Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 25/7/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trump Expected to Pick Bush EPA Official Turned Industry Lawyer for Agency's Air Office
Jul 25, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Bill Wehrum, a former George W. Bush-era EPA official, to run the agency’s powerful air office, according to two sources outside the administration familiar with the plans. -
(ACC Mentioned) Zacks Industry Outlook Highlights: Dow Chemical, DuPont, Eastman Chemical, Celanese and Air Products
Jul 25, 2017 | Zacks
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) Group Outlines Bias Concerns over Chemicals Office Pick
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hier
At least a quarter of the scientific papers by U.S. EPA's assistant administrator for toxic substances nominee were bankrolled exclusively by industry sources, according to a review by the Environmental Defense Fund. -
(ACC Mentioned) SF May Ban Controversial Flame-Retardant Chemicals
Jul 25, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Rachel Swan
San Francisco is on track to become the first city in the nation to ban flame-retardant chemicals from furniture and children’s products, a move scientists said could bring down cancer rates and save children from a variety of developmental problems. -
Peddlers of Junk Science
Jul 25, 2017 | The Washington Times
By Richard Berman
The study’s claims that coffee may ward off everything from digestive diseases to stroke are the handiwork of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous arm of the World Health Organization, which is a notorious peddler of junk science. -
UK Outlines EU Chemicals Policy Commitments
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK has confirmed that it will continue to attend and actively participate in Echa and European Commission fora while Brexitnegotiations continue. -
Radiolabelled Nano Titanium Dioxide Shows up in Organs, Days after Exposure
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Organs may retain some titanium dioxide nanoparticles for more than seven days after they enter the body, according to radiolabelling studies by a team from the Helmholtz Centre Munich in Germany and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC). -
Ban on Microbeads in UK Rinse-Off Cosmetics Confirmed
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The UK's new environment minister has repeated the government's pledge to introduce legislation to ban the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads from 1 January 2018, and their sale from 30 June the same year. -
Efsa Publishes Opinion on Dimethyl Carbonate Use in FCMs
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority has published an opinion on the safety of dimethyl carbonate in "repeated-use" food contact materials. -
Inside 'Energy Dominance' and Other DOE Buzzwords
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxime Joselow
Trump administration officials rely on the same catchphrases to describe U.S. energy policy. The buzzwords, some of which are relics of past energy debates, show up in written statements and comments to the press on a regular basis. -
Senate Subcommittee Calls Trump Energy Research Cuts
Jul 25, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
White House plans to slash research funding at the Department of Energy are coming up against a wall in the Senate. -
State's Top Scientists to Brief House Committee on Shale Drilling Report
Jul 25, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
Some of the state’s top scientists will brief state lawmakers this week on a recent report on the effects of oil and gas development. -
(ACC Mentioned) 11 State Attorneys General Sue EPA Over Delay of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule
Jul 25, 2017 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
The attorneys general from 11 states – New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have signed on to a lawsuit filed July 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that claims EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed two-year delay of the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements for Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7), (the Chemical Accident Safety Rule) that were finalized by the Obama administration on Jan. 13 are illegal because it exceeds EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act. -
(ACC Mentioned) 11 States Accuse Trump Administration Of Illegally Delaying Safety Regulations For Chemical Plants
Jul 25, 2017 | Consumerist
By Chris Moran
The Environmental Protection Agency recently decided to put a nearly two-year delay on new rules intended to reduce the number and damage resulting from accidents at U.S. chemical plants that can result in deadly explosions, fires, and the release of poisonous gas. But the attorneys general for 11 states say the Trump administration has overstepped its authority with this decision. -
(ACC Mentioned) Study: 9 Billion Tons of Plastic Produced since '40s, and Most Is Still out There
Jul 25, 2017 | San Diego Union-Tribune
By Deborah Sullivan Brennan
More than 9 billion of tons of plastic have been produced since the 1940s, and most of that is sitting in landfills and the environment, a recent study in the journal Science Advances reported. -
Trump and Dow Chemical Chief Executive Clashed on Climate
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Dow Chemical chief executive Andrew Liveris, who heads President Donald Trump’s manufacturing council and is a close White House adviser, fought to prevent the president from pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement in June. -
Environmentalists Fault EPA Bid to Delay Ozone Suit
Jul 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA's latest efforts to justify holding litigation over the Obama-era ozone standards in continuing abeyance, saying it undermines their effort to challenge the adequacy of the standards' stringency -- though they stop short of asking the court to change the suit's posture. -
Ewire: California's Brown to Sign Landmark Cap & Trade Extension
Jul 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will today sign landmark legislation extending the state’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program out to 2030.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Jul 25, 2017 | Politico Pro
By Alex Guillen
President Donald Trump is expected to nominate Bill Wehrum, a former George W. Bush-era EPA official, to run the agency’s powerful air office, according to two sources outside the administration familiar with the plans.
While Wehrum would bring critical knowledge of EPA’s workings and environmental law, he also represents several high-profile industry groups in lawsuits challenging numerous Obama-era EPA regulations, meaning he may face recusal and conflict issues similar to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
Wehrum served as acting assistant administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation from 2005 to 2007. Bush pulled Wehrum’s formal nomination to that post after Democrats blocked him as too industry-friendly, though the new simple majority threshold on nominees likely will prevent that from happening again. Wehrum spent 2001-2005 as counsel to Jeff Holmstead, Bush’s first air administrator. Holmstead emerged last month as a possible Trump pick to be EPA deputy administrator, though coal lobbyist Andrew Wheeler remains the frontrunner for that job.
In a 2013 interview with Law360, Wehrum said that despite the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling that said EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, he believes "Congress never intended the EPA to address an issue such as climate change under the Clean Air Act."
He also called for lengthening the review cycle for National Ambient Air Quality Standards beyond five years — House Republicans recently passed a bill that would stretch that to ten years — and said the Obama administration tried to shift power away from the states and toward EPA, comments since echoed by Pruitt.
And in a 2015 Wall Street Journal editorial, Wehrum said the EPA-caused Gold King mine spill highlighted how the agency "often criminalizes actions that are nothing more than accidents, many far less damaging to the environment than the Animas River disaster.” That spill fouled Colorado’s Animas River and downstream areas for several weeks before water quality returned to normal and the river was reopened to recreational activities.
Wehrum pointed to the 2014 chemical spill that fouled drinking water for hundreds of thousands of West Virginia residents, which led to an EPA investigation and the company's bankruptcy, as an example of "unjust" treatment.
For the last decade Wehrum has been a partner at the high-powered D.C. law firm Hunton & Williams, where he currently represents high-profile clients, including two leading oil and gas industry lobbying groups, in a number of ongoing lawsuits against EPA.
Wehrum represents the American Petroleum Institute in a challenge to EPA’s methane rule for new oil and gas wells, as well as the separate legal battle over EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision to stay that rule while under review, where API has defended Pruitt’s stay.
He also represents either API or American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, a refinery sector group, in lawsuits over a 2015 rule limiting pollution from oil refineries; a “regional consistency” rule that governs how court rulings apply to nationwide EPA regulations; and permitting rules for Indian lands.
He represents the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a coalition that challenges EPA air regulations, in a legal challenge over an Obama-era rule meant to decrease explosions at chemical plants and other facilities. Pruitt has put that rule on hold while it is under review.
Wehrum helped the Gas Processors Association challenge two greenhouse gas reporting rules. He took an EPA boiler regulation to court on behalf of a coalition of industry groups, including the American Chemistry Council, the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Forest & Paper Association. He is challenging an EPA emissions rule for brick manufacturers on behalf of an industry group. And he represented construction interests in various lawsuits against the Labor Department, including an ongoing challenge to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's 2016 silica exposure rule.
Wehrum did not immediately reply to a request for comment on Monday. EPA and White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/07/trump-expected-to-pick-bush-epa-official-turned-industry-lawyer-for-agencys-air-office-160039
-
Jul 25, 2017 | Zacks
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 (NYSE: DOW - Free Report ), DuPont (NYSE: DD - Free Report ), Eastman Chemical (NYSE: EMN - Free Report ), Celanese (NYSE: CE - Free Report ) and Air Products (NYSE: APD - Free Report ), 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 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.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/zacks-industry-outlook-highlights-dow-chemical-dupont-eastman-chemical-celanese-and-air-products-cm820937
-
(ACC Mentioned) Group Outlines Bias Concerns over Chemicals Office Pick
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hier
At least a quarter of the scientific papers by U.S. EPA's assistant administrator for toxic substances nominee were bankrolled exclusively by industry sources, according to a review by the Environmental Defense Fund.
The public health advocacy group, which opposes Michael Dourson's nomination to lead the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, examined the funding sources for several dozen papers he authored or co-authored between 2005 and this year that were listed in the National Institutes of Health's biomedical database.
Richard Denison, EDF's lead senior scientist, noted in a blog post yesterday that his estimate of Dourson's reliance on industry funding may be understated since about a quarter of the papers it reviewed didn't disclose who paid for them. And even studies that weren't solely financed by industry often included some money from chemical companies or involved "industry-affiliated participants," Denison wrote.
In total, Dourson or his former company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, were paid for their work on about three dozen chemicals by more than three dozen companies or trade associations, EDF found.
Some of Dourson's notable industry-backed efforts include a study of petroleum coke for Koch Industries Inc., an examination of petroleum substances for the American Petroleum Institute, and two papers on chlorpyrifos for Dow AgroSciences LLC, which manufactures the pesticide.
EPA has repeatedly found that chlorpyrifos is linked to brain damage in children, but Administrator Scott Pruitt earlier this year decided to keep the compound on the market while the agency conducts additional studies of it (Greenwire, March 30).
Dourson has also done work for industry on two chemicals — trichloroethylene (TCE) and 1,4-Dioxane — that the chemical safety office he is poised to lead is currently reviewing. The Obama-era EPA also proposed banning the manufacture, import, processing and distribution of TCE, a known carcinogen, in degreasing and dry-cleaning operations — the compound's two primary uses in the United States (Greenwire, Dec. 7, 2016).
The assistant administrator nominee's October 2016 TCE study said it was made possible by "a gift from the American Chemistry Council" but added that "the research hypotheses addressed, findings, and conclusions expressed in this paper are solely those of the authors and not necessarily those of supporting groups."
Yet the study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, on whose editorial board Dourson sits, found that the safety range for TCE exposure was three to 30 times higher than the level recommended by EPA in 2014.
EDF raised concerns about what Dourson's past work for industry means for the future of the Toxic Substances Control Act. With the support of industry, the law was reformed last year for the first time since it was enacted in 1976 by a bill named after the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
"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," Denison said. "Now with Dourson's nomination, any remaining semblance of impartiality and balance is gone."
The EDF scientist added, "The chemical industry needs to be seriously asking itself: Is this any way to restore confidence in this country's chemical safety system?"
EPA didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the blog post.
But the ACC defended Dourson's work and urged his confirmation.
"We believe his knowledge, experience and leadership will strengthen EPA's processes for evaluating and incorporating high quality science into regulatory decision making," ACC spokesman Jon Corley said in a statement. "The Senate should act on Dr. Dourson's nomination without delay as it comes during a crucial point in the implementation of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/07/25/stories/1060057872
-
(ACC Mentioned) SF May Ban Controversial Flame-Retardant Chemicals
Jul 25, 2017 | San Francisco Chronicle
By Rachel Swan
San Francisco is on track to become the first city in the nation to ban flame-retardant chemicals from furniture and children’s products, a move scientists said could bring down cancer rates and save children from a variety of developmental problems.
Supervisor Mark Farrell will introduce the legislation at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. He deems it the logical next step for a city that outlawed plastic grocery bags in 2012 and barred polystyrene foam last year.
“San Francisco will always be an environmental leader,” Farrell said, citing research that links the flame-repelling substances to attention problems, lowered IQs, hormone disruption, reproductive issues and cancer. Flame retardants are baked into many household products, including baby strollers, computers, building insulation, plastics and nursing pillows.
These chemicals migrate into dust, posing a danger to infants who crawl around on floors or people who eat at their computers.
Legislators and public health advocates have tried for years to get them banned at the state level but have always run into opposition from chemical manufacturers.
“The chemical industry would lie and cheat,” said former state legislator Mark Leno, who introduced a first anti-flame-retardant bill as a state assemblyman in 2006. Leno, a San Francisco Democrat who is also a former city supervisor, sponsored four such bills over his career in the Assembly and Senate, three of which failed. The only one that passed was a 2015 law requiring furniture labels to indicate whether the product contains flame retardants.
He said chemical-industry lobbyists fiercely fought his legislative efforts, appealing to voters in radio and television ads, robocalls and mailers.
“They urged people to call their legislators and tell them to vote against these bills, because otherwise, ‘Your children will die in a fire,’” Leno said.
He and others trace the state’s problems with flame retardants back to regulations that Gov. Jerry Brown established during his first term in 1975, requiring manufacturers to subject all their products to an open flame test.
The laws were well-intentioned, Leno said, but “pretty much required (these companies) to use chemicals.” He noted that although the law was unique to California, it affected other states because California is the most populous state.
“Because of the size of our marketplace, all furniture sold anywhere in the U.S. had to be made to comply with our regulations,” Leno said.
Brown rewrote those laws in 2013, allowing manufacturers to use fire-resistant fabrics and coverings. But he stopped short of outright banning flame retardants, which are still used in roughly a quarter of all children’s products sold in the nation, according to research by the Oakland-based Center for Environmental Health.
Farrell expects his ban to sail through the Board of Supervisors, though it is already facing criticism from a prominent national trade association.
“Flame retardants provide consumers with a critical layer of fire protection,” said Bryan Goodman, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council’s North American Flame Retardant Alliance. “They also help products meet important fire safety standards that are in place to protect life and property.”
Such reasoning has for decades given consumers a false sense of security, said Suzanne Price, who in 2009 left her job at an investment bank to open an organic baby boutique in San Francisco’s Marina District.
Price has struggled for eight years to stock her shop with alternatives to the chemical-doused polyurethane foam that’s used in many bassinets and crib mattresses.
She avoids those chemicals and instead sells items with naturally occurring flame retardants, such as wool, latex, baking soda and coconut husks. They are expensive and hard to find, Price said, and she has to explain to customers why it’s worth spending an extra $50 on a mattress that won’t emit toxins.
“The conventional wisdom is that if it’s so bad, the government would have banned it,” Price said. “And some people thought they needed chemicals to keep their babies safe from a fire.”
If it passes, Farrell’s ban could have profound effects not just for retailers and consumers, but also for firefighters who may inhale noxious compounds when flame retardants burn.
Blood tests of 12 San Francisco firefighters in 2014 showed that all of them had high levels of dioxins, which are released when the compounds in flame retardants catch fire. Dioxins are extremely carcinogenic, said Tony Stefani, head of the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation.
Stefani blames flame retardants for an epidemic of cancer among his colleagues, including breast cancer rates for female San Francisco firefighters that are six times the nation’s average for women 40 to 50 years old. He said these chemicals do “little or nothing” to limit fires, despite manufacturers’ claims.
Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: rswan@sfchronicle.com
Twitter: @rachelswan
San Francisco environmental laws
2006: Plastic-bag ban at large grocery stores and retailers, and foam container ban in restaurants and hotels
2008: Large commercial and residential high-rises required to meet LEED Gold standard
2009: San Francisco residents required to separate recyclable materials, compostable materials and landfill trash
2012: Plastic-bag ban extended to include all retail stores
2013: Plastic-bag ban at all food establishments
2014: Plastic-water-bottle ban on city property
2015: Shift to renewable diesel fuel for city fleet
2 016: Polystyrene ban on everything from packing peanuts to ice chests to to-go coffee cups
2016: San Francisco becomes the first U.S. city to require solar rooftops on new buildings
http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/SF-may-ban-controversial-flame-retardant-chemicals-11349686.php
-
Jul 25, 2017 | The Washington Times
By Richard Berman
For America’s 207 million coffee drinkers, this month’s “latest study” brought a venti-sized serving of good news: A healthy dose of coffee leads to a longer life.
However, a healthy dose of skepticism might do more good.
The study’s claims that coffee may ward off everything from digestive diseases to stroke are the handiwork of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a semi-autonomous arm of the World Health Organization, which is a notorious peddler of junk science. In 1991, the agency claimed coffee was a possible source of cancer. It wasn’t until last year, after fighting scientific consensus more than two decades, that IARC reversed course.
Most research organizations don’t find themselves needing to save face with highly publicized studies proving they align with the rest of the scientific community. But IARC has made a name for itself not through prestigious research, but by its controversial involvement pushing political agendas and bowing to activist researchers.
Just ahead of last years’ spring harvest, IARC released a bombshell report identifying glyphosate, the world’s most heavily used weed killer — and the active ingredient in Roundup — as a “probable carcinogen.” The problem was, IARC’s classification defied the consensus of toxicologists from dozens of national and international authorities, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, European Food Safety Authority and even the World Health Organization.
So it came as no surprise when a Brussels-based professor, David Zaruk, outed the anti-pesticide activists in the henhouse. In 2014, he revealed that an IARC scientist named Christopher Portier steered the committee that decided to review glyphosate. During Mr. Portier’s committee tenure — and later while serving as IARC’s only “invited specialist” to evaluate the weed killer — he was a paid employee of the anti-chemical activist group, Environmental Defense Fund.
It’s curious how an agency that claims moral authority for weeding out conflicts of interest (read: private-sector scientists) would permit testimony from the employee of a green nongovernment organization that rakes in more than $130 million each year by promoting a global fear of chemicals.
Most recently, a Reuters investigation outed the lead scientist who handed down IARC’s cancer ruling, Aaron Blair. He deliberately hid data supporting glyphosate’s safety from his fellow scientists. Under oath, the epidemiologist admitted that his omissions likely altered the course of glyphosate’s review.
In a previous chairmanship, Mr. Blair also identified working the night shift as a possible carcinogen. Perhaps if that night shift were spent cleaning the remnants of a nuclear meltdown. But Mr. Blair’s evaluation applied to far more mundane restaurant and retail employees, doctors and nurses.
The list of allegations reads almost like a synopsis from “The Twilight Zone”: There’s a vegan doctor, Mariana Stern, who worked to label red meat a probable carcinogen. That, despite IARC’s own admission of “limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans.” The World Health Organization even had to issue a clarification that IARC’s research did not mean people should stop eating meat.
Then there’s a IARC researcher, Rene de Seze, who helped the agency confirm cellphone radiation as another likely cancer source. IARC’s own conflict of interest notice disclosed that Mr. de Seze received funds and advised legal counsel for a French organization that fights the installation of cell towers. Yet cancer authorities like the National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society — and those of us who don’t wear a tinfoil hat as we drink our morning coffee — seriously doubt that your next phone call will cause cancer.
A vested interest in one’s research space is par for the course. However, IARC’s researchers have repeatedly put their own interests ahead of discovering actual carcinogens in the name of public health.
When IARC began widely evaluating possible sources of cancer in 1987, it found that most suspected carcinogens, well, weren’t. But “toothbrush bristles probably don’t cause cancer” can’t quite justify a $50 million budget. And as purse strings tighten at the World Health Organization, IARC’s recent reviews continue uncovering a curious number of likely carcinogens.
But the agency’s sensationalist tendencies have clearly ventured a step too far. A “WHOinsider” confided to Reuters reporter Kate Kelland of “talk here now of needing to rein IARCin.”
Groups like IARC have the benefit of hiding their politics behind the clout of an international health organization. Unless industries want their products raked over the coals by an agency whose existence depends on the promotion of public fear, they need to join the ranks of leaders speaking out against IARC’s tactics.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/24/chemical-industries-tarnished-by-junk-science/
-
UK Outlines EU Chemicals Policy Commitments
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
The UK has confirmed that it will continue to attend and actively participate in Echa and European Commission fora while Brexitnegotiations continue.
However, it is unable to say whether it can commit to any new substance evaluation or risk management option analyses (RMOA) until talks are over.
In its response to questions from Chemical Watch, the UK REACH competent authority says it will proceed with screening 24 substances – including a group of 22 with Sweden as part of an Echa collaborative pilot project. This will run until March 2018. Around the same time, the UK says it will review how many substances it will manually screen each year, if any.
The UK is to continue work on the substance evaluation of triphenyl phosphate, the draft findings for which will be presented to Echa’s autumn meeting of the endocrine disruptors experts group.
During the annual Corap update meeting – expected by February 2018 – it will consider its commitment to conduct proposed evaluations already in the 2017-19 community rolling action plan for 2018 (three substances) and 2019 (one substance).
The same goes for whether to propose additional substances to those already in the current Corap for next year's programme (2018-2020).
Additional policy issues may emerge but, meanwhile, "care will be taken to ensure sufficient resources remain available" to assess information requested for substances evaluated in earlier years and to produce conclusion documents for them, it says.
The UK adds that it aims to complete its persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) assessment of D6 this year. It will also finish its RMOAs, but no new analyses are being planned.
In January this year, the head of the UK's Chemical Industry Association warned that UK officials are making a smaller contribution to EU chemical policy discussions because of their focus on Brexit. And other member states are now less inclined to listen to their views, Steve Elliott said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57867/uk-outlines-eu-chemicals-policy-commitments
-
Radiolabelled Nano Titanium Dioxide Shows up in Organs, Days after Exposure
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Organs may retain some titanium dioxide nanoparticles for more than seven days after they enter the body, according to radiolabelling studies by a team from the Helmholtz Centre Munich in Germany and the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Led by Helmholtz's Wolfgang Kreyling, the researchers exposed rats to the particles labelled with 48-vanadium, before measuring the radioactive content in all organs and tissues. By using radiolabelling, they didn't need to take into account background levels from diet or the environment.
Although most of the nanoparticles given orally were soon excreted in faeces, about 0.6% of the dose passed through the gastro-intestinal barrier after one hour. From here they could have strayed into the bloodstream.
The highest titanium dioxide levels were found in the liver, followed by in the spleen, skeleton and blood. The researchers were able to detect very low levels of nanoparticles in all organs; levels appeared to remain stable over 28 days.
The "apparently slow" excretion kinetics point to a gradual and possibly undesirable accumulation of nanoparticles, say the researchers in a series of Nanotoxicology articles.
The possibility that titanium dioxide nanoparticles may accumulate in organs raises questions about adverse health effects, they add.
Many rodent studies assume that results obtained after injecting intravenously can also be used to predict the fate of nanoparticles arising from dietary or inhalation exposure.
To put this to the test, the researchers repeated their experiments using three exposure routes: IV injection, ingestion and delivery to the lungs.
The biokinetics differed significantly for the three sets of experiments, leading the researchers to conclude that IV injection is not suitable for predicting the fate of nanoparticles administered by different routes.
"A very important take-home message from these three studies is that intravenous exposures (for oral toxicity studies) cannot be substitutes for oral exposures … as has been proposed by some investigators," says David Warheit from US chemical company Chemours, who was not involved in the study.
Meanwhile, he cautions that distribution and retention patterns may be very different in rats compared with larger mammals such as humans.
He also points out that only a small fraction of food grade titanium dioxide consists of nanoparticles. "In fact, the larger, pigment-grade TiO2 is used commercially, primarily because it scatters light and ultimately provides a white colour," he says.
In February, the French National Institute of Agricultural Research published research linking titanium dioxide in food (E171) to inflammation and bowel cancer in rats. The researchers found that particles crossed the rat gut barrier and reached the liver.
And then in June, Echa's Risk Assessment Committee (Rac) concluded that the substance should be classified as a category 2 carcinogen via inhalation. France had proposed a category 1B carcinogenicity classification.
Titanium dioxide producers have been fiercely critical of the classification proposals, and have long argued that the rat data are not relevant to human toxicology. According to industry, existing evidence should point to a "no classification" decision for all forms.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57862/radiolabelled-nano-titanium-dioxide-shows-up-in-organs-days-after-exposure
-
Ban on Microbeads in UK Rinse-Off Cosmetics Confirmed
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Vanessa Zainzinger
The UK's new environment minister has repeated the government's pledge to introduce legislation to ban the manufacture of rinse-off cosmetics containing microbeads from 1 January 2018, and their sale from 30 June the same year.
Environment secretary Michael Gove, appointed after last month's general election, confirmed the timeline during a speech at WWF UK on 21 July. It was first announced by junior environment minister Thérèse Coffey during a House of Commons debate in March.
Mr Gove's statement follows a public consultation on the government's proposal for a ban, which closed on 28 February. Many respondents asked for its scope to be broadened to cover all plastics causing harm in the marine environment. Some called for it to cover all products that result in microbeads being washed down the drain, such as leave-on make-up and sunscreen. But the cosmetics industry said this would require the reformulation thousands of products and generate significant costs, particularly for small companies.
Specific categories of polymer were also suggested for inclusion, including semi-solid plastics and liquid/wax polymers, which behave in the same way in the marine environment as solid microplastics.
Some respondents called for the inclusion of cleaning products, but the UK Cleaning Products Industry Association says no microbeads are used in UK-produced household and industrial cleaning products.
The environment ministry, Defra, has promised to review evidence on solid plastic particles in products outside of the scope of the ban, together with the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee (HSAC), and to "assess the potential for further actions".Industry concerns
Industry respondents warned of the cost of finding alternatives, reformulating and testing products, and updating the labelling. Some said the use of more expensive non-plastic ingredients could hit cosmetics exports because UK companies would be at a disadvantage.
They called for the ban to be consistent with legislation in other countries. Earlier this month Swedenproposed a ban on rinse-off cosmetics that contain microbeads. Canada confirmed a similar ban in June and South Korea proposed provisions against the ingredient in cosmetics last year.
Defra says that because other countries that import cosmetics to the UK are either implementing bans of their own or considering doing so, there should not be a "significant impact on imports".Enforcement strategy
The trading standards authorities would oversee compliance with and enforcement of the provisions. The rate of non-compliance is expected to be low, given that the cosmetics industry has already reduced its use of microbeads voluntarily.
Enforcement actions will include variable monetary penalties, compliance and stop notices.
Defra has been asked to consider exemptions for medical products and biodegradable products. But the government said it is questionable that "biodegradable" materials adequately break down in the marine environment. It will, however, consider exemptions for medical applications in light of future advancements in the field.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57857/ban-on-microbeads-in-uk-rinse-off-cosmetics-confirmed
-
Efsa Publishes Opinion on Dimethyl Carbonate Use in FCMs
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Food Safety Authority has published an opinion on the safety of dimethyl carbonate in "repeated-use" food contact materials.
Responding to a request from Germany’s Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety to assess a specific use in a polymer intended for FCMs, Efsa said there is no safety concern when the substance is:used with 1,6-hexanediol in the manufacture of polycarbonate prepolymers. [This prepolymer is used at up to 30% to make a thermoplastic polyurethane with MDI (4,4'-methylenediphenyldiisocyanate) and diols, such as polypropylene glycol and 1,4-butanediol]; andapplied in repeated-use articles intended for contact with foods for which 3% acetic acid and 10% ethanol are specified as simulants and under contact conditions covered by simulation during 30 minutes at 40°C.
The German request referred to use in thermoplastic polyurethane containing 29% of the polycarbonate prepolymer. This polymer is intended for repeated-use articles with short-term contact (≤ 30 minutes) at room temperature for types of food, simulated by 10% ethanol and 3% acetic acid.
Efsa's panel on food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids said other uses might result in different migrates, which need to be evaluated by the business operators.
"In such cases, the migration of dimethyl carbonate and total polycarbonate oligomers below 1,000 Da is of no safety concern, if each of them does not exceed 0.05mg/kg food," the panel said.
In May, Efsa issued guidance for applicants seeking to authorise substances for use in plastic FCMs. And, in the same month, the European Commission made changes to the Regulation on plastic FCMs and articles.
https://chemicalwatch.com/57873/efsa-publishes-opinion-on-dimethyl-carbonate-use-in-fcms
-
Inside 'Energy Dominance' and Other DOE Buzzwords
Jul 25, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Maxime Joselow
U.S. energy policy under President Trump can best be summarized by the term "energy dominance."
Or maybe "energy independence." Or perhaps even "energy security."
Trump administration officials rely on the same catchphrases to describe U.S. energy policy. The buzzwords, some of which are relics of past energy debates, show up in written statements and comments to the press on a regular basis.
To find out the extent of the trend, E&E News analyzed how often 10 catchphrases have appeared in Department of Energy press releases and Energy Secretary Rick Perry's remarks since Trump's inauguration.
The analysis revealed that "energy security" and "energy efficiency" are used the most in press releases out of the Department of Energy, with 22 appearances for energy security and 21 appearances for energy efficiency.
"Energy dominance" and "energy independence," which more closely align with the president's rhetoric on energy policy, also pop up frequently in the department's press releases, with nine appearances for the former and eight for the latter.
Energy historians are quick to note that these terms have a rich history, stretching back through several previous administrations. But the frequency with which they appear in 2017 offers a window into how the Trump administration views the interplay between energy, geopolitics and national security.
And what's left unsaid may be just as telling.
The distorted meaning of 'energy independence'
Independence has received lots of attention at 1000 Independence Ave. SW, DOE headquarters.
Trump's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint "focuses on positioning our nation to become more energy independent by utilizing America's greatest natural resource, our people," Perry said in a March 16 statement.
"Under President Trump's leadership, we will continue to advocate for a very broad, all-of-the-above energy portfolio to allow the United States to achieve energy independence," Perry saidin a speech that focused on "unleashing" American fuel sources (E&E News PM, June 29).
Still, Perry and other Cabinet-level officials are short on specifics when it comes to what, exactly, "energy independence" means. DOE officials did not respond to multiple requests for comment seeking clarification.
Amid the ambiguity, some have assumed the phrase means the United States should break its addiction to foreign oil and become a net exporter of energy. But the man who coined the term in the 1970s had something else in mind.
The first high-profile use of the term was in a 1973 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Carroll Wilson, said Peter Shulman, an associate professor at Case Western Reserve University and an energy historian who has researched the term's origins.
"Wilson was persuaded in 1973 that the country was heading for a crisis in energy," Shulman said. "He coined this phrase 'energy independence' to capture in a snappy way what the country needed to do.
"What Wilson proposed was a way to make the country invulnerable to some kind of disruption from abroad," Shulman said. "He did not mean 100 percent self-sufficiency. He just meant no reliance on outside sources of power that would be so concentrated or large as to be deeply disruptive of American life, economy and national security."
After delivering his speech, Wilson sent an unsolicited copy to the White House. It went unacknowledged by President Nixon.
Then, in October 1973, OPEC declared an oil embargo in response to the United States' support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The price of oil skyrocketed. Suddenly, Nixon was keen on Wilson's idea.
"Once the embargo began in October of 1973, all of a sudden Nixon started talking about Project Independence, which was a massive government program to cut through the red tape and invest in R&D," Shulman said. "Nixon was essentially talking about becoming energy independent by the end of the 1970s."
When Nixon resigned from office, President Ford picked up where his predecessor left off, introducing signature "energy independence" legislation, Shulman said. "And it continued to be used by most presidential candidates and presidents up until the present," he said.What's the deal with 'energy dominance'?
"America must be more than just energy independent. America must be energy dominant. #AmericanEnergy," Perry tweeted on March 28.
Starting in late March, Trump administration officials made a noticeable shift from "energy independence" to "energy dominance."
Christopher Jones, a professor of history at Arizona State University who has researched the history of energy transitions, said he sees a marked difference between "energy independence" and "energy dominance."
"It's part of a very substantial rhetorical shift," Jones said. "The phrase 'energy dominance' suggests a willingness to interrupt free trade to the benefit of America — more so than 'energy independence.'"
Talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement are expected to commence this summer, at Trump's insistence (Greenwire, May 18). Dozens of senators and House members from both parties are calling on Trump to uphold energy provisions of the landmark free trade deal (Greenwire, June 9).
"It's linked to the machismo of Trump, and his broader sense that trade deals are unfair to America," Jones said. "I see it as reflecting Trump on trade more generally, and how different he is from both the traditional Republican and Democratic free trade rhetoric.
"Speaking of security
"Energy security" shows up a whopping 22 times in DOE press releases since the inauguration. The phrase is most commonly used to describe DOE's role in promoting nuclear nonproliferation, managing the country's strategic petroleum stockpiles, and protecting against physical and cyberattacks on the country's energy infrastructure.
The history of the phrase "energy security" has been closely mapped by Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian and author of the 1991 book "The Quest: Energy, Security and the Remaking of the Modern World."
"After the 1973 oil shock, it was clear that the oil companies could not and would not manage future crises by themselves, and that it was up to governments to take on that role," Yergin writes in the book. "In the years since, the industrial countries have developed an energy security system built around the International Energy Agency and the strategic stockpiles."
Yergin makes it clear in his writing that he thinks "energy security" is a "much more successful phrase" than "energy independence," Jones said.
"When people talk about energy independence, they mean not being beholden to places like Iran and Saudi Arabia," Jones said. "But we actually get a lot of our energy from Canada and Mexico."
He added, "So energy security means we're confident that we'll be fine if hostile powers don't want to sell us their energy. The term is usually used as a more sensible alternative to 'energy independence.'"'Contradictory' talk about efficiency and innovation?
"Energy efficiency" pops up 21 times in DOE press releases since January, the second most often of the phrases included in the analysis.
That's "contradictory," according to Alexis Abramson, director of the Great Lakes Energy Institute at Case Western.
"Energy efficiency is sort of a bipartisan term because nobody can argue against using less energy or using less energy more efficiently," Abramson said. "In that way, you do see it used across the aisle and by various kinds of politicians.
"But in the president's skinny budget, he doesn't necessarily emphasize the funding of energy efficiency," she said. "So while it's kind of a neutral term, it's a bit contradictory."
Trump's budget blueprint slashes the funding for DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, among other offices and programs (Energywire, March 16). The president also wants to ax Energy Star, the popular energy efficiency program run by DOE and U.S. EPA (Greenwire, March 21).
It's also "contradictory" and "illogical" for the Trump administration to tout the goal of "energy innovation," Abramson said.
"The Trump administration does spend a lot of time promoting energy innovation and companies and growth," she said. "But they seem hesitant to invest federal dollars in that innovation." For example, she said, Trump's budget plan suggests eliminating the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. "If I were to point to any division of DOE that has a focus on innovation, it would be ARPA-E."No one's talking about climate change
"When it comes to climate change, I am committed to making decisions based on sound science and that also take into account the economic impact," Perry said in his opening statementduring his Senate confirmation hearing.
That moment was a rarity. The phrase "climate change" appeared zero times in Perry's remarks in late June, when the White House was putting special emphasis on energy issues. It also appears zero times in DOE press releases since January.
To be fair, former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, an Obama appointee, only said "climate change" once in his opening statement during his 2013 Senate confirmation hearing. But his subsequent actions spoke louder than his words, as he played a pivotal role in negotiations at the 2015 Paris climate talks (Energywire, Dec. 17, 2015). And he's spoken openly with E&E News about his efforts to push for a low-carbon economy (Energywire, June 21).
When Perry mentions climate change, he often draws the ire of environmental groups and protesters, who label him a "climate denier." Appearing on CNBC's "Squawk Box" last month, Perry stirred up controversy by saying carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of climate change (Greenwire, June 19). He's also endorsed a "red team, blue team" approach to debating mainstream climate science (Climatewire, June 30).
While Perry doesn't talk about climate change often, his remarks on the subject always get picked up by media outlets and have an outsized impact on public discourse, said Cara Horowitz, co-executive director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA.
"It isn't in dispute that humans have been the dominant cause of warming in recent decades," Horowitz said. "It feeds a culture of denialism and misinformation to suggest otherwise. And I think that's exactly what Secretary Perry's recent statements about climate change have done."
She added, "It's his most misleading statements that are high profile and that make the headlines, and that pollute public dialogue and public understanding of what climate science tells us."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/07/25/stories/1060057825
-
Senate Subcommittee Calls Trump Energy Research Cuts
Jul 25, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
White House plans to slash research funding at the Department of Energy are coming up against a wall in the Senate.
A report from the Senate Appropriations Committee, led by Energy and Water Development Subcommittee Chairman Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., criticizes numerous White House budget cuts as "short-sighted" and restores funding close for many programs to the current budget.
In the case of ARPA-E, the advanced energy research division President Donald Trump had proposed eliminating, the Senate recommends not only maintaining the division but increasing its budget 8 percent to $330 million.
"The Committee definitively rejects this short-sighted proposal, and instead increases investment in this transformational program," the report reads.
ARPA-E funds research at institutions around the country, with eight projects currently underway in Texas. Texas A&M University and Rice University both count projects within their facilities, including research into improving solar panel efficiency and using micro-organisms to produce ammonia, a substance critical to numerous agricultural and chemical industries.
The recommendations counter that of the House, which agreed to eliminating ARPA-E, setting up a showdown between the two houses of Congress.
At a basic level senators are taking aim at Trump's plans to shift the Department of Energy away from funding the commercialization of advanced energy technology, an initiative of former president Barack Obama.
"The President's budget request proposes a shift away from later stage research and development
activities to refocus the Department on an early-stage research and development mission. The Committee believes that such an approach will not successfully integrate the results of early stage
research and development into the U.S. energy system," the report reads.The senate is also recommending restoring funding to the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy close to 2017 levels, with a $1.9 million budget. That represents an 8 percent cut but far from the 70 percent reduction recommended by the White House.
"The Committee recognizes the importance of the development and deployment of energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, which are critical to expanding U.S. energy security and global leadership," the report reads.
At the Office of Fossil Energy, which Trump cited for a 58 percent budget cut, the senate is recommending a 14 percent cut down to $571 million.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Senators-push-back-against-Trump-research-cuts-at-11368029.php
-
State's Top Scientists to Brief House Committee on Shale Drilling Report
Jul 25, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By David Hunn
Some of the state’s top scientists will brief state lawmakers this week on a recent report on the effects of oil and gas development.
Members of The Academy of Medicine, Engineering and Science of Texas released last month the most comprehensive analysis of the environmental and social impacts of drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
The Texas House Energy Resources Committee has now invited members of the academy’s Shale Task Force, which authored the report, to give testimony in Austin. The briefing will focus on overall findings as well as key highlights from the earthquake, water and transportation chapters, in which the task force found that oil and gas production in Texas shale plays, while enriching the state and its residents, also causes earthquakes, contaminates water and even boosts the frequency and severity of traffic collisions as workers and equipment rush to oil fields.
The academy said in a statement that it looks forward to sharing the report. “We hope this briefing can help lawmakers and others find ways to enhance the positive impacts of shale development while reducing or mitigating negative ones,” the academy said.
Academy President Gordon England and members of the group’s Shale Task Force will brief lawmakers on the report at 2 p.m. on Wednesday in Room E2.010 at the Texas Capitol.
The hearing will be open to the public and also available via livestream.
The Cynthia and George Mitchell Foundation, a responsible-drilling and environmental awareness advocacy group created by shale pioneer George Mitchell, paid for some of the research, and donated more money for communications and outreach.
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/State-s-top-scientists-to-brief-House-committee-11363594.php
-
(ACC Mentioned) 11 State Attorneys General Sue EPA Over Delay of the Chemical Accident Safety Rule
Jul 25, 2017 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
The attorneys general from 11 states – New York, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington – have signed on to a lawsuit filed July 24 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that claims EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposed two-year delay of the Accidental Release Prevention Requirements for Risk Management Programs under the Clean Air Act, Section 112(r)(7), (the Chemical Accident Safety Rule) that were finalized by the Obama administration on Jan. 13 are illegal because it exceeds EPA’s authority under the Clean Water Act.
Led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the lawsuit claims the Chemical Accident Safety Rule makes critical improvements to congressionally-mandated protections against explosions, fires, poisonous gas releases and other accidents at more than 12,000 facilities across the country – including over 200 in New York – that store and use toxic chemicals.
“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 Schneiderman. “It’s simply outrageous to block these common-sense protections – and attorneys general will keep fighting back when our communities are put at risk.”
According to EPA, in the last 10 years, there have been over 1,500 accidents at chemical plants, including 30 in New York. Nationally, these accidents caused 58 deaths; required 17,099 people to seek medical treatment; caused almost 500,000 people to be evacuated or sheltered-in-place; and cost over $2 billion in property damage. High-profile incidents included those at BP Refinery in Texas in 2005 (15 people killed, 170 injured), Chevron Refinery in California in 2012 (19 workers endangered, 15,000 people sought medical treatment), Tesoro Refinery in Washington in 2010 (seven people killed), West Fertilizer Facility in Texas in 2013 (15 people killed), and Williams Olefins Plant in Louisiana in 2013 (two workers killed, many injured).
The coalition of attorneys general is challenging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s recent delay of the rule by an additional 20 months as exceeding EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act, and as arbitrary and capricious.
On Jan. 13, the Obama administration finalized the Chemical Accident Safety Rule to update “Risk Management Plan” regulations mandated by Congress in 1990 amendments to the federal Clean Air Act. The amended rules 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.
Despite Pruitt’s delay of the rule, 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 more than 12,000 facilities covered by the regulations include chemical manufacturers, petroleum refineries, pulp and paper mills, chemical and petroleum wholesalers and terminals, wastewater treatment plants, agricultural chemical distributors, midstream gas plants and food storage facilities with ammonia refrigeration systems.
When adopted, the rule’s effective date was March 14. Facilities were provided one year from the effective date to comply with the emergency response procedures, and four years to implement the accident prevention program and public information disclosure requirements. EPA determined that this lead-time was necessary for facility operators to understand and implement the rule’s provisions.
Soon after the Chemical Accident Safety Rule was finalized, a number of oil and gas and chemical industry associations and companies – including the American Chemistry Council, the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, and the American Petroleum Institute – petitioned the Trump administration to reconsider the rule. Pruitt subsequently granted these requests and delayed the rule’s effective date for 90 days.
On June 12, EPA announced that Pruitt further delayed the Chemical Accident Safety Rule’s effective date for an additional 20 months until Feb. 19, 2019. “We are seeking additional time to review the program, so that we can fully evaluate the public comments raised by multiple petitioners and consider other issues that may benefit from additional public input,” said Pruitt of the delay.
According to Schneiderman, 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 the rule. The 20-month delay would extend the date at which chemical facilities must comply with the rule’s emergency response requirements to 2020, and with its accident prevention program and public information disclosure requirements to 2023.
http://beta.ehstoday.com/environment/11-state-attorneys-general-sue-epa-over-delay-chemical-accident-safety-rule
-
Jul 25, 2017 | Consumerist
By Chris Moran
The Environmental Protection Agency recently decided to put a nearly two-year delay on new rules intended to reduce the number and damage resulting from accidents at U.S. chemical plants that can result in deadly explosions, fires, and the release of poisonous gas. But the attorneys general for 11 states say the Trump administration has overstepped its authority with this decision.
In January, the EPA finalized the new rule that “seek to improve chemical process safety, assist local emergency authorities in planning for and responding to accidents, and improve public awareness of chemical hazards at regulated sources.”
According to the EPA, there have been more than 1,517 accidents at the nation’s chemical plants over the last decade, leaving 58 dead and more than 17,000 injured. Nearly one-third (473) of those incidents resulted in damage that extended beyond the site of the facility. As a result, around 500,000 people were forced to either evacuate buildings or shelter in place, while more than $2 billion in damage was done to property.
Proponents of the regulation point to incidents like the March 23, 2005 explosions at the BP refinery in Texas City, TX, where 15 workers were killed and 180 injured, according to the Chemical Safety Board:
The new rule was supposed to become official in March 2017, but only days after President Trump’s inauguration, lawmakers were being pushed to undo this regulation.
On Jan. 25, a coalition of more than 20 industrial trade groups — including the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the American Chemistry Council, the Institute of Makers of Explosives, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Fertilizer Institute — made their case to House and Senate leadership to use the Congressional Review Act (which allows lawmakers to try to roll back new federal regulations they disagree with) to undo the new rule.
That didn’t happen, but EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt — who previously filed multiple lawsuits against the agency he now runs, and who has long-running ties to the oil industry — did grant an initial 90-day delay on the rule’s starting date, even though the regulation has a built-in one-year grace period before affected companies are required to comply with the emergency response procedures, and a four-year period for complying with the new accident prevention and public disclosure requirements.
Then, on June 14, Pruitt announced a 20-month delay in implementing the rule, meaning the official start date won’t be until Feb. 2019, with compliance not required until a year later — nearly seven years after the rulemaking process began.
In the meantime, the EPA says it will “conduct a reconsideration proceeding and… consider other issues that may benefit from additional comment.” In other words, the agency is using this delay to rewrite and rescind the rule in accordance with guidance from industry.
In a lawsuit [PDF] filed today with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the attorneys general for 11 states — New York, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Washington, New Mexico, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont — allege that Pruitt overstepped his authority by delaying the rule without good reason.
“Protecting our workers, first-responders, and communities from chemical accidents should be something on which we all agree,” said New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, whose office is leading the challenge. “Yet the Trump EPA continues to put special interests before the health and safety of the people they serve.”
https://consumerist.com/2017/07/24/11-states-accuse-trump-administration-of-illegally-delaying-safety-regulations-for-chemical-plants/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Study: 9 Billion Tons of Plastic Produced since '40s, and Most Is Still out There
Jul 25, 2017 | San Diego Union-Tribune
By Deborah Sullivan Brennan
More than 9 billion of tons of plastic have been produced since the 1940s, and most of that is sitting in landfills and the environment, a recent study in the journal Science Advances reported.
The study — released last week by researchers from UC Santa Barbara, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts and the University of Georgia — represents a landmark effort to quantify the amount of plastic introduced into the environment since the material came into use in the last century.
The authors say it’s “the first global analysis of all mass-produced plastics ever manufactured.”
Although plastics seem ubiquitous in today’s world, they’re a relative novelty, and only came into common use in the 1940s and 50s, following WW II, the report stated. Since then, they’ve mushroomed in modern homes and workplaces, where they’re used in housewares, industrial equipment, packaging and synthetic fabrics such as polyester.
“The ensuing rapid growth in plastics production is extraordinary, surpassing most other man-made materials,” the report stated.
Across the world, production of plastic products soared from 2.2 million tons in 1950 to 418 million tons in 2015 — an annual growth of 8.4 percent per year.
The American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division said that the versatility of plastics can help reduce its environmental impacts, compared to other materials.
“Plastics are extremely efficient materials that allow us to do more with less in everything from medical devices to electronics to buildings to transportation,” the council said in a statement.
As production of plastic has risen, however, so has concern about its omnipresence in landfills and in marine systems. Public outrage grew after scientists found soupy mixtures of plastic particles circulating in the Pacific garbage patch, a gyre of marine debris particles in the central North Pacific Ocean.
“The same properties that make plastics so versatile in innumerable applications — durability and resistance to degradation — make these materials difficult or impossible for nature to assimilate,” the report stated.
Unlike other man-made products such as paper, plastics don’t biodegrade, but only disintegrate into smaller particles in landfills or the natural environment, the report stated. The only way to permanently dispose of them is to incinerate them, or to use a high-temperature process called pyrolysis to melt them into liquid fuel.
“Thus, near-permanent contamination of the natural environment with plastic waste is a growing concern,” the report stated.
As of 2015, only 9 percent of the plastic ever produced had been recycled, 12 percent was incinerated, and 79 percent accumulated in landfills or the natural environment, the study found. If that trend continues, more than 13 billion tons of plastic will be dumped in the ground or ocean by 2050, researchers projected.
The researchers purposely declined to discuss solutions in the study, in order to emphasize the magnitude of the problem, said author Roland Geyer, an industrial ecologist at UC Santa Barbara.
“We didn’t want to tell the world what needs to be done, but we wanted to point out how large the challenge is, to hopefully spark off a greater discussion,” Geyer said.
However, he noted that among the triad of waste reduction practices known as “reduce, reuse, recycle,” reducing plastic, including single-use packaging, should be the first priority.
“I think the simplest and most effective strategy is to reduce the amount of plastic we make and use,” Geyer said. “Currently we aren’t doing a good job doing that.”
The American Chemistry Council stated that improved waste management can reduce the environmental impacts of plastics.
“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,” the council stated. “Many experts agree that expanded waste management infrastructure is the key to addressing sustainable use of these resources.”
California has taken some steps to cut plastic waste, said Eben Schwartz, marine debris program manager for the California Coastal Commission.
“We’ve passed a statewide plastic bag ban we have many municipalities across the state that have banned (plastic foam) food ware, and taken other steps to reduce the amount of single use plastic that is being consumed, and therefore have the opportunity to potentially become marine debris,” he said.“But there’s clearly much more work that we need to do.”
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/communities/north-county/sd-no-plastic-study-20170724-story.html
-
Trump and Dow Chemical Chief Executive Clashed on Climate
Jul 25, 2017 | Chemistry World
By Rebecca Trager
Dow Chemical chief executive Andrew Liveris, who heads President Donald Trump’s manufacturing council and is a close White House adviser, fought to prevent the president from pulling the US out of the Paris climate agreement in June.
‘We led a charge to really try to get the president to change his mind – it wasn’t done in isolation,’ Liveris stated during a plenary address at the opening of the centennial meeting of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute (RACI) on 23 July in Melbourne, Victoria. Liveris said that he and other industry leaders advised Trump that the Paris accord might not be perfect, but at least it has allowed the US to be at table during international climate discussions. ‘He had a political problem,’ Liveris said of Trump. ‘The constituency that voted him in – frankly, the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry, the pipeline industry – was losing jobs.’
The policy and business worlds have intersected when it comes to climate change, Liveris said. ‘We are very profoundly having to cope with this intractable problem of increased emissions based on fossil fuels, and businesses like ours that are big users of fossil fuels have halved our use over the last 10 years,’ he told the RACI audience.Business bonanza
Companies like Dow are driving solutions to the problem on the technology side, and the policy needs to follow, Liveris asserted. ‘When the politics don’t allow leadership, you have got to let the people who are affected really lead the policy environment, so that is what we’ve done,’ he said, noting that the US’s future in the Paris agreement is not dead. ‘I can’t speak to whether he is going to change his mind, but I can speak to the fact that it is not a finished conversation, and I am very involved in that,’ Liveris said. ‘I am very hopeful that we can get re-engagement on some terms that satisfy the politics of the US.’
He emphasised that the impacts of climate change are being profoundly felt in Australia. ‘Essential natural resources are harder to get to, and frankly some of the ecosystems that make Australia unique are being destroyed, like the Great Barrier Reef,’ added Liveris, who himself was born, raised and educated in Australia.
Nevertheless, he argued that global warming and many of the other serious modern global challenges – like the need for clean water and adequate food and energy resources to satisfy a growing population – are increasingly being recognised and embraced by industry as business opportunities. ‘Over my career, I have witnessed a remarkable evolution in the way that companies like ours think about their responsibility to society, and the role that business can therefore play in solving problems and improving people’s lives,’ Liveris said. ‘These challenges actually provide a roadmap for a completely new business model – one where solving some of the world’s most pressing problems actually presents boundless business opportunities.’
Patent production at Dow is eight-fold higher than it was 10 years ago, and Liveris said this is because of these global trends. ‘Many of these inventions are not just good for Dow, but they are good for the world,’ he said, citing for example paint that removes toxic formaldehyde from indoor air, innovative packing technologies that eliminate waste in the food chain, as well as methods for desalinating and cleaning brackish water.
If individual companies such as Dow are seeing this sort of growth in innovative power, there could be ‘a new golden era of innovation’ in this century, or over the next few decades, according to Liveris.The need to engage
He urged scientists to help inform policy by running for public office or advising government. ‘This whole notion that we should sit on the outside and complain is gone,’ Liveris stated. ‘We all need to engage people, maybe even use the language of politics.’
In particular, he suggested that chemists and chemical engineers could make good policy advisers. ‘We are trained to break problems into component parts – down to molecules, electrons and even quantum states,’ he said. ‘By understanding these essential elements, these hidden processes that shape our environment, we can design solutions that transform the very fabric of our world.’
One policy area that Liveris and Trump agree on is the need to reform the US educational system, especially science and technology. ‘We have to fix education,’ Liveris told meeting attendees, noting that only 10% of the degrees coming out of four year universities in the US are awarded in science and technology fields, and roughly 40% of those graduating from such institutions don’t have jobs. He said the US’s teachers in elementary schools through high schools aren’t qualified to teach new scientists, pointing out that 30% of those that teach chemistry in US high schools have never even taken a chemistry course.
‘This is why I’m excited about President Trump’s work,’ Liveris said. ‘You are getting all the tweeting stuff and all of the distraction, but he has got a great team of people working on topics exactly like this,’ he added. Liveris is co-chairing an effort, sponsored by Trump’s daughter Ivanka, to retool the US education system. National programmes to expand apprenticeships and vocational training have been launched under this initiative, he said.
https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/trump-and-dow-chemical-chief-executive-clashed-on-climate/3007750.article
-
Environmentalists Fault EPA Bid to Delay Ozone Suit
Jul 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
Environmentalists are criticizing EPA's latest efforts to justify holding litigation over the Obama-era ozone standards in continuing abeyance, saying it undermines their effort to challenge the adequacy of the standards' stringency -- though they stop short of asking the court to change the suit's posture.
“The abeyance heavily burdens their right to seek judicial relief on their claims as petitioners that, among other things, the 2015 standards are illegally and arbitrarily weak,” they said in a July 20 letter to the court.
“Compounding these concerns is the lack of any binding limit on EPA’s review timeline or even any EPA estimate of how long the review might last. Unbridled delay of the instant case would be unjust and severely harmful to Public Health and Environmental Organizations and their members,” they add.
Days before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was slated to hear arguments in the case, the court granted an 11th-hour EPA request to delay April 19 oral argument in the litigation, Murray Energy v. EPA, to allow the agency to review the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard.
The court removed the argument from the court's calendar and placed the case in abeyance pending a further court order, while mandating that EPA file status reports on its review of the Obama EPA decision at 90-day intervals beginning 90 days from the April 11 order until it has reached a decision on whether to change the ozone rule.
In addition to the review of the standard, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has also delayed by one year the agency's designations on localities' attainment of the standard. In a June 6 letter to Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey (R), Pruitt said the extra year will give EPA more time to collect “the most recent air quality data” to make the designations.
In its latest status report to the court, filed July 10, the agency indicated its review of the standard is ongoing.
But environmentalists criticize EPA's status report on where that review now stands. In their July 20 letter to the court, environmentalists charge that “EPA’s three-sentence Status Report, filed July 10, 2017, is inadequate and incomplete, for it lacks important information about EPA’s review of the 2015 ozone standards.”
“EPA’s review of the 2015 standards is not merely 'continuing,'” they say, “but is also leading directly to EPA efforts to delay their implementation,” citing Pruitt's letter to Ducey. “Though they do not request relief at this time, Public Health and Environmental Organizations remain deeply concerned that they face and will continue to face harms flowing from EPA’s review and this fully ripe case’s being held in abeyance to allow the review to proceed.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/environmentalists-fault-epa-bid-delay-ozone-suit
-
Ewire: California's Brown to Sign Landmark Cap & Trade Extension
Jul 25, 2017 | Inside EPA
California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) will today sign landmark legislation extending the state’s greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program out to 2030.
California lawmakers passed the legislation, AB 398 by Assemblyman Eduardo Garcia (D), July 17 by a critical two-thirds margin sought by Brown to bring greater certainty to the program and shield it from legal challenges that the program’s allowance auctions are illegal taxes or fees.
Some observers say such certainty could bolster participation in the auctions and drive up the price of GHG allowances, which would in turn put increasing pressure on entities to reduce GHGs.
Even so, with the passage of the legislation, California air regulators now face a host of critical policy and regulatory choices about the program -- which will have major implications for costs to regulated entities and consumers, the state’s broader economy and how it reduces GHGs to meet declining emissions limits.
Our man in California, Curt Barry, detailed some of the decisions the California Air Resources Board (CARB) must now make, including: the dollar amount for a new GHG allowance price ceiling; the number of allowances currently in reserve that should be released into the market in the coming years to prevent price spikes; how to increase GHG offset projects in California to meet a new minimum mandate; and how many allowances to allocate freely to certain sectors in future compliance periods.
Brown will sign AB 398 on Treasure Island -- the same place former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) signed AB 32, the legislation authorizing the state’s initial cap-and-trade program more than a decade ago, according to the release from Brown’s office.
The governor is expected to sign later this week related legislation, AB 617, which passed alongside AB 398, that aims to reduce emissions of criteria and air toxics pollutants in disadvantaged communities. Among other things, it requires CARB to develop a uniform statewide system of annual reporting of emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants for use by certain categories of stationary sources.
That legislation was key to winning the support of lawmakers sympathetic to the environmental justice community.
We’ll have more for you on California -- including a look at the bipartisan backing for the cap-and-trade bill that ultimately led to its success.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/ewire-californias-brown-sign-landmark-cap-trade-extension
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested