Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 5/17/2017
-
Post 'Jihad' Kerfuffle, Regulator Aims to Step into Spotlight
May 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Robert Powelson has a similar style to President Trump. -
Sluggish White House Hamstrings Pruitt's Agenda
May 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
President Trump has so far failed to provide the U.S. EPA staffers needed to execute an aggressive deregulatory game plan. -
Guest Column: The New TSCA: Challenges Remain
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Nicholas Ashford
It has taken 40 years to muster the congressional support to enact reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. While applauded by many as a significant improvement, there are some serious challenges posed by the new TSCA and there are weaknesses. -
New Report: BPA Still in 1/3 of Kroger & Albertsons Food Cans
May 17, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Today we co-released a new report that found toxic BPA in nearly 40% of food cans tested from the nation’s largest grocery stores and dollar store chains. -
Blood Tests Significantly Underestimated Lead Levels, FDA and CDC Warn
May 17, 2017 | Washington Post
By Laurie McGinley
Federal officials are warning that some blood tests may have “significantly” underestimated lead levels, and they are urging the retesting of some children, as well as pregnant and breast-feeding women. -
Chemicals Still Out of Control Due to Poor Implementation
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Dolores Romano
Ten years after coming into force, Europe’s flagship chemicals legislation, REACH, has shown great potential for improving the protection of human health and the environment. -
Devicification: Technology and Identifying Chemicals
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Leigh Stringer
Along with advances in science and chemistry, the miniaturisation of devices and real-time analysis of chemicals has come a long way. -
Cefic: Ten Years of REACH
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Peter Smith
This year brings some important milestones for the European chemical industry: not only is it ten years since REACH entered into force, but it’s also the deadline for the European Commission to report on experiences with implementation... -
Removing Regulated Chemicals from Waste
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Mélissa Zill
Recycling is key to realising a transition towards a more circular economy. And, as a result, it is one of the central objectives of the European Commission’s circular economy package. -
Data Is for Sharing
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Paul Ashford
EU REACH has undeniably been a driver for the development and enhancement of substance dossiers in recent years, building on the work previously done voluntarily by industry under the US HPV Challenge and OECD SIDS programmes. -
Purell Sanitiser Brand Takes Steps Towards Halving Chemical Footprint
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US skin hygiene company, Gojo Industries, says it is focusing on removing parabens, titanium dioxide and triclosan from its products in support of its goal to reduce its chemical footprint 50% by 2020. -
3K Drilling Permit Applications Await BLM Approval
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Bureau of Land Management is staring down the task of tackling nearly 3,000 outstanding bids to drill on public land. -
Trump Eyes 70 Percent Cut to DOE’s Renewables Office
May 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is considering a 70 percent cut to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) renewable energy office, Axios reported on Wednesday. -
Permian Growth Sparks More Open Seasons, Expansions in West Texas
May 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Midstream companies are working hard to keep up with the red-hot Permian Basin. -
Colo. Family Near Home Explosion Sues Oil Companies
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The first lawsuit has been filed in connection with an explosion that destroyed a home in Firestone, Colo., last month, and more legal action could be coming. -
Murkowski: DOE Loan Program Needs Reform, Not Elimination
May 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump should not try to eliminate the Energy Department’s loan program, and suggested that Energy Secretary Rick Perry agreed with her. -
Lawsuit Seeking Facility Data May Bolster Push to Preserve EPA RMP Rule
May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and labor groups are urging a federal court in New Jersey to compel state and local officials to publicly disclose industrial facility emergency response plans (ERPs) in a lawsuit industry attorneys say highlights the need for the Trump EPA's plan... -
Cyber Audits Show Compliance Is Up, But So Is Complacency
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Confidential audits of cybersecurity practices in part of the eastern U.S. transmission grid last year show a decline in violations of mandatory federal cyber rules, industry auditors report. -
Thousands Call on Pruitt to Keep Regulations in Place
May 17, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Thousands of Americans made personal appeals to U.S. EPA as Administrator Scott Pruitt and his staff consider whether the agency should loosen or get rid of environmental regulations.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Post 'Jihad' Kerfuffle, Regulator Aims to Step into Spotlight
May 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner Robert Powelson has a similar style to President Trump.
Powelson, who last week was nominated by Trump to serve on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is not afraid to speak his mind, even if it means veering into politically incorrect territory, like when he said in March that pipeline opponents were engaged in a "jihad."
He's also OK with standing up to (and putting down) more established political figures, such as when he criticized New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for his state's cautious approach on pipeline permitting or Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R) for his support of a hydraulic fracturing ban.
But under the brash approach is an intelligent, well-qualified regulator who has aspired to leadership roles at every step in his career, say friends and supporters.
Powelson got his start working at chambers of commerce in Pennsylvania, first the Delaware County Chamber and then Chester County's. After 14 years as president and CEO at the latter, he was nominated by Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell to the Public Utility Commission in 2008. He led the PUC as chairman for four years under Republican Gov. Tom Corbett.
He is also the current president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, a position that has served as a pipeline to the federal commission in recent years. If confirmed, Powelson would be the third NARUC president to move to FERC since 2012.
Powelson is not a fan of the Clean Power Plan and instead favors "market-based decarbonization," which he says has been responsible for power plant emission reductions in Pennsylvania. He is an advocate for states' rights and supports an "all of the above," hybrid approach to energy generation.
Another area of similarity between Powelson and Trump is that Powelson is willing to talk about and advocate for less popular approaches that might challenge conventional wisdom.
An example is when he expressed support in 2015 for decoupling, or separating utilities' electricity sales from their revenues. The idea is to remove disincentives for utilities to encourage conservation and energy efficiency measures, which under the traditional system would decrease sales — and revenues. In a decoupled system, utilities could structure their rates to reflect the actual cost of maintaining infrastructure, rather than on how much electricity customers take from the grid.
The practice has been supported by environmentalists but is generally opposed by consumer advocates and utilities and has been adopted in some form in 23 states — but not Pennsylvania.
"Personally, I think PA needs to come out of the stone ages here," he told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2015.
'Extremely pro-natural gas'
Despite his openness to innovation, Powelson is seen by some in Pennsylvania, which one observer called a "very pro-industry state when it comes to the regulatory system," as overly friendly to the companies he has been tasked with regulating.
"He is extremely pro-natural gas, to the point where I have to question whether he would be objective enough to really sort of look at the harm that is done by various natural gas infrastructure proposals," said Joe Minott, executive director of the Philadelphia-based Clean Air Council.
"His jihadist comment, I think, is an excellent reflection of how he sees any opposition to moving ahead with natural gas. He's the epitome of Sarah Palin's 'drill, baby, drill,'" Minott said.
Speaking to gas industry representatives at Pennsylvania's Upstream PA conference March 21, Powelson made the "jihad" comment in reference to anti-pipeline activists who had picketed the homes of FERC commissioners in 2016, according to StateImpact.
"The jihad has begun," he said. "At the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, groups actually show up at commissioners' homes to make sure we don't get this gas to market. How irresponsible is that?"
Powelson later acknowledged his choice of words was inappropriate.
But the incident rema
ins a jarring symbol for people like Lynda Farrell, who directs the Pipeline Safety Coalition in Pennsylvania.
"I would say anyone who characterizes landowners and civilians seeking to protect their rights and their quality of life as jihadists should not serve in public office," she said. "You don't make that kind of a statement as a slip of the tongue."
Supporters of Powelson disagree with that characterization.
"Looking at one flash in time I don't think is a fair analysis of Rob. There are plenty of times where he has spoken out clearly and candidly and critically of industry, the people that we're regulating," said John Coleman, who has served with Powelson on the Pennsylvania PUC since 2010.
"In his view, if you're violating what he sees as the rules of engagement, you're going to hear from him," Coleman said.
From NARUC to FERC
Unlike Kevin McIntyre, a likely pick to lead the energy regulatory agency whose Jones Day colleague Don McGahn worked on the Trump campaign and landed a key job as White House counsel, Powelson does not appear to have concrete personal ties to the president.
He also does not have the congressional connections that fellow nominee Neil Chatterjee, a longtime energy aide to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), can use as the confirmation process advances.
It's possible Powelson caught the attention of the White House during the transition. NARUC leaders had what he called an "intense dialogue" with the administration's transition team, in the form of a call with Trump's energy transition leader, American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle (Energywire, Feb 1).
In the call and a follow-up letter to Pyle, Powelson emphasized updates to infrastructure and called on the president to reduce "federal overreach" on energy issues including generation resource allocation, net metering and electric transmission siting authority.
The emphasis on states' rights is an important one to Powelson and others he has worked with, some of whom are celebrating the potential addition of a state regulator to the federal body.
"We always want to make sure that FERC appreciates what we believe as a policy matter are firmly within our purview as state officials and state regulators," said Richard Mroz, president of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities.
"Sometimes a particular state perspective can get lost in very complex issues, with a lot of intervenors, a lot of parties. I just think it's good to know that someone there, a commissioner, will still be mindful of what is important to state commissions and ultimately to the consumers in our states," Mroz said.
Kevin Hughes, chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission, said Powelson has "a keen appreciation for the role and responsibility of states to ensure that their citizens have access to reliable and affordable power."
Powelson said in February that he thought state regulators would take leadership roles as Trump appointees in agencies. In one case, at least, that prediction was prescient.
In another interview, Powelson said he saw a "very clear edict" in his dealings with the Trump administration. "We're going to invest in infrastructure, and we are going to do it in a very efficient manner, and with respect to environmental protection, obviously," he said.
The overlap between his priorities and Trump's is likely not coincidental, some observers say.
"I had heard that he was lobbying pretty hard for this. I think he was able to persuade the Trump administration that he was able to reflect their values when it comes to regulating," said Minott.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054674
-
Sluggish White House Hamstrings Pruitt's Agenda
May 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
President Trump has so far failed to provide the U.S. EPA staffers needed to execute an aggressive deregulatory game plan.
The Republican is lagging the pace of his predecessor, President Obama, in nominating people for EPA's 14 Senate-confirmed positions.
There's only one confirmed EPA official in place: Administrator Scott Pruitt. And Trump has made only one other EPA pick, Susan Bodine for enforcement chief, whose nomination was sent to the Senate yesterday.
By contrast, an E&E News review of congressional records shows that Obama, by the end of April 2009, had sent on seven EPA nominations to Capitol Hill. Further, the Senate had confirmed five of those picks by mid-May of that year. By the end of 2009, Obama had 12 EPA nominees confirmed by the Senate.
President George W. Bush was also quicker with his EPA picks than Trump has been so far.
By mid-May of 2001, Bush had sent six agency nominations to the Senate. Christine Todd Whitman was confirmed by the Senate as EPA administrator in January of that year while her deputy, Linda Fisher, was approved by the end of that May.
The sluggish pace to fill EPA's ranks worries Trump supporters on and off Capitol Hill.
When told that Obama had many of his EPA nominees announced at a similar point in his presidency, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said, "I agree, I agree."
"We've asked for them," said Rounds, who sits on the Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees EPA. "We probably couldn't get them done any faster than we are, but it would be nice to have them in the mill."
The panel will look to move on Bodine's nomination soon, although it's not clear when.
EPW Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told E&E News that he didn't have a date set for Bodine's hearing, although he is working with the panel's ranking Democrat, Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, on scheduling one.
Others were openly frustrated with the lack of EPA nominees.
"I think President Trump is off to a good start, but the fact that they're not nominating people for the second-tier and third-tier positions, their agenda will freeze up," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who led Trump's EPA transition team.
"They have a huge problem. Every day, it's closer to being a disaster," Ebell said.
He noted that Pruitt has filled out his political staff within his own office at EPA, bringing on aides to lead congressional relations, policy and public affairs. But career employees who served in prior administrations are now holding down vital positions on an acting basis, like the air and water offices as well as general counsel.
"They're all capable people. They just don't have authority," Ebell said, referring to Pruitt's political staff. "The initiatives that have been already announced at EPA are in danger because of the lack of political appointees."
Bob Sussman, a deputy EPA administrator during the Clinton administration, said Senate-confirmed political leaders are needed within the agency in order to work with the career staff in fulfilling the president's agenda.
"Career employees will obey orders," Sussman said. "Obeying orders and really delivering are two different things."
Sussman, who also was a senior adviser to Obama's first EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said not having Senate-confirmed political appointees in place is "tremendously disabling," especially considering Pruitt is asking career staff to roll back years of their own work on several major agency regulations.
"In this case, the political agenda of the administrator and the career staff are not in sync with each other," Sussman said.
"That is why the second line of political appointees is so important. They are there to work with career staff, provide feedback and cajole them, instead of these orders coming down on from high."
'What do all these people do?'
It's not clear when more EPA nominees may be announced. A White House spokeswoman didn't share any details when asked by E&E News.
"We will let you know as soon as we have any personnel announcements," spokeswoman Kelly Love said.
Only a few names have made it into the rumor mill for top EPA jobs so far, such as expectations that Andrew Wheeler will be named deputy administrator and that Bill Wehrum is in contention to run the agency's air office (Greenwire, March 24).
Once announced, Trump's other EPA nominees are expected to face intense opposition from Democrats. Pruitt, who sued the agency multiple times as Oklahoma attorney general, took weeks to be confirmed by the Senate.
Carper has said he wants to stall EPA's nominees because of what he alleges is the agency's lack of responsiveness to lawmakers' requests for information. In an interview with E&E News yesterday, the Delaware Democrat also said those put forward are "out of the mainstream."
"There's a real reluctance to see a full EPA created with leadership that is way, way out of the mainstream from where our country is," Carper said.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), another EPW member, said he believes the Trump administration is avoiding nominating officials for EPA and is instead relying on low-level political aides to do those jobs instead.
"I think they're trying to avoid people who require advise and consent and stuff in hyperpartisans and Pruitt operatives who can come in below that level and effectively give them the responsibilities that belong in the vacant offices," Whitehouse said. "That's my view of what they're up to."
The slow pace of nominations may also be because the president himself has questioned the process.
Trump has said he doesn't see the need to fill positions across his administration. In an interview on "Fox & Friends" in February, he said, "A lot of those jobs, I don't want to appoint, because they're unnecessary to have.
"You know, we have so many people in government, even me. I look at some of the jobs, and it's people over people over people. I say, 'What do all these people do?' You don't need all those jobs," Trump said.
Reporter Geof Koss contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054698
-
Guest Column: The New TSCA: Challenges Remain
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Nicholas Ashford
It has taken 40 years to muster the congressional support to enact reforms to the Toxic Substances Control Act. While applauded by many as a significant improvement, there are some serious challenges posed by the new TSCA and there are weaknesses.
On the eve of the reform’s passage, I argued that fundamental flaws in the legislation remain, specifically:
· continuation of a two-step sequential approach to regulating chemicals (that is to say, risk assessment followed by risk management); and
· the failure to place the identification, assessment and development of safer technology alternatives early in the process, and therefore avoid the need for extensive risk assessment.
The availability and reliability of risk assessment data have always been, and will continue to be, an impediment to effective and responsive regulation under TSCA. Furthermore, with the anti-regulatory fervour in Washington, DC, the EPA administrator’s discretion is not likely to work in favour of public health protection or help innovation. Finally, the federal preemption of state action to regulate, or to decide not to regulate, a chemical, severely limits protection of public health with some notable exceptions in California law1.
The new TSCA clearly separates risk management from risk assessment, and removes cost and ‘non-risk factors’ in determining unreasonable risk. Many see these as significant improvements, but a closer look is warranted.
The original TSCA viewed risk assessment as one determinant of unreasonable risk. The new law appears to require – or invite – risk assessment to be firmly based on science and the weight of the evidence. Of course, I support improvements to risk assessment in regulatory activities, but in the context of TSCA, that is not enough. In fact, this is a step backwards because the existence of conflicting studies can be used to defeat what has been the EPA’s essentially discretionary determination that a risk is unreasonable.
To clarify: the conclusions of a scientific risk assessment should not be equated with a determination of acceptable risk or, in the context of TSCA, with unreasonable risk. Nor does this align with the precautionary principle developed under previous US regulatory court decisions. Science informs but it is just one element which determines acceptable or unreasonable risk.
A concern with the new TSCA is that only risks supported with strong, and essentially unequivocal, risk assessment results are likely to be considered and addressed as unreasonable. This may be further compounded by an EPA administrator who believes the agency’s regulatory powers should be constrained, probably with influence and support from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, within the Office of Management and Budget, (OMB/OIRA). Once again, risk assessment equating unreasonable risk with the conclusions reached in a scientific risk assessment will be an impediment to protective regulation.
The new TSCA also removes some important language from the Act’s original regulatory mandate. Take a look at the original text excised from the revised section 6(a). Under this, the administrator must take action if he/she finds that a chemical substance:
presents or will present "unreasonable risks to health or the environment" taking into account costs, effects on health & the environment, technological innovation, and the availability of substitutes.
The removal of "will present" may seem like a small change, but it is a further erosion of precaution. And the deletion of language related to costs and "non-risk"" elements (technological innovation and the availability of substitutes) means that these factors no longer enter into the EPA’s determination of unreasonable risk. They are, however, reintroduced in the risk management step.
Now, you may ask, what is wrong with that? The removal of these considerations from the determination of unreasonable risk, leaving it to be more purely scientific, can be defended. But the relegation and reinsertion of these considerations into the risk management component [that is to say the regulatory decision] codifies the paralysing effect of the Fifth Circuit Court decision. Decided under the previous version of the statute; this requires comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of safer substitutes before a chemical can be regulated.
Availability of substitutes
The removal of the original TSCA requirement that the EPA take into consideration "the availability of substitutes" in determining unreasonable risk removes the potential major driver of innovation – that is the availability of existing technology options or alternatives. The unappealed Fifth Circuit’s decision in 1991’s Corrosion Proof Fittings case committed legal error by ignoring the statutory words "availability of substitutes". The decision requires that substitutes also be individually and specifically assessed for their unreasonable risk potential, through an adequate examination of their costs and benefits. As a result of that case, the EPA concluded that even in the case of asbestos, the most notorious recognised industrial human carcinogen, it did not have the resources to examine in detail the risks and benefits of substitutes and alternatives. This judicial ruling effectively stopped future regulation of chemicals under TSCA.
The newly added section C, in the promulgation of rules in section 6, does almost nothing to extinguish that onerous burden:
(C) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES.—Based on the information published under subparagraph (A), in deciding whether to prohibit or restrict in a manner that substantially prevents a specific condition of use of a chemical substance or mixture, and in setting an appropriate transition period for such action, the Administrator shall consider, to the extent practicable, whether technically and economically feasible alternatives that benefit health or the environment, compared to the use so proposed to be prohibited or restricted, will be reasonably available as a substitute when the proposed prohibition or other restriction takes effect (emphasis added).
While the consideration of alternatives is welcomed, the language implies that a thorough investigation of costs and benefits of the substitutes might well be required, an acknowledged unrealistic burden on the EPA.
By simply shifting economic concerns from determination of what constitutes unreasonable risk to a risk management decision does nothing in practice to address the reality that economics will trump public health and environmental protection. With more stringent requirements to determine whether a risk is unreasonable, fewer chemicals are likely to cross the threshold for implementing mandatory risk management.
The new requirement that new chemicals be attended by adequate safety evidence before marketing, while seeming like an industry concession, essentially codifies what industry is already doing. Since the beginning of TSCA, it has been conducting screening studies voluntarily because it would not want to introduce a new chemical that would later be withdrawn after considerable start-up and manufacturing investments were made. In practice, this improvement is thus no real concession.
Finally, the new TSCA requirements that ten chemicals be placed in the pipeline for expedited risk evaluations, with the EPA giving priority to industry’s candidates, is actually pernicious. The availability of a risk assessment is likely to be required, before the EPA can undertake an actual risk evaluation. This may not be possible unless testing has already been done. All this does is to create a diversionary opportunity in favour of industry. It would take industrial resources away from testing chemicals that are likely to provide evidence that industry would rather not have – and that would otherwise lead to pressure for unwanted regulation on other chemicals. Industry would effectively control the testing and hence the regulatory agenda. It could thus game the system.
Little advance
For all these reasons, the 2016 TSCA does little to advance the protection of the public, consumers and workers. It is possible under an administration more dedicated and willing to exercise its discretion towards the protection of public health, the new Act could make some needed progress. If the administrator were to determine a risk were unreasonable and aggressively seek safer substitutes, perhaps environmentally superior substitutes might emerge, but his/her burden is high. The federal preemption of aggressive state initiatives makes things even worse1. Only five chemicals were regulated under the 1976 TSCA. Will the 2016 TSCA fare any better under an anti-regulatory administration, seeking to phase out two regulations for every new one?
1 Polsky, Claudia (2016). "California Chemicals Regulation after TSCA Reform" Environmental Law News 25(2):22-30
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55920/guest-column-the-new-tsca-challenges-remain
-
New Report: BPA Still in 1/3 of Kroger & Albertsons Food Cans
May 17, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Mike Schade
Today we co-released a new report that found toxic BPA in nearly 40% of food cans tested from the nation’s largest grocery stores and dollar store chains.
The report, “Kicking the Can? Major retailers still selling canned food with BPA,” authored by our coalition partners the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), shows that millions of Americans who eat canned foods are still being exposed to the toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA).
The report details testing on more than 250 canned foods, finding that 38% of cans tested contain BPA, a chemical that is known to cause birth defects and has been linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease and other serious health problems.
Over 250 cans purchased at grocery stores in ten states
For the new report, cans were purchased between January and April of this year, from ten states: California, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Most the cans were purchased from four national retailers: Kroger, Albertsons/Safeway, Dollar Tree and 99 Cents Only.
One out of three cans tested positive for BPA
“These companies have known for years that BPA is a serious health threat, yet too many of their food cans still contain this dangerous chemical,” said Caroline Cox, Research Director at CEH. “Americans deserve safe food for their children and families. It is past time for grocery retailers and dollar stores to end this health threat and develop safer alternatives for canned foods.”
The CEH report compares its 2017 findings with testing on canned foods that were purchased in 2015 and reported on in last year’s Buyer Beware report released by the Mind the Store Campaign, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, Ecology Center, the Campaign for Healthier Solutions, and Clean Production Action. Findings from today’s new report show:
· Nearly 40% of the cans tested used BPA-containing linings. While this is down from our 2015 report, which showed 67% of cans with BPA, the threat of exposure to BPA from canned food remains high.
· The contents from four cans that tested positive for BPA were tested by an independent lab for BPA contamination; all four tested positive for BPA in the food.
· The two largest grocery chains in the country, Kroger and Albertsons, continue to sell food cans lined with toxic BPA. 36% of Albertsons’, and 33% of Kroger’s “private label” food cans tested positive for this harmful chemical. While that demonstrates both companies have made notable progress, which we applaud, more work is still clearly needed.
· Cans purchased from certain dollar stores were more likely to contain BPA, a particular concern for low-income communities of color who live in “food deserts” where canned food from the local dollar store is often the most convenient and affordable option. Studies show that people in these communities have, on average, higher levels of BPA in their bodies than the rest of the population.
· While some companies are moving away from BPA in their canned foods, there is inadequate safety information on the materials they are using to replace BPA. 19% of the cans tested use linings containing PVC, a toxic substitute. Other substitute linings found by CEH include materials that have not been adequately evaluated for safety.
You can watch a video about the new report here.
Over 100,000 people call on Kroger and Albertsons to can toxic BPA
This new report comes after a year of advocacy from our Mind the Store campaign in which more than 150,000 people signed petitions to Kroger, and 130,000 signed petitions to Albertsons, following a national day of action and letters we sent to Kroger and Albertsons last year, calling on both retailers to act.
Our partners at Ohio Citizen Action delivered over 100,00 of these petitions to Kroger at their shareholder meeting last June, where they held a protest outside and spoke during the shareholder meeting. This followed a previous action they held outside their headquarters last May.
In November our partners at Conservation Voters for Idaho held an informational picket outside of Albertsons’ headquarters in Boise, delivering petitions to the company while also promoting the release of our “Who’s Minding the Store?” retailer report card. The report card found both Kroger and Albertsons lagging behind other retailers in developing robust safer chemical policies.
Kroger and Albertsons must act to protect customers
While this new report shows that some notable progress has been made since last year, it underscores the need for retailers to set timelines to completely phase out BPA, ensure substitutes are safe, and develop systemic safer chemical policies.
We hope Kroger and Albertsons will “mind the store” and do the right thing to safeguard our health and food.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/05/17/new-report-bpa-still-in-one-third-of-kroger-albertsons-food-cans/
-
Blood Tests Significantly Underestimated Lead Levels, FDA and CDC Warn
May 17, 2017 | Washington Post
By Laurie McGinley
Federal officials are warning that some blood tests may have “significantly” underestimated lead levels, and they are urging the retesting of some children, as well as pregnant and breast-feeding women.
The Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the tests in question were made by Magellan Diagnostics, a leading testing company. The warning applies only to tests in which blood samples are taken from a vein, not to the much more common finger- or heel-prick tests.
“The FDA is deeply concerned by this situation and is warning laboratories and health-care professionals that they should not use any Magellan Diagnostics’ lead tests with blood drawn from a vein,” said Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “The agency is aggressively investigating this complicated issue to determine the cause of the inaccurate results and working with the CDC and other public health partners to address the problem as quickly as possible.”
During a conference call with reporters, Shuren said Magellan got complaints about inaccurate results in 2014 but concluded after testing “that the risks were negligible” and that it could fix the problem by delaying blood processing by 24 hours. He added that FDA inspectors are on site at Magellan but don't know yet how many people might be affected or how long the inaccurate tests may have been used.
The government recommended that health-care professionals retest children younger than 6 if their Magellan tests showed a result of less than 10 micrograms of lead per deciliter. It also recommended that women who are pregnant or nursing get retested. Other adults who are worried about lead exposure should talk to their doctors about possible retests.
The FDA said the “stick” tests by Magellan can still be used, as can other tests offered by some laboratories. “The majority of Magellan lead tests use finger sticks or heel sticks, so we believe most people will not be affected by this issue,” Shuren said. He said that since 2014, about 8 million Magellan tests were conducted but that the majority were the “stick” tests, not the venous tests.
The warning applies to all four of Megellan's lead-testing systems: LeadCare, Lead Care II, LeadCare Plus and LeadCare Ultra.
Tim Hill, an official with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said that Medicaid would pay for the retesting of children on the program and that people covered by private insurance should ask their health plan about retesting.
“While most children likely received an accurate test result, it is important to identify those whose exposure was missed, or underestimated, so that they can receive proper care,” Patrick Breysse, director of the CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health, said in a statement. “For this reason, because every child’s health is important, the CDC recommends that those at greatest risk be retested.”
The government officials noted that lead exposure can cause damage in nearly every system in the body and produces no symptoms. Lead poisoning is especially hazardous for young children and babies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/05/17/blood-tests-significantly-underestimated-lead-levels-fda-and-cdc-warn/?utm_term=.372a7343c6f9
-
Chemicals Still Out of Control Due to Poor Implementation
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Dolores Romano
Ten years after coming into force, Europe’s flagship chemicals legislation, REACH, has shown great potential for improving the protection of human health and the environment. However, the corporate takeover of different processes, poor interpretation of the Regulation and opposition from the European Commission and several member states have hampered its full implementation and development.
Over the last two decades, the EU has become a global frontrunner in regulating chemicals, and the approval of REACH back in 2006 was considered an international landmark. The Regulation went significantly further than other legislations by introducing new groundbreaking principles, such as ‘no data, no market’, substitution, building on the precautionary principle and placing the burden of proving the safety of chemicals on companies.
Since its approval, many countries around the world, such as South Korea, Malaysia, Serbia , Turkey and China, have adopted REACH-like legislations. Several countries, including Switzerland, Canada, Japan and New Zealand, have shown a keen interest in learning from REACH. And Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, among others , directly apply the Regulation.
Net benefits
Despite the heavy criticism and opposition from the chemical industry that its approval caused ten years ago, REACH has shown its worth. An Austrian competent authority study on its costs and benefits concluded that the law’s implementation has resulted in net benefits. REACH is efficient from an economic point of view and beneficial for the environment and the wellbeing of workers. A survey by Eurometaux revealed that 60% of companies recognise its benefits in helping them to communicate to consumers the hazards and risks of the substances they manufacture, and to become more proactive on chemicals management. Even Cefic has stated that the Regulation is functioning relatively well.
Despite severe shortcomings in the process, the registration of chemicals under REACH is giving rise to better knowledge of the substances used in Europe. To comply with its obligations, companies have gained a better understanding of the chemicals they are handling, their hazards and risks, and thereby improving risk management measures and increasing substitution.
REACH is also stimulating substitution globally. The candidate list has become a worldwide reference for substitution, and even industry considers it the main driver for innovation. The REACH authorisation process is also improving risk management in companies applying for authorisation and public access to information.
However, although we have more information on chemicals, available on Echa’s website, throughout the supply chain and to consumers, this still remains very low quality. The information on chemical hazards, uses and exposure is extremely poor; on uses and exposure it is lacking for most substances and on hazards is completely outdated and incomplete, due to shortcomings of the legal text, but mainly through lack of proper implementation by the agency. The improvement of data quality is an issue that needs to be addressed urgently.
Also consumers continue to demand to know which chemicals are contained in products they are exposed to on a daily basis. The right to know about substances of very high concern in consumer products is actually the ‘right to ask’ or ‘the fight to know’, since article 33 of the Regulation has proven insufficient and its implementation is very poor.
Enhancing substitution
REACH potential for enhancing substitution has not been fully developed. The Commission, some member states and Echa are blocking the Regulation’s full potential to improve substitution by granting authorisation to all applications by default, even if alternatives are available. This is undermining the authorisation process, hampering innovation and penalising companies that have created safer substitutes. In short, such an approach is sending a very negative signal to the market. And the Commission’s decision to slow down the inclusion of substances in the candidate list and introduce an additional (risk-based) screening process – risk management option analysis (RMOA) – is causing a bottleneck and putting the burden back on member states.
The substitution principle needs to be strengthened to boost a more innovative and less toxic economy in the EU. Substitution could be sped up with better implementation of the polluter pays principle and the application of economic incentives.
Circular economy
REACH should be improved in order to serve a circular economy. To ensure materials, articles and consumer products can be safely reused and recycled, hazardous chemicals should be prevented from entering the economy. Information on the chemical content of material cycles should be available throughout the supply chain to consumers and to waste management companies. Restriction and authorisation processes need to be accelerated and no exemptions, derogations or transitional periods to restrictions or authorisations should be given for recycled materials.
The implementation of the groundbreaking principles that REACH introduced is lacking. The main principle of REACH – no data, no market – is not being applied, as Echa provides registration numbers, and in turn access to the market, to all registration dossiers by default, even to those that are incomplete, inadequate or irrelevant.
The burden of proof has not been shifted to industry. The low quality information provided by industry in the registration dossiers, in particular on uses and exposure, shifts the burden to member state authorities and to Echa committees to complete the information needed for the development of subsequent REACH processes (for example candidate listing, restriction, authorisation, evaluation).
Although REACH provisions are underpinned by the precautionary principle, the Commission and many member states are not applying it when taking decisions on restrictions or granting authorisations. Even Echa seems to consider that the principle does not apply to its activities.
Enforcement transparency
There is also a lack of transparency on enforcement activities, completeness and compliance checks of registration dossiers, substance evaluations or decisions on confidentiality claims. Transparency is one of the pillars of democracy. Without it citizens’ right to know, participation and access to justice is undermined.
After ten years of REACH, chemicals are still out of control and this is mainly due to its poor implementation. We need an EU that works for people by protecting their health and environment from toxic chemicals and that promotes innovation in safer chemicals. The Commission, REACH member state authorities and Echa should be taking note of this.
EEB REACH REFIT position paper
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55913/chemicals-still-out-of-control-due-to-poor-implementation
-
Devicification: Technology and Identifying Chemicals
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Leigh Stringer
Along with advances in science and chemistry, the miniaturisation of devices and real-time analysis of chemicals has come a long way.
"We can do today what, ten years ago, we couldn’t even begin to think of in terms of analysing and identifying chemicals in products," says Roger McFadden, former senior scientist at retailer Staples, who now runs his own consultancy.
Years ago, it would have required gas chromatography equipment and a major lab that took up 500 square feet. Now there are devices that fit in the palm of your hand that can analyse the chemical make-up of products for very low cost – either through gas chromatography or infrared spectrometry or a number of other technologies that have emerged and have become more miniaturised and portable.
"Reverse engineering is not a foreign concept to companies and brands because they do it routinely to compete against each other. For example, major brand A innovates a new product and goes to market with it. Major brand B becomes aware that major brand A is going after some of its market with this product, so they either hire or internally have their scientists take samples of that product and within a fairly short amount of time they’re going to know its chemistry," says Mr McFadden.
It is no longer a mystery what chemicals are in products, he says.
The world we are moving towards is devicification, says Mr McFadden, where we use devices to help us inform our decision making. "Where in the past these devices were limited to skilled scientists or engineers, who understood how to collect and calibrate these particular devices to ensure the information you were getting was accurate and consistent, soon we’re going to see real-time information with the likes of mobile apps."]
In the past, he adds, there was a certain amount of hiding from this because companies knew it was very difficult and expensive to analyse and find out what chemicals were in products. But today, it’s not only companies and regulators, NGOs are investing in these technologies, such as x-ray fluorescence (XRF) ‘guns’," he adds.
XRF analysers are widely used by both product manufacturers and government regulators to screen consumer products for hazardous chemicals. These devices can be held to a consumer product in a store and it will immediately register whether it contains certain chemicals of concern.
"If you want to get down to parts per billion (ppb) of chemicals in products, then it will be necessary to do far more rigorous laboratory testing to get there. But more of these devices are going to read out fairly quickly and accurately whether or not certain chemicals are present in a consumer product," says Mr McFadden.
Competing companies have been using this technology for many years and analyse competitor products routinely, he adds, but there is a respect within the business community not to reveal what’s found.
"Companies carry out a full analysis of their competitor’s product. They don’t want to reveal what they’ve learned because they don’t want that revealed about their products."
But, he says, awareness of the available technologies is expanding. "NGOs and advocacy groups now have scientists on their staff who have Phds in chemistry, so they are very aware of the analytical devices available and these new generations are going to expect transparency and they’ll reveal the information, whether companies like it or not."
For example, the US NGO Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families (SCHF) has in recent years partnered with HealthyStuff.org to use XRF and fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) devices to identify and call attention to chemicals and materials of concern like brominated flame retardants, PVC, phthalates, and BPA in consumer products, which has helped prompt companies to eliminate substances of concern.
"Advances in technology are making it easier than ever before for consumers and NGOs to analyse consumer products for chemicals of concern and as the technology advances further, this will only continue," says Mike Schade of SCHF.
Consumers, he says, armed with tools and data can be "powerful agents of change in this age of radical transparency".
"That’s one reason why it’s more important than ever for retailers and brands to take precautionary action to identify and eliminate chemicals of concern in products, before some blogger or consumer advocate uncovers it, which can pose serious reputational liabilities to retailers and brands," he adds.
Mr McFadden says that, in the past, chemicals haven’t caused too much risk to a brand, except in a few rare cases, but as NGO and consumer awareness grows, this risk increases. The best way to mitigate it, he says, is to be transparent with customers, explaining what’s in a product and why it’s there.
Mobile apps
Although they are becoming smaller and cheaper, the price and portability of XRF and FTIR devices means they are still unlikely to be widely used by consumers as an everyday tool and are largely taken up by companies, regulators and recently NGOs.
Ann Fransson, senior adviser of the international unit at the Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi), confirmed that the use of an XRF instrument is "very frequent in our enforcement department and then mainly to determine hazardous substances in various consumer products such as electronics and toys among others".
Although XRF-type technologies are not yet widely used by the public, organisations are aiming to put power in the hands of the consumer. Some NGOs have created mobile apps that enable the consumer to scan a barcode, which then reveals whether the product contains certain chemicals. In Denmark, consumers are looking for ways to eradicate the uncertainty around what’s in the products they’re buying.
Claus Jorgensen of the Danish Consumer Council (DCC) says that his organisation has found that information through testing products and providing the results has been very well received by the public and has encouraged the DCC to develop two mobile apps called Kemiluppen and Tjek Kemien.
Kemiluppen is for cosmetics and Tjek Kemien is for other household products (not food). Kemiluppen, says Mr Jorgensen, is very popular having been downloaded more than 200,000 times and used more than 3.8m times.
"The Kemiluppen app is popular because it provides the answer right away for more than 10,000 products, which means that you can use it for your shopping, take the product off the shelf, scan the bar-code, get our rating and make your choice," he says.
Another example is Friends of the Earth Germany’s (Bund) ToxFox app. The NGO recently announced that consumers have sent 30,000 Article 33 requests to more than 7,000 companies as a result of using the app. Under Article 33 of REACH, consumers can ask manufacturers if their product contains SVHCs that are on the candidate list. Suppliers are legally obliged to provide the information, free of charge, within 45 days.
But these apps require upfront information, entered into large data bases, which can take time and may not cover all products. However, says Mr McFadden, all it will take is the integration of a mobile device with XRF technology and consumers will have access to information on chemicals in products that has never been possible before.
Mr Jorgensen says: "I think we will see more of these digital tools which enable the consumer to avoid chemicals that authorities and scientists have labelled as unwanted and problematic."
Consumer regulator?
Joss Warburton, director of design at Radius, a product development firm, says the miniaturisation and portability of technology is becoming more common place. "When it comes to sensing chemicals or product makeup, spectrometers used to not be accessible to the public, but now that technology is becoming available."
In the digital world, he says, there is not only the availability of huge quantities of data but, more importantly, the ability for consumers to make data-driven decisions around their lives.
But are there issues with consumers having access to this level of information on chemicals?
"Educated consumers is great, but uneducated consumers making decisions about what level of chemicals in products they feel is right could lead to issues," he adds.
Some industry associations have opposed providing the consumer with a list of chemicals found in a product, saying it is not useful because they are unaware of whether these chemicals are harmful or not. Some have labelled it an NGO ‘scaremongering’ tactic.
But through channels such as social media, consumers are taking on an aspect of regulation by default, through recommendations. However, this can be based on consensus rather than real data and is becoming more trusted as people rely on the digital world more and more, says Mr Warburton.
"Regulation should be done via a controlled body, which may implement the algorithms that analyse and interpret the data to make the decisions. But the top level decisions should come from a trusted body."
A new battleground
Mr McFadden says the battle around ingredient disclosure is coming to an end. "The battle in the future won’t be around what chemicals are in products, it will be about whether a chemical in the product is harming humans or the environment."
"It will be around the route of exposure and what the reality of these particular chemicals are in the human body," he adds.
Mr Jorgensen agrees that there will be an ongoing discussion on whether or not the chemicals, and the quantities in which they are used in consumer goods, are problematic. "The battle has been going on for a while and is resulting in insufficient regulation, and this leads to alternative solutions for securing security against exposure towards unwanted chemicals."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55888/devicification-technology-and-identifying-chemicals
-
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Peter Smith
This year brings some important milestones for the European chemical industry: not only is it ten years since REACH entered into force, but it’s also the deadline for the European Commission to report on experiences with implementation, a process that takes place every five years. For the EU chemical industry, 2017 represents a decade of committed investment of significant financial and time resources into making sure European citizens and the environment benefit from the world’s strictest chemical safety laws. We’ve worked closely with the authorities and Echa, and helped launch tailored support for chemical companies – especially SMEs which make up more than 90% of those affected in the EU – to get REACH off the ground and keep improving the way we put it into practice.
Industry’s contribution to REACH
Thanks to the continuous efforts of chemical companies, today the Echa website offers detailed information on more than 14,000 registered substances, including those registered under the previous legislation, together with the classification and labelling information for more than 100,000 substances. The European chemical industry has made a strong contribution to what can be considered the most ambitious database in the world on chemical substances.
One example of where industry has helped REACH implementation is through the timely registration of substances. In addition, Cefic played an important role in the introduction in REACH of the workability of the substance information exchange forum (Sief). We provide standard agreements that can be used, as well as letters of access, proving that the ownership of data used in dossiers has been respected. We also helped clarify the obligations and liabilities of lead registrants.
REACH has not only generated information on chemicals, it has fundamentally changed communication in the supply chain. While safety data sheets have been in use since 1991, REACH demonstrated that the uses of our substances were broader than realised. It changed what was a unilateral, top-down communication into a much more difficult one in both directions – in which we had to ensure the confidentiality of proprietary business information was respected. This challenging exercise resulted in the CSR/ES roadmap, a collaboration between industry associations, national authorities and Echa, which has been extended to 2020 to widen cover to the end users of chemicals. We believe this effort has been a rewarding one.
Therefore, conclusions on the functioning of REACH are, generally speaking, more positive than negative. There is room for improvement, as industry continues to learn how to navigate this complex requirement.
Where can REACH be improved?
Our knowledge of the effectiveness of REACH is not yet complete. For example, this 2017 Commission evaluation will be done before we have the experiences of the many SMEs affected by the 2018 registration deadline. We also note that for substance evaluation, experience is still limited and no single substance on which there has been a final decision has been signed off yet. Under authorisation, we’re still learning how to run broader upstream applications with a realistic amount of information.
This aside, chemical companies believe there is potential to reduce the burden and costs while maintaining high quality. And Cefic, which represents them, continues to advocate for consistency and harmonisation, both regarding member state implementation and risk management. This would enhance legal certainty, while promoting a risk-based approach. Further, the mammoth task of becoming REACH-compliant will remain important after 2018.
Animal welfare is also a big concern, since REACH mandates animal testing, although our goal is to avoid it as much as possible. However, the justifications required to avoid such testing continue to be burdensome and it is difficult to get acceptance of alternative testing methods. The authorisation process now has a greater emphasis on substitution, but predictability must be improved. In addition, we believe that things could be simplified for small volumes, and a more streamlined process would be helpful for dedicated process chemicals handled in closed systems too.
Looking back
Looking back on ten years of REACH, the chemical industry can be proud of what it has done so far, while realising that it’s not a case of ‘game over’ in 2018. Cefic believes that REACH legislation doesn’t require revision at the moment to tackle its challenges. Any gaps identified can be handled without reopening the core legal text. Last year, we welcomed a report by authorities that noted the positive achievements of REACH. Industry encourages the Commission and others to communicate its benefits more powerfully to increase confidence among all stakeholders, including the general public.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55895/cefic-ten-years-of-reach
-
Removing Regulated Chemicals from Waste
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Mélissa Zill
Recycling is key to realising a transition towards a more circular economy. And, as a result, it is one of the central objectives of the European Commission’s circular economy package.
However, recycling is also perceived as an activity that could perpetuate problematic substances in material cycles. Hence, the industry is facing the challenge of achieving two ambitious, and apparently contradictory, policy objectives:
increasing the production of raw materials from recycling; and
having to take out an ever-greater share of the materials from the cycles , to comply with the objective of phasing out regulated substances.
Recyclers have no doubt that eliminating hazardous chemicals from the material cycles is essential. They have long experience in depolluting waste and producing recycled materials meeting high quality and safety levels. The harsh reality is, however, that the goodwill and the expertise of the recycling industry is confronted by the fact that eliminating all regulated substances from the materials flows is easier said than done. It surely cannot happen overnight.
Dealing with legacy substances
As a matter of fact, recyclers are often simply not aware of the presence of regulated chemicals in the waste they receive. In this context, how can anyone expect them to be responsible for the removal of those chemicals from the material streams?
While more and more substances are identified as substances of very high concern (SVHCs) under REACH, and even with the subsequent notification requirements, the information on their presence in articles frequently does not reach the recyclers. Often, these substances were included in articles long before their identification as SVHCs, at a time when there was no obligation to notify Echa. This is problematic for recyclers which invest heavily – for example, in complex plastics recycling – in new equipment to treat streams that can at any time be reclassified as hazardous because of legacy substances and can no longer be recycled under the conditions pertaining at the time that investment decisions were made. Even today, substances not yet identified as SVHC (but foreseen to be) are included in articles with no notification or concentration limit requirements. It is certain that the issue of legacy substances in material streams will not be solved instantly, when all the SVHCs are identified. And tools such as PACT – the public activities coordination tool, designed to improve predictability on upcoming regulatory measures for the manufacturing industries – will not be of any help for recyclers, which mainly need to know which substance can be found in which group of articles (electronic devices, cars, building materials etc).
Simultaneously, and as different requirements apply, substances listed in Annex XIV of REACH (the authorisation list) which can no longer be used by European manufacturers are still found in imported articles reaching their end-of-life in the EU. This is problematic, not only because it is unfair for European producers of REACH compliant articles, but also because, even in the long term, recyclers in the EU will not be able to assume that those substances, although prohibited, are absent from the waste streams. The restriction process under REACH, although designed to address this shortcoming, is in practice too burdensome to be implemented in a short timeframe. And this is crucial as reactivity is key to cutting, at source, the flow of problematic substances before they are widely spread.
The two major practical issues that recyclers face when turning waste into new resources are often not understood by stakeholders, including policy makers.
Firstly, waste is heterogeneous. It is relatively straightforward to control the inputs, when manufacturing homogeneous new products on a production line designed to produce high volumes of the same product. For recyclers, however, the input from the ‘urban mine’ is a high volume of different end-of-life products, with different ages, whose only common feature is to belong to a broad, category or sub-category. An example is waste electrical and electronic equipment. This includes, among other items, computers, phones, lamps, toys, ovens, vacuum cleaners. Controlling the composition of the input to recycling thus becomes a totally different challenge.
Secondly, recycling can only be economically viable when dealing with high volumes in efficient industrial processes. The manufacturing processes of modern products, such as cars, rely on robotic assembly lines for efficiency and economic reasons. It is widely accepted that these cars, whose selling price might be around €30,000, cannot be made efficiently with manual labour. So why do we expect that when they reach their end-of-life and are worth around €200, their treatment cycle can be carried out solely by manual labour?
Recycling in policy development
The day-to-day reality of the recycling industry needs to be acknowledged, when developing measures or policies requiring the analysis of the composition of the waste, or the removal of substances from material cycles. Part of a successful transition to a circular economy depends on the ability to design and implement measures that support the phasing out of regulated substances, while taking into consideration the constraints inherent to recycling.
Access to composition information
To phase out hazardous substances, it goes without saying that recyclers need adequate information about article composition, and the presence and location of substances so they can be properly treated.
Chemical legislation is not always the best solution
Harmonisation of waste and chemical legislation is needed if materials streams are to become circular, within the limits of what is achievable. Because of the high volumes and heterogeneity inherent to waste, recyclers have concerns regarding the fact that chemical legislation – namely the CLP Regulation – is becoming the basis of the method for assessing the hazardous properties of waste. In practice, this means not only carrying out an exhaustive chemical analysis of all incoming waste for substances with harmonised classification for ecotoxic properties under CLP, but also the concentrations of these substances. The cost and burden of such kinds of measures is the reason why the recycling industry is in favour of using biotests, instead of chemical analysis, to assess the ecotoxicity of waste.
Setting thresholds for regulated substances in recovered materials is needed to phase the substances out, but these need to be realistic
Setting thresholds for regulated substances in recovered materials is needed to phase the substances out, but these need to be realistic and implemented progressively. Their coherence under chemicals, POPs and product legislation (for example RoHS) is crucial, and those in recovered materials should not be more stringent than those for articles on the market. They must be set at a level that does not present a risk for human health and the environment and also remain achievable: sorting technologies are performing well and low thresholds can be met, but eliminating 100% of the regulated substances is not realistic. This is all the more so as the analytic technologies are constantly improving and detection limits are getting lower and lower. The implementation of the thresholds should also allow sufficient time for the necessary research and development effort to find suitable technologies to remove substances from the waste streams. It is important to keep in mind that, while it is straightforward to avoid including a substance in a product, it is much less simple to remove it, especially in an industrially efficient way.
Coming back to the coherence of the policies, the need to set the right balance between the objective of removing regulated substances from streams and recycling targets, set in several directives (on end-of-life vehicles, for example), is unequivocal. Take the example of the much-discussed brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Some are regulated, some not yet, but the techniques used to separate plastic containing those flame retardants are based on the properties given to the material by the bromine atoms (increased density, opacity to x-rays transmission , for example), and not on specific molecules. On the one hand, the output is safe because all the brominated molecules – regulated or not – are removed, but, on the other, a large part of the material is lost. This must be acknowledged by policy makers when setting recycling targets.
The big picture
Policy making should not lose sight of the bigger picture. When a waste is not recycled because it contains regulated substances that must be phased out, it has to be dealt with in another way, for example, elimination by incineration. This comes at an economic and environmental cost, with cross-media effects that might be much higher than if this waste was depolluted and recycled. The risk that much of this could be illegally shipped outside the EU if its treatment would
become too burdensome cannot be excluded.
Recyclers are ready and willing to do their share of the work to phase out hazardous substances from material cycles. Nevertheless, it is equally if not more important to tackle the problem at source, by ensuring that product design facilitates recycling and by substituting, whenever feasible, problematic substances with suitable alternatives. Regulators must not only ensure that chemicals and products legislation are properly enforced to stop the continuous flow of articles containing prohibited substances reaching the EU; they should also devise and implement measures which take into consideration the inherent constraints faced by recyclers; address legacy issues in a predictable manner for both manufacturers and recyclers; and gear up EU chemical legislation to circular material flows so as to improve the interface between waste and chemical laws. This is the way to safeguard and strengthen the confidence society has in recycled materials. In turn, it will encourage the use of secondary raw materials and promote the transition towards a circular economy.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55891/removing-regulated-chemicals-from-waste
-
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch - Briefing
By Paul Ashford
EU REACH has undeniably been a driver for the development and enhancement of substance dossiers in recent years, building on the work previously done voluntarily by industry under the US HPV Challenge and OECD SIDS programmes. With a fairly comprehensive set of hazard endpoints to address, the level of data generation stimulated in Europe has been substantial.
In terms of cost, much of the investment is yet to come, as member state competent authorities (MSCAs) review and determine the suitability of test plan proposals for a number of Annex IX and X studies. Accordingly, dossiers can be considered as ‘live documents’ for the foreseeable future.
Fair and transparent cost sharing
It is clear that EU REACH has been a major driver for the assignment of value to data generated through bona fide studies. The quality of data has largely been assessed on the basis of Klimisch codes. However, for more sophisticated studies, the design of the study (for example, the selection of appropriate routes of exposure) can be an equal contributor to valuation. The most valuable studies are those that are relevant as well as those that are of high quality.
The compulsory membership of substance information exchange forums (Siefs) has made the identification of those needing access to data relatively straightforward. Although not all Sief members will ultimately register, the pool of potential data purchasers is established for those generating new data (typically substance consortia) at a relatively early stage.
The letter of access (LoA) process has also proved fairly robust for those seeking access to data, but there has been a need for consortium managers to develop fairly sophisticated models to deal with the data requirements in four separate tonnage bands on a fair and equitable basis. Often, the biggest challenge has been to be able to convey the workings of relatively complex cost models to anyone simply seeking to purchase access.
An additional complexity has been to explain the long-term implications of what purchasing LoAs will entail. While occasional registrants may just want access to individual studies, most will require it to the dossier itself. Since this is a living document, the joint registrant will be signing up for a share of future costs as well as current ones. Conceptually, having an unlimited liability is difficult for purchasers to digest.
The implementing regulation
Although Echa provided substantial guidance on data sharing and the related cost-sharing approach, many LoA transactions have run into trouble as consortium managers have been unable to provide a sufficiently clear justification for the cost structures derived. This was partly because of the application of risk and administration premiums, in line with the agency guidance, reflecting the risks taken by those generating the data and the ‘sweat equity’ involved.
To provide further confidence in the fairness and transparency of the cost-sharing models, and also to avoid any element of opportunism by over zealous consortium managers, the European Commission agreed an implementing regulation. This came into force on 26 January 2016. It was envisaged that this would, in particular, protect the interests of small medium enterprises (SMEs) lacking the resources to invest in analysing complex models.
Extending data access to South Korean consortia
The Act on the Registration and Evaluation of Chemicals (ARECS), also known as K-REACH, has created parallel data-access requirements for 510 priority existing chemicals (Pecs) that must be registered by June 2018. Following last December’s announcement of a more comprehensive approach to existing substances in Korea, the Pec requirements are now seen as a precursor to a much broader demand for data, already generated and available as a result of EU REACH. For this reason, it is critical that thought is now given to how such access might be given on a fair and equitable basis.
Although the Korean approach has many similarities to EU REACH, there are some important differences. The main ones are:
· it is not compulsory for potential registrants to join a Korean Sief, known locally as a chemical substances information communicative organisation (CICO);
· the ARECS registration process is not based on Iuclid, thus making it difficult to use European dossiers directly; and
· there is no obvious concern about the proliferation of animal testing, meaning that parallel studies in Korean laboratories are a potential alternative.
This last point is particularly significant, since it looms over the negotiations of many inter-regional discussions on data access. The position is now especially critical because qualified laboratory capacity in Korea is filling up rapidly and the time remaining to conduct and evaluate any studies is just over a year.
In Europe, high volume substances (>1,000 tonnes) required registration by the REACH 2010 deadline, and lead registrants were required to complete the basic elements of their dossiers ahead of it. Other co-registrants may have accessed the same dossiers at later points, but the primary work of any consortium, established for the purpose, will have been completed nearly seven years ago for the highest tonnage band.
Although dossiers are living documents, it is quite common for there to be periods when EU consortia ‘go dormant’ while waiting for the next steps, if any, to come out of Echa regarding test plans and dossier compliance checks. This means that responses to Korean data requests may be delayed. And it is also important to realise that there is no obligation for EU-based data holders to share their data. The main concern would be to ensure that there is a consistency in product stewardship approaches taken in both jurisdictions. However, for EU consortium members with no commercial interest in Korea, this may not be a high priority.
Accordingly, consortium managers faced with data requests from Korea need to get the backing of their members for the development of a meaningful response. They may also need to revert to the original data owners, where these are outside of the consortium they represent. This may typically involve a discussion about extending the rights of use beyond the EU, if previous rights were restricted geographically. Some data owners may have other conditions for the extension of access to other jurisdictions. For example, the International Isocyanate Institute (III) has a global membership and has decreed that its members should have rights of use of their studies in all jurisdictions. However, non-members will not have such rights without payment.
A culture clash?
Barriers to making European data available
It can be seen that making data available in other jurisdictions can be a complex and time-consuming exercise. There is a need for both EU and Korean-based consortia to have a good understanding of each others’ circumstances to reach an agreement. However, the nature of many of the discussions to date has been, at best, transactional.
Since Korean consortia have the option of repeating many of the studies in local laboratories – contract research organisations (CROs) – the discussion quickly comes down to a negotiation on prices. This ignores that an active dialogue with EU REACH consortia might yield all sorts of other help in finalising the dossier for submission in Korea, even though Iuclid is not used for ARECS.
The challenge of price becoming the key determinant is that Asian business culture expects to receive concessions on this as part of the normal negotiating process. However, EU consortia use a cost-sharing model based on fair, transparent and non-discriminatory distribution of costs – past, present and future. It is not normally up for negotiation. These two contrasting approaches are unlikely to be understood consistently on both sides.
We also need to account for the fact that EU REACH consortia are under no obligation to share data in other regions. Current estimates suggest it costs €3- €5,000 to prepare an estimate for data access, with no guarantee that there will be a sale at the end of the process. There is also no real guide for what level of return EU REACH consortia should expect from Korean access rights and how this might influence their own cost-sharing models. An overview of current offers seems to put the share of cost typically deferred to Korea in the 15%-30% range.
Korean consortia are struggling to make contact with their counterparts in Europe on some substances, with the terms of negotiation clearly confused for others. From a Korean perspective, there often seems to be a lack of understanding of the challenges being presented by apparently simple requests. The default option of reverting to local testing is seemingly far too attractive and is preventing the cooperation between consortia that should be the hallmark of a responsible approach to substance-level product stewardship from the chemical industry.
We are still in the foothills
The reality is that these issues are only the first in a number that are likely to emerge as ARECs moves into its second, and more comprehensive, phase. It is clear that we need to reach a version of the data-sharing model that provides a better framework for the extension of data use to other regions.
Several other Asian countries are considering their own REACH-like regulations and, in the US, TSCA reform and the introduction of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act is going to stimulate demand for data on substances prioritised by the EPA. A recent presentation by Jeff Morris of the agency at the Chemical Watch Conference in San Francisco highlighted the prioritisation process and the demand for data that will arise.
The complexity of data sharing is only likely to increase in the coming years and it is therefore vitally important that the global community of both regulators and industry think carefully about how this should be done.
While the chemical industry and its regulators ponder the best way forward with substances, there is another agenda developing in parallel. This relates to the burgeoning growth of demand for information on chemicals in products and supply chains.
EU REACH, and its equivalent elsewhere, focus mostly on the hazard characterisation of substances and only give cursory coverage to the uses of those substances through the development of exposure scenarios. These often extend to the immediate downstream user only and become the focus of real attention when there are perceived chemicals that need further regulatory control, for example through the REACH authorisation and restriction process.
In the US, where federal law is seen as reasonably weak in this area and state-level action is often limited by resources, there has been a significant growth in product characterisation through third party assessments such as Green Screen (substance hazard profiling) and Cradle-to-Cradle for a more rounded, product-based assessment including exposure elements. The uptake has been driven largely by individual sectors and initiatives such as the inclusion of a series of materials credits in LEED V4, developed and managed by the US Green Buildings Council (USGBC), as part of the green buildings agenda. These credits focus on both disclosure of content and reduction of reliance on chemicals of concern.
There are significant parallels with the substance-specific requirements of EU REACH and ARECS in that the cost of generating data is high and supply chains are finding it is better to pool resources in a consortium for this and share cost. Since many of these supply chains are global in nature, there is also an international component. This may play into the hands of such initiatives as the UN Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (Saicm) and, in particular, its "chemicals in products" programme. An alternative might be the OECD’s chemicals programme, which has always been prominent in the development of test protocols and assessment tools.
A global data clearinghouse?
However, if cost sharing on a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory basis is to be a part of the supply-chain response to the generation of data, there needs to be a way of making the availability of this data known.
At the San Francisco conference, we postulated the concept of a global data clearinghouse that would provide options for the inclusion of all such data, whether at the substance or the product level. The principles of cost sharing are already well established in EU REACH and could be re-engineered to operate on a global level, while being mindful of competition concerns. At the very least, this would provide a fair, transparent and non-discriminatory framework for future cost sharing between regions. However, the establishing and maintenance of such a clearinghouse would require significant resources and political backing. The concern is that this could be placed on the ‘too difficult’ pile.
That said, we also need to look at the cost of inaction. If the stresses of the current EU/Korean experiences are to be multiplied many-fold, the data holders are likely to refrain from participation, especially since there will be no international law to compel them to share. The global cost of repetition, financially and in animal welfare terms, will be many times more than the database costs and will also lead to a greater proliferation of regulatory decision making.
The views expressed in contributed articles are those of the expert authors and are not necessarily shared by Chemical Watch.
https://chemicalwatch.com/55929/data-is-for-sharing
-
Purell Sanitiser Brand Takes Steps Towards Halving Chemical Footprint
May 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
US skin hygiene company, Gojo Industries, says it is focusing on removing parabens, titanium dioxide and triclosan from its products in support of its goal to reduce its chemical footprint 50% by 2020.
The company, which makes Purell hand sanitising products, announced its aim to halve its footprint in late 2015. As defined by the NGO Clean Production Action's Chemical Footprint Project (CFP), this is measured by the mass of chemicals of high concern (CoHCs) shipped in products annually.
Gojo corporate communications director, Nicole Koharik, told Chemical Watch the company is calculating its chemical footprint to include the total mass of CoHCs on the CPA list, plus other chemicals it has prioritised for having "hazardous traits".
And it has identified parabens, triclosan and titanium dioxide as the initial set of ingredients it is targeting for "significant reduction".
Ms Koharik said the company is also working through the process of prioritising additional ingredients based on hazard, functional value of the material to the formulation and evolving customer preferences.
Implementation efforts
Gojo has formed an internal sustainable chemistry implementation team to focus on the chemical footprint reduction target. This team will identify projects to help the company review potential ingredients of concern and prioritise ingredients for reduction or substitution.
So far, Ms Koharik said that the company’s efforts have focused on the reduction of ingredients rather than substitution. For example, it has removed parabens from Purell hand sanitising high capacity wipes "without trade-offs with product performance".
She added that "informed substitution" is being used to investigate ingredients that have the same safety and efficiency function with less impact on human and environmental health.
In the case of triclosan, Gojo is focused on innovating for better alternatives. This includes looking at Food And Drug Administration (FDA) monograph active ingredients, which are currently in development and will be in market later this year.
Triclosan was among 19 antibacterial active ingredients the FDA classified as not Generally Recognised as Safe and Effective (GRAS/GRAE) for use in consumer antiseptic wash products in September last year, but the ban does not apply to consumer hand sanitisers, hand wipes and antiseptic products used in healthcare and in food handler settings.
To avoid regrettable substitutions, Ms Koharik said Gojo is strengthening its internal assessment capabilities. In 2016, two staff members completed the GreenScreen Hazard Assessment course. She says they are now two of 31 authorised assessors in the US for conducting GreenScreen Assessments – a screening tool developed by the CPA that can be used to evaluate hazards presented by substances and identify safer alternatives.
NGO response
Gojo was an early signatory to the CFP, which scores companies on their chemicals management practices through a series of 20 questions. Of the 24 companies that participated in the project's survey last year, Gojo is the first to commit to reducing its chemical footprint.
CFP co-founder Mark Rossi said the commitment to halve its footprint "highlights how companies can use chemical footprinting to create a quantitative metric for assessing their use of hazardous chemicals, setting goals and measuring progress."
Gojo participated in the CFP pilot in 2014, having already established a sustainable chemistry policy in 2013 to guide its product formulation, packaging and system design.
Ms Koharik said Gojo's participation gave the company "a helpful framework to evaluate our chemical use, implement our sustainable chemistry policy ... [and] ultimately led to our ongoing work with the CFP and declaring our 2020 goal to reduce our chemical footprint by 50%."
https://chemicalwatch.com/55883/purell-sanitiser-brand-takes-steps-towards-halving-chemical-footprint
-
3K Drilling Permit Applications Await BLM Approval
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
The Bureau of Land Management is staring down the task of tackling nearly 3,000 outstanding bids to drill on public land.
BLM's backlog of applications for permit to drill (APD) landed on a leaked internal "priority work" list (Greenwire, April 10). The bureau is currently considering several strategies to cut through the logjam, said acting Director Mike Nedd.
"It may be a strike team. It may be shifting the workload to a different office," he said. "The idea is to really look around and find how best to address this backlog and where the capabilities for doing so lie."
As of April 30, BLM had 2,955 APDs pending, according to data provided by the bureau. That's down from a previous count of 3,785 pending APDs at the end of fiscal 2015.
The APD pileup is concentrated in BLM's Carlsbad, N.M., and Casper, Wyo., field offices, Nedd said. Those offices have experienced a crush of applications to develop in the San Juan Basin and Niobrara Shale — two of the areas of highest interest among industry groups, he said.
Activity also remains high in the North Dakota field office near the once-booming Bakken Shale, he added.
"I think what we're seeing is that it depends on where industry has set up their infrastructure and where their business leads are taking them," Nedd said. "Clearly, in the West, there is lots of interest."
But BLM maintains that it is staying ahead of industry demand. Despite the backlog, the bureau says it is approving APDs nearly twice as fast as companies are drilling wells.
In 2014, then-Director Neil Kornze testified that BLM was providing about two years' worth of headroom to industry. At that time, the bureau had approved nearly 7,000 APDs that were still awaiting industry action.
As of Sept. 30, 2015, the most recent set of data, that number stood at 7,532.
The glut of unused permits has puzzled the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Raúl Grijalva of Arizona last month raised the question to BLM in his request for data on the current APD backlog (E&E News PM, April 12).
"Obviously the BLM isn't responsible for individual company decisions on when to drill, but it is bewildering that the agency would prioritize approving more permits — at the inevitable expense of your environmental responsibilities — when companies have plenty and appear to be simply stockpiling them," Grijalva wrote.
But industry groups say the number of idle permits is of little relevance because — due to government inefficiencies and unpredictable pricing — companies need to collect more permits than they actually use (Greenwire, Oct. 23, 2014).
"The backlog of applications for permits to drill is still a very real issue that our member companies are facing," said Neal Kirby, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA). "Every day that goes by while independent producers — companies with an average of 12 employees — wait for their permits to be approved means more money out of their own pockets, more business uncertainty as it relates to long-term planning, and less royalties flowing back to the federal and state treasuries to help fund priorities, such as education and infrastructure projects."
IPAA has urged BLM to use every tool at its disposal to improve the permitting process.
More resources, new systems
There are a few new instruments in BLM's toolkit that could help address the backlog.
The fiscal 2015 National Defense Authorization Act created a project to direct back to seven BLM field offices a portion of the fee submitted with each APD. That new revenue stream was designed to enable the busiest offices to hire employees to help process permits in a more timely fashion.
"Utilizing this tool alone will provide BLM greater flexibility and will help improve the efficiency of the permitting process," Kirby said.
While BLM confirmed that the fee allocation is being implemented, a progress report — the first of which was due in February 2016 — is still underway.
BLM is also in the initial stages of deploying its automated fluid minerals support system to standardize APD processing.
"We began to implement that in 2016, and that's been promising, but like any computer system you implement, it takes some iterations to get it perfect," Nedd said. "We believe that's going to be a big help."
The bureau is taking stock of its field office operations to see if there are any best practices that could be translated to a broader scale, Nedd said.Finding a 'balanced approach'
Nedd said clearing the APD backlog is consistent with BLM's new aim of opening up additional lands for energy development.
"We're always looking for ways we can create an environment where all-of-the-above energy — wind, solar, oil, gas, coal — is available, and then let industry determine whether to develop," he said. "Our goal is to make certain we're creating an environment where industry can determine where is the wind, oil and coal they would like to develop, and then do it in a way that is environmentally sound and balanced."
Nedd hesitated to say that BLM would add new environmental protections over drilling, suggesting instead that safeguards would be baked into the permitting process. He said the bureau is still brainstorming ideas for improving that process in a way that will also ensure that applications don't sit too long in the queue.
"We want to make certain that when we develop with industry, we are not creating undue or unnecessary burden," Nedd said. "Again, it's that balanced approach. How do we do it in a manner that is safe and balanced?"
Whether BLM's approach translates to more drilling on federal lands depends on energy companies' thirst for new development, he said.
"I think by all accounts, industry is really saying, 'Yes, we would like to develop the resource that is available,'" he said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054641
-
Trump Eyes 70 Percent Cut to DOE’s Renewables Office
May 17, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is considering a 70 percent cut to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) renewable energy office, Axios reported on Wednesday.
The proposal, which was in a draft document Axios obtained, would come in a budget proposal Trump is due to unveil this month.
Under the plan, the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy office would get $160 million in fiscal year 2018, down from the $762 million it got for fiscal 2017 on an annualized basis.
The office conducts research, development, grants and more aimed at developing and deploying energy efficiency and renewable technology.
It has played a key role in dramatically reducing the costs of solar power, among other technologies, but some Republicans feel it is wasteful and represents favoritism for certain energy sources over others.
Axios also reported that the Trump administration wants a 31 percent cut to DOE’s nuclear energy office and 54 percent less going to its fossil fuel office.
All of the cuts would only be proposals. Congress has the final say over funding, and is likely to closely scrutinize cuts to the programs, which enjoy bipartisan support.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/333816-trump-eyes-70-percent-cut-to-does-renewables-office
-
Permian Growth Sparks More Open Seasons, Expansions in West Texas
May 17, 2017 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jeremiah Shelor
Midstream companies are working hard to keep up with the red-hot Permian Basin. A pair of open seasons for crude oil pipelines servicing the Permian's Midland sub-basin were announced this week, with together could add a combined 410,000 b/d of capacity out of the play.
Meanwhile, FERC on Monday approved the start-up of a Gaines County, TX, compressor station to add 210,000 Dth/d of additional natural gas transportation capacity to Northern Natural Gas Co.'s system, also in the Midland sub-basin.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Monday authorized Northern Natural to place its Gaines County Crossover Compressor Station Project into service. The 210,000 Dth/d expansion, approved last year, adds 18,089 hp of compression at the intersection of Northern Natural's Spraberry to Plains and Kermit to Beaver mainlines.
For crude oil, Energy Transfer Partners LP affiliates Permian Express Terminal LLC and Permian Express Partners LLC are holding a 30-day binding open season that started Tuesday for the proposed Permian Express 3 crude oil project out of West Texas, the companies announced.
Permian Express 3, which would join Energy Transfer's existing Permian Express 1 & 2 pipelines, is initially expected to offer 100,000 b/d of transportation out of the Permian Basin. The companies expect to hold future open seasons that could see the project expand to a total estimated capacity of up to 300,000 b/d.
The first phase of the project would connect producing areas in the Midland sub-basin to the Nederland, TX, market, while future phases would connect the Delaware sub-basin to multiple markets.
Permian Express 3 is scheduled for service beginning 4Q2017. Interested shippers should contact Energy Transfer’s Chris Martin, senior director of business development at (281) 637-6548.
Also on Tuesday, Medallion Midstream LLC subsidiary Medallion Pipeline Co. LLC launched a binding open season for a proposed expansion to its Midland sub-basin crude oil pipeline system.
The two-part expansion would see the Irving, TX-based Medallion double the capacity of its existing Wolfcamp Connector via a 16-inch diameter partial loop in the West Texas counties of Howard, Glasscock, Mitchell and Scurry to 200,000 b/d from 105,000 b/d. The expansion is to run 47 miles from the existing Howard-Wolfcamp Interconnect to the Colorado City Hub to interconnect with third-party carriers, Medallion said.
The second part of the expansion would increase capacity on Medallion's existing Howard Lateral in Glasscock and Howard counties, adding pumping horsepower to increase throughput on the line to 85,000 b/d from 60,000 b/d.
The open season on the Medallion expansions runs through June 9. Interested shippers may contact Medallion's Paige Snider at (972) 746-4401.
The potential for infrastructure constraints to affect the red-hot Permian was a major topic of discussion at last month's Independent Petroleum Association of America's Oil & Gas Investment Symposium in New York City. Management teams assured attendees during that event that the industry was on track to keep up with growth from the West Texas play at least through 2019.
These latest expansions come after Epic Pipeline Co. announced plans to construct a 730-mile 440,000 b/d crude and condensate pipeline from the Permian to Corpus Christi, TX. Phillips 66 also recently launched an open season for a 130,000 b/d crude pipeline originating in the West Texas counties of Reeves, Loving, Winkler and Odessa, with a tentative startup in the second half of 2018.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/110489-permian-growth-sparks-more-open-seasons-expansions-in-west-texas
-
Colo. Family Near Home Explosion Sues Oil Companies
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
The first lawsuit has been filed in connection with an explosion that destroyed a home in Firestone, Colo., last month, and more legal action could be coming.
The suit was filed Monday in Weld County by Jeffrey and Karla Baum, who live near the site of the explosion in the Oak Meadows subdivision. It names the subdivision's developers and two oil producers with operations in the area, Anadarko Petroleum Corp. and Noble Energy Inc., and says they haven't done enough to ensure that homes in the area were safe from migrating gas.
"We're being contacted every day by more folks that are very concerned and very upset with the lack of information and the lack of confirmation in some cases that there's nothing under their home," said Jon Boesen, an attorney for the Baum family.
"It's that whole Oak Meadows subdivision — there's a lot of folks there and, yes, we're going to have more plaintiffs and, yes, we anticipate more suits."
The Oak Meadows subdivision, about 35 miles northeast of Denver, was built on the edge of an old natural gas field that was developed in the 1990s.
Investigators from the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District determined that a pipeline was cut off underground near the site of the incident and left uncapped and connected to a gas well 178 feet from the home. Gas migrated from the severed pipeline into the home's basement through a French drain and sump pump, and exploded on April 17 (Energywire, May 3).
The blast killed Mark Martinez and his brother-in-law, Joey Irwin, and severely injured Martinez's wife, Erin.
The incident came after years of tension about homes and oil development in eastern Colorado, and exposed flaws in the state and local regulatory systems. Low-pressure flow lines like the one involved in the Firestone explosion are only regulated in a handful of states, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) doesn't have accurate maps of the lines (Energywire, May 16).
Also, the COGCC requires a 500-foot buffer between newly drilled wells and surrounding homes, but leaves it up to local communities to set the distance between new homes and existing wells. The town of Firestone requires only 150 feet between new homes and older wells.
The Baum family witnessed the explosion and are concerned about the potential for a similar incident at their home, along with the loss of property value and other nuisances.
"Plaintiffs cannot be assured that another home, including the Residence, may not explode suddenly, unexpectedly and with a catastrophic result as occurred at the Explosion Site," the suit says.
The well was drilled in 1993 and has been operated by four different companies, according to the COGCC. Anadarko, based in Houston, acquired it from Noble in 2014.
Anadarko declined to comment on the specifics of the suit, although "we recognize the concerns regarding property values," spokesman John Christiansen said in an email.
Other defendants could be added to the lawsuit depending on the results of ongoing investigations by the Firestone police, the National Transportation Safety Board, state oil regulators and other agencies, Boesen said.
Important questions, such as who cut the pipeline and when, haven't been determined. In the meantime, Anadarko has shut down 3,000 similar, older wells for safety tests, and the COGCC has ordered operators throughout the state to check their pipelines for leaks.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054646
-
Murkowski: DOE Loan Program Needs Reform, Not Elimination
May 17, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
Sen. Lisa Murkowski said President Donald Trump should not try to eliminate the Energy Department’s loan program, and suggested that Energy Secretary Rick Perry agreed with her.
The Alaska Republican said she had not spoken to Perry about the program since Trump released his fiscal 2018 “skinny” budget, which called for killing DOE’s loan program office, a lightning rod of controversy for most GOP lawmakers and conservatives. But Murkowski recalled a conversation with Perry before his confirmation hearing that made her believe they were on the same side.
There is, she said, “a recognition that there is value to the loan guarantee program and how we make it work as it was initially designed is important, and he concurred.”
Murkowski, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has said she plans to call Perry to testify soon on the administration's full fiscal 2018 budget request, which is expected to be released next week.
The loan program, created under President George W. Bush, is worth keeping, she said.
“The loan guarantee [program] needs to be reformed,” she told reporters after speaking at an event hosted by the American Council for Capital Formation and the ClearPath Foundation. “I don’t think it needs to be gutted.”
While the loan program predates the Obama administration, Congress created a temporary component to the program as part of the 2009 stimulus law, which backed a number of renewable energy projects that eventually failed, garnering GOP attacks.
WHAT’S NEXT: Trump’s full budget is expected to roll out next week, with congressional hearings to follow as lawmakers begin writing next year's spending bills.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Lawsuit Seeking Facility Data May Bolster Push to Preserve EPA RMP Rule
May 17, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and labor groups are urging a federal court in New Jersey to compel state and local officials to publicly disclose industrial facility emergency response plans (ERPs) in a lawsuit industry attorneys say highlights the need for the Trump EPA's plan to revise an Obama administration facility safety rule though it could bolster efforts to preserve the rule.
In the case, New Jersey Work Environment Council (NJWEC) et al. v. State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), plaintiffs are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to declare public officials have violated Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requirements to disclose facility data.
In the suit, plaintiffs argue that the SERC in New Jersey and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) in Linden, NJ, which is home to at least two industrial facilities, as well as the majority of other LEPCs in the state, have failed to publicly disclose facility ERPs, as required under EPCRA. The City of Linden is also a defendant in the case.
ERPs include transportation routes of extremely hazardous substances, emergency response procedures, an outline of evacuation plans and other data, according to EPA's website.
"Plaintiffs have made numerous requests to the City of Linden and its LEPC for public access to the ERP and for other materials required under EPCRA," the advocates' lawsuit says. "All such requests have been refused."
The lawsuit comes as EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is planning a process for reconsideration of the Obama EPA's Jan. 13 final rule overhauling the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program after granting an industry petition for review of the rule. The Obama EPA rule adds new requirements for hazard analysis, independent audits, and bolsters disclosure of facility data to LEPCs and the public.
To allow for reconsideration, Pruitt has proposed delaying the rule's effective date nearly two years until February 2019. EPA is seeking comment on the delay through May 19.
Industry attorneys say the NJWEC lawsuit highlights the need for revising the rule to bolster protections for facility data that they argue could paint a target on industrial facilities if released publicly. And one of the attorneys says advocates who filed the lawsuit are likely seeking to bolster their hand in lobbying Pruitt to implement RMP rule provisions for disclosure of facility data, and that the case could potentially tee up a lawsuit against EPA seeking to block Pruitt's delay of the rule.
"You don't file a lawsuit just to get a hold of papers -- there's something you want to do with those papers," the source says, suggesting one possible reason for the suit. Noting that EPCRA was enacted in 1986, the source adds that the timing of the lawsuit suggests advocates are targeting the current industry push to scale back the Obama era rule.
Potential Ruling
The attorney says the current case would not directly affect the EPA rule, but that a judge's ruling that the public has been harmed by a lack of disclosure could be fodder in either pressing the Trump administration to retain the RMP rule's disclosure provisions or for a subsequent lawsuit seeking to block EPA from delaying implementation.
"This is teeing up some kind of lawsuit against the EPA" seeking to press implementation of the rule's disclosure provisions, the source says, suggesting one possible legal strategy behind the advocates' lawsuit.
A second attorney, Eric Conn, of the firm Conn Maciel Carey, says that the plaintiffs' lawsuit seeking to force disclosure validates industry and Trump administration concerns that the Obama administration failed to adequately protect facility data.
"The last iteration of the RMP rule did not do enough to balance the interest in protecting information" that could pose a security risk if released, Conn said. The lawsuit "highlights the need to take a harder look at the rule."
Security concerns raised by the prospect of disclosure of facility data to the general public -- either directly, or through release to LEPCs -- has been a driving factor behind industry's successful push for the Trump EPA to delay and possibly revise the RMP rule.
Pruitt March 29 proposed delaying the effective date of Obama EPA's RMP rule by an additional 20 months -- from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 -- to allow time for a process to reconsider the rule. Pruitt's delay and process for reconsideration responds to separate petitions filed by coalitions of industry trade groups and 10 Republican attorneys general (AG).
During his tenure as Oklahoma's AG, Pruitt was the lead signature on a July letter from Republican AGs to the Obama administration, arguing that provisions requiring disclosure of facility data in the then proposed rule risked worsening terror threats.
During an April 19 public hearing on EPA's proposed delay, an official with the Coalition to Prevent Chemical Disasters -- of which NJWEC is a member -- argued that companies' claims that the RMP rule's disclosure provisions threaten facility security are "not credible," given that the facility data is already publicly available under EPRCA.
Instead, the official argued that the Obama EPA's RMP rule simply streamlines release of the data.
Also at the hearing, Timothy Gablehouse, of the National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials, which represents LEPCs, urged the Trump EPA not to delay implementation of a pair of provisions that generally require that facilities coordinate with local emergency planners and share data with those groups upon request.
Gablehouse argued that the provision for releasing data to LEPCs would not cause disclosure to the general public as industry has feared.
"We're very mindful of a lot of the concerns raised by industry" Gablehouse said, adding that EPCRA already requires facilities to provide data to first responders on request. "That information is generally restricted from further disclosure," he added, noting that LEPCs would treat data shared under RMP with similar discretion.
RMP Update
EPA's RMP update sought to implement President Barack Obama's 2013 Executive Order 13650 issued in response to an explosion at a fertilizer plant in West, TX, that killed 15 people, including first responders. While the explosion triggered EPA's overhaul of its RMP accident prevention program, investigators later said arson caused the fire that led to the explosion.
While the NJWEC lawsuit argues that the City of Linden's LEPC has failed to comply with EPCRA's public access requirements, the group also argues that such non-disclosure is a problem throughout the state.
NJWEC says that the group's 2014 survey of LEPCs found that 68 percent of municipal and county LEPCs failed to provide any form of public access to ERPs. After the survey, the group pressed state officials for greater public access under EPCRA, which prompted the New Jersey SERC to train local and county officials on EPCRA requirements.
But the NJWEC lawsuit says a subsequent survey found that 58 percent of New Jersey municipalities, including Linden, and 84 percent of counties in the state denied public access to ERPs.
"It is thus clear that without appropriate judicial intervention, the SERC's failure to take effective action to assure compliance with EPCRA's requirements for public access, including but not limited to the failure of the City of Linden's LEPC to provide the requisite public access, will continue indefinitely into the future," the lawsuit says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lawsuit-seeking-facility-data-may-bolster-push-preserve-epa-rmp-rule
-
Cyber Audits Show Compliance Is Up, But So Is Complacency
May 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Peter Behr
Confidential audits of cybersecurity practices in part of the eastern U.S. transmission grid last year show a decline in violations of mandatory federal cyber rules, industry auditors report. But they also see a concerning increase in complacency about threats among some grid operators.
"The bottom line, I think we're seeing a maturation, seeing the [power] companies getting stronger in understanding the emerging threats and implementing programs to meet those challenges," said Jason Blake, vice president and general counsel of ReliabilityFirst Corp. (RF).
RF is an Independence, Ohio-based grid security monitor that assesses compliance with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Standards in 13 Mid-Atlantic and eastern Great Lakes states and Washington, D.C.
He added, "It's still developing. We don't want to open up the champagne too soon."
A briefing last month by RF staff provided a rare look inside the power industry's compliance with the voluminous FERC cybersecurity rules.
The number of self-reported violations — those the utilities voluntarily disclosed — increased from 108 to 153, and violations found by auditors increased from 12 to 32. But that was balanced by the fact that the audits were checking on a complex new set of cyber regulations, the fifth version of CIP rules, Blake said.
A second benchmark, the number of days that a violation was occurring before companies reported it or auditors discovered it, dropped by half, to 104 days, from 221 days. The number of "severe" CIP violations in the 2016 audit, which totaled 19 in 2012, fell to zero last year, RF said.
The CIP audit process is tightly shielded to protect identities of power companies where serious vulnerabilities are found. RF and other monitors report violations to FERC, which may assess fines of up to $1 million per day per violation in severe cases. FERC assessed a $1.1 million fine against an unnamed West Coast utility last year for a series of violations, for example. Two "outlier" power companies were responsible for 92 of 117 audit violations in RF's footprint in 2014, it said.
FERC turned down several requests last year to discuss the audit process with E&E News. Under a rules-setting regime enacted by Congress after the 2003 Northeast blackout, the industry-based North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) is designated by FERC to write cyber rules for specific threats and issues, which FERC can approve or remand. NERC delegates the auditing to RF and seven other regional organizations of grid professionals. In its case, RF oversees 230 transmission companies, generators and regional control organizations.
The CIP rules are unique in the U.S. critical infrastructure sector domain. While the nation's nuclear plants operate under a tight set of cyber standards enforced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the CIP standards are the only mandatory cyber regulations in place across vital industries like oil and gas, telecommunications, and finance.
And they fuel a debate about whether their specificity is a model that other critical infrastructure sectors should follow to document the strength of cyberdefenses, or shun to avoid consuming companies' time and attention on too many lower priority threats.
Compliance does not 'equal security'
A slide presentation by RF Enforcement Director Deandra Williams-Lewis and senior counsel Kristen Senk, at last month's conference, said improvement in the violations scorecard could be due to increased experience in applying the CIP rules, more active monitoring and enforcement, and more training and outreach within the sector.
The RF officials cautioned that compliance with the CIP checklist does not "equal security" and said that the number of reported violations can have an ambiguous meaning. High numbers could either show that detection is strong, or prevention and correction are weak.
RF cited five issues that undermined cybersecurity compliance, including management "silos" that block consistent defense approaches, inadequate threat management tools such as an overreliance on automated threat identification and a basic lack of awareness of threats.
As an example of the silo issue, RF said that a utility's human resources department may be the only unit that documents when someone's employment terminates. If HR is not linked effectively in the cyberdefense process, that person's access to critical systems may not be ended at the same time.
RF said in 2015 that it has seen power companies purchase sophisticated cybersecurity tools but fail to adapt them properly to their unique systems. Many companies use tools to detect unauthorized access to their systems to satisfy a CIP requirement. But if not set up precisely, the tools may produce huge reports "that are impossible to digest in a meaningful way." The tools need to be "tuned" to highlight potential threats, RF said.
"Complacency" was added to the list after the 2016 audit.
"It's less a theme than it is an emerging issue to keep an eye on, a caution," Blake said. "The nature of these standards is that they are governing a technology that is moving quickly, so you must remain vigilant."
Blake gave an example of a company that thought it had a defense process down pat, then rechecked and found it didn't. "The point is, it's a never-ending battle. A big focus is making sure companies understand that," Blake said.
Can CIP work?
Tom Alrich, senior manager for cyber risk services at Deloitte Advisory, challenges the ability of the cumbersome CIP rule-writing process to keep up with the constantly morphing attack strategies. Alrich's regular blogs on CIP reflect his views, not Deloitte's, he says.
"Unfortunately, I wouldn't say there is any correlation between CIP violations and the degree of cybersecurity," he said in an interview. "The fact that reported violations are low could even mean that operators don't understand the requirements enough to self-report violations and are therefore less secure."
For example, one rule, CIP-007 R2, requires regulated organizations to identify all the software systems and versions in their security perimeters and then, every 35 days, to check whether software vendors have issued "patches" to close gaps before cyber intruders can break in, Alrich said. A breakdown in patch management was the core issue in last week's global ransomware attack.
"Maybe it's a vendor that hasn't issued a security patch in 20 years, they still have to check," he said. "Then they have another 35 days to either apply the patch or develop a mitigation plan to address the vulnerability while they're waiting to apply the patch. Then they have to implement the mitigation plan, and document that it is still in force, until they can finally apply the patch.
"If companies are devoting so much time and money to this, they will almost inevitably have to shortchange other cyberthreats that could be more important, like preventing phishing attacks," he said. "Think of a major recent cyberattack that didn't start with phishing — it's hard to think of one. Yet it's not mentioned in CIP at all.
"If you think of how a utility allocates its cybersecurity budget, what will it spend money on first? The issues that are covered by CIP, that could in theory lead to $1 million a day penalties from FERC," he said. "So my biggest complaint about CIP is that it results in overspending on the particular threats addressed by CIP, and underspending on other cyberthreats of equal or greater importance."
Another rule, CIP 007 R3, is an example of what the process should demand, Alrich said. "It sets an objective: stopping malware from penetrating a designated system," he said. "There may be a number of methods of doing that; the entity chooses the one that makes the most sense. The auditor's task, then, is to determine whether the entity's method was an effective one."
Audits are necessary, Alrich added.
RF agrees: "Although compliance alone does not guarantee secure operations, an entity's failure to maintain baseline CIP compliance may be indicative of an entity struggling to ensure the security of its system."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054643
-
Thousands Call on Pruitt to Keep Regulations in Place
May 17, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
Thousands of Americans made personal appeals to U.S. EPA as Administrator Scott Pruitt and his staff consider whether the agency should loosen or get rid of environmental regulations.
This week marked the end of a public comment period during which EPA solicited opinions on what regulations people would like to see modified or removed entirely. EPA is beginning the process of reviewing rules, starting with the Clean Power Plan and methane controls on the oil and gas industry, as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to roll back regulations.
The agency received more than 57,000 comments, with most admonishing the administration to leave environmental regulations alone. While environmental groups and industry representatives were among the commenters' ranks, thousands of comments came from people writing as individuals.
"In my professional and expert opinion, reduced funding for the EPA will be detrimental to human health and will irreversibly damage our ecosystems," wrote Benjamin Kraushaar, who described himself as "hydrologist, hunter and flyfisherman" who has studied the effects of climate change on alpine lakes.
"The EPA saves lives and we need environmental regulations to ensure safe air and water for our future generations. This should not be even up for debate," he wrote.
Thousands of people offered up comments anonymously. People told personal tales of pollution's impact on their lives to highlight the importance of the agency's work. Los Angeles' pollution in the middle of the 20th century came up again and again.
One person simply typed the word "no" enough times to fill up a page. Another referred to the sensation of having "smog throat" during the summer months in Los Angeles and the San Fernando Valley in the 1960s and 1970s.
"I was so sick from air pollution as a child my family had to move out of the Los Angeles Area," said a different anonymous writer. "My eyes itched and watered constantly and I struggled to breath on the worst days. ... Let us not sacrifice our quality of life as a Americans for the benefit of the wealthy few."
Others urged Pruitt to think of the impact on future generations.
"I would like there to be some semblance of a healthy world around for when my teenaged kids have their own children. Thank you!" one anonymous commenter wrote.
Michael Villalobos, who described himself as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California, said he is worried about public health.
"[T]here are many children and adults diagnosed with asthma due to poor air quality, so rolling back regulations will only increase asthma diagnosis' when regulations on greenhouse gas emissions become loosened," he wrote.
Julie Czarnecki of Rochester Hills, Mich., called the plan to roll back regulations "the latest non-sensical idea that has come out of this morally bankrupt administration."
"Why would we not want to provide a future with clean air and water. There is no Planet Earth 'B,'" she said.
Commenters also pointed to Pruitt's own record as a reason to distrust deregulatory efforts at EPA. The former Oklahoma attorney general made a name for himself over the last several years while waging legal battles against regulations on pollutants ranging from smog and mercury to methane. In all, Pruitt participated in over a dozen lawsuits against the agency.
"Dear Secretary Pruitt and President Trump and the Republican Party: Your continued attempts to neuter and dismantle the EPA show a dangerous disregard for science and this country's health," wrote Mark Willis of Maryland. "You have declared yourselves an enemy of this country's well being. History will not look back kindly on you.
"Consider your legacy, and desist from this pathological behavior," he wrote.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/05/17/stories/1060054670
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested