Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 4/19/2017
-
Top Official Denies Reports Administration Plans To Close EPA Region 5
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Region 5's Acting Regional Administrator (RA) Robert Kaplan is denying reports that the region's office in Chicago will close, telling the 1,000 staff members in an April 17 email that reports about the potential closure “are not true, are pure speculation, and undermine our ability to communicate with the public the real information we have.” -
(ACC Mentioned) 'Secret Science' Bill Will Cause TSCA To 'Grind To A Halt,' EPA Analysis Says
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An EPA staff analysis of the House's recently approved "secret science" bill warns that H.R. 1430 would "prevent implementation" of the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), while also failing to protect companies' trade secret information and limiting its use in EPA chemical, pesticide and other decisions. -
Global Data Sharing: Issues And Options
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Jean-Philippe Montfort
Many companies that have registered their substances under REACH have clear incentives to share such data in South Korea and/or globally for registration purposes but are also confronted with a number of issues related to such data sharing. -
(ACC Mentioned) Guest column – American Chemistry Council's Rob Simon
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rob Simon
The US is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and was heavily involved in its formulation, but the treaty has not been ratified by the Senate. Therefore, while the US participates as an observer, its role is very limited. -
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges Commerce Department To Target Obama-Era EPA's TCE Policy
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers are pointing to a Trump administration deregulatory memo to urge the Commerce Department (DOC) to curtail Obama-era EPA guidance for assessing sites contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) for risks of cardiac birth defects, arguing the guidance unnecessarily raises cleanup costs and is scientifically unjustified. -
The Changing US Political Landscape: What It Means For Green Chemistry
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
The goal of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) is to make green chemistry mainstream practice. To achieve this we need to spur federal leadership into providing funding and incentives that lead to increased innovation and adoption of new green chemistry products and processes. -
Shipbuilder's Asbestos-Related Insurance Suit Stays Afloat
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Shipbuilder Hopeman Brothers Inc. may proceed in federal court in Virginia with a suit seeking insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims, the Eastern District of Virginia ruled (Hopeman Bros. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2017 BL 125120, E.D. Va., 16-CV-187, 4/17/17). -
Senators Petition FDA To Ban 1,4-Dioxane In Cosmetics
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
US Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) have petitioned the FDA to prohibit any detectable presence of the contaminant 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics. -
Group 2b Iarc Classifications For Molybdenum Trioxide, Indium Tin Oxide
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) has concluded that molybdenum trioxide and indium tin oxide are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" making them Group 2B substances under the agency’s classification scheme. -
Call For Feminine Hygiene Companies To Disclose Product Ingredients
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US NGO Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) has launched a campaign against chemicals in feminine wipes. -
Brexit ‘Alarm Bells’ Set to Ring as Chemical Makers See Disorder
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Stearns and Viktoria Dendrinou
Chemical companies are preparing for a potentially disruptive Brexit as the U.K. withdrawal from the European Union threatens an integrated market underpinning more than 40 billion euros ($42 billion) a year in two-way trade. -
REACH & CLP hub: Sector Specific Classification Of Specialty Chemicals
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Radu-Adrian Gropeanu
Registration dossiers submitted to Echa contain proposals for the classification and labelling of a substance in accordance with the CLP Regulation. -
NGO Platform: Protecting The Circular Economy From Hazardous Substances
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Alice Bernard
The circular economy has emerged as a solution to the overexploitation of natural resources: a win for the protection of the environment and for the EU’s economy. Transitioning from a linear economy to a circular one is an ambitious goal that the EU has courageously committed to. -
Reviewing REACH: A Ten Year Milestone
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
It is doubtful that major changes will be made following the European Commission’s second five-year review of REACH, which concludes this year. A renegotiation of the Regulation is unlikely, according to stakeholders. -
EPA Moves to Delay Power Plant Mercury Case
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA wants a federal court to delay scheduled arguments on an Obama-era regulation limiting emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from the power sector (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, motion filed 4/18/17). -
Democratic Senators Ask EPA's Pruitt to Explain Reversal on Emissions Data From Industry
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Four Democratic senators have asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to explain why he told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing that he would examine the issue of collecting information from the oil and gas industry on methane emissions but then reversed course six weeks later. -
California OKs Two AES Repowered NatGas-Fired Generation Sites
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California regulators recently gave the green light to two repowerings at coastal natural gas-fired generation plants that represent a combined 1,884 MW of mostly baseload generating capacity. -
Climate Activists To 'Directly Confront' Trump
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Organizers behind the Peoples Climate March announced today they will encircle the entire White House grounds as part of the mass mobilization planned for April 29. -
White House To Reschedule Meeting — Spokeswoman
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
The White House will reschedule a discussion on the fate of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement "at some point over the next couple of weeks," a spokeswoman said today. -
White House Climate Agreement Talks Rescheduled
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House punted on whether to pull the U.S. out of an international climate change agreement after a discussion of the move scheduled for April 18 was scrapped due to scheduling conflicts. -
EPA To Seek Utility MACT Suit Delay Over Environmentalists' Objections
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is poised to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to postpone May 18 oral argument in litigation over the Obama-era cost assessment underpinning the agency's utility air toxics rule, over the objections of environmentalists who say they plan to oppose the request in upcoming filings. -
Climate, Environment Raised in GOP Town Halls; Will It Matter
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Republican members of Congress have been booed within and outside of district town hall meetings for questioning whether the climate is changing, for supporting proposed cuts to the EPA and for other related issues over their two-week congressional recess. -
Carbon Tax Next Target for California's Disadvantaged Communities
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Advocates for California's disadvantaged communities are flexing their newly honed political muscle with a new goal in mind: replacing the state's landmark greenhouse gas trading program with a carbon tax.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Top Official Denies Reports Administration Plans To Close EPA Region 5
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves
EPA Region 5's Acting Regional Administrator (RA) Robert Kaplan is denying reports that the region's office in Chicago will close, telling the 1,000 staff members in an April 17 email that reports about the potential closure “are not true, are pure speculation, and undermine our ability to communicate with the public the real information we have.”
Kaplan's email goes further than an April 17 statement by an EPA headquarters official to Inside EPA who said there are no firm plans to move forward with closing any particular office, though President Donald Trump has ordered EPA to propose consolidating two of its 10 regional offices by June 15. But Region 5 union officials are warning about the proposed closure, prompting the headquarters official to say the union is “fanning a flame because they are worried about something” but they “have not been given anything [from headquarters] to really believe this is happening.”
Despite Kaplan's statement, reports that EPA is considering shuttering Region 5 is drawing significant concerns from the agency's main labor union, which fears job losses and dimunition of the agency's ability to protect human health and the environment in the six heavily industrial states that make up the region.
Their concerns are likely to be exacerbated by the fact that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is planning to visit the USS Lead Superfund Site in East Chicago, IN, on April 19 but does not appear to be visiting Region 5 headquarters in Chicago, despite an invitation from the American Federation of Government Employees Local 704.
Kaplan added in the email, which the Region 5 press office provided to Inside EPA, that the agency has “discussed new ways to better integrate our efforts with the states, as well as eliminate excess office space, so that we can be more effective and save money. At this time, our discussions have not veered into the subject of an office closure. Anyone stating anything to the contrary is spreading false information.”
The Chicago Sun-Times first reported April 15 that the Trump administration plans to shutter the entire region, which includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin, and houses the Great Lakes restoration office.
Kaplan added that the agency remains committed to supporting communities in the region, including residents of Flint, MI, whose drinking water is contaminated by lead, and those affected by the East Chicago Superfund site. “In fact, Administrator Pruitt himself will be coming this week to discuss how we can make sure our efforts in East Chicago are successful. This is about results, not rumors,” Kaplan's email to staff says.
Union's Invitation
But Pruitt is not scheduled to visit the agency headquarters, about 25 miles from the Superfund site, so AFGE Local 704 April 18 sent him an invitation that “requests your presence for a lunch, as long as you're already in the area, to discuss the devastating impact of your proposed EPA cuts."
With the invite, AFGE 704 is escalating its push back against its rumored shuttering and a 31 percent proposed budget cut agencywide that union officials warn would have devastating consequences on the Midwestern states.
“We're going to have to lean on the lawmakers in our region” more than ever, and hope they reject the shuttering plan if it comes to fruition, long-time EPA attorney Nicole Cantello and AFGE Local 704 chief steward told Inside EPA April 17. The union has “built a war chest” and is spending money to get its message out.
The union's press release to Pruitt “demands” that he visit Region 5 headquarters during his trip to the area “and meet with employees and discuss the devastating cuts he and the Trump administration have proposed.”
AFGE Local 704 President Michael Mikulka said in the release that “hundreds of EPA employees work just a 30 minute drive from where he will be. He should sit down with EPA employees and answer their questions about how these cuts will impact their work, and the environment.” . . . The stakes are too high for him to avoid hearing from the front line engineers, scientists and other workers who make sure our drinking water and the air we breathe are safe for all Americans.”
The release calls Pruitt “the main proponent of the Trump administration's proposed 31 percent across the board EPA cuts,” though the administrator was said to have sought significantly more funding than what was contained in the “skinny” budget released last month, and that White House budget director Mick Mulvaney reduced the agency's budget even further after a “pass back” to the agency.
In response to a question about whether Pruitt would accept the invite and visit the Region 5 offices, headquarters spokesman JP Freier says, “EPA is focusing on getting results by improving environmental conditions and human health in places like East Chicago. Rather than focus on politicized rumors, we are working with residents to make sure they and their families can live in a safe and healthy environment.”
'Getting Results'
EPA also issued an April 17 statement that it is “stepping up its coordination with state and local authorities to safeguard human health and the environment” and is “not announcing closures” but instead is “focused on getting results and improving conditions by communities affected by Superfund sites like East Chicago.”
However, another Democratic lawmaker from the region is weighing in on the possibility that the region could close. Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) joined Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) in voicing concern. “While these reports have yet to be confirmed, I am gravely concerned with any effort to potentially close the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional office, which would be a disaster for the Great Lakes. Not only are the Great Lakes a source of clean drinking water for over 40 million people, but they play a critical role in our economy -- from shipping and commerce to tourism and travel. Important Environmental Protection Agency programs help restore portions of the Great Lakes watershed and protect against threats like toxic algal blooms and invasive species,” Peters said in an April 18 statement.
Like Kildee, who issued a similar April 17 statement, Peters also notes that the residents of Flint need assistance from EPA as they recover from the water crisis. Families there “still cannot drink tap water without a filter . . . we should be strengthening -- not cutting -- these vital federal tools.”
Finally, John O'Grady, who heads the EPA employees union council in the region, says in an April 18 email that the proposed cuts to an already bare-boned agency will make it impossible for EPA to do its work and that the region already does closely coordinate with state and local officials.
“This Administration claims that despite reductions of over 31 percent to the U.S. EPA's budget and a reduction in staffing in excess of 3,000 employees, that it will ensure that ordinary Americans will have clean air, land, and water.
“Apparently, this Administration believes that Americans are stupid and will believe its lies. . . . Any attempt by the Administration to close any U.S. EPA Regional Office will further cripple environmental protection efforts, while also sending a clear signal to polluters to further contaminate.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/top-official-denies-reports-administration-plans-close-epa-region-5
-
(ACC Mentioned) 'Secret Science' Bill Will Cause TSCA To 'Grind To A Halt,' EPA Analysis Says
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
An EPA staff analysis of the House's recently approved "secret science" bill warns that H.R. 1430 would "prevent implementation" of the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), while also failing to protect companies' trade secret information and limiting its use in EPA chemical, pesticide and other decisions.
The staff analysis, which has drawn significant attention after staff in Administrator Scott Pruitt's office blocked it from distribution to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), says that if such confidential business information (CBI) could not be used in TSCA chemical evaluations, "these chemical programs would grind to a halt, greatly hindering manufacturers' and industries' abilities to get their chemicals approved for use in commerce."
The analysis adds that "much of the information submitted by manufacturers is CBI, and as stated, EPA does not believe that [H.R. 1430] protects CBI. Because of this EPA, would not meet the new and existing chemical responsibilities under TSCA if EPA were limited to the data required under [H.R. 1430]."
Despite such concerns, the bill is being supported by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), which has made smooth implementation of TSCA one of its top priorities, though a spokesman told Inside EPA last month that the group is hoping for additional changes when the bill is considered in the Senate.
CropLife America, which represents pesticide manufacturers, has not taken a position on the bill, a spokeswoman says.
Similarly, Steve Caldeira, CEO and president of the Consumer Specialty Products Association, sidestepped taking a firm position on the bill, saying in a statement that the group "will always support finding a balance between transparency and the protection of [CBI] . . . Making scientific information available for review while protecting [CBI], strengthens public confidence in decision-making process."
The bill, sponsored by House science committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), generally requires that EPA publicly release the raw data underlying all studies that it uses in its decisionmaking.
But critics, including Democrats, environmental and public health groups, a host of scientific organizations and EPA staff, argue that there are many studies where the raw data cannot be publicly released because they contain personal medical information, CBI, or because of copyright or other ownership issues.
They charged that H.R. 1430 does not sufficiently protect personal medical records, such as might be found in epidemiology studies that EPA relies on for its Clear Air Act standards, and some also indicated that it might provide insufficient protection for CBI.
Smith, however, repeatedly dismissed the arguments as a red herring. He said that language added to the bill protects sensitive information by requiring that EPA issue such information in redacted form, and allowing individuals to request such sensitive raw data only after entering a non-disclosure agreement with the EPA administrator.
Smith offered a similar version in the last Congress, where it failed to advance in the Senate because of a veto threat from then-President Barack Obama and because of concerns over CBO's estimate at that time that the bill would cost $250 million to implement.
Staff Analysis
But Pruitt's office blocked release of the staff analysis of the latest version of the bill, which reiterated the estimated $250 million cost. EPA instead provided CBO with information suggesting that the bill would be "minimally implemented" at the agency and would therefore cost far less than the $250 million estimate.
As a result, CBO provides two different estimates: that the measure could cost $1 million to $100 million per year and an overall cost estimate that EPA would only spend about $1 million per year over the bill's five-year authorization.
The change in CBO's estimates, and reports that Pruitt's staff blocked release of the analysis, has drawn calls from Democrats to investigate.
While the analysis' cost estimates have drawn wide-spread attention, staff concerns about limits the bill would place on access to data critical for decision-making has not.
According to the staff analysis, first obtained by Marketplace.org, the bill would undercut implementation of a "number of provisions" in TSCA section 26, which requires that EPA use the "best available science."
ACC representatives have touted the scientific standards in section 26 as a major advancement requiring the use of high quality science at EPA, including at a February hearing before Smith's committee. In testimony, ACC's Kimberly White called for policymakers to apply section 26 requirements to other programs. "When [chemical] assessments are being conducted to inform significant rulemakings, EPA must make certain that these important standards are being met," she said.
But agency staff say that H.R. 1430 "would not allow EPA to use the best available science," as section 26 requires, because it would force the agency to drop from consideration many studies that it could not use because it could not publish the raw data underlying them.
Further, the staff analysis points to the additional requirement in TSCA section 26(i) that requires EPA to use the "weight of scientific evidence" in making decisions. "EPA believes this would not be possible given that the provisions of [H.R. 1430] would prohibit the use of some data," the analysis explains.
The analysis also points to TSCA section 26(k) requiring EPA to consider hazard and exposure information about chemicals "'under the conditions of use, that is reasonably available.' EPA would be in violation of [H.R. 1430] when upholding these provisions under TSCA" because it "would be restricted to selecting information based on availability. This approach would introduce research bias that would compromise the quality of the Agency's work."
The bill's undermining of section 26 may be one reason it has yet to be taken up in the Senate, and why in this session, unlike the 114th Congress, there is no Senate companion for the bill. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), chairman of a key Senate panel, has even introduced a bill, S. 578, which would apply section 26's "best available science" standard to all federal agencies relying on science through its addition to the Administrative Procedure Act.
TSCA Language
Lastly, the analysis indicates that new language in TSCA section 4(h), requiring that EPA reduce the use of animal testing of chemicals' hazards could also be incompatible with H.R. 1430. "The movement away from animal testing utilizes among other methods high-throughput screening methods, as highlighted in TSCA. It is not clear that [H.R. 1430] would allow the use of these approaches in chemical evaluations."
The EPA staff analysis also raises concerns about limits the bill would place on use of CBI that EPA's pesticides office uses to register new pesticides for use. "Under [H.R. 1430], EPA could not use these private industry data during the pesticide registration and review process, which means that it would be nearly impossible to make a safety determination for new products, including those that address public health," the analysis says.
EPA also raises concerns that H.R. 1430 would prevent it from using non-public information in the event of an emergency, an issue that Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, raised during the Feb. 7 hearing on the bill. --
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/secret-science-bill-will-cause-tsca-grind-halt-epa-analysis-says
-
Global Data Sharing: Issues And Options
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Jean-Philippe Montfort
Many companies that have registered their substances under REACH have clear incentives to share such data in South Korea and/or globally for registration purposes but are also confronted with a number of issues related to such data sharing.
The first incentive is the opportunity to leverage expensive data generated under REACH in other countries/regions. The use of available data is of course good for society, as it avoids, or at least limits, unnecessary duplication of animal testing and costs. Sharing EU data would also generate additional revenue for data owners. Furthermore, there is the hope that, if regulators globally review the same data, they will arrive at the same conclusions.
Another key incentive is that the use for existing data will hopefully prevent the generation of new data – which may not bring the same results and thus complicate the regulatory status of the substances at stake – not only in the country where the data is generated, but also elsewhere. Indeed, obligations exist under EU REACH or US TSCA for example to submit new information pertaining to the risks of a substance in some conditions. Of course not all substances are ‘sensitive’ to this issue, but certainly those targeted under the various REACH processes – such as the Corap, restriction, classification and labelling, and authorisation - are potentially at risk.
The issues raised by global data sharing relate to the regulatory systems in place in different countries/regions, as well as data protection, intellectual property (IP) and contractual issues.
Although REACH is often seen as the mother of modern chemical legislation, not all new chemical regulations are inspired by it and even if they are, they are not identical. The different regulatory systems in place, or that are being developed, vary in terms of data requirements, priorities, exposure scenarios, risk assessment tools and risk management policies for example.
The good news is that in general, and in part due to the years of work by the OECD, good quality data is recognised globally. Because of this, there is a clear scope for using EU data. The situation is more difficult when it comes to accepting this data for read across, data waiver justification and risk assessment tools. These issues are still very much at stake in numerous evaluations under REACH. What is accepted in the EU also needs to be recognised in South Korea and elsewhere. Furthermore, the use of chemical safety reports, generated under REACH, remain to be tested.
The other key issue is data protection. Under REACH, data submitted for registration is protected for 12 years, but what about in other legal systems? Is there an equivalent protection and is it effective? In the EU this protection is not absolute, particularly when considering the extensive interpretation given by the European Courts to EU rules on access to information. There is also the difficulty experienced by companies who have to fight against free riders, who download data on the internet and claim this is sufficient for registration purposes.
The new TSCA rules being developed in the US is a particular problem in this respect as the EPA has declared that it will publish full study reports on its website. This is likely to be a serious obstacle for companies who may simply lose any protection for their valuable data. Because of this, some even question whether it makes sense to seek clearance in the US.
So, confronted with these issues, what are the available options?
The first option would be to organise global access rights or global data sharing. An EU REACH consortium for example, could seek to transform itself into a ‘global consortium’ that would seek to ensure compliance with REACH, as well as with all REACH-like and non-REACH like chemicals legislation globally. This would allow the companies involved, wherever they are located, to work on and control submissions everywhere and to address together the difficult issues mentioned above. This is the dream option, but difficult to set up in most cases considering the diversity of companies involved globally and their different levels of experience and culture.
Another way of achieving global data sharing would be for the EU consortium, and/or for the data owners, to grant global access rights to those interested. The main problem with this is the total lack of control of the use of such data, for example in countries with no data protection rules or with publication practices that amount to a de facto loss of such protection.
The alternative to global data sharing is to deal with the issue on a country by country basis. This is what most companies are seeking to do today, starting with South Korea.The South Korean case
Making the bridge between the EU and Korean REACH registration is also seen by them as a test that could then be replicated in other countries. This path also has obstacles.
The Korean case has revealed that companies are struggling to overcome certain issues and frustration is growing on both sides. The main issue seems to be the difficulty to communicate and a lack of understanding of each side’s position, as well as a lack of trust in actions and proposals. This may be due to the fact that for many substances the registrants/potential registrants are different in the EU and in South Korea and thus the EU data owners are not directly part of the Korean registration process. They do not know what is happening there and/or have no real influence on, for example, the local lead registrant. The cost of buying data is also an issue, as is the reluctance of Korean registrants to buy data they are not sure will be accepted by the authorities.
When potential registrants in South Korea have already registered under EU REACH, there seems to be a perception that companies can share data directly to the Korean registrants for K-REACH purposes. However, they are often not the data owners and have only acquired the data for EU REACH only. Even for data that has been generated by the EU Consortium and belongs to all EU REACH registrants, including a Korean registrant, the EU consortium rules prevent such companies from individually selling access to the data. This is a competence that has been entrusted to the EU Consortium manager. So these Korean registrants cannot grant any rights to such REACH data.
Despite the challenges, there is still a great deal of interest in finding suitable data sharing transactions between EU Consortia and South Korean registrants.
The most ambitious option is to create a local consortium, such as a K-REACH consortium, to which EU data owners would also participate, for example, in return for granting some data access rights. This would allow a good flow of information and advice to ensure consistency not only in data submissions, but more broadly in regulatory filings, including on proposed data waiving, read across, classification and labelling, or in product defence strategies. This however requires significant investment in resources and time to set up and manage the consortium, as well as openness on both sides.
Short of being able to offer such an integrated solution, EU consortia/lead registrants can of course offer access to their data for a given price, either to each of the K-REACH registrants directly, or through a licensee. One example of this is to contract with the lead registrant under K-REACH and grant him the right to sub-licence such access rights to all K-REACH registrants. The downside of this is that there is no direct contractual link between the EU consortium and the individual Korean registrants and that it will be difficult to control their use of the access rights that will be sub-licensed.
However, contractual arrangements can be set up to mitigate such risk and to accommodate various options. For example, licensing agreements can specify the conditions for the sub-license and make the licensee responsible to ensure these conditions are met by the sub-licensees. The licensee can also be required to respect of the rights of companies with global access rights and not charge them a second time. Also creative solutions can be found to deal with the issue of the possible rejection of certain data by the local authorities.
For simplicity, it would be preferable to have a single model for each case. But in reality companies will have to define them on a case by case basis, using the model that suits them best, or the one they can reasonably achieve.
This will depend on a number of factors, such as the value of the data, the risks involved in the generation of new data, the identity and the number of players on both sides, and the degree of understanding and trust they are able to achieve.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55273/global-data-sharing-issues-and-options
-
(ACC Mentioned) Guest column – American Chemistry Council's Rob Simon
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Rob Simon
The US is a signatory to the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and was heavily involved in its formulation, but the treaty has not been ratified by the Senate. Therefore, while the US participates as an observer, its role is very limited.
As a ‘non-party’, the US is not bound by the Stockholm Convention’s restriction decisions. But the realities of global commerce are that listing decisions under the Convention have a ripple effect throughout the global economy and a ban on a substance directly affects US manufacturers and its economy.
Industry has long been a strong supporter of the Stockholm Convention and the treaty’s goal of restricting those substances that truly present a global risk. As manufacturers of substances and representatives of the supply chain, industry’s voice is a critical component in helping Parties to the Convention and members of the Persistent Organic Pollutant Review Committee (POPRC) understand the science behind particular chemistries, how those substances are used, and the viability of any alternative chemistries.
The POPRC process is transparent in that industry and other stakeholders are permitted to participate as observers and submit relevant scientific information. However, in the past the POPRC has not given full weight to industry submissions that would help improve the scientific rigour and accuracy of its work. There have been occasions where industry input has been rejected or otherwise disregarded for reasons that are unclear. As part of its commitment to transparency and accountability, the POPRC should do more to ensure that all relevant information is used in its deliberations and industry needs to more actively engage in the Stockholm process if this is to occur.
Industry has the greatest understanding of the performance dynamics and functional properties of products, their active and potential replacement ingredients, which are critical for informing on how these products are used, the socio-economic benefits of these products, assessing potential alternatives and determining any necessary exemptions. It is critical that industry both engages in the Stockholm treaty’s processes for evaluating new substances and does so early in the process so this information can be more actively considered.Domestic versus international action
The Stockholm Convention explicitly defines a POP as a persistent, bioaccumluative, and toxic (PBT) substance that has the capacity for long-range transport and demonstrates adverse effects sufficient to warrant global action. Few substances classified as PBTs meet the Convention’s criteria for listing as a POP. This distinction is important – while many countries have domestic chemical policies to address PBT and POPs substances, the Stockholm Convention was created to address only substances that truly warrant global action.
As part of this criteria, the Convention requires that the environmental concentrations of candidate POPs be compared to concentrations of the substance that cause adverse effects in organisms to determine whether the substance is likely, as a result of its long-range environmental transport, to lead to significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects. This approach is consistent with a risk-based approach for POP listing determinations, and has been adopted by a number of global regulatory authorities for their national chemicals management policy. At the national level, countries have applied different approaches to regulating PBT substances. While some countries, including Canada, Australia and the US, employ a risk-based approach, other regions and countries use a hazard-based approach to evaluating and regulating PBT and POPs.
The use of a hazard-based approach to identify chemicals for listing and nominations under the Stockholm Convention would be inappropriate since actual use and exposure are typically not considered in hazard-based evaluations. To allow such an approach to be used to identify POPs under the Stockholm Convention would be tantamount to facilitating the export of hazard-based chemical management decisions to those countries that have more scientifically rigorous chemicals management processes, and would essentially give those countries with hazard-based approaches a veto over sovereign chemicals management decisions in countries that don’t subscribe to a hazard-based chemicals management philosophy.
The Stockholm Convention was never intended for countries or regions to force their chemicals management decisions on the rest of the world. For countries that have already made a risk-based chemical management decision for a chemical, the Stockholm Convention should not be used as a back door to change that decision.Applying modern scientific techniques
To ensure that the Stockholm Convention does not become a tool to globalise hazard-based domestic or regional PBT restrictions, new substance nominations should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they meet all criteria for listing under the Convention. These new substance nominations are first reviewed by the POPRC, which evaluates nominations against the Convention’s criteria. As more commercially active compounds are submitted by some countries for review, it is essential that these undergo a more rigorous review as envisioned by the original treaty.
Since its enactment, scientific evidence and assessment tools for evaluating POPs have advanced significantly. These advances allow for a greater understanding of how POPs and PBTs interact. As the POPRC considers more complex substances that have diverse uses, it is crucial that it incorporates these scientific advances into how it assesses the Convention’s criteria.Moving the convention forward
As the treaty considers substances that are deeply integrated in the global supply chain, it becomes especially important to consider all information that is provided by parties and observers to fully assess whether a chemical is a POP and warrants global action. The Stockholm Convention provides the tools for conducting a robust scientifically rigorous assessment of the PBT and POP characteristics of candidate compounds by fully considering all of the criteria in the Convention and applying the latest developments for understanding these substances.
It is also important to recognise the different chemicals management systems that are currently operative among governments worldwide, and ensure that the Stockholm Convention POP listing process is not used to empower countries or groups of countries to globalise their internal chemicals management policies by forcing their decisions on the rest of the world.Stockholm Convention – what is it?
The Stockholm Convention is an international treaty with over 150 signatory countries that seeks to ban the global production of POPs. As defined by the treaty, POPs are chemicals that warrant increased attention as a result of their ability to remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, and their potential to cause "significant adverse human health and/or environmental effects, such that global action is warranted."
While the treaty initially targeted 12 POPs of "historical concern" for elimination, which were mainly pesticides, the Convention also established a process and criteria for listing additional substances. The ACC says this process, to identify additional substances, is meant to have a firm foundation in science and risk-based decision making, and requires a scientific evaluation and socio-economic analyses to support listing a chemical as a POP.
"Notably, the substances that have been added to the Convention, following the original 12, were chemicals that were either not in production and use or in general global decline. In recent years, however, the scope of the Convention’s work has changed. Governments are now considering the nominations of industrial chemicals that are in active commercial use, are fundamentally more complex to substitute with alternatives, and require a comprehensive scientific evaluation that utilises all of the available information to assess whether these chemicals truly meet the original Convention criteria and warrant a global ban."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55283/guest-column-american-chemistry-councils-rob-simon
-
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Urges Commerce Department To Target Obama-Era EPA's TCE Policy
Apr 19, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Chemical manufacturers are pointing to a Trump administration deregulatory memo to urge the Commerce Department (DOC) to curtail Obama-era EPA guidance for assessing sites contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) for risks of cardiac birth defects, arguing the guidance unnecessarily raises cleanup costs and is scientifically unjustified.
EPA's waste office in an Aug. 27, 2014, memo to regional Superfund directors backed "early or interim" action "to eliminate, reduce, or control the [TCE] hazards posed by a site." The memo backed EPA regions' mitigation efforts, but also acknowledged the question of what contamination level causes a health risk in the short-term remains unanswered.
The memo was EPA headquarters' response to long-running industry concerns over how to implement the agency's September 2011 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of TCE. The IRIS assessment set a limit of 2 micrograms per cubic meter to protect against lifetime exposures to TCE. But the limit was based in part on a risk of cardiac birth defects, implying a danger from short-term exposures, and raising significant implementation questions.
Industry groups have long faulted the TCE IRIS assessment, as well as implementation efforts of some EPA regions, arguing that the birth defects risk is based on studies from a single laboratory that are flawed and irreproducible -- though one industry group is seeking to replicate the study. They argue the short-term risk has driven costly and unnecessary cleanup costs and slowed development.
In recent comments to DOC, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) reopens a contentious issue the Obama EPA sought to resolve with the 2014 memo. ACC faults the policy's underlying science and inconsistent implementation, and urges the Trump administration to target it in efforts to scale back regulations that hinder domestic manufacturing.
"This guidance -- related to remediation of sites contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE) -- is being implemented by several EPA regions and states currently, and has the potential to dramatically impact progress towards productive use of lands nationally," ACC says. "[W]e urge the Department to consider the 2014 guidance memo in its review of regulations that adversely impact domestic manufacturers."
ACC's comments respond to a March 7 Federal Register notice issued by DOC as required by President Donald Trump's Jan. 24 memo, "Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens for Domestic Manufacturing."
The memo requires the department, in consultation with EPA and other agencies, to "develop a regulatory and statutory plan to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens affecting domestic manufacturers."
"The report also may include recommendations for any necessary changes to existing regulations or statutes, as well as actions to change policies, practices, or procedures that can be taken immediately under existing authority," the memo says.
ACC's Criticisms
In the recent comments to DOC, ACC faults Obama EPA arguments that the 2014 guide is not a regulation, but merely "operationalized" the TCE IRIS assessment. To bolster the push for DOC to include the guide in its deregulatory effort, ACC cites language in Trump's Executive Order (EO) 13771 calling for repeal of two existing rules for every new one, which includes any agency policy in the definition of regulation.
ACC notes that "for purposes of this order" the administration defined regulation or rule as "an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or to describe the procedure or practice requirements of an agency."
ACC also contends that the effect of the August 2014 memo is highlighted by EPA's Dec. 7 final rule allowing EPA to consider vapor or water intrusion as part of its Hazard Ranking System used for scoring a contaminated site for possible inclusion on Superfund's National Priorities List of the country's most hazardous waste sites.
And ACC reiterates arguments that EPA's conclusion that TCE poses a risk of cardiac birth defects conflicts with other authoritative bodies, and faults use of IRIS' chronic exposure limit to create action levels for protecting against short-term exposures.
ACC also asks the Trump administration to consider cost concerns that the Obama EPA rebuffed. In November 2015, Region 9 rejected a request from a coalition of California chemical, technology and other companies for a White House cost-benefit analysis of that region's guidance for protecting against TCE exposures, arguing it is based on sound science and consistent with the August memo and other EPA headquarters' cleanup policies.
"[T]he overall weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that TCE has a wide range of potential adverse health effects, and EPA has the responsibility to apply the results of the IRIS toxicity assessment for TCE under Federal statutes and regulations," Region 9 said in the letter.
ACC details rising assessment and mitigation costs at contaminated sites in California, arguing that EPA's 2014 guidance will increase costs of remediating non-residential buildings in the state's South Bay region by as much as $48 million over 30 years. For homes in that area the estimate is more than $100 million over the same period.
"In light of the significant impact that EPA's policy guidance relating to addressing TCE exposure from subsurface vapor intrusion has had, and will continue to have, we urge the Department to consider the [headquarters'] and regional guidance memos as part of its review of the impact of federal regulations on domestic manufacturing," ACC says.
Comment Extension
Meanwhile, another trade group, the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) asked EPA to extend its comment deadline on the agency's proposal to ban certain uses of TCE, a Toxic Substances Control Act Section 6(a) proposed rule based on the same IRIS assessment.
HSIA is seeking to replicate a controversial toxicology study, known as the Johnson study, that is the basis for the IRIS assessment.
But the trade group recently learned that the contract lab conducting its replication study erred in dosing the lab rats and so invalidated the study, requiring them to repeat the attempt to replicate the original Johnson study, according to HSIA's March 17 request, which sought a 120-day extension from the April 19 deadline, to Aug. 17.
Environmental groups opposed the request, arguing that EPA earlier extended the comment deadline by 30 days. Further, they argue that industry groups have had years since the Johnson study's 2003 publication, or EPA's use of it in its 2011 IRIS assessment, to conduct new studies.
EPA in an April 12 memo said it would extend the comment period on the TCE proposal by 30 days, to May 19.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/acc-urges-commerce-department-target-obama-era-epas-tce-policy
-
The Changing US Political Landscape: What It Means For Green Chemistry
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Joel Tickner
The goal of the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) is to make green chemistry mainstream practice. To achieve this we need to spur federal leadership into providing funding and incentives that lead to increased innovation and adoption of new green chemistry products and processes.
The 2016 elections represent in some ways a transformation in the US political landscape. The US has moved from an openly pro-environmental, science-driven administration to one that appears to question climate change and the value of regulation and public science funding.
While the current administration’s agenda is still evolving, early indications suggest the focus will be on jobs and business. Supporting US-based companies will be highly valued, with an approach that is deregulatory in nature and based on voluntary incentives. What then does this mean for green chemistry at the federal and state levels?
Experts from industry and state and federal government will explore these questions in a panel discussion that will kick off the GC3’s annual Innovators Roundtable from April 25-27, at Steelcase Inc, in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Roundtable is the GC3’s primary event for learning, networking and developing new collaborative projects.
Green chemistry has not been a priority of the Executive Branch or Congress during the past ten years. Congress has yet to pass a federal green chemistry research and development act. However, a sustainable chemistry research programme was established at the National Science Foundation as part of the America COMPETES Jobs bill in 2010.
The Obama Administration undertook significant initiatives around climate change and water quality. But little was done to advance green chemistry, with the exception of efforts to reform the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA) and strengthen the EPA’s Safer Choice programme, which recognises products made with safer chemistry.
And while there was significant investment during the prior Administration in renewable energy and bio-based materials, federal investment or leadership in green chemistry remained elusive. Meanwhile, US states, such as Michigan, California, Washington and Minnesota have initiated economic development programmes specifically designed to support green chemistry in industry.Green chemistry drivers
The drivers in the US have not primarily come from the federal government, but rather the marketplace and from state and international policies (such as in Europe). Scientific, consumer, and marketplace concerns about the health and ecological impacts of chemicals are not going away and as such these drivers will continue. We have reached an important tipping point where investment in safer chemistry is the norm for forward looking, consumer facing companies.
As such, the changing political context provides some interesting opportunities for building momentum in green chemistry. For example, the Trump Administration’s ‘business-friendly’ approach should provide an opportunity to reframe green chemistry in different terms – as an economic development, innovation and jobs creating activity that will strengthen US manufacturing.
The new Congress and White House bring new opportunities for constructive policy, be it in tax policy or "greener" infrastructure. The passage of TSCA reform in a Republican Congress and the establishment of new House and Senate chemistry caucuses show attention to issues of chemistry. The growing market demand for better chemistry, both domestically and internationally, and the policy focus on US manufacturing and jobs, provide a sound basis for the country to take the lead in innovation and production of new chemistries to meet this growing global demand. Collaborative initiatives undertaken by the GC3, such as the Collaborative Preservatives Innovation Challenge, designed to identify and bring to market innovative safe and effective preservatives for consumer products and the GC3 Green & Biobased Startup Network, focus on building partnerships between innovative green chemistry startups, larger firms and investors and provide examples that might gain traction in the political environment.
The Innovators Roundtable panel and subsequent group discussions will explore these trends, as well as how to effectively communicate the benefits and needs for green chemistry. Based on the outcomes, the GC3 will explore opportunities to partner with other organisations to educate and engage the Administration and Congress to further its goal of making green chemistry mainstream.The GC3
The Green Chemistry and Commerce Council is a business to business network of some 100 companies and other organisations dedicated to accelerating the research, development, adoption, and scale of green chemistry solutions across the value chain. Members range from major chemical manufacturers, to retailers, brands, formulators, and innovative green and biobased chemistry startups.
Michele Jalbert of Effective Advocates, Michael Parr of Parr Policy Group and Amy Perlmutter of Perlmutter Associates contributed to this article.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55274/the-changing-us-political-landscape-what-it-means-for-green-chemistry
-
Shipbuilder's Asbestos-Related Insurance Suit Stays Afloat
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Peter Hayes
Shipbuilder Hopeman Brothers Inc. may proceed in federal court in Virginia with a suit seeking insurance coverage for asbestos-related claims, the Eastern District of Virginia ruled (Hopeman Bros. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2017 BL 125120, E.D. Va., 16-CV-187, 4/17/17).
Insurers Continental Casualty and Lexington Insurance failed to show that fairness or convenience requires transferring the case to New York, where the insurers filed a parallel suit, the court said.
Hopeman's choice of forum is “entitled to substantial weight” because more than 10,000 asbestos suits have been filed against the company in the area and the company is incorporated in Virginia, the court said.
The insurers argued that transferring the matter is warranted because the New York case involves an additional insurer, making it “more comprehensive.”
Judge Mark S. Davis wrote the opinion.
Blank & Rome LLP in Washington represents Hopeman Bros.
Spotts Fain PC in Richmond, Va. represents Continental and Lexington
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678710&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678710&jd=109678710
-
Senators Petition FDA To Ban 1,4-Dioxane In Cosmetics
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
US Senators Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) have petitioned the FDA to prohibit any detectable presence of the contaminant 1,4-dioxane in cosmetics.
1,4-dioxane is an industrial solvent, used in the production of a variety of products and as a laboratory reagent and chemical intermediate. It is present as a contaminant in some personal care products.
In a fact sheet, the FDA says it has been monitoring levels of the substance in cosmetic products since the 1970s, amid concern from studies linking it to cancer. The agency has not established a recommended limit on the amount that may be present in finished products, but it says the levels it has seen in monitoring "do not present a hazard to consumers".
Nevertheless, Mr Schumer said: "This likely cancer-causing toxin serves no purpose in these products and is not even identified on packaging."
He added that because technology is available to limit concentration of 1,4-dioxane in products by a process called ‘vacuum stripping’, the FDA "should do everything in their power to remove this likely carcinogen from products".
The petition follows a request from the senators for the EPA to expedite its risk evaluation of the substance under the recently reformed TSCA. Their step came amid reports of high levels of the substance in the Long Island, New York water supply.
FDA management reviews petitions and determines whether to grant them. This process may take from several weeks to more than a year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55258/senators-petition-fda-to-ban-14-dioxane-in-cosmetics
-
Group 2b Iarc Classifications For Molybdenum Trioxide, Indium Tin Oxide
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) has concluded that molybdenum trioxide and indium tin oxide are "possibly carcinogenic to humans" making them Group 2B substances under the agency’s classification scheme.
More than 100,000 tons of molybdenum trioxide are produced each year for use in steel production, biocides and photovoltaic technology, the two-page monograph says. Environmental exposures are "negligible" but occupational exposures can occur in: mining and metallurgy; welding; steel foundry processes and other high temperature processes using steel.
Mouse studies link the substance to lung cancer, but in general relevant data remain scarce.
Indium tin oxide is a mixture of indium and stannic oxides. It is used to produce transparent conductive films on glass or plastic panels in electronic devices. Exposures occur in occupational settings during production and processing of the substance or during elemental indium recycling.
Long-term studies in rats, mice and hamsters provide strong evidence that the substance induces chronic inflammation, the monograph says. Additionally, mouse and rat studies link it to lung cancer.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55248/group-2b-iarc-classifications-for-molybdenum-trioxide-indium-tin-oxide
-
Call For Feminine Hygiene Companies To Disclose Product Ingredients
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US NGO Women's Voices for the Earth (WVE) has launched a campaign against chemicals in feminine wipes.
Although it lists several products containing 'harmful chemicals' on its website, WVE has focused its attention on Summer’s Eve wipes.
It has written several letters calling on the brand’s owners, CB Fleet, to disclose the ingredients of the trade-marked odour control ingredient, Neutresse.
WVE director of science and research, Alexandra Scranton, told Chemical Watch: "It is the only feminine wipes brand that has such technology, and like fragrance, the ingredients in Neutresse are also withheld from consumers."
The NGO also objects to the inclusion of octoxynol-9, which has previously been used as a spermicide gel in other products. In 2002, the FDA determined that the ingredient "should be deemed not generally recognised as safe and effective for over-the-counter use" as a spermicide, due to potential for adverse effects and the lack of data to assure its safety.
WVE national campaigns manager, Sarada Tangirala, said: "We are urging the makers of Summer’s Eve to eliminate chemicals of concern from their products, which will require reformulation. In addition, we are asking that all ingredients used in its feminine wipes, including fragrance and odour-control ingredients, be fully disclosed to the public."
In a response letter to WVE, CB Fleet vice president of research and development, Lori D Kumar, wrote that the company "abides by all FDA rules and regulations regarding feminine products, including feminine wipes, as well as guidelines for cosmetics ingredients as determined by the Cosmetics Ingredients Review (CIR)."
She added that the company maintains a "robust clinical safety testing programme as part of our product development".
Prestige Brands Holdings Inc, which is in the process of acquiring CB Fleet, did not respond to Chemical Watch’s request for comment.Chemicals of concern
The WVE website lists several other feminine wipe products, which it also says contain 'harmful chemicals'. This includes the brands Always, CVS, Playtex, Vagisil and Walgreens.
The list has products containing:
methylisothiazolinone (MI);
methylchloroisothiazolinone (CMI);
iodopropynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC);
methylparaben;
propylparaben;
ethylparaben; and
butylparaben
MI and CMI have been banned from leave-on cosmetics products in the EU since 2015.
Propylparaben and butylparaben were banned from some leave-on products, and restricted in all cosmetics in the EU last year. Methylparaben is a suspected endocrine disruptor.
Last year, a WVE campaign for the makers of feminine hygiene products to voluntarily disclose their ingredients resulted in Procter and Gamble (P&G) launching a website, listing some ingredient information for its brands Tampax and Always.
Shortly afterwards, Kimberly Clark started revealing ingredient information for Kotex, including the chemicals used in ‘superabsorbent’ core materials.
The first congressional bill requiring ingredient disclosure for feminine care products was introduced by Representative Grace Meng last year. The Accurate Labelling for Menstrual Products Act of 2016 (H.R. 5016) amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require menstrual cups, menstrual pads, tampons and therapeutic vaginal douche apparatuses to include a list of ingredients on the label.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55255/call-for-feminine-hygiene-companies-to-disclose-product-ingredients
-
Brexit ‘Alarm Bells’ Set to Ring as Chemical Makers See Disorder
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Jonathan Stearns and Viktoria Dendrinou
Chemical companies are preparing for a potentially disruptive Brexit as the U.K. withdrawal from the European Union threatens an integrated market underpinning more than 40 billion euros ($42 billion) a year in two-way trade.
Marco Mensink, director general of the European Chemical Industry Council representing manufacturers such as BASF SE, Akzo Nobel NV and Dupont Co., said the U.K. and its EU partners are starting two years of talks on Britain's departure with widely differing positions. That's a particular risk for the chemicals industry because of the intensity of its cross-Channel shipments, he said.
“We are going to ring many, many alarm bells during the Brexit negotiations,” Mensink said in an interview in Brussels. “Things risk veering off course. There seems to be a disconnect in communication between both sides.”
The industry will serve as a barometer of the economic damage that could be inflicted on Europe if the U.K. tumbles out of the 28-nation bloc without an agreement, highlighting the risks that Prime Minister Theresa May and her EU counterparts will contend with when discussions start in May, as scheduled.
BASF Chief Executive Officer Kurt Bock told shareholders that Brexit was a key uncertainty and warned that it would affect “our competitiveness as well as that of our customers in our home market of Europe.”
Regulatory Hurdles
Brexit poses so many regulatory challenges that a business-friendly transitional arrangement will be needed for the period between the U.K.’s departure in 2019 and the entry into force of any accord on the country's future relationship with the EU, said Mensink.
“The real question is: will there be political will for a transitional agreement?” he said. “Settling the Brexit questions affecting chemicals will be like unscrambling an omelet back into eggs. We urge policy makers to find solutions.”
For clues to the complexity of separating the U.K. from the rest of the EU chemicals market, take an everyday consumer good like soap.
One popular detergent sold in U.K. supermarkets is made from chemicals that cross the Channel several times during the manufacturing and distribution processes, according to Mensink, who said the raw material is produced in France, reworked in the U.K., shipped to Germany and returned for packaging to Britain. The finished product is then distributed throughout the EU.
A U.K. exit from the single market without any transitional arrangement would increase taxes paid on goods and disrupt the flow of materials between the EU and Britain, boosting costs for manufacturers and end users. In addition to consumer chemicals, the top product groups for both sides include petrochemicals and plastics.
“If they don't organize this, we go back to a situation where trucks are waiting in front of a border,” Mensink said.
A further threat to chemical businesses comes from tariffs. Under the World Trade Organization regime, they would average around 3 percent to 4 percent for commerce between the U.K. and the rest of the EU were no transitional deal and no subsequent free-trade accord to be reached.
Because many chemicals in manufactured goods cross the Channel more than once during the production process, the ultimate tariff burden would often be higher, said Mensink. In some cases, the extra costs for companies could lead to a halt in trade, he said.
“One tariff is a difference in profitability, two times the tariff is no profitability and three, four, five times the tariff means you won't ship it,” Mensink said.
Medium Priority
As part of a Brexit negotiating strategy designating various industries as high, medium and low priority, the U.K. government has placed chemicals in the middle category, behind banking and ahead of steel, The Times reported in February, citing a leaked memo.
More than 40 percent of Britain's chemicals are sold in other EU countries, according to the European chemical industry group, which is also known as Cefic. U.K. chemical exports to the rest of the EU in 2015 totaled 19.8 billion euros, almost on par with British imports from the bloc's other members valued at 23.5 billion euros, according to Cefic.
Beyond customs red tape and duties, the chemicals industry is concerned about Brexit's impact on the ability of personnel to move freely between the U.K. and other EU nations and on the uniform enforcement of safety standards set under a landmark 2006 European law, according to Mensink.
The prickly political question is the extent to which the British government would be subject to the agency's rulings while no longer having a say in preparing them. “We'll need a tool where the U.K. complies with ECHA decisions,” Mensink said.
Amid all the uncertainties for the industry, Cefic is collecting more detailed data from companies on their supply chains. It's also warning them against complacency.
“Very soon reality will kick in,” Mensink said. “We're telling members to be prepared.”
--With assistance from Marine Strauss.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678693&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678693&jd=109678693
-
REACH & CLP hub: Sector Specific Classification Of Specialty Chemicals
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Radu-Adrian Gropeanu
Registration dossiers submitted to Echa contain proposals for the classification and labelling of a substance in accordance with the CLP Regulation.
Under certain circumstances, the classification of a substance is added to Annex VI of CLP (list of harmonised classification and labelling of certain hazardous substances). Once on this list, the classification of a substance is then obligatory for all manufacturers and suppliers who must comply with REACH.
Harmonisation of classifications is mostly aimed at substances that are carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic for reproduction or respiratory sensitising; however, they may also be determined for other hazard categories.
But what about substances not regulated under REACH? The registration of polymers for example is not required in the EU, unlike in other countries, such as in China, the US and Japan.
How can we be sure that these are also adequately tested and classified so that there are no risks to human health and the environment, while keeping down costs to industry?
Addressing this, members of associations such as the European Committee of Organic Surfactants and their Intermediates (CESIO) and the European Center of Silicates (CEES) are developing classification strategies for their respective chemicals.CESIO classification of surfactants
Surfactants are substances that lower the surface tension between two liquids or a liquid and a solid. They can be used as detergents, emulsifiers, dispersants or foaming agents. Surfactants can be classified as polymeric or non-polymeric, or by their chemical nature, such as anionics, cationics, nonionics or zwitterionics.
Production of surfactants was estimated at more than 3m tonnes in Western Europe in 2015, with the ethoxylates and the anionics being produced in much higher volumes.
CESIO was founded in the 1970s by several chemical companies to improve knowledge on the safe use of surfactants. Each of the surfactant families considered – grouped by the chemical nature of the hydrophilic head (see chart) – was assigned to a company. These ‘lead’ companies for each substance class, performed toxicological tests on mammals. The results were then published with the recommendations for classification.
Since CESIO’s first list of recommendations, released in 1984, new issues, covering more classes of surfactants, in addition to more end-points such as ecotoxicological properties, have been added. The latest list, released in March, contains the CLP and the GHS-UN classifications for the majority of surfactants available on the market. For some substance families however, it was not possible to create GHS-UN recommendations; in these cases, the individual companies have the responsibility for the GHS-UN classification.Read-across
The properties of polymers vary significantly with the molecular weight. Therefore, one chemical nature (described by a unique CAS number) may have several different classifications depending on the degree of polymerisation (for example the fatty alcohol to ethylene oxide ratio for the ethoxylated fatty alcohols).
An important step forward was to set-up the read-across principle in order to limit animal testing. Based on this, it was no longer necessary to test each member of a polymeric surfactant family. The classification decision was made by testing some of the homologues, correlating the data to the chemical structure and clustering the surfactants in groups of substances sharing the same classification. This principle was eventually accepted by the EU and introduced in the detergents Regulation.
Some polymer classes, previously listed on CESIO’s harmonised classifications list have been removed. For example, the mixed ethoxylated and propoxylated fatty alcohols have been removed due to their structural complexity which brings high differences in properties and therefore makes clustering very difficult. Nowadays these polymers are separately assessed.CEES classification of water soluble silicates
In 2010, CEES members were responsible for more than 90% of the total Western European soluble silicates production. Soluble silicates have a wide variety of industrial, professional and consumer uses, such as in the detergent industry or pulp and paper manufacture. In contrast to the polymers of CESIO, the CEES members had to register their products under REACH. To achieve this, the members collected all published and internal data about chemical, physical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of soluble silicates. A consortium was founded outside of CEES, which, provided with this data, has the job of registering the materials covered by the work of the association.
Toxicological tests have revealed that the health hazards, especially skin and eye irritation, are strongly influenced by the molar ratio (MR) – which defines the number of moles of silica per mole of alkali metal oxide in soluble silicates. Tests also found that the form of the product had an effect, with less severe results at high MRs and a non-solid form of the product.
Ecotoxicological tests also revealed that these products are, with a high probability, not harmful to aquatic organisms.Animal testing
One of the main goals of REACH is the avoidance of unnecessary animal testing. The set-up of consortia for the registration of chemicals has been welcomed in order to fulfil this requirement. Through the exchange of data and, in the case of CESIO, the assignment of leads for each chemical family, the companies have much lower overall costs (testing and registration) in comparison to the cost to each company if they were to register every substance.
Nowadays, the classification recommendations of the associations for the non-polymeric surfactants, as well as the water soluble silicates, are identical to those in the REACH registration dossiers. CESIO members agreed on harmonised classifications, based on lead company testing and the read-across principle, for substances exempt from registration under REACH, namely polymers. In fact, the majority of the substances from the latest CESIO recommendation list are polymers which were tested and classified based on the same high REACH standards used for the registration of non-polymeric substances. Moreover, in the last decade, the association has made efforts to assess the hazards of the surfactants following GHS-UN classification rules.Outlook
Membership of associations offers manufacturers the opportunity to exchange information on their products and to avoid unnecessary tests and, consequently, save time and money. The provided classifications, based on the GHS rules, allow a worldwide consistent classification of the products brought on the market by the global producers, which also makes the work easier for the potential downstream users.
In the context of polymers, the consortia formation is also very important, as registration under REACH looks more and more likely. Here, associations offer access to existing data as well as the experience gained over decades for classification and registration of certain polymer groups, so that new studies do not need to be initiated.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55277/reach-clp-hub-sector-specific-classification-of-specialty-chemicals
-
NGO Platform: Protecting The Circular Economy From Hazardous Substances
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Alice Bernard
The circular economy has emerged as a solution to the overexploitation of natural resources: a win for the protection of the environment and for the EU’s economy. Transitioning from a linear economy to a circular one is an ambitious goal that the EU has courageously committed to.
It faces many barriers, making this transition particularly challenging. According to a study by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC): "Market priorities for short-term profit and dividends to shareholders make it difficult to take the long-term perspective required for investments into [circularity]."
Another major obstacle, which is linked to the short-term perspective of many businesses, is the presence of hazardous chemicals, in concentrations considered unacceptable today for human health and the environment, in material cycles. These chemicals impair the recyclability of materials and thus the circular economy.
Looking for long-term solutions that do not undermine the high level of protection of human health and the environment, is critical to make the circular economy a success. In supporting the Commission’s initiative, the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and ClientEarth have prepared a study highlighting the main deficiencies and gaps in the current legal framework. We also offer recommendations to help build a sustainable circular economy.Chemicals, product and waste legislation
Chemicals are mostly regulated by chemicals legislation, such as REACH, CLP or the POPs Regulation. But product-specific law also plays a critical role in ensuring the protection of human health and the environment against hazardous chemicals. For example, the toys Directive restricts the use of carcinogens in toys. Then, at the end of a product’s life, waste legislation takes over to ensure the proper management of waste containing hazardous chemicals. It also sets conditions for the reinjection of materials recovered from waste back into the market.
Overall, the three blocks of legislation – chemicals, product and waste – despite having a different focus, complement one another in order to ensure a high level of protection whether in a linear or in a circular economy.Deficient implementation and gaps in the law
However, there are several shortcomings in the current framework. These need to be addressed to achieve a clean and competitive circular economy. They are either due to deficient implementation or to regulatory gaps.
First, the regulatory framework fails to restrict hazardous chemicals from entering the material cycles in a timely manner. While knowledge on hazardous properties improves, the regulatory response does not keep up. In the context of a circular economy, this deficiency does not only remain highly relevant but creates additional problems. Letting hazardous chemicals enter material cycles impairs their future recyclability. It creates, for example, a risk of contamination of material flows which makes it complex and expensive for recyclers to ensure that the recovered materials are safe to use. This affects the competitiveness of materials recovered from waste. For the circular economy to be a success, more rapid and effective implementation of the current legal framework is needed to limit the use of hazardous chemicals in virgin materials.
Second, there is limited information in the supply chain and even less available to consumers, despite legal tools – such as Article 33 of REACH. At the waste and recycling stages, the information flow deteriorates even more. Only some waste stream-specific rules provide recyclers with the right-to-know (such as the WEEE Directive). It is then more difficult and costly for recyclers to ensure compliance with the most up-to-date standard of protection than it is for manufacturers of virgin materials.
Third, the legal framework does not ensure that recovered materials comply with the same level of protection of human health and the environment as virgin materials. There are even exemptions creating a less protective standard for recovered materials, such as cadmium in recycled PVC under Annex XVII of REACH, entry 23. Another under discussion is lead in PVC.
However, hazardous chemicals do not become less so when they are in materials recovered from waste. If the level of protection against them is lower for recovered than for virgin materials, consumers and manufacturers of products will lose confidence and are likely to reject the recovered material together with the circular economy model.Recommendations
To make a clean and competitive circular economy possible, the current legal framework, therefore, needs, first, to be implemented to its full potential and, second, adapted to the challenges of the circular economy. Policy makers should focus on ensuring that the laws:
· limit hazardous chemicals from entering the material cycle in the first place. This would not only be the best way to protect human health and the environment, but would also facilitate the future recovery of materials;
· ensure that economic operators in the lifecycle have access to sufficient information on the presence, location, concentration of hazardous chemicals in materials; and
· ensure the same level of protection against hazardous chemicals for human health and the environment, whether products are made of recovered or virgin materials.Case study: flame retardant in a mattress
TTo understand the complexity of the issue and highlight the shortcomings described above, we used the example of a hypothetical product (a mattress) containing the hazardous chemical HBCDD. It is assumed that all the companies in the hypothetical supply chain, below, comply with EU laws. It is therefore a best-case scenario.
· In 2013, ChemCo – an EU manufacturer of chemicals – placed on the market a flame retardant called HBCDD. At the time, the substance was classified under the CLP Regulation as "suspected human reproductive toxicant". As a result, the company had to comply with labelling, packaging and notification obligations. In addition, it had to fulfil obligations under REACH. In 2013, HBCDD was already identified as a "substance of very high concern" (SVHC), and was included on the authorisation list. However, it could still be placed on the market until August 2015 without authorisation.
· So, in compliance with REACH, in 2013, ChemCo supplied TextileCo – an EU manufacturer of textiles – with the substance. Because HBCDD was already identified as an SVHC, the company provided specific safety information to TextileCo in the form of a safety data sheet (SDS).
· TextileCo then supplied textiles containing the substance to SweetDreamsCo – an EU manufacturer of mattresses. Because HBCDD was already identified as an SVHC, TextileCo had to, at least, inform SweetDreamsCo of the presence of HBCDD in the textile, assuming it was present above 0.1% weight by weight.
· In 2014, SweetDreamsCo manufactured mattresses using the textile from TextileCo. Since the textile contained more than 0.1% of HBCDD weight by weight, it had the duty – if asked by its clients – to inform them of the presence of this SVHC in their mattresses.
· In 2019 (assuming the law has not changed) the mattress is discarded and collected by WasteCo. It has the duty to determine whether this mattress should be classified as hazardous waste under waste legislation. According to the list of waste under the waste framework Directive, textiles from domestic disposal are classified as absolute non-hazardous waste. This means that the company, in compliance with the legislation, will not classify the textile as hazardous waste.
· In 2020, RecycleCo, a company specialised in the recycling of materials from mattresses, recovers the textile. Since there is no end-of-waste criteria for textile at the EU level, it has to apply national rules to obtain an end-of-waste status, in order to sell it as non-waste. Since the conditions for this status are neither harmonised nor clear, it is realistic to assume that the textile will cease to be waste without the prior mandatory removal of HBCDD. In any case, RecycleCo has no right-to-know (contrary to SweetDreamsCo) under the current EU legal framework, whether the textile contains any hazardous chemicals. The classification of the textile as non-hazardous is in that regard not helpful. The only option for the company would be to test the materials systematically. But nothing in the current EU framework requires RecycleCo to be so diligent or protects the company from unfair competition if it decides to act thus on its own initiative.
· In 2020, CarCo buys from RecycleCo the recovered textile. However, the restrictions on the use of HBCDD have evolved since 2014. Since 2015, HBCDD cannot be used without an authorisation under REACH and, since 2016, restrictions under the POPs Regulation apply to HBCDD in articles. However, the information regarding its presence in the textile, as explained above, is likely to have been lost in the cycle. Because of this, there is no legal safeguard preventing CarCo from accidentally placing on the market textile containing HBCDD, putting its consumers and the environment at risk.
This example shows that, when only REACH is applicable (meaning when no waste stream or product-specific legislation is applicable), economic operators contributing to the circular economy – recyclers or manufacturer of products with recycled materials – have no right-to-know whether hazardous chemicals are present in recovered materials. This creates a barrier for these businesses in the form of additional costs that manufacturers of products using virgin materials do not bear. This lack of right-to-know therefore affects the competitiveness of recovered materials.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55280/ngo-platform-protecting-the-circular-economy-from-hazardous-substances
-
Reviewing REACH: A Ten Year Milestone
Apr 19, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Clelia Oziel
It is doubtful that major changes will be made following the European Commission’s second five-year review of REACH, which concludes this year. A renegotiation of the Regulation is unlikely, according to stakeholders.
Nonetheless the REFIT review – the last before the 2018 registration deadline – is an important exercise and can lead to implementing regulations to amend specific provisions in REACH, and changes in Echa’s guidance.
The review will be carried out under the EU’s Better Regulation Agenda, which considers five criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value.
The Commission expects to publish its report in October, four months later than planned, and an online public consultation has received 455 comments from NGOs, trade associations and industry. A Commission source said these, as well as member state reports and studies would contribute to the final report.
Bjorn Hansen, head of the chemicals unit in the European Commission’s DG Environment, says it is too early to comment on the possible outcome of the review as the Commission is still assessing all the submissions and reports.
"We will conclude on what is working and what is not and then see as a follow up how to address best the areas which are not working so well," Mr Hansen tells Chemical Watch.
But some are concerned that the REFIT exercise mainly considers the costs to companies in complying with the Regulation, rather than the benefits to society of reducing the impact from harmful chemicals.
The review should be seen as an opportunity to accelerate and improve REACH, says the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) in a position paper. The Commission should propose new initiatives to make risk management measures more effective, promote substitution and increase information flow.
The best outcome, according to the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi), would be if the Regulation were reviewed to correct the mistakes and unintended consequences, such as poor quality of data in registration dossiers and addressing the issue of imported articles from non-EU countries.
"Any changes that would alter the balance in the Regulation between the requirements put on industry versus those put on the authorities would be unfortunate," says Alicja Andersson, Kemi’s senior scientific officer.Ten years of REACH
The second review is particularly significant because this year marks the 10th anniversary of REACH. This landmark occasion is putting a spotlight firmly on the accomplishments, and issues, of the Regulation. Ten years after the birth of REACH, some say the jury is still out on whether it is achieving its key objective: protecting humans and the environment from risks posed by chemicals.
Great strides have been made since REACH entered into force in 2007, to many eyes setting an international gold standard for regulating chemicals. There is more information about toxic substances in products and the environment, and many have been removed from the EU market. Some others are slated for restrictions.
"The EU is seen as a global frontrunner in regulating chemicals," the EEB says. "The world is looking and copying the EU model."
REACH has spearheaded principles such as the "no data, no market" rule, substitution, and the precautionary principle.
"Management of chemicals has improved. Most of the known carcinogens have been screened and action has been taken on them," says Vito Buonsante, law and policy advisor at ClientEarth.
On other fronts, REACH has helped to develop a level playing field for European companies dealing in chemicals, and tries to shift the responsibility of the safety of chemicals from member state authorities to industry.
Yet problems abound. For example, critics say data on substances submitted by companies through registration dossiers is poor, supply chain communication is fraught with complications, and processes to classify and restrict dangerous substances move at a "glacial pace".
The reversal of the burden of proof to industry is not working properly, some NGOs say, while corporate interests have been allowed to seep through the many cracks in legislation, threatening its credibility. Enforcement needs to be stepped up and non-compliant companies named, they say.
Others say the mechanism to substitute dangerous substances with safer alternatives is not smooth, often leading to decisions to stick with the status quo. Meanwhile imported articles containing harmful chemicals have a free ride into the region, they add, hurting EU producers who have to apply for authorisation to use the same chemicals.
"Ten years ago the EU agreed a revolutionary new chemicals regulation," says Tatiana Santos, senior policy officer at the EEB. "Ten years later we are still waiting for the revolution to happen.
"A lack of political will means that the wins for human health and the environment have been all too few."
Mr Buonsante at ClientEarth says: "After ten years of REACH, what we are asking ourselves is how well is it delivering on its promises? How much of the chemicals information gap has been filled? I have no idea."
According to Echa statistics, 173 chemicals have been designated so far as substances of very high concern (SVHC) – far fewer than the 1,400 estimated in the EU White Paper in 2001. Of these, 31 have made it to the authorisation list.
In the last five years, Echa has received 114 authorisation applications for different uses of SVHCs, with the Commission making decisions on 79.
REACH has produced an average of 1.2 new restrictions a year, compared with 1.7 under the old system of European chemicals regulation, the EEB says.Conflict of interest
The backlog of actions on existing SVHCs has caused much concern among many NGOs. Meanwhile, new emerging areas of concern such as endocrine disruptors (EDCs) have yet to get a look-in.
The precautionary principle is not being applied, critics say, and the high burden of proof required under REACH means it might take years before many potentially harmful chemicals are capped or locked away.
Environmental campaigners say many more chemicals need to be pushed through authorisation, since this is the process that bites industry the most and brings about change.
But authorisation also needs to become more efficient, says Kemi, with clear definitions provided on different uses of substances. Low-volume chemicals, given almost a free rein under REACH, should be subject to more scrutiny, it says.
But industry says compliance costs are mounting, especially for SMEs who are ill equipped to deal with the complexity of requirements. Erwin Annys, Cefic’s director of chemicals policy says the Commission and Echa need to reflect on cost sharing.
"We hear more and more that within substance information exchange forums (Siefs), companies are not willing to pay for the tests required under evaluation – we have to reflect on how to tackle this in the best way," Mr Annys told Chemical Watch’s Global Business Summit in March.
He adds that authorities have criticised the quality of registrants’ dossiers, noting problems with substance identity, missing data, insufficient justifications and chemical safety reports (CSRs). But he has called for them to consider how much work registrants must undertake during the process.
"Some of the bigger companies have up to 2,000 registrations. Over ten years this is 200 substances a year, meaning more or less one substance registration a day."
In addition to this, he said members of Siefs are losing time with lengthy legal discussions in the European Council on the standard proposal of the Cefic contract with issues around confidential information in dossiers.‘Culture of secrecy’
Some NGOs say another problem is lack of transparency throughout the processes, including registration dossiers, substance evaluations, decisions of confidentiality claims and enforcement activities. According to the EEB, 69% of the registration dossiers are not compliant, yet these are kept under wraps.
"Many of these companies don’t even update their registrations after receiving a statement of non-compliance. Civil society should know their names," says Mr Buonsante from ClientEarth. "There is a general culture of secrecy."
Echa says it does not reveal non-compliant companies "due to the fact that we usually address the lead registrant ... although a wider group of member registrants actually share the responsibility of submitting a compliant data set."
But non-confidential versions of compliance check decisions are published, hence the consumers are informed, a spokesperson said.
Yet NGOs want more data to become public so that companies can be held to account on the safety of their chemicals. "There are too many chemicals for which there is not enough information," says Mr Buonsante.
Echa boasts one of the world’s largest regulatory databases on chemicals, with information on some 120,000 substances. In March, it published "selected information" on 15,000 substances registered under REACH, enabling for example, university scientists to download and analyse the data.
A key question remains unanswered, however. How many substances are out there for which risks have not yet been controlled? Echa says it does not have this information, as industry is responsible for ensuring where and under what conditions the substances they place on the market can be used safely.
The quality of information travelling down the supply chain is also inadequate, according to Ducc, an industry platform representing downstream users. Exposure scenarios from suppliers play a vital role in communicating the safe use of chemicals, but these are often "unrealistic."
"Only by communicating robust, realistic and appropriate risk management measures and operational conditions will registrants allow downstream users to perform their duties efficiently," Ducc says.
The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) is trying to address this through a project that aims to enhance the way safety data is collected and disseminated downstream, by promoting common principles for communicating chemical safety.The next ten years
Looking forward to the next ten years of international chemicals management, the need for a harmonised global system that provides much more information on which chemicals are in finished products features highly, industry players say.
"In ten years from now, if we have one or two or three common standards, we will be able to collect data in simple and complex supply chains, and share data between different sectors," said Timo Unger, environmental affairs manager at Hyundai Motor Europe, addressing the Chemical Watch summit.
Echa says the SVHC roadmap gives a commitment for having all "relevant currently known SVHCs" included in the candidate list by 2020. It does not have a target number, as "it is not possible to estimate how many substances might be identified that fulfil the criteria."
The majority of substances that fulfil the criteria are already included in the list or are not considered relevant, it says.
"The challenge, which authorities are currently faced with, is to identify new substances that fulfil these criteria. Currently, there are more than 500 substances for which further information is being generated," said the Echa spokesperson.
The key question is whether the information will be used for the purposes it is collected, namely protecting humans and the environment.
Mr Hansen from DG Environment said at the Chemical Watch summit: "We just get drowned by so much information that we forget, or we don’t see, what the really important bits are."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55271/reviewing-reach-a-ten-year-milestone
-
EPA Moves to Delay Power Plant Mercury Case
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Patrick Ambrosio
The EPA wants a federal court to delay scheduled arguments on an Obama-era regulation limiting emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from the power sector (Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 16-1127, motion filed 4/18/17).
The government April 18 asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to continue arguments over the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which are currently scheduled for May 18. The EPA said it intends to “closely review” the Obama administration's finding that regulation of the power sector was warranted.
The Trump administration recently took similar action in two other high-profile Obama-era Clean Air Act regulations, successfully asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to postpone arguments over carbon emissions limits for new power plants and national standards for ground-level ozone. In both instances, the EPA said a delay was necessary in order to review and potentially revise those regulations.
The EPA April 18 also moved to halt progress on another significant Obama-era air regulation: a “SIP Call” that required 36 states to amend their state implementation plans for addressing excess pollution during startup, shutdown and malfunctions. The agency asked the D.C. Circuit to postpone scheduled May 8 arguments to allow for a full review of the regulation (Walter Coke Inc. v. EPA, D.C. Cir., No. 15-1166, motion filed 4/18/17).
Murray Energy: Rescind Standards
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards were projected by the EPA to impose $9.6 billion in annual costs on the power sector. At issue in the latest round of litigation is an April 2016 supplemental finding reaffirming the EPA's determination that it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate power plants, a regulatory finding that underpins the actual emissions standards.
That finding is being challenged by a coalition of industry organizations and states, which alleged in their briefs that the agency's updated analysis of limiting power plant emissions didn't adequately fulfill a 2015 mandate by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the EPA erred in not originally considering cost when determining whether to regulate the power sector under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act (Michigan v. EPA, 135 S. Ct. 2699, 2015 BL 207163, 80 ERC 1577 (U.S. 2015)).
The EPA's intention to ask for a delay in oral arguments is backed by Murray Energy Corp., according to a spokesman for the coal company. Murray Energy was the first party to file a lawsuit over the supplemental finding in spring of 2016.
The Murray Energy spokesman told Bloomberg BNA in an e-mail that the company is confident it would prevail in the courts, much as opponents of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, also known as the Utility MACT rule, did in 2015.
“In light of this, we believe the Trump administration should completely rescind the Obama administration's Utility MACT Rule in order to avoid the time and expense of having the rule struck down, once again, by the courts,” the spokesman said.
In the wake of President Donald Trump's election in November 2016, several attorneys told Bloomberg BNA that the White House would have options if it sought to make changes to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards as part of a campaign promise to review all Obama-era regulations that targeted the coal sector. However, those attorneys predicted that any action to weaken or rescind the regulation would have a limited practical effect, because utilities already made the decision to either install pollution controls or either refuel or shutter coal-fired power plants in order to come into compliance.
Advocates to Fight Any Rollback
If the Trump administration moves to formally reconsider the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, it can expect to face opposition from environmental advocates.
Sean Donahue, an attorney with Donahue & Goldberg LLP in Washington, told Bloomberg BNA that environmental organizations involved in the litigation don't think there is justification for revisiting the standards, in light of the “overwhelming record” supporting the EPA's decision to regulate power plant emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Donahue represents the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the environmental advocacy organizations that is intervening in the lawsuit to defend the power plant standards
“If that's where they're going, they're going to have a real fight,” Donahue said. “We think its extremely contrary to the facts and the law.”
John Walke, director of the climate and clean air program at the NRDC, described the Trump administration's request to delay the litigation as “beyond the pail and galling” because the power sector has been in compliance with the standards since 2015. Power plants have already installed pollution control equipment and utilities have received approval from public utility commissioners to charge consumers for the cost of that equipment, Walke said.
“None of those steps have been taken in response to the Clean Power Plan or the ozone standards,” Walke said, referring to two other high-profile rules that the Trump administration has sought to review.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678715&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678715&jd=109678715
-
Democratic Senators Ask EPA's Pruitt to Explain Reversal on Emissions Data From Industry
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Charlie Passut
Four Democratic senators have asked U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to explain why he told lawmakers during his confirmation hearing that he would examine the issue of collecting information from the oil and gas industry on methane emissions but then reversed course six weeks later.
The senators added that they shared concern with nine Democratic attorneys general (AG) that the decision to withdraw information collection requests (ICR) came three days after a convention of Republican AGs in Washington -- an event Pruitt allegedly spoke at -- concluded, and one day after he received a letter from nine AGs and two governors, all Republicans, advocating the withdrawal.
The withdrawal reversed a decision, enacted during the Obama administration, for EPA to request that oil and gas owners and operators provide additional information on methane emissions from existing equipment.
"We share the concern that your decision was made almost immediately following the receipt of input of members of the Republican Attorneys General Association [RAGA] -- a partisan organization you used to chair and from which you accepted political contributions -- but without the review of input submitted by other interested parties such as the Democratic AGs, and without the review of the ICR data already submitted by industry to EPA," Sens. Tom Carper (D-DE), Ed Markey (D-MA), Brian Schatz (D-HI) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) wrote in a letter last week.
According to the senators' timeline, Pruitt pledged to "examine the submitted data to determine the appropriate next steps" regarding ICRs during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 18. After winning Senate confirmation to lead the EPA on Feb. 17, the senators allege that Pruitt attended and spoke at the RAGA convention on Feb. 26-27. He received the letter from the Republican AGs and governors on March 1, and EPA withdrew its request for ICRs on March 2.
"It is difficult for us to believe that in the two weeks between your confirmation and your withdrawal of the ICR, you followed through with the promise you made on Jan. 18," the senators said. "Instead, the timing...suggests that the 'submitted data' you received as EPA administrator may have consisted entirely of the letter from Republican officials claiming the ICR was 'an unnecessary and onerous burden on oil and gas producers.'"
The senators also alleged, based on reporting from the New York Times, that during Pruitt's previous tenure as Oklahoma AG his office regularly used data and talking points from the oil and gas industry and made them the official position of the state's government.
Nine Democratic AGs -- Xavier Becerra of California, Thomas Donovan Jr. of Vermont, Brian Frosh of Maryland, Maura Healy of Massachusetts, Peter Kilmartin of Rhode Island, Lisa Madigan of Illinois, Janet Mills of Maine, Karl Racine of the District of Columbia and Eric Schneiderman of New York -- wrote a separate letter to Pruitt on April 3. They blasted Pruitt for withdrawing ICRs "with no meaningful explanation, let alone a reasoned one."
In order to "dispel any appearance of impropriety," the senators asked Pruitt to respond to their concerns by May 7. They also want Pruitt to, among other things, explain how the letter from the aforementioned Democratic AGs would affect his decision to withdraw ICRs and to disclose his attendance and participation in RAGA events since taking the reins at the EPA.
The March 1 letter from Republicans was signed by Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin and Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant. It was also signed by AGs Mark Brnovich of Arizona, Tim Fox of Montana, Mike Hunter of Oklahoma, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, Derek Schmidt of Kansas, Ken Paxton of Texas and Alan Wilson of South Carolina.
Last November, the EPA issued a final ICR designed to obtain information and help the agency determine the best method for reducing methane and other emissions from existing oil and gas infrastructure. The final ICR was developed after the agency unveiled draft versionsin May and August of last year.
Organizations representing the oil and gas industry, including the GPA Midstream Association, had opposed the ICRs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110159-democratic-senators-ask-epas-pruitt-to-explain-reversal-on-emissions-data-from-industry
-
California OKs Two AES Repowered NatGas-Fired Generation Sites
Apr 18, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
California regulators recently gave the green light to two repowerings at coastal natural gas-fired generation plants that represent a combined 1,884 MW of mostly baseload generating capacity.
The five-member California Energy Commission (CEC) last Wednesday approved AES Southland Development LLC's plans for a proposed new 844 MW gas-fired project at the existing Huntington Beach site, similar to the favorable recommendation for a 1,044 MW gas-fired replacement it has in the works at its Long Beach plant site.
In Long Beach, AES is now authorized to build the Alamitos Energy Center on part of the existing site and eventually replace the 1950s-era, gas-fired and sea water-cooled existing generation complex. For Huntington Beach, the CEC approved a petition to amend an earlier approval related to the gas-fired coastal site that is also water-cooled.
Huntington Beach originally was approved by the CEC as a 930 MW project in 2014. The amended version of that approval will allow for the 844 MW version on a portion of the existing site. In September 2015, the AES unit petitioned to amend the project, lowering its capacity and modifying its operating equipment and design to meet the requirements of a power purchase agreement with Southern California Edison Co. (SCE).
Both projects are expected to have no environmental impacts with the required mitigation measures.
As recommended, the Huntington Beach project will have two generation blocks -- a 644 MW combined cycle combustion turbine, and another with twin 100-MW each simple-cycle combustion turbine generators. The former would be operational in 2020, and the two peaking turbines four years later in 2024.
Since state Water Resource Board requirements call for the phasing out of once-through cooling plants, the new facilities will be air-cooled and built within the footprint of the existing power generation facilities.
Water cooling was the technology applied to the coastal plants built 40 to 60 years ago, and up to 17 gas-fired plants along California's coast have remained the main focus of the state's water cooling restrictions adopted seven years ago by the state water board in close collaboration with the state's major energy agencies.
Originally, the arcane and not-fully-developed rules were approved by the water board after five years of analysis, a full day of testimony from staff and stakeholders, and the clarification of 17 last-minute amendments.
More recently, the climate change initiative and other factors have combined to push California regulatory and elected leaders away from natural gas as the debate surrounding methane emissions has intensified in the state since the late 2015 storage well leak at Aliso Canyon drew national attention.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110154-california-oks-two-aes-repowered-natgas-fired-generation-sites
-
Climate Activists To 'Directly Confront' Trump
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
Organizers behind the Peoples Climate March announced today they will encircle the entire White House grounds as part of the mass mobilization planned for April 29.
That Saturday at 2 p.m., tens of thousands of people will surround the streets bordering 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW in Washington "to directly confront" President Trump and challenge his agenda, said Paul Getsos, national coordinator for the Peoples Climate Movement.
"This moment will be the highlight of a day that will begin with a march leading from the Capital to Washington Monument," Getsos said in a statement.
In the days leading up to the march, organizers are planning a series of events, such as Capitol Hill lobbying and teach-ins, to build on the momentum from the separate March for Science on April 22 (Greenwire, April 13).
"After 100 days of this administration, it's our time to show our resilience, to show that we're still here, that we're only getting stronger, that we're multiplying and that we're never giving up on justice, or on the people," said Angela Adrar, executive director of the Climate Justice Alliance.
More than 290 "sister marches" are planned across the country and around the world, organizers say. A map on their website shows events planned in Europe, South America, Africa, Australia and other locations.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/18/stories/1060053241
-
White House To Reschedule Meeting — Spokeswoman
Apr 18, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Hannah Hess
The White House will reschedule a discussion on the fate of U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement "at some point over the next couple of weeks," a spokeswoman said today.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders blamed the postponement of today's planned session on scheduling conflicts among some of the advisers expected to attend.
"Several of the people that wanted to participate" are instead headed to Wisconsin, Sanders told reporters on the way to a presidential event in the state.
Sanders pushed back on reports that the meeting was delayed over discord about how to proceed on climate policy among the top advisers.
"No, the reason, like I said, that it was — they wanted to have that conversation. Since they haven't had it, I don't think they could say that there's a lot of discord between where everyone is," she said.
Observers are also speculating that the White House has already decided how to act, and the meeting was leaked by insiders who are discontent with the decision (Greenwire, April 18).
Asked for President Trump's view on the agreement he once vowed to "cancel," Sanders said she had not had a chance to have that conversation.
"Again, I think that's a lot of what this meeting will be about, is the conversation and an open discussion about that," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/04/18/stories/1060053244
-
White House Climate Agreement Talks Rescheduled
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Andrew Childers
The White House punted on whether to pull the U.S. out of an international climate change agreement after a discussion of the move scheduled for April 18 was scrapped due to scheduling conflicts.
Instead, the White House will convene in the next couple of weeks for high level discussions over whether to remain in the climate agreement reached in Paris at the end of 2015, a spokeswoman told reporters aboard Air Force One April 18. President Donald Trump vowed during his campaign to leave the Paris Agreement, calling it bad for the U.S.
Nearly 200 countries signed the agreement aiming to keep the world from warming more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
Exxon Mobil Corp., previously led by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Cloud Peak Energy Inc. and Peabody Energy Corp. are all in favor of remaining in the international agreement. However, Environmental Protection Agency Administration Scott Pruitt has said the U.S. “needs to exit” the agreement. Pruitt has previously questioned whether humans are a “primary contributor” to climate change and the EPA under his direction has begun rolling back the greenhouse gas regulations that were the underpinning of the U.S. pledge to act on climate change as part of the Paris agreement.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678707&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678707&jd=109678707
-
EPA To Seek Utility MACT Suit Delay Over Environmentalists' Objections
Apr 18, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is poised to ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to postpone May 18 oral argument in litigation over the Obama-era cost assessment underpinning the agency's utility air toxics rule, over the objections of environmentalists who say they plan to oppose the request in upcoming filings.
Ann Weeks, legal director of the Clean Air Task Force, told Inside EPA April 18 that the Trump EPA has reached out to all parties involved in the litigation to notify them of the imminent delay request.
Echoing a press release CATF issued earlier the same day, she said that environmentalists will fight against postponement.
As reported by Inside EPA's Anthony Lacey, some industry sources have suggested the administration may have a hard time convincing the court to delay the scheduled May 18 oral argument because it is less than one month away and because the agency under Trump's EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt filed a final brief in defense of the cost review in March.
The case, Murray Energy Corporation v. EPA, et al., challenges the cost assessment EPA undertook to justify its declaration that the utility maximum achievable control technology (MACT) air toxics rule is “appropriate and necessary” under the Clean Air Act. EPA crafted the assessment in response to a Supreme Court ruling that faulted the agency for not considering costs when it first issued the “appropriate and necessary” finding.
EPA has moved to delay argument in pending D.C. Circuit suits over a host of utility sector air rules, including greenhouse gas standards for power plants and the tightening of the ozone standard. The Trump administration has argued in each case that it needs time to review the rules and potentially revise or rescind them.
For the ozone standard litigation, EPA filed its request to delay argument and hold the case in abeyance just eight business days before argument. The court ultimately granted the request earlier this month, but appeared to scold the agency for filing so close to the argument date, saying it “disfavors” motions to delay argument.
Delaying the argument in the utility MACT case “serves no public purpose whatsoever,” said Weeks in the press release. She said the rule's “limits on toxic air emissions from coal- and oil-fired power plants reduces Americans’ exposure to dangerous pollution like mercury, arsenic, and other metal toxics, acid gases and carcinogens, currently saving thousands of American lives every year, as well as reducing the incidence of hundreds of thousands of childhood asthma attacks, and avoiding many cases of severe neurological disability among children, among other benefits.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-seek-utility-mact-suit-delay-over-environmentalists-objections
-
Climate, Environment Raised in GOP Town Halls; Will It Matter
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Rachel Leven
Republican members of Congress have been booed within and outside of district town hall meetings for questioning whether the climate is changing, for supporting proposed cuts to the EPA and for other related issues over their two-week congressional recess.
It isn't a coincidence. Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and MoveOn.org are coordinating efforts to force lawmakers to move the U.S. toward a clean energy economy, hoping their constituents’ words will affect members’ actions. At least two lawmakers indicated to Bloomberg BNA that their constituents’ statements generally do impact their votes in the House, although whether many of them consider opinions expressed at these town halls as representative of their districts’ beliefs is unclear.
Polls have shown that while many voters believe the climate is changing and that protecting the environment is important, those issues rank well behind other priorities such as the economy, health care, national security and immigration. However, an April 4 Quinnipiac University poll found 61 percent of voters disapprove of how President Donald Trump (R) is handling environmental issues.
Still, the efforts are indicative of how serious a threat the environmental and broader progressive community see from this version of Washington. Congress is expected to reconvene the week of April 24.
These instances are not exclusively occurring at House Republican town halls. For example, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) received environmental questions at his own town hall held in Parkersburg, W.Va. on April 12. Nor are these outreach efforts entirely adversarial. Some members may hear support in town halls for their actions that progressive groups agree with, Adrianna Quintero, NRDC's director of partner engagement, told Bloomberg BNA.
‘You Are Not Einstein’
So far, several Republican members have heard environmental concerns at town halls in their districts. Among them was Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), a chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology's Subcommittee on the Environment and a member of the House Freedom Caucus.
At his April 11 town hall in Mesa, Ariz., one constituent asked whether Biggs believes in climate change and, if not, why his beliefs are correct over those of scientists. The question was met with cheers from around the room.
Climate scientists have “manipulated data,” Biggs said, with people in the room booing as he continued to speak. “Oddly enough, the attitude you take is the same attitude [Albert] Einstein faced over physics,” he added. One person in the crowd yelled back, “You are not Einstein.”
Biggs isn't the only one. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) heard boos April 12 in Byron Center, Mich., MLive reported, although for him it came when he said the amount of data that would help determine what to do about the changing climate is quite small. When asked what his voters could do to change his mind, he replied: “It's easy to say, well, all the people around me have the same views, but I deal with a large district. People have different views on many things and I have to take that into consideration.”
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), was also reportedly booed on April 12 in Aurora, Colo., when he said “environmental policy ought to be integrated with trade policy,” Denver's Fox 31 reported, and environmentalists booed at a joint town hall held by Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) and Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) in Reno, Nev. April 17 over their comments on whether to preserve certain national monuments.
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), chairman of the House Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, and Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, were questioned on their support for renewable energy or on climate change, reportsshow.
Some protests are occurring outside of town halls when members choose not to hold those meetings over this recess period. For example, Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.), whose majority of her district also voted for Clinton for president, isn't holding a town hall. So, individuals protested outside of her Sterling, Va. office on April 11, specifically expressing disappointment in her early environmental vote to repeal a major coal mining regulation and her general support for offshore drilling.
Will Protests Matter?
But whether such protests matter is an open question.
Groups who are urging individuals through phone calls, emails and other outreach to come out to town halls this year hope so, given the slew of environmental rollbacks and potential funding cuts to the EPA, among other recent administration actions. While it won't be clear whether this translates into votes more in line with these progressive groups until members return to Washington, Quintero said the fact that voters are showing up and speaking up shows the effort has already been “pretty successful.”
The goal is “to remind those in government that they work for us and not for themselves or for industries that may or may not even be in their districts,” Quintero, who is also the founder and director of the Latino environmental advocacy group Voces Verdes, said of the outreach effort with other progressive groups in and out of the environmental arena. “The energy that we see in the town halls from the public is amazing. It's democracy in action.”
Coffman (R-Colo.), one of 23 House Republicans who won his election even as a majority of his district voted for Hillary Clinton for president, didn't say how these statements specifically would affect his policy choices, but said he recently joined the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group of lawmakers that aims to better understand and address the impacts of climate change.
“Certainly, hearing from constituents and their concerns allows me to be a better representative and engage in finding solutions to issues raised,” Coffman said in an emailed statement.
Still, other members say their votes are already widely representative of their districts, even as they are willing to listen to the other side. Jarred Rego, communications director for Lamborn, summed up this viewpoint in an emailed statement to Bloomberg BNA.
“Congressman Lamborn has a strong conservative voting record that he has established during his time in Congress,” Rego said, in response to a question of whether the congressman would change any stances on climate or environment issues raised during his town hall. “The majority of the voters in the Fifth Congressional District appreciate this consistent approach and representation.”
The offices of the other lawmakers and FreedomWorks, a grassroots conservative group, didn't respond to messages from Bloomberg BNA.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678714&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678714&jd=109678714
-
Carbon Tax Next Target for California's Disadvantaged Communities
Apr 19, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Carolyn Whetzel
Advocates for California's disadvantaged communities are flexing their newly honed political muscle with a new goal in mind: replacing the state's landmark greenhouse gas trading program with a carbon tax.
It's a call that puts environmental justice advocates on a collision course with state regulators, powerful industry groups and even the governor, who all favor extending the state's existing cap and trade program. However, poor and minority communities say California's greenhouse gas trading program—which has been hailed as a national model—should be scrapped because it is not aggressive enough and allows industries to continue spewing toxic pollutants that harm their neighborhoods. In its place, environmental groups are calling for a carbon tax combined with a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.
“A tax on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted, combined with emissions caps, would be a simpler and more equitable way to price carbon,” Brent Newell, general counsel at the Center for Race, Poverty and the Environment, told Bloomberg BNA.
State Favors Trading
The campaign to ditch cap and trade for a tax comes as the California Legislature is considering Gov. Jerry Brown's (D) fiscal year 2017 budget proposal. Brown wants to reauthorize the cap-and-trade program through 2030, which must be completed by June 1.
Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is set to vote in June on its 2030 Climate Change Scoping Plan. It would make cap and trade a key element of the board's preferred strategy to cut emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, as required by law.
“Our own analysis shows that this is the lowest cost way of achieving our climate goals. It is working and has inspired climate action beyond California,” Mary D. Nichols, CARB's chairman, said at recent conference on the state's climate policies.
While the greenhouse gas trading program was not designed to address local air pollution, Nichols conceded that “we need to do a more thorough job in assessing the public health and economic impacts of all our programs.”
Despite the formidable opposition, environmental justice groups hope to build off of recent legislative victories to change the course of California's climate change programs. In the 2015-2016 legislative session, the coalition's lobbying efforts led to a bill requiring state regulators to prioritize direct regulation of facilities’ emissions and to weigh the social costs of new greenhouse gas emissions reduction rules. Other key wins included bills that added two environmental justice seats to CARB's governing board and increased the amount of emissions allowance revenues that must benefit disadvantaged communities.
Advocates See Opportunity
Effective leadership, turnover in the Legislature and new state policies have helped environmental justice groups gain political influence over the last 12 years, Joe Lyou president and chief executive officer of the Coalition for Clean Air, told Bloomberg BNA.
“The groups scored major victories in the last legislative session and they have the opportunity to do the same during this session,” Lyou said.
Convincing the Legislature to pass a tax, which requires a two-thirds vote in each house, however, is a challenge even for groups with political clout, Lyou said.
The coalition also would have to out-lobby strong industry interests, like the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, which support reauthorizing cap and trade. Clean energy companies, the American Lung Association and the Environmental Defense Fund also want the trading program extended through 2030.
Trading Benefits Exported
Many environmental justice advocates and those living near industrial facilities view trading programs as an opportunity for emitters to avoid reducing local emissions. Instead, they want to see climate and air quality regulations better aligned to curb harmful emissions from the oil refineries and power plants near disadvantaged communities.
Mechanisms to keep costs down in California's trading program “allow polluters to use extremely cheap ways” to comply, Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance told Bloomberg BNA.
“Polluters are paying for offset projects that reduce emissions elsewhere,” she said. “Most of the benefits of the program are being exported.”
Revenues from a carbon tax would replace money raised through cap-and-trade auctions that fund climate-related projects. The tax, along with strong caps, would reduce emissions, Vanderwarker said.
“We want to see a thorough analysis of a carbon tax and cap program,” she said.
A preliminary comparison of two alternatives CARB prepared as part of its scoping plan update found declining caps, not a tax set at the social cost of carbon, would drive emissions reductions. Each industry sector would be able to reduce emissions at the level required year after year, the agency said. The plan would likely cost more than cap and trade and result in job losses, according to the assessment.
State law requires that 35 percent of the trading auction revenue benefit disadvantaged communities. Proceeds go to programs that reduce greenhouse gases as long as they improve the economy and public health.
Of the $3.38 billion in auction proceeds appropriated to date, $1.28 billion went to projects benefiting disadvantaged communities. Another $2.2 billion in revenue is pending appropriation, but the governor's proposed budget conditions spending a portion of the latest revenue on reauthorizing the trading program.
Programs Must Be Targeted
However, industry groups and economists say attempting to align programs to address local air quality as well as a global pollutant like carbon dioxide will result in half measures that achieve neither goal.
“If we try to address both of these important, but fundamentally different problems with one policy, we'll likely end up with a policy that does neither job well,” according to Meredith Fowlie, an economist who studies market-based environmental regulations at the University of California, Berkeley.
“We should mount the best, most efficient policy response to climate change we can manage,” she told Bloomberg BNA.
Unlike a traditional carbon tax, which allows industry to emit however much it wants, the environmental justice coalition's proposed tax would cap emissions at every single facility, James Bushnell, an energy and environmental economist at the University of California, Davis, told Bloomberg BNA.
“It would reduce the flexibility for individual compliance” that emissions trading provides, he said.
California's 2030 trading program goals are aggressive and any program going forward must include mechanisms to keep costs down, Cathy Reheis-Boyd, president of Western States Petroleum Association, told Bloomberg BNA. Cap and trade provides the mechanisms to protect businesses from competing out-of-state entities not regulated by the program.
“We have to do what makes the most sense,” Reheis-Boyd said.
Lawmakers Open to Changes
Despite the concerns of regulators and industries, some lawmakers representing disadvantaged communities also want climate policies to improve local air pollution problems. And they like the revenue that the cap and trade auction generates for their districts.
The Legislature is considering a pair of bills, A.B. 151 and A.B. 378, to extend CARB's authority to use market-based measures to meet the 2030 climate goals.
While A.B. 151 would simply continue California's trading program, environmental justice advocates are rallying around A.B. 378, which doesn't commit to continuing cap and trade but would allow “a market-based compliance mechanism” as long it includes “a mix of direct regulations and incentives that hold emitters accountable for the social costs of their emissions.” A.B. 378 enjoys the support of the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund.
“Everything is on the table right now,” A.B. 378 sponsor Assemblymember Cristina Garcia (D) said when introducing the bill in February. “This is the first step.”
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=109678697&vname=dennotallissues&fn=109678697&jd=109678697
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested