Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 14/06/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Building Code Fight Draws Renewed Interest
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The perennial dispute over energy efficiency standards for buildings continues to simmer, with proponents reiterating their support for Senate language that has been floating around for several years. -
(ACC Mentioned) WWF Launches Platform for Sustainable Materials Management
Jun 14, 2017 | Waste 360
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has launched the Cascading Materials Vision, a platform that seeks to enable a global system of efficient materials management, creating markets that better the reuse of materials to reduce waste. -
5 Key Features Of Impending TSCA Inventory 'Reset' Rule
Jun 14, 2017 | Law 360
By Lawrence Culleen and Eric Rey
In short order, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final regulation to which all manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances should pay close attention. Failing to do so could adversely affect numerous businesses that over the years probably have not worried too much about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). -
(ACC Mentioned) Canada: MDIs In DIY Products Are Risk To Respiratory Health
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has confirmed a preliminary conclusion that five methylenediphenyl diisocyanates (MDIs) found in consumer products represent an unacceptable risk to human health. -
(ACC Mentioned) Glyphosate Carcinogen Report
Jun 14, 2017 | Horticulture Week
By Matthew Appleby
American research not considered by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), could change it's conclusion that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic" according to the American Chemical Council. -
Cancer Agency Left In The Dark Over Glyphosate Evidence
Jun 14, 2017 | Reuters
By Kate Kelland
When Aaron Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France in March 2015, there was something he wasn’t telling them. -
US Agency Releases Draft Toxicological Profiles
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released draft toxicological profiles for four substances for public comment. -
US Agencies Seek Information For Crumb Rubber Studies
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Two US agencies are requesting authorisation to complete information collection activities in order to support its investigation of crumb rubber infill. -
Costco Starting To Take Stock of Toxic Chemicals
Jun 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Laurie Valeriano and Mike Schade
Costco members got some welcome news this month about its “Smart Screening” program to address toxic chemicals in some of the products the company sells. -
(ACC Mentioned) Anthony Hilton: US Shale Revolution Makes Fracking A Must For UK Industry
Jun 14, 2017 | Evening Standard
By Anthony Hilton
Ineos is one of Britain’s leading chemicals companies with $55 billion (£43 billion) of assets, 18,600 employees and 105 manufacturing plants in 22 countries making it one of the giants of Europe. -
LNG Trade To Drive Global Price Convergence By 2035 — BP
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Analysts have long speculated on the potential for new U.S. shale gas supplies that buck traditional contract provisions to dramatically reshape global markets for the fuel. Now BP PLC is saying it expects this vision to unfold over the next two decades. -
Tillerson: U.S. Lobbying Europe To Choose U.S. Gas Over Russian Pipeline
Jun 13, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The U.S. is urging the European Union to reject a new Russian natural gas pipeline in favor of U.S. liquefied natural gas supplies, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Senate appropriators today. -
Inhofe, Mullin Praise EPA Safety Regs Delay
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Two Republican Oklahoma lawmakers, Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, yesterday praised U.S. EPA's nearly two-year delay of chemical safety regulations. -
Grid Operators Brace For Dual Cyberthreats To Infrastructure
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Back-to-back cybersecurity warnings from U.S. officials have put grid operators on high alert this week. -
Calif. Refinery Spews 74,000 Pounds Of SO2 In Power Outage
Jun 14, 2017 | KQED (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ted Goldberg
A refinery in Benicia, Calif., released 74,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide over 14 days after a May power outage, according to a report filed with the state. -
Judge: Tesoro Won’t Have To Pay $2.4M In Fines For Deadly Refinery Blast
Jun 14, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
A judge in Washington state has thrown out $2.4 million in fines that were issued against Tesoro Corp after a 2010 blast killed seven workers at one of the company’s refineries. -
On Anniversary of Train Derailment, Groups Call For Transparency, Legislation On Crude Oil In Baltimore
Jun 14, 2017 | The Baltimore Sun
By Colin Campbell
Taylor Smith-Hams was living near the Mount Royal Station in Bolton Hill a year ago when her phone lit up one morning with messages from friends and family. -
EPA Announces 2-Year Stay For Emissions Rule
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration wants a two-year stay of key requirements of U.S. EPA's regulations to limit methane emissions from new and substantially modified sources in the oil and natural gas sector. -
It's Real! But Climate Researchers Have Lots Of Questions
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The basic parameters of climate science are not under debate, but there is plenty of uncertainty in the field. -
Brown Named Special Envoy To U.N. Climate Talks
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will serve as a special representative to the U.N. climate talks this fall to highlight the role of states in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials announced yesterday. -
Former EPA Official McCabe Talks Trump Moves On Budget, Power Plan, Ozone And Paris
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E TV
By Monica Trauzzi
As the Trump administration takes steps to undo Obama-era climate and energy policies, how are ex-Obama officials working to influence the policy discussion from outside Washington?
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Building Code Fight Draws Renewed Interest
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
The perennial dispute over energy efficiency standards for buildings continues to simmer, with proponents reiterating their support for Senate language that has been floating around for several years.
In a letter sent yesterday to the leaders of the House Energy and Commerce and Senate Energy and Natural Resources committees, a coalition of industry and professional associations back the building code provisions in comprehensive efficiency legislation (S. 385) authored by Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), as well as a House companion (H.R. 1443) sponsored by Reps. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
"As groups representing the manufacturing, building design and construction, and the millions of jobs within those sectors, we strongly support the important role that consensus-based model energy building codes play at the state level in assisting the adoption of efficiency technologies for homes and commercial buildings," wrote the American Chemistry Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Institute of Architects and 18 other groups yesterday.
The provisions in the bills "strengthen national model codes that are already certified, adopted and in-use by 44 states and several localities around the U.S.," making the largest consuming sources of energy more efficient, while ensuring that stakeholders have a say in the standard-setting process.
The Shaheen-Portman provisions were part of a broader energy package that passed the Senate last year but died in the closing days of the 114th Congress after formal conference committee talks collapsed. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and ranking member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) have vowed to resurrect the measure and try again this Congress.
A competing bipartisan measure that was included in the House's energy package last year has already been reintroduced, setting up the familiar showdown. The bill (H.R. 2361), sponsored by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), would have required the Energy Department to employ a "simple payback" period of 10 years, as well as other technical requirements, in setting building codes.
Its supporters, including the National Association of Home Builders and American Gas Association, flagged their support for the bill last month (E&E News PM, May 5).
-
(ACC Mentioned) WWF Launches Platform for Sustainable Materials Management
Jun 14, 2017 | Waste 360
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has launched the Cascading Materials Vision, a platform that seeks to enable a global system of efficient materials management, creating markets that better the reuse of materials to reduce waste.
The Cascading Materials Vision convenes the industry and other stakeholders to help every business and industry source secondary materials to protect their profits, the environment and the future wealth of natural resources.
“We can quite literally do more with less simply by using materials more than once. With clear interest and willingness from the industry to embrace this concept, WWF saw an incredible and imperative need to act, said WWF Deputy Director of Packaging and Material Science Erin Simon in a statement. “By bringing stakeholders together onto one cohesive platform, the Cascading Materials Vision will help reduce the burden on our natural systems and enable creation of the global markets needed to make quality secondary materials accessible and reliable.”
In addition, the Cascading Materials Vision strives to engage stakeholders across both private and public sectors to minimize such barriers. Businesses and organizations that have already signed on include the American Chemistry Council, AMERIPEN, Ball Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, European Bioplastic Association, Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., The Materials Leadership Council, McCormick, McDonald’s, Nestlé, Ocean Conservancy, Pathway21, The Recycling Partnership, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. and Target.
These businesses and organizations have agreed to abide by a set of guiding principles for decision-making that align materials management practices, allowing for greater collaboration across the industry and create easier sourcing of secondary materials. These principles range from systems thinking to evaluating environmental impact to implementing solutions that work for today but can adapt to the future. By aligning with stakeholders and collaborators, WWF hopes to use this framework to influence relevant sectors toward achievable, sustainable and inclusive solutions that address the systemic issues that prevent creation, trade and use of secondary materials.
“We are inspired by the number of companies that have already spoken up about the need for a global market of secondary materials,” said Simon in a statement. “With some of the world’s largest and leading companies already committed to the Cascading Materials Vision, we’re confident that this platform will create the catalyst needed to jumpstart the secondary materials market, protect our natural resources and meet the production demands of our growing population.”
http://www.waste360.com/waste-reduction/wwf-launches-platform-sustainable-materials-management
-
5 Key Features Of Impending TSCA Inventory 'Reset' Rule
Jun 14, 2017 | Law 360
By Lawrence Culleen and Eric Rey
In short order, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final regulation to which all manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances should pay close attention. Failing to do so could adversely affect numerous businesses that over the years probably have not worried too much about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The TSCA requires the EPA to compile and maintain a list (the inventory) of chemical substances manufactured, imported or processed in the United States. The initial inventory was first compiled in 1979. In 2016, Congress amended the TSCA to, among other things, require the EPA to (1) designate chemical substances on the inventory as either “active” or “inactive” in U.S. commerce; and (2) issue a final regulation by June 22, 2017, establishing the process by which manufacturers, importers and processors must provide the EPA the information needed to update the inventory in this manner (TSCA inventory reset rule). On Jan. 13, 2017, the EPA published its proposed inventory reset rule for comment.[1]
The proposed TSCA inventory reset rule imposes two new reporting requirements on the regulated community, including not just chemical manufacturers, but also companies that only purchase and use chemical substances to blend or formulate other products that are distributed in U.S. commerce. First, the rule will require “retrospective” reporting to confirm which substances have been “active” in U.S. commerce at any time between June 21, 2006, and June 21, 2016, (the look-back period). Active substances include not only chemicals that have been manufactured in (or imported to) the U.S. during that period, but also substances that were processed in the U.S. at any time during that 10-year period. Such substances, once properly reported, will be placed on the “active” portion of the Inventory.
Second, for any substance that is not on the active portion of the inventory, the rule requires entities to provide “forward-looking” reports of the commencement of manufacturing or processing of chemical substances that are on the “inactive” portion of the inventory. If a chemical is placed on the “inactive” portion of inventory, the continued manufacture (including import) or processing of the chemical in the United States for a nonexempt commercial purpose would be unlawful, unless a “forward-looking” report is provided to the EPA no more than 30 days before of resumption of manufacturing (including importing) or processing of the substance.[2]
If the EPA follows the same practice it established with the proposed rule, it is possible the EPA will not send the final inventory reset regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for prepublication review. Thus, entities that will have reporting obligations under the final rule should assume the agency intends to meet the June 22 deadline. Moreover, it is anticipated that the final version of the TSCA inventory reset rule will largely mirror the proposed version the EPA issued in January and so the regulated community would be well served to begin planning compliance with the new rule. While we await publication of the final TSCA inventory reset rule, here are five key features of the rule that businesses should be aware of, and related practical tips to facilitate and expedite compliance with the final TSCA rule.
1. Not All Chemical Substances Will Require Retrospective Reporting for the Look-Back Period
The EPA will prepare an “interim list” of “active” substances compiled based on reports it received during the 2012 and 2016 chemical data reporting (CDR) rounds (as supplemented by substances added to the inventory during the period June 2016 to June 2017); provided, such substances are already on the nonconfidential portion of the inventory (i.e., the specific chemical identity is publicly available). Therefore, entities need not report chemical substances for which it or any other entity submitted 2012 or 2016 CDR reports and where the substance’s specific chemical identity was not claimed as confidential. The EPA’s databases of 2012 CDR reports can be accessed here and the EPA’s information on the 2016 CDR reports can be accessed here.
In addition, chemical substances that were manufactured or imported pursuant to certain TSCA premanufacture notice (PMN) exemptions (e.g., naturally occurring substances, research and development substances, and exempt polymers that are not identified on the inventory) are not subject to retrospective reporting.
Tip: To avoid overreporting and to save administrative resources during the reporting phases, businesses that manufacture and process chemicals in the U.S., even those that have historically asserted confidentiality claims for all or some of the information they have submitted, should check now whether the substances they consider active were reported for CDR purposes in 2012 or 2016 by any entity in a nonconfidential fashion.
2. Substantiating Claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI) Will Be Required
The “retrospective” reports will require reporting: (1) chemical identity; (2) type of commercial activity (e.g., manufacture, import, processing); (3) date range for such activity during the look-back period; and (4) whether the submitter seeks to continue a claim from protection against disclosure of a confidential chemical identity, if applicable.[3] Entities that claim CBI status for (and thereby seek to prevent the public disclosure of) any of this information other than the specific chemical identity must substantiate (i.e., justify) their CBI claims at the time of submitting the report. The 2016 amendments to the TSCA changed what types of information are eligible for being considered CBI (and those that are not) and have required increased EPA scrutiny of CBI claims in general and those claims for specific chemical identity in particular. Businesses should familiarize themselves with the new TSCA CBI paradigm.
Tip: Keep CBI claims for chemical identities to a minimum. For CBI claims for the specific identity of a reported chemical substance, entities may elect whether to substantiate such claims at the time of submitting the “retrospective” report or after the EPA issues its forthcoming regulations on substantiating chemical identity CBI claims. Entities may find that it would be more efficient to substantiate all confidentiality claims, including those pertaining to specific chemical identity, at the time of submitting the “retrospective” reports. However, asserting the fewest possible claims will reduce administrative burdens.
3. Retrospective Reporting Required for Low-Volume Substances Exempt from CDR Reporting
An entity who did not have to submit a report during the 2016 and 2012 CDR reporting cycles for a substance that was manufactured or imported at a volume less than 25,000 pounds per year may find that the substance is not automatically added to the EPA’s interim list of “active” substances as a result. In this case, even though no CDR reports were required for the substance during the 2012 and 2016 reporting cycles, the entity would need to file a “retrospective” report for the substance under the TSCA inventory reset rule.
Tip: Businesses should review now the records they collected when determining how to comply with previous CDR reporting cycles. (The CDR regulation requires such records be retained for five years.)[4] This review should include not only the list of chemicals reported, but also any substances that were not reported on the basis of not meeting the volumetric triggers for CDR reporting. If those substances do not already appear on the public list of substances reported by other entities during the 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting cycles, they will need to be reported as “active” in the retrospective reporting period.
4. Potential to Inadvertently File Information Inconsistent with Previously Submitted TSCA Information
The EPA’s capacity to review and scrutinize information submitted for TSCA (and other) purposes has increased recently, including through mandating electronic submissions (as is the case under the reset rule and recent CDR reports, for example). Such scrutiny can reveal inadvertent but potentially costly violations of TSCA reporting regulations.
Tip: Entities subject to the TSCA inventory reset rule could save themselves potential headaches by compiling, reviewing and comparing their prior TSCA submissions prior to submitting their “retrospective” reports. Such submissions not only contain much of the information needed to complete the “retrospective” reports (and therefore this may be the most efficient way to begin compiling the necessary information for these reports), but reviewing such submissions would also decrease the chance of providing information in any “retrospective” “active substance” reports that is inconsistent with what was previously provided to the EPA.
For example, one could imagine a scenario where if the “retrospective” report was based on employee recollection alone, the report might contain an earlier date range for manufacturing the same substance than the company provided in its notice of commencement following up on its initial premanufacture notice (PMN) submitted for the substance. Even seemingly small inconsistencies could raise the specter of significant penalties. The 2016 amendments to the TSCA have brought the level of potential penalties for civil violations of TSCA in the range of $38,000 per day per violation.
5. Many Challenges Facing Processors
Processors generally are not used to filing reports for the TSCA; but the failure to identify an important raw material as an active substance can lead to compliance issues and supply chain interruptions.
While manufacturers and importers must submit their “retrospective” reports within 180 days of the effective date of the final TSCA inventory reset rule, processors will have 360 days to submit their retrospective reports. This extended time is intended to allow processors the opportunity to review the interim list and any updates to determine whether their suppliers have already notified the EPA during the first 180-day retrospective reporting period. If a processor does not identify all of the materials it uses in the production of products it distributes in commerce on the interim list, the processor itself should file the “retrospective” report necessary to specify an inventory listed substance for an “active” designation. If a processor fails to do so and the substance remains on the “inactive” portion of the inventory, the processor’s continued processing of the substance could be unlawful.
Hopefully, for most processors, this will not be an issue because another entity (including their supplier) will file the necessary “retrospective” reports. However, some processors may find it difficult to determine whether the raw material on which they rely are on the “active” portion of the TSCA inventory (e.g., if the manufacturer or importer who is their supplier has asserted a CBI claim for the specific chemical identity). Processors should not be hesitant to file “protective” retrospective reports just to have certainty that commercially important substances are on the “active” portion of the inventory. It is also possible that the processors themselves do not know the confidential chemical identity of all substances in a formulation (mixture) they receive from a supplier. In such cases the proposed TSCA inventory reset rule would allow for joint (coordinated) submissions to the EPA from the supplier and the processor.[5]
Tip: To mitigate these challenges, processors would be well served to begin to determine the extent to which they do not have specific chemical identity information for the various substances they acquire and use and to communicate now with their suppliers to seek assurances their suppliers will either supply that information to them or will perform the necessary retrospective reporting (and advise them when this has been accomplished).
Conclusion
The EPA’s forthcoming final version of the TSCA inventory reset rule will require manufacturers, importers and processors to submit numerous “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reports. By taking the steps recommended above, they can avoid potential pitfalls while following a careful and reasoned approach to providing “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reports. Taking these recommended steps early will reduce the burdens of complying with the final TSCA inventory reset rule.
5 Key Features Of Impending TSCA Inventory 'Reset' RuleBy Lawrence Culleen and Eric ReyJune 14, 2017, 10:49 AM EDT" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); vertical-align: top; margin: 5px 8px 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; background: transparent; width: 120px;">Lawrence Culleen" style="border-width: 1px; border-style: solid; border-color: rgb(153, 153, 153); vertical-align: top; margin: 5px 8px 0px; padding: 0px; outline: 0px; background: transparent; width: 120px;">Eric ReyIn short order, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will issue a final regulation to which all manufacturers, importers and processors of chemical substances should pay close attention. Failing to do so could adversely affect numerous businesses that over the years probably have not worried too much about the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
The TSCA requires the EPA to compile and maintain a list (the inventory) of chemical substances manufactured, imported or processed in the United States. The initial inventory was first compiled in 1979. In 2016, Congress amended the TSCA to, among other things, require the EPA to (1) designate chemical substances on the inventory as either “active” or “inactive” in U.S. commerce; and (2) issue a final regulation by June 22, 2017, establishing the process by which manufacturers, importers and processors must provide the EPA the information needed to update the inventory in this manner (TSCA inventory reset rule). On Jan. 13, 2017, the EPA published its proposed inventory reset rule for comment.[1]
The proposed TSCA inventory reset rule imposes two new reporting requirements on the regulated community, including not just chemical manufacturers, but also companies that only purchase and use chemical substances to blend or formulate other products that are distributed in U.S. commerce. First, the rule will require “retrospective” reporting to confirm which substances have been “active” in U.S. commerce at any time between June 21, 2006, and June 21, 2016, (the look-back period). Active substances include not only chemicals that have been manufactured in (or imported to) the U.S. during that period, but also substances that were processed in the U.S. at any time during that 10-year period. Such substances, once properly reported, will be placed on the “active” portion of the Inventory.
Second, for any substance that is not on the active portion of the inventory, the rule requires entities to provide “forward-looking” reports of the commencement of manufacturing or processing of chemical substances that are on the “inactive” portion of the inventory. If a chemical is placed on the “inactive” portion of inventory, the continued manufacture (including import) or processing of the chemical in the United States for a nonexempt commercial purpose would be unlawful, unless a “forward-looking” report is provided to the EPA no more than 30 days before of resumption of manufacturing (including importing) or processing of the substance.[2]
If the EPA follows the same practice it established with the proposed rule, it is possible the EPA will not send the final inventory reset regulation to the Office of Management and Budget for prepublication review. Thus, entities that will have reporting obligations under the final rule should assume the agency intends to meet the June 22 deadline. Moreover, it is anticipated that the final version of the TSCA inventory reset rule will largely mirror the proposed version the EPA issued in January and so the regulated community would be well served to begin planning compliance with the new rule. While we await publication of the final TSCA inventory reset rule, here are five key features of the rule that businesses should be aware of, and related practical tips to facilitate and expedite compliance with the final TSCA rule.
1. Not All Chemical Substances Will Require Retrospective Reporting for the Look-Back Period
The EPA will prepare an “interim list” of “active” substances compiled based on reports it received during the 2012 and 2016 chemical data reporting (CDR) rounds (as supplemented by substances added to the inventory during the period June 2016 to June 2017); provided, such substances are already on the nonconfidential portion of the inventory (i.e., the specific chemical identity is publicly available). Therefore, entities need not report chemical substances for which it or any other entity submitted 2012 or 2016 CDR reports and where the substance’s specific chemical identity was not claimed as confidential. The EPA’s databases of 2012 CDR reports can be accessed here and the EPA’s information on the 2016 CDR reports can be accessed here.
In addition, chemical substances that were manufactured or imported pursuant to certain TSCA premanufacture notice (PMN) exemptions (e.g., naturally occurring substances, research and development substances, and exempt polymers that are not identified on the inventory) are not subject to retrospective reporting.
Tip: To avoid overreporting and to save administrative resources during the reporting phases, businesses that manufacture and process chemicals in the U.S., even those that have historically asserted confidentiality claims for all or some of the information they have submitted, should check now whether the substances they consider active were reported for CDR purposes in 2012 or 2016 by any entity in a nonconfidential fashion.
2. Substantiating Claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI) Will Be Required
The “retrospective” reports will require reporting: (1) chemical identity; (2) type of commercial activity (e.g., manufacture, import, processing); (3) date range for such activity during the look-back period; and (4) whether the submitter seeks to continue a claim from protection against disclosure of a confidential chemical identity, if applicable.[3] Entities that claim CBI status for (and thereby seek to prevent the public disclosure of) any of this information other than the specific chemical identity must substantiate (i.e., justify) their CBI claims at the time of submitting the report. The 2016 amendments to the TSCA changed what types of information are eligible for being considered CBI (and those that are not) and have required increased EPA scrutiny of CBI claims in general and those claims for specific chemical identity in particular. Businesses should familiarize themselves with the new TSCA CBI paradigm.
Tip: Keep CBI claims for chemical identities to a minimum. For CBI claims for the specific identity of a reported chemical substance, entities may elect whether to substantiate such claims at the time of submitting the “retrospective” report or after the EPA issues its forthcoming regulations on substantiating chemical identity CBI claims. Entities may find that it would be more efficient to substantiate all confidentiality claims, including those pertaining to specific chemical identity, at the time of submitting the “retrospective” reports. However, asserting the fewest possible claims will reduce administrative burdens.
3. Retrospective Reporting Required for Low-Volume Substances Exempt from CDR Reporting
An entity who did not have to submit a report during the 2016 and 2012 CDR reporting cycles for a substance that was manufactured or imported at a volume less than 25,000 pounds per year may find that the substance is not automatically added to the EPA’s interim list of “active” substances as a result. In this case, even though no CDR reports were required for the substance during the 2012 and 2016 reporting cycles, the entity would need to file a “retrospective” report for the substance under the TSCA inventory reset rule.
Tip: Businesses should review now the records they collected when determining how to comply with previous CDR reporting cycles. (The CDR regulation requires such records be retained for five years.)[4] This review should include not only the list of chemicals reported, but also any substances that were not reported on the basis of not meeting the volumetric triggers for CDR reporting. If those substances do not already appear on the public list of substances reported by other entities during the 2012 and 2016 CDR reporting cycles, they will need to be reported as “active” in the retrospective reporting period.
4. Potential to Inadvertently File Information Inconsistent with Previously Submitted TSCA Information
The EPA’s capacity to review and scrutinize information submitted for TSCA (and other) purposes has increased recently, including through mandating electronic submissions (as is the case under the reset rule and recent CDR reports, for example). Such scrutiny can reveal inadvertent but potentially costly violations of TSCA reporting regulations.
Tip: Entities subject to the TSCA inventory reset rule could save themselves potential headaches by compiling, reviewing and comparing their prior TSCA submissions prior to submitting their “retrospective” reports. Such submissions not only contain much of the information needed to complete the “retrospective” reports (and therefore this may be the most efficient way to begin compiling the necessary information for these reports), but reviewing such submissions would also decrease the chance of providing information in any “retrospective” “active substance” reports that is inconsistent with what was previously provided to the EPA.
For example, one could imagine a scenario where if the “retrospective” report was based on employee recollection alone, the report might contain an earlier date range for manufacturing the same substance than the company provided in its notice of commencement following up on its initial premanufacture notice (PMN) submitted for the substance. Even seemingly small inconsistencies could raise the specter of significant penalties. The 2016 amendments to the TSCA have brought the level of potential penalties for civil violations of TSCA in the range of $38,000 per day per violation.
5. Many Challenges Facing Processors
Processors generally are not used to filing reports for the TSCA; but the failure to identify an important raw material as an active substance can lead to compliance issues and supply chain interruptions.
While manufacturers and importers must submit their “retrospective” reports within 180 days of the effective date of the final TSCA inventory reset rule, processors will have 360 days to submit their retrospective reports. This extended time is intended to allow processors the opportunity to review the interim list and any updates to determine whether their suppliers have already notified the EPA during the first 180-day retrospective reporting period. If a processor does not identify all of the materials it uses in the production of products it distributes in commerce on the interim list, the processor itself should file the “retrospective” report necessary to specify an inventory listed substance for an “active” designation. If a processor fails to do so and the substance remains on the “inactive” portion of the inventory, the processor’s continued processing of the substance could be unlawful.
Hopefully, for most processors, this will not be an issue because another entity (including their supplier) will file the necessary “retrospective” reports. However, some processors may find it difficult to determine whether the raw material on which they rely are on the “active” portion of the TSCA inventory (e.g., if the manufacturer or importer who is their supplier has asserted a CBI claim for the specific chemical identity). Processors should not be hesitant to file “protective” retrospective reports just to have certainty that commercially important substances are on the “active” portion of the inventory. It is also possible that the processors themselves do not know the confidential chemical identity of all substances in a formulation (mixture) they receive from a supplier. In such cases the proposed TSCA inventory reset rule would allow for joint (coordinated) submissions to the EPA from the supplier and the processor.[5]
Tip: To mitigate these challenges, processors would be well served to begin to determine the extent to which they do not have specific chemical identity information for the various substances they acquire and use and to communicate now with their suppliers to seek assurances their suppliers will either supply that information to them or will perform the necessary retrospective reporting (and advise them when this has been accomplished).
Conclusion
The EPA’s forthcoming final version of the TSCA inventory reset rule will require manufacturers, importers and processors to submit numerous “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reports. By taking the steps recommended above, they can avoid potential pitfalls while following a careful and reasoned approach to providing “retrospective” and “forward-looking” reports. Taking these recommended steps early will reduce the burdens of complying with the final TSCA inventory reset rule.
Lawrence E. Culleen is a partner at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in Washington, D.C., where he represents clients on administrative, regulatory and enforcement matters involving federal agencies such as the EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He previously held positions at the EPA serving as a manager in various risk-management programs which oversee pesticides, chemical substances and biotechnology products.
Eric A. Rey is an associate at Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer in Washington, D.C.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.https://www.law360.com/articles/933839/5-key-features-of-impending-tsca-inventory-reset-rule-
-
(ACC Mentioned) Canada: MDIs In DIY Products Are Risk To Respiratory Health
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Canada has confirmed a preliminary conclusion that five methylenediphenyl diisocyanates (MDIs) found in consumer products represent an unacceptable risk to human health.
The substances are used primarily in the production of polyurethane products, such as adhesives, coatings, insulation foams, flexible packaging laminates and foam slabs for furniture. They are also used as adhesives in the production of engineered wood products, such as oriented strand board.
But there is evidence that they cause cancer, as well as sensitising the respiratory tract and skin.
In its final screening assessment, the Canadian government concluded that the five substances meet the human health criteria set out in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (Cepa, 1999). The assessment focused on the risk of acute respiratory toxicity, associated with exposure to certain polyurethane foam (SPF) spray products for DIY activities. The products were based on a two-component system and a low-pressure spray mechanism.
The government's conclusion will result in the substances being recommended for addition to the list of toxic substances in Schedule 1 of the Act, which triggers regulatory measures to manage the risk.
The proposed risk management action currently under consideration is to work with experts, manufacturers and trade groups – such as the American Chemistry Council's (ACC) Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI), the Canadian Plastics Industry Association (CPIA) and the Retail Council of Canada (RCC) – to develop a code of practice under section 55 of Cepa.
This would be used to create standardised information and recommendations regarding the products, to inform DIY users about proper personal protective equipment (PPE) and other conditions needed for the safe use of low-pressure two-component SPF consumer products.
The five MDIs are: 4,4′-MDI; 2,2′-MDI; 2,4′-MDI; mixed MDI; and pMDI.MDAs
In the same assessment, the Canadian government concluded that two methylenediphenyl diamines (MDAs) – 4,4'-MDA and pMDA – did not meet section 64 criteria. The substances are primarily used in manufacture of MDIs.
But the government has proposed adding significant new activity (Snac) provisions to them. These would designate as significant new activities:the manufacture of consumer products or cosmetics with concentrations of the substances exceeding 0.1% by weight;other activities related to consumer products or cosmetics, where the concentration of either substance in the product is 0.1% by weight or more and the total quantity of the substance in the product is greater than 10kg; and uses involving more than 1,000,000kg of either substance, or those involving quantities of 100,000kg or more if fewer than three enumerated pollution control measures are implemented.
If adopted, these provisions would require any person engaging in a named activity to submit a significant new activity notification (Snan) at least 90 days prior to the import, manufacture or use.
The government has initiated a 60-day public consultation period for the proposal. Interested parties have until 9 August to submit comments.
The conclusions were made in a final screening assessment. They confirmed preliminary conclusions made in 2014.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56859/canada-mdis-in-diy-products-are-risk-to-respiratory-health
-
(ACC Mentioned) Glyphosate Carcinogen Report
Jun 14, 2017 | Horticulture Week
By Matthew Appleby
American research not considered by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), could change it's conclusion that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic" according to the American Chemical Council.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it can consider only published research.
New data from a large American study, had not been published when it produced its report concluding glyphosate was "probably carcinogenic" in 2015.
A legal case against Monsanto, taking place in California, involves 184 individual plaintiffs who cite the IARC assessment and claim exposure to RoundUp gave them cancer. They allege Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the risks. Monsanto denies the allegations.
Monsanto said the data on glyphosate could and should have been published in time to be considered by IARC, and that the failure to publish it undermined IARC's classification of glyphosate.
American Chemistry Council (ACC) president and chief executive Cal Dooley said: "These allegations suggest that an IARC Monograph has become nothing more than a rubber stamp for predetermined outcomes.
"We encourage all countries and organisations that support the Monographs programme to join us in calling for an investigation into whether IARC officials knowingly withheld data that proved a lack of association between glyphosate and cancer, and other monographs should be evaluated to determine whether similar manipulation has taken place.
"Today’s revelations lend even greater urgency to the need for fundamental reform of IARC’s Monographs program, and because IARC’s glyphosate monograph is fatally flawed and no longer credible, it should be immediately withdrawn."http://www.hortweek.com/glyphosate-carcinogen-report-not-considered/plant-health/article/1436541
-
Cancer Agency Left In The Dark Over Glyphosate Evidence
Jun 14, 2017 | Reuters
By Kate Kelland
LONDON – When Aaron Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France in March 2015, there was something he wasn’t telling them.
The epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute had seen important unpublished scientific data relating directly to a key question the IARC specialists were about to consider: Whether research shows that the weedkiller glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling RoundUp brand, causes cancer.
Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis. He said it would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency’s criteria for being classed as “probably carcinogenic.”
But IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the World Health Organization, never got to consider the data. The agency’s rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it can consider only published research – and this new data, which came from a large American study on which Blair was a senior researcher, had not been published.
The lack of publication has sparked debate and contention. A leading U.S. epidemiologist and a leading UK statistician – both independent of Monsanto – told Reuters the data was strong and relevant and they could see no reason why it had not surfaced.
Monsanto told Reuters that the fresh data on glyphosate could and should have been published in time to be considered by IARC, and that the failure to publish it undermined IARC’s classification of glyphosate. The legal case against Monsanto, taking place in California, involves 184 individual plaintiffs who cite the IARC assessment and claim exposure to RoundUp gave them cancer. They allege Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the risks. Monsanto denies the allegations.
The company also goes beyond saying the fresh data should have been published. It told Reuters the data was deliberately concealed by Blair, but provided no specific evidence of it being hidden.
Blair told Reuters the data, which was available two years before IARC assessed glyphosate, was not published in time because there was too much to fit into one scientific paper. Asked whether he deliberately did not publish it to avoid it being considered by IARC, he said that was “absolutely incorrect.” He said a decision not to publish the glyphosate data had been taken "several months" before IARC chose to conduct a review of the chemical.
The National Cancer Institute also cited “space constraints” as the reasons why the new data on glyphosate was not published.
The absence of the data from IARC’s assessment was important. IARC ended its meeting in 2015 by concluding that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” It based its finding on “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in humans and “sufficient evidence” in experimental animals. It said, among other things, that there was a “positive association” between glyphosate and blood cancers called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. IARC told Reuters that, despite the existence of fresh data about glyphosate, it was sticking with its findings.
The agency’s assessment is at odds with other international regulators who have said the weedkiller is not a carcinogenic risk to humans. It led to a delay in Europe on a decision on whether to re-license or ban EU-wide sales of pesticides containing glyphosate. That decision is still pending. In the meantime, some countries have tightened restrictions on the weedkiller’s use in private gardens and public spaces and on crops before harvest.
In the United States, a California judge took the IARC assessment into account in a separate legal case in March when ruling that the state can require RoundUp to carry a warning label that it may cause cancer. Monsanto is now facing further litigation from hundreds of plaintiffs across the United States who say glyphosate gave them or their loved ones non-Hodgkin lymphoma, citing the IARC assessment as part of their claims.
Yet if the IARC panel experts had been in a position to take into account Blair’s fresh data, IARC’s analysis of the evidence on glyphosate would have been different, Blair acknowledged in the court documents reviewed by Reuters.
The unpublished research came from the Agricultural Health Study, a large and significant study, led by scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, of agricultural workers and their families in the United States. Asked by Monsanto lawyers in March whether the unpublished data showed "no evidence of an association” between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Blair replied: "Correct."
Asked in the same deposition whether IARC's review of glyphosate would have been different if the missing data had been included, Blair again said: "Correct.” Lawyers had put to him that the addition of the missing data would have “driven the meta-relative risk downward,” and Blair agreed.
Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of strategy, told Reuters the IARC glyphosate review “ignored multiple years of additional data from the largest and most comprehensive study on farmer exposure to pesticides and cancer.”
The Agricultural Health Study was particularly pertinent, he said, because it examined real-life human exposure to glyphosate, whereas much of the scientific research IARC analysed involved laboratory tests on rodents.
IARC told Reuters that its evaluations follow strict scientific criteria and that its carcinogen classification system “is recognised and used as a reference all around the world.” It reiterated that in the interests of transparency it considers only published data.
Reuters asked two independent statistical experts to review the data, which has still not been published, though the National Cancer Institute told Reuters researchers are currently working on an updated analysis of it. Neither of the two experts had seen the data before and both said they had no conflict of interest over glyphosate.
David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Britain's University of Cambridge, said there was “no apparent scientific reason” for not publishing the data. Bob Tarone, a retired statistician who worked alongside Blair and others at the National Cancer Institute for 28 years before moving to the for-profit International Epidemiology Institute, said he could find “no ready explanation in terms of the available scientific evidence” for the data not to have been published.
Tarone had already raised the issue in a little-noticed paper in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention last year. He wrote that IARC's classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans was the result of “a flawed and incomplete summary” of the evidence.
In an email to Reuters, IARC declined to say whether Blair informed IARC staff about the unpublished data, whether he should have, and whether that data might have changed IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate had it been published in time. The agency said it had no plans to reconsider its assessment of the chemical.
NON-SELECTIVE HERBICIDE
Glyphosate is what's known as a non-selective herbicide, meaning it kills most plants. Discovered by the Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970, glyphosate is no longer under patent, is supplied by numerous companies and is now the world's most widely used weedkiller, deployed in agriculture, forestry and domestic gardening. Monsanto and other companies have developed genetically engineered seeds that can tolerate glyphosate, allowing farmers to apply it to entire fields without destroying crops.
The safety of the chemical has been under scientific and regulatory scrutiny since the 1980s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other international bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency, New Zealand's Environmental Protection Authority and Japan's Food Safety Commission, have kept it under regular review, and all say glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans.
But it is not settled science, and researchers across the world continue to study glyphosate - measuring traces of it in water and foods, exposing lab rats to it, and monitoring possible health effects in people who have used it year after year in their work.
One of the largest and most highly regarded studies to examine effects of pesticide use in real life is the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective investigation of about 89,000 agricultural workers, farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Since the early 1990s, it has gathered and analysed detailed information on the health of participants and their families, and their use of pesticides, including glyphosate.
AHS researchers have published numerous studies from their data. One paper looking at glyphosate and possible links with cancers was published in 2005. It concluded that “glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall.” Since then, more data has been collected, adding statistical power to subsequent AHS analyses.
In early 2013, Blair and other researchers began preparing new papers with updated AHS data on lymphoma and pesticides, including data on glyphosate. Reuters reviewed drafts dated February 2013 and March 2013, and asked Spiegelhalter and Tarone to examine them. They said the papers, while still in the editing process, were in relatively advanced manuscript form. The drafts contain notes in the margin and suggested changes signed "AEB," Blair's full initials.
After studying the draft papers, Tarone said the unpublished figures show "absolutely no evidence whatsoever" of an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma because of exposure to glyphosate.
Spiegelhalter told Reuters: “In the drafts I saw, none of the herbicides, including glyphosate, showed any evidence of a relation” with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He noted that the study was statistically strong enough to show a relationship for other pesticides - so had there been any link to glyphosate, it should have shown up.
In his legal testimony, Blair also described the Agricultural Health Study as “powerful” and agreed the data showed no link.
But these draft papers were never published, even though Blair told Monsanto’s lawyers in March that the Agricultural Health Study was robust and statistically well-powered, and told Reuters the research was important for science and the public. Email exchanges between Blair and his fellow researchers in 2014 also show they were keenly aware there would be scientific and public interest in fresh AHS data.
On February 28, 2014, Michael Alavanja, a co-lead author of one of the draft papers, sent an email to another AHS co-researcher, copying the message to Blair. It noted that the research was “important to science, public health, IARC and EPA" - the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
In the same email, Alavanja referred to the findings on non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL. He wrote: "It would be irresponsible if we didn't seek publication of our NHL manuscript in time to influence IARCs (sic) decision."
Yet the new AHS data on glyphosate and lymphoma did not surface.
Instead, a revised version of one of the 2013 draft papers prepared by Blair and other researchers appeared in a journal called PLoS One in October 2014. It did not include the data on herbicides, of which glyphosate is one.
This was unusual. Since 2003 AHS researchers had published at least 10 papers using different rounds of updated data to explore possible links between pesticides and specific diseases. And each one included all four pesticide classes: fungicides, fumigants, insecticides and herbicides.
Alavanja was one of the authors of the paper published in PLoS One in 2014. He said he and other authors and senior scientists at the National Cancer Institute decided to remove herbicides from that analysis primarily because of “the issue of statistical power and the need for a comprehensive evaluation of glyphosate and all cancers.”
Blair told Reuters the data on herbicides, including glyphosate, had been removed “to make the paper a more manageable size.” He gave a similar answer to the lawyer acting for Monsanto, who repeatedly asked in the legal deposition why the data was not published. Blair testified that the paper “went through many iterations.” He said he could not recall when the glyphosate data was removed, but “we decided to remove it because ... you couldn't put it all into one paper.”
Monsanto argues that the data was not published because it showed no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Tarone said the absence of herbicide data in the published 2014 paper was “inexplicable,” noting that volume of data had not been an issue in any previous published papers. He said updated AHS data and analyses on herbicides “should be published as soon as possible” to allow “a more complete evaluation of the possible association between glyphosate exposure and NHL risk in humans.”
Reuters asked nine other scientists listed as authors on the two draft papers of 2013 why these drafts had never been published. Some were unavailable for comment, and others referred questions to Laura Beane Freeman, who was a co-author on the draft papers and on the 2014 PLoS published study, and is the National Cancer Institute's current principal investigator of the AHS.
In an email to Reuters, Freeman and a spokesman for the institute said: “After reviewing early drafts of the manuscript, it became clear that it would be impossible to do a thorough evaluation of all major pesticide groupings due to the sheer volume of information that was important to include.”
They said the decision to separate the results for herbicides, including glyphosate, allowed the scientists "to present more thorough evaluations" of the remaining pesticides. An updated study on glyphosate is under way, Freeman said.
CULTURE CLASH
Despite IARC’s modest size and budget, its monographs - assessments of whether something is a cause of cancer - often catch the eyes and ears of policymakers and the public. Recent IARC monographs have included judgments that red meat is carcinogenic and should be classified alongside arsenic and smoking, and that coffee, which IARC previously said might cause cancer, probably is not carcinogenic.
The agency takes a different approach to many other regulators in two important ways. First, it says it assesses "hazard" – the strength of evidence about whether a substance or activity can cause cancer in any way, whether in a laboratory experiment or elsewhere. It does not assess the "risk" or likelihood of a person getting cancer from everyday exposure to something. Second, in general it only considers research that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
IARC considered around 1,000 published studies in its evaluation of glyphosate. But only a handful of those were cohort studies in humans – the kind like the Agricultural Health Study and the most relevant to real-life situations such as people working with glyphosate in agriculture.
The differing judgments on glyphosate by IARC and other regulators have stoked clashes on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States members of Congress have launched investigations into American taxpayer funding of IARC. They have yet to reach any conclusions.
In Europe, the battle centres on the looming decision about whether to re-license glyphosate for use in the European Union. The European Commission has said it wants EU member states to come to a decision by the end of 2017. Politicians will need to weigh the opinions of IARC and other scientific bodies when they decide whether or not to accept a Commission proposal to extend glyphosate’s marketing licence by 10 years.
It remains unclear whether the AHS data will see the light of day in time to be considered. Blair said he thought publishing the glyphosate data would be important and that his former colleagues at the NCI were working on it. The NCI's Freeman said her team is currently “drafting a manuscript on this topic.” She said the new study "will explore the effects of glyphosate exposure in greater depth than a publication that includes multiple pesticides” and would, she hoped, be submitted “to a peer-reviewed journal in the coming months.”
Alavanja said a draft paper “should be available for submission to an appropriate scientific journal sometime later this year,” but that a publication date “is very difficult to predict.”
http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
-
US Agency Releases Draft Toxicological Profiles
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) has released draft toxicological profiles for four substances for public comment.
These are:antimony;molybdenum;silica; and2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid).
The ATSDR is congressionally mandated to develop toxicology profiles for hazardous substances, found at National Priorities List (NPL) sites. Each peer-reviewed document draws from available literature on the substance’s properties to characterise the toxicologic and adverse health effects of analysed substances.Antimony
Antimony, when mixed into an alloy, is used in lead storage batteries, solder, sheet and pipe metal, bearings, castings and pewter.
The draft profile indicates that the metal can cause heart problems and lung effects in workers, including lung cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) has determined antimony trioxide as a group 2B substance (possibly carcinogenic) and antimony trisulfide as group 3 (not classifiable).
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) has set a limit of 0.5 mg/cubic meter for antimony in workroom air. The EPA has determined that exposure to drinking water of 0.01 mg/L is not expected to cause health effects for one to ten day exposures; the corresponding lifetime exposure level is 0.006 mg/L.Molybdenum
According to the draft profile, an intake of 45 μg/day of the element molybdenum is recommended for adults. However, exposure to high levels can be harmful.
Concerns from long-term exposure to dust in the air include damage to the nasal cavity, epiglottis and lungs. Studies suggest that ingesting very large volumes can damage reproductive systems and may cause kidney and liver damage.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (Niosh) has established a level of 5,000 mg/cubic meter for insoluble compounds and 1,000 mg/cubic meter for soluble compounds that it considers "immediately dangerous and likely to cause death or immediate or delayed permanent adverse health effects".
Molybdenum is principally found as an oxide or sulfide compound, and is widely used to make steel alloys.Silica
Silica is a naturally occurring compound that comes in many forms. Silica sand and gravel are used for building and construction, hydraulic fracturing, ceramics and abrasives. Crystal quartz forms of silica are used in jewellery, electronics, and the optical component industry.
Health effects from certain silica forms are found in workers exposed for long periods of time, or from extremely heavy exposure over a short period of time (acute silicosis).
The draft assessment says that the greatest risks to human health from exposure to crystalline silica include silicosis and lung cancer. The Department of Energy (DOE), Niosh and Osha have all set limits for exposure in occupational settings.2,4-D
2,4-D is the active ingredient in many herbicide products. Although animal studies have indicated a number of effects – including liver and kidney effects, decreased breast milk production and blood alteration – the ATSDR says harmful effects are not likely to be experienced when manufacturer’s instructions are followed.
Comments on the four draft profiles will be accepted until 11 September.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56860/us-agency-releases-draft-toxicological-profiles
-
US Agencies Seek Information For Crumb Rubber Studies
Jun 14, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Two US agencies are requesting authorisation to complete information collection activities in order to support its investigation of crumb rubber infill.
The US EPA and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) are seeking to gather data to inform the project, Characterisation of Exposure Potential during Activities Conducted on Synthetic Turf with Crumb Rubber Infill—New. The work comes amid concerns over the potentially hazardous substances the recycled tyre material contains.
The requested information collection is in support of the second and third elements of the investigation into the material: to characterise the human exposure potential and to collect biological specimens from participants.
The first activity – determining the chemical composition and uses of synthetic turf fields with crumb rubber infill – was completed last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/56798/us-agencies-seek-information-for-crumb-rubber-studies
-
Costco Starting To Take Stock of Toxic Chemicals
Jun 14, 2017 | Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families
By Laurie Valeriano and Mike Schade
Costco members got some welcome news this month about its “Smart Screening” program to address toxic chemicals in some of the products the company sells. According to new updates to Costco’s website, the company is now testing products such as clothing, furniture, personal care products, cleaning products, and others for certain toxic chemicals of “regulatory and social concern” and keeping products containing other harmful chemicals off its shelves entirely.Notable Improvements, Details of Smart Screening Program Revealed
Although Costco hasn’t yet adopted a public safer chemicals policy with goals and timelines for reducing toxic chemicals, the company deserves credit for publicly disclosing actions it’s taking to test for and reduce harmful chemicals in key product categories as part of its “Smart Screening” program. The company announced on its website that:
“Over the last three years Costco has been updating the Costco Restricted Chemical List (RSL) to keep up with the ever-growing global regulatory changes and challenges for chemical restrictions in consumer products. We continue to work with the chemical and consumer product industries to increase our understanding in this area and to find more environmentally friendly alternatives for chemicals and practices of concern…”
“Costco is working with major third-party laboratories to test certain items for chemicals of regulatory and social concern. We call it the Costco Smart Screening Program. The program’s protocols include testing for the presence of certain chemicals in a number of product categories. Each product category has its own list of chemicals of concern (COCs) and RSL…”
“Children’s and adult apparel, bedding, home goods, pet beds, furniture, personal care products, cleaning products, Kirkland Signature food packaging, Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes, and Kirkland Signature Diapers are now physically tested against a list of over 300 COCs…”
Costco also says it has begun the process of partnering with an academic institution to support its efforts. These are positive steps in the right direction for Costco, which we congratulate. This comes only a few months after Costco first began to publicly reveal some limited information about its efforts. Clearly Costco is listening to its members who have been contacting the company and now providing more information about its chemical program!Opportunity for Improvement: What Chemicals Are Being Evaluated and Restricted?
Retailers like Costco are responding to the growing consumer demand for safer products and consumers’ desire to support retailers that consider the health and environmental impact of their products. Wal-Mart, Target, and CVS Health have adopted safer chemical policies and soon Best Buy will too. We’re happy to see Costco announce that it is beginning to make progress in addressing toxic chemicals in the products they sell, but there is still room for improvement.
Last November, Costco received an “F” on Mind the Store’s retailer report card that rated the nation’s eleven largest retailers on their actions to develop safer chemicals policies and eliminate toxic chemicals in products they sell. Costco’s new actions will certainly help improve its score in our next report card that we plan to update and release in November. We hope Costco will continue to improve and expand its work on chemicals in the months to come, for example by developing a safer chemicals policy with clear goals and timeframes.
While Costco has been making some notable progress that it is now finally disclosing, we can’t fully assess what this initiative means for consumers and the marketplace without knowing the complete list of chemicals the company is testing for and/or restricting in its products. It is unclear for example to what extent the Smart Screening program is set up primarily to ensure its suppliers are in compliance with laws and regulations, which are unfortunately inadequate. Retailers like Costco can go beyond legal compliance to help transform the marketplace towards safer products.
We hope Costco will respond to the rising consumer demand for transparency and make public the list of chemicals it is addressing just like CVS Health, Target, and Walmart have done already.
Once Costco does, we’ll know more about whether this is news we can truly celebrate.
http://saferchemicals.org/2017/06/14/costco-starting-to-take-stock-of-toxic-chemicals/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Anthony Hilton: US Shale Revolution Makes Fracking A Must For UK Industry
Jun 14, 2017 | Evening Standard
By Anthony Hilton
Ineos is one of Britain’s leading chemicals companies with $55 billion (£43 billion) of assets, 18,600 employees and 105 manufacturing plants in 22 countries making it one of the giants of Europe.
From a standing start just under 20 years ago, Jim Ratcliffe, its multi- billionaire founder, chairman and major shareholder — bought chemical plants when they were no longer wanted from the likes of ICI in 2001, BP in 2005 and BASF, Bayer, Dow Solway and Norsk Hydro at other times, rationalised them, ran them better, invested in them and created an empire. Remarkably, given the capital intensity of the industry and the huge costs involved, he achieved all this while keeping Ineos private.
But now that empire is under threat. Earlier this week it was disclosed that the company is to invest €2 billion (£1.76 billion) expanding its European petrochemicals capacity, though there is still some debate about where this massive new plant will be sited. However, Belgium, rather than somewhere in the UK, seems to be the favourite.
Now, on one level this massive investment looks and is a show of strength. But on another, it illustrates how Europe’s petrochemical industry is vulnerable as never before because of the shale oil and gas boom in the US, which has made energy costs there just a fraction of those in Europe.
Once you have built a major chemical complex, your main (in many ways, your only) worry is the cost of the raw material you need to feed into it. This can account for half or more of total production costs, and is similarly crucial for other energy-intensive industries such as refining, iron and steel, glass, cement and paper.
Until a few years ago Europe and America paid more or less the same amount for their petrochemical feedstock — the US had a slight advantage but not so great after transport and other costs had been factored in. (Middle East plants, sited right by the oilfields, did have such a price advantage but lacked scale.)
This is no longer the case thanks to the fundamental changes across the Atlantic. The Marcellus field, which spreads over several states and is just one of many in the US, produces 15 billion cubic feet of gas a day which is almost twice the UK’s entire consumption. But the result is that US prices have disconnected from the rest of the world and the subsequent feedstock prices have given American chemical plants so vast a price advantage that, on paper at least, there’s no way Europe can compete. It is staring down the barrel of bankruptcy, not now, but in a few short years, unless it can find some way to get its raw-material costs down to American levels.
Thus far, the effect has been muted — and the European industry has had a little time — because the US petrochemical industry was originally not built for indigenous US gas and oil supplies but instead located near ports and configured to process supplies of oil from the Middle East.
But this is changing fast. There has been virtually no big petrochemical investment in Europe in the past decade whereas in the US since 2010 some $85 billion of petrochemicals projects have been completed or are under construction. Spending on chemical capacity to 2022 will exceed $124 billion, according to the American Chemistry Council, creating 485,000 jobs during construction and more than 500,000 permanent jobs, adding between $80 billion and $120 billion in economic output. After years where chemical capacity has run neck and neck with Europe, the American industry is about to dwarf it.
So this is the backdrop to the Ineos investment, and what is special is that this new plant will be supplied by a fleet of purpose-built liquefied natural gas tankers of sufficient number and size to create what Ratcliffe calls a “virtual pipeline” of US gas supply across the Atlantic. Even that, however, is not the key to the economics of the deal — rather it is that Ratcliffe has taken advantage of the fact that the US chemical plants seeking to use gas are still being built, and as a result we have been in a period where prices have been artificially low.
Seizing the moment, he has secured a decades-long supply contract at rock-bottom cost, low enough to cover a major chunk of his transport costs which he hopes will enable him, for a while, to live with US competition.
But the rest of Europe’s industry — here and on the Continent — has, for the most part, not been so fleet of foot. As a result it faces an existential challenge. Unless it can secure similarly low feedstock prices it will be forced to shrink dramatically, raise its efficiency and specialise.
This, in turn, will add further fuel to the debate on fracking in the UK, because it is the declared view of Ineos and presumably other energy-intensive firms, that only UK-produced shale gas can deliver feedstock at the price the industry needs to survive.
Hence Ineos, without courting publicity, has assembled some interesting onshore fracking licences with a particular focus on the East Midlands where test drilling is now taking place.
Perhaps because this is an area which at one time drew its prosperity from the Nottingham coalfield, local opinion has been largely supportive, helped — no doubt — by Ineos’s decision to give local communities a 2% cut of revenues.
But it also serves as a reality check for the country.
A post-Brexit Britain is going to have to exploit every source of wealth to stay afloat. In this, energy costs are key because you can’t make anything without energy. That means fracking whether people like it or not.
http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-us-shale-revolution-makes-fracking-a-must-for-uk-industry-a3564971.html
-
LNG Trade To Drive Global Price Convergence By 2035 — BP
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Analysts have long speculated on the potential for new U.S. shale gas supplies that buck traditional contract provisions to dramatically reshape global markets for the fuel. Now BP PLC is saying it expects this vision to unfold over the next two decades.
In its latest Energy Outlook, released yesterday, BP predicts that natural gas use worldwide will grow faster than oil or coal at 1.6 percent per year between 2015 and 2035, accounting for a growing share of world energy as countries increasingly turn away from coal to fuel power plants.
Liquefied natural gas (LNG), the supercooled form of the fuel that can be transported on tanker ships between major markets, will grow seven times faster than pipeline gas over that time frame, according to BP's "most likely" scenario, growing from about one-third of all gas trade to about half by 2035.
"The significance of the growing importance of LNG-based trade is that, unlike pipeline gas, LNG cargoes can be redirected to different parts of the world in response to regional fluctuations in demand and supply. As a result, gas markets are likely to become increasingly integrated across the world," the company said in its new assessment.
Unlike pipeline gas trade, a growing global market for LNG will incentivize traders to redirect cargoes from low-priced markets to more lucrative areas, the company says. And as the LNG market grows and more reliable market figures emerge, long-term contracts will increasingly be priced according to spot gas markets, knitting markets together still more.
In the past, LNG buyers in Asia have paid a premium over rates in other markets, at times double or triple the rates paid by buyers in Europe. That pricing differential has been based in part on the fact that Asian LNG trades traditionally use contracts that link its price to oil indexes, a now-outdated metric based on a time when natural gas was largely a byproduct of oil production. Competition matters, too; in Europe, where pipelines from Russia supply the majority of natural gas, LNG was priced closer to pipeline gas.
But a surge of LNG from the United States that entered world markets under new, less-restrictive contracts, and an unexpected softening of economic growth in China and around the world in recent years, has contributed to a glut of LNG supply on world markets. Activity in spot markets ticked up, and long-term gas buyers in Europe and Asia pushed the sellers of both pipeline gas and LNG for better pricing and more favorable terms.
Today, buyers in Japan, South Korea and China are working together in pursuit of greater leverage in LNG contract negotiations. A main point of contention is the "destination clauses" common in long-term LNG contracts that limit deliveries to pre-agreed ports, meaning buyers cannot easily resell cargoes if their needs change or if more favorable deals appear on the spot market.
BP's analysis suggests that buyers will ultimately win significantly more control in the global gas trade, bringing greater parity across markets.
The company sees a special role for the U.S., though. It predicts that Australia, a major world LNG supplier, will primarily feed the Asian market where it has an advantage in shipping distances, but U.S. cargoes will be directed around the world as marginal supplies in Europe, Asia, and South and Central America. "As such, U.S. gas prices are likely to play a key role in anchoring gas prices in a globally integrated market," BP said.Alternate realities
BP's forecasting exercise is based on the company's assessment of a "most likely" combination of policies and market forces driving world energy markets, and in that forecast it sees natural gas growing at a fast clip, driven by low prices in the U.S. and strong demand linked in part to its low emissions profile.
But both more aggressive and less aggressive world climate policies could tamp down the growth rate for gas, BP says. In the "slower gas" scenario, more robust world demand for coal in the U.S., China and elsewhere would hold back growth in gas. Gas use would continue to rise, and coal use would continue to fall in this scenario, BP says, but both would happen at lower rates.
Alternately, the forecast includes "faster transition" and "even faster transition" scenarios for world movement away from fossil fuels and toward renewables in an effort to combat climate change. Those scenarios both push gas demand growth lower than in the pro-coal scenario, both limiting natural gas growth to less than half of its profile under the "most likely" conditions. "Both stronger and weaker policy assumptions [pose] potential threats" to the role of gas in the world energy mix, BP concluded.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/14/stories/1060055982
-
Tillerson: U.S. Lobbying Europe To Choose U.S. Gas Over Russian Pipeline
Jun 13, 2017 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Eric Wolff
The U.S. is urging the European Union to reject a new Russian natural gas pipeline in favor of U.S. liquefied natural gas supplies, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told Senate appropriators today.
"We've suggested to them it's not in their national security interest to become more dependent on Russia," he said. "We are promoting the notion that Europe needs to think about their energy security and how dependent they are on those supply lines."
Europe should instead consider increasing its U.S. purchases to diversify their energy supply, he said.
Russia is aiming to expand its reach into Europe's energy markets with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a project that has pitted project supporter Germany against Poland, the Baltic states and others that fear it would increase the bloc's dependence on Russia's Gazprom, which already supplies about one-third of its gas, and that it would hurt Ukraine.
The Obama administration had used its influence to delay final decisions that would allow construction of the pipeline.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Inhofe, Mullin Praise EPA Safety Regs Delay
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Cecelia Smith-Schoenwalder
Two Republican Oklahoma lawmakers, Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. Markwayne Mullin, yesterday praised U.S. EPA's nearly two-year delay of chemical safety regulations.
Risk Management Plan rule changes from the Obama administration were intended to strengthen emergency preparedness requirements, but the lawmakers argued they would do the opposite.
"The RMP rule is excessive and would actually make our chemical facilities less safe by oversharing sensitive information with anybody who asks for it, including bad actors," Mullin, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said in a statement.
The Obama administration proposed the requirements after a 2013 chemical fire at a Texas fertilizer facility killed 15 people. The new rules were originally scheduled to take effect in March, but that month EPA proposed to delay their implementation until Feb. 19, 2019.
At an April hearing on the proposed delay, industry officials said current regulations are satisfactory (Greenwire, April 19). EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday signed the final rule implementing the delay, saying the agency needs more time to review the public comments and consider other issues that may need public input (E&E News PM, June 12).
"The RMP rule is duplicative and therefore its delay will not affect the existing regulations that keep our facilities safe," said Inhofe, who serves on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "I applaud the administration's decision and look forward to EPA's continued efforts in reassessing this unnecessary rule."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/14/stories/1060056025
-
Grid Operators Brace For Dual Cyberthreats To Infrastructure
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
Back-to-back cybersecurity warnings from U.S. officials have put grid operators on high alert this week.
The twin threats come from Hidden Cobra, the U.S. government's nickname for North Korean government-sponsored hackers, and Electrum, which cybersecurity firm Dragos Inc. has linked to a cyber espionage group with close ties to Russia.
The Electrum hackers made headlines earlier this week when Dragos and competing cybersecurity company ESET dissected a piece of malware capable of targeting electric power grids in Europe and the Middle East (Energywire, June 13).
With a few tweaks, experts say, Electrum's grid-focused "Swiss Army knife" could be used against U.S. utilities. The North American Electric Reliability Corp. said no American companies had been affected but posted its first public alert of the year yesterday about the CrashOverride malware. Experts claim the attack tool was used last December to briefly knock out power to part of Ukraine in an attack tentatively linked to Russia-based hackers.
"The malware at the center of this notification is a development and improvement on previous cyber-attack trade craft used to attack Ukraine's electric infrastructure," NERC said in its advisory, which also cautioned that "the malware's attack capabilities may not be limited to a technology or specific vendor" on grid networks.
The Department of Homeland Security issued its own alert about CrashOverride on Monday evening, then followed up with a separate report yesterday on a far-reaching campaign of North Korean cyber activity hitting "critical infrastructure sectors" in the United States and globally.
A DHS spokesman declined to clarify which sectors may have been affected by Hidden Cobra. A spokesman for the FBI, which coordinated with DHS to publish yesterday's alert, did not respond to a request for comment.
"DHS and FBI assess that HIDDEN COBRA actors will continue to use cyber operations to advance their government's military and strategic objectives," the two agencies concluded in the alert, adding that "further research is needed to understand the full breadth of this group's cyber capabilities."
North Korea was widely reported to be behind a damaging 2014 cyberattack on Sony Pictures, in which hackers wrecked computers at the entertainment company in addition to leaking embarrassing emails and internal documents (Energywire, Feb. 5, 2015).
More recently, cybersecurity researchers at Symantec Corp. and Kaspersky Lab have explored the possibility that the North Korean government engineered a massive global "ransomware" pandemic that locked up computers at hundreds of companies last month, including hospitals and at least two energy utilities (Energywire, May 16).
The DHS and FBI alert did not link Hidden Cobra to that incident, though it said the group was responsible for attacks on a range of targets dating back to 2009. The U.S. agencies said the North Korea-backed hackers used distributed denial-of-service botnets, which overwhelm computer networks with web traffic, and keyloggers that steal usernames and passwords from unsuspecting victims, among other tools.
In contrast to the wide-ranging alleged North Korean campaign, the CrashOverride malware was specifically engineered to trip electrical equipment at substations. But its modular design leaves it "full of potential — it can become a lot of other things," noted Andy Bochman, senior cyber and energy security strategist at the Idaho National Laboratory.
"Are [tools] like this making it easier for somewhat less-resourced adversaries — are they able to punch above their weight?" Bochman said.
He suggested that adaptable malware like CrashOverride is "blurring" the lines between what top-tier nation-states can accomplish in cyberspace and what criminal or terrorist groups can attack.
Hackers "are all moving in one way, kind of like technology," Bochman said. "They're all getting better."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/14/stories/1060056004
-
Calif. Refinery Spews 74,000 Pounds Of SO2 In Power Outage
Jun 14, 2017 | KQED (In E&E Greenwire)
By Ted Goldberg
A refinery in Benicia, Calif., released 74,000 pounds of sulfur dioxide over 14 days after a May power outage, according to a report filed with the state.
After the outage May 5, the plant, which is owned by giant independent petroleum refiner Valero Energy Corp., began flaring, releasing the majority of the sulfur dioxide. City residents were told to evacuate if possible or to seek shelter. More than a dozen people went to the hospital with breathing difficulties.
City and state officials have three ongoing investigations into the refinery malfunction that led to the emissions. The local air district is reviewing the impact on local air quality.
The oil company blamed San Francisco-based utility Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for the outage (Ted Goldberg, KQED, June 12). — NB
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/06/14/stories/1060056011
-
Judge: Tesoro Won’t Have To Pay $2.4M In Fines For Deadly Refinery Blast
Jun 14, 2017 | Chem.Info
By Meagan Parrish
A judge in Washington state has thrown out $2.4 million in fines that were issued against Tesoro Corp after a 2010 blast killed seven workers at one of the company’s refineries.
The explosion happened at a facility about 70 miles north of Seattle and was triggered when a 40-year-old heat exchanger ruptured while workers were attempting to put parallel heat exchangers back online after routine cleaning. Vapors in the air ignited, setting off an explosion that caused a fire so hot it burned for hours.
Investigators such as the U.S. Chemical Safety Board found several gaps in state and federal regulations that cover refinery safety. The CSB’s assessment also accused Tesoro of not fully evaluating the effects of hydrogen under high heat and pressure on steel components like the heat exchanger.
A state administration judge in Washington, however, said there was not enough evidence that Tesoro side-stepped existing regulations for equipment maintenance and inspection to make the company pay the fines issued by the state’s Department of Labor and Industries.
“The Department has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Tesoro committed any of the alleged violations,” the judge wrote in his decision.
According to Reuters, the decision will still have to be reviewed by the Washington state Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals.
A spokesperson for Tesoro said the judge’s decision was confirmation that the company had properly complied with safety protocol.
“Rigorous maintenance and inspection programs are integral to that core value, and our programs are based on industry best practices as the judge’s proposed decision and order acknowledges,” she said.
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/06/judge-tesoro-wont-have-pay-24m-fines-deadly-refinery-blast
-
Jun 14, 2017 | The Baltimore Sun
By Colin Campbell
Taylor Smith-Hams was living near the Mount Royal Station in Bolton Hill a year ago when her phone lit up one morning with messages from friends and family.
At the Howard Street Tunnel's north entrance nearby, 13 cars of a 124-car CSX Transportation freight train had derailed. All but one of the derailed cars were empty, but that one contained acetone, a highly flammable substance used in nail polish remover and paint thinner. Other cars on the train contained phenol, butane, liquefied petroleum gas, scrap iron and acid, officials said.
The notion of explosive substances — especially crude oil — traveling so close to her home shocked Smith-Hams, an organizer with Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a regional environmental advocacy group with 3,500 supporters in Baltimore.
"I was terrified about the potential devastation due to a derailment," she said. "Thankfully, there were no injuries or leaks and most of the cars that derailed were empty. But the incident begs the question: What if? What if that train had been carrying explosive crude oil?"
On the one-year anniversary Tuesday of the June 13, 2016, derailment, environmental advocates and concerned residents gathered at the Mount Royal Station to call on city, state and federal lawmakers to order the release of information about crude oil and other hazardous substances being hauled on freight trains through the city. The group is also pursuing legislation preventing any new crude oil train terminals from being built at the port of Baltimore, hoping to cut off demand for the substance to enter the city.
CSX meets or exceeds all federal regulations on shipping hazardous materials, CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle said, and the company uses a 27-factor routing analysis tool to determine the safest, most secure route for every shipment.
"Safety is CSX's highest priority, and that includes the safety of the communities where we operate, our customers and our employees," Doolittle said in a statement.
The amount of crude oil traveling around the country in rail tankers increased exponentially in recent years with a boom in domestic and Canadian production. While rail shipment is second only to pipelines in terms of safety, several explosive derailments of crude trains have stoked fears about the traffic and led to calls for more transparency.
Jennifer Kunze, Maryland organizer for Clean Water Action, an environmental group with 8,000 members in Baltimore, cited a train explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in 2013 as evidence of the threat faced by those who live near the tracks. About 165,000 Baltimoreans live in what's known as the "blast zone" that could be affected by an explosion, she said.
Had the derailed train been carrying crude oil, Kunze said, "this derailment likely would've resulted in a fire or explosion that would've endangered MICA, the University of Baltimore, the Baltimore Symphony, the Light Rail tracks and Taylor's home, as well as countless other homes and businesses in the area."
Nine oil train derailments happened in the United States between February 2015 and June 2016, said David McClure, president and business agent of the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300, who called the oil trains "ticking time bombs rambling through our city."
"It's time to take immediate action to protect our communities," he said.
City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke said she first wants the state to share information on oil shipments through the city — when they're coming, how frequently, how much, and where they're going.
While such information is not made public for security and proprietary reasons, it is shared with fire departments and other responding agencies in case of an incident, CSX's Doolittle said. A 24-hour emergency communications center is always on hand to provide aid, he said.
That's not enough for Clarke.
"What we need is good information. Knowledge is power," she said. "How many of these crude oil trains are coming through, and when are they coming through? ... This is a huge issue for us personally."
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-oil-train-protest-20170613-story.html
-
EPA Announces 2-Year Stay For Emissions Rule
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
The Trump administration wants a two-year stay of key requirements of U.S. EPA's regulations to limit methane emissions from new and substantially modified sources in the oil and natural gas sector.
EPA officials announced last night that they are proposing a two-year stay of the methane rules, on top of an existing 90-day stay. In a news release, the agency said officials want to ensure the rules don't go into effect while the administration reconsiders the rules that were drafted during the Obama administration.
The move is likely to be challenged in court by environmental groups, who are already suing over the 90-day stay.
It was known that the administration would be seeking a longer, interim stay, but at least one environmentalist was surprised by the length requested. Natural Resources Defense Council attorney David Doniger said the administration is trying to put off the rule without going through the work involved in the administrative process.
"What they're proposing is to change it before they change it," Doniger said. "This is basically giving them a free pass for two years."
The stays apply to the fugitive emissions, pneumatic pumps and professional engineer certification requirements in the rule, which was issued a year ago.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt initiated the 90-day stay in agreeing to requests from energy industry trade groups to administratively reconsider the rule (Greenwire, April 19).
Pruitt signed the notice submitting the two-year stay to the Federal Register on Monday.
Methane is a potent greenhouse gas. The 2016 standards were a key part of former President Obama's goal of reducing emissions from the oil and gas industry between 40 and 45 percent by 2025 compared with 2012 levels.
But U.S. oil and gas companies say they have substantially reduced methane emissions in recent years, both on their own and because of the "green completions" rule. That rule targets volatile organic compounds, but in some instances, it also reduces methane emissions. They also object to specific provisions in the EPA rule, such as the inclusion of low-production wells.
EPA also proposed a separate three-month stay to cover any time gap between the end of the 90-day stay and the beginning of the two-year stay.
Both new stays are subject to a 30-day comment period after it is published in the Federal Register.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/06/14/stories/1060056001
-
It's Real! But Climate Researchers Have Lots Of Questions
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
The basic parameters of climate science are not under debate, but there is plenty of uncertainty in the field.
It's true, there's wide agreement among scientists that the planet is warming at unprecedented rates because of people's use of fossil fuels. But there's still a tremendous amount that researchers don't understand, and until those alleyways of uncertainty are narrowed, our efforts to reduce warming and prepare for a transforming planet could be hindered, scientists said.
The pace of climate change — and if it could leap in nonlinear spikes — is one of the most important questions being studied by scientists today. Another grapples with better understanding the impacts of steadily rising carbon dioxide emissions on Earth, and everything on it.
Many of the signs are troubling. Researchers are predicting potential levels of sea-level rise, 5 feet or more in some areas, that would transform life in many of the coastal cities that power the world's economy. Drought, flooding and increased extreme weather could force millions of people to move from their home. Entire regions, such as the Arctic, have already been changed dramatically by global warming. More alterations are coming.
And yet, there are certain aspects of climate science with potentially devastating implications for the future of civilization where we need to reduce our uncertainty, according to researchers. Here are some of them. This list, by no means exhaustive, was formulated after talking with scientists who recently published research on these topics.Clouds
Cloud cover could contribute to global warming or reduce it. Scientists aren't sure yet, said Roger Davies, a professor of climate physics at the University of Auckland in New Zealand. He said scientists are still uncertain about how cloud characteristics, including their thickness, brightness and height, may contribute to climate change, or not. Clouds could be a major factor in determining the uncertainty around the future rate of climate change, he said.
"The more cloud cover you've got, the more you reflect sunlight, so it's a cooling mechanism. So if you can get climate change to kick in where you get more clouds, you'd actually have a bit of negative feedback there where you'd actually get the extra clouds helping to cool," he said. But, he added, "the more high clouds you've got, the more warming you get."
Davies and a team of researchers at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory have examined more than a decade's worth of data but have concluded that more research is needed to reach any firm conclusions. He expects that could take at least another 15 years of data to establish firm connections. One reason for that is the slow process of ocean warming, which can have a significant influence over cloud cover.Ocean acidification
Researchers' understanding of how climate change is transforming oceans and making them more acidic is relatively new, said Francis Chan, a research professor at Oregon State University. In the last decade or so, the science has blossomed and researchers now know that the ocean's chemistry is changing. The implications for the commercial fishing industry are significant, he said. Major changes have already been observed in key species, and others could face threats, like the loss of food with increased concentration of carbon.
It's already affecting some of the species that we eat, by thinning the shells of oysters and Dungeness crabs and even making it harder for salmon to orient themselves in the ocean, he said. At the same time, it has benefited kelp and phytoplankton, smaller pieces of the ocean food web. Scientists are still trying to determine which ocean species could be the first victims of climate change and acidification, he said. Scientists are adding more ocean species every week to the list of those that are vulnerable.
"There are a lot of things in the ocean, and some of them are going to be losers, but some might be winners," Chan said. "It's hard to project exactly how the future ocean will look in terms of the ecosystem around it. We're trying to zero in on a more accurate projection, and it's a little dismal."Precipitation
Water is a resource that determines whether large swaths of the globe are able to support humanity. Climate change could dramatically alter life in some parts of Earth, such as economically fragile African countries along the Sahara desert or parts of India now facing extreme drought.
Climate change tweaks the extremes of precipitation and drought, making both more likely. Evidence suggests that very heavy rains are getting heavier and that dry spells are getting longer, said Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
But the current climate models are lacking when it comes to predicting future precipitation, he said. That is partially a problem of data. Researchers have not been able to incorporate hourly data from current storms into their modeling for the future, he said. However, in recent years, researchers have gained access to hourly data from precipitation gauges around the world, and that has improved modeling. Still, Trenberth said that people haven't focused enough on the unreliability of current precipitation modeling, which can provide an essential peek into the future for an essential resource.
"How often it rains and how intense it rains when it rains, those are both big factors in floods and droughts," he said. "The extremes in precipitation and the models are extremely bad at those things, it's really quite embarrassing."Interactions between ice sheets and oceans
A number of recent studies have shown an alarming trend emerging in our understanding of ice sheet melting, which is that it could be happening more quickly than we realize, particularly in Antarctica. The southern continent holds 60 percent of the world's fresh water locked in ice. It's more than a mile thick in some places. Scientists studying the ice sheets are concerned that they may be more unstable than once thought.
Studying ice flow is an essential area for future research, said Jonathan Kingslake, a glaciologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory who spoke from Greenland after a month of field research studying meltwater on the surface of glaciers. He said researchers need to better understand how the ocean and the ice sheets are interacting, particularly because oceans could be causing sheets to thin more quickly than previously believed. Scientists need to better understand the balance of snow and ice and where ice sheets are separating from land. That could have a significant effect on climate change, he said.
"It's really crucial because it's that flow, does it speed up, does it slow down? It actually should be interesting to people ... because that is the thing that is moving the ice out toward the ocean," he said.
"It's a huge contributor to that negative side of the equation, the one that counterbalances all the snow falling. Without the ice flowing, the ice sheet would just grow and grow and we'd actually end up with much lower sea level," Kingslake said. "That flow is a crucial part of the whole system."Greenland glacial melt
The Arctic is affected by warmer water and hotter surfaces. But there is much about the region that scientists would like to understand better. Glaciers are a big one. Researchers need to know more about how they calve and how they break apart when they touch the ocean, said Eric Larour, a climate researcher at NASA's Joint Propulsion Laboratory. They also want to learn more about how warmer oceans might affect that calving, he said.
That includes gaining a better understanding of the interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean, he said, and tracking where warmer oceans will affect the glaciers. Climate scientists are still struggling to predict how adding more heat into the system will affect ocean currents.
"This whole interaction between hydrology, the water, the ice and the climate melt, the temperature itself that melts the snow at the top of the ice, that is something we are not currently able to model and verify against historical time periods, so that's an issue," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/14/stories/1060055985
-
Brown Named Special Envoy To U.N. Climate Talks
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Debra Kahn
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will serve as a special representative to the U.N. climate talks this fall to highlight the role of states in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials announced yesterday.
Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, the president of this year's talks, named Brown the special envoy for states and regions to the U.N. climate conference in Bonn, Germany, in November. Bainimarama also signed Fiji up as the newest member of Brown's Under2 Coalition, a group of more than 175 national and regional governments voluntarily committed to reducing emissions to below 2 annual metric tons per capita by 2050.
"Governor, are you with me?" Bainimarama asked.
"I'm with you!" Brown replied.
In the wake of President Trump's planned withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, Brown's climate diplomacy efforts have taken on new resonance. He traveled to China last week to drum up support for climate action in meetings with national and provincial officials. He attended the Clean Energy Ministerial in Beijing and met with Germany's environmental minister last week, as well. Oregon Gov. Kate Brown (D) and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) appeared alongside Brown yesterday in Sacramento to announce that they, too, would be attending the November COP.
"We have a different message than Donald Trump," Inslee said. "Our message is, 'We'll always have Paris.'"
Bainimarana did not specify what kind of role Brown would play at the talks but said his participation gives him "hope and enthusiasm" and that he would lobby other Pacific island nations to join Brown's coalition.
"There is a home for you in the international climate process," he said.
"The withdrawal of the White House is going to make this COP 23 very exciting," Bainimarana said in response to a question on Trump's move. "But we must move on. ... It has nothing to do with politics. It has to do with our existence."Challenges at home
On the domestic front, Brown is still working with lawmakers to secure the legal footing of the state's cap-and-trade program through 2030. Negotiations are currently underway on a successor to the current program, which is vulnerable to lawsuits after 2020 due to a 2010 ballot initiative that expanded the scope of revenue-raising programs requiring a supermajority vote.
In addition to the Democratic sponsors of three bills that would reauthorize the system and introduce various adjustments, yesterday's climate-focused luncheon at the executive mansion had roughly a half-dozen Republican lawmakers in attendance, including state Sen. Anthony Cannella, Assembly Minority Leader Chad Mayes, and Assemblywoman Catharine Baker and Assemblyman Rocky Chávez.
Brown said he is "very confident" of reaching a deal and that Republican support is "key."
"They're not quite on the same page as some of my Democratic colleagues, but like the COP 23, we have to forge agreements and find ways of coming together," Brown said, citing a principle of 20th-century philosopher and Jesuit priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "Everything that rises converges."
"If we rise above our parochialism, we'll converge on agreements," Brown said.
The California Air Resources Board announced yesterday that it would postpone a planned June 22 vote on the so-called scoping plan, which would enshrine cap and trade as the policy of choice through 2030. That gives lawmakers more time to pass an authorizing bill without coming into direct conflict with the agency, which has said it envisions continuing the existing program seamlessly after 2020.
The sponsor of one bill, S.B. 775, which would begin an entirely new regime after 2020 with no continuation of the existing program, said his staff was holding talks with Assembly members, oil companies, utilities, environmental groups and environmental justice groups, which are lobbying for more direct emissions reductions at individual facilities.
"As you can imagine, you got the environmental groups and the oil companies in the same meetings, they don't exactly see eye to eye," said Senate Environmental Quality Chairman Bob Wieckowski (D).
He said one of the points of agreement among some of the groups is the importance of giving industry at least some of its emissions permits for free.
"I think, surprisingly, a lot of people like the allowances," he said. "They like the free allowances, and I have no free allowances. [ARB Chairwoman] Mary [Nichols] likes giving out free allowances."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/06/14/stories/1060056005
-
Former EPA Official McCabe Talks Trump Moves On Budget, Power Plan, Ozone And Paris
Jun 14, 2017 | E&E TV
By Monica Trauzzi
As the Trump administration takes steps to undo Obama-era climate and energy policies, how are ex-Obama officials working to influence the policy discussion from outside Washington? During today's OnPoint, Janet McCabe, a senior law fellow at the Environmental Law and Policy Center and the former acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration, reacts to the Trump administration's steps to overturn the Clean Power Plan and exit the Paris climate agreement. She also discusses the impacts of the Trump EPA budget proposal.Transcript
Monica Trauzzi: Hello and welcome to OnPoint. With me today is Janet McCabe, senior law fellow at the Environmental Law and Policy Center. Janet is a former acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at U.S. EPA during the Obama administration. Thank you for joining me. Nice to see you.
Janet McCabe: Nice to see you, too, Monica. Thanks for having me.
Monica Trauzzi: So quite an about-face on energy and climate since you left the government. What is your assessment of the concrete steps we've seen so far from the Trump administration on climate?
Janet McCabe: Well, on climate specifically we're just seeing a lot of relooking at a variety of things that the Obama administration did. The reconsiderations, delays, revisiting, that sort of thing. Maybe the two biggest things that people have been noticing are the decision to relook at the Clean Power Plan and to ask the D.C. Circuit to not go ahead and issue a decision and the recent withdrawal from the Paris climate accord.
Monica Trauzzi: So on the Clean Power Plan specifically, if the Obama EPA had crafted a different rule or had maybe gone about the CPP differently, do you think we would still be in this position of the Trump administration trying to completely do away with the Clean Power Plan?
Janet McCabe: Well, I think it's a reflective of the deep divisions about how we approach climate and people's views about whether EPA has a responsibility to regulate in this area. Our view was we clearly did. That the Supreme Court had found that CO2 was a pollutant that was endangering public health and welfare and that's what the Clean Air Act is supposed to do is protect people from that.
So we went about devising a rule using the standard approaches set forth in the Clean Air Act and many years of precedent applied to the particular industry, electric power industry and fully briefed it and argued it at a D.C. Circuit. I don't know if we'll ever know what that court's view is on the job that we did, but I think we would have had these divisions likely anyway.
Monica Trauzzi: An imperfect rule. Is it fair to say that it was not a perfect rule?
Janet McCabe: Well there are always things that people have different views on how you could do something on a rule, but I'm actually very, very proud of the job that EPA did on the rule given the importance of it, the significance of it.
One thing I'm particularly proud of is how we engaged everybody. Now I had hundreds of meetings and so did many people in the Office of Air and Radiation and the administrator as well, getting people's views and building those considerations in.
If you look at the changes that were made between the proposed rule and the final rule, how we really listened to make this a rule that could be workable.
Monica Trauzzi: So despite the Trump administration's efforts to pull this back, we continue to see industry and states moving forward with a lot of the same plans that they were planning on pre-CPP and also once the CPP was rolling. So then what is the net effect of the Trump administration rolling back the Clean Power Plan? Does it have an impact when it comes to emissions reductions?
Janet McCabe: Well, let me just comment on the first part of that because this is what a lot of people predicted and it actually makes sense given the way the Clean Air Act works because the Clean Air Act tells EPA, "Don't make stuff up. Look at where industry is going and especially where the leading industries are going that are reducing ..."
This is about air pollution, right. This is not about the energy system. This is about reducing air pollution; producing power produces air pollution, and certain kinds of power production produce more than others. There are ways to reduce that.
So we looked at where the industry was going and we built the rule based on that. So it makes all the sense in the world that that is turning out to be true. There are certainly many examples of that.
The rule is important though because it sends a signal to all of industry all across the country that this is the right direction for the industry to go to produce the good that it produces. In this case electricity, electrons, but to do so in a way that reduces the harm to public health and to the environment.
Monica Trauzzi: You mentioned Paris. A week and a half ago the Trump administration moved to exit the Paris Agreement. Obviously that's going to take some time before that's in full effect. What are the broader impacts of that? How does that impact what state and local governments here in the U.S. are going to be doing on emissions reductions? Does it play?
Janet McCabe: Well, I was both perturbed and not perturbed by the decision on Paris. I don't think it was a surprise to many people that the president pulled out of the accord. In fact, given the signals that had been sent through these various actions, I think the surprise would have been the other way.
The good news is that states, cities and businesses are moving forward. There were 1,400 organizations in cities and universities that signed up for the We're Still In campaign on day one, and they can't keep up with all of that.
In the part of the country where I come from, the Midwest, we have cities like East Lansing and Cincinnati and Indianapolis that are stepping up and saying, "Yes. We believe this is a responsibility of the United States and we're going to move forward on it." Big, big companies from the Midwest as well as all over the place.
On the other hand, I think there are some really significant downsides to the U.S. not being a part of the Paris accord, assuming that that goes forward.
For one thing, we're handing over leadership of this incredibly important international issue to other countries and, in particular, China. Is that where the U.S. really wants to be? Is that where our businesses really want to be?
One of the important roles that EPA in particular was to play in the Paris accord, it's a very sort of nerdy, wonky thing, but important, which is to provide technical assistance to countries to make sure that they are doing their reductions in a credible way, keeping track of them and accounting for them. Not all countries do that now the way we do and the way some of the countries in Europe do. They need to have resources and assistance to do that.
So we want everybody's reductions to be credible and natural and real and accurate. Not having the U.S. as part of that is a real downside.
Monica Trauzzi: The president indicated that he's willing to renegotiate or potentially sign onto a new plan. Do you see that as genuine on his part and do you see it as plausible on the international stage?
Janet McCabe: Well, I can't speak for his intentions. This was signed off on by a lot of countries and it took a lot to get to that point. I think it will be difficult for one country to come back in and say, "No, we want a different deal."
Monica Trauzzi: So lots of rollbacks. Do you think we could see some policies coming out of this administration specifically on climate? CPP is rolled back. Could something replace it?
Janet McCabe: Well, we've heard that they're going forward with something although what we've heard is that it is a rollback of the plan. I'm sure there will be lots and lots of input from a whole variety of commenters on what that policy might look like.
Really when it comes right down to it, EPA's job is to implement the Clean Air Act and will people feel that whatever this administration comes out with be fully fulfilling what Congress intended.
Monica Trauzzi: And U.S. EPA is also going to be giving states an extra year to meet the ozone regulations that came out of the Obama administration. It's something that the business community has applauded. Does that extra year give stakeholders the time that they need to meet the targets and also continue to work towards meeting those regulations?
Janet McCabe: Well, I tell you, I'm concerned about that decision. The Clean Air Act sets a schedule. Once the standard is revised, that reflects what the science shows is necessary to protect public health. Then it starts a whole chain of steps that stretch out over many years depending on how severely polluted an area is, in order to move that air quality there in the right direction.
The administrator can extend that time for a year if he or she doesn't have adequate data to make those decisions. It's not clear to me exactly what data the administrator based that on.
I think that the Clean Air Act provides plenty of time for the planning that people need to do in order to meet the standard. I'm worried because we've seen the administrator say he's relooking at the 2015 ozone standard.
The situation is that we have people out there in the world breathing this air and for many of them it is causing them health problems, missed school, missed work. We've had ozone action days and ozone violations across the country here for this hot weather here in June, and people are suffering.
So to delay implementation of that standard has real cost in terms of public health.
Monica Trauzzi: But again, business community is something that they had been pushing for. So two sides of the coin.
I want to talk about the budget. Obviously we've seen some proposed significant budget cuts to EPA coming out of the Trump budget.
The agency has long been the focus for conservatives for being too large, too many employees, too big of a workforce, costing too much money. Do you think we're at a moment right now where we should be taking a good look at how many people the agency employs, how much money is being spent? Perhaps the budget cuts are more dramatic than some would like to see, but should that be taken a look at?
Janet McCabe: Well, I think any responsible government is going to be looking on an ongoing basis at being the most efficient as they can be, but people need to realize that EPA is smaller than when Obama came into office. They're several thousand employees smaller than in the early days of the Obama administration.
I think the entire budget of EPA is about .3 percent of the federal budget. It is not a large agency. It is not overflowing. It has very clear tasks to do under the federal laws that Congress has set for it. More work than it can do with the resources that it has.
And keeping in mind it does this in partnership with the state agencies and the local agencies who implement a lot of the programs. Of course, significant reductions are proposed for those agencies as well.
So this budget will result in less work being done on the ground, whether it's by EPA or by state and federal agencies to protect public health, keep water clean, keep air clean, do appropriate enforcement when people aren't abiding by the laws. There's just no question about it. It will.
Monica Trauzzi: We were talking before the show. One of the things that you're really concerned about is the R&D for technology development and what might happen to that money.
Janet McCabe: Well, this budget takes very significant cuts on the science budget. Not just at EPA, but at other agencies as well. I think it's about 50 percent cut at EPA. That's where a lot of the work gets done so that people can understand the environmental problems.
This budget zeroes money out for the Great Lakes restoration initiative. I couldn't come on your show representing Environmental Law and Policy Center in the Midwest without speaking to that, and it specifically provides drinking water for 48 million people. It's the third largest economy in the world. Seven billion dollars in fishing industry.
And I learned, interestingly enough, of the 10 most highly rated beers, five of them are made from water from the Great Lakes. So the small amount of money that goes to those incredibly important projects in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake and all communities across the country, is really going to make a different on the ground.
Monica Trauzzi: And big cuts to efficiency programs as well, which we chatted a bit earlier about. Do you think those cuts will have legs in Congress?
Janet McCabe: Well, I don't know. I think what we saw in the FY17 budget suggests that Congress is going to take its own look at the things that it thinks are important.
The efficiency programs, the voluntary programs that have really been through Republican and Democratic administrations, ways for businesses to shine to have encouragement and recognition when they innovate and evolve, which is what we do in this country. We get better. We get cleaner. We get cheaper. We get to serve people better and everybody wants to do that. That's what makes people feel good and it's what makes them money.
For programs like Energy Star and Natural Gas Star and these positive, encouraging, voluntary programs to thought to be not useful, it would be a shame.
Monica Trauzzi: We will end it right there. Janet, thank you. Thank you for your time.
Janet McCabe: Thank you, Monica.
Monica Trauzzi: Nice to see you.
Janet McCabe: Thank you.
Monica Trauzzi: And thanks for watching. We'll see you back here tomorrow.
https://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/2232/transcript
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested