Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 04/11/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) NACD Optimistic On US Regulatory Reform - President
Apr 10, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
-The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) is hopeful for changes that would benefit members, its president said on Monday. -
Congressional Clock Running Out to Repeal Obama Regulations
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Hunting bears by airplane is legal again on federal land in Alaska and the mentally ill can purchase guns thanks to Republicans’ successful use of a once-obscure law allowing them to quickly roll back regulations. -
Contact Industry to Plan Regulatory Revamp, Pruitt Tells Staff
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA program offices must submit plans by May 15 to repeal, replace and modify existing regulations “to make them less burdensome,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told senior agency staff in late March, according to a document released by an EPA union April 10. -
(ACC Mentioned) EDF Faults Industry Call To Ease TSCA Inventory Under Trump Cost Order
Apr 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is criticizing the chemical sector's call for EPA to ease implementation and reduce costs of its proposed chemical inventory rule, saying industry's bid to tie the request to President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) on reducing regulatory burdens is "wrong" and at odds with the revised federal toxics law. -
Where There’s Smoke, There Are Mirrors: The Trump Administration’s Claim To Preserve TSCA Implementation Under Its Proposed EPA Budget Is Pure Illusion
Apr 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Richard Denison
As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits -
EPA Must Finalize Rules to Act on Dangerous Chemicals
Apr 10, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg and Veena Singla
Talk about bad timing. After 40 years of stagnation, the most important federal law regulating chemicals for consumer product, commercial and industrial uses (the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA) just had a major makeover in 2016. -
(ACC Mentioned) EU Automotive Group Develops Criteria For Selecting Suitable Alternatives
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The European Automotive Industry Association (Acea) has developed criteria for selecting 'non-regulated' alternative substances to help vehicle manufacturers avoid 'regrettable substitutions'. -
Flame Retardant Makers Won't Have to Do Toxicity Tests: EPA
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers of three flame retardants used in furniture foam, textiles, paints and other products won't have to conduct toxicity or exposure tests requested through an environmental coalition's petition, the EPA has decided. -
US Enforcement Of Crystalline Silica Standard For Construction Postponed
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) has announced a three-month delay in enforcement of the new standard on occupational exposure to crystalline silica in construction. -
Activist Groups Sue Monsanto for ‘Deceptive’ Claims on Roundup
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Two environmental nonprofit organizations are taking Monsanto Co. to court over a claim that the company's signature herbicide, Roundup, doesn't affect human or animal health. -
Monsanto Wins Dismissal of School's PCB Claims
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto Co. isn't liable for supplying a PCB-based product in the 1960s that ended up in window caulk at a Massachusetts school, the District of Massachusetts ruled April 7 (Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 115884, D. Mass., No. 14-cv-12041, 4/7/17). -
5 Ways to Reduce Toxic Exposures in Your Home
Apr 11, 2017 | Environmental Working Grou
By Jane Tavyev Asher
If you have small children in the house, are pregnant or are trying to conceive – or simply want to stay healthy – you are probably looking for ways to avoid toxic chemicals at home and outdoors. -
JRC, Efsa Discuss Chemicals Risk Assessment Collaboration
Apr 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) met on 5 April to discuss joint projects and areas of common interest related to the risk assessment of chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Economist: Key Resource Enticing China, Others To Louisiana For Megaprojects Like One Announced Monday
Apr 10, 2017 | THe Advocate
By Ted Griggs
A $1.12 billion manufacturing complex planned by Wanhua Chemical is the latest in a string of foreign megaprojects for Louisiana and second major one from mainland China, potentially a sign of more to come. -
Louisiana Lands Another Billion-Dollar Chinese Petrochemical Facility
Apr 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
China’s Wanhua Chemical said it will develop a $1.12 billion chemical manufacturing complex in Louisiana, noting the state’s proximity to abundant natural gas supply as well as waterborne transport. -
Democratic Officials Step Up Ethics Probes Into Pruitt
Apr 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) are stepping up their inquiries into alleged conflicts of interest posed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in an effort to force him to recuse himself from ongoing efforts to roll back climate and other rules. -
EPA Wants Indefinite Pause on Methane Lawsuit
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA wants to put an indefinite pause on a lawsuit over its methane regulations on the oil and gas industry, according to a recent court filing (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 13-1108, 4/7/17). -
Enterprise Products To Build New Pipeline From Permian To Houston
Apr 10, 2017 | FuelFix
By Jordan Blum
Energy infrastructure giant Enterprise Products Partners said it will build a 571-mile pipeline from the Permian Basin to the Houston area to transport natural gas liquids. -
Mass. Lawmaker Asks FERC To Halt 2 Projects
Apr 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch has again asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to suspend pipeline projects in his district, expressing concerns about the company that operates them. -
Trump EPA's Ozone Delay Request Leans on Obama Precedent
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump administration's request to halt litigation over federal ground-level ozone standards relies on a recent precedent: President Barack Obama's EPA successfully requested the same thing during his first few months in office. -
G-7 Energy Summit Nations, U.S. Fail to Agree on Climate Change Language
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
Ministers from the Group of Seven nations failed to agree to language on climate change after two days of talks in Rome, with Carlo Calenda, Italy's minister for economic development and host of the two-day G-7 energy summit, saying the U.S. was the sole opponent to such language.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) NACD Optimistic On US Regulatory Reform - President
Apr 10, 2017 | ICIS
By Joseph Chang
NEW YORK (ICIS)--The National Association of Chemical Distributors (NACD) is hopeful for changes that would benefit members, its president said on Monday.
“We definitely want to see regulatory reform as government agencies have been using guidance documents as rule of law - an end-around to the regulatory process,” said Byer.
“Rulemaking is there for a reason, and all stakeholders should have a chance to comment on it, so it can be reconciled and put forward in its final form,” he added.
In 2015, the NACD joined the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in a lawsuit against the Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) for issuing new and immediate Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements through a memo that would significantly expand the number of facilities covered by the PSM standard. The suit was settled in July 2016.
Byer sees the change in US political leadership as being more business friendly and seeks to ensure agencies are following proper rulemaking procedures.
“It sounds crazy to have a law codifying that you need to follow the law. But we want to see something in law that stipulates that if you want to change something, you have to go through the rulemaking process,” said Byer.
To this effect, the NACD supports the House-introduced Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017.
He is also encouraged by US President Trump’s executive order stating that for every new regulation created by a government agency, two must be removed.
“Our number one priority is safety and security, but we have to make sure regulations are justifiable in cost and effectiveness,” said Byer.
Byer applauds the growth of the bipartisan Congressional Chemistry Caucus to advance the industry’s cause. The House of Representatives launched its caucus in April 2016, and on 28 March 2017, the Senate created its caucus.
Among the Senate caucus’ goals are “to underscore the importance of employing sound science to create effective public policy and to promote initiatives that encourage the development of chemical manufacturing and a new generation of chemists in the US through world-class education and research programs”.
As of 28 March, the Congressional Chemistry Caucus had 36 members in the House (11 Democrats, 25 Republicans) and 9 in the Senate (5 Democrats, 4 Republicans).
“We are getting like-minded members of Congress to join us in advancing regulatory reform,” said Byer.
While Byer is largely encouraged by the new administration’s initial efforts, the proposed elimination of the Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is another matter.
“This is disconcerting. The new leadership is doing a great job. You might not agree with the CSB, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have an agency to evaluate accidents and make recommendations,” said Byer.
“It provides a substantial benefit, and it’s not good optics to eliminate it. The CSB is very much our NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board),” he added.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2017/04/10/10096410/nacd-optimistic-on-us-regulatory-reform-president/
-
Congressional Clock Running Out to Repeal Obama Regulations
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Ari Natter
Hunting bears by airplane is legal again on federal land in Alaska and the mentally ill can purchase guns thanks to Republicans’ successful use of a once-obscure law allowing them to quickly roll back regulations.
But with a key deadline for using the Congressional Review Act looming, plenty of other rules targeted for elimination are likely to be spared—or fall into the longer, laborious process of review by the administration.
“That window is closing,” Marc Short, White House director of legislative affairs, told reporters April 5.
Congress has until roughly the end of the month—the deadline is set by the number of days it is in session—to act on the 20 pending measures. Lawmakers left town April 7 for a two-week break. After that they will have a weeklong sprint to try to reach a budget agreement and avoid a government shutdown. That leaves little time for other issues, and opponents can demand up to 10 hours of Senate debate for each review act measure.
The top remaining target for Republicans is an Interior Department rule requiring companies to find and repair leaks of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, from pipelines, processing equipment and wells. The American Petroleum Institute has lobbied hard to get the rule overturned, arguing that it could curtail exploration and development of oil and natural gas on federal lands. The measure easily passed the House in February, but has since stalled in the Senate.
“That's definitely the most significant one,” said Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy for the American Action Forum, a Washington research group that favors smaller government.
Votes Needed
Senate leaders remain one to two votes shy of a majority needed for passage, said Robert Dillon, a former Senate Republican staff member who now works with the American Council for Capital Formation, which backs repealing the rule. One stumbling block is Ohio Republican Rob Portman who said he hasn't decided how he would vote.
“I think the regulation is an overreach, but I think there is a more reasonable approach that could be taken,” Portman said. Part of his hesitation is a provision of the law that prohibits federal agencies from crafting “substantially the same” rules, he said.
Portman and other lawmakers are facing pressure from environmental groups, as well as Taxpayers for Common Sense, which argues that flaring natural gas on federal land instead of capturing it and selling it results in millions of dollars in lost royalty revenue.
A CRA vote “would prohibit similar rules to limit waste and collect royalties in the future,” the group said in a letter to Congress earlier this year.
Even without Congress, that rule could be scrapped. The Interior Department is reviewing it. That effort is expected to take at least a year, and will likely be followed by lengthy lawsuits, said Kevin Book, managing director of the Washington-based research firm ClearView Energy Partners.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke said his preference is for Congress to pass the CRA resolution killing the methane rule.
“I would like to see a CRA on it, because it lessens the litigation,” Zinke said in a March 28 interview. At the end of the day, if it is spiked by a CRA resolution, “we'll go forward to make a modification to the rule that makes sense,” he said.
In addition to that rule, lawmakers could act on one of the four other measures that were introduced in both chambers of Congress: rolling back regulations on coal valuation, chemical safety, prepaid credit cards and regional haze in Utah, Batkins said.
The Electronics Transactions Association is pushing to scrap the regulation that requires issuers of prepaid credit cards to improve fee transparency, provide protection against fraud and limit overdraft fees, according to the watchdog group Public Citizen.
CRA Expires
“CRA resolutions are payback to the corporate class that elected Republicans to Congress and are designed to roll back measures that have overwhelming public support,” Lisa Gilbert, the Washington-based group's vice president of legislative affairs, said in a statement.
Meanwhile, the measures that have been introduced only in one chamber of Congress are less likely to get a vote. Those include a measure backed by Republican Ted Cruz that would roll back Energy Department rules to set energy efficiency standards for compressors and another to block Treasury Department rules to close tax inversion loopholes.
Once the ability to use the CRA expires, the administration can move on its own to rewrite rules it doesn't like. But undoing rules that way is time-consuming and leaves the decision vulnerable to lawsuits, said Morton Rosenberg, a former Congressional Research Service specialist.
The administration has started to act. At the beginning of April, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed delaying by two-years chemical safety regulations established after a deadly explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, Texas. There's a proposal in Congress to cancel that rule, but Congress has yet to vote on it.
‘Regulatory Overreach’
Use of the so-called CRA has been one area of unity between congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, as both have complained that “regulatory overreach” by Obama has harmed the economy, curtailed job growth and depressed business investment. The law was used successfully only once before: to repeal a Clinton-era ergonomics rule. Under the CRA, the Senate has 60 legislative days after a rule is issued to act to rescind it. That clock restarted this year with the new Congress.
Estimates vary for when the deadline for acting runs out. The White House says Congress has until April 28 to act on proposed measures while the Senate Republican Policy Committee said it's actually May 9.
In addition to easing the gun rules and allowing bear hunting in Alaskan wildlife refuges, Congress has voted to allow internet service providers to use customers browsing data for marketing and to make it easier for coal companies to open mines in Appalachia.
Repealing the 11 rules that Trump has signed will provide $10 billion in benefits to the U.S. economy, according to Short, the White House legislative aide.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160469&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160469&jd=109160469
-
Contact Industry to Plan Regulatory Revamp, Pruitt Tells Staff
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Brian Dabbs
EPA program offices must submit plans by May 15 to repeal, replace and modify existing regulations “to make them less burdensome,” Administrator Scott Pruitt told senior agency staff in late March, according to a document released by an EPA union April 10.
Pruitt tapped Samantha Dravis, Environmental Protection Agency associate administrator for policy, and Ryan Jackson, his chief of staff, to lead a task force to compile those recommendations into a plan to scale back the agency's regulatory footprint. The effort complies with Executive Order 13777, which President Donald Trump issued in February.
Trump's order required agencies to seek “input and other assistance” from states, businesses and other entities affected by federal regulations.
The EPA's offices of air and radiation, land and emergency management, chemical safety and pollution prevention, water, environmental information, congressional and intergovernmental relations, and small and disadvantaged business utilization must submit recommendations.
Pruitt told them to propose recommendations that are “informed by consultations with their particular stakeholders,” adding: “Each of those offices should hold a dedicated public meeting on this topic so that we can listen and learn directly from those impacted by our regulations.”
A separate directive from Pruitt, also issued March 24, requires EPA program and regional offices to send all regulatory actions to an agencywide management system.
Those actions include all statutory or judicial deadlines, new rules or permits and a slate of other activity, Pruitt said. “As a general matter, offices should err on the side of including actions in the system,” he said. Dravis also will oversee that effort.
An early March memo called on program and regional offices and to submit all actions for approval at headquarters through the beginning of April. That directive applied to basic permitting actions, which would include state water quality standards, some Superfund remedies and a wide range of other actions, an EPA manager told Bloomberg BNA at the time. Those actions are traditionally authorized by the specific offices.
EPA spokespeople didn't respond to multiple Bloomberg BNA requests for comment.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160488&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160488&jd=109160488
-
(ACC Mentioned) EDF Faults Industry Call To Ease TSCA Inventory Under Trump Cost Order
Apr 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) is criticizing the chemical sector's call for EPA to ease implementation and reduce costs of its proposed chemical inventory rule, saying industry's bid to tie the request to President Donald Trump's executive order (EO) on reducing regulatory burdens is "wrong" and at odds with the revised federal toxics law.
"First, the proposal would have EPA rewrite the law's requirement that each manufacturer notify EPA of its active chemical, to instead allow that once one company has notified EPA of a chemical, no other company need do so," writes Richard Denison, an EDF lead senior scientist, in a recent blog post in response to the industry request. "Second, the industry's proposal won't work in practice and likely won't be desirable even to them."
Trump's Jan. 30 EO 13771 that prohibits any additional incremental costs for new regulations in fiscal year 2017 and directs agencies to "identify" two rules for repeal for every new rule they propose.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) and other chemical industry groups cited the order in their recent comments on the Obama EPA's proposed chemicals inventory "reset" rule aimed at giving the agency a better sense of how many thousands of chemicals are already in the marketplace, as required by the updated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Both groups recommend that EPA require only one company to report each chemical to the agency for it to be considered listed on the inventory. This "one and done" approach could "dramatically reduce burdens on reporting companies -- and EPA," said SOCMA, which represents small batch and specialty chemical companies. This would help EPA comply with Trump's EO, according to the group's comments.
Complying with the order's cost and deregulatory provisions could be difficult for EPA because many agency rules are required by statute, as is the TSCA inventory reset rule. Dan Newton, SOCMA's senior manager for government relations, writes in the group's undated comments that complying with the order's cost requirements will be difficult for EPA and the agency should therefore ease industry burdens. "EPA will face sufficient challenges meeting its 'net zero' cap in any event; it ought not make the job any more difficult than it needs to," he writes.
But Denison argues that the proposal would not work and is contrary to the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which overhauled TSCA when signed into law last June.
TSCA Inventory
Denison points to new TSCA section 8(b)(4)(A)(i), which directs EPA to update the TSCA inventory. The inventory reflects "existing" chemicals, those on the marketplace. This delineation is important, because new chemicals must undergo EPA scrutiny before they can go into commercial production or be sold in the U.S. The section directs EPA to issue a rule that requires manufacturers and allows processors to notify the agency "of each chemical substance on the list . . . that the manufacturer or processor, as applicable, has manufactured or processed for a nonexempt commercial purpose during the" 10 years prior to the passage of the revised toxics law.
"Clearly this provision requires each manufacturer of a substance on the Inventory to notify EPA if it has been manufacturing it recently. Nothing in this language allows for a subset of such manufacturers to file notices," he writes.
Further, Denison argues that the "one and done" approach outlined in the industry comments could also be contrary to industry's interest in protecting confidential business information (CBI). Denison notes that part of the inventory update's purpose is for manufacturers and processors to assert any existing claims of CBI, otherwise, the changes to TSCA require that EPA reveal the chemicals' names.
"Such CBI claims and the basis for them are, of course, specific to the company asserting a claim. If the Inventory notification process for a chemical could stop after the first notice is received, that could well mean that only that first notifier's CBI claim would be asserted -- and even then only if that notifier had an existing claim and wished to reassert it," he writes. "Under this scenario, requests to maintain existing CBI claims originating with other manufacturers of that same chemical might well not be received by EPA. In this context, the law is clear that the identity of any active chemical for which no requests are received through the Inventory notification process to renew an existing CBI claim must be disclosed to the public," Denison says, citing TSCA section 8(b)(4)(B)(iv).
"I suspect that is not an outcome those in industry urging EPA to stop the Inventory notification process for a chemical after receipt of the first notice would be pleased with," Denison adds.
CBI Claim
ACC's comments said, "EPA must ensure that if an 'early' notifier decides to waive an existing CBI claim, that action cannot itself prejudice subsequent notifiers or deprive them of an opportunity to reassert a claim."
But Denison argues that the process proposed is "an additional, convoluted process that is not in the law at all. . . . This tries to shift to EPA a burden that the law clearly places on companies. And it begs the question why EPA should have to provide 'all potentially affected manufacturers and processors' yet another 'full opportunity to reassert CBI claims' when they just chose not to take up the opportunity afforded them under the law and EPA's proposed rule to do so via the Inventory notification process."
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/edf-faults-industry-call-ease-tsca-inventory-under-trump-cost-order
-
Apr 10, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund.
By Richard Denison
As more details emerge about the Trump Administration’s proposed budget cuts, it’s becoming clearer that the public’s health could well take one of the worst hits. Trump has proposed a 31% cut to the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), paired with similarly deep reductions in staff. The details are laid out in a March 21, 2017, internal memo from EPA’s Acting Chief Financial Officer.
Among the biggest cuts are to the Agency’s research, both research it conducts and that undertaken by labs and universities it helps fund. EPA Office of Research and Development (ORD) would see its funding cut nearly in half, from $483 million to $250 million in 2018. The axe would fall across the full spectrum of EPA’s research: air, climate, and energy; human health risk assessment; safe and sustainable water; sustainable communities; homeland security; and chemical safety. EPA’s extramural STAR grant program would be entirely eliminated.
Scroll through Attachment A of the memo and you’ll see program after program proposed to be eliminated or slashed. But there is a notable exception, on p. 9 of the Attachment: an apparent increase for an item labeled “OCSPP / EPM / Toxic Substances: Chemical Risk Review and Reduction,” accompanied by this explanation: “This program change increases $13,834K in non-pay resources in support of the new work required under the updated TSCA law.”
On one level, this seems like a bright spot in an otherwise dismal document, though it appears that the increase is in anticipation of the fees that the new TSCA authorizes EPA to collect from industry to help offset up to 25% of program costs. Still, unlike most of the rest of the Agency, the program’s base budget is proposed to remain essentially intact.
No doubt this reflects the strong bipartisan support that led to last year’s passage of the Lautenberg Act and the continuing need for the chemical industry to be able to point to a viable federal chemical safety program in order to restore public and market confidence and seek to temper state and market action to restrict dangerous chemicals. (I’ve recently blogged, however, about the mixed signals being sent by the industry; see here and here.)
While this may seem like good news, the notion that EPA could somehow neatly carve out one program area and keep it functioning well when the carving knives are rampantly slashing everything around it is, well, preposterous.
A functioning TSCA office at EPA is highly dependent on many other functions within the Agency. I’ll just name two here for starters, both of which are housed within ORD and are proposed for near or total elimination under Mr. Trump’s proposed budget:
· EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) would be zeroed out (see references to IRIS on pages 19 and 21 of Attachment A of the budget memo). Yet EPA’s ability to conduct risk evaluations under the new TSCA would be severely curtailed by the loss of both expertise and capacity that resides in the IRIS program. IRIS conducts hazard characterizations of chemicals, providing hazard values that other EPA offices combine with exposure information to characterize risk. Of the risk evaluations underway for the first 10 so-called TSCA Work Plan chemicals, more than half have completed IRIS hazard assessments on which the TSCA office plans to build (these include asbestos, trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,4-dioxane, carbon tetrachloride, dichloromethane, and tetrachloroethylene), and for another IRIS has initiated an assessment (hexabromocyclododecane).
While IRIS has had its share of criticism in the past, major improvements have been made, leading the National Academy of Sciences to applaud the program for embracing and quickly acting on its earlier recommendations.· EPA’s ToxCast and related initiatives. Major cuts are proposed to EPA’s “Chemical Safety for Sustainability” research program: a 44% reduction in budget and 22% cut in staffing (see references to “Chemical Safety and Sustainability” [sic] on page 20 of Attachment A of the budget memo). This program has been shepherding the development of high-throughput testing and other predictive toxicology methods and computational tools that hold enormous promise to provide far more information on chemicals than has been possible in the past, and to do so at far less expense and with the use of far fewer laboratory animals. The need to further develop these approaches has been embraced by the entire spectrum of TSCA stakeholders, from industry to health and environmental organizations to animal welfare groups. Given the large number of chemicals regulated under TSCA for which major data gaps exist, the TSCA reform legislation enacted last year has numerous provisions that call on EPA to advance the development and use of these methods.
In addition, cross-cutting functions that would suffer deep budget cuts are essential for a functioning TSCA office. For example, effective and equitable enforcement is critical to ensure not only that requirements are met, but also that companies in compliance are not put at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies that aren’t. Yet the enforcement office is cut by 23 percent, rewarding the cheaters, rather than the large majority of businesses who work to comply with the law.
I cite these examples to illustrate how utterly impossible – and how short-sighted and counterproductive – it is to cut to the bone the core functions of EPA and then pretend that a “TSCA island” can still somehow thrive or even survive.
My EDF colleague Jack Pratt summed up in a single sentence just how crazy this approach is: “You can’t burn down my house, and then expect me to cook you dinner because the kitchen is still standing.”
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/04/10/where-theres-smoke-there-are-mirrors-the-trump-administrations-claim-to-preserve-tsca-implementation-under-its-proposed-epa-budget-is-pure-illusion/
-
EPA Must Finalize Rules to Act on Dangerous Chemicals
Apr 10, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Daniel Rosenberg and Veena Singla
Talk about bad timing. After 40 years of stagnation, the most important federal law regulating chemicals for consumer product, commercial and industrial uses (the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA) just had a major makeover in 2016. But despite bi-partisan support for a rapid debut, the new TSCA may be all dressed up with nowhere to go if this administration, eager to dismantle common-sense public health protections, has its way. Now the clock is ticking for EPA, but the Agency can’t act to protect communities from dangerous chemicals without first laying down the ‘ground rules’ for chemical evaluations by June 22, 2017, as mandated by Congress.
These ground rules will dictate how EPA deals with hazardous chemicals not only for the upcoming 4 years, but likely the next 40, since another TSCA overhaul won’t happen again anytime soon. So while the Trump administration will pass, these rules—and the chemicals that may or may not be subject to restriction because of them—will affect human health and the environment for a very long time to come indeed. That’s why it’s important the Agency get these rules right—and finalize them quickly.
In January 2017, EPA proposed two comprehensive and sound rules that will be the foundation of the Agency’s chemical control program: chemical prioritization and risk evaluation. NRDC submitted comments supporting both rules (read them here and here). Needing only some minor clarifications, the rules meet EPA’s statutory obligations under the revised TSCA and therefore, the Agency should have no problem meeting the June deadline to finalize the rules.
As shown in the diagram, the prioritization rule codifies the general process by which EPA will sort chemicals into “high priority” and “low priority” buckets. High priority chemicals will move forward into the risk evaluation process, while low priority chemicals will not (though the classification can change based on new evidence). The risk evaluation rule codifies the general process by which EPA will assess a chemical’s hazards and exposures, then determine if the chemical poses an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.
For both rules, revised TSCA requires consideration of several central issues. First, the Agency must look at all the uses of a chemical across the board, from cradle to grave—including manufacturing, processing, use and recycling/ disposal. Second, revised TSCA directs EPA to account for the fact that in the real world, people can come into contact with a chemical in many different ways -- for example, through air, water, and product use. These exposures add up and together create greater risk of harm. Finally, EPA must protect those amongst us who are the most vulnerable to harm from toxic chemicals, such as workers, young children, and environmental justice communities.
EPA is already off to a strong start on the new TSCA by proposing these ground rules. Now if this administration can stand aside and allow the Agency to do its job (with the resources it needs), we may finally see effective restriction of dangerous and risky chemicals in the years to come, to the benefit of families and communities.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/daniel-rosenberg/epa-must-finalize-rules-act-dangerous-chemicals
-
(ACC Mentioned) EU Automotive Group Develops Criteria For Selecting Suitable Alternatives
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The European Automotive Industry Association (Acea) has developed criteria for selecting 'non-regulated' alternative substances to help vehicle manufacturers avoid 'regrettable substitutions'.
The aim is for chemical manufacturers to use the criteria when identifying alternatives to supply in place of regulated substances. If a replacement substance meets the criteria, vehicle manufacturers will accept it. If it does not, the expectation is that the materials manufacturers and their downstream supply chain will begin a discussion on whether the alternative is suitable, and if there are other available options.
On behalf of Acea, Timo Unger told delegates at Chemical Watch's Global Business Summit in Amsterdam last month that regrettable substitution has become a costly problem for the automotive sector. This is where a regulated hazardous substance is replaced with a chemical later found to have similar intrinsic properties that result in its being regulated too.
Mr Unger, Hyundai's environmental affairs manager, said the "unnecessary cost" of replacing regrettable substitutes can amount to "thousands, sometimes millions of Euros".
Acea raised the issue in 2015, when it sent a letter to the European Chemicals Industry Association (Cefic). It urged chemical manufacturers to improve their assessment of substances offered as alternatives to those facing restriction and called for the introduction of clear criteria for non-regulated alternatives.
Acea says Cefic is looking into the proposal with the aim of starting a dialogue. Acea plans to share and agree its criteria with the chemical trade body and other industry associations, such as the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
Cefic declined Chemical Watch's request for comment on the criteria and Acea's 2015 letter.Decision-making
The decision to substitute a substance is mostly triggered equally from both sides – the automotive and chemical industries. But the decision for selecting the substitute is mostly made by the chemical industry, said Mr Unger.
Vehicle manufacturers, he said, should be involved much earlier in the decision-making process of selecting substitutes. Acea is calling for chemical suppliers to perform alternative assessments, instead of the vehicle manufacturers.
"We are not chemists or toxicologists, we are engineers," he said. "We cannot judge the safety of a substance and so we rely on our suppliers."
But this process, he said, is not working.
The majority of vehicle manufacturers, said Mr Unger, tell their suppliers that parts have to meet certain specifications, such as flammability, fogging and noise. They are not, however, asking them to use, or not use, specific substances.
Consequently, it is left up to the suppliers to select the substances to fulfil the specifications. Only under special circumstances, he said, will vehicle manufacturers select a substance to be used by their suppliers.
"Due to our complex supply chain we rarely know the manufacturers of the materials used in our components and thus don't have direct influence on substance decisions."
Vehicle manufacturers, he said, also have very long development cycles. At the beginning of the development phase, the legal requirements cannot be foreseen five years ahead, he added.
"There is no crystal ball, we do not know what regulations will be coming through in the future."
He added that regulators have not provided good guidance on selecting alternatives. "We prefer to work in Canada and the US, compared to the EU, because there is more guidance … but even this is not perfect."
criteria
An alternative substance must:
· have a completed registration under REACH;
· be listed in all global legally binding chemical inventories;
· not meet the SVHC criteria and must not be expected to;
· not already be regulated or in the 'regulatory pipeline' in the EU or other regions;
· not be listed on the Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (Gadsl) or the Global List of Automotive Process substances (GLAPS);
· not belong to the same substance group as the original substance;
· be less hazardous than the original substance (to be defined case by case);
· be available, or have the potential to be, in amounts sufficient to supply customer needs; and
· fulfil customers technical requirements.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55011/eu-automotive-group-develops-criteria-for-selecting-suitable-alternativesAcea's
-
Flame Retardant Makers Won't Have to Do Toxicity Tests: EPA
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
Manufacturers of three flame retardants used in furniture foam, textiles, paints and other products won't have to conduct toxicity or exposure tests requested through an environmental coalition's petition, the EPA has decided.
The petition did not provide sufficient evidence for the Environmental Protection Agency to conclude that the data it already has and that are available through computer modeling and other analytic approaches are inadequate to evaluate the health or environmental effects of the flame retardants known as the chlorinated phosphate ester (CPE) cluster, the EPA said. Its response will be published in the Federal Register on a undecided date and was published online April 6.
Six environmental health groups lead by Earthjustice filed their petition Jan. 6 asking the EPA to require the manufacturers of the three flame retardants to conduct toxicity and exposure tests because the chemicals may pose an unreasonable risk to people and the environment.
Companies, Production Volumes
Companies that made one or more of the three flame retardants in 2011—the most recent year for which the EPA has published production data—included Aceto Corp., Albemarle Corp., Henkel Corp., ICL-IP America Inc., Lanxess Corp. and Solvay America Inc.
One of the three flame retardants (Chemical Abstract Service No. 13674-84-5) was produced in a volume of 55 million pounds in 2011, while another (CAS No. 13674-87-8) was produced in a volume ranging from 10 million to 50 million that year. Those quantities make the chemicals high production volume chemicals. The EPA withheld the production volume of the third chemical (CAS No. 115-96-8) because only one company reported, so disclosure of its production would reveal proprietary information.
Earthjustice, the Natural Resources Defense Council and other coalition participants justified their petition for toxicity and exposure data by pointing to conclusions already reached by California and the European Union about the risks the flame retardants posed; scientific studies about the three flame retardants; and information the EPA gathered in an initial assessment of the cluster the agency released in August 2015.
The EPA described each type of data sought by the coalition and, in many cases, said data it has received since 2015 would help it assess the chemicals risks. It also listed computer models that it could run to estimate exposure and sources of exposure data, such as existing effluent data from municipal treatment plants, that it could obtain.
The agency left open the possibility that it might need some additional data, such as information about whether the flame retardants mimic, block or alter hormone function. The agency said it would decide whether such data were needed when it has conducted additional analyses.
The three flame retardants that make up the cluster are:
• tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate, or TCEP, CAS No. 115-96-8;
• 2-propanol, 1-chloro-, phosphate, or TCPP, CAS No. 13674-84-5; and
• 2-propanol, 1,3-dichloro-, phosphate, or TDCPP, CAS No. 13674-87-8.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160496&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160496&jd=109160496
-
US Enforcement Of Crystalline Silica Standard For Construction Postponed
Apr 11, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) has announced a three-month delay in enforcement of the new standard on occupational exposure to crystalline silica in construction.
An amendment to the rule last June lowered the permissible exposure limit (PEL) for silica from 100 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 50μg/m3, as an eight-hour time-weighted average. It also imposed additional requirements on controlling and assessing exposure, hazard communication and record keeping.
Enforcement of the rule was scheduled to begin on 23 June, but has been postponed until 23 September. Osha says the delay is to provide additional time for it to develop guidance materials and train enforcement officers.
Crystalline silica is released when quartz, sand, granite or other minerals containing it, are ground, drilled, chipped or cut. Occupational exposure is associated with increased risk of death from silicosis, as well as respiratory diseases including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and kidney disease.Feasibility concerns
The rule has faced opposition and legal challenges from industry groups that do not agree with changing the PEL.
The Construction Industry Safety Coalition (CISC) – comprising 25 trade associations – says in a statement that it appreciated the 90-day delay in enforcement. But it remains "concerned about the overall feasibility of the standard in construction".
CISC wrote to Osha last month requesting it delay the rule for a year. The letter says its member companies face "significant difficulties" complying with the standard – calling it "unattainable and unworkable in many instances".
Instead, Osha delayed the rule by three months. And it says it expects employers in the construction industry to continue to take steps to either come into compliance with the new PEL, or to implement specific dust controls for certain operations.
Construction employers should also continue to prepare to implement the standard's other requirements, including exposure assessment, medical surveillance and employee training, it says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55087/us-enforcement-of-crystalline-silica-standard-for-construction-postponed
-
Activist Groups Sue Monsanto for ‘Deceptive’ Claims on Roundup
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker
Two environmental nonprofit organizations are taking Monsanto Co. to court over a claim that the company's signature herbicide, Roundup, doesn't affect human or animal health.
The Organic Consumers Association and Beyond Pesticides say in an April 7 complaint to the District of Columbia Superior Court that the company misled the public in saying that the biochemical mechanism in Roundup that kills weeds can't occur in humans or pets (Beyond Pesticides v. Monsanto, D.C. Super. Ct., 4/7/17).
The challenge under Washington's Consumer Protection Procedures Act, which protects consumers against deceptive business practices, hinges on recent research on gut bacteria and human health.
Glyphosate, the main ingredient in the herbicide, kills weeds by suppressing an essential enzyme in plants. Glyphosate disrupts the pathway that the enzyme, 5- enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP), takes to process amino acids, the building blocks of proteins.
Animals don't process amino acids through the same pathway as plants, the brief says. But bacteria—including the microbes found in mammals’ intestinal tracts—do. Monsanto's statements that glyphosate affects an enzyme that is absent in humans is therefore misleading, the groups said.
“We think they are making claims that are deceptively false regarding potential impacts on health and the environment,” Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, told Bloomberg BNA. “It affects the gut biome in a very clear way, that's why we're using this statute.”
Lawsuit ‘Without Merit,’ Says Monsanto
The lawsuit against Monsanto is the latest challenge to Roundup's safety record. More than 100 people are suing the company in California state and federal courts, claiming the herbicide triggered their non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a type of cancer. California announced last month that it would add glyphosate to its list of substances known to cause cancer, based on a 2015 finding from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that the chemical is a “probable” carcinogen.
Monsanto defended its statements that the herbicide is safe for humans.
“The statement ‘glyphosate targets an enzyme in plants but not people or pets’ is a factual statement that communicates to consumers how glyphosate works,” company spokeswoman Charla Lord told Bloomberg BNA in an email. “Monsanto believes the lawsuit is without merit. Beyond Pesticides and Organic Consumers Association are activist organizations with long-standing positions in opposition to the use of glyphosate without consideration of the actual scientific record demonstrating the safe use of glyphosate.”
Individuals in a California superior court and a New York federal district court have sued Monsanto in the last two years over the same gut microbiome claims. The California case was ultimately dismissed. The New York case was dismissed in part because the claims are pre-empted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to approve pesticides.
Beyond Pesticides and OCA also have taken General Mills and Sioux Honey to court under the Washington consumer protection law, challenging the companies’ use of “natural” to describe granola bars and honey with traces of glyphosate.
Nonprofits have broad standing under the Washington consumer protection statute, making it easier for claims to be heard in court.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160495&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160495&jd=109160495
-
Monsanto Wins Dismissal of School's PCB Claims
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Steven M. Sellers
Monsanto Co. isn't liable for supplying a PCB-based product in the 1960s that ended up in window caulk at a Massachusetts school, the District of Massachusetts ruled April 7 (Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., 2017 BL 115884, D. Mass., No. 14-cv-12041, 4/7/17).
The Town of Westport, Mass., didn't establish that Monsanto and its sister company Pharmacia Corp. were negligent or breached any warranty by selling the product, the court said.
The ruling is the latest victory for the companies over towns that sought compensation for cleaning up toxic polychlorinated biphenyls discovered in Massachusetts schools.
The PCBs were detected in 2011 during a window replacement at Westport Middle School, according to the complaint. The town began a project to remove all PCBs from the school and sued numerous defendants.
Pharmacia supplied a PCB-containing plasticizer used by Product Research & Chemical Corp., the manufacturer of the caulk, but Westport didn't show there was a feasible alternative design for the plasticizer when it was supplied in 1969, the court said.
Nor was it reasonably foreseeable at the time that PCBs in caulk would pose a specific health risk, the court said.
Westport's claims that Pharmacia had a duty to warn end-users about health risks also failed.
As a bulk supplier, Pharmacia didn't control the levels of its plasticizers used in caulk, and “was not in a position where it could communicate more specific warnings about the risks that end-users might face,” the court said.
A 2015 ruling in Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., where similar claims were rejected, also supported the dismissals here, the court said.
U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper wrote the decision for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The law offices of Baron & Budd represented Westport.
White & Williams represented Monsanto and Pharmacia.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160477&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160477&jd=109160477
-
5 Ways to Reduce Toxic Exposures in Your Home
Apr 11, 2017 | Environmental Working Grou
By Jane Tavyev Asher
If you have small children in the house, are pregnant or are trying to conceive – or simply want to stay healthy – you are probably looking for ways to avoid toxic chemicals at home and outdoors. Harmful pollutants that can increase the risk of cancer and damage your developing child’s IQ can lurk in household dust, leach out of plastic containers and even contaminate tap water.
Here are five top tips to reduce toxic exposures and protect your family’s health.
1) Filter your water
The number one way to reduce toxic exposures in your home is to have a good water filter.
From washing kale, to cooking quinoa, to basic hydration, water is everywhere!
With the recent lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., and other communities, as well as the relaxing of regulations on pesticides and industrial toxins that run off into our water supplies, we can predict a huge rise in exposure to all kinds of toxic chemicals.
EWG has a great water filter guide so you can find the right one to fit your budget.
2) Stop using plastic bottles
Plastic bottles are really the ultimate lose-lose situation. Bad for you, bad for the environment.
First there was bisphenol A, or BPA. It’s an endocrine disruptor extraordinaire. Leaching of the chemical is worse when heated – whether that is in the microwave or your car in the Texas heat.
Then came BPA-free. So full of promise. But soon we learned BPA-free plastics contain other additives that are as bad as BPA!
I could go on about the evils of the plastic bottle and talk forever about its enormous carbon footprint, which hurts the environment and increases our dependence on fossil fuels.
There are rare exceptions when you can't avoid plastic containers, most ironically for breast pumps. But for daily use, tote your own filtered water around in a glass or stainless steel bottle.
EWG has tips for finding safer, non-plastic alternatives.
3) Get a vacuum with a HEPA filter
Sofas are loaded with flame retardants, household items such as shower curtains emit VOCs, and plastics leach phthalates. Replacing everything immediately might not go with the decor or your budget.
As an immediate solution, you can vacuum with a HEPA filter to get contaminants out of your house, while avoiding inhaling toxic chemicals.
4) Wash your hands before eating
It's not just about the germs!
There are many chemicals that don’t belong in your body, such as heavy metals that damage the brain and phthalates added to plastics to keep them soft.
You can't avoid touching everything, but you sure can try to keep it from getting into your mouth.
No sink nearby? The Neurotic Neurologist suggests pouring some water from your water bottle onto your hands, and rubbing vigorously with a napkin.
Avoid hand sanitizer before meals, since it can leave your hands coated with something you don't necessarily want to be eating.
5) Take shoes off in the house
Your shoes bring in contaminated dust from nearby construction, pesticides recently sprayed near public parks, and bacteria and viruses. In the house, babies may lick the floor, crawl on the floor and put their fingers into their mouths, while older kids find floor-blueberries to be the most delicious of all.
Thankfully, you are not left alone to figure all of this out. EWG is ramping up its work just as the federal government is backing off from protecting children’s health. More EWG consumer guides are available here.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/04/5-ways-reduce-toxic-exposures-your-home
-
JRC, Efsa Discuss Chemicals Risk Assessment Collaboration
Apr 10, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and The European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) met on 5 April to discuss joint projects and areas of common interest related to the risk assessment of chemicals.
Subjects on the agenda included:
· combined exposure to chemical mixtures;
· endocrine disruptors;
· environmental modelling; and
· risk assessment.
The JRC and Efsa have regularly collaborated on the topic of combined exposure to chemical mixtures. At the meeting, they discussed further use of their databases and tools supporting mixture assessments. This will include the JRC's development of the Information Platform on Chemical Monitoring (IPCheM).
The JRC is already addressing many of the issues and knowledge gaps identified by Efsa concerning endocrine disruptors with novel test methods and improved existing test guidelines, a statement says.
For risk assessment, in addition to developing regulatory guidance, the JRC and Efsa can collaborate on case studies that illustrate the utility of new approach method data when assessing risks of food-relevant chemicals.
Efsa and the JRC also plan to generate an integrated environmental risk assessment tool.
A new collaboration agreement between the two is being established.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55083/jrc-efsa-discuss-chemicals-risk-assessment-collaboration
-
Apr 10, 2017 | THe Advocate
By Ted Griggs
A $1.12 billion manufacturing complex planned by Wanhua Chemical is the latest in a string of foreign megaprojects for Louisiana and second major one from mainland China, potentially a sign of more to come.
“The key reason for this is they really don’t have natural gas. They don’t have the key raw material,” said economist and consultant Loren Scott. “It makes more sense to them financially to make the material out of natural gas here and then ship it to China rather than shipping the LNG (liquefied natural gas) to China.”
Wanhua, traded on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, is the world’s largest manufacturer of methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, or MDI, which will be produced at a Louisiana site that hasn't yet been selected. The material is used in making polyurethanes, a key component in such things as car seats, furniture, shoes and insulation.
Wanhua will invest $954 million in the facility and its project partners will put up $166 million. The names of the partners were not disclosed Monday. The project will create 170 new direct jobs with an average annual salary of $70,440, plus benefits. Louisiana Economic Development estimates the project will result in 945 new indirect jobs.
Wanhua’s Louisiana complex is the second-largest direct investment by a company from mainland China, according to Louisiana Economic Development. The largest, and only other so far, is the $1.85 billion methanol complex under development by Yuhuang Chemical in St. James Parish.
China continues to be one of the key international markets Louisiana is targeting for new foreign direct investment. Louisiana ranks third among the U.S. states for the most foreign direct investment from China, behind New York and California, where most of those investments involve real estate developments.
LED Secretary Don Pierson said he expects additional China investment will come — possibly from Wanhua and Yuhuang.
“I think that we have every reason to believe that we’ll see more investment from China. I think it’s in compliance with what the (Trump) administration is trying to encourage: made in America,” Pierson said. “Projects like this help our trade balance, producing commodities they own and likely ship back to their markets.”
“The industry system that’s emerging in Louisiana, about $165 billion in investments over the last four or five years, is showing some real strength for us,” Pierson said.
The projects are all part of the shale revolution, a U.S. manufacturing renaissance generated by the cheap natural gas flowing from shale formations. Companies worldwide are pouring billions into “shale-advantaged” projects, according to the American Chemistry Council. As of March, 294 chemical industry projects valued at $179 billion have been announced, and 62 percent of the total comes from firms based outside the United States.
Scott said he would not be surprised if the percentage is even higher in Louisiana.
With the exception of LNG export terminals, most of the state’s megaprojects involve foreign companies, he said. A partial list of the projects includes South African firm Sasol’s $8.9 billion ethane cracker outside Lake Charles; Japanese firm Shintech’s $1.4 billion ethylene plant in Iberville Parish, part of a $4.7 billion investment overall; a $717 million expansion by Dutch firm Shell Chemical at its Geismar campus; Vancouver, Canada-based Methanex Corp.’s $2 billion investment in two methanol plants in Geismar; a $1.5 billion plant in St. John Parish by Russian fertilizer maker EuroChem; Taiwan-based Formosa Plastics planned investment of $9.4 billion in petrochemical projects in St. James Parish; and South Korea’s Lotte Chemical's $1.1 billion in a monoethylene glycol plant in Lake Charles and partnering with Atlanta-based Axiall on a $1.9 billion ethane cracker at the same site.
And that doesn’t include ChemChina’s $43 billion deal to buy Swiss agribusiness giant Syngenta, which has an herbicide and pesticide manufacturing plant in St. Gabriel and warehouse leases in Baton Rouge.
Since 2003, Louisiana ranks No. 1 among the U.S. states in per capita foreign direct investment attracted and No. 2 in foreign direct investment capital expenditures attracted overall at more than $34 billion.
Wanhua plans to release the site for its planned complex later this year. One of the company’s reasons for selecting Louisiana, deepwater transportation provided by the Mississippi River, may provide a hint of the plant’s location.
Scott said access to the Mississippi means the plant will have to be in the Baton Rouge-New Orleans industrial corridor.
It will also require a large piece of property. Yuhuang bought 1,300 acres on the river and St. James High School for its methanol complex. BASF invested a similar amount in an MDI plant in China that lies on 5,000 acres.
Two years ago, when Wanhua was looking at sites in Ascension Parish, the company was searching for about 1,600 acres, Ascension Economic Development Corp. CEO Kate MacArthur said. Unfortunately, it appears Ascension is out of the running for Wanhua.
“The last time we had it on our project list was 2015,” MacArthur said. “There was at least one site they were looking at, but it was a while ago.”
Scott said St. James Parish may be a possibility.
“I think St. James got into this very late. If you remember, they were very anti-economic development for a while,” Scott said.
The result is that St. James still has large tracts of property available for industrial development.
Pierson said he believes Wanhua has narrowed its choices to two sites. The company is awaiting some information, such as soil conditions and permitting, before making its decision.
The proposed Wanhua complex was announced by Wanhua Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Zengtai Liao and Gov. John Bel Edwards on Monday. LED has been in discussions with Wanhua since 2013. Last month, Pierson and a Louisiana contingent met with Liao and other officials at Wanhua’s headquarters in Yantai, China, to finalize plans to move the project forward.
To secure Wanhua’s investment, the state offered the company an incentive package that includes a performance-based grant of $4.3 million to offset site infrastructure costs. Wanhua is also expected to use the state's Industrial Tax Exemption and Quality Jobs programs. The Industrial Tax Exemption exempts manufacturers from paying local property taxes for up to 10 years.
http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/business/article_f207e93e-1df0-11e7-9a11-97894d0ea211.html
-
Louisiana Lands Another Billion-Dollar Chinese Petrochemical Facility
Apr 10, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Joe Fisher
China’s Wanhua Chemical said it will develop a $1.12 billion chemical manufacturing complex in Louisiana, noting the state’s proximity to abundant natural gas supply as well as waterborne transport.
Wanhua plans to produce methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) at the facility, which would combine a $954 million investment by Wanhua with a $166 million investment by project partners. Site selection is to be made later this year. The company said it had considered locating the facility in Texas but settled on Louisiana.
The project would be the second-largest foreign direct investment in Louisiana by a company based in mainland China following the $1.85 billion methanol complex under development by Yuhuang Chemical in St. James Parish.
“Today’s announcement of Wanhua Chemical’s decision to select Louisiana is a testament to the strength of Louisiana’s business climate and unmatched transportation logistics,” said Gov. John Bel Edwards. “Our highly skilled workforce, our natural resources and our world-class infrastructure allow companies like Wanhua to make significant investments in our state and create great new jobs while strengthening their competitive edge.”
The facility is expected to be a major component of Wanhua’s global development of MDI. An intermediate chemical, MDI is among the fastest-growing categories of chemical production, the company said. It is used for polyurethane foams and elastomers, with applications in such consumer areas as appliances, electronics, furniture, textiles and footwear. MDI also is used in the development of rollers, packing, vibration insulators and synthetic leather for various industries.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110068-louisiana-lands-another-billion-dollar-chinese-petrochemical-facility
-
Democratic Officials Step Up Ethics Probes Into Pruitt
Apr 10, 2017 | Inside EPA
Senate Democrats and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) are stepping up their inquiries into alleged conflicts of interest posed by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in an effort to force him to recuse himself from ongoing efforts to roll back climate and other rules.
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE), the ranking Democrat on the Senate environment committee, along with several other top Democrats, wrote Pruitt April 10 warning that his recent actions to begin the process of rolling back several Obama-era climate policies require approval from the agency's ethics officer.
“We seek your written confirmation that such authorization has been granted, or that you will recuse yourself from these matters going forward,” they wrote.
The letters underscore concerns raised by Democrats during Pruitt's confirmation hearing, when they pressed him to recuse himself from discussions of rules that he had challenged as Oklahoma's attorney general, among other things.
Pruitt is also facing an ethics investigation by the Oklahoma Bar Association over concerns that he had used private email to coordinate activities with fossil fuel groups while serving as attorney general, even though he told senators during his confirmation that he had not.
The recent letters raise questions over Pruitt's recent actions to begin rolling back several Obama-era climate rules, including the Clean Power Plan for existing power plants and related measures -- rules governing greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified power plants and a 2016 rule governing methane emissions from new oil and gas sources.
According to the Democrats, during his confirmation process Pruitt agreed to a limited recusal, rather than a broader recusal they had sought. But they say that his approval of Federal Register notices that begin the process of rolling back the climate rules, as well as his signing motions to hold litigation over the rules in abeyance, is at odds even with Pruitt's limited recusal agreement.
“Your anticipation of, and preparation for, signing of the Federal Register notice and filing of the [abeyance] Motion in the [U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit] should have triggered the more limited recusal policy to which you have already and repeatedly agreed,” they write.
They ask Pruitt a series of questions, including whether he has sought authorization from EPA's ethics office to participate in these matters and whether he has “requested or received a waiver to participate personally and substantially in any other particular matters involving specific parties in which the State of Oklahoma is a party or represents a party.”
Meanwhile, Becerra April 7 submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to EPA seeking a slew of documents that relate to possible ethics or conflicts of interest violations by Pruitt, including those dealing with his efforts to roll back major climate rules.
“The public has a right to know whether Administrator Pruitt and EPA are complying with federal ethics laws,” Becerra said in an April 7 press release. “Mr. Pruitt’s numerous conflicts of interest merit close examination now that he has taken a direct role in initiating reviews of numerous EPA regulations he sought to undo through litigation in his previous role.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democratic-officials-step-ethics-probes-pruitt
-
EPA Wants Indefinite Pause on Methane Lawsuit
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By David Schultz
The EPA wants to put an indefinite pause on a lawsuit over its methane regulations on the oil and gas industry, according to a recent court filing (Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., 13-1108, 4/7/17).
The Environmental Protection Agency said that, as instructed by President Donald Trump's March 28 executive order on energy and climate policy, it is now looking at altering or potentially nullifying these regulations (RIN:2060–AS30), which place limits on methane emissions from newly constructed oil and gas facilities (81 Fed. Reg. 35,823).
Given this, the agency argues, the court should hold this case in abeyance until 30 days after it completes this White House-ordered review, according to the April 7 filing. The agency did not provide a time estimate for how long this review will take.
The lawsuit was originally filed against the EPA last year by a coalition of energy industry groups that opposed the Obama-era methane regulations. The EPA filing notes that these plaintiffs have said they support putting the case on ice during the upcoming review, but that the environmental activist groups that are intervening in the case have indicated they oppose the abeyance.
Similar methane regulations that applied to existing oil and gas facilities were in the works at the EPA before the change in administration, but Administrator Scott Pruitt put a halt to that process earlier this year in one of his first official actions after his confirmation.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160479&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160479&jd=109160479
-
Enterprise Products To Build New Pipeline From Permian To Houston
Apr 10, 2017 | FuelFix
By Jordan Blum
Energy infrastructure giant Enterprise Products Partners said it will build a 571-mile pipeline from the Permian Basin to the Houston area to transport natural gas liquids.
The new pipeline project is another sign that West Texas is booming again with oil and gas and the Houston area is growing as the hub for those resources to either be processed or exported. Oil gets all of the attention, but the natural gas streams from the shale rock are used to create petrochemicals, electricity or other products.
Houston-based Enterprise said the planned Shin Oak NGL pipeline will start northwest of Midland in Gains County and end at its Mont Belvieu complex, where Enterprise can separate the natural gas liquids into products like ethane, propane and butane. Ethane is the primary feedstock of the Gulf Coast’s growing petrochemical sector.
“The Permian Basin is currently the hottest play in North America and is expected to continue its strong growth for years to come,” said Enterprise CEO Jim Teague in a prepared statement. “This additional pipeline takeaway capacity to Mont Belvieu will provide Permian producers the flow assurance they need to continue the unfettered development of their reserves with confidence.”
Teague is emphasizing such pipelines will ensure surging oil and gas production in West Texas won’t create bottlenecks without enough pipeline capacity to move the growing supplies.
Although drilling in the Permian is for oil, most of the wells also produce associated natural gas liquids. The extra NGLs are why producers don’t need to drill specifically for gas in West Texas. Companies like Houston-based Plains All American Pipeline are building new crude pipeline capacity, but Enterprise is focused on giving the NGLs a home.
The cost of the Shin Oak project is not being revealed. Enterprise said the pipeline is expected to be completed in 2019. It will initially transport 250,000 barrels but could be expanded to carry 600,000 barrels daily.
Likewise, in March, Houston-based Kinder Morgan said it plans to build a 430-mile natural gas pipeline from West Texas’ Permian Basin to the Corpus Christi region.
Enterprise’s Mont Belvieu NGL complex is the largest of its kind in the world. Enterprise can sell the ethane to petrochemical plants or export the ethane, propane and butane to foreign markets. Enterprise also is building new fractionation capacity to separate the natural gas liquids into ethane, propane and more.
Enterprise said in January it will build an isobutane processing unit at its Mont Belvieu campus to create chemicals used in the manufacturing lubricants, rubbers and gasoline additives. It’s all part of Enterprise’s strategy to derive as much value as possible from cheap and ample natural gas and components such as isobutane. Portions of the isobutylene will go into gasoline additives like alkylate and methyl tert-butyl ether, or MTBE, which is typically exported to Asian markets. Enterprise already operates an MTBE production facility in Mont Belvieu.
This summer, Enterprise is expected to complete its neighboring propane dehydrogenation facility at Mont Belvieu. The plant would convert propane into propylene, which is one of the most common building blocks of plastics. Dehydrogenation is a process of removing hydrogen from molecule; the chemical composition of natural gas is mainly carbon and hydrogen.
This past fall, Enterprise completed the world’s largest ethane export terminal along the Houston Ship Channel.
In less than a decade, Greater Houston has shifted from net importer to net exporter as energy and petrochemical companies find international markets for crude oil, natural gas, natural gas liquids, refined products, and chemicals, including methanol, ammonia and propylene.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2017/04/10/enterprise-products-to-build-new-permian-to-houston-pipeline/
-
Mass. Lawmaker Asks FERC To Halt 2 Projects
Apr 10, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sam Mintz
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Stephen Lynch has again asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to suspend pipeline projects in his district, expressing concerns about the company that operates them.
In a letter to acting FERC Chairwoman Cheryl LaFleur last week, Lynch referred to multiple leaks at facilities managed by Spectra Energy Corp.. In two recent cases, he said, one in Providence, R.I., and one in his district in Weymouth, Mass., the leaks were first noticed when nearby residents smelled gas.
Spectra has two projects — an active pipeline and a proposed compressor station — in Lynch's district. He asked FERC to put them on hold, citing the "safety of local families."
"I am deeply concerned that Spectra Energy does not have the infrastructure in place to appropriately monitor gas leaks or potential safety hazards," he wrote.
Spectra is now part of Enbridge Inc. after it was bought out by the pipeline giant earlier this year. Marylee Hanley, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement that the Algonquin Gas Transmission pipeline, a segment of which runs through Lynch's district, has been operating safely for more than 60 years.
"Our projects are designed, constructed, operated and maintained to meet or exceed federal safety standards and regulations," she said.
Lynch has a history of concern about the pipelines in his district. He made a similar request to FERC in November after a pipeline exploded in Alabama, killing one person and seriously injuring four others (Greenwire, Nov. 7, 2016.)
But the Democrat also supported the controversial Keystone XL pipeline in the Midwest, earning the wrath of California climate activist Tom Steyer, who then poured money against Lynch into the primary election for a 2013 Senate race. Lynch lost the primary to then-Rep. Ed Markey, who went on to win the Senate seat.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/10/stories/1060052887
-
Trump EPA's Ozone Delay Request Leans on Obama Precedent
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The Trump administration's request to halt litigation over federal ground-level ozone standards relies on a recent precedent: President Barack Obama's EPA successfully requested the same thing during his first few months in office.
The EPA asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a motion filed late April 7, to delay the scheduled April 19 oral arguments over the ozone standards, set in October 2015. The agency cited the “inherent authority” of federal agencies to reconsider past decisions and the D.C. Circuit's 2009 decision to halt litigation to allow the Obama administration to review ozone standards issued under President George W. Bush.
The EPA wants more time to review the Obama-era ozone standards, according to an agency spokeswoman. The 70-parts-per-billion ozone standards are subject to dueling challenges. Public health organizations argued the standards aren't adequately protective of public health while industry organizations and some states alleged the standards are illegally unachievable because they are set too close to background levels.
“Given the broad-reaching economic implications of the 2015 ozone standard, we are carefully reviewing the rule to determine whether it is in line with the pro-growth directives of this administration,” the spokeswoman told Bloomberg BNA in an email.
The EPA declined to comment on whether it was still working on the next step in implementing the 2015 ozone standards, which is deciding which parts of the U.S. do and don't meet the standards. Parts of at least 22 states were identified as unlikely to meet the standards, which would trigger strict permitting requirements on new industrial development in those areas, according to a 2015 Bloomberg BNA survey of state environmental agencies.
Advocates: Delay ‘Hugely Inefficient’
The federal government's request for delay is opposed by a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, including the American Lung Association and the Natural Resources Defense Council, who argued in an April 10 filing that a delay would be “hugely inefficient” because the litigation is already fully briefed and counsel is preparing for argument (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1385, opposition brief filed 4/10/17).
Seth Johnson, an Earthjustice attorney representing those organizations, noted that unlike the Trump request, the Obama administration asked the court to halt progress in the very early stages of the past ozone litigation.
“The timing is significantly different,” Johnson told Bloomberg BNA. “They [the Obama administration] didn't ask eight business days before the argument.”
Johnson said that if the Trump administration wants to change the ozone standards, they can do so as part of the Clean Air Act's required periodic reviews of national ambient air quality standards. The next review is mandated by law to be completed in October 2020, which is within Trump's term, Johnson said.
Court Scrapped Climate Argument
While environmental advocates are opposing the EPA's request, an ex-Justice Department official told Bloomberg BNA that it is “quite typical” for courts to remove cases from the argument calendar if a new administration wants time to review a decision made by the previous administration.
Thomas Lorenzen, who worked in the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division from 1997-2013, acknowledged that the Trump administration's request differs from the Obama EPA request on ozone since that case hadn't been briefed at the time. However, Lorenzen, now a partner at Crowell & Moring LLP, said the D.C. Circuit's recent decision to postpone arguments on a fully-briefed Obama-era climate rule is the more “useful model” for the new ozone request.
The D.C. Circuit in March canceled previously scheduled April 17 arguments over a carbon emissions rule covering new power plants in response to an executive order that directed the EPA to reconsider that regulation. Lorenzen represents the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association in that litigation (North Dakota v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1381, 3/30/17).
With respect to the 2015 ozone standards, Lorenzen said it's important to recognize that the EPA hasn't yet determined its position on the ozone standards, leaving open the possibility that new political leadership at the agency and the Justice Department could determine that they want to defend the rule after the review is complete.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160492&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160492&jd=109160492
-
G-7 Energy Summit Nations, U.S. Fail to Agree on Climate Change Language
Apr 11, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Eric J. Lyman
Ministers from the Group of Seven nations failed to agree to language on climate change after two days of talks in Rome, with Carlo Calenda, Italy's minister for economic development and host of the two-day G-7 energy summit, saying the U.S. was the sole opponent to such language.
“The U.S. government is in the process of reviewing many of its policies, including policies related to climate change and to the Paris Agreement,” Calenda said, referring to the landmark 2015 pact in which nearly 200 countries—including the U.S.—agreed to take steps to limit global warming to within 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century compared to pre-industrial levels.
Officially, Calenda said, the U.S. “reserved its opinion” on climate-related language in the joint statement, which officials at the talks told Bloomberg BNA was less than blocking such a statement outright because it means the topic could be revisited in the future.
But that did not stop other delegates at the April 9–10 summit from criticizing the U.S. position. “While some review their climate and clean energy policies, most of us move forward and implement them in line with the Paris Agreement,” Miguel Arias Canete, the European Union climate change commissioner, said in a statement.
Environmental groups also were critical. “We hope the world will move forward [on climate action] and that the U.S. will eventually follow the pledges it made in Paris,” the Italian environmental lobby group Legambiente said in a statement released after the talks.
For his part, Calenda took a softer tact, saying debate was “constructive” and the nations represented at the summit “respect the fact that the U.S. is reanalyzing its position.”
No Comment
U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry headed the delegation in Rome, but did not address reporters, and other U.S. officials at the talks did not respond to requests for comment.
Perry said in an April 10 statement that the Trump administration “believes that economic growth and the environment can successfully go hand-in-hand.” He added that the U.S. believed it was “wise for countries use and pursue highly efficient energy resources.” As examples, he listed two of the fossil fuels contributing to global warming—"high efficiency, low-emission coal and natural gas"—and “advanced civil-nuclear technologies that are proliferation resistant, produce little to no waste and ensure safety.”
The Rome meeting, held at the same time as a G-7 foreign ministers’ summit in the Tuscan town of Lucca, is the first of the year for the G-7. Italy holds the rotating leadership of the group, which in addition to the U.S. and Italy includes Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the U.K.
The U.S. opposition to the language on climate change is the clearest example yet of the tact the country will take in international climate negotiations under the leadership of President Donald Trump. The Trump administration has taken steps to dismantle domestic climate policy, but has not yet announced if it will remain part of the Paris Agreement. At the 45th session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last month, the U.S. did not take a strong stand.
Though member states could not agree on language related to climate change, they did recognize the need to develop clean sources of energy. They also agreed to take steps to protect the world's energy supply from potential cyberattacks, to seek ways to open up global gas markets and to monitor gas flows through Ukraine.
The issue of climate change is on the agenda at next month's G-7 heads of state summit in Taormina, Sicily, which will likely to be Trump's first foreign trip as president.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109160483&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109160483&jd=109160483
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested