Preview Newsletter

ACC AM 7/25

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) The Chemical Industry Is Getting Its Mojo Back After a Long Dry Spell
Jul 24, 2017 | Nasdaq

The chemical industry is getting its mojo back after a long dry spell. The highly cyclical industry is finally finding traction again after bearing the brunt of the global economic crisis.
(ACC Mentioned) Study Examines Production, Use and Disposal of Plastics
Jul 24, 2017 | Recycling Today

A recent study on the production, use and disposal of plastics has the American Chemistry Council, based in Washington, commenting on its efforts to collaborate to expand recycling of the material and to promote energy conversion where recycling isn’t feasible.

LCSA News

Trump's Toxic EPA Budget Burns Chemical Safety, Child Protections
Jul 24, 2017 | New Jersey Star-Ledger
By Bonnie Lautenberg

Last year I watched with amazement and admiration as Congress did what seemed impossible: passed major, bipartisan legislation to protect our health and environment.
EPA Regulatory Agenda Item Revised to Remove TBD Effective Date
Jul 24, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

Since July 20, 2017, when the Trump Administration published its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, the entry for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) item (RIN 2070-AJ54) concerning the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials has been revised.

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Toxics Nominee Has Been Paid by Dozens of Companies to Work on Dozens of Chemicals
Jul 24, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison

I blogged earlier about EDF’s strong concerns with Michael Dourson’s nomination to head the EPA office charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Dems Introducing Bill to Ban Commonly Used Pesticide
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar

A pair of Democratic lawmakers today plan to unveil a bill to ban effectively a commonly used pesticide that U.S. EPA studies have shown can interfere with the brain development of children.
Six Months into the Trump Administration: Science and Public Health Under Siege
Jul 24, 2017 | The Union of Concerned Scientists
By Kathleen Rest

My colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have released a report on how science—and public health—have been sidelined during the first six months of the Trump administration.
UK to Ban Microbeads in Cosmetic Products
Jul 24, 2017 | Plastics News
By Shahrzad Pourriahi

The United Kingdom government is to introduce a ban on the sale and manufacture of microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products, including tooth pastes, later this year.
Tracking the Rise of ‘Clean’ Beauty
Jul 25, 2017 | Business of Fashion
By Sarah Brown

If suddenly failing eyesight can be considered on-trend (readers are the new it-accessory, have you noticed?), I’m super-chic lately.

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian States Look Past Coal, Ask Trump to Aid Natural Gas
Jul 25, 2017 | Bloomberg Quint
By Ari Natter

Having lost tens of thousands of coal mining jobs to the rise in natural gas, several states have decided if you can’t beat them, join them.
(ACC Mentioned) Indian-American-Led Petrochemical Giant to Build World's Largest Alcohol Plant in Texas
Jul 25, 2017 | Connected to India
By Garima Kapil

Petrochemical giant LyondellBasell is planning to build the world’s largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol plant in the Houston, Texas, area, the company’s Indian-American CEO Bhavesh (Bob) V Patel has said.
Senate Reform Package in Holding Pattern
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

The timing of a possible floor debate on the Senate's bipartisan energy bill is tied up in the Republican fight over health care, a key Democratic senator said yesterday.
BLM Proposes to Kill 2015 Hydraulic Fracturing Rule
Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alan Kovski

The Trump administration is proposing to rescind 2015 regulations on hydraulic fracturing put in place by the Obama administration for oil and natural gas operations on federal and Indian lands.
EPA Sued For Not Responding Quickly on Power Plant Permit
Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Leslie A. Pappas

Environmental advocates sued EPA July 24 over what they said was the agency's inability to respond quickly enough to concerns over a central Pennsylvania power plant's air pollution permit.
Senate Panel to Vote on Interior, Energy Noms
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will vote on a half-dozen pending nominations at the Interior and Energy departments.

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Decided Preventing a West, Texas-Style Accident Wasn't a Priority. So 11 AGs Are Suing
Jul 24, 2017 | Common Dreams
By Andrea Germanos

Eleven states filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency and its chief, Scott Pruitt, in federal court on Monday over the agency's decision to postpone implementation of a rule aimed at lessening the risk of a chemical plant disaster such as the deadly one...
11 States Sue Over EPA Delay of New Chemical Safety Rules
Jul 24, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

A coalition of 11 states has filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to delay new chemical plant safety rules from taking effect for at least two years.
N.Y. Leads States Challenging EPA Chemical Safety Rule Delay
Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Lars-Eric Hedberg

The EPA's two-year delay of a chemical facility safety rule exceeds the agency's Clean Air Act authority, New York's attorney general and 10 other states said in a July 24 lawsuit.
States Sue EPA Over Delay in Safety Rule
Jul 24, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Amanda Reilly

Attorneys general from 11 states today filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a delay in Obama-era rules aimed at preventing accidents at chemical plants.
Democratic State Attorneys General Sue EPA Over RMP Delay
Jul 24, 2017 | Inside EPA

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general (AG) are suing EPA over its delay of an Obama-era rule updating the agency's facility accident prevention program, pointing to a fact sheet issued by the Trump agency as showing the rule is needed to protect communities, workers and first responders from accidents.

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Fines for Downtown Spokane Coal, Oil Train Traffic Head to Voters With Promise of Political Fight
Jul 24, 2017 | The Spokesman-Review
By Kip Hill

Spokane voters can expect a passionate political fight over a proposal to fine coal and oil trains passing through downtown after the City Council sent the question to the November ballot Monday night.

Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) The Chemical Industry Is Getting Its Mojo Back After a Long Dry Spell

Jul 24, 2017 | Nasdaq

The chemical industry is getting its mojo back after a long dry spell. The highly cyclical industry is finally finding traction again after bearing the brunt of the global economic crisis.
The industry got off to a buoyant start to the year with a strong performance in the first quarter, notwithstanding a few headwinds. The March quarter showed strong demand trends for chemicals across key end-use markets such as construction, automotive and electronics.
A host of companies in the space including prominent names, such as Dow Chemical (DOW), DuPont (DD), Eastman Chemical (EMN), Celanese (CE) and Air Products (APD), produced earnings beats in the quarter, many benefiting from strong volume gains. The outperformance was driven by solid demand across construction and automotive markets as well as strategic measures including productivity improvement, pricing actions, portfolio restructuring and earnings-accretive acquisitions.
Second-quarter earnings season is currently underway, with most of the major chemical players yet to come up with their quarterly numbers as of this write-up. The earnings momentum is expected to continue in the June quarter as the fundamental driving factors remain firmly in place.
The Chemicals industry has also outperformed the broader market year to date. The industry returned around 13% over the same time frame, while the S&P 500 index advanced nearly 11%.
Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to whittle down their exposure on other businesses that are grappling with weak demand. The industry is also seeing a pick-up in consolidation activities -- exhibited by a wide swath of deals in the recent past -- as chemical makers are increasingly looking diversify their business and enhance operational scale.
Moreover, cost-cutting measures (including plant closures and headcount reduction) and productivity improvement actions by chemical companies are expected to continue to yield industry-wide margin improvements.
Notwithstanding some lingering headwinds, the industry's momentum is expected to continue through the balance of 2017, supported by continued strength across key end-use markets, an upswing in the world economy and significant shale-linked capital investment.
U.S. Chemical Industry Set to Ride High
The prospects for the U.S. chemical industry look bright. The American chemical industry is set for strong growth this year and the next despite several challenges, including a strong dollar, soft export markets and a low oil price environment.
The American Chemistry Council ("ACC"), an industry trade group, envisions accelerated growth for the domestic chemical industry on the back of an improving global economy and a surge in shale-linked capital investment.
The ACC, in its year-end 2016 outlook, said that it expects national chemical production to rise 3.6% in 2017, further accelerating to 4.8% growth in 2018. The trade group also expects basic chemicals production to expand 4.2% in 2017 on the back of advances in manufacturing and exports. Moreover, production in the specialties chemical segment is expected to pick up pace and rise 3% in 2017.
The ACC also expects American chemical industry's growth to transcend the nation's overall economic growth in the long haul. It sees domestic chemical sales to cross the $1 trillion milestone by 2020.
The shale gas boom in the U.S. has also been a huge driving force behind chemical investment on plants and equipment in the country and has provided domestic petrochemicals producers a compelling cost advantage over their global counterparts. The shale revolution has made the U.S. an attractive investment hotspot and incentivized a number of chemical companies including industry heavyweights such as Dow Chemical, BASF (BASFY) and LyondellBasell Industries (LYB) to pump in billions of dollars to beef up capacity. The ACC expects domestic chemical industry capital spending to increase at a 7% annual rate through 2021.
EU Chemical Sector in Recovery Mode
The European chemical industry is finally showing signs of recovery after remaining in a rut for a while. The rebound is supported by a resurgent Eurozone economy, which got off to a rollicking start to the year with better-than-expected GDP growth in the first quarter.
The business environment for the European chemical industry improved during the first quarter on the back of improving global economic sentiment, according to a report from the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC). Chemical companies in the region saw healthy demand for chemical products and an uptrend in pricing during the first quarter. Key consumer industries such as automotive and construction also posted healthy growth in the quarter.
Amid this favorable operating environment, the European chemical industry saw a spike in output across most chemical sub-sectors during the quarter, with overall production rising 2.3% year over year to reach the highest level in eight years. Capacity utilization in the sector also reached the second highest level in six years in the first quarter. Total sales also climbed 7.8% year over year in the quarter.
While lingering uncertainties and political risks could hinder performance, the CEFIC expects the recovery momentum to continue moving ahead and envisions chemical output in the European Union to rise 1.5% year over year in 2017 after paltry growth of 0.5% in 2016.
A Few Lingering Worries
The chemical industry remains buffeted by certain headwinds. Concerns over China's future growth remain a source of near-term uncertainty for the chemical industry. Uncertainties surrounding China -- a key market for chemicals -- is expected to remain an overhang on the industry in the short to medium term. Sustained overcapacity, weak private investment and high levels of corporate debt are still hurting the world's second-largest economy.
Moreover, chemical makers continue to feel the pinch of depressed demand across agriculture and energy markets. A low crude oil price environment is still hurting demand for chemicals in this important end-use market and is also affecting chemical prices. A strong dollar is also weighing on U.S. chemical exports, reducing their attractiveness in overseas markets.
The outlook for the fertilizer and agricultural chemicals space also remains cloudy due to continued weakness in crop commodity prices, low farm income and sluggish economic conditions in certain emerging markets, including Latin America.
Valuation Looks Stretched
Going by the EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value/ Earnings before Interest Tax Depreciation and Amortization) multiple, a preferred valuation metric for cyclical industries like chemicals, valuation for the Chemicals industry looks a bit stretched at the moment when compared to its own range and the broader market.
The industry has a trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA multiple of 12.5X, which is at the high level it scaled in the past year and also above its own average of 11.2X over that period. Moreover, the industry compares unfavorably with the market at large, as the trailing 12-month EV/EBITDA for the S&P 500 is at 11X and the median level is 10.5X. As such, there seems to be little room for upside moving ahead.
What Zacks Industry Rank Says
Within the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry falls under the broader Basic Materials sector (one of 16 Zacks sectors) which is expected to have a 2.4% share of total earnings for the S&P 500 in 2017.
We rank 265 industries in the 16 Zacks sectors, based on the earnings outlook and fundamental strength of the constituent companies in each industry. We put our industries into two groups: the top half (industries with the best average Zacks Rank) and the bottom half (the industries with the worst average Zacks Rank). Over the last 10 years, using a one-week rebalance, the top half beat the bottom half by a factor of more than 2 to 1. (To learn more visit: About Zacks Industry Rank .)
We have three chemicals related industries -- Chemical Diversified, Chemical Plastics and Chemical Specialty -- at the expanded (aka "X") level. The Zacks Industry Rank is #34 for Chemical Diversified (placing it at the top 13% of the 250 plus Zacks classified industries), #85 for Chemical Plastics (at top 33%) and #117 for Chemical Specialty (at top 46%).
Looking at the exact location of these industries, one could say that the general outlook for the chemical industry is 'Positive.'
Strong Q1, but Q2 Picture Lukewarm
Basic Materials is among the sectors that racked up double-digit earnings growth in first-quarter 2017. Looking at the overall results of the sector, earnings for the sector participants on the S&P 500 index for the quarter jumped 15.9% from the same period last year. Total revenues for these companies also went up 5.4% in the quarter.
However, the outlook for second-quarter 2017 shows moderation in both earnings and revenue growth. While overall earnings for the sector are expected to rise 1.5%, revenues are forecast to increase 2.8% in the quarter.
For more details about the earnings of this sector and others, please read our ' Earnings Preview ' report.
Final Thoughts
While the industry still remains saddled by a few challenges, its healthy momentum is expected to continue in the back half of 2017. Strategic initiatives including continued focus on cost and productivity, operational efficiency improvement and expansion of scale through acquisitions should help chemical makers weather the macroeconomic and industry-specific headwinds.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/chemicals-industry-stock-outlook-july-2017-cm820578

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Study Examines Production, Use and Disposal of Plastics

Jul 24, 2017 | Recycling Today

A recent study on the production, use and disposal of plastics has the American Chemistry Council, based in Washington, commenting on its efforts to collaborate to expand recycling of the material and to promote energy conversion where recycling isn’t feasible.
The journal Science Advances has published a study titled “Production, Use and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made” by Roland Geyer, Jenna R. Jambeck and Kara Lavender Law.
According to the study, 8,300 million metric tons of virgin plastics have been produced to date. As of 2015, approximately 6,300 million metric tons of plastic waste had been generated. Of that amount, the study estimates that only 9 percent has been recycled, 12 percent was incinerated and 79 percent was accumulated in landfills or the natural environment. According to the study, if current production and waste management trends continue, roughly 12,000 million metric tons of plastic will be in landfills or in the natural environment by 2050.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division, issued the following statement in response to the study:
“America’s plastics makers welcome this new look at global production, use and management of used plastics, and we look forward to continuing discussions on why plastics use is growing and how these advanced materials contribute to our safety, health and quality of life.
“Demand for plastics has grown in parallel with population growth, particularly in parts of the world where large numbers of people are rapidly moving out of poverty. Perhaps more to the point, even as plastics’ use continues to increase, plastics are helping to significantly lower environmental impacts. That’s because plastics are extremely efficient materials that allow us to do more with less in everything from medical devices to electronics to buildings to transportation.
“A study conducted by Trucost in 2016 found that plastics help reduce environmental costs by four times compared to alternatives. In packaging, for example, plastics enable significant environmental benefits, including reductions in energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and waste.
“All of us have an obligation to use materials—including plastics—as efficiently as possible, to use them wisely and to recycle and recover as much as we can. Many experts agree that expanded waste management infrastructure is the key to addressing sustainable use of these resources.”
Russell says plastics manufacturers are partnering with nongovernmental organizations, governments and businesses to invest in waste management infrastructure, encourage the adoption of advanced recycling equipment and expand opportunities for energy conversion where recycling isn’t feasible. “For example, in the United States, we support a number of programs to improve recycling and recovery, including the Wrap Recycling Action Program, a public-private partnership to increase recycling of plastic wraps and bags at stores; Materials Recovery for the Future, which is researching how to process more flexible packaging at recycling facilities; Keep America Beautiful’s “I Want to be Recycled” campaign, which encourages consumers to recycle; and The Recycling Partnership, which works with communities and companies to improve local recycling.”
Russell adds, “Lightweight plastics offer significant environmental benefits throughout the life cycle of many products and packages, but we fail to maximize those benefits if we don’t manage these resources after we use them.”
http://www.recyclingtoday.com/article/plastics-production-use-disposal-study/

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Trump's Toxic EPA Budget Burns Chemical Safety, Child Protections

Jul 24, 2017 | New Jersey Star-Ledger

By Bonnie Lautenberg

Last year I watched with amazement and admiration as Congress did what seemed impossible: passed major, bipartisan legislation to protect our health and environment. The legislation to fix America's outdated chemical safety law had been initiated by my late husband, U.S. Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg, and was named in his honor.
Remarkably, it passed overwhelmingly in both chambers of the Republican controlled Congress and was signed into law by President Barack Obama. Yet, one year later, the law is in danger as a draconian budget proposal threatens to undermine the legislation.
The Lautenberg Act was designed to address a threat that affects us all, but few of us think much about: chemicals in our homes, schools and workplaces may put our health at risk.
Chemicals widely used in products around us are linked to serious illnesses--including cancer, Parkinson's, and developmental disabilities.
Yet, for years, our main chemical safety law did little to protect us from suspected carcinogens in our couch cushions or the formaldehyde in our wrinkle-free shirts. The old law was so broken, it was unable to ban even asbestos -- a chemical so deadly it still kills 10,000 Americans annually.
Fixing the law to protect our health was a big priority for Democrats like my late husband Frank and colleagues such as U.S. Sens. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Tom Udall (D-NM), and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-6th Dist). It gave EPA new powers to deal with known chemicals like asbestos and required new chemicals get a safety check before entering the market.
In doing so, it helped to restore consumer confidence and regulatory stability craved by industry and their allies in Congress, like Republican Sens. David Vitter from Louisiana and Jim Inhofe from Oklahoma. Thus, it was a true win-win.
On June 22, 2016, I watched as Democrats and Republicans gathered in the White House to see President Barack Obama sign the only major environmental law of his presidency. It was a great moment, with much promise.
Unfortunately, the President Trump's budget proposal puts that progress at grave risk. The Trump budget proposes cutting EPA by one-third in just one year. It would cut staff by 25 percent -- leaving the EPA the smallest it's been since 1982.
A House proposal reflects the president's desire for slashing EPA with a 7 percent cut, coming on top of significant cuts over the last five years under a Republican controlled Congress.
Bonnie Lautenberg is an artist, philanthropist and businesswoman. She was married to Frank R. Lautenberg, a U.S. senator representing New Jersey, until his death in 2013.
The EPA budget guts the programs needed to make informed decisions about chemicals and hold bad actors accountable. While the toxics program's funding itself is ostensibly preserved the surrounding programs and staff are decimated. Science programs would be cut nearly in half, and enforcement would be cut by 24 percent. Support functions the Chemicals office depends on such as the legal counsel and the Science Advisory Board are also cut.
This is akin to firing a school's English teacher, science teacher, custodians and office staff, while still expecting the math teacher to prepare the kids for college. No teacher can deliver under those circumstances and neither can the people meant to deliver chemical safety do so under a hobbled agency.
And with chemical safety, we're talking about our kids.
Small children and pregnant women are the most at risk from toxic chemicals --even small exposures to chemicals like bisphenol-A (BPA) during sensitive development can impact a child for a lifetime. Kids have no control over their chemical exposures -- adults don't have much choice either. We all rely on the government to protect us.
Frank was a senator for a long time, but he was a businessman first and he knew that it is the results that matter. I applaud the members of Congress -- on both sides of the aisle -- who worked tirelessly to deliver a stronger chemical safety law.
But the best law in the world is just ink on a dead tree without the funds to do the job. Advancing bipartisan legislation was a monumental achievement, but now Congress must put their money where their mouth is and deliver on the promise of chemical safety.
http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2017/07/trump_s_budget_burns_chemical_safety_law_opinion.html

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Regulatory Agenda Item Revised to Remove TBD Effective Date

Jul 24, 2017 | The National Law Review

By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton

Since July 20, 2017, when the Trump Administration published its Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, the entry for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) item (RIN 2070-AJ54) concerning the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a) reporting rule for nanoscale materials has been revised. As reported in our July 20, 2017, blog item, the Unified Agenda item stated that the final rule effective date is “To Be Determined” (TBD). As of July 22, 2017, the timetable in the Unified Agenda entry, which listed the TBD effective date, has been removed. The January 12, 2017, final rule requires one-time reporting for existing discrete forms of certain nanoscale materials, and a standing one-time reporting requirement for new discrete forms of certain nanoscale materials. As reported in our May 12, 2017, blog item, on May 12, 2017, EPA published a Federal Register notice delaying the effective date of the January 12, 2017, rule’s reporting requirements from May 12, 2017, to August 14, 2017. More information regarding the draft guidance on the rule is available in our May 16, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Seeks Comment on Draft Guidance for Nanoscale Materials Reporting Rule.” More information on the final rule is available in our January 12, 2017, memorandum, “EPA Promulgates Final TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule for Nanoscale Materials.”
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-regulatory-agenda-item-revised-to-remove-tbd-effective-date

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Toxics Nominee Has Been Paid by Dozens of Companies to Work on Dozens of Chemicals

Jul 24, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund

By Richard Denison

I blogged earlier about EDF’s strong concerns with Michael Dourson’s nomination to head the EPA office charged with implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Among these concerns are his extensive, longstanding financial ties to the chemical industry – an industry that, if he is confirmed, he will be in charge of regulating. And not only does Dourson have these financial ties to the industry, he has made a career of helping industry play down concerns about chemicals.
A case in point is described in an article published just last week in The Intercept about his work in the early 2000s in West Virginia on behalf of DuPont and its still ongoing woes over water contamination involving the “Teflon” chemical PFOA.
Dourson’s paid work for industry goes back over two decades, starting just after he left EPA in 1994, and it includes work he did for the tobacco industry in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As I noted in my last post, his work for the chemical industry included developing a website, “kidschemicalsafety.org” (now defunct, but archived here), that consistently downplayed concerns about chemicals.
To illustrate the extent of his more recent conflicts, we examined the funding sources, where disclosed, for the several dozen papers he authored or co-authored that are listed in PubMed as published between 2005 and 2017. Some of what we found is reported in this post; there will be more to come on the substance of these papers.
For about a quarter of the papers, funding sources were not disclosed. Half of the remaining papers were funded exclusively by industry sources, while most of the other papers were partially funded by industry or represented workshop reports and reviews involving mainly industry-affiliated participants.
Across the papers, Dourson or his company Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA) were paid for their work by more than three dozen companies or trade associations. That work involved about three dozen different chemicals. At least two of these chemicals – TCE and 1,4-dioxane – are right now under active review by the very EPA office Dourson has been nominated to head. Another – the pesticide chlorpyrifos – was the subject of a recent highly controversial decision by EPA Administrator Pruitt, who overruled his science advisory panel; Dourson testified before that panel in April 2016 on behalf of CropLife America, the trade association for the pesticide industry. Dourson’s job at EPA would also entail running the pesticides office.
Notable among these are papers on
:the pesticide chlorpyrifos, paid for entirely by its manufacturer, DowAgroSciences (two papers);
petroleum coke, paid for entirely by Koch Industries;
trichloroethylene, paid for entirely by the American Chemistry Council(ACC);
the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), paid for entirely by ACC’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance, the members of which are the flame retardant manufacturers, Albemarle Corporation, Chemtura and ICL-IP;1,4-dioxane, paid for entirely by PPG Industries;
petroleum substances, paid for entirely by the American Petroleum Institute;
acrylamide (produced in the frying of certain foods), paid for entirely by Burger King Corporation; Frito-Lay, Inc.; H.J. Heinz Company; The Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company; The Proctor & Gamble Distributing Company; and Wendy’s International (two papers);
methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), paid for entirely by Amvac Chemical Corporation and Taminco and Tessenderlo-Kerley (two papers);
and perchlorate, paid for entirely by the Perchlorate Study Group, consisting of Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation; Goodrich Corp.; Aerojet; Lockheed Martin; American Pacific; Alliant; and Boeing.
Now, Dourson certainly has every right to make his living however he wishes. And the chemical industry has every right to hire whomever it wants. But a line simply must be drawn at installing such a toxicologist-for-hire at EPA to run its toxics office and oversee implementation of the TSCA reforms adopted just last year.
In finally embracing TSCA reform, the chemical industry said it needed a neutral referee, an impartial arbiter of the many disputes over the safety of chemicals. EDF wants the same thing, which is why we sounded the alarm when a senior ACC official came over to EPA and was given wide latitude to rewrite the new law’s framework rules. Now with Dourson’s nomination, any remaining semblance of impartiality and balance is gone.
The chemical industry needs to be seriously asking itself: Is this any way to restore confidence in this country’s chemical safety system?
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/07/24/epa-toxics-nominee-has-been-paid-by-dozens-of-companies-to-work-on-dozens-of-chemicals/

Return to headline | Return to top
Dems Introducing Bill to Ban Commonly Used Pesticide

Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Corbin Hiar

A pair of Democratic lawmakers today plan to unveil a bill to ban effectively a commonly used pesticide that U.S. EPA studies have shown can interfere with the brain development of children.
Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut will unveil the "Protect Children, Farmers, Farmworkers from Nerve Agent Pesticides Act" at an event on Capitol Hill with advocates for public health organizations, labor groups and Latino communities. A neurotoxin related to sarin gas, chlorpyrifos has also been linked to lung cancer in pesticide applicators.
The full text of the legislation is embargoed until the event. But the lawmakers said in a fact sheet that it would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to prohibit the use of chlorpyrifos on food.
The bill would also require EPA to work with the National Research Council on a cumulative and aggregate assessment of risks chlorpyrifos and other organophosphate pesticides pose to vulnerable groups like infants, children and farmworkers. The agency would then be required to restrict the use of any other pesticides it found were unsafe.
Indoor applications of chlorpyrifos, once commonly used in residential buildings and on lawns and gardens, were banned in 2000 due to the threat they posed to babies and kids.
Sold by Dow AgroSciences LLC under the brand name Lorsban, the compound is applied to more than half of the apples and broccoli grown in the United States, according to agriculture industry groups.
Citing dozens of health studies on chlorpyrifos, the Obama administration's EPA proposed a full ban in 2015.
However, as the agency faced a court-ordered March 31 deadline to make a final decision, Administrator Scott Pruitt decided to continue evaluating the risks posed by the compound until 2022. The move was celebrated by Dow and agriculture interests.
"By reversing the previous Administration's steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making — rather than predetermined results," Pruitt said in a statement at the time (Greenwire, March 30).
Pediatricians disagree with the administrator and urged him last month to reconsider his decision.
"The risk to infant and children's health and development is unambiguous," the American Academy of Pediatrics said in a letter to Pruitt (Greenwire, June 27).
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/25/stories/1060057840

Return to headline | Return to top
Six Months into the Trump Administration: Science and Public Health Under Siege

Jul 24, 2017 | The Union of Concerned Scientists

By Kathleen Rest

My colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have released a report on how science—and public health—have been sidelined during the first six months of the Trump administration. The report documents a deliberate and familiar set of strategies that undermines the role of science, facts, and evidence in public policy and decision-making.
From a public health perspective, the short- and long-term impacts are truly frightening. The Trump administration—aided and abetted by a willing Congress—is actively pushing an ideological, anti-science agenda that will profoundly affect the health, safety, and security of children, families, and communities today, tomorrow, and for decades to come.
They claim their approach is pro-business, but on closer look, that isn’t true. It harms the many good business people who want to play by the rules and make a profit without harming the public or their workers. How? By giving an unfair advantage to unscrupulous businesses that will put profit ahead of public and worker safety and health.Control, Alt, Delay: Public health protections on the chopping block
Mercury, lead, arsenic, ozone, beryllium, silica, chlorpyrifos. These substances all have several things in common:They have all been found to contaminate our air, water, soil, and/or food, as well as some of our workplaces and community environments.Robust and often long-standing science has proven that exposure to them can cause serious health effects, including death.Government agencies charged with protecting our health and safety have established rules and standards to prevent or minimize our exposure to them. (Note: these and other public health safeguards are increasingly denigrated as unnecessary regulations by the Trump administration and some in Congress.)Exposure standards established years ago have been found to be insufficiently protective.The Trump administration has taken steps to weaken, delay, and subvert recent science-based safeguards that enhance public protection from these toxic substances.
Make no mistake. There is an all-out assault on the agencies charged with using independent, unconflicted science to protect our nation’s public health—and on the critical resources and infrastructure they need to do just that.
The proposed draconian cuts to budgets, staffing levels, and programs at agencies like the EPA, CDC, FEMA, NOAA, USDA, and OSHA speak for themselves. (And don’t even get me started on how current congressional efforts to reform health care will impact the health of our most vulnerable populations.)
But the real issue isn’t about protecting agency budgets or staff levels, essential as they are. It’s about protecting all of us from known (and emerging and future) threats to our health, safety, and well-being. What follows is just a snapshot of this administration’s siege on public health.Children and women first? Not so much
Informed by a wealth of scientific evidence, and putting the health of children first, the EPA banned the indoor use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos back in 2000.
Chlorpyrifos, a potent neurotoxin, is known to affect brain development and cause developmental delays in children exposed in their homes, through their diets, and through their mothers in utero. It has also been shown to sicken farmworkers who apply it, and to contaminate drinking water supplies in farming communities.
In 2015, the EPA announced that it would revoke all tolerances for its use on or in food—essentially banning its use—noting that it was unable to find a safe level of exposure. On March 29, 2017, less than three months into the Trump administration and 20 days after meeting with the CEO of Dow Chemical, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt rejected the advice of his agency’s own chemical safety experts and reversed this decision—ironically noting that “By reversing the previous administration’s steps to ban one of the most widely used pesticides in the world, we are returning to using sound science in decision-making—rather than predetermined results.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics denounced the decision. In its June 27, 2017, letter to Mr. Pruitt, the medical association called the risk of chlorpyrifos to infant and children’s health and development “unambiguous” and urged the EPA to listen to its own scientists and go forward with the proposed rule to end its uses on food.
The next time EPA is required to review the safety of the chemical is five years out—2022 to be exact. Until then, children will be eating peaches, pears, broccoli, and other foods grown with chlorpyrifos, as will pregnant women who are unknowingly putting their babies at risk. Farmworkers and their families will also continue to be exposed—but hey, Dow Chemical, and the smaller manufacturers, will have “regulatory certainty.”
A West Virginia coal miner sprays rock dust 900 feet underground. OSHA has estimated that about 2.3 million workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica. Photo: courtesy of NIOSHProtecting our nation’s workforce: Not in the cards
The assault on worker health is one that has particular meaning to me, having spent decades of my life specifically focused on occupational health and safety. And when I think about how long (decades) it takes to promulgate standards to protect worker health—even when their dangers have been known for eons—I am truly astounded by what the current administration and Congress have done.
Take silica. Its devastating health effects have been known for centuries. As far back as 1556, in his Treatise on Mining, Agricola described a pulmonary disease afflicting stone cutters and miners. Bernardino Ramazzini, known as the father of occupational medicine, wrote about respiratory symptoms and sand-like substances in the lungs of stone cutters in his 1700 seminal work De Morbis Artificum Diatriba (Diseases of Workers). The 1936 Hawks Nest Tunnel Disaster at Gauley Bridge in West Virginia—one of the worst industrial disasters in US history—is as harrowing a tale of occupational exposure to silica as one would ever want to read about.
Silica causes lung cancer and silicosis, a disabling, non-reversible, and sometimes fatal lung disease, which can develop or progress even after exposure has ceased. OSHA has estimated that about 2.3 million workers are exposed to respirable crystalline silica, including 2 million construction workers who drill, cut, crush, or grind silica-containing materials such as concrete and stone, and 300,000 workers in general industry operations such as brick manufacturing, foundries, and hydraulic fracturing. Like most occupational illnesses and injuries, silicosis is preventable.
In keeping with scientific evidence, in 2011 OSHA sent a proposed tightening of its 40-year old silica standard to the Office of Management and Budget. In 2013, OMB gave OSHA the green light to actually propose the new rule, which OSHA promulgated as a final rule in March 2016, with an effective date of June 23, 2016. Industries were given different timelines to comply with most requirements—one year for construction, two years for general industry, and five years for hydraulic fracturing. In its fact sheet on the final rule, OSHA noted that “Many employers are already implementing the necessary measures to protect their workers from silica exposure. The technology for most employers to meet the new standards is widely available and affordable.”
So call me gobsmacked when in April 2017 OSHA decided to delay enforcement in the construction industry by another three months. That may not sound like a lot, but tell that to construction workers who may already have been breathing dangerous levels of silica dust for years. And call me crazy, but my confidence in OSHA sticking with even that schedule is somewhat shaken.
You’ll see why when you see how the administration has turned a two-month delay in implementing its new protective standards for workers exposed to beryllium into a proposal to “modify” (read “weaken”) protections for workers exposed to beryllium in construction and shipyards. I won’t rehash it here, as I’ve already covered it here and here.
The scientific evidence that ground-level ozone has serious health impacts is beyond dispute.The EPA gives states a breather on ozone. People will suffer the consequences.
The EPA has been regulating ozone as a criteria pollutant since National Ambient Air Quality Standards were established in the Clean Air Act in 1970—and with considerable success.
Levels of ground-level ozone, the main component of in smog, have declined over time. Though many people still live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone pollution, the decline is evidence that air pollution requirements are working.
Good thing, as the scientific evidence that ground-level ozone has serious health impacts is beyond dispute. It increases the frequency of asthma attacks, can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and worsens bronchitis and emphysema. It can increase risk of lung infections. And it has been associated with early deaths from cardiovascular disease. Children, the elderly, and those with respiratory and cardiovascular disease are especially vulnerable.
For some current context:The American Lung Association reports that more than one-third (36 percent) of the people in the United States live in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone pollution. Approximately 116.5 million people live in 161 counties that earned an F for ozone in this year’s report.CDC national and state surveillance systems estimate that 8.4% of children under the age of 18 have asthma and that 4.7% of children between 0 and 4 years of age currently have asthma. And the number of reported missed school days among children with asthma was 12.4 million in 2003, 10.4 million in 2008, and 13.8 million in 2013.
Nearly five years ago, in 2013, scientists on the agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board recommended that the EPA tighten its ozone standard, which was 75 parts per billion (ppb) at the time. The experts recommended a range of 60-70 ppb, while noting that the upper level is likely notto provide the adequate margin of safety required by the Clean Air Act; that is, a 70 ppb standard was likely not protective enough of public health.
The politics involved in lowering the standard were fraught (no surprise here), with courts eventually weighing in. After years of foot dragging, the EPA issued a final rule (with a 70 ppb standard) in late 2015. In June 2017 the EPA decided to give the states another year to comply with the long-awaited standard, noting the increased regulatory burden and increased costs to business. But it’s not like states and businesses have not seen this coming. It’s been years in the making. Indeed, the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Board first recommended a range 60-70 ppb back in 2007!
In the meantime, it’s people that will take the hit. Too many kids and others will continue to break out their inhalers, visit emergency rooms, and lose time at school and at work. The delay may work for some interests, but certainly not for public health.
And the latest: On July 18, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would delay enforcement of the EPA ozone standard until the middle of the next decade, giving companies an additional 10-year reprieve on complying with the new ground-level ozone (a.k.a. smog) health standards. The bill also permanently alters the Clean Air Act’s timetable for updating air quality safeguards. It will likely face opposition in the Senate, but is just the latest signal that our air quality and public protections are under attack. (A similar provision has also been included in the House Interior spending bill as an ideological rider.)Heavy metal: Nothing to sing about
The serious and permanent consequences of lead exposure on children’s brains, development, and behavior have been known for decades. Its effects cannot be corrected; they will affect kids’ lives forever. Photo credit: CDC
It doesn’t take a toxicologist to know that heavy metals—like mercury and lead, and metalloids like arsenic—are not good for your health. Their ill effects have been known for hundreds of years.
In the 1800s, mercury exposure caused mad hatter’s disease in workers making felt hats. Industrial waste water containing methyl mercury was the source of two devastating outbreaks of neurological disease in Minimata, Japan in the 1950s and 1960s. And today, it’s common knowledge that eating fish and shell fish from mercury-contaminated waters pose dangerous risks to the developing fetus.
When it comes to lead, its serious and permanent effects on children’s brains, development, and behavior have been known for decades; even low levels have been shown to affect IQ, ability to concentrate and pay attention, language and communication fluency, and academic achievement. And effects of lead exposure cannot be corrected; they will affect kids’ lives forever. (Lead toxicity has been known since ancient times; it was described by the Greek physician Nicander as far back as the second century B.C.)
Government regulations eliminated lead in household paint in 1978 and in gasoline in the late 1980s. The ongoing crisis in Flint brings lead exposure to the present day. The CDC estimated that more than a million US children had lead poisoning when, in keeping with the science, it lowered its definition of poisoning to 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood in 2012.
Federal and state agencies provide lead screening, surveillance, and prevention programs, and continue to identify lead contamination in homes and children with unacceptable levels of lead in their blood. A quick web search will identify sources of state and even local data. See, for example, here, here and here.
And about that metalloid (and human carcinogen) arsenic. In establishing its enforceable maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water in 2001, the EPA reported that in the US, approximately 13 million individuals lived in areas with a concentration of inorganic arsenic in the public water supply that exceeds its concentration limit of 10 micrograms per liter (μg/L ).
You would think the established science about the hazards, and the current knowledge about populations at risk, would have the Trump administration actively pursuing public health protections in its desire to make America great again. Instead, we are seeing delays, repeals, and rollbacks.
In November 2016, Obama’s EPA issued a final regulation under the Clean Water Act to limit the amount of these and other toxic metals that power plants can release into public waterways. The EPA noted that due to their close proximity to these waterways and the relatively high consumption of fish, some minority and low-income communities face greater risk. CleanEnergy.org reports that, according to the Water Keeper Alliance, nearly 35% of coal plants discharge toxic pollution within five miles of a downstream community’s drinking water intake and that 81% of coal plants discharge within miles of a public drinking water well.
Flying in the face of solid scientific evidence on the need to protect the public and public waterways from these toxic pollutants and siding with the polluting industry, in April 2017 Trump’s EPA announced it would delay and reconsider this regulation. Mr. Pruitt actually said that the delay would be in the public interest. I’m still trying to get my head around that one.
In a related but somewhat earlier action, Congress beat the EPA to the punch in striking a blow related to these toxic materials. In February, using the Congressional Review Act, our elected representatives repealed the 2016 Department of Interior Stream Protection Rule that would safeguard streams and provide communities with basic information about water pollution related to mountain top removal coal mining.Read enough?
Sorry that this “snapshot” of a blog has turned into quite a large collection of worrisome examples. Our new report covers even more Trump administration actions that will impact public and worker health—and not in a good way. It also suggests steps we and others can take to hold the administration accountable when it prioritizes public health over bad actors in the private sector.
Most important is that we not lose hope or become inured to or exhausted by what is likely to be an ongoing assault on science, public health, and some of the fundamental elements of our democracy. It will be important to call out and speak out against such actions (and inactions) when you see them.We will do our best to track them, but we also need and value your help. So when you see something, let us know.
The Union of Concerned Scientists is in it for the long haul.
http://blog.ucsusa.org/kathleen-rest/six-months-into-the-trump-administration-science-and-public-health-under-siege

Return to headline | Return to top
UK to Ban Microbeads in Cosmetic Products

Jul 24, 2017 | Plastics News

By Shahrzad Pourriahi

The United Kingdom government is to introduce a ban on the sale and manufacture of microbeads in cosmetic and personal care products, including tooth pastes, later this year.
Environment secretary Michael Gove announced July 21 that the ban on the tiny pieces of plastic, which can be swallowed by marine life, is part of the government’s pledge to reduce plastic waste in oceans.
The ban will be effective June 30, 2018, a day before a similar ban takes effect in the United States.
Gove’s comments came on the same day as new figures revealed that more than nine billion fewer plastic bags were used since the government introduced a 5 pence charge in October 2015. This showed an 83 percent drop in plastic bag consumption.
Speaking at WWF UK on July 21, Gove pledged to deliver a “Green Brexit,” part of which would be to fight the 8 million metric tonnes of plastic discard into oceans.
In response to the announcement, Greenpeace UK said the decision marked a victory for its “microbeads campaign.”
In a blog written by Louisa Casson, the environmental organization said the decision was the “the strongest ban on microbeads in the world to date,” as it also covered biodegradable plastics.
“It’s crucial that ministers have left the door open to broaden the ban in future to all products that go down the drain – not just cosmetics and personal care products that are classified as 'rinse-off' like body scrubs and shower gels,” Casson added.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20170724/NEWS/307249998/uk-to-ban-microbeads-in-cosmetic-products

Return to headline | Return to top
Tracking the Rise of ‘Clean’ Beauty

Jul 25, 2017 | Business of Fashion

By Sarah Brown

If suddenly failing eyesight can be considered on-trend (readers are the new it-accessory, have you noticed?), I’m super-chic lately. I’ve accumulated a small mountain of reading glasses (tortoiseshell, matte grey, etc.), which I have become attached to for many reasons, not least because they make it so I can read things, like what I am typing right now, for example. I only wish I could wear them in the shower — I think about this — so I could also read the very small print on the labels and ingredient lists of the products I use daily, to figure out what is — and is not — inside.
That’s where we are in beauty right now. What’s in our products? How were they made? Who do we trust? What can we believe? What’s marketing, and what’s legit? What is the law? (Spoiler alert: there basically is no law.) Most importantly, what are the implications for our health? And what does this mean for the beauty business at large?
The safe/wholesome/healthy beauty movement started with the liberal use of the word “organic,” a term that sounded great but was never a very good fit for personal care since it is first and foremost a food certification. (It is also exceedingly difficult for beauty products to be 100 percent certified organic, since almost anything that contains water is precluded.)
Organic as a category descriptor soon gave way to another spate of earthy, marketable, self-styled labels: “green”, “botanical”, “natural”, “eco”, “pure.” They conveyed grounded, ethical, farm-to-dressing table values. They paint a nice picture and inspire confidence, but what they actually mean is not always clear. As the category continued to evolve, “natural” came out ahead as the broad label that identified the space.
But “natural” is problematic for its own reasons, most notably that there are no official regulations ensuring a product is actually natural, and even if something is formulated with (some, or mostly) natural ingredients, there is the question of what else is in there? (A product could contain one-zillionth-percent of a botanical extract — along with a host of who-knows-what-else — and thus present itself as “botanical.” Think of fruit juice that contains 5 percent actual fruit.) What’s more, just because an ingredient is indeed 100 percent “natural” does not necessarily make it safe (see: lead, mercury). And finally, not all synthetic ingredients are unsafe.
Which brings us to “clean.” “Clean” is the new “natural.” It’s not a regulated classification; there is no official certification. It means slightly different things to different people, but the essential criteria are understood: “Clean means it does not contain ingredients that have been demonstrably linked to harmful health effects,” says Blair Lawson, head merchant at Goop.
That seems simple enough.
Gregg Renfrew, founder and chief executive of Beautycounter, adopted the term back in 2011 when she launched her beauty range and e-commerce site. “We are focused on safety versus source, and safe ingredients can be natural or man-made,” she says. Renfrew wanted to poise her brand for commercial — as opposed to niche — success, positioning it with a straightforward message aimed not just at “tree huggers,” but, “a mainstream person who wanted high-performance products safe for their health.”
Today, the “clean” banner is carried by a small (for now) but vocal group of individual brands, dedicated retailers, platforms and activists that have taken it upon themselves to define and uphold the strict guidelines around clean products, from personal care and cosmetics to household cleaning items. They have taken it upon themselves because the beauty industry in the United States is virtually unregulated. In Europe, 1,500 substances are banned from personal care products. In the United States, that number is 30.
There is a push by the customer for brands to be clearer and to help them navigate the ingredient list.
“The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which is one-and-a-half-pages long and has not been updated since 1938, allows you to put anything you want in a formulation,” says Renfrew. “Consumers assume the FDA has the power to protect them, which it doesn’t, and that cosmetic products are labelled in the same way as food products, which is not the case. The FDA doesn’t have the power to recall products. They do research and they can suggest; they cannot enforce.”
Clean-focused brands and retailers like Goop, Follain, Beautycounter and Credo blend commerce with content, providing education on ingredients and health concerns, and publishing lists detailing the substances and chemicals one will never find in the products they make and sell. Top offenders include hormone and endocrine disruptors (parabens, phthalates, chemical sunscreens like avobenzone and oxybenzone), suspected and known carcinogens (certain preservatives, formaldehyde releasers), and “fragrance,” the most opaque “ingredient” of all, since it is basically a blanket term under which companies can hide any other ingredients they wish, without ever disclosing what they are (in the US this is perfectly legal).
Consumers are all ears. They’ve noticed. They care. They are demonstrating with their purchase power. Goop, which kicked off its e-commerce platform with fashion, started selling beauty — clean beauty, specifically — two years ago. “Now, it’s 35 to 40 percent of our business each month,” says Lawson.
Renfrew describes her company’s growth as “explosive since the day we launched. We’ve been growing about 200 percent each year.” Market sources estimate that the line will hit $225 million in retail revenue in 2017.
Beautycounter entered the market with 11 products six years ago, and now offers close to 130. Their latest introduction, Countermatch, a moisturiser based on bio-mimicry, sold out of 25,000 units in 12 hours when it dropped earlier this month. “We can sell a lot of product quickly,” says Renfrew. Of the category at large, she says, “We know for a fact that our segment is outperforming traditional brands. And it’s not slowing down at all.”
As Tara Foley, founder and chief executive of Follain, the clean beauty retailer backed by venture-builder Launch, points out, “The global beauty industry [mass and prestige] is growing at around 3.8 percent, but the natural segment is growing faster, at about 10 percent.” According to The NPD Group, natural brands across all categories are the swiftest-growing brand type within prestige, with skincare and makeup sales within the “spa/natural/wellness” segment accounting for $2.3 billion — up 11 percent — in the 12 months ending May 2017. Larissa Jensen, NPD’s beauty industry analyst, reports that in skincare, they represent a quarter of all sales; within makeup (a smaller shared category), 11 percent of all sales, and within fragrance, where natural brands represent a still-tiny segment, they make up less than 1 percent of sales, but are growing by 20 percent. They’re the fastest growing and only brand type within fragrance to gain double digits, she notes.
“The interest is there,” says Jensen. “Natural is not regulated, so any brand can have ‘natural’ positioning, but consumers are reacting to that natural positioning. It’s something they’re seeking out. We’re at a crossroads. The industry is very much in a flux of change.”
Thus far, the indies are the ones doing most of the work and reaping the rewards.
It’s slightly ironic: the “curation, “edit” and unique “experience” so many beleaguered department stores and brands are madly trying to offer once-loyal customers who have gone adrift in recent years is exactly what beauty’s troop of toxic avengers has been doing all along.
You’re going to see a lot more proof of performance, and thus conversion to these products.
From brick-and-mortar to online-only, retailers like DetoxMarket, Shen, Beautycounter, Follain, Credo and Goop actually are offering an authentic, specialised, hyper-edited selection. They’re scrutinising each product on their clients’ behalf, and earning their trust along the way. They’re engaging their customer in meaningful conversation and acting as a resource for information, and discovery.
“We screen every product to make sure it doesn’t include any ingredients that may be toxic for your body,” says Lawson. “We also screen for performance, experience, luxury. We’re making sure it’s a great product you’d want to use every day.”
“We feel we have a heavy weight on our shoulders,” admits Foley, who has a background in public policy, and worked for a contractor to learn about formulation, and then on a lavender farm to learn about sourcing before opening Follain in 2013. “When women try something that claims to be clean, and it doesn’t work for them, they say, ‘clean products don’t work.' We test to see if it does what it claims to do, and if it fits in our portfolio — what we feel is the best of the best for each skin type and concern.”
Isn’t that how we all want to shop — without a magnifying glass and a chemistry dictionary? And with a friend who has good taste and cares about us? But, for real. Retail gold!
For Frédéric Benqué, General Partner at Nextworld, a San Francisco-based evergreen private equity fund that focuses exclusively on the natural space — food, retail, renewable energy, beauty — “natural” and “clean” are obvious entry points into the market because, as he says quite matter-of-factly, that’s where the market is going. “Customers are demanding it. They made it clear in the food segment. They’re making it clear in the beauty segment,” he says. “There is a push by the customer for brands to be clearer and to help them navigate the ingredient list.”
Three years ago, Benqué was searching for a small, multi-brand retail beauty chain to buy in order to convert it to clean, but after a year of looking, “We couldn’t find anything. We couldn’t do a deal. So we said, ok, we better create it.” And thus forth sprang Credo, founded in collaboration with the late beauty executive and entrepreneur Shashi Batra.
“Our thesis was twofold,” says Benqué. “There was one aspect linked to clean products, the other linked to shifting trends in retail — department stores losing market share and being less relevant to the customer, and this gap opening for local retail.”
Credo's plans to dominate the category and spread the clean beauty message, neighborhood by neighborhood, are ambitious. In addition to an e-tail presence, it now has stores in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, with plans to open several more locations in the next year.
“The companies that are gaining trust are emerging indie brands, created directly around the clean, natural trend,” continues Benqué. The established legacy behemoths, he says, “are very good at doing massive marketing and massive channel push, but when it comes to clean products, they are not trusted to do that. They need to regain that trust somehow.”
Why doesn’t everyone make the switch?
1. Natural beauty, of which “clean” is an unwitting offshoot, still gets a bad rap.
To be clean, non-toxic or (truly) natural does not mean I-made-it-in-my-backyard; it-sort-of-works; there-is-a-two-week-window-before-it-will-explode-or-turn-yellow-which-starts-now.
Clean products can be — and the best are — stable, high-tech and high-performance. “It’s a bit of a misconception — a lot of the most effective ingredients, like vitamins, are natural,” says Lawson. Goop by Juice Beauty’s Exfoliating Instant Facial, for example, “is just AHAs, lactic acid and salicylic acid.”
In conventional products, it’s often the ancillary ingredients — preservatives, thickeners, fragrance — not the active ingredients that are the “problematic ones.” Take BHT, a preservative that has been linked to cancer, according to the Environmental Working Group (EWG). “That’s so a product can live on a shelf for eight years,” says Lawson. “Is that really necessary? I’m ok with two. I’m even ok with one. If you haven’t used it in a year, maybe you should Marie Condo it. There are plenty of food-grade preservatives you can use that will still keep microbes from growing.”
2. It’s hard.
It’s not easy being clean. Ask Gwyneth Paltrow, who put Lawson and her chemists through more than 10 iterations of Goop's night cream before settling on a winner that felt as luxe as her favourite conventional product. “We wanted to create a super-rich, almost cold-cream-thick cream without certain thickeners in the toxic camp,” says Lawson. “It’s hard to create that feel and have it be absorbent and not waxy. There are challenges, but it can be done.”
“Certain things are just harder,” she continues. “Sunscreen is a perfect example. It’s really difficult to make a mineral sunscreen that’s not white and sticky. You’ll never get a clear, beautiful gel or spray that’s easy to apply.”
Beautycounter found a way to make almost everything — including a sheer blackberry lipstick and matching gloss that I was (happily) surprised to find are as good as pretty much everything else I have always used. Renfrew feels they haven’t cracked the code yet on deodorant or nail polish, though. “There are lots of things we have to be comfortable saying, ‘We don’t know how to make it yet,’” she says. “Our promise to the consumer was always to create the safest products we could with the information that was available. It’s progress, not perfection.”
3. It’s expensive.
“It’s margins,” says Foley. “Products are much, much cheaper with the bad ingredients. It’s a pure business decision.”
Also, consider for a moment what it would take for an established brand to attempt to reformulate (and then re-label) basically everything they make. Ouch.
4. Making a change can (initially) be very bad PR.
Recall what happened in 2014 when Johnson & Johnson released an “improved formula” for its iconic Baby Shampoo. “The No More Tears Shampoo, Now with No Formaldehyde,” blared The New York Times. Lawson, who calls the episode “a bit of a communication issue,” says, “it begged the question, ‘How could you have lived with yourselves selling that for so long?’ and ‘What else is in your products?’”
True, true, but personally, I’d respect, admire, trust and patronise a company that acknowledged outdated practices, explained what they had learned and what positive action they were taking as a result. That’s called transparency. That’s also called good PR!
So, moving forward, how will the market change?
- Clean brands will continue to proliferate, taking market share with them.
“We see these little brands nipping away. Ankle biters is what we call them,” says NPD’s Jensen. Tata Harper and Fleur are among those on her radar. As is Bite Beauty, “which markets its products as safe enough to eat, which is great —it’s lipstick.”
“We’re just now starting to develop the technology to use natural ingredients in really interesting ways, so as these brands grow, they will have more money to formulate like the conventional brands do,” says Foley. “True Botanicals has done a great job with their formulations, to the extent that they started running clinical trials, with unbelievable results. You’re going to see a lot more proof of performance, and thus conversion to these products.”
- Updated guidelines will become de rigeur.
It’s already happening. This past January, Target, whose stores are visited by 30 million customers each week, announced a new “chemical strategy” and plan to promote full ingredient transparency by 2020, banning phthalates, formaldehyde and a host of parabens from all beauty, baby, personal care and household cleaning products.
In April, CVS, which operates nearly 10,000 pharmacies throughout the United States, announced that beginning in 2019, it will remove all “chemicals of concern” — again: parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde donors — from its in-house personal care and baby lines, which amounts to about 600 individual products.
“This is going to incentivise other companies, the brands that sell at Target and CVS, to find alternative ingredients to the ones they’re banning,” says Jensen. “They will have to react to this. The implication will be far-reaching.”
In 2013, Procter & Gamble removed Triclosan — an antibacterial agent — and phthalates from its own products, a move Scott Heid, PhD, a toxicologist and the company’s associate director of communications, calls “a no brainer for us.” They created a “preservative tracker” on their corporate website to help consumers navigate what is in their products and why. “We are very transparent about our point of view on preservative families people have questions about,” says Heid. “Safe for us is non-negotiable. When we’ve gotten out of stuff across the company, it’s because we’ve found alternatives that go above and beyond.”
- New legislation will be put in place.
“There’s been a lot of momentum in the last year,” says Foley. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand are taking steps to ban outright the use of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical byproduct (and formaldehyde releaser) commonly found in PEGs, a class of widely used polymers designed to emulsify and enhance the penetration of ingredients. The FDA has said that in very low levels in cosmetics 1,4-dioxane is safe; the International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as “possibly carcinogenic.”
In May, Senators Dianne Feinstein and Susan Collins introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act, an amendment to the antiquated Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which provides guidelines for ensuring the safety of cosmetics.
“The root of the issue is our lack of regulation,” says Renfrew. “It’s not enough for us to create safer products. There are so many challenges in our industry, working in an unregulated market with an unregulated supply chain. We need to update the federal laws.”
Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Estée Lauder, L’Oréal, Unilever and Revlon have all come out in support of the proposed legislation.
- The establishment will adjust.
“As more of the established brands lose business to cleaner options, they will address it,” says Lawson. “It’s hard to turn around a legacy ship.”
Yes, but aren’t the legacy ships the ones with the resources for R&D on a grand scale? It’s exciting to imagine the truly meaningful change and amazing products they could deliver. And, PS, if some of the heritage brands are currently feeling a bit dusty and dated… isn’t adopting cutting edge clean practices, and ushering in new innovation, a surefire way to make them modern?
Perhaps they will begin by scooping up a clean indie or two — after all, in the current acquisition frenzy, founder-led niche brands that come with rapt audiences are among the most desirable. Of course, that might turn an unwelcome spotlight on the other brands in a portfolio, raising the question of, well, what is in all of your other products? But at this point, isn’t everyone already asking, anyway? Aren’t the people who run these brands tired of getting “moderate hazard” rankings on the EWG’s SkinDeep database?
And while millennials’ shopping habits continue to keep analysts and marketers busy, Gen Z, coming up next, is what has Jensen’s attention. “Their purchase priority in beauty is that the product is formulated with pure and natural ingredients,” she says. “The fact that this is the most important thing to them means things are going to have to change.”
“Beauty is a good space to be in,” says Benqué. “Natural and clean is an even better space to be in.”
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/inside-beauty/tracking-the-rise-of-clean-beauty

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

(ACC Mentioned) Appalachian States Look Past Coal, Ask Trump to Aid Natural Gas

Jul 25, 2017 | Bloomberg Quint

By Ari Natter

Having lost tens of thousands of coal mining jobs to the rise in natural gas, several states have decided if you can’t beat them, join them.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers hopes to persuade President Donald Trump to spare a loan program he wants to kill and use it to help a $10 billion gas-storage project in the hard-hit Appalachian region of the eastern U.S. where coal had once dominated. Proponents say it would help spur new chemical, refining and other manufacturing industries -- and give out-of-work miners a new career path.
"We need a more diverse portfolio," said Brian Anderson, director of West Virginia University’s Energy Institute, and a member of the project’s coordinating committee. "If you have one industry that dominates your economy and that industry sees a decline then it really runs huge ripples through your entire economy."

Coal and natural gas compete in the electricity markets and the proliferation of fracking in recent years led to cheaper gas that has displaced coal. Coal had once accounted for more than half of all U.S. electricity generation, but last year natural gas topped coal to become the largest source of power generation. The impact has been felt especially hard in the Appalachian region -- which was once largely dependent on coal mining and steel production.
The Appalachian Storage Hub, estimated to cost as much as $10 billion, could encompass underground caverns in Pennsylvania, Ohio or West Virginia, although the final site has yet to be selected. It would have the capacity to hold as much as 100 million barrels of ethane, methane and other products produced in conjunction with natural gas. It would also include a 3,000-mile pipeline network to link up the storage sites with petrochemical plants.
Read More: Shell to Tap Pennsylvania Shale Gas for New Plastics Plant
A report by the American Chemistry Council found the project could create more than 100,000 jobs and nearly $36 billion in capital investment. The project would be similar, though smaller, to the Mont Belvieu natural gas liquids hub just outside Houston that has bolstered that area’s chemical industry.
Supporters of the project say a lack of pipelines and storage infrastructure has depressed the price of gas produced from the Marcellus shale under Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. Natural gas prices there are only two-thirds that of the main market rate set in Louisiana.
Southwestern Energy Co., a gas exploration company with operations in the Marcellus, is a top proponent of the storage hub.Bipartisan Group
A group of lawmakers led by Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Shelley Moore Capito sent Trump a letter last week asking that he set up a blue ribbon commission to back the construction effort.
The two West Virginia senators also introduced legislation that would allow the Appalachian storage hub to qualify for Energy Department loan guarantees. Trump has proposed killing that program, and a spending bill the House of Representatives is debating this week would do just that.
Even without federal help, there are initial signs that investment is coming to the region. A $6 billion ethane cracker plant, which would make ethylene for plastics and other products, is being considered by PTT Global Chemical America for a site along the Ohio River where a former coal-fired power plant owned by FirstEnergy Corp. once stood. Royal Dutch Shell Plc also has a new chemical complex planned for western Pennsylvania.
Shell’s project follows the first wave of North American plants being built along the Gulf of Mexico coast by companies such as Dow Chemical Co. and Chevron Phillips Chemical Co. The factories all use shale gas to gain a cost advantage over producers in Europe and Asia that rely on oil and coal feedstocks.
"We certainly had our struggles in this region," said Steven Hedrick, the president of the Mid-Atlantic Technology, Research & Innovation Center in South Charleston, West Virginia. "This would be an opportunity for displaced miners to allow them to use the skills they’ve learned during a lifetime of engagement with coal."
https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2017/07/25/appalachian-states-look-past-coal-ask-trump-to-aid-natural-gas

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) Indian-American-Led Petrochemical Giant to Build World's Largest Alcohol Plant in Texas

Jul 25, 2017 | Connected to India

By Garima Kapil

Petrochemical giant LyondellBasell is planning to build the world’s largest propylene oxide and tertiary butyl alcohol plant in the Houston, Texas, area, the company’s Indian-American CEO Bhavesh (Bob) V Patel has said.
The petrochemical company has made the final investment decision for what would be its single-largest capital investment ever.
The USD2.4 billion project near the ship channel will be the largest factory of its kind in the world and is expected to create up to 2,500 jobs at the peak of construction and about 160 permanent jobs once the plant is operational.
“This world-scale project is a key part of our organic growth strategy which is designed to meet rising global demand for both urethanes and cleaner-burning oxyfuels while creating real, long-term value for our shareholders,” said Patel.
“Our investment in this plant combines the best of both worlds: our leading PO/TBA process technology with proximity to low-cost feedstocks, which gives LyondellBasell a competitive advantage in the global marketplace for these products,” Patel said in a statement.
The project, whose construction is expected to begin during the second half of 2018 and wrap up by the middle of 2021, is part of the company’s USD5 billion investment in the Gulf Coast.
The final investment decision comes less than two years after the company picked the Houston area as the location for the proposed plant.
Earlier this year, the company began the construction of a USD700 million polyethylene plant at its manufacturing complex in La Porte.
“We are pleased that LyondellBasell continues to view the Houston area as important to their global operations, creating jobs and opportunities for Houstonians,” said Bob Harvey, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Partnership.
“This new project further advances Houston’s position as a global hub of petrochemical manufacturing, leveraging Houston’s strategic access to the Americas and top markets around the world,” Harvey said.
The Netherlands-based LyondellBasell has its operational headquarters in Houston.
According to the company’s website, prior to joining LyondellBasell, Patel was general manager, Olefins and Natural Gas Liquids, for Chevron Phillips Chemical Company.
Patel is a board member of the Junior Achievement of Southeast Texas, U.S.-India Business Council, and the Greater Houston Partnership. He is a member of the Business Council and serves as vice chairman of the Board and chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Chemistry Council. He is also a member of the external advisory council of the College of Engineering for Ohio State University and a member of the dean’s advisory council for the Fox School of Business at Temple University.
Patel received a Bachelor of Science in chemical engineering from Ohio State University, and he also holds a Master of Business Administration from Temple University.
The main plant is expected to produce about 1 billion pounds of propylene oxide and 2.2 billion pounds of tertiary butyl alcohol each year.
PO is used to make bedding, furniture, carpeting, coatings, building materials and adhesives. TBA, after being converted into two ether-based oxyfuels, will help gasoline burn cleaner.
http://www.connectedtoindia.com/indian-american-led-petrochemical-giant-to-build-worlds-largest-alcohol-plant-in-texas-2252.html

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Reform Package in Holding Pattern

Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

The timing of a possible floor debate on the Senate's bipartisan energy bill is tied up in the Republican fight over health care, a key Democratic senator said yesterday.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), ranking member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said no Democrats raised objections over a recent leadership "hotline" request to take up S. 1460. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has already placed it on the Senate calendar, bypassing the need for a committee vote.
"We've hotlined it on our side, and everybody's ready to go," Cantwell said, referencing the process by which leaders query their respective caucuses to gauge whether all senators will refrain from objecting to moving forward.
One Senate Democratic aide said that at least one Republican senator, and possibly more, is rumored to have raised objections over the bill. A McConnell spokesman declined to comment last night, saying only that there were "no announcements yet" on the energy bill.
Cantwell said it was unclear when the bill might come up, but McConnell's decision to ready the measure for floor action was seen as an effort to chalk up a legislative win on a relatively noncontroversial bill before the August break, which McConnell cut short by two weeks to give members more time to consider pending issues.
ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is hoping the energy bill could take up some of that time. But Republicans continue to tie themselves in knots over repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
McConnell yesterday said the chamber will vote today on a motion to proceed to the health care debate, although senators seemed to have no idea what version of the various bills will underlie that debate.
Cantwell said the outcome of that vote, which was very much up in the air last night, may shed some light on what happens with energy. "I think it's all about what happens tomorrow," she told reporters.
Democratic aides said they do not expect the energy bill to come up this week, and next week is iffy, as well. If McConnell is able to open the health care debate, there could be an extended, freewheeling amendment debate. If it fails, there's an assortment of other bills and nominations that could come up, including energy.
GOP efforts to launch the health debate got a boost last night when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) announced he will return to the chamber today. McCain, who is being treated for brain cancer discovered last week, could provide the key vote on moving forward with repealing ACA.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/stories/1060057837/search?keyword=Senate+reform+package+in+holding+pattern+

Return to headline | Return to top
BLM Proposes to Kill 2015 Hydraulic Fracturing Rule

Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Alan Kovski

The Trump administration is proposing to rescind 2015 regulations on hydraulic fracturing put in place by the Obama administration for oil and natural gas operations on federal and Indian lands.
If any uncertainty existed about how far the rescission would go, a Bureau of Land Management proposal released July 24 settled that by saying the proposal was to “to rescind, in its entirety, the 2015 final rule.”
The BLM, an Interior Department agency, said regulations of fracking would revert to those already in place before the 2015 rule. That would not change regulatory or industrial activity, because the 2015 rule was overturned by a U.S. district court decision in Wyoming, a case that is on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The BLM questioned whether the 2015 rule involved adequate analysis. The agency said a central section of the rule involving such things as prior approval for fracking operations, mechanical integrity testing of wells, and management of recovered fluids “is unnecessarily duplicative and would impose costs that would not be clearly exceeded by its benefits.”
Neal Kirby, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA the new proposal to rescind the rule was consistent with what his association had been saying about the 2015 rule in terms of unnecessary burdens and new costs without corresponding environmental benefits.
The rule was scheduled for publication in the July 25 Federal Register. It provided for a 60-day public comment period (RIN:1004-AE52).
The proposal came with an invitation especially for comment on whether Indian tribes, separate from states, may not have enough regulations in place to govern hydraulic fracturing. Many tribes allow the BLM to manage their mineral resources.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117442685&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117442685&jd=117442685

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Sued For Not Responding Quickly on Power Plant Permit

Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Leslie A. Pappas

Environmental advocates sued EPA July 24 over what they said was the agency's inability to respond quickly enough to concerns over a central Pennsylvania power plant's air pollution permit.
The Sierra Club and Environmental Integrity Project said in their complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the Environmental Protection Agency violated the Clean Air Act by not responding within the mandatory 60-day time frame to a petition they had filed with EPA in October 2016 (Sierra Club v. Pruitt, D.D.C., No. 1:17-cv-1475, 7/24/17).
The groups asked EPA to object to the permit that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection issued to the Wheelabrator Frackville Energy, Inc. power generating facility in Schuylkill County.
The Sierra Club has received funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies, the charitable organization founded by Michael Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg BNA is an affiliate of Bloomberg L.P.
Wheelabrator spokeswoman Michelle Nadeau said the plant is in full compliance with state and federal regulations and is currently working closely with state and federal regulators on the renewal of its permit. The EPA didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.
The Frackville facility, an independently owned plant under Portsmouth, N.H.-based parent company Wheelabrator Technologies Inc., burns anthracite coal mining waste to power about 37,000 local homes and businesses and a nearby state correctional institution, according to the company's website.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117442704&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117442704&jd=117442704

Return to headline | Return to top
Senate Panel to Vote on Interior, Energy Noms

Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Daily

By Geof Koss

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week will vote on a half-dozen pending nominations at the Interior and Energy departments.
The committee announced last night that it will vote Thursday morning on the nominees, all of whom testified before the panel last week.
Three of the nominations are for key positions at the Interior Department, including Brenda Burman, whom President Trump has tapped to lead the Bureau of Reclamation; Susan Combs, nominated to be Interior's assistant secretary of policy, management and budget; and Douglas Domenech, who was nominated to be Interior's assistant secretary of insular affairs (E&E Daily, July 21).
If confirmed, they would join Interior Deputy Secretary David Bernhardt, who was confirmed by the Senate last night (see related story).
The panel will also vote on the three DOE nominees who testified last week: Paul Dabbar, whom Trump tapped to be undersecretary for science; David Jonas, who is in line to be the department's general counsel; and Mark Menezes, Trump's pick for undersecretary of Energy.
ENR Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said last week that she hoped to approve the nominees before the August recess, which was set to begin this Friday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) postponed the recess by two weeks to try to tackle some of the chamber's workload.
Schedule: The markup is Thursday, July 27, at 9:30 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2017/07/25/stories/1060057836

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

(ACC Mentioned) EPA Decided Preventing a West, Texas-Style Accident Wasn't a Priority. So 11 AGs Are Suing

Jul 24, 2017 | Common Dreams

By Andrea Germanos

Eleven states filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency and its chief, Scott Pruitt, in federal court on Monday over the agency's decision to postpone implementation of a rule aimed at lessening the risk of a chemical plant disaster such as the deadly one that rocked West, Texas in 2013.
"Protecting our workers, first-responders, and communities from chemical accidents should be something on which we all agree. Yet the Trump EPA continues to put special interests before the health and safety of the people they serve," said New York Attorney General Schneiderman, who's leading the lawsuit.
Noting that EPA itself says there have been over 1,500 accidents at chemical plants over the past decade resulting in 58 deaths, Schneiderman said, "It's simply outrageous to block these common sense protections—and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk."
The EPA said in June it was again delaying implementation of the Risk Management Program (RMP) Amendments, setting an effective date of February 19, 2019. The states say that the EPA rule delay is arbitrary and capricious, and exceeds the agency's authority under the Clean Air Act.
The Obama-era rule, a press statement from Schneiderman's office states,
would necessitate additional safeguards in accident prevention programs to protect communities and prevent future accidents—requiring "root cause" analyses and third-party audits following accidents, as well as analyses of safer technology and alternatives; emergency response procedures, mandating annual coordination with local first responders, annual notification drills, and periodic field exercises; and increased public access to facility chemical hazard information, in addition to public meetings within 90 days of an incident. In fact, despite Administrator Pruitt’s delay of the rule, the Trump EPA published a June 2017 fact sheet explaining how these improvements "will help protect local first responders, community members, and employees from death or injury due to the chemical facility accidents.
The delay of the rules, notes Genna Reed at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "came after several petitions from the American Chemistry Council and a handful of other chemical manufacturing corporations, oil and gas companies, and trade organizations asked the agency to reconsider the rule. Even after receiving thousands of public comments, including those from individuals from low-income communities and communities of color that face the greatest risks from RMP facilities urging the EPA to enforce the rule as planned, the EPA sided with industry and went forward with its decision to delay."
"President Trump's illegal safety rollback puts our first responders and local communities in danger from chemical accidents," said New Mexico Attorney General Balderas, vowing continued legal action against Trump when he "puts our children, families, and whole communities at risk."
Attorneys General Schneiderman and Balderas are joined in the suit by the AGs from Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/07/24/epa-decided-preventing-west-texas-style-accident-wasnt-priority-so-11-ags-are-suing

Return to headline | Return to top
11 States Sue Over EPA Delay of New Chemical Safety Rules

Jul 24, 2017 | AP (In The Washington Post)

A coalition of 11 states has filed a legal challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to delay new chemical plant safety rules from taking effect for at least two years.
The group led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a petition for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The states say Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt exceeded his legal authority by delaying the new Accidental Release Prevention Requirements until 2019.
The Obama-era regulations are aimed at preventing explosions, fires and poisonous gas releases at more than 12,000 chemical facilities across the country.
In addition to New York, the other states joining the lawsuit are Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal_government/11-states-sue-over-epa-delay-of-new-chemical-safety-rules/2017/07/24/3c1a9cd4-70c0-11e7-8c17-533c52b2f014_story.html?nid&utm_term=.37d5a2a8032f

Return to headline | Return to top
N.Y. Leads States Challenging EPA Chemical Safety Rule Delay

Jul 25, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Lars-Eric Hedberg

The EPA's two-year delay of a chemical facility safety rule exceeds the agency's Clean Air Act authority, New York's attorney general and 10 other states said in a July 24 lawsuit.
The 11 states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the delay (New York v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir., No. 17-1181, 7/24/17).
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule June 14 delaying the risk management program amendments (RIN:2050-AG82) to Feb. 19, 2019. The agency said it was delaying the effective date of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule, originally set for March 14, 2017, in order to amend or rescind it.
Among other things, the amendments update provisions for accident prevention programs, emergency response requirements, and public information disclosure rules for high-risk industrial sites such as chemical plants and oil refineries under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act.
The EPA issued the revised risk management regulations after a 2013 explosion at the West Fertilizer Facility in West, Texas, killed 15 people.
Labor unions and environmental and public health organizations have also challenged the delay. They filed a motion June 22 for an emergency stay of the delay rule.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=117442702&vname=dennotallissues&fn=117442702&jd=117442702

Return to headline | Return to top
States Sue EPA Over Delay in Safety Rule

Jul 24, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Amanda Reilly

Attorneys general from 11 states today filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over a delay in Obama-era rules aimed at preventing accidents at chemical plants.
Led by New York, the states argue that U.S. EPA unlawfully exceeded its authority and endangered the public in issuing the nearly two-year delay.
Environmentalists and labor unions have already filed a lawsuit over the delay, which is part of a broader strategy under the Trump administration of bumping back compliance deadlines for Obama-era environmental rules (Greenwire, July 6).
"It's simply outrageous to block these common sense protections — and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said today in a statement.
Published in January, the Obama regulation aimed to protect emergency responders from chemical exposure, prevent accidents at plants and help facility operators learn from accidents that do occur.
The Obama EPA issued the regulation, which covers more than 12,000 facilities, after several high-profile incidents, including the 2013 explosion at the West fertilizer facility in Texas that killed 15 people.
The rule was supposed to have gone into effect in March, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt stayed compliance for 90 days. The agency followed up in June by announcing a nearly two-year delay to Feb. 19, 2019, after holding a public comment period (E&E News PM, June 12).
In their lawsuit, the attorneys general plan to argue that the 20-month delay runs counter to the Clean Air Act and that it's arbitrary and capricious.
Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state joined New York in filing the suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Environmentalists and labor unions have already filed a separate lawsuit in the D.C. Circuit over the 20-month delay. The court is considering their motion to either stay or vacate the delay.
In a filing last week, the groups turned to the court's recent decision to vacate EPA's delay in Obama-era methane standards for the oil and gas industry to boost their arguments.
The Trump administration premised the 90-day delay in the methane standards on a provision in the Clean Air Act that allows EPA to pause certain regulatory requirements when it has granted a petition for reconsideration of a rule.
But in its 2-1 opinion earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit said EPA lacked the authority to issue the stay because the petition raised issues that had been hashed out extensively during the Obama administration (Greenwire, July 3).
With the delay in the chemical safety rule, the environmental and labor groups argue EPA is again exceeding its authority under the same Clean Air Act provision.
Citing the methane decision, the groups said in their filing last week that "EPA cannot contort 'discretion to reconsider a regulation' into a claimed ability to reset an effective date however it likes."
On the other hand, a coalition of states led by Louisiana has applauded the Trump administration's delay in the chemical safety rule.
In a July 12 court brief, the states argued that EPA properly went through the rulemaking process and accepted public comments before issuing the stay.
The states also slammed the Obama rule for creating a "greater risk" because it requires "sensitive information" about facilities to be publicly disclosed.
The Obama administration took a "deeply flawed approach that is detrimental not only to chemical safety but also to the safety of our communities as a whole," the states said.
Joining Louisiana on the filing were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/07/24/stories/1060057819

Return to headline | Return to top
Democratic State Attorneys General Sue EPA Over RMP Delay

Jul 24, 2017 | Inside EPA

A coalition of Democratic state attorneys general (AG) are suing EPA over its delay of an Obama-era rule updating the agency's facility accident prevention program, pointing to a fact sheet issued by the Trump agency as showing the rule is needed to protect communities, workers and first responders from accidents.
On July 24, the 11 AGs led by New York's Eric Schneiderman filed a petition for review of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's 20-month delay of the agency's Jan. 12 final rule updating its Risk Management Plan (RMP) accident prevention rule with new requirements for independent audits, hazard analysis and data disclosure.
In a July 24 statement, the states cite agency data showing that facility accidents continue to occur and point to the Trump EPA's June fact sheet that says the rule will better protect communities while also preserving security. The legal filing does not detail arguments.
“The Trump administration’s decision to delay the rule for almost two years directly contradicts the June 2017 EPA fact sheet which outlines the pressing need for, and the dramatic safety benefits of, the rule,” the AGs say. Citing the fact sheet, the AGs say the rule “will help protect local first responders, community members, and employees from death or injury due to the chemical facility accidents.”
The lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit backs environmentalists' pending litigation against the Trump administration's June 14 final rule postponing the RMP update and comes after roughly a dozen GOP state AGs sought to defend the delay rule against the environmentalists' pending lawsuit.
The D.C. Circuit is currently weighing competing arguments on whether to stay, or possibly vacate, Pruitt's June 14 final rule, postponing the Obama-era RMP rule's effective date from June 19 to Feb. 19, 2019 to allow time to revise the RMP update rule.
In a July 7 motion in the environmentalists' suit challenging the delay, Republican AGs from a dozen states, including Louisiana, Arizona, and Florida, argue that the Obama EPA failed to adequately coordinate with states on the rule's implementation and that scrapping the delay would result in immediate costs to states.
The rule has drawn strong opposition from industry groups as well as GOP-state attorneys general, including Pruitt prior to his selection to lead EPA. As Oklahoma AG, Pruitt led a July 2016 letter to former EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy arguing proposed requirements for disclosure of facility data would worsen terror threats.
In announcing the new lawsuit, the Democratic AGs point to the Trump EPA fact sheet, which appears to counter Pruitt's objection that the rule's disclosure requirement would worsen terror threats.
“The rule will preserve security and help enable local communities to protect themselves,” the fact sheet says, noting requirements for facilities to disclose data to emergency planners and the general public upon request. “In response to comments received regarding security concerns, the rule does not require that this information be posted on the internet.”
The AGs also back environmentalist and labor arguments that delaying the rule would allow risks to health and the environment to persist, noting that EPA data shows facility accidents continue to occur. They also say the rule allowed one to four years to comply with certain provisions but that the delay would postpone certain requirements until 2023.
“According to the EPA, in the last ten years, there have been over 1,500 accidents at chemical plants, including 30 in New York,” the AGs' statement says. “The number and severity of accidents over the last decade make clear the need to update the safety and security of the nation’s chemical facilities.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/democratic-state-attorneys-general-sue-epa-over-rmp-delay

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News

Fines for Downtown Spokane Coal, Oil Train Traffic Head to Voters With Promise of Political Fight

Jul 24, 2017 | The Spokesman-Review

By Kip Hill

Spokane voters can expect a passionate political fight over a proposal to fine coal and oil trains passing through downtown after the City Council sent the question to the November ballot Monday night.
The leader of the Spokane County Republican Party and others testifying urged the City Council to publicly oppose the initiative, echoing the opinions of both the city’s hearing examiner and the panel’s own policy adviser questioning the legality of the measure. Supporters say the city must act due to the lack of regulatory standards on shipping Bakken crude and uncovered coal, threatening a fiery derailment downtown that could cost millions of dollars in damage and put citizens’ lives in danger.
The council had the option of either passing the initiative, which would levy a $261 fine per car carrying oil of a certain pressurization or uncovered coal on downtown rail lines, or sending the issue to voters in November. The council voted 5 to 1 to put the question on the ballot, with City Councilman Mike Fagan casting the lone vote against.
City Council President Ben Stuckart was absent from the meeting.
Fagan introduced two advisory votes he hoped to include as part of the ballot measure, asking if citizens would approve setting aside money in the general fund to pay for potential legal challenges.
“This is going to be a train wreck,” Fagan said, anticipating legal challenges that could cite the legal opinions of city attorneys.
City Councilman Breean Beggs, who provided much of the language for the petition signed by 3,296 city residents in favor of a ballot measure, previewed the legal argument that likely will be made in response to the political campaign against it. Congress has created a narrow window for local governments to regulate rail safety where there is a localized threat and federal agencies have been silent, Beggs said. That power has been upheld by federal courts, including in the 9th Circuit, he added.
“I looked at that, and put that together as an option for this council to look at,” Beggs said. “This council decided they did not want to put it on the ballot, so I continued working on those drafts and gave them to constituents who had contacted me.”
“I think, legally, it is defensible,” Beggs added.
Rather than an outright ban, the measure makes it a civil infraction to transport uncovered coal or oil that has a vapor pressure higher than 8 pounds per square inch or a flashpoint less than 73 degrees Fahrenheit. Supporters say treating the Bakken crude to meet these standards would cost 2 cents to 4 cents a gallon.
In a statement issued by the pro-trade group Keep Washington Competitive, Spokane Mayor David Condon and Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich panned the proposal, warning of potential lawsuits that would cost taxpayers.
“I am deeply concerned about what this could do to our city and our economy, with no evidence that it would help our environment or safety,” Condon said in the statement. “This measure goes against independent legal review and sets the city up for significant, costly legal challenges that would divert already limited resources from programs and initiatives focused on areas that this attempts to address.”
Condon attempted to block on constitutional grounds an initiative in 2015 that would have created a Worker’s Bill of Rights brought by the group Envision Spokane. The mayor hasn’t given any indication if he’ll move to block the coal and oil train fines, and the statement did not mention potential legal action.
Stephanie Cates, chairwoman of the Spokane County Republican Party, warned of political repercussions if the council did not come out against the measure, calling it “unconstitutional and indefensible.”
“If you choose not to warn and protect the taxpayers, you should expect a vigorous campaign against those on this council who are running to keep this seat,” Cates said.
Fagan said he’ll work quickly to get the advisory votes onto the City Council’s agenda by next Monday. The deadline for the Spokane County auditor to receive initiatives for the November vote is Aug. 1. Those advisory votes ask whether City Hall should seek “additional funding sources” to fund a legal defense and consider reducing funding for other programs within the city budget to set up a defense fund.
Fagan admitted having “a little help” drafting the advisory votes but didn’t say where that help came from. He’ll need four other council members to support a procedural vote to get the questions before the full council Monday night in time to make the ballot.
“I ain’t going to hold my breath, because I’ll die,” Fagan said.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/jul/24/fines-for-downtown-spokane-coal-oil-train-traffic-/

Return to headline | Return to top

Environment News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Add recipients

Suggested