a simple majority vote, the group said.
In the courtroom
This week's executive order creates a wave of uncertainty for litigation over the methane rule.
Industry groups and states challenged the regulation immediately after BLM finalized it last year. The U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming declined their request to freeze the rule, and it took effect in January, gradually phasing in compliance requirements.
Environmental defenders of the rule are now monitoring the court docket to see if the Justice Department seeks to pause the case. DOJ lawyers have already asked courts to pause proceedings in litigation over U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan and BLM's hydraulic fracturing rule, which were also targeted by the executive order. As in those cases, environmental lawyers have vowed to oppose any attempt to halt the methane litigation.
"We don't see any reason to put the litigation on hold until there is a firm and final decision revoking the rule from the Bureau of Land Management, and that will require notice-and-comment rulemaking, and that's a process that is likely to take far longer than resolving the litigation in court," Minor said.
Earthjustice and other environmental groups will argue that the issues in the litigation must be resolved to inform Interior's reconsideration of the rule, as challengers contend that the methane rule is essentially an air quality regulation that falls on EPA's and states' turf. Minor noted that BLM "at least in theory needs to know what it has legal authority to do before it takes action."
Tompkins, the former Interior solicitor, said it's "a big question mark" whether the district court would agree with environmental groups and allow litigation to move forward in either the methane case or the fracking case.
"I think the court will want to know: Is this an issue that could likely be capable of repetition and recur?" she said. "Or are we truly mooting out all the issues in these cases? It's really going to depend on the vantage point of those judges."
Courts have previously allowed environmental intervenors to continue pressing litigation after the federal government has retreated in some cases, including litigation over the Clinton administration's "roadless rule" and an enforcement case against Duke Energy Corp. initiated by the Clinton administration just before George W. Bush took office.
Another wrinkle from Trump's executive order is its erasure of the Obama administration's metric for weighing the "social cost" of greenhouse gases. The social cost of methane was incorporated into the cost-benefit analysis for the methane rule and faced deep skepticism from the federal judge handling the case (Energywire, Jan. 17).
Minor said the new administration's rejection of the metric should not affect legal arguments surrounding the rule.
"The fact that the executive order effectively rescinds the use of the social cost of methane in the future doesn't retroactively change the use of the social cost of methane in the past," he said. "An agency's regulation has to stand based on the record and the decision that the agency made when it issued the rule, not post hoc developments that perhaps the agency changed its mind about something."
Legal briefs in the case are due in April and May.
And as Interior moves forward with a rulemaking process to reconsider the rule, supporters of increased regulation are also preparing for new opportunities to hold the agency accountable along the way and challenge a final decision if needed. Minor noted that any attempt to weaken the Obama administration's effort to prevent methane waste "could well be grounds for litigation over that choice."
"They are going to have to provide a robust rebuttal of all the vast administrative record that exists for [the methane and fracking rules]," Tompkins said. "There was extensive public comment, analysis and research, and if the new administration is going to rescind or significantly change those Interior regulations and policies, they're going to have to provide a counterpoint to why and address all those issues in the records that support the prior administration's actions."
http://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/03/30/stories/1060052309
-
Pipeline Foes Challenge 'Stale' Environmental Review
Mar 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Environmental groups are taking the Trump administration to court over the recent approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court today, a coalition of groups slammed the State Department for relying on a "stale" environmental review to support its recent approval of a cross-border permit for the contentious oil pipeline.
President Trump approved the TransCanada Corp. proposal Friday, paving the way for completion after years of uncertainty for the project, which would help deliver Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. President Obama had rejected the pipeline in 2015, citing concerns about international climate leadership.
The State Department's decision last week relied on a 2014 environmental impact statement prepared during Obama's tenure. Environmental groups say the administration violated the National Environmental Policy Act by using an outdated and incomplete study that fails to consider new information that has arisen since then.
"When you go through a NEPA process that's over 3 years old, you come to a decision that it's not in the national interest, and then come back three years later with the same environmental analysis and say that it is somehow in the national interest just doesn't make sense," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Noah Greenwald told E&E News.
CBD is one of several groups suing over the pipeline approval. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Bold Alliance, the Northern Plains Resource Council and Friends of the Earth are also suing. The Indigenous Environmental Network and North Coast Rivers Alliance filed a separate lawsuit earlier this week (Energywire, March 29).
Today's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, also says the Keystone XL environmental impact statement was flawed to begin with because it "grossly underestimated the pipeline's impacts on the rate of tar sands development."
"The Trump administration broke the law by arbitrarily endorsing a permit to build the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline," NRDC Canada Project Director Anthony Swift said in a statement. "It ignored public calls to update and correct a required environmental impact statement that should have led to one conclusion: Piping some of the dirtiest oil on the planet through America's heartland would put at grave risk our land, water and climate. We're asking the court to put an end to Keystone XL, once and for all."
Legal hurdles
Legal experts note, however, that the environmental groups will not have an easy path to victory in the courtroom.
"The EIS is clearly outdated and deficient in a number of respects," Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau said. "But the plaintiffs will have to overcome court decisions that have barred challenges to decisions made under the various presidential executive orders authorizing KXL and other cross-border pipelines."
In White Earth Nation v. Kerry, for example, a federal judge in Minnesota rejected arguments from tribal and environmental groups that challenged certain State Department approvals for the Alberta Clipper oil pipeline.
Dorsey & Whitney attorney Jim Rubin, formerly of the Justice Department, noted that the cross-border permit at issue for Keystone XL may make it tougher for litigants to win NEPA arguments.
"A NEPA challenge to a presidential permit may be more difficult to mount than typical challenges to agency decisions," he said in an email. "Though the State Department utilization of a NEPA process may provide a jurisdictional hook for review, courts may be reluctant to review a decision which is ultimately made under presidential discretion."
Opponents of the pipeline are also focused on Nebraska, where officials are still considering whether to issue a state permit for the project.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/03/30/stories/1060052363
-
The White House’s Claim That the Carbon Emissions Rule ‘Could Cost Up to $39 Billion a Year’
Mar 30, 2017 | Washington Post
By Michelle Ye Hee Lee
President Trump has started rolling back Obama-era environmental protections, including directing federal regulators to rewrite federal rules to reduce carbon emissions.
The Clean Power Plan, a flagship environmental regulatory rule of the Obama administration, proposes to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It has been placed on hold while under litigation.
Proponents of the rule say it will improve public health and the United States would set an example for other countries to curb carbon emissions. Opponents say the plan will have minimal impact on the environment while driving up costs for consumers. The Fact Checker obviously takes no position on the rule.
A fact sheet about the March 28 executive order on Obama-era climate protections estimated the cost of the Clean Power Plan at up to $39 billion. How accurate is this estimate? Who exactly is NERA Economic Consulting? And why isn’t the White House using estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) or the Environmental Protection Agency?
The Facts
Studies on the cost impact of the rule are built on different sets of assumptions, making it hard to make apples-to-apples comparisons. These studies compare how the energy industry and consumers would be affected in the absence of the new carbon emissions rule.
States have wide latitude in complying with the federal rule. Costs can vary depending on state, regional or local policymakers’ decisions. Emissions and power plants can cross state boundaries, so states can coordinate with each other to lower costs.
There are assumptions made about the types of actions states will take after the rule takes effect, and what role renewables and natural gas energy will play. That means there are a lot of unknowns in cost estimates. That’s an important caveat.
The NERA Economic Consulting’s November 2015 study that the White House cites is commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, which opposes the Clean Power Plan. The Fact Checker always warns readers to be skeptical of industry-funded research. The $39 billion is the high end of the $29 billion-to-$39 billion range of potential costs on the U.S. fossil-energy sector, under one method of compliance in the emissions rule.
Critics of the study say there are key assumptions that inflate costs.
It makes conservative baseline calculations about the impact of renewable energy policies, said David G. Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at University of California-San Diego. Those policies would reduce the amount of emissions even before any costs of the Clean Power Plan are incurred. NERA Economic Consulting said that the cost of renewables do not actually have a major effect on its estimates of the rule’s costs.
The study relies on outdated cost figures for renewable energy and energy efficiency, according to the National Resources Defense Council, which is critical of this study. Its modeling is based on figures published by the EIA in its 2015 report, which “severely underestimates renewable growth and overestimates costs of new renewable generation,” according to the environmental group, which supports the Clean Power Plan.
The study also makes different assumptions about allocations of allowance costs for the electricity companies. This may have led to higher electricity price increases compared to the assumptions in other studies, including one by the EIA. However, EIA’s study is not an apples-to-apples comparison to the one by NERA Economic Consulting.
Clean energy advocates say the study ignores long-term benefits of energy efficiency programs, and that the rule could even lead to people saving money. The EPA and EIA fall somewhere in between those advocates and the study by NERA Economic Consulting; those agencies estimate that electricity prices would rise slightly at first but fall later, according to E&E News.
The EPA estimates that by 2030, the benefits of the rule ($34 billion to $54 billion) will outweigh the costs of complying with new regulations ($8 billion).
The White House did not respond to our request for comment.
The Pinocchio Test
The White House used a statistic by an industry-backed study to claim that the Clean Power Plan could cost “up to $39 billion a year.” While this wording indicates that it’s the highest end of the spectrum of costs, it creates a misleading impression that this is a definitive cost.
In reality, there are too many unknowns to cite a statistic like this with no context. The study the White House cites is based on a series of assumptions that are not comparable to ones made by the EIA, a credible government agency of career statisticians and researchers crunching data. We know the new White House isn’t a fan of government statistics produced under the previous administration, but eventually, the administration won’t be able to just rely on industry estimates and claims.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/03/30/the-white-houses-claim-that-the-carbon-emissions-rule-could-cost-up-to-39-billion-a-year/?utm_term=.477bbdb35d09
-
Change Isn't a Spectator Sport: Renewable Energy Can Happen Without Washington
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Matt Tomich
You don't have to invoke any new political divisions to explain President Trump's roll-back of Obama's Clean Power Plan or his reversal of Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. Feeding fossil fuels and starving clean energy is established orthodoxy; it comes straight out of the Reagan and Bush playbooks.
In fact, the only thing that's new and evolving about Trump's energy policy is the context. Climate change impacts are accelerating visibly; so is the growth of renewable energy. With or without the administration's help, energy policy must evolve to reflect this new reality.
Meanwhile, Trump’s proposals are old energy policy. His budget plan would gut Obama’s environmental and energy programs just as Reagan did Carter’s. Reagan slashed renewables R&D 85 percent, rolled back fuel efficiency standards and killed the wind investment tax credit, effectively strangling renewables in their cradle.
Trump’s "America First Energy Plan," released last month, is a reprise of the 2001 Bush/Cheney energy plan drafted by oil and gas insiders. Both emphasize increased fossil fuel production on federal lands while doubling down on the most polluting ones. Cheney paid lip service to tax credits for renewables, but dismissed them as “years down the road.” Trump’s plan omits the words “renewable energy” entirely.
Yet renewables are integral to America's energy mix, growing faster and creating more jobs than any other form of energy. New renewables installations outstrip new fossil fuel and nuclear capacity combined, more than two to one. Solar creates one of every 50 new American jobs — more than oil, gas and coal extraction combined. While nuclear, oil and coal are shrinking rapidly and natural gas is growing only slowly, renewables’ are surging. Solar grew twelvefold since 2011 — 17 times faster than the overall economy.
Like Reagan and Bush, Trump would favor fossil fuel production at renewables’ expense. But the overwhelming majority of Americans, including 73 percent of Trump voters, want more renewables in the future. A bipartisan coalition of 20 U.S. governors is urging the White House to support wind and solar.
Renewables are coming of age and no longer stand or fall on government largesse. But federal incentives are still important to help level a chronically skewed playing field. Since the 1920s, the fossil fuel industry received massive tax breaks, worth over $10 billion last year.
Renewables incentive programs cost a tiny fraction of that and pay dividends in the form of non-exportable jobs and secure, home-grown, lower-cost energy. Examples include the 30 percent Investment Tax Credit for real estate owners who install solar, or EPA’s Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) credits for producing renewable fuels. RFS significantly boosted renewable natural gas, a clean, virtually carbon-free fuel made from organic waste.
Would Trump end such incentives? Maybe not. The White House budget and energy plans don’t mention them, but in a recent letter Trump reiterated support for the RFS, declaring “renewable fuels to be essential to America’s energy strategy.” Meanwhile, Defense Secretary James Mattis reaffirmed his position that climate change is a security threat and the military should cut dependence on foreign fuels and deploy renewables.
In any case, America’s energy future hinges less on what Washington does than on what the rest of America does. Renewables’ growth is driven mostly by demand and investment from states, cities, companies and consumers outside the Beltway. For example, some 30 city mayors are asking automakers to help them procure low-emission car and truck fleets, notwithstanding Trump’s attack on fuel efficiency standards.
American households and local businesses are important drivers of renewable energy demand, and can also help boost supply. Even if they rent or otherwise can’t install solar, wind or geothermal systems, they can separate their organic waste, which is a huge renewable energy resource, and ask their local government to collect and use it. Food and other organic wastes are feedstocks for renewable natural gas (RNG).
RNG is virtually identical to geologic natural gas, but has a fraction of the carbon footprint. In fact, when made from food waste and used as a transportation fuel, it’s net carbon-negative, meaning it results in less greenhouse gas in the atmosphere than if it were never made or used. Switching heavy-duty vehicles from diesel and gasoline to RNG would cut U.S. greenhouse gases swiftly and deeply. Converted fleets would exceed international goals of 80 percent emission reductions, not by 2050, but overnight.
Some U.S. cities and states have organic waste separation and collection, but most still don’t. Local residents and groups could change that, moving RNG forward whether federal incentives get cut or not.
Change is not a spectator sport. If Americans want renewable energy, we can make it happen, with or without Washington’s help. Then we’ll reap the rewards: low-cost fuel, non-exportable jobs, and emissions reductions that protect our climate and health. That would be an “Americans-First” energy plan.
Matt Tomich is president of the national environmental organization Energy Vision.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/326401-change-isnt-a-spectator-sport-renewable-energy-can
-
US Osha May Delay Submitting Regulatory Plans for 2017
Mar 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By David Stegon
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) may need to delay submitting its regulatory plans for this year as it waits for the head of the US Department of Labor to be confirmed.
“We are in the middle of a transition, so it is hard to pinpoint the timing of certain actions until we have leadership in place,” said Maureen Ruskin, director of the Office of Chemical Hazards/Metals at Osha. She was speaking to delegates attending the Society for Chemical Hazard Communication's spring meeting in New Orleans this week.
The unified federal regulatory agenda, published twice a year in spring and autumn, provides a complete list of all regulatory actions that are under active consideration for promulgation, proposal, or review at over 60 federal departments, agencies and commissions. Osha activities are included in the Department of Labor submission. All plans should be submitted for the spring agenda by 31 March.
Ms Ruskin said the delayed confirmation process may also affect the timing of when the agency updates its Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) with the seventh version of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of classification and labelling of chemicals.
“We know what we want to do, but when that will happen is a more difficult question,” said Ms Ruskin.
The Labor Department is one of two federal departments, along with the US Department of Agriculture, awaiting confirmation of a secretary under the new Trump administration.
Alex Acosta, President Trump’s second selection for the post, is currently undergoing the confirmation process. Mr Trump originally nominated Andrew Puzder, who withdrew his candidacy in February after losing support from the Republican party.
Mr Trump then nominated Mr Acosta who has had his confirmation hearing rescheduled several times, causing further delay.
https://chemicalwatch.com/54811/us-osha-may-delay-submitting-regulatory-plans-for-2017
-
Officials Blame Mechanical Failure for Explosion at Dow Plant
Mar 30, 2017 | Chem Info
By Meagan Parrish
An investigation into a 2016 explosion at a Massachusetts chemical plant that seriously injured four employees has pinpointed a culprit for the accident.
According to a press release from state fire department officials in North Andover, a “mechanical failure allowed air to react with a volatile chemical, during a reclaiming process that resulted in spontaneous ignition and the explosion.”
The blast happened Jan. 7, 2016 at a plant owned by Rohm-Haas Electronic Materials, which is a subsidiary of Dow Chemical. Officials reported that employees at the plant were dealing with a pressure problem in the reclaiming process that indicated a potential leak. They were troubleshooting solutions when the explosion happened.
The accident reportedly involved trimethylaluminum, a notoriously combustible chemical that can ignite when it comes into contact with moisture or oxygen.
Fire department investigators found that the company was holding trimethylaluminum in metal containers with welds and gaskets that were “not regularly inspected.”
In August, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration also uncovered 11 workplace safety violations after an investigation into the incident. OSHA said the company failed to store flammable liquids properly and failed to empty a waste container of flammable liquids on a daily basis. OSHA slapped the company with $129,200 in fines.
All of the workers involved in the 2016 accident survived. But according to local media, an explosion at the same plant involving a similar chemical killed a 51-year-old employee in 2013.
http://www.chem.info/news/2017/03/officials-blame-mechanical-failure-explosion-dow-plant
-
Energy Department Tells Staff Not to Use Phrase 'Climate Change': Report
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - Briefing Room Blog
By Brooke Seipel
Staffers at the Department of Energy's (DOE) international climate office have been asked to stop using the phrases "climate change," "emissions reduction" and "Paris Agreement," Politico reported Wednesday.
A supervisor at the DOE international climate office asked staff not to use the phrases in memos and briefings within hours of President Trump's Tuesday executive order that reversed many of former President Obama's climate protections, the report said.
The phrases have not been banned outright, but are reportedly part of a list of climate-related terms that are being avoided in light of the Trump administration's attitudes on climate change.
A DOE spokeswoman told Politico that "no words or phrases have been banned" within the office or the department as a whole.
"We have definitively not received anything on banned words, not even orally," a State Department official told Politico. "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.
Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order asking the Environmental Protection Agency to review the Obama administration’s chief climate rule for power plant emissions, the 2015 Clean Power Plan.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/326394-use-of-the-phrase-climate-change-banned-from-energy-department
-
EPA Mistakenly Criticizes Trump’s Executive Order
Mar 30, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) apologized Thursday after mistakenly sending a news release that criticized President Trump’s executive order on climate change policies.
In the release, the EPA included quotes praising Trump’s Tuesday order to start undoing former President Barack Obama’s climate actions, but it misattributed a negative statement to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.).
“With this Executive Order, President Trump has chosen to recklessly bury his head in the sand. Walking away from the Clean Power Plan and other climate initiatives, including critical resiliency projects is not just irresponsible — it’s irrational,” it quoted Capito as saying.
“Today’s executive order calls into question America’s credibility and our commitment to tackling the greatest environmental challenge of our lifetime."
However, that statement actually came from Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), the top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee and a harsh critic of Trump’s environmental agenda.
“Sen. Carper is happy to lend his words to a good cause,” a Carper spokeswoman said.
Capito, by contrast, cheered Trump’s order on Tuesday.
“Stopping this disastrous plan will preserve America’s coal industry, expand our manufacturing renaissance that is reliant upon affordable energy, and protect American families from unprecedented hikes in their electric bills,” she said in a statement.
Capito attended the signing ceremony Tuesday, and Trump thanked her in his speech.
The EPA sent out a corrected version of the release later Thursday morning, with Capito’s actual quote.
EPA spokesman John Konkus said the agency’s press office accidentally sent a draft version of the release.
“We apologize for the error and are making sure that our process is improved as we build our team,” he said.
The mistake came amid a rift between many of the EPA’s nonpolitical career employees and the political leaders appointed by Trump, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Some EPA employees have made their objections known, including through a campaign to lobby the Senate against Pruitt’s confirmation.
An EPA scientist explained his concerns in a letter to The New York Times published Wednesday.
“I am very saddened by what I see these days under an E.P.A. administrator whose role it is to dismantle the agency that he leads,” wrote Michael Kravitz, who works in Cincinnati.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/326538-epa-mistakenly-criticizes-trumps-executive-order
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested