Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 5/4/2017
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Hears NGOs Blast TSCA Regulatory Reform Exercise
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGOs have warned that the US EPA’s efforts to reform regulations under TSCA is a "distraction" from the work of implementing the new law and may jeopardise efforts to restore the public’s faith in the US’s management of chemicals. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Groups, Companies Voice Concerns About Burden of New Regulations
May 4, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The chemical industry broadly supported an overhaul of the nation's chemical oversight laws passed last year. -
New But Not Improved: The New Regulatory Accountability Act Would Severely Threaten TSCA Implementation and Many Other Vital Health Protections
May 4, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA). Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill. -
FY 2017 Budget Agreement Leaves EPA Budget Largely Intact
May 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher R. Bryant, Lynn L. Bergeson, and Margaret R. Graham
Facing a government shutdown, late on April 30, 2017, lawmakers reached agreement on a spending bill that funds the federal government through September 2017, which is the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. -
(ACC Blog) Who Put BPA in the Water?
May 4, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
The days of rivers catching on fire from high levels of pollution are long gone. These days Americans almost take it for granted that the rivers, streams and lakes around us are safe and clean. Nevertheless, there are still concerns about the potential for health risks to people and the environment from trace levels of contaminants in water. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Extends Spray Polyurethane Foam Consultation
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California has extended the comment period on its proposal to list spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation, containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI), as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme. -
US FDA Revokes Potassium Perchlorate FCM Authorisation
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US FDA is amending its food additive regulations to revoke the use of potassium perchlorate as a component in sealing gaskets for food containers. -
FDA Denies NRDC Petition on Additive in Food Packaging
May 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The Food and Drug Administration has denied a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups to ban a chemical in food packaging. -
Pesticides Committee to Vote on EDC Criteria
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) will vote on the latest proposed criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) at its meeting on 17-18 May. -
MSC to Consider if BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
At its next meeting in June, Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) will discuss whether bisphenol A (BPA) can be identified as an endocrine disruptor in humans. -
POPs Convention Set to Ban Two More Substances
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Two substances, decaBDE and short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), are set to be banned under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs). -
Echa Round-Up
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa is offering a Iuclid Cloud trial so SMEs can work with the tool online, without having to install the application. -
Neb. Gets Down to Work on Keystone XL
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Pipeline workers. Farmers. Teachers. Nebraskans of all stripes made their cases for and against the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline across the state's farmlands yesterday, as the state Public Service Commission heard testimony on how the proposed pipeline project could affect the state's economy and environment. -
Energy Transfer Opens 2 Natural Gas Lines to Mexico
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, has opened two major natural gas pipelines from West Texas into Mexico, the company announced yesterday. -
BLM Freezes Central Calif. Leasing in Deal with Enviros
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration will pause oil and gas leasing on thousands of acres of public lands in California while it takes a closer look at the impacts of hydraulic fracturing. -
Ore. Dems Warn Trump Against 'Political Interference' at FERC
May 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Oregon's Democratic senators are telling the Trump administration to steer clear of a contentious gas export project on the state's western coast that White House officials are eager to revive. -
A Reflection on the North American Energy Renaissance
May 4, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Gene Green
It wasn’t too long ago that our country experienced an energy crisis as oil prices soared above $150 per barrel, natural gas reserves dwindled, and wind and solar power were in their infancy. -
Restoring Choice Could Fix America’s Water Infrastructure
May 4, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Rick Jones
There has been a lot of talk about the poor state of America’s infrastructure and the urgent need for action to fix it — but are we looking in the right places? -
Pact Architect Says 'Text is Very Clear' — Goals Can't Go Down
May 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
One of the top architects of the Paris climate deal says President Trump can't offer a less ambitious target than his predecessor did, an opinion that buttresses the views of opponents to Paris in the White House.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Hears NGOs Blast TSCA Regulatory Reform Exercise
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
NGOs have warned that the US EPA’s efforts to reform regulations under TSCA is a "distraction" from the work of implementing the new law and may jeopardise efforts to restore the public’s faith in the US’s management of chemicals.
This is according to testimony offered at the agency’s 1 May hearing, seeking to identify regulations under TSCA that could be repealed, replaced or modified – as directed by a Trump administration executive order.
Giving testimony, Joanna Slaney, legislative director of the health programme at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the NGO was "deeply concerned about this process".
TSCA reform, said Ms Slaney, was passed "on a broad acknowledgment that our federal chemicals management system was fundamentally not working". Efforts that would undermine the approach to chemical safety, set in place by the Lautenberg Act, will "further exacerbate" public concerns about the safety of chemicals, and not provide the stability that the business community sought through TSCA reform.
"Under the guise of reforming regulation to improve government efficiency, this anti-regulatory process is opening the door for the agency to turn its back on strong science and public health protection."
At the same hearing, Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney with the Environmental Working Group, said efforts to roll back a law less than a year old "felt like a distraction" from the more important work of its implementation.
Bob Sussman, with Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families, told the hearing that Congress expected the EPA to have expanded its activities around risk evaluations and management, testing and review of new chemicals under the new law. And the agency should focus its resources on meeting these new expectations.
"The worst thing it could do would be to divert those resources to a futile search for deregulatory opportunities, under a programme that everybody would agree is grossly underperforming and whose major shortcoming is that it has demanded too little of industry, not too much."
The call to focus on an effective roll-out of the new TSCA was also voiced by several industry groups, despite their raising specific concerns to be addressed.
New OCSPP leader’s objectivity questioned
Several consumer advocacy groups also criticised the recent appointment of American Chemistry Council (ACC) senior staffer Nancy Beck as deputy assistant administrator of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP).
Daniel Rosenberg, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said her appointment means "the chemical manufacturers are now, for all intents and purposes, in charge of running the office intended to regulate the chemical manufacturers. She potentially has numerous conflicts that may require her recusal for many – perhaps virtually all – of the TSCA related matters, with which the agency will need to grapple in the next several years."
Mr Rosenberg called for "a thorough and public vetting of all matters on which she worked during her tenure with the ACC, and her specific role and time spent on all such matters", to address the concerns.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55584/epa-hears-ngos-blast-tsca-regulatory-reform-exercise
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemical Groups, Companies Voice Concerns About Burden of New Regulations
May 4, 2017 | Chem Info
By Andy Szal
The chemical industry broadly supported an overhaul of the nation's chemical oversight laws passed last year.
But numerous groups recently complained about specific aspects of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act as the government continues to implement it.
Chemical Watch reports that the Commerce Department, in response an executive order signed by President Trump in January, asked for comments from manufacturers about burdens "from federal permitting and regulatory requirements."
Industry group the American Chemistry Council reportedly told the agency that the new program to evaluate new chemicals was one of its top concerns.
The new law requires the Environmental Protection Agency to make affirmative safety decisions for new chemicals, which helped curb the amount of new substances approved by the regulators and create a backlog of applications for new chemicals.
The American Wood Council warned of "overly conservative" risk assessments under the revised law, and the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance said that existing regulations protect the public from three specific chemicals -- trichloroethylene, methylene chloride and N-methylpyrrolidone — that face further restrictions.
3M and Valero were among the individual companies respond to the Commerce Department inquiry. The Minnesota manufacturing giant, CWreports, said that the chemical application backlog amounted to a "powerful disincentive to manufacture new chemicals in the U.S."
Other groups, meanwhile, identified a range of additional issues related to chemical regulations, from overlapping agency requirements to exposure and emissions standards to the composition of the EPA Science Advisory Board.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/05/chemical-groups-companies-voice-concerns-about-burden-new-regulations
-
May 4, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
Last week, as anticipated, Senator Rob Portman introduced his updated Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA). Sens. Hatch, Heitcamp and Manchin cosponsored the bill.
While it’s new, it can’t be said it’s improved. Some problems raised with Sen. Portman’s earlier version of the bill were addressed but many were not and quite a few new very problematic provisions were added.
In March, I blogged about the irony that RAA would reinstate a number of requirements that Congress just last June removed from the old Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) through the Lautenberg Act amendments that were enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support. Unfortunately, many of those problems remain with Sen. Portman’s new version of RAA. And, those flawed requirements would be imposed across the entire federal government, effectively rewriting dozens of federal statutes simultaneously.
I have updated my earlier analysis of RAA vs. the new TSCA to reflect the new version of RAA.
The analysis is divided into two sections: First, it discusses provisions of RAA that would directly undo critical changes the Lautenberg Act made to TSCA when it passed just last year. Among them:
It would still impose a cost test on an agency’s selection of a regulatory option, requiring it to be the “most cost-effective” – a term that is undefined. In contrast, reformed TSCA merely requires EPA to “consider” and “factor in” cost and related factors, to the extent practicable based on reasonably available information.
It would generally require lengthy formal hearings for any major rule if anyone asks for one. The hearing requirement in original TSCA was struck based on broad agreement that it was an unnecessary and overly time- and resource-consuming step in the rulemaking process.
Second, my analysis describes a few examples of the many other provisions of RAA that could or would affect implementation of the new TSCA (as well as that of all of the dozens of other federal statutes to which RAA would apply).
In providing this new analysis, I want to emphasize that in no way does it capture the full range of problems with the new version of RAA. RAA amends the Administrative Procedure Act, and the changes it would make are sweeping in nature. The full implications of this legislation are difficult to discern and would likely not become fully apparent for years after adoption, especially given the extent of litigation it can be expected to engender.
Many provisions of RAA in addition to those discussed above would affect rulemaking activities under the new TSCA – as well as those under all other federal statutes. My analysis only addresses a subset of these problematic provisions.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/05/04/new-but-not-improved-the-new-regulatory-accountability-act-would-severely-threaten-tsca-implementation-and-many-other-vital-health-protections/
-
FY 2017 Budget Agreement Leaves EPA Budget Largely Intact
May 3, 2017 | National Law Review
By Christopher R. Bryant, Lynn L. Bergeson, and Margaret R. Graham
Facing a government shutdown, late on April 30, 2017, lawmakers reached agreement on a spending bill that funds the federal government through September 2017, which is the end of Fiscal Year (FY) 2017.
President Trump’s budget blueprint sought to slash EPA’s coffers by some 31 percent (and more if certain programs were eliminated from the base). The deal reached by lawmakers, however, would essentially fund EPA at its current levels and retain current staff levels. The bill appropriates $8.058 billion for EPA, paring a little over $80 million -- about one percent -- from EPA’s FY 2016 budget.
Programs targeted for elimination by President Trump remain funded, at least through September, when Congress will face another budget showdown. For example, the bill funds the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and lead elimination programs.
While EPA’s budget is generally unchanged, the bill does contain several policy riders. It would require EPA to treat air emissions from forest biomass as carbon neutral. EPA also would not be allowed to regulate manure and similar agricultural byproducts as wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the bill would bar EPA from requiring Clean Water Act (CWA) permits for certain agricultural practices. The legislation also prohibits funding to regulate lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, and fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) or any other law.
Senate Report No. 114-281 on the pending FY 2017 budget deal and an accompanying explanatory statement also address specifically TSCA, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and nanomaterials. The specific language is below.
Toxic Substances Control Act Modernization -- The Committee notes that legislation to modernize the Toxic Substances Control Act [TSCA] was recently approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. This bill includes language that will enable the EPA to collect and spend new fees to conduct additional chemical reviews, consistent with TSCA modernization legislation. Those fees are expected to be $25,000,000 per year once the program is fully implemented. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that in fiscal year 2017, fee collections will begin several months after the beginning of the fiscal year and will total $4,000,000. This bill also includes language ensuring that new fee collections will supplement, not supplant, appropriated resources for these activities.
Integrated Risk Information System -- The Committee is aware of efforts by the Agency to implement the 2011 National Academy of Science’s [NAS] Chapter 7 and 2014 NAS report recommendations for the Integrated Risk Information System [IRIS] but remains concerned that the recommendations have not been fully implemented. In published appendices that accompany final IRIS assessments, EPA has detailed some of the Agency’s deficiencies in meeting the NAS high-priority reforms. The Committee directs the Agency to convene an interagency working group to be Co-Chaired with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and to include relevant executive branch stakeholders to review compliance with the NAS recommendations in IRIS assessments issued since the 2014 NAS report. The working group shall focus specifically on transition from the use of single point estimates of hazard and exposure to presenting more complete information on the distribution of estimated hazards, exposures, and/or risks, including central tendency values; on processes for evaluating study quality, relevance, and risk of bias; the use of a transparent and reproducible weight-of-evidence process for applying scientific findings; the selection of an adverse outcome; and the use of default linear low-dose extrapolation and other default modeling approaches to hazard determinations. The Committee directs the Agency to issue a report to the Committees of Appropriations of the House and Senate on the findings of the working group and the implementation plans of its findings within 180 days of enactment of this act. The working group report shall also include a timetable for EPA’s full implementation of the NAS recommendations for all IRIS assessments issued since the 2014 NAS report.
Nanomaterials Research -- The Committee notes the increased capabilities that the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has developed to study environment, health, and safety of nanomaterials [nanoEHS] within FDA’s Jefferson Laboratory Campus, including the National Center for Toxicological Research, and its consolidated headquarters at White Oak, Maryland. The FDA can and should be more involved in nanoEHS research with other agencies, particularly in activities involving human health. Out of the amounts appropriated, the [EPA} Administrator shall seek to involve the FDA in nanoEHS research to the maximum extent possible, including participation in EPA funded research.
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fy-2017-budget-agreement-leaves-epa-budget-largely-intact
-
(ACC Blog) Who Put BPA in the Water?
May 4, 2017 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steven Hentges
The days of rivers catching on fire from high levels of pollution are long gone. These days Americans almost take it for granted that the rivers, streams and lakes around us are safe and clean. Nevertheless, there are still concerns about the potential for health risks to people and the environment from trace levels of contaminants in water.
Numerous studies have documented the presence of various contaminants at very low levels in natural waters worldwide, but these studies don’t give us a complete picture. We only know what we looked for – not everything that might be present – and, we may not know much about the potential health impacts of the contaminants that are found.
To start addressing these limitations, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently conducted an in-depth study to provide more insight into the complex mixtures of contaminants present in U.S. streams.
In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed water from 38 streams nationwide for 719 substances. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found 406 of the substances in at least one stream. All of the water samples contained at least one of the substances and some contained as many as 162.
While bisphenol A (BPA) is frequently mentioned in media stories, in the real world it was found only at very low levels in less than 40% of the streams. Levels so low, in fact, that a typical adult weighing 70 kg (154 pounds) would need to drink 21,472 liters (5,672 gallons) per day of water containing the maximum level of BPA (163 parts per trillion) just to reach the safe intake level for BPA set by EPA. That’s especially not likely to happen since the highest level was found in water from the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Channel, which is a primary pathway for sewage from Chicago to eventually reach the Mississippi River.
Perhaps more surprising is that many of the more commonly found contaminants are synthetic substances that were designed to be biologically active (e.g., as pesticides or human drugs). And one of the top 10 in frequency of detection is estrone, which is a potent estrogenic hormone that is naturally produced in the human body.
The study didn’t specifically address how the contaminants got into water. However, some anecdotal evidence indicated that the samples with highest biological activity were collected downstream of wastewater treatment plants that contributed a significant amount of the streamflow.
Although BPA and many other substances are frequently found in wastewater, it’s well-known that BPA is readily biodegraded in modern wastewater treatment plants, which substantially reduces the amount of BPA released to the environment. Studies also show that other contaminants are not efficiently degraded in today’s treatment processes.
In the second part of the study, biological potency becomes particularly important. The researchers monitored biological activity in the water samples with four bioassays that measured estrogen, androgen and glucocortinoid activity. Estrogenic activity was found in all but one of the water samples but, as noted by the researchers, almost all of the activity could be explained by the presence of estrone.
Less than 1% of the estrogenic activity could be explained by the presence of other estrogenic substances, and only a fraction of that can be attributed to BPA. The low contribution of BPA is due to its low estrogenic potency, about 100,000 times less potent than estrone according to the researchers, and the low levels at which it is found. Taken together, the data suggest that the very low level of BPA found in some streams is not likely to be a health concern.
The new study suggests that more research is needed to better understand what contaminants are in water and whether those complex mixtures pose any health risks. More importantly, the new data should help to focus further research and, eventually, help to prioritize actions to mitigate risks.
If you’re interested in this story, more blogs related to BPA are available at AmericanChemistry.com.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2017/05/who-put-bpa-in-the-water/
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Extends Spray Polyurethane Foam Consultation
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California has extended the comment period on its proposal to list spray polyurethane foam (SPF) insulation, containing unreacted methylene diphenyl diisocyanates (MDI), as a priority product under the Safer Consumer Products (SCP) programme.
Following extension requests from more than a dozen chemical manufacturers and polyurethane producers, the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) will now accept comments until 6 June. A hearing remains slated for 16 May – the original consultation closing date.
The SCP programme aims to reduce human and environmental exposures to substances of concern in consumer products.
In its consultation on MDI in SPF, the DTSC is requesting that manufacturers address two questions:
is this chemical necessary?
is there a safer alternative?
The department's effort to designate the product chemical pair as an inaugural priority product under the SCP is expected to meet heavy opposition. The American Chemistry Council was among organisations to immediately speak out against the proposal, when the agency signalled its intent to move forward with it.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55620/california-extends-spray-polyurethane-foam-consultation
-
US FDA Revokes Potassium Perchlorate FCM Authorisation
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US FDA is amending its food additive regulations to revoke the use of potassium perchlorate as a component in sealing gaskets for food containers.
The agency says the action comes in response to a food additive petition (FAP) filed by the Plastics Industry Association (PLASTICS – formerly SPI), which provided information to support its claim that use of the substance has been abandoned by industry.
But NGO pressure on perchlorates has also been mounting. Six consumer advocacy groups filed suit against the FDA last year for its failure to act on a 2014 petition that, among other requests, called for revoking this use.
In a separate Federal Register notice, the FDA said it is denying the NGOs’ petition. The requested action regarding potassium perchlorate has been rendered "moot" by its final rule, the agency said.
The petition had also requested that the agency:
revoke a threshold of regulation (TOR) exemption for the use of sodium perchlorate monohydrate as a conductivity enhancer in antistatic agents, for use in finished articles in contact with dry foods; and
prohibit the use of perchlorates in antistatic agents for use in food-contact articles.
In its response, the FDA said that the requests are outside the scope of a FAP. It also determined that the dietary exposure to sodium perchlorate monohydrate, resulting from the use allowed by the exemption, does not exceed exemption criteria, and that the data provided in the petition "do not support a conclusion that TOR exemption No 2005-006 is no longer supportable".
This conclusion also means that proposing a regulation to prohibit their use in antistatic agents "would be inconsistent" with its findings.
It therefore denied these requests.
PLASTICS’ senior director of global regulatory affairs, Kyra Douglas, says the agency’s response to the industry petition "provides a path forward for FDA, industry and environmental groups to work together to de-list additional substances that may no longer be used in food packaging."
But Erik Olson, director of the health programme at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), called the agency’s denial of the NGO petition a "bad decision" that "ignores the science and the law".
"Perchlorate impairs hormone production critical to brain development, so it is especially harmful to foetuses, infants and young kids. FDA has all the evidence it needs that it’s a public health threat," he added.
The NGO said it will be looking at its legal options to challenge the determination.
The final rule to revoke the authorisation of potassium perchlorate as a component in sealing gaskets includes a 30-day period, during which those adversely affected may file an objection.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55618/us-fda-revokes-potassium-perchlorate-fcm-authorisation
-
FDA Denies NRDC Petition on Additive in Food Packaging
May 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
The Food and Drug Administration has denied a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups to ban a chemical in food packaging.
The petition, which was filed in 2014, asked FDA to ban sodium perchlorate monohydrate in dry food packaging and remove potassium perchlorate as an allowed additive in sealing gaskets for food containers.
Perchlorate is both naturally occurring and manufactured. It is commonly used as an oxidizer in rocket propellants, fireworks and car air bags. U.S. EPA has found that perchlorate could have adverse health effects on people who drink water containing it.
"This decision ignores the science and the law," Erik Olson, NRDC's health program director, said in a statement. "It's an affront to all Americans, who expect that when they buy food, it won't harm them."
FDA's decision was posted in today's Federal Register.
The petition was from NRDC, the Breast Cancer Fund, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the Environmental Working Group.
Olson indicated that the groups are looking at legal options to challenge the decision.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054064
-
Pesticides Committee to Vote on EDC Criteria
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) will vote on the latest proposed criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) at its meeting on 17-18 May.
This will be the European Commission's third consideration of a vote on the criteria.
It refrained from calling for one at the SCoPAFF meetings in February and December, when it became clear the majority of member states would reject the proposal.
Its latest proposal, which was seen by Chemical Watch, addresses two sticking points from previous discussions – it clarifies that "presumed" and "known" EDCs will be identified. This was a key concern for NGOs.
The proposal also revises an exemption for substances, whose intended mode of action is to target harmful organisms via their endocrine system. The previous version said these shall not be considered for the identification of EDCs "with respect to non-target organisms of the same taxonomic phylum that is targeted to be controlled".
Now the proposal says that substances with such a mode of action may be approved only if, following a risk assessment, their use does not lead to unacceptable effects on any non-target organisms.
With this, the Commission attempts to address strong concerns from several member states, which had asked for the exemption to be removed.
Switzerland, for example, says the paragraph makes it impossible to protect economically important species, such as honeybees, if they belong to the same phylum as the target organism.
And Denmark had flagged concerns over how the exemption would affect biocides, which often have a more diverse use of an active substance compared with plant protection products.
A mosquito control product, for example, would affect a phyla – the arthropoda – which accounts for an estimated 80% of all known living animal species. Denmark warned this could affect all kinds of non-target organisms.
Remaining concerns
Apart from this, the new proposal differs only slightly from its February version and continues to provoke concern.
NGO PAN Europe has repeated criticism about the "incredibly high" level of evidence it requires to identify an EDC, which it says will "very likely lead to little pesticides identified at all".
The criteria, it says, allow too many ways to disqualify adverse effects observed in animal studies as being endocrine-related. "Disqualifying means that [the European Commission] can do traditional risk assessment and no ban will follow," says PAN Europe chemicals coordinator Hans Muilerman.
He also warns that the criteria allow alternative prediction systems, such as adverse outcome pathways (AOPs), to take the place of more established safety systems like animal studies. AOPs are "mainly based on assumptions and speculations", Mr Muilerman says.
Controversial Act
Meanwhile, discussion is off the agenda on changing the plant protection products (PPP) Regulation from referring to "negligible exposure" to "negligible risk" in relation to exceptions for active substances with endocrine disrupting properties.
The Commission separated this issue, in the form of a draft legal Act, from the criteria proposal earlier this year, and removed it from the February SCoPAFF meeting agenda.
Many opposing member states asked for the draft legal Act to be tabled again and could vote against the Commission proposal, unless the derogation is added to the May meeting.
NGOs have said the controversial Act would effectively ensure that no pesticides identified as endocrine disrupting will be banned.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55629/pesticides-committee-to-vote-on-edc-criteria
-
MSC to Consider if BPA is an Endocrine Disruptor
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
At its next meeting in June, Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) will discuss whether bisphenol A (BPA) can be identified as an endocrine disruptor in humans.
Last December, the committee agreed that BPA is a substance of very high concern (SVHC) because of its reproductive toxicity (REACH Article 57c). Echa subsequently added the substance to the REACH candidate list.
The chemical is now set to be considered as an endocrine disruptor under REACH Article 57f (equivalent level of concern to carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants).
In preparation, MSC chair Watze de Wolf has sought background on other chemicals having 'dual identification' under both Article 57c and Article 57f.
At its meeting last week, the committee considered a status report on SVHC identification proposals for four phthalates referred to the European Commission. In February, the REACH Committee agreed that the four – BBP, DBP, DEHP and DiBP – are SVHCs because of endocrine disrupting properties.
The four chemicals had already been added to the candidate list on the grounds that they are toxic for reproduction.
Eogrts and 90-day studies
Meanwhile, the April MSC meeting also saw a number of discussions about the extended one-generation reproductive toxicity study (Eogrts).
For example, the committee looked at a compliance check for 3-p-cumenyl-2-methylpropionaldehyde, a floral fragrance chemical also known as cyclamal. It asked the registrant to provide information from a 90-day rodent study within 12 months to help guide whether developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) and/or immunotoxicity (DIT) cohorts are needed for Eogrts.
The committee soon expects to see over 200 draft evaluation decisions, involving Eogrts, from the Commission. The cases were referred to DG Environment before reproductive toxicity information requirements were amended in 2015.
Several of the referred cases involve cobalt compounds. At its meeting, the MSC committee also discussed a testing proposal for cobalt dichloride.
The chemical is in a cobalt category compiled for read-across. It is the category's most soluble compound, considered to be the most bioaccessible. Because it is manufactured or imported in annual volumes between 100 and 1,000 tonnes, registrants have to comply with the information requirements set out in REACH Annex IX, yet the proposed test – a second species prenatal developmental toxicity study – is only a standard information requirement for Annex X substances (those above 1,000 tonnes).
"Cobalt dichloride is a plausible worst case for the whole category," said Dr de Wolf.
Getting read-across right
Meanwhile, a compliance check for C16-C18 fatty acids with alkyl amines led Dr de Wolfe to reiterate the importance of carefully structuring read-across approaches and documentation.
Echa initially rejected a read-across approach from the registrant but then accepted it after a proposal for amendment, with the registrant providing further information. The necessary information had, in fact, been present in the dossier but scattered throughout.
"Read-across approaches need to be well structured for us to be able to readily evaluate them," he said. "[Without such structure] it is more difficult for us immediately to come to the right conclusions."
The MSC agreed unanimously on the compliance check, having revisited all of the supporting studies and requested a long-term fish toxicity study.
More broadly, the committee is updating its working procedures to give members and member state competent authorities more time to respond to registrants' comments. Changes in timelines will be published on Echa's website next year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55626/msc-to-consider-if-bpa-is-an-endocrine-disruptor
-
POPs Convention Set to Ban Two More Substances
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Two substances, decaBDE and short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs), are set to be banned under the UN Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants (POPs).
The eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the convention, which is currently taking place in Geneva, has provisionally adopted a decision on the two substances. A third chemical, hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD), is set to be added to Annex C, which aims to reduce or eliminate unintentional releases.
A final decision, expected to be a formality, will be taken tomorrow on the conference's closing day.
DecaBDE is a brominated flame retardant. SCCPs are used in metalworking and as a PVC additive. HCBD, which was banned under Annex A of the convention in 2015, is traditionally used as a solvent. It is also released unintentionally from several processes and other halogenated substances.
Use exemptions for decaBDE are likely to be greater than those recommended by the convention's POPs review committee, and this has angered several NGOs.
Joe Di Gangi of NGO umbrella group, the International POPs Environmental Network, said the committee recommended an exemption for legacy spare parts for the auto industry - but that the provisional agreement broadens this to parts in new cars, textiles, aircraft, polyurethane foam, as well as additives in plastic housings and parts used for heating home appliances, irons, fans and immersion heaters. Proposals for a recycling exemption were withdrawn.
Mr Di Gangi was pleased the decaBDE exemption for textiles excludes clothing and toys but said it was important how ‘toys’ would be defined. As written, countries could produce baby blankets, curtains, upholstery fabrics or even stuffed animals with decaBDE-treated textiles – some he said would be contrary to the goals of the treaty.
Although the committee did not recommend any exemptions from the proposed ban on SCCPs, some government delegations at the conference have added a large number, including for use in waterproofing and fire-retardant paints.
"Considering the history of lead paint and exposure of children, I think you can see this is a serious concern for continuing exposure in children," said Mr Di Gangi.
Another SCCP exemption is as secondary plasticisers in flexible PVC, except in toys and children’s products. "This is also good," he said. "However, we found SCCPs in PVC products, to which children would be exposed, that many countries would not define as toys or children’s products. These include SCCPs in PVC wallpaper, rain boots and slippers."
Delegations also decided to continue the exemption that allows recycling of materials, containing two other brominated flame retardants –pentaBDE and octaBDE. "That is disappointing," said Mr Di Gangi, but the decision urges governments to ensure that BDEs are not introduced into articles in which the presence of these chemicals would pose a risk of human exposure, in particular, consumer products such as children’s toys. This, he said, demonstrates the concern over contaminating children’s products and opens the door to ending this exemption at the next COP.
But NGOs are concerned that the exemptions render the listings pointless.
Another participant told Chemical Watch that getting the three substances listed was the "main thing". The extent of the exemptions, they said, can be narrowed down over time, and "industry often picks up the hint, once they are listed, and starts to develop alternatives and run down production." Car and aircraft industries, they said, are most directly affected.
Meanwhile, at the conference of parties for the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent (Pic) procedure for hazardous chemicals and pesticides, which is running in parallel with the Stockholm Convention conference, governments agreed to add the following substances to a list of those subject to the Pic procedure:
• the pesticides carbofuran and trichlorfon;
• SCCPs; and
• tributyltin.Four substances were blocked from listing by a small group of countries:
• chrysotile asbestos (which has now been proposed four times, without success);
• fenthion;
• paraquat; and
• carbosulfan – although discussions will continue tomorrow.https://chemicalwatch.com/55636/pops-convention-set-to-ban-two-more-substances
-
May 4, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Iuclid Cloud online
Echa is offering a Iuclid Cloud trial so SMEs can work with the tool online, without having to install the application.
In the trial, registrants can either use the Iuclid Cloud application to import and view substance and dossier datasets, or launch the Iuclid Cloud client – the traditional version that stores data in the Cloud – to edit datasets. Users will be given 100MB of data storage and automatic software updates.
The aim of the trial is to give an idea of what will be offered in the full version.
The Iuclid Cloud for SMEs, with all functionalities to prepare and validate a complete dossier online, will be available in July. And a guided SMEs support for dossier creation in the Cloud will be included in the service by the end of the year.
However, as the current service is a trial, there are no backups taken of the data, limited helpdesk support, and users will not be able to use all Iuclid functionalities, the agency says.
Chemical Watch's sister publication Chemical Risk Manager published a Video Explainer on the Cloud trial version earlier this week.
CLP labels
The agency has reminded companies that from 1 June, all chemical products placed on the market must be labelled in accordance with the classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) Regulation. This marks the end of the transitional period for labelling mixtures. Any chemical products still on the market with old labels must be removed or reclassified and relabelled in accordance with CLP.
Chemicals added under Pic group entries
Ninety chemicals have been added to the group entries in the list of substances subject to an export notification (Annex I to Pic) since April 2016.
An up-to-date list of all substances in the annex, and each group entry, can be found on Echa's website or through the ePIC tool.
Companies cannot submit notifications for a group entry, but need to provide a Cas or EC number for their actual substance.
REACH 2018 animation
"Meet John," says Echa. "He is the star of our new series of animations." The agency has released the first video in the series designed to guide registrants through the registration process in an easily understandable and accessible way.
The video focuses on the first step of registration: knowing your portfolio and starting to prepare. It is subtitled in 23 EU languages.
Downstream user CSR question
Echa has answered a question which, when it was asked at its Stakeholders' Day 2017, was only partially answered.
Question: "I use a hazardous substance at a volume of more than one tonne per year. The substance is registered in the tonnage band 1-10 tonnes and therefore no exposure scenario was communicated with the safety data sheet. Do I need to perform my own assessment (DU CSR)?"
Answer: "No. According to REACH, the downstream user doesn't need to to perform his own assessment when the chemical safety report is not required to be completed by his supplier (Article 37.4(b))."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55540/echa-round-up
-
Neb. Gets Down to Work on Keystone XL
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Pipeline workers. Farmers. Teachers.
Nebraskans of all stripes made their cases for and against the permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline across the state's farmlands yesterday, as the state Public Service Commission heard testimony on how the proposed pipeline project could affect the state's economy and environment.
Many, like Judy King, a self-described "pipeline fighter" from Lincoln, pointed to the potential for an oil spill to leak hard-to-clean oil sands oil into the Ogallala Aquifer, the massive reserve of water that underlies much of the state and extends south as far as Texas.
"The aquifer will be more valuable than gold in the years to come," King told the five elected PSC members in the first testimony of the day.
Others, like David Barnett of the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, focused on the high-paying construction jobs that would come with building the 1,200-mile line proposed by TransCanada Corp. Keystone XL would to run from Hardisty, Alberta, though North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska to Steele City, Neb.
"Many people will have you believe this pipeline is different from the other thousands of miles of pipeline that are operating today," Barnett told the commissioners and public gathered at Holthus Convention Center near York, about half an hour from where the pipeline is proposed to run.
Barnett sees the pipeline project as a safe, reliable source of economic development for the state. "This is what we call progress in America," he testified.
The most clearly demarcated sides in the debate wore T-shirts — red and white for pipeline fighters or safety orange for the Laborers' International Union of North America. Most people wore the colors of regular folks who'd taken time from their day to show up and speak: plenty of jeans, work shoes, a smattering of cowboy hats. Those speakers represented both sides of the debate.
The meeting yesterday was the first public forum in the state since President Trump approved the pipeline's cross-border permit earlier this year, clearing the way for TransCanada to resume work on a proposal that appeared to have died during the Obama administration.
The state PSC has established a roster of approved intervenors with a stake in the project and will take testimony over the next few months before an August hearing. The commission is required to wrap up by the end of November, though legal challenges may extend after that (Energywire, April 3).
Easements
Many of the affected landowners take issue with the terms of the easements that TransCanada is offering those whose property would be crossed by the pipeline. A common concern is the timeline over which the company would retain access rights: forever.
The life of the pipeline is described by TransCanada as 50 years, those people say, but the easement would grant the company access to the site as it sees fit in perpetuity. The company could also add additional pipelines within the right of way.
Art Tanderup, a vocal critic of the project from Neligh, testified that the easements would bring unmanageable liability to farmers whose land was touched. Landowners who accidentally damaged the pipe — which is proposed for placement 4 feet underground, not far from the depth of underground sprinkler systems — would be on the hook financially.
Meanwhile, TransCanada's obligations if there were a leak or other problem are not clearly laid out, he said. Once the pipeline eventually is retired from use, the easements include no provisions for it to be removed or to address possible contamination from oil or its additives.
James Carlson, a fifth-generation farmer and landowner along the route in Polk County, said he was offered just over $300,000 in 2014 by TransCanada. But Carlson takes issue with the leak detection systems slated for use and worries about carcinogenic chemicals like benzene that can be added to oil sands crude to make it thin enough to flow through a pipeline.
"If they could refine the stuff [in Canada] before they ship it down here, then it would be safe and I'd take the $304,000," Carlson said.
One particularly colorful opponent of the pipeline is Alexandra Keriakedes, who has been fighting the proposal from the start. "I can't leave this thing up to the politicians," said the feisty, white-haired protester, dressed in a "people's climate movement" T-shirt and a host of buttons. Keriakedes is eager to sing the song she wrote skewering the project, set to the tune of the Nebraska Cornhusker fight song.
Speaking frankly, Keriakedes assesses the chances that her side will prevail in the PSC process as "not real hot," but she said opponents will continue to fight the project regardless. She holds little respect for the jobs argument in favor of the project. "Learn to weld something besides pipelines," she responds.
What about water?
Bob Beelaert raises a different issue. Several years ago, concerned that eminent domain proceedings would be invoked against their property in Page, Bob and his wife, Joyce, talked with TransCanada officials about working out an easement agreement, he recounts.
After reaching concessions on a few issues, he said, they reached a point of bringing the easement to their respective lawyers to write up the changes.
Almost casually, he recounts, he tossed out a final point. "If we put it in our easement that this pipeline will never carry water, do you have any problem?" he asked the company representative. And just like that, he said, the discussion ended. "Bob, we're done talking pipeline."
Jane Kleeb, the leader of the Bold Alliance, the most visible pipeline opponent at work in Nebraska, said the question of water has come up before. When TransCanada officials were questioned on their intentions before the Nebraska Legislature, she said, they did not rule out the possibility of the Keystone XL line one day being repurposed to carry water from Nebraska to points south.
Responding to that suggestion, Matthew John, a spokesman for TransCanada, said in March, "I am surprised to hear that Ms. Kleeb is suggesting Keystone XL would transport water. It's disappointing that she would make a claim that is untrue and irresponsible to fellow Nebraskans."
Long day
As the day wore on yesterday, those who showed up early to testify on behalf of unions and other organized groups took their turn to speak and trickled out, and the preponderance of red and white shirts grew.
Plans to hold a protest rally at the halfway mark of the daylong meeting fell through, a Bold Nebraska spokesman said, running up against logistical problems and last-minute planning for the event, which was announced just two weeks in advance.
Deb Collins, the public information coordinator for the PSC, said the commission gave out 168 speaker numbers but will not tally the number of speakers for and against the project.
A retired farmer from York who would identify himself only as Robert — "I'm too old for publicity" — said the preponderance of opponents at the meeting is not representative of local sentiment. "Ninety-eight percent of the people here [in Nebraska] are 100 percent for the pipeline," he said. "I don't want to buy my oil from the Arabs. ... The Canada people are my friends."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054018
-
Energy Transfer Opens 2 Natural Gas Lines to Mexico
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Energy Transfer Partners LP, the company behind the Dakota Access pipeline, has opened two major natural gas pipelines from West Texas into Mexico, the company announced yesterday.
The Trans-Pecos line runs from the Waha gas hub near Fort Stockton, Texas, through the Big Bend region to Presidio, Texas, on the U.S.-Mexico border, the company said in a statement. The Comanche Trail pipeline connects the Waha hub to a border crossing at San Elizario, Texas, near El Paso.
Both pipes are 42 inches in diameter and will serve power generators in Mexico. The Trans-Pecos line has a capacity of 1.4 billion cubic feet a day and went into service March 31. The Comanche Trail's capacity is 1.1 billion cubic feet a day, and it opened in January.
Energy Transfer faced years of protests over its Dakota Access project, designed to carry oil from North Dakota's Bakken field to markets in the Midwest and the U.S. Gulf Coast. The Obama administration halted construction of the pipeline in 2016, but that action was reversed when the Trump administration came to power (Energywire, April 11).
Similar protests broke out over Trans-Pecos, which will run through an unspoiled corner of Texas (Energywire, Jan. 5, 2016).
The bulk of the line fell under state jurisdiction, however, making it harder for local residents to block it. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission held hearings and took public comment about the section that crosses the border but ultimately approved it.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054020
-
BLM Freezes Central Calif. Leasing in Deal with Enviros
May 4, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration will pause oil and gas leasing on thousands of acres of public lands in California while it takes a closer look at the impacts of hydraulic fracturing.
The leasing freeze is part of a settlement finalized yesterday with environmental groups that sued the Interior Department and the Bureau of Land Management over development plans around Bakersfield.
The groups brought their challenge in 2015, arguing that a resource management plan and related environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared under the Obama administration failed to consider the effects of fracking on more than 1 million acres in California's central region.
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California agreed, ruling last year that the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act and needed to conduct additional review (Energywire, Sept. 7, 2016).
Yesterday's settlement lays out plans for that review. While BLM maintains that it has not violated NEPA, the agency will not hold any lease sales while it completes a supplemental EIS that focuses on fracking. It also agreed to give the public 30 days' notice before approving any drilling permits for the area, which includes the state's central coast, Central Valley, San Joaquin Valley and southern Sierra Nevada.
"This settlement is an important victory in protecting what we hold dear in California — clean water, clean air, our diverse wildlife," Earthjustice attorney Stacey Geis said in an email. "The federal agency here was ready to just rubber-stamp fracking leases crossing huge swaths of our public lands without conducting the necessary environmental review. The law does not allow you to do that."
BLM did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.
In last year's opinion, Judge Michael Fitzgerald, an Obama appointee, ruled that BLM had an obligation to consider the impacts of a technique expected to play a leading role in development of the area.
"The Bureau was not only aware of the projected growth in the use of fracking but also estimated that 25% of new wells in the Decision Area are expected to be fracked the future. ... Yet aside from these three isolated and passing references to fracking in the [resource management plan], the 1,073-page document makes no mention of fracking at all, let alone a meaningful discussion to inform decision-makers and the public of the attendant environmental concerns unique to fracking," the opinion said.
Environmental groups are hoping for similar results in several other cases, including a challenge to oil and gas development in New Mexico's Chaco Canyon area.
Another federal court in California ruled in 2013 that BLM had failed to consider fracking's impacts during the oil and gas leasing stage.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054041
-
Ore. Dems Warn Trump Against 'Political Interference' at FERC
May 4, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
Oregon's Democratic senators are telling the Trump administration to steer clear of a contentious gas export project on the state's western coast that White House officials are eager to revive.
Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley bluntly reminded President Trump in a letter yesterday that federal regulators — not the White House — will ultimately decide the fate of the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas export project in Coos Bay, Ore.
The senators also warned Trump advisers who claimed they would greenlight the export terminal against interfering with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the independent federal agency that rejected Jordan Cove last year under the Obama administration.
"In the interest of local communities affected by these decisions, we strongly urge your administration to avoid any step that could be interpreted as political interference in FERC's deliberative permitting process in Oregon and nationwide," Wyden and Merkley wrote.
After acknowledging that local support for the export project exists, the senators said FERC must ultimately weigh environmental and social concerns with the need for the pipeline and export facility.
The senators' letter responds to comments made in April by Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council, weeks after he met with the Jordan Cove project developer, Veresen Inc. Subsidiaries of Veresen in January moved to restart FERC's review of the project.
"The first thing we're going to do is we're going to permit an LNG export facility in the Northwest," Cohn said at the Institute of International Finance, according to The Washington Post. "Just think of the transport time from the Northwest to Japan versus anywhere else. Then we've got to put facilities on the East Coast to get from the East Coast to Germany.
"The one place we're going to permit in the Northwest, it's been turned down twice already," Cohn continued.
FERC rejected Jordan Cove last year, saying Veresen didn't demonstrate a need for the natural gas pipeline leading into the facility. The project faced opposition from landowners along the route.
But Don Althoff, CEO of Veresen, told Bloomberg News last month after meeting with Cohn that he's confident the project will now move forward.
When asked about his meeting with Cohn, Althoff said the White House vowed to help the company maneuver the permitting process as quickly and efficiently as possible, adding that "the message to us was, 'Hurry up, get going.'" Jordan Cove, he added, could be operational as early as next year if the permitting process is sped up enough.
"With a little help from the White House, we'll be able to get there," Althoff said.
Many members of Congress in recent weeks have noted the Trump White House needs to fill three vacancies at FERC if it wants approvals of pipelines and other energy projects to move forward.
There are currently three open Republican seats at FERC — and soon there will be a fourth after the departure of Democratic Commissioner Colette Honorable — but the administration has not yet nominated any replacements.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054067
-
A Reflection on the North American Energy Renaissance
May 4, 2017 | The Hill - Pundits Blog
By Gene Green
It wasn’t too long ago that our country experienced an energy crisis as oil prices soared above $150 per barrel, natural gas reserves dwindled, and wind and solar power were in their infancy.
Fast forward to 2017, oil prices are around $50 per barrel thanks to South and West Texas technology and resources, natural gas is abundant and companies are ramping up renewable energy production.
Today, the United States is once again rich in resources. Thanks to government and industry partnerships and technological advancements, we’re now producing much more energy than the nation can consume.
I have long been an advocate of reducing our dependence on imported energy, but in order to reach that end goal we must continue to reflect on the progress we’ve made, plan long-term and invest in solutions that work.
Texas’s diverse energy production is the golden standard when it comes to investments in grid modernization. These investments have changed how we power our industries and homes. Texas is now the No. 1 wind producer in the country, with more than 18,500 megawatts online and another 5,000 megawatts under construction. Texas is also credited with some of the largest solar potential in the country.
As a state well known for its oil and gas production, Texas’s business-friendly environment allows the construction of massive industrial facilities that employ thousands and contribute millions to our local and national economy. I’m proud to represent a state that produces more oil, gas and chemicals than most countries.
America’s energy security demands an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy policy. In order to provide our nation with the conventional and renewable energy needed to fuel the economy, we need to develop technologies and policies of tomorrow.
The investments that improved hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling in the 1990s and the energy-efficiency initiatives of the early 2000s are paying off decades later. More jobs are being created and Americans are becoming less dependent on foreign energy.
However, the last comprehensive energy bill the United States Congress passed was in 2007. Although we came close last year, I look forward to picking up where we left off and working with my Republican and Democratic colleagues to get this done in the 115th Congress.
The North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 passed by the House of Representatives and a similar package passed by the Senate had a lot of good ideas in it. We streamlined permitting processes for pipelines, hydroelectric facilities and transmission lines. We increased energy efficiency requirements and mandates to encourage everyone to conserve energy.
I would like to see more bipartisan agreements like the energy bill become law.
As we revisit energy policy in the 115th Congress, we need to focus on the next generation. Most of the technologies that will change how we produce, consume or conserve energy haven’t been invented yet.
However, much of the research is being conducted in places like my alma mater, the University of Houston, and other universities with the assistance of the state and federal government and private industry.
As federal policymakers, we can further pave the way by setting big goals, creating flexible frameworks and funding basic research and development. The U.S. is in the infancy of an energy renaissance. Our energy policies are the path forward, and unfortunately Congress has not been able to clear the way.
Energy production, whether oil, gas or renewable, can harmoniously power millions of homes and protect American jobs if we build upon our present foundation and prepare for the future.
Green represents the Houston-area 29th District and is a member of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/331847-a-reflection-on-the-north-american-energy-renaissance
-
Restoring Choice Could Fix America’s Water Infrastructure
May 4, 2017 | Morning Consult
By Rick Jones
There has been a lot of talk about the poor state of America’s infrastructure and the urgent need for action to fix it — but are we looking in the right places?
The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the nation’s infrastructure a grade of “D+” (even that might be too generous), cautioning Americans that roughly $4.6 trillion will need to be spent over the next eight years to bring our nation’s infrastructure up to acceptable levels. But finding nearly $500 billion a year in an era of significant budget reductions is unlikely. That’s why I believe it’s time to look for smarter, cost-effective solutions at all levels of government to help fix this country’s ailing infrastructure.
Where do we begin?
First, we should understand that our infrastructure needs go beyond roads and bridges. Despite the critical role water plays in our daily life, many of the pipes that deliver water were installed decades ago, and are now corroding, breaking or no longer safe. Unfortunately, Michigan residents understand the dangers and consequences of neglected water systems all too well, after having to endure the tragic effects of a crumbling underground infrastructure for quite some time.
We deserve better.
After years of facing these challenges in the Michigan Legislature, I decided to take a proactive approach to addressing our state’s water infrastructure problems. One of the things we are doing is updating the antiquated regulations that restrict many cities and counties from being able to choose the best option from a wide array of materials when upgrading water systems. In many cases, these regulations force project engineers to use only one predetermined type of material. These overly bureaucratic, nonsensical rules take the decision-making powers away from the experts who are in the best position to select the best and most cost-effective material for the job. I introduced SB 157, the Public Works Quality Materials Procurement Act, to ensure a level playing field so that all materials could compete fairly, in an open process that would restore choice.
The bill is simple in what it does — it allows project engineers to consider all materials and select the option that works best for their project. Unlike current restrictions, the legislation is not material-specific and gives no preference to any single pipe material. In fact, the bill states that it “does not limit the professional judgment of the project’s engineer to select any acceptable pipe and piping materials that meet the requirements of the public works project.” With this bill, control will remain firmly with the local engineers who are planning and implementing these projects.
In addition to restoring choice, the proposed legislation will provide other benefits. For example, although the bill does not require the automatic selection of the lowest bid, SB 157 will also help lower costs because it will allow for competition between materials. A study by BCC Research, which examined how open competition could impact water projects in Michigan, found that it would result in potential cost savings of 27 to 34 percent, regardless of which material is chosen. That translates to a total cost savings of $114,154 per mile of pipe, which could be used to fund other projects or provide relief to taxpayers.
Michigan’s infrastructure problems might be distinct, but they are far from unique. Many other states are struggling with water issues while being saddled with the same regulations that severely limit their options for finding a solution to their problem. The National Taxpayers Union has estimated that open competition could save taxpayers and ratepayers $371 billion nationwide.
Passing SB 157 would help people in my state have access to a safe, clean, and cost-effective water supply. By adopting policies that promote open competition, lawmakers could empower engineers across the country to make the best choice for their community with the added benefit of saving government resources and taxpayer dollars.
Sen. Rick Jones has represented the 24th Senate District of Michigan since 2010. He serves as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and vice-chair of the Military and Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee. Prior to his service in the Senate, he represented the 71st House District and served as the sheriff of Eaton County.
https://morningconsult.com/opinions/restoring-choice-fix-americas-water-infrastructure/
-
Pact Architect Says 'Text is Very Clear' — Goals Can't Go Down
May 4, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
One of the top architects of the Paris climate deal says President Trump can't offer a less ambitious target than his predecessor did, an opinion that buttresses the views of opponents to Paris in the White House.
Laurence Tubiana, France's climate ambassador during the 2015 summit that produced the agreement, gave Trump no quarter in an interview with E&E News yesterday, reading a controversial provision to say Trump must keep the U.S. target or tighten it. That scenario would likely be seen among presidential advisers as a reason to withdraw from the global pact.
"The text is very clear," she said, quoting Article 4.11, which reads, "A party may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution [NDC] with a view to enhancing its level of ambition."
"The sense of the direction is really progress; it's not going backwards," she said.
She added that a force majeure clause allowing for downward revisions kicks in only if a country undergoes an unavoidable hardship and not, as in the current U.S. case, a change of political leadership.
Tubiana's view tracks with anti-Paris hard-liners in the White House, who warn that NDCs, once issued, are effectively legally binding and cannot be revised except to be more ambitious. Environmental lawyers and the U.S. architects of the Paris deal dispute that interpretation. Trump aides who favor remaining in Paris have suggested issuing laxer commitments.
The dispute over whether the Paris Agreement permits backsliding has handed exit proponents, like U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon, an advantage in the last week. Trump is now considered likely to announce a Paris exit, perhaps as soon as next week.
Sources say White House Counsel Don McGahn adopted the opinion that Paris commitments could not be reduced last week, immediately before a meeting of administration principals on Paris, reversing his previous opinion and that of the State Department legal team and giving Pruitt and Bannon the upper hand (see related story).
Tubiana acknowledges that if a country walks away from a prior target, "you don't have any judge to punish you," but the Pruitt-Bannon camp argues that domestic environmental litigants could cite the Paris deal and former President Obama's commitment to cut emissions 26 to 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025 when they challenge Trump deregulatory actions in court.
"There is a remedy," Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said in a blog post yesterday. "The U.S. government cannot join a pact affirming the moral necessity for 'ambitious' emission reductions without inviting climate tort and regulatory litigation."
Wording is 'genius'
Tubiana, meanwhile, dismissed an exit from Paris as a "very, very bad thing" for the United States, adding that she couldn't decide whether a new NDC or a Paris exit would be preferable.
She said giving Trump cover to remain in Paris is not an objective.
"It's not just a diplomatic exercise," she said. "If you consider Paris as a diplomatic success, in my view it's just not the case. The importance of the Paris Agreement was to be a framework for many, many actions to take place, and giving a sense of common objectives."
Allowing the United States to change its target for political reasons, she said, would encourage other countries to follow suit and would damage the deal's signal to the broader global economy.
"It's not about a five years' agreement; it's not about a 10 years' agreement — it's about the very long term," Tubiana said, predicting that the United States would return to the fold in the future and be welcomed back.
Tubiana said she had not spoken with Trump advisers or State Department officials, noting that she is now working in advocacy outside the French government.
European Commissioner for Climate and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete, whose staff said he is in regular contact with the White House, took a more conciliatory tone yesterday.
"We all continue to hope the U.S. will find a way to remain within the Paris Agreement and to remain committed to the Paris goals," he said.
"Fossil fuels will continue to play a role for many countries on the path towards decarbonization. So there is room for a new U.S. administration to chart its own path, as well," he added, in a possible reference to the NDC issue.
Tubiana's views stand in stark contrast to those expressed by Obama's former special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, who said in an interview with E&E News last week that the United States painstakingly negotiated language in advance of Paris to allow countries to modify their commitments in either direction. While Tubiana said backtracking would imperil the deal, Stern said it would ensure its longevity (Climatewire, May 1).
Other Paris negotiators told a similar story, in some cases crediting the U.S. delegation with foresight in resisting bids by other countries to insert language into the deal that would have mandated that commitments become tighter over time.
An international source closely involved in the negotiations, who faced off with the United States on this issue during the 2013 climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, said he was glad Stern's team kept that more prescriptive language out of the text.
"I hated it at the time, but actually, in hindsight, it was genius," he said.
Greens won't compromise
That source and others say the more permissive language — which centers on the word "may," instead of "shall" — is partly to thank for the more than 170 countries that have now offered their NDCs. It helped them feel confident that if they fell short, they wouldn't be penalized.
But while those sources were unwilling to go on the record for fear of seeming to excuse diminishing U.S. ambition, opponents of that view were less circumspect. Former Indian Minister of Environment Jairam Ramesh's reading of Article 4.11 and 4.3 — which states that each pledge "will represent a progression beyond" the previous one — is more in line with Tubiana's.
"The absence of clear legal language precluding downward adjustment cannot mean that downward adjustment is possible," he said. "This will defeat the soul and spirit of the Paris Agreement."
"I think any further negotiations will get vitiated by unilateral U.S. action," he added. "I don't expect China and India to follow the U.S. example, since both countries will aspire to assume the leadership mantle."
A diplomat for a developing country suggested that the White House avoid any controversy by rescinding the 2025 target and putting forward a 2030 goal that "reflects current policy." He proposed a nominally stronger one, like perhaps a 28.5 percent cut compared with 2005 levels, rather than the 26 to 28 percent reduction.
But it's not clear if that would track with Trump's domestic goals. Analysis shows that Obama-era regulations would have fallen short of his 2025 target. Now, with policies like EPA's Clean Power Plan on the chopping block, that gulf will widen. Trump administration officials who favor remaining in Paris have suggested a weakened NDC that reflects business as usual.
U.S. supporters have also done little to give Trump cover to stay in Paris.
Twelve Democratic governors highlighted the pledge of a 26 to 28 percent cut by 2025 in a letter to Trump yesterday after it was reported that Trump was on the verge of quitting the agreement.
"Maintaining the U.S. commitment is essential to protect our residents, and indeed, all Americans from the potentially catastrophic impacts of a changing climate," they wrote, calling it "readily achievable."
U.S. environmental groups have been largely quiet on the issue. Oxfam America and the Sierra Club have pronounced that lowering the NDC would be disastrous.
Jake Schmidt of the Natural Resources Defense Council called it "ludicrous" that Paris would factor in lawsuits, but added that proponents were shy to discuss the NDC issue for fear of creating a precedent under which other countries might also decrease their ambition.
"For years and years, we've been trying to get other countries into agreement, and if you kind of create this clear signal that it's OK to weaken your targets and there will be no blowback, that's another story," he said. But he acknowledged that there are no penalties in the Paris Agreement.
Alex Hanafi, senior manager of multilateral climate strategy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said White House opponents of Paris have stoked the controversy to push Trump to exit the deal.
"They want to make it look like the U.S. legally has to leave, or otherwise it won't be able to weaken its target," he said. "And I think that's legally incorrect."
He called the Article 4.11 language intentionally "wishy-washy" and expressed surprise that the White House counsel's office could think it obligates the United States legally.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/04/stories/1060054040
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
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