Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 7/24/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways the Trump Administration Is a Disaster for Science
Jul 24, 2017 | Rolling Stone
By Michael Halpern
Until days prior, Bowman had worked for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that's long worked to undermine the EPA's authority to protect the public, while Pruitt sued the EPA 13 times as Oklahoma's attorney general, allowing fossil fuel company executives to draft letters he sent on state letterhead protesting EPA's authority to regulate methane. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Makes Controversial Pick for Head of Chemical Safety Office
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
President Trump has nominated toxicologist Michael Dourson, who has published a series of books blending science and the Bible, to head the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical and pesticides office. Dourson quickly came under attack from environmental groups for being too cozy with the tobacco and chemical industries. -
HCF Discusses Supply Chains Post-2020
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
What will a post-2020 global chemicals supply chain look like? This was one of the hot topics discussed at this year’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum. The discussion addressed the questions: what will be the drivers for market supply and demand; and, will chemical product safety emerge a winner or loser? -
(ACC Mentioned) New Chemical Safety Rules Show Industry Influence Inside EPA
Jul 24, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Chemical lobbyists are reportedly “satisfied” with and “optimistic” over the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules for implementation of the nation’s primary chemical safety law. -
(ACC Mentioned) European Commission Hails 25 Years of Ecolabels
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zanzinger
The rise of ecolabels began in the early 1990s, when a handful of initiatives first appeared, with the aim of helping companies consider the human health, environmental and economic effects of chemicals and technologies in their products. -
Water Tainted with Perfluorocarbons by U.S. Military Is Focus of Legislation
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Zack Coleman
The Pentagon would have to study whether drinking water tainted with perfluorinated chemicals used in firefighting causes health problems under a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed on July 14 -
California Proposes Clarifications to Prop 65 Warning Requirements
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has proposed a series of amendments on how regulated parties must provide 'clear and reasonable' warning under Proposition 65. -
GSC Conference: Sustainable Chemistry about Science
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Amy Perlmutter
People working in sustainable chemistry need to advocate the value of science as they identify effective solutions, according to experts meeting at the recent Green Chemistry and Commerce Council’s (GC3) Annual Innovators Roundtable event. This was held at the headquarters of Steelcase, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on 23-25 April, with 175 people present. -
How Ppord Derogation from Registration Aids Innovation
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Some SMEs may be unaware that substances used for product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord) may be exempt from REACH registration for at least five years, according to Echa. -
Germany Launches Sustainable Chemistry Centre
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Ralph Heinrich Ahrens
The German Federal Ministry for the Environment has said that it hopes that the new International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre (ISC3) in Bonn will encourage communication between countries and regions, as well as the uptake of sustainable chemistries worldwide. -
Stockholm Convention Problem Is in the Details, NGO Says
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Joseph DiGangi
One of the Stockholm Convention’s most important features is that it is a living treaty. That means it can ban chemicals currently in use, not just redundant ones. -
Uncertainty Reigns as Brexit Rolls On
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
U-Pol is a supplier of products for the collision and damage market - and it is important to note that the company is an exporter. Indeed, exports are approximately 80% of its sales, with major markets in the US, Canada, France, Australia, Russia and China, while upwards of 90% of the company’s suppliers are in Europe, including the UK. -
Trump Administration Seeks to Repeal Obama Fracking Rule
Jul 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is proposing to repeal completely Obama-era standards governing hydraulic fracturing on federal land. -
Industry Lawyers Track Trump Admin's Evolving Policy Changes
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the Trump administration works to bolster domestic energy production, legal and regulatory certainty for the oil and gas industry remains out of reach for now. -
W.Va. Halts Construction on Rover
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
West Virginia environmental regulators ordered the developer of the embattled Rover pipeline to halt construction last week in the latest blow for the project, which has faced pressure from the state of Ohio as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. -
Houston to Get $2.4B Plant
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Houston may soon be home to the largest petrochemicals plant of its kind in the world. -
A Dangerous Idea: Eliminating the Chemical Safety Board
Jul 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By Steve Early
The United States Chemical Safety Board is a federal watchdog with more bark than bite. It has five board members, a tiny staff of less than 50 and a budget of some $11 million a year. Its mission is to investigate fires and explosions in oil refineries and chemical plants. -
Dem Senators to Pitch Carbon Tax Plan to Conservative Group
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geoff Koss
A pair of Democratic senators will return to a conservative think tank this week to unveil a proposal to impose a carbon tax to curb greenhouse gas emissions. -
California Shows How States Can Lead on Climate Change
Jul 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
California, which has long been a pioneer in fighting climate change, renewed its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions last week by extending, to 2030, its cap-and-trade program, which effectively puts a price on emissions. -
Democratic Group Asks GAO to Investigate Pruitt's Anti-Paris Comments
Jul 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Democracy Legal Fund is asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's comments strongly opposing the United Nations Paris Agreement, which helped to persuade President Donald Trump to announce his plan to leave the deal, broke the law.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Ways the Trump Administration Is a Disaster for Science
Jul 24, 2017 | Rolling Stone
By Michael Halpern
When Scott Pruitt, Trump's Environmental Protection Agency chief, misrepresented the well-established link between human activity and global warming this spring, newly minted EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman jumped to his defense. "Administrator Pruitt makes no apologies for having a candid dialogue about climate science," she told reporters. Until days prior, Bowman had worked for the American Chemistry Council, a trade group that's long worked to undermine the EPA's authority to protect the public, while Pruitt sued the EPA 13 times as Oklahoma's attorney general, allowing fossil fuel company executives to draft letters he sent on state letterhead protesting EPA's authority to regulate methane.
Bowman and Pruitt are just two individuals in what's become a torrent of Trump appointees whose primary qualification is a history of attacking the very agencies they now lead. When industry lobbyists and fringe ideologues storm the castle, the censorship and manipulation of science becomes considerably more likely, and the need for watchdogs to keep government officials honest becomes ever more critical.
The last six months were a disaster for the role of evidence in policy decisions. The Trump administration systematically abandoned science-based public protections, avoided scientific and technical review of its policy priorities, reduced public access to scientific information and compromised the independence of science advisory committees. As a result, Americans are more vulnerable to public health and environmental threats.
Here are several ways the administration is systematically – and often quietly – weakening science in America.
Science is being removed from decision-making.
Left unchecked, there will always be companies that skirt the rules at the public's expense. In response, Congress created bipartisan laws grounded in science to allow for economic growth while protecting public health and safety, and empowered federal agencies to carry them out.The EPA implements the Clean Air Act, which is why kids aren't regularly kept indoors because of excessive smog. The Food and Drug Administration does its best to keep the food supply safe and ensure we don't die from unsafe drugs or quack medical devices. The Consumer Product Safety Commission protects American families from lead-tainted toys.
Public protection laws are effective because they require the government to justify – or remove – public protections with the best available science. When this threshold is not met, the courts step in.
Yet the Trump administration considers itself exempt from this requirement, cutting back on health-and-safety protections by focusing solely on costs while ignoring public benefits. A presidential executive order would require agencies to repeal two regulations for each one put forward. The administration argues that a move to rescind clean-water protections "need not be based upon a change of facts or circumstances." Some lawyers are even counseling industry clients to pay for analysis that understaffed agencies can use to tilt the scales in their favor. One can only assume they will find a willing audience.
We're relying on lobbyists to protect children from brain damage.
A wealth of studies show that chlorpyrifos, a heavily used pesticide manufactured by Dow, harms developing human brains. EPA scientists and the American Academy of Pediatrics have urged the EPA to ban it.But Dow CEO Andrew Liviris leads the administration's anti-regulatory task force, and Dow lawyers asked the EPA in April to reject the scientists' advice. Administrator Pruitt listened. According to multiple EPA sources, the scientists who worked on the issue were never consulted and learned about the decision through the news.
Such actions take a toll on public servants. "When I have to do something like defend the agency's position on this pesticide decision, I really take it to heart," said one EPA scientist. "It's eating me up inside."
The reduction of unwanted teen pregnancies is being hampered.
Attacks on science go far beyond environmental agencies. And the direct consequences for public health and safety are profound.A senior official at the Department of Health and Human Services believes contraception doesn't work. "Human reproduction has become the victim of alternative science, rife with alternative definitions of well-understood medical conditions and characterized by rejection of the scientific method as the standard for generating and evaluating evidence," bioethicist Alta Charo wrote in a recent New England Journal of Medicineeditorial excoriating the administration for a slew of bad public-health picks.
In early July, the administration abruptly cut $213 million in teen pregnancy prevention research grants halfway through a five-year project. The move makes two years of research useless, and jeopardizes the progress the United States has made toward reducing rates of unwanted teen pregnancies. "Public health issues shouldn't be political issues," Pat Paluzzi of Baltimore's Healthy Teen Network told the Center for Investigative Reporting of the move.
Political appointees are sabotaging their own agencies.
Agency leaders typically argue for budgets that will allow them to carry out their mission. In the Trump era, that's no longer necessarily the case. Acting Indian Health Service Director Michael Weahkee acknowledged earlier this month that staffing was his biggest challenge, but then refused to acknowledge in a Senate hearing that the proposed Trump budget would decrease funding for workforce development in his agency.Under that proposed budget, agencies also would be forced to drastically reduce data collection on everything from water pollution to nuclear power plant safety to the spread of diseases. This information is critical to the ability of state and local governments and university researchers to understand and address public health and environmental threats. Even Republican legislators who have long been critical of the EPA challenged the administration's proposed cuts to scientific initiatives.
The sabotage goes well beyond budgets. Last year, after 42 years of analysis and debate, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration finalized a science-based rule to protect workers from exposure to toxic silica dust. In April, the Trump administration delayed implementation of the safeguard. Is four decades not enough time for construction companies to adjust their practices?
The administration also delayed rules protecting shipyard workers from beryllium exposure, requiring food companies to tell the public how much sugar is added to products, limiting methane emissions and implementing energy-efficiency standards. Each of these rules took years of careful analysis and incorporated many rounds of public input.
The EPA even postponed a rule that would give first responders information about hazardous chemicals stored at chemical facilities. This must be cold comfort to the families of the 12 first responders killed after a Texas fertilizer plant explosion in 2013. And forget any oversight: President Trump wants to eliminate the Chemical Safety Board, which investigates chemical disasters.
Independent science advice is being dismantled.
Tens of thousands of experts volunteer their time on hundreds of federal science advisory committees to inform the decisions of government officials. In the Trump era, science advice to government is grinding to a halt. The Department of the Interior suspended advisory committee activity, making it harder for the government to conserve endangered species and safeguard national monuments from climate change.The Department of Justice disbanded a key committee charged with improving the reliability of forensic sciences, stacking the deck in favor of prosecutors and unnecessarily putting more people at risk of false imprisonment. The EPA ejected a majority of the scientists from its Board of Scientific Counselors, and is expected to fill their positions with others who are on the industry dime. Meanwhile, the president's sham Electoral Integrity Commission may have violated federal law and seems destined to create yet more misinformation about vulnerabilities in the U.S. election system.
This pattern also can be seen outside the science realm: The president believes his son-in-law, armed with extensive real estate development experience, will solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His administration has attempted to delegitimize analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, national intelligence agencies and the judiciary. In Trump's world, any independent expertise should be neutralized.
But scientists are standing their ground.
Science supporters around the globe are not taking these attacks lying down. The Data Refuge Project and Internet Archive have preserved thousands of scientific datasets and agency websites. Independent scientists have slammed the administration and detailed the impact of its proposed cuts to scientific initiatives. Since federal employees can risk their livelihoods when they speak out about abuses of science, the Scientist Protection Fund – a legal resource for federal employees to confidentially report actions that sideline science from government decisions – is one more arrow in their quiver.The saving grace is that Americans across the political spectrum continue to trust scientists to benefit our health, our economy and our lives. It's up to the science community to document and communicate how the Trump presidency puts this legacy at risk. And there's never been a more important time to speak out for science and the public interest.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/5-ways-the-trump-administration-is-a-disaster-for-science-w493162
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Makes Controversial Pick for Head of Chemical Safety Office
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
President Trump has nominated toxicologist Michael Dourson, who has published a series of books blending science and the Bible, to head the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical and pesticides office. Dourson quickly came under attack from environmental groups for being too cozy with the tobacco and chemical industries.
This role of director of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention requires Senate confirmation. The American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade group, immediately backed the nomination, describing Dourson as ‘an excellent candidate for this important position’ and ‘highly respected’. The organisation urged the Senate to approve his nomination without delay.
In announcing Dourson as Trump’s pick for the position, the EPA included copious praise from various quarters. For example, the agency quoted Samuel Cohen, a microbiologist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, calling him ‘an outstanding, hard-working scientist with a distinguished record in toxicology and risk assessment’. Unusually, the EPA press release also included accolades for the nomination from religious figures.
In his profile on Twitter, Dourson had said he ‘writes books matching science and Biblical text’, but he apparently changed the language – after media attention following his nomination – to say that he ‘writes science–Bible stories’.
Environmental Defense Fund senior scientist Richard Denison described Dourson as having ‘extensive, longstanding ties’ to the chemical and tobacco industries. He pointed out that the nomination comes at a critical point for the EPA toxics office, which is charged with implementing last year’s new law that overhauled the 40 year old regulations that govern chemicals policy in the US.
Melanie Benesh, an attorney with the Environmental Working Group, said Dourson has ‘deep ties to the chemical industry he will be tasked with regulating if confirmed’. She stated that the non-profit consulting group he founded and leads – Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment – has taken funding from the ACC and other industry players and downplayed the risks of chemical exposure.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/trump-makes-controversial-pick-for-head-of-chemical-safety-office/3007748.article
-
HCF Discusses Supply Chains Post-2020
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
What will a post-2020 global chemicals supply chain look like? This was one of the hot topics discussed at this year’s Helsinki Chemicals Forum. The discussion addressed the questions: what will be the drivers for market supply and demand; and, will chemical product safety emerge a winner or loser?
To set the scene, panellists addressed the political, economic and social uncertainty that has become the norm over the last decade, with some saying it has created an era of ‘business as usual’. Change has often been viewed as ‘too risky’ in this age of doubt. And the recent shift from globalism to nationalism in some regions – the most obvious examples being Brexit and the US voting for Donald Trump – has created a difficult environment in which to do business globally.
Overall, the global chemical market has not suffered. Its market value has continued to rise over the last decade, and, according to Cefic, global chemical sales are likely to almost double by 2030. Despite this, energy demands, resource scarcity and the growing importance of chemical safety all mean that companies further down the supply chain are having to adapt and modernise their processes if they are to keep ahead of these challenges and maintain their market share.
There is, however, cause for optimism, according to some on the panel. Both Rafael Cayuela, chief economist at Dow Chemical, and Mihai Scumpieru, a manager at Mitsubishi Electric Europe, said that many of the environmental and social challenges we face today could be solved through the further development of technological advances like Big Data and artificial intelligence (AI).
"Chemicals are moving into the nanoscale, which means we need a much deeper analysis of these substances. This will require the help of advanced technology, such as AI," said Mr Scumpieru, who is also vice chair of the Japan Business Council in Europe.Obtaining information
However, AI and Big Data are yet to become a common feature in everyday life and business and so cannot yet be relied upon. Until then, familiar challenges remain in need of solutions.
Another panellist, Anouschka Jansen, senior manager at the Foreign Trade Association, said that information exchange on chemicals is one of the main challenges for supply chains today and will probably be so in the future as well. Because of their complexity, said Ms Jansen, information on chemicals is hard to locate.
"Chemicals enter the supply chain at different stages, for different purposes. Chemical manufacturers provide the substances but where they are manufactured isn’t necessarily where they are bought or used. So it’s easy to see why information on chemicals gets lost," she said.
This information, Ms Jansen continued, is critical for downstream users who have to provide the data to their customers, such as brands and retailers, who in turn have to report and comply with legislation, such as REACH. To help close the information gap, Mr Scumpieru said, there is potential for stronger synergies between chemicals producers and downstream users.
"Downstream users could work more closely with chemicals producers to develop the most suitable chemicals for the right application, instead of receiving signals about suitable chemicals through many levels of the supply chain and realising, by the time the product has been scoped, that your technology has advanced and you no longer need the chemical."Global alignment
Mr Scumpieru also advocated regulatory harmonisation and international cooperation. "This is essential for businesses to operate in this climate of uncertainty, certainly where supply chains are so complex. We believe in setting common standards and ensuring the reliability of chemicals," he said.
Ms Jansen also highlighted the additional complexity of complying with multiple legislative frameworks. "Those manufacturing products, who are often in Asian, African or Latin American countries, have to deal with local legislation.
"This is often in conflict with the different requirements they get from their customers, which are often based on REACH, or those that go beyond legislation, like Greenpeace’s Detox campaign."
Businesses need more global alignment, she added. "Global frameworks and alignment can help companies to get the information in a way where they know they are going to be able to meet the requirements of legislators and clients."New business strategies
While these issues are are the forefront of most businesses’ minds, what is really needed, said Joe DiGangi, senior scientist and technical adviser for the NGO, the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), is "nothing less than a complete transformation of the industry itself".
"A risk assessment system that is built on the assumption that chemicals must be safe enough is not good enough. The public will demand safer chemicals, chemicals without harm, and the industries closest to consumers will find it easiest to change," he argued.
Mr DiGangi also highlighted the "huge" societal costs associated with hazardous chemicals and referenced a statement from the UN’s Global Chemicals Outlook, published in 2012. "The industry does not pay the true cost of its products and all economists would describe this as a market failure," he reflected.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57815/hcf-discusses-supply-chains-post-2020
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Chemical Safety Rules Show Industry Influence Inside EPA
Jul 24, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Melanie Benesh
Chemical lobbyists are reportedly “satisfied” with and “optimistic” over the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules for implementation of the nation’s primary chemical safety law.
Of course they are.
These days the chemical industry has good reason to be in high spirits. With Scott Pruitt at the helm, President Trump’s EPA has been a boon for the industry. The Trump administration has spent its first six monthsappointing people with deep industry ties to critical energy and environment positions.
Last week Trump announced his intention to nominate Michael Dourson to head the agency’s office of chemicals and pesticides. Dourson has a troubling history of working with industry to undercut chemical regulations. If the Senate rubber-stamps the nomination, he’ll be working with Nancy Beck, a former American Chemistry Council bigwig. We called Beck “the scariest Trump appointee you’ve never heard of” – at least unless Dourson is confirmed.
The chemical industry is finding sympathetic ears inside the EPA, especially when it comes to implementing the revised Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, which was significantly overhauled last year. Particularly important are two rules dictating how the EPA will select and evaluate chemicals for safety.
The rules were proposed in January, shortly before Trump took office, and were met mostly with praise from public health and environmental advocates. But the American Chemistry Council, or ACC, the industry’s largest trade association, filed comments largely in opposition. The final rules, published last week in the Federal Register, have many significant pro-industry changes. Below are some that have the biggest implications for chemical safety.
Excludes important sources of chemical exposure from EPA’s safety evaluation
In response to the ACC and other chemical industry comments, the EPA gave itself discretion to exclude important sources of chemical exposure from safety assessments. This is important because people are exposed to chemicals in myriad ways.
Everyone gets some chemical exposures from consumer products, food, dust, drinking water and air pollution, but some people have unique exposure risks – such as workers who manufacture and process chemicals. Some chemical uses have largely been phased out, but people remain exposed through so-called legacy uses. Often, people are exposed to the same or similar chemicals from multiple sources. The law instructs the EPA to consider all these different sources of exposure and also the different populations likely affected when determining a chemical’s safety.
When it issued the proposed rule in January, the EPA acknowledged this requirement, stating that “a risk evaluation must encompass all manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, use and disposal activities ... that is to say all known, intended, reasonably foreseen activities.” The EPA said it did not interpret the statute to give it “license to choose among conditions of use.”
The ACC didn’t like this approach. In its comments, the ACC said looking at all those sources of exposure would “lead to an absurd result.” The ACC also included a laundry list of uses it wanted to be excluded from most risk evaluations. These included so-called non-TSCA chemical uses regulated under other laws or through other agencies, worker exposures regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and low exposure uses.
When the EPA published its final rule, it reversed course, stating that after reevaluating the proposal it would allow risk evaluations to be conducted looking at only a subset of uses and exposures. As recommended by the ACC, the EPA also decided it had discretion to exclude certain uses regulated by other agencies, intentional misuses and low exposure uses. Most jarringly, the final rule generally excludes legacy uses and disposal of chemicals that are no longer on the market. This is a significant problem because uses are often phased out after they are identified as dangerous, but chemicals can stay in the environment for generations.
Puts greater emphasis on green-lighting chemicals rather than regulating them
The new TSCA requires that EPA designate chemicals as either low or high priority. “Low priority” is a de facto safety designation. High priority chemicals, on the other hand, might pose risks to public health or the environment, and the EPA must evaluate their safety.
Because low priority chemicals won’t undergo rigorous analysis or be regulated, the law sets a high bar. A chemical will only be designated as low priority if there is enough information to feel confident it is safe. Because this should rightly be a tough standard to meet, the EPA explained in the proposed rule that most chemicals would be considered high priority by default.
The ACC balked at this, saying that it would “undermine the ability of the Agency to make low priority designations” and encouraged the EPA to “consider creative solutions to improve the agency’s ability to make low priority designations.” The ACC asserted that the EPA “should make clear that the Agency has broad and flexible authority to designate chemicals as low priorities for risk evaluations.”
In the final rule, the EPA struck nearly all the references to a default, stating that several commenters felt the default designation “would be an unfair result for affected industries.” The EPA also added: “As a policy matter, EPA is committed to making Low-Priority designations on an ongoing basis beyond the statutory minimum,” and “in response to comments that EPA more explicitly recognize Low-Priority designations as part of the process, the final rule now includes a general objective for selecting candidates for Low-Priority [status].”
Lets the chemical industry limit EPA’s analysis of industry’s favorite chemicals
The new law allows the industry to request that the EPA assess particular chemicals. The law gives the EPA significant discretion as to how it will receive these requests and how it will decide whether to accept them.
In the rule as proposed in January, the EPA reasonably included a requirement that the requestor provide the agency with all information it would need to complete a rigorous and thorough safety evaluation. That would include information about all different uses and likely exposures. The EPA reserved the discretion to reject a request if the requestor did not provide enough information. The EPA also proposed to give preference to manufacturer requests with evidence of high risk.
The ACC really didn’t like this approach. It said the EPA’s proposed information requirements would “make it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for a manufacturer to submit a request acceptable to EPA.” The ACC said manufacturers should be able to submit a request for only a small subset of uses of a chemical – not all uses and ways in which people might be exposed.
In the rule published yesterday, the EPA significantly rolled back its approach.
Specifically, the EPA decided that manufacturers would no longer have to submit information on all uses, but could make a request based on only the uses “that are of interest to the manufacturer.” The EPA would still have to do a full review of the chemical, but the burden would now be completely on the agency to identify the other uses and collect the relevant information. The EPA would have to meet the same strict deadlines, but without the benefit of the screening period it has for other chemicals, meaning the evaluation is less likely to be done well.
The EPA also backed down from its proposal to give preference to higher-risk requests. It will now accept manufacturer requests in the order received, likely making it easier for industry to get their favorite chemicals rubber-stamped quickly.
Eliminates early information gathering period
In the proposed rule, the EPA created an information-gathering period, called “pre-prioritization,” to seek and collect data on chemicals of concern. This period was designed to ensure the EPA had enough data early on to make informed decisions within the strict statutory deadlines.
In comments filed in March, the ACC said that this information-gathering period raised significant concerns. The ACC suggested a complicated tiered process for gathering information that would limit the EPA’s discretion and create bureaucratic obstacles to the agency demanding more from industry. In the final rule, the EPA eliminated the pre-prioritization period. It said it “expects to use a tiered approach to information gathering.”
Adopts industry’s preferred definitions for key terms
The final risk evaluation rule also included new definitions and changed others at the behest of groups like the ACC.
In January’s proposed rule, the EPA declined to codify definitions of several key terms like “best available science” and “weight of the evidence.” It expressed concern that doing so would “inhibit the flexibility of the agency to quickly adapt and implement changing science.” The EPA did, however, opt to include an expanded definition of a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation” to make clear that it may include vulnerable populations not specifically named in the statute. EWG and other public health groups applauded this definition and considered it to be very health-protective.
The ACC was opposed to this approach. In its comments, the lobby group requested that “best available science,” “weight of the evidence” and other terms be defined. The ACC also opposed EPA’s expanded definition of a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.”
Once again, the ACC got its way. The final rule codified several definitions like “best available science” and “weight of the evidence,” as requested by the ACC. The “weight of the evidence” definition adopted by the EPA is exactly the definition requested by the ACC. The “best available science” definition includes many of the elements requested by the ACC. The EPA also scrapped the expanded, more health-protective definition of a “potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.”
The two final rules published last week represent a critical early test of the strength of the new law. That the EPA was willing to so significantly weaken these rules in favor of chemical industry demands does not bode well for public health. If Dourson is confirmed, the outlook is even bleaker. Unlike the ACC, we’re not feeling optimistic at all.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/07/new-chemical-safety-rules-show-industry-influence-inside-epa#.WXYfQoSGPIV
-
(ACC Mentioned) European Commission Hails 25 Years of Ecolabels
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zanzinger
The rise of ecolabels began in the early 1990s, when a handful of initiatives first appeared, with the aim of helping companies consider the human health, environmental and economic effects of chemicals and technologies in their products. Many of these schemes have since become household names and their certifications adorn thousands of products.
However, while those behind these initiatives see them as agents for change, businesses and consumers do not always agree on the value of certifications. Some say this has been lost in the myriad of labels now found on products.
Companies have criticised them for requiring too much of their time and money, while NGOs say their endorsements do not demand enough. Is it worth the effort? Do people and the environment benefit? Do companies?
According to the European Commission, the answer to all those questions is ‘yes’. On 30 June, it renewed its commitment to the EU Ecolabel scheme for another 25 years. The Commission ‘fitness check’ of its functioning and performance concluded that the label is a win-win for consumers, the environment, and the economy, winning praise from NGOs.
"The Ecolabel is one of the EU’s most tangible successes for consumers," says Monique Goyens, director general of the European Consumer Organisation (Beuc). "It is great news that the flower label will keep guiding consumers towards the greenest detergents, textiles and many more products and services."
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) policy director Pieter De Pous echoes this. "For the past 25 years, the EU Ecolabel has promoted the manufacture and expansion of more resource-efficient products and services. It’s an invaluable, yet simple instrument to improve the daily lives of millions of people by helping them to make the right choice for them and for the planet," he said.
However, while Beuc and the EEB urge the Commission to "remain ambitious" in the Ecolabel’s criteria, the chemical industry has often asked for them to be simplified. The trade associations Cefic and Eurometaux previously called for more "workable" requirements to be introduced in the EU Ecolabel review.
According to Article 6(6) of the REACH Regulation, the Ecolabel cannot be awarded to goods containing substances, preparations or mixtures meeting the criteria for classification as toxic, hazardous to the environment, carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) in accordance with the CLP Regulation, or to those containing substances classified as SVHCs. Cefic and Eurometaux wanted the option to derogate REACH candidate list substances and a definition in the label legal text that focuses on the most hazardous chemicals first.
PlasticsEurope has also asked for fewer criteria and a simple verification process, which, it said, would lower the costs of the label and make it more attractive to companies. "There needs to be consistency between already existing legislation and the criteria being developed, and when it comes to chemicals in particular, alignment with REACH is essential, thus using a risk-based approach rather than a hazard one," the trade body wrote in a 2012 position paper.Challenging but achievable
Finding the right balance between criteria that are tough enough to create change but still achievable enough to attract industry commitment has been one of the biggest challenges ecolabels in general have had to face in the past 25 years, says Niclas Rydell, director at the sustainability certification body for IT products, TCO Certified.
Since it was founded in Sweden in 1992, TCO Certified has become the most widespread sustainability certification for the IT sector. Its chemical criteria have helped to phase out halogenated substances and several other flame retardants, PVC and mercury before restrictions on them were written into European chemical law.
Although these phase-outs had a significant impact on many products, TCO Certified made it a priority to keep its certification realistic. "We set the criteria so that 30-50% of products on the market could pass. When we implemented the certification, our strategy was to incrementally drive industry in a sustainable direction; if it is too hard to achieve, then that won’t happen," says Mr Rydell.
Finding the right balance for chemical risk criteria is tricky for every ecolabel. In the US, the chemical industry has criticised the EPA’s Safer Choice programme for taking a hazard-based approach to its criteria.
"Chemicals in commerce should be assessed based on their risk and exposure," says Cal Dooley, president and CEO of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). "We will oppose any assessment of chemicals that is based on a hazard-only approach."
Mr Dooley cites the example of a cold-water detergent which did not qualify for the Safer Choice label because it contained two chemicals that pose a greater hazard than are allowed under the programme’s criteria. He argues that it should have been certified for reducing energy consumption in use.
The Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA), by contrast, says that risk-based chemical analyses could allow Safer Choice labelling to be based on a wider spectrum of chemicals’ health and environmental effects than may be possible through the hazard-based toxicity and environmental effects criteria currently used.
That said, the CSPA has also shown its support for the programme for encouraging innovation in its sector. Meanwhile, NGOs such as Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families have said that a hazard-based assessment gives the label the upper hand as a science-led programme, rather than one relying on estimating risks.Verification
Choosing the right criteria is worth little if they are not verifiable, TCO Certified’s Mr Rydell adds. Verification can be expensive and time-consuming, especially when it comes to chemical criteria.
In the TCO Certified programme, around 5% of the certified products are purchased for independent spot-check control every year against the criteria in the certification. Most ecolabels – such as Cradle to Cradle Certified, the Nordic Swan or the Blue Angel – choose to carry out audits and send samples to independent laboratories.
The EU Ecolabel uses competent bodies across the 28 member states to ensure that products are verified "by a party independent from the operator being verified, based on international, European or national standards and procedures". The Safer Choice programme opts for requiring full ingredient disclosure from manufacturers of products carrying the label, backed up by occasional audits.
Whether these methods of verification are reliable remains questionable and a major challenge for the teams behind the ecolabels. Cradle to Cradle Certified said that it hopes to develop tools that will make assessing and verifying materials more cost-effective.
Its most immediate goal is the launch of Material Wise, a material health database that is meant to expand access to safe, healthy, commonly used materials and the chemicals in them.
The database will hold material health data at every state of the production process, including screening (identifying and prioritising known hazards), assessment (hazard and exposure profiles against 24 human and environmental endpoints) and optimisation (eliminating chemicals of concern).
Lewis Perkins, president of Cradle to Cradle Certified’s products innovation institute, thinks that reliable data about the chemical make-up of materials will fast-forward the scheme’s efforts to create a circular economy, based on products carrying the certification. "In our current system, access to reliable data is often a barrier to positive design," he says. "The Material Wise initiative will help to change that by giving manufacturers cost-effective access to verified, actionable data about the materials and the chemicals they use."25 years on
Ecolabels can be a valuable tool for consumers and product specifiers to quickly understand the environmental, social and human health impacts of the products they choose. But after 25 years of new labels spreading across Europe and the US, their proliferation can be confusing to consumers and manufacturers and can devalue the potential benefits of ecolabelling and product standards.
Cradle to Cradle Certified’s Mr Perkins says that labels should go beyond simply expanding the volume of certified products across industry sectors and turn to educating and engaging consumers, materials suppliers and other manufacturers about the value of products that follow greener requirements. In turn, this helps companies committed to a label to recognise the return on their investment.
Engaging more manufacturers in product standards is vital, Mr Perkins says. In particular, getting influential industry sectors to collaborate on materials that can be optimised for a certification can make a difference.
"Many ecolabels are focused on making products ‘less bad’ rather than offering roadmaps that help companies create products that have a more positive impact on people and planet. In the future, we plan to help manufacturers and designers in other industry sectors with collaborative efforts to transform their supply chains and materials."
NGOs echoed these hopes for the future of ecolabelling when the Commission renewed its commitment to its scheme in June. "Thanks to the EU Ecolabel, both consumers and the environment are better protected against toxic chemicals," says Beuc and EEB ecolabel coordinator, Blanca Morales. Asking manufacturers to replace hazardous substances with safer alternatives whenever possible is what makes an ecolabel more robust and reliable, she adds.
"Take as an example the new criteria for detergents. To be able to display the [EU Ecolabel], manufacturers will have to ban problematic substances, such as phosphates, microplastics, preservatives or fragrances dangerous for the environment or health. This is great news because detergents are the Ecolabel’s flagship product group, with over 4,500 products available on the market and some major retailers using it."
Beuc’s Monica Goyens adds that labels must aim to stay ambitious and only reward the greenest of products. "Only a robust and reliable label can win the trust of consumers," she says.Chemical requirements of five major ecolabels
Established in 1978, the Blaue Engel (Blue Angel) label is one of the longest-standing certifications in Europe. Its main focus is on examining the impact that products and services have on the climate, resources, water, soil and air.
Certified products must be manufactured from sustainably produced raw materials and avoid dangerous substances for the environment or people’s health, or limit them to a minimum. Its chemical requirements differ, depending on the product type. For example, the label is awarded to wall paints which release as few plasticisers and as little formaldehyde as possible, or to low-solvent roof coatings.
The Safer Choice label evaluates each ingredient in a formulation against master and functional-class criteria documents, which define the characteristics and toxicity thresholds for ingredients that are acceptable in Safer Choice products. The criteria are based on EPA evaluations of the physical and toxicological properties of chemicals and include authoritative lists of chemicals of concern.
The Nordic Swan is the official ecolabel of the Nordic countries, established in 1989. To be certified, companies have to meet specific criteria in the appropriate one out of 63 product groups.
Cosmetic products, for example, follow strict requirements for surfactants, fragrances and colourants. Indoor paints and varnishes, on the other hand, carry restrictions on titanium dioxide, heavy metals and preservatives, and a ban on formaldehyde or nanoparticles.
TCO Certified focuses on IT products, with restrictions on halogenated flame retardants, halogens as part of the polymer and heavy metals. Its requirements on the latter are stricter than those under RoHS.
Cadmium, mercury, lead and hexavalent chromium are either forbidden or heavily restricted, as are bromine and chlorine in plastics and mercury in monitors and tablets.
During its latest criteria review in 2015, the label was updated to allow the use of only non-halogenated flame retardants on an accepted substance list benchmarked 2 or higher by the GreenScreen tool, and restrictions on phthalates.
The Cradle to Cradle Certified product standard is a four-stage approach that begins with the inventory of a product’s materials and a screening and full assessment of all chemicals in these. The assessment is based on 21 human and environmental health hazard endpoints and a qualitative exposure assessment. Each chemical receives a rating, which defines the certification level the product may gain. The standard also includes a banned list of chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57812/european-commission-hails-25-years-of-ecolabels
-
Water Tainted with Perfluorocarbons by U.S. Military Is Focus of Legislation
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Zack Coleman
The Pentagon would have to study whether drinking water tainted with perfluorinated chemicals used in firefighting causes health problems under a bill the U.S. House of Representatives passed on July 14.
The proposed 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 2810) includes provisions on perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), collectively known as perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). The chemicals persist in the environment indefinitely and have been linked to disease in people.
The military in the 1970s began using aqueous film-forming foam containing PFOA and other perfluorinated compounds that can degrade to PFOA or PFOS. Scientists have recently linked use of the foam at military installations to contamination of drinking water with PFASs. The Department of Defense is assessing its use of these substances and potential substitutes for them.
The bill would instruct the Pentagon to study the health of people who drank PFOS- or PFOA-contaminated water on or near current or former military installations.
The measure brings up the possibility that the Environmental Protection Agency might cap the amount of PFASs allowed in drinking water. EPA set a nonbinding health advisory levelfor PFASs in drinking water at 70 ppt in May 2016 but has not set a legally enforceable limit for these substances.
The bill would ask the Pentagon to consider whether setting an enforceable maximum would pose any significant challenges to the development of PFAS substitutes or the military’s cleanup of contamination.
The Senate is working on its own version of the legislation (S. 1519), which is silent on PFASs.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i30/Water-tainted-perfluorocarbons-US-military.html
-
California Proposes Clarifications to Prop 65 Warning Requirements
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has proposed a series of amendments on how regulated parties must provide 'clear and reasonable' warning under Proposition 65.
The modifications come in response to a number of inquiries regarding the regulatory amendmentsmade last year on how warning must be provided for exposure to a chemical listed under Prop 65 as a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant. In an initial statement of reason, Oehha says the proposed changes are "necessary to add clarity and specificity" for businesses preparing to comply with the new regulations by the 30 August 2018 deadline.
The clarifying amendments would affect several sections of the Article 6 regulations, including:
· consumer product exposure warnings, such as methods of transmission, content and responsibility to provide them;
· furniture product and vehicle exposure warnings;
· food and beverage exposure warnings for restaurants; and
· definitions.
In separate notices, the agency has also proposed adopting tailored warnings for exposures to listed chemicals at hotels and other lodging establishments, and to establish default natural background levels for arsenic in rice.
Comments on the proposals will be accepted until 7 September. A public hearing will be scheduled on request, provided one is received no later than 23 August.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57809/california-proposes-clarifications-to-prop-65-warning-requirements
-
GSC Conference: Sustainable Chemistry about Science
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Amy Perlmutter
People working in sustainable chemistry need to advocate the value of science as they identify effective solutions, according to experts meeting at the recent Green Chemistry and Commerce Council’s (GC3) Annual Innovators Roundtable event. This was held at the headquarters of Steelcase, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, on 23-25 April, with 175 people present.
GC3 is an international collaborative network, engaging the value chain to accelerate adoption and innovation of green chemistry solutions. The roundtable is its most important education, networking and strategic planning event of the year.
Speaking at the meeting, Senator Chris Coons (Dem-Delaware), noted that it is important for people working in the field to understand the language that matters to the audience they are speaking to. In light of the current political landscape and attacks on science in the US, he said, they need to talk about jobs and innovation.
Senator Coons is a trained chemist and a leading advocate for sustainable chemistry in Congress, having jointly introduced the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act in 2015. He also believes it is important to provide certainty and predictability around chemicals regulation.
The meeting discussed the opportunities for green chemistry, if it is framed and communicated in the right way, to be aligned with the government’s priorities of infrastructure and defence. As well as discussing how the current US political landscape impacts green chemistry, it focused on:product design for the circular economy - sustainable design is seen as an enormous opportunity;what is being learned from chemical ingredient transparency initiatives;lessons from the corporate world (also known as ‘C-Suite’) about green chemistry innovation;the role of formulators in the supply chain, especially if their activities are difficult to map;challenges and opportunities to using sustainable feedstocks at scale; andinnovative partnerships.
It is clear that green chemistry faces many challenges as it attempts to become mainstream throughout the value chain. These include:the length of time it takes to bring new chemicals to market and the higher cost of bio-based products;the difficulty of educating the value chain on the business opportunities within green chemistry;the current US administration’s support of fossil fuel investments which, if successful, could retard bio-based green chemistry development and adoption; andthe difficulty of scaling alternative feedstocks because of insufficient demand in the supply chain.
A number of GC3 collaborative programmes, which aim to drive green chemistry innovation, were also highlighted at the meeting. These included:the Safer Preservatives Challenge;the Retail Leadership Council; andthe Green and Bio-based Startup Network.Key take-home messages
To continue to build a green chemistry community, the meeting agreed, requires visibility, support and recognition of efforts being made.
To be successful, corporate leaders should build understanding throughout their companies about green chemistry, as well as provide training and continuous support to employees.
The meeting heard how transparency will help drive customer confidence in companies and provide an impetus for green chemistry innovation. For example, full-cost accounting would help make the business case for such solutions. Generally, it appears that much more green chemistry goes on within companies than the public is aware of.
More collaborative business models for R&D would allow more stakeholders to be part of the process of developing products and this would reduce risk and create business opportunities, the meeting heard. A number of models for value-chain collaboration that can be used to solve green chemistry problems were discussed.
Another point was made about terminology. Rather than talking about a product as being safer, companies should be talking about continuous improvement, that the new product is the next step in the evolution.
One message was clear from the roundtable: while there are still challenges to overcome, there are many green chemistry successes to point to and the field will continue to grow. No matter what the political priorities, green chemistry makes good business sense and can provide a competitive edge.
In the coming year, the GC3 intends to expand its ‘Green and Bio-based Startup Network and other collaborative innovation models. Highlighting the role of the chemical industry in green chemistry innovation, the 2018 event will be held at Eastman Chemical’s facility at Kingsport, Tennessee, on 8-10 May. This will be the first time a chemical manufacturer has hosted a GC3 roundtable.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57818/gsc-conference-sustainable-chemistry-about-science
-
How Ppord Derogation from Registration Aids Innovation
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Some SMEs may be unaware that substances used for product and process-orientated research and development (Ppord) may be exempt from REACH registration for at least five years, according to Echa.
Ppord is defined as any scientific development related to product development or the further development of a substance, on its own, in mixtures or in articles in the course of which pilot plant or production trials are used to develop the production process and/or to test the fields of application of the substance (Article 3(22) of the REACH Regulation.
Ppord exemption applies to substances produced in quantities exceeding one tonne/year. It is not aimed at early-stage research, but at projects gearing up for industrial production, such as pilot plant studies. Indeed, chemicals used in low volumes for scientific R&D do not need to be registered under REACH.
Ppord applications mainly come from large companies, according to a 2015 report on monitoring the impacts of REACH on innovation, competitiveness and SMEs, published by the European Commission.
Between 2008 and 2014, over 80% of 1,468 Ppord notifications came from large companies, 14% from medium-sized organisations and just 2% from "small and micro firms". German companies made the most Ppord applications (39%), followed by those in France (12%), the UK (9%) and Italy (8%).
Although more large companies are submitting applications, the number from medium-sized companies is fairly static, the report stated. Echa data suggests that the number of notifications has dropped since 2014. In 2016, there were 203 of them, compared with 247 in 2015 and 299 in 2014 (including updates and requests for extensions), according to the agency’s general reports.
However, many predict that these will increase in 2018, following the REACH deadline for substances manufactured or imported above one tonne/year.
Pord to Ppord
Before REACH there was Pord (process-orientated R&D), which had to be renewed every year. Managed by member states, it also applied to quantities below one tonne. Echa manages the Ppord process, consulting with member state competent authorities linked to notifications.
New and old
While 75% of Ppord notifications are submitted for new substances, 25% are for existing chemicals, says Rossella Demi, scientific officer at Echa.
Companies can apply for Ppord exemptions for substances that have already been registered under REACH. This could apply, for example, when developing a new industrial process or looking to substitute one substance with another.
Extensions to the five-year exemption are rarely requested and are usually for medicinal and veterinary products, according to Ms Demi. These have to be covered by Ppord until they fall under the European Medicines Agency’s remit. "We have a lot of applications for these types of substances," she says.
For an extension, industry needs to provide a great deal more information than contained in the original application. Companies are also recommended to apply four months before their Ppord expires so that the assessment procedure, with the consultation with competent authorities, can be completed before that date.
Ppord increase
UK-based contract research firm Envigo saw a small flurry of Ppord activity at the start of REACH, mainly to allow companies to continue R&D activities prior to initiating full registration. Some of Envigo’s early cases were extensions to Pords in place under previous legislation.
With many companies focused on getting existing (phase-in) substances registered, R&D activities may not have been given such high priority in recent years, suggests Lesley Creighton, regulatory services manager at Envigo.
"We may see the need for scientific R&D and Ppords in the future, once the phase-in registration period is complete and focus may return to developing new substances," she adds.
Ms Demi also expects an increase in Ppord notifications now that pre-registration is no longer possible for existing substances exceeding one tonne/year; the deadline was at the end of May. Until then, it had been possible to develop a new process using a pre-registered substance, without this.
"There are now no other means for a company to use an existing substance in activities for innovation and development," she says.
Spreading the word
A few years ago, Echa organised a series of Ppord workshops for industry organisations, such as Finland’s Chemical Industry Federation. Every year, the federation asks its member organisations about Ppord, only to find out that there "have been almost no experiences" so far, according to the federation’s senior adviser on product safety, Eliisa Irpola.
Ms Irpola also expects an increase in such notifications following the 2018 registration deadline. "I strongly believe and hope that R&D resources in the European chemical industry and for downstream users of chemicals will, after 2018, be available for their original purpose and that, by enhanced innovation and research, the number of Ppord would increase," she says.
"Looking to the future, Echa’s big aim is to fulfil the main aims of REACH: safe use of chemicals and innovation," says Ms Demi.
"Ppord is one of the tools available to enhance innovation. We want this tool to be used by industry to its full potential and contributing to the full implementation of REACH."
Ppord notifications
The Ppord application process mirrors that for REACH. Registrations are submitted using REACH-IT, but fewer fields need filling out. In a notification, companies must include:
· information on substance identity;
· classification;
· information relating the list of entities cooperating on the Ppord programme; and
· the quantity of the substance expected to be manufactured or imported during the five-year exemption.
Substances need to be used in "reasonably controlled conditions". A substance used in a Ppord activity must be for research and not reach the general public. Echa can also impose conditions on the exemption. Only the Ppord use of a substance is exempted from REACH. For any other purpose, registration is needed.The substance can only be handled by the staff of named clients included in the notification. Information is kept confidential and is not published anywhere.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57814/how-ppord-derogation-from-registration-aids-innovation
-
Germany Launches Sustainable Chemistry Centre
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Ralph Heinrich Ahrens
The German Federal Ministry for the Environment has said that it hopes that the new International Sustainable Chemistry Collaborative Centre (ISC3) in Bonn will encourage communication between countries and regions, as well as the uptake of sustainable chemistries worldwide. The centre was formally launched in May as part of the Second Green and Sustainable Chemistry Conference in Berlin.
ISC3 is supported by GIZ, the German Corporation for International Cooperation. It has received €1.7m in funding from the German federal government for this year, a sum which will increase to €2.4m in 2018. By the end of the year, it should have 20 employees.
A scientific centre, the ISC3 Research Hub, will be developed at Leuphana University in Lüneburg. In addition, a centre for innovation, the ISC3 Innovation Hub, will be created at the headquarters of Dechema, the Society for Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, in Frankfurt.
ISC3 aims to help emerging and developing countries to implement international chemical regulations as well as to support them in the safe handling of chemicals and disposal of waste containing hazardous substances.
Without such transformation in these countries, according to Barbara Hendricks, federal minister for the environment and a speaker at the conference, achieving the 2030 goals of the UN’s Agenda for Sustainable Development will not be possible. "It is in all of our interests to establish capacities for the safe handling of chemicals in such places and to ensure that growth, consumption and production in all countries are as sustainable as possible," she said.
The centre has been launched at precisely the right time, according to Kurt Bock, chairman of the executive board of directors at BASF and president of the German chemical industry association, VCI. With the mandate for the UN’s Saicm ending in 2020, the ISC3 could become an important component of a framework beyond 2020 and could help to achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals by 2030.
There is an urgent demand for action. "At the same time, chemistry is a saint and a sinner," said Borhane Mahjoub, an assistant professor in environmental chemistry at the University of Sousse in Tunisia, another speaker at the conference. "A saint because of the money it brings to the country and the people. A sinner because it is a tremendous polluter."
In Tunisia, chemical companies are responsible for 52% of air pollution and 70% of water pollution. The challenges could grow, as Dr Mahjoub and others noted, because production and consumption of chemicals are increasing worldwide, mainly in developing and emerging countries.
What is sustainable chemistry?
A concise definition of sustainable chemistry, however, is still missing. ISC3 is going to develop such a definition, according to Friedrich Barth, its managing director. At the launch, Ms Hendricks highlighted three aspects of sustainable chemistry:
· it involves precaution and ensures as little damage as possible to people and ecosystems;
· it uses resources as efficiently as possible, having in mind the circular economy and with it the complete lifecycle of chemical production, use and disposal; and
· it promotes economic and societal development.
This definition has been welcomed by the German chemical industry. "We need a concept that gives equal consideration to the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability," said Mr Bock.
However, he also called for more openness towards innovation and said that the precautionary principle, invoked by Ms Hendricks, should be complemented by one for innovation. "Under this innovation principle, with the development of new laws and regulations it should be assessed whether [this definition] would adversely affect our country’s innovation capability," Mr Bock said.
NGOs, such as Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), have welcomed the centre, while also calling for a clear definition of sustainable chemistry. Without one, many kinds of current chemistries could be labelled as sustainable, watering down the term to render it nearly useless and leaving opportunities for greenwash. For HCWH, it should be a matter of priority to further reduce and eliminate hazardous chemicals from production and use, as well as to finance this for legacy toxic chemicals.
Sustainable chemistry is a worldwide concept, noted Kwabena Frimpong-Boateng, the Ghanaian minister of the environment, science, technology and innovation. It "should inform the developing world on how to capitalise on our growing populations and our abundant natural resources as incentives to determine the pace of development," he said in Berlin.
Mr Frimpong-Boateng linked this kind of chemistry to biodiversity conventions and stressed the need for coherent biodiversity policies also aimed at promoting sustainable production and consumption. "This is an important task, due to the increasing necessity for natural resources to substitute platform chemicals of fossil origin," he said.
An advisory council has developed a vision for the ISC3. A priority should be to collect from around the world and then promote ideas for developing sustainable chemistries. In particular, it believes ISC3 should be actively partnering with developing countries, for example by identifying their needs and aspirations and exchanging expertise or strengthening the capacity for sustainable chemistry.
Mr Barth presented the new interactive network ISCnet, which will help in sharing knowledge and experience. ISCnet should function as an umbrella for existing networks and offer discussion of a wide range of topics at an international level. Success stories will be disseminated through a newsletter.
The council recommends seeking cooperation and partnerships with all interested stakeholders. Mr Barth has directed his attention to start-ups and an annual meeting is planned. He has also considered a sustainable chemistry award for such businesses. These small companies often need finances to be able to build a pilot plant or prototype, so he plans to talk with international investors, such as the EU and the Global Environmental Facility.
Another priority should be to enable and guide the development of indicators for sustainable chemistry. In this way, key elements from the SDGs should be integrated into the concept and their relationship to other goals, such as resource efficiency or circular economy, should be shown. "We will think and act independently of governments and companies," Mr Barth added.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57820/germany-launches-sustainable-chemistry-centre
-
Stockholm Convention Problem Is in the Details, NGO Says
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Joseph DiGangi
One of the Stockholm Convention’s most important features is that it is a living treaty. That means it can ban chemicals currently in use, not just redundant ones. The chemical industry has expressed concern about the listing of its persistent organic pollutant (POP) products, but energy would be better spent withdrawing chemicals with the characteristics proactively, before they are proposed for global prohibition.
Governments have agreed to list all the chemicals recommended by the POPs Review Committee (POPRC) because the evaluation process is comprehensive and meets convention obligations under Article 8. The main problem with the decision-making process at Conferences of the Parties (COPs) is not that chemicals in use are listed but that the POPRC’s work and its recommendations limiting the scope of exemptions are often ignored. The recent COP8 meeting is a good example.SCCPs
Short-chain chlorinated paraffins (SCCPs) form a class of industrial chemicals primarily used in metalworking but also as flame retardants and softeners in plastics, including children’s products. SCCPs adversely affect the kidney, liver and thyroid, disrupt endocrine function and are anticipated to be human carcinogens. The POPRC recommended listing them in the treaty without exemptions, due to the availability of feasible alternatives.
In contrast, governments at COP8 proposed a wide-ranging series of exemptions that effectively cover all known uses of SCCPs. The treaty listing does represent an important five-year global phase-out of a very harmful chemical, but there was a clear disconnect between POPRC evidence that vegetable oil is a key substitute for the substances in metalworking and granting an exemption for this use, along with many others.
DecaBDE is a more serious example of a listing process getting sidetracked by unjustified exemptions. For example, an exemption was granted for the use of decaBDE in polyurethane foam for building insulation, but the POPRC had no evidence that the substance is used for this purpose.Industry exemptions
Even more significant were the exemptions for the automotive and aviation industries. The POPRC proposed an exemption confined to automotive legacy spare parts but COP8 vastly expanded it to cover many uses in new vehicles. The treaty’s conventional phase-out period of five years ballooned out to 2036.
The automotive industry clearly stated that an exemption for new cars was not needed and, in the view of the International POPs Elimination Network (Ipen), no convincing evidence justified that for spare parts, since retro-fitting could be used. However, delegates marched ahead to grant extensive exemptions that will result in the continued production and use of decaBDE, a substance that strongly resembles polychlorinated biphenyls.
The aviation industry’s decaBDE exemption illustrates what happens when companies that have already phased out POPs ignore the Stockholm Convention. In the evaluation process, Boeing clearly stated that an exemption was not needed since the company would be able to substitute all parts containing the substance by the time the listing entered into force.DecaBDE exemption
At COP8, governments agreed on an exemption for decaBDE use in aircraft – effectively for Boeing’s competitors. Boeing could have been rewarded for its proactive efforts to eliminate decaBDE by advocating a global ban on its use in aviation.
This would have given the company an edge while its competitors worked on a substitution process that Boeing had already completed. However, no high-level Boeing executives participated in the meeting. The exemption locks in the use of decaBDE until the end of aircraft service life, which is likely to continue until 2100.
As the exemptions kept piling up at COP8, governments recognised the need for a more disciplined approach. The meeting agreed that governments which request an exemption for decaBDE or SCCPs should justify their need for it by December 2019. This includes providing information on production and use, possible control measures, the availability and implementation of alternatives, monitoring and control capacity, and any national or regional control actions that have been taken.
Furthermore, COP8 invited all parties to report on how they have substituted decaBDE and SCCPs. This is all a little after the fact, but at least introduces some rationality into the process and opens the door to sharing countries’ experiences with alternatives.
Not all proposed exemptions were granted at COP8. Fortunately, two countries withdrew a proposal to permit the recycling of materials containing decaBDE. Recycling plastic products containing POPs also contaminates new products.
In a recent study, Ipen tested Rubik’s Cube-like toys made of recycled plastic from 26 countries and found that 90% of the samples contained octaBDE and decaBDE. Other recent studies have found flame retardants from electronic waste recycled into plastic food contact materials on the EU market, such as thermos cups, kitchen utensils and an egg cutter.
The treaty expressly prohibits POP recycling and the POPRC warned against the practice, noting continuing human and environmental exposure and the loss of the credibility of recycling. The current toxic recycling exemption for commercial pentaBDE and octaBDE allows this bad practice to continue until 2030, but it should be brought to an end early at COP9, before more children’s products become contaminated with substances that are globally prohibited.Developing countries
The big losers in careless decision making on exemptions are developing and transition countries. Exemptions bring POPs across borders legally in a rising tide of products, causing ongoing exposure.
Later, there is the difficult task of complying with the treaty’s waste provisions, since many countries cannot identify which products (such as cars, planes, plastics, etc) contain POPs. Even if they could identify them, many do not have the capacity to destroy them as the law requires. Since they travel long distances, inadequate waste management of POPs in these developing and transition countries eventually makes its way elsewhere, completing the circle of poison.
The private sector has key roles to play in implementing the Stockholm Convention. The chemical industry should play a proactive role by not producing chemicals with POP characteristics in the first place. Secondly, companies should assess their product line and remove such products. These obligations for governments are spelled out in Article 3 but they are really industry responsibilities.
As noted above, companies that have proactively substituted candidate POPs with safer alternatives should inform delegates of their actions. Then they can hear substitution success stories and not just the complaining from POP manufacturers or users that never should have produced or used these substances in the first place.Financial penalty
Once a substance is listed, the companies concerned should internalise costs by paying for global monitoring and clean-up. This is an unexplored but needed action under the convention, especially since there is a large gap between the financial needs of implementation and the funding available. If companies can pollute the entire world with their POP products without suffering any financial penalty, they will continue to make, use and sell them.
At COPs, deciding on exemptions is often an abstract exercise in multilateral negotiation. However, exemptions represent a tangible potential for harm in the real world – and that is what needs to be prioritised before decisions are taken to grant them.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57822/stockholm-convention-problem-is-in-the-details-ngo-says
-
Uncertainty Reigns as Brexit Rolls On
Jul 24, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
U-Pol is a supplier of products for the collision and damage market - and it is important to note that the company is an exporter. Indeed, exports are approximately 80% of its sales, with major markets in the US, Canada, France, Australia, Russia and China, while upwards of 90% of the company’s suppliers are in Europe, including the UK. "We also have geographic strengths in Africa and the Middle East too," says Dr Simon Aldersley, technical director.
The company imports solvents, acetone, xylene and minerals, such as talc, and mixtures like resins. It was originally set up in London by German immigrants in 1948 and was the first player in the UK market to supply pre-mixed polyester, styrene car body repair putties. Today, it offers products to the entire collision and damage repair market, such as fillers, aerosols, primers and coatings.Inevitable burdens
There is no doubt that Brexit will affect U-Pol. The question is how much. While the most immediate impact has been movement in the currency, says Dr Aldersley, other factors are taking shape. "A large amount of our purchases are euro-denominated, so our purchasing power has diminished significantly," he says.
As an exporter worldwide, U-Pol is an unusual UK company because it is dealing with multiple regulatory regimes. "We have large amounts of sales inside and outside the EU. Obviously, harmonisation of regulations makes it easier to do business across borders so the more regulatory regimes you have to deal with the higher the regulatory burden."
"No matter what people say, Brexit cannot decrease the regulatory burden for an exporter. At best it’s neutral because we still have to comply with EU regulations for exporting to the EU but, whatever the UK does – anything other than staying in the framework of REACH, for example – means it’s a regulatory increase," Dr Aldersley adds.
Even if it was a ‘light-touch’ regulatory move, which basically means there will be lower costs for companies that only deal within the UK, U-Pol will still have to comply with REACH every time it sells into the EU. "So unless an exporter stops selling into the EU, anything the UK does is incremental. Despite it being light-touch, it’s still on top of REACH, not instead of it."
If the UK goes for this approach, any exporter will be at a competitive disadvantage, according to Dr Aldersley. "This is because we’ll be carrying the cost of complying with REACH, so we can continue to export – and we will look like a high-cost supplier, which means that any British company that tries to export will be at a disadvantage in their home market."
In addition, says Dr Aldersley, there are concerns around the adoption of tariff and non-tariff barriers, which "no company wants to see in its important export markets". Another major worry is the importing of feedstocks, especially those that are only imported into the UK in small volumes.
All this is in the context of the UK taking on independent chemicals legislation. "If the UK sets up a burden for companies to import – even if they say it’s light-touch or different from what companies have to do for REACH and they’re only importing into the UK small volumes – I don’t think they’ll bother."
"Companies are going to still register big commodity chemicals, such as acetone, to sell in the UK but small specialist chemicals where a single company is the only UK customer … they just won’t do it."Brexit benefits?
It would be good, in Dr Aldersley’s view, to arrive at a point soon where Brexit discussions are on the associated opportunities, rather than debating the issues and challenges. Understanding what approach the UK will take with regard to chemicals will also prove useful, including the setting up of a chemicals agency, if and when there is a proposal for one.
"There will have to be some form of an agency but who will staff it, what’s their remit and are they going to sit under the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs? And are they going to be looking to set up independent regulation themselves and, if so, how is that going to encourage export rather than just deregulating our own market?"
"The main message to the government is that business wants certainty – we’re 19 months away from leaving the EU. When will we get the details?"Hard or soft
Dr Aldersley says that he is interested in what tariff and non-tariff barriers the company will have to cope with to do business and how the government is going to support it in grasping the opportunities that come with Brexit.
"Are the opportunities things like tariff-free access to the Indian or Chinese markets? If so, we might target those markets. Another example is if we knew we could import US TSCA-registered chemicals, that are not REACH-registered, we might be more competitive in the US than we are today. There will be benefits of Brexit but they’re difficult to plan for when we don’t know what they’re going to be," he says
And this, he adds, is the main issue - how do you plan for the unknown?
"How much resource and time do you put into planning for the different scenarios? For example, will we need an EU legal entity? We don’t have one; we employ our EU workers through our UK legal entity. Do we take the time and expenditure of setting up an EU legal entity? Do we do this now? We don’t yet know if we need one. Or, if there are going to be customs burdens – and delays at the border – following Brexit, we’ll need a warehouse in France, because we offer a 48-hour service to our customers there from our warehouse in the UK."
U-Pol is voicing these concerns to the UK government, largely through its industry trade association the British Coatings Federation, which is actively putting forward the interests of our industry, Dr Aldersley says. The company is also involved in the outreach programme that the government has started in order to hear first-hand explanations of the opportunities and benefits posed by Brexit.
Regulatory certainty is critical to the long-term success of a company, but Brexit has brought about quite the opposite. Until details are released, it is likely to be a bumpy road for businesses.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57817/uncertainty-reigns-as-brexit-rolls-on
-
Trump Administration Seeks to Repeal Obama Fracking Rule
Jul 24, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
The Trump administration is proposing to repeal completely Obama-era standards governing hydraulic fracturing on federal land.
The proposal from the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is due to be published Tuesday in the Federal Register.
The landmark 2015 regulation set standards in areas such as disclosure of fracking chemicals and integrity of well casing.
It was the Obama administration’s attempt to update decades-old regulations to account for the explosive growth in fracking for oil and natural gas in recent years.
The repeal is the latest in a long string of environmental regulations from Obama that Trump is working to undo.
Interior’s stream protection rule for mountaintop removal mining was repealed by Congress, and the agency has taken action on its own to stop Obama’s pause on coal mining on federal land.
The Environmental Protection Agency, meanwhile, has started to undo major regulations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, water pollution, methane pollution and more.
Trump officials say in the proposal released Monday that the Obama regulation is largely duplicative of state and tribal standards, and would cost the oil and gas industry up to $45 million a year to comply.
“Considering state regulatory programs, the sovereignty of tribes to regulate operations on their lands, and the preexisting authorities in other federal regulations, the proposed rescission of the 2015 final rule would not leave hydraulic fracturing operations entirely unregulated,” the BLM writes in the proposal.
The BLM did not indicate that it intends to replace the rule
The rule’s enforcement has been on hold since last July, when a federal judge in Wyoming overturned it, ruling that the BLM does not have the authority to regulate fracking at all. The Obama administration appealed that decision, but the case is now on hold due to the Trump administration’s reconsideration of the rule.
The rollback follows on President Trump’s campaign promise to repeal regulations that limit the production and use of fossil fuels.
He signed an executive order in March to that effect, specifically naming the BLM fracking rule as one that needed formal review.
Publication Tuesday of the fracking rule repeal proposal will kick off a 60-day period when the agency will gather comments from the public. At that point, it will make any necessary changes to the rule before publishing a final version.
After the final version is published, environmental groups, Democratic states and other supporters of the Obama rule may sue the BLM to try to undo the repeal.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/343425-trump-administration-seeks-to-repeal-obama-fracking-rule
-
Industry Lawyers Track Trump Admin's Evolving Policy Changes
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
As the Trump administration works to bolster domestic energy production, legal and regulatory certainty for the oil and gas industry remains out of reach for now.
That's a recurring message here at the annual Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, where nearly 900 lawyers from industry, academia and the public sector have gathered to unpack a year of legal developments in their field and work to navigate changes on the horizon.
Industry lawyers are antsy for broad reforms promised by Trump officials, including expedited environmental reviews and permitting, but their current focus is on deregulatory efforts moving forward in federal agencies and courts.
Bryan Cave LLP attorney Ivan London noted during a conference session that the regulatory landscape is in flux in part because of President Trump's "energy independence" order, which aims to boost U.S. energy production.
Among regulations on the chopping block are Interior Department and U.S. EPA rules for greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry, along with restrictions on hydraulic fracturing and changes to royalty calculations. All of the rollbacks are facing legal challenges.
London noted that EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, in particular, is aggressively pushing for states to take a leading role in environmental oversight, while the federal government steps back.
"We can expect that as his tenure unfolds, there will be a rebalancing — arguably the pendulum might swing the other way, past rebalancing toward states' rights for environmental regulation," he said.
London added that EPA and other agencies will have to provide clear justifications for their actions or face Administrative Procedure Act challenges — many of which are already in motion.
WildEarth Guardians attorney Samantha Ruscavage-Barz said increased citizen suits from individuals and environmental groups will also play a role in pushing back on the administration's agenda.
"Originally, citizen suits were intended to supplement, rather than supplant, agency enforcement actions, but what we're going to be seeing more is that citizen suits are going to be the primary vehicle for enforcing environmental laws," she said during a separate session.Planning
Federal land-use planning also faces an uncertain future. The Obama administration's "Planning 2.0" rule, an update to 34-year-old planning procedures, was scrapped via the Congressional Review Act earlier this year.
The regulation was aimed at increasing public involvement and reducing the amount of time needed to craft resource management plans for public lands, but critics said the final version didn't adequately involve state and local interests.
Speaking at the conference, University of Utah law professor John Ruple said it's unclear what's next for planning reforms, but the administration's ultimate approach will have a major effect on the oil and gas industry and others.
Ruple, who previously worked as a public lands policy analyst for then-Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R), noted that states have long been frustrated with the Bureau of Land Management's existing planning process.
"We need to find a better, viable path forward that allows states and local governments and the federal government and constituents to have some voice in the planning process that allows the process to proceed in a faster, more efficient way," he said.
Now BLM will have to go back to the drawing board to figure out how to make that happen without running afoul of the CRA's prohibition on the agency drafting a rule that is "substantially the same" as the scrapped regulation, he said.
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has already directed the agency to begin crafting a new rule to streamline the planning process (Greenwire, July 5).
How different must the new rule be to avoid CRA violations? "We're not going to know until they get sued," Ruple said, adding later: "Maybe eventually we'll find out what 'substantially the same' actually means."
Many experts here noted that future administrations will likely reduce the number of late-term regulations they issue to avoid similar CRA complications.Local control
Meanwhile, several states and local governments are still dealing with their own power struggles when it comes to oil and gas development.
Liskow & Lewis attorney April Rolen-Ogden noted that the past year has featured regulatory tug-of-wars between local officials who want to restrict fracking and state officials who say they alone have that authority.
Boulder County, Colo., for example, was forced to back away from its drilling moratorium after the state attorney general sued. Across the country, Maryland's Republican Gov. Larry Hogan approved a statewide fracking ban. Rolen-Ogden said she expects to see litigation after the ban takes effect later this year.
As for traditional legal questions affecting everyday oil and gas operations, she said courts over the past year have repeatedly "reaffirmed the basic tenets of oil and gas law."
"So while issues may change or morph over time, especially in an evolving oil and gas market, it's refreshing to see that the fundamentals remain the same," she told conference attendees.Dakota Access
The legal gathering also touched on one of the year's most dramatic stories in energy: the Dakota Access pipeline conflict.
Modrall Sperling attorney Walter Stern told a crowd of hundreds of lawyers, many of whom represent energy companies, to be aware of growing tribal engagement on projects that affect their land or water resources.
"There is a real possibility that one or more tribes may step forward to assert a cultural connection to the lands that may be disturbed or implicated by a federally approved or supported project and seek consultation," said Stern, who represents businesses working on public and tribal lands. "And this is more likely now after DAPL, particularly if there are water resources that may be impacted."
University of New Mexico law professor Jeanette Wolfley, an expert in federal Indian law, recommended that energy companies start their own conversations with potentially affected tribes before the federal consultation process begins.
"I believe the divide can be bridged and an energy company certainly has a role to play in this whole process, should it decide to do so," she said. "And I would urge companies to do so and not necessarily sit along the sidelines and watch the consultation process between the federal government and Indian tribes."
Wolfley outlined a number best practices for pipeline operators and others working on or near tribal lands, including holding early informational workshops with tribal leadership, hiring a tribal member to work as a liaison and considering reclamation projects on reservation land to offset potential project impacts.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/24/stories/1060057779
-
W.Va. Halts Construction on Rover
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sam Mintz
West Virginia environmental regulators ordered the developer of the embattled Rover pipeline to halt construction last week in the latest blow for the project, which has faced pressure from the state of Ohio as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The state's Department of Environmental Protection alleged in an order, dated July 17 and made public today, that construction of the pipeline violated water and waste management provisions in its permit.
According to the order, pipeline construction created sediment deposits in several bodies of water and failed to use the proper erosion controls.
The order gives the pipeline's developers 20 days to submit a plan and schedule for corrective actions.
The 713-mile, $4.2 billion natural gas project was accused by FERC earlier this month of making false statements in its permit application (Greenwire, July 14).
FERC also halted construction on some parts of the project after a massive drilling fluid spill in April, and developer Energy Transfer Partners has also been fined and sued by Ohio EPA.
Rover would transport gas from plants in West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania to interconnections in West Virginia, Ohio and Michigan.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/24/stories/1060057811
-
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Energywire
Houston may soon be home to the largest petrochemicals plant of its kind in the world.
Houston-based petrochemical company LyondellBasell said it will move forward with its most expensive project so far, a $2.4 billion plant near the Houston Ship Channel.
Construction on the project is expected to start next year, with completion scheduled for 2021.
The project represents a continuation of the petrochemical boom along the Gulf Coast in recent years, which has been fueled by growing export terminals and an abundance of cheap natural gas (Jordan Blum, Houston Chronicle, July 21). — MJ
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/24/stories/1060057751
-
A Dangerous Idea: Eliminating the Chemical Safety Board
Jul 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By Steve Early
The United States Chemical Safety Board is a federal watchdog with more bark than bite. It has five board members, a tiny staff of less than 50 and a budget of some $11 million a year. Its mission is to investigate fires and explosions in oil refineries and chemical plants.
The board can’t impose financial penalties for corporate misbehavior and has no rules of its own to enforce. It merely issues fact-finding reports, with accompanying technical and policy recommendations. Labor and management can use this valuable information to avoid future accidents, or ignore it.
But its bark can be effective. The board’s reports have their own power, laying bare corporate negligence or ineptitude, and indentifyng hazards that communities may not realize are in their own backyards.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the board could soon be gone, despite its consultative approach and reliance on voluntary compliance. Under President Trump’s 2018 fiscal year budget proposal, the agency, which opened in 1998, would be eliminated because its role is “largely duplicative” of efforts by other agencies, presumably the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Environmental Protection Agency. Both of those agencies would also experience cuts to reduce “over-regulation” of industry.
If the board is abolished, hundreds of thousands of people who live near chemical factories and refineries will be at greater risk. I came to appreciate the board five years ago, when its experts came here to my hometown to investigate a huge fire at the Chevron refinery at the end of my street.
In August 2012, Chevron was well on its way to making annual profits of $25 billion. But delayed maintenance work at its century-old Richmond refinery led to a catastrophic pipe failure and fire, producing a towering cloud of toxic smoke. Nineteen workers only narrowly escaped death. The Chemical Safety Board found that the plant’s managers had failed to shut down the refinery’s crude unit even though they knew it had a hazardous leak. Fifteen thousand people who live near the refinery sought medical attention for smoke exposure.
The board found similar flaws in the safety culture of Exxon Mobil after a huge explosion in February 2015 at its refinery in Torrance, Calif. According to a recent Justice Department lawsuit, the blast catapulted a 40-ton piece of equipment perilously close to a tank containing thousands of gallons of hydrofluoric acid, which can form a toxic cloud when released. Exposure to hydrofluoric acid can cause serious injury and death, which is why many Torrance residents want it banned there.
Why would reporting like this lead to abolishing an agency that annually costs taxpayers less than a single “massive ordnance air blast bomb” of the sort recently dropped in Afghanistan? Certainly, fossil fuel refiners and chemical manufacturers will be glad to say goodbye to the Chemical Safety Board for several reasons.
These companies don’t like sharing information with the public, as demonstrated by Exxon Mobil’s refusal to comply with board subpoenas seeking data about cost-cutting measures at the Torrance refinery and potential health effects of the chemical ash showered on refinery neighbors by the explosion.
In addition, lawsuits filed against companies that have come under the board’s scrunity sometimes echo its findings, like the one Richmond filed against Chevron citing the company’s “years of neglect, lax oversight and corporate indifference to necessary safety inspection and repairs.”
Finally, the results of the board’s investigations can spur or be used to support safety initiatives by states. After the Chevron fire, the Blue Green Alliance, a coalition of labor and environmental groups, began lobbying Gov. Jerry Brown to strengthen California’s occupational health and safety standards by incorporating the board’s recommendations for better “process safety management” in the oil industry. In May, California adopted what advocates say are the nation’s strongest refinery safety regulations.
Anyone similarly concerned about industrial safety, community health or air quality should protest the proposed elimination of the Chemical Safety Board.
The companies it nudges in the right direction are not known for their self-reporting or self-policing. Even in California, with its strong local safety standards, oil refinery neighbors need all the government watchdogs we can get.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/a-dangerous-idea-eliminating-the-chemical-safety-board.html?_r=0
-
Dem Senators to Pitch Carbon Tax Plan to Conservative Group
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geoff Koss
A pair of Democratic senators will return to a conservative think tank this week to unveil a proposal to impose a carbon tax to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) will speak about their plan Wednesday at the American Enterprise Institute, the free-market think tank where they held a similar event two years ago (E&E Daily, June 11, 2015).
Neither senator's office would share details of the legislation, but past versions would have imposed a $45-per-ton fee on carbon dioxide, with that amount rising 2 percent annually in a bid to lower emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels.
Past legislation would have raised an estimated $2 trillion in the first decade, with revenues intended to lower corporate tax rates and fund tax credits for workers, as well as payments to low-income people, veterans and Social Security recipients.
Widely considered a political non-starter, carbon taxes nonetheless continue to endure as a policy option for addressing global warming, even in the Trump era.
Former George W. Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson was on the Hill earlier this month to press members of the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus on a carbon tax, a mechanism that many economists say is the simplest and most efficient way of curbing emissions (Climatewire, July 20).
Additionally, a new group led by a former member of President Trump's transition team, Alliance for Market Solutions, is offering grants to fund research in tax and regulatory policies (E&E News PM, July 18).
Still, there's little appetite for a carbon tax among most Republican politicians, at least publicly, although such an approach is still mentioned as a possible revenue-raiser for comprehensive tax reform.
Both senators will address the event and take questions, to be followed by a panel that includes carbon tax supporters and opponents who will outline the political and policy ramifications of the policy.Upton to Noah's Ark caucus?
Separately, a key House Republican is considering joining the Climate Solutions Caucus.
Former Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) may join the group, a spokesman confirmed Friday. Axios reported that Upton was eyeing the opportunity after being approached by Illinois Democrat Jan Schakowsky.
The group, which announces new members in bipartisan pairs, has seen its membership steadily increase in the 115th Congress.
Democratic Rep. Matt Cartwright of Pennsylvania and Republican Rep. Leonard Lance of New Jersey became the 47th and 48th members to join the caucus earlier this month (Greenwire, July 13).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060057763
-
California Shows How States Can Lead on Climate Change
Jul 24, 2017 | The New York Times
By The Editorial Board
California, which has long been a pioneer in fighting climate change, renewed its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions last week by extending, to 2030, its cap-and-trade program, which effectively puts a price on emissions. It’s a bold, bipartisan commitment that invites similarly ambitious policies from other states, and it sends a strong signal to the world that millions of Americans regard with utmost seriousness a threat the Trump administration refuses to acknowledge, let alone reckon with.
The cap-and-trade program, which had been set to end in 2020, is the most important component of California’s plan to reduce planet-warming emissions by 40 percent (from 1990 levels) by 2030. The extension, along with a companion bill to reduce local air pollution, was passed by a two-thirds majority of the State Legislature, including eight crucial votes from Republicans. They defied a Republican president who has not only reneged on America’s global climate commitments, but has tried to undo every climate policy put into place by former President Barack Obama.
The hope among those who care about climate is that a combination of market forces, wider use of cleaner fuels and aggressive actions by businesses, states and cities can fill the gap left by Mr. Trump’s disappearance from the battlefield. There are many positive signs. Nearly 30 states require their utilities to seek at least some of their power from renewable sources; cities, prodded by former mayors like Michael Bloomberg, have increasingly been sharing ideas about emissions-cutting practices. More and more businesses are committing themselves to using renewable fuels.
And always, it seems, there is California, ready to take the lead until there are more responsible adults in the White House.
California’s cap-and-trade program requires power plants, natural gas utilities, fuel distributors and industries to buy permits to pollute, which decline in quantity over time. The idea is to put a price on emissions and, thus, discourage businesses and individuals from burning fossil fuels and encourage them to switch to cleaner sources of energy. The California program is linked with a cap-and-trade system in Quebec; Ontario will join next year. (A carbon tax is another way to put a price on greenhouse emissions; British Columbia, Finland and Ireland use this approach.)Continue reading the main storyRECENT COMMENTSRJ 24 minutes ago
To all the skeptics, show me one economic study that backs up your false claim that the California economy has been hurt by cap and trade....Diane L. 27 minutes ago
While the debate on cap and trade will go on and on, all I can say from experience is that in the 1960s, due to emissions and pollution, we...M 29 minutes ago
CA, the most car dependent state in the country, is going to save the world, LOL.SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT
ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story
Cap and trade is not a new idea; Congress and President George H. W. Bush used it successfully to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide, a major cause of acid rain. Congress considered a cap-and-trade program to address greenhouse gases; the House approved such a program in 2009, but the Senate did not.
California held its first auction of emission permits in 2012, and the state is well on its way to meeting its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 with no obvious harm to its economy, which is booming. The state is using some of the money its cap-and-trade system generates to pay for a high-speed rail line connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, which over time could help significantly reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
While there was broad support for the extension, some environmental groups like the Sierra Club California and a few Democrats opposed the legislative package for what they argued were unnecessary concessions to the oil and gas companies. The legislation is not perfect, but its benefits far outweigh its costs, and the country is better off for having it.
Attention now turns to the Northeast, where nine states, including New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts, are part of what is known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which, like California’s effort, is a market-based cap-and-trade program that goes beyond state boundaries. So far, R.G.G.I., as it known for short, has helped reduce emissions from power plants in the region by 40 percent between 2008 and 2016, according to the Acadia Center, a research and public interest group. States are now negotiating the future of the program beyond 2020.
The time has come to set a much more ambitious emission reduction target than the current rate of 2.5 percent per year. The time has also come for New Jersey to rejoin the group. Gov. Chris Christie took the state out of the agreement a few years ago, apparently because he thought that complying with it would be too expensive. But Mr. Christie is on his way out, and the Democratic and Republican candidates to succeed him want New Jersey to get back in. Virginia might also participate if the Democratic candidate for governor wins there in November — one more sign that Mr. Trump may be going one way, but America is going the other.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/opinion/california-climate-change-cap-trade.html
-
Democratic Group Asks GAO to Investigate Pruitt's Anti-Paris Comments
Jul 24, 2017 | Inside EPA
The American Democracy Legal Fund is asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's comments strongly opposing the United Nations Paris Agreement, which helped to persuade President Donald Trump to announce his plan to leave the deal, broke the law.
The group says Pruitt violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars federal agencies from spending federal money before it has been appropriated by Congress, according to the Washington Post.
In addition, the law prohibits federal employees from lobbying the public to support or oppose legislation pending before Congress. The group, headed by a Democratic political operative, cites an April meeting Pruitt had with the National Mining Association in which he reportedly used strong language against the global climate deal and where his staff urged lawmakers and conservative groups to publicly criticize the pact.
Pruitt's intense public lobbying against Paris was seen as influential in persuading Trump to fulfill his campaign pledge to announce he would withdraw the United States from the international agreement. The EPA chief had a prime speaking slot during Trump's June 1 Rose Garden ceremony announcing the withdrawal.
By the time of the April meeting with the mining group, some members of Congress had introduced Paris-related bills -- both to affirm and to denounce -- meaning that Pruitt was violating the law, according to the allegation. “Scott Pruitt misused the taxpayer money that funds the EPA and the powers of his office with his illegal lobbying activities,” the group told the Post.
Neither EPA nor the legal fund could be reached for comment.
A GAO spokesman says it has yet to receive the letter and that even when it does, it is unlikely to look into the matter. “We only consider requests from Congress or federal agencies. We don't act on requests from private groups or individuals,” a spokesman tells Inside EPA.
The Post notes that the GAO in 2015 found that Obama-era EPA chief Gina McCarthy broke the law by using appropriations to conduct indirect lobbying in support of the Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule, including by launching a social media campaign to counter opposition.
The story cites experts who argue that if McCarthy was guilty for that behavior, then Pruitt is for this as well.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democratic-group-asks-gao-investigate-pruitts-anti-paris-comments
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested