Preview Newsletter

ACC PM 2/8/2017

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 3 Chemical Stocks Set For an Earnings Beat in Q2
Aug 1, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

The chemical industry is back on track after the recent lows. The industry's upturn is due to strength across key end-use markets such as construction, automotive and electronics and an upswing in the world economy.
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Reports June Chemicals Growth
Aug 2, 2017 | Breakbulk

The American Chemistry Council has reported that global chemicals production rose 0.4 percent in June, indicating a positive outlook for industrial transportation demand.
(ACC Mentioned) In-Vehicle Air Quality Discussions Set For 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference
Aug 2, 2017 | Today's Motor Vehicles
By Hamdy Khalil and Mark Polster

For many, the intersection between the polyurethanes and automotive industriessuggests only the type of foam used to deaden sound in a vehicle.

LCSA News

Practitioner Insights: Enhancing TSCA Reform Implementation
Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By ynn Bergeson, James V. Aidala, Jr., Charles M. Auer, Richard Engler, and Oscar Hernandez

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. The act, which has been in force for just over a year, made substantive changes to multiple sections of TSCA that are proving to be even more consequential than anticipated (new TSCA is identified as Pub. L. No. 114-182 and old TSCA was identified as Pub. L. No. 94-469).

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Science Is Clear On Danger Of Fire Retardants
Aug 2, 2017 | Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel
By Ronnie Green

As a career firefighter of 27 years, and a leader of the Professional Firefighters of Maine, I was disappointed to see Matthew Blais attack Maine legislation to protect firefighters from cancer-causing flame-retardant chemicals.
Monsanto Campaigned to Make Roundup Appear Safe: Lawsuit
Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Tiffany Stecker

Attorneys in a high-profile lawsuit against Monsanto Co. released a trove of emails, text-message transcripts, and expert testimony early Aug. 1 that show the company went to great lengths to ensure its best-selling weedkiller was safe in the eyes of regulators and the general public.
Monsanto’s Sway Over Research Is Seen in Disclosed Emails
Aug 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Danny Hakim

Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
F.D.A. Has 6 Inspectors for 3 Million Shipments of Cosmetics
Aug 2, 2017 | The New York Times
By Eric Lipton

The Food and Drug Administration has warned Congress that it is frequently finding contamination, illegal ingredients and other problems in the soaring quantities of imported cosmetics, and that it has only “limited resources” to inspect the shipments.

Energy News

Billionaire Behind Dakota Access Defends New Natural Gas Line
Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Naureen S. Malik

Billionaire pipeline magnate Kelcy Warren, who just months ago defeated environmentalists to finish his controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline, has stepped into the limelight once again—this time, to defend a natural gas line being built across the eastern U.S.
Facing Wide-Ranging Calls, EPA Said To Plan Narrow CPP Replacement Rule
Aug 1, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Dawn Reeves

EPA is said to be crafting a narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) governing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from power plants after a wide range of labor and industry groups urged officials to replace the rule rather than simply repeal it as they may have been planning.
US Ethane Cracker Margin Nears Six-Year Low
Aug 1, 2017 | Platts
By Nida Qureshi, and- Andrea Salazar

The US ethane cracker margin is nearing levels that, prior to 2017, were last seen in the fourth quarter of 2011 as a result of stronger ethane pricing and a weak spot ethylene market.

Chemical Security News

Experts Cast Doubt On ATF's Arson Finding In Deadly West Fertilizer Explosion
Aug 1, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Mark Collette

The fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people and injured more than 160 in the town of West may not have been sparked by a deliberately set fire as federal investigators claimed, according to attorneys, arson experts and a former top workplace safety official under President Barack Obama.

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) 15 States Appeal EPA Delay Of Stricter Air-Quality Standards
Aug 1, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)

Attorneys general from 15 states filed a legal challenge on Tuesday over the Trump administration's delay of Obama-era rules reducing emissions of smog-causing air pollutants.
Ozone Battle Widens As States Challenge EPA Delay
Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Sean Reilly

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), joined by 15 other state attorneys general, sued U.S. EPA today over its one-year halt in implementation of the 2015 ozone standard.
States Challenge EPA Delay Of Ozone NAAQS Designations
Aug 2, 2017 | Inside EPA

A coalition of 16 states is suing EPA over its one-year delay in issuing designations for whether areas are attaining or in nonattainment with the agency's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), just weeks after environmentalists filed a legal challenge asking for an immediate ruling to block the delay.
EPA Methane Standards Take Effect as Court Mulls Challenges
Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Catherine Douglas Moran and Tripp Baltz

Methane emissions limits for the oil and gas industry must take effect even as a federal appeals court mulls legal challenges to the rule, indicating a decision could come soon.
Environmental Regulation Makes America Great
Aug 1, 2017 | Bloomberg View
By Francis Wilkinson

As the Donald Trump administration ratchets up a multi-pronged attack on federal regulations, with two dozen environmental rules rolled back in Trump's first 100 days, it's worth recalling why many regulations exist in the first place. The story of Herbert Needleman is instructive.

Industry and Association News

(ACC Mentioned) 3 Chemical Stocks Set For an Earnings Beat in Q2

Aug 1, 2017 | Zacks (In Nasdaq)

The chemical industry is back on track after the recent lows. The industry's upturn is due to strength across key end-use markets such as construction, automotive and electronics and an upswing in the world economy.

The chemicals industry has outperformed the broader market over the past year. The industry has returned around 16% over the same period, while the S&P 500 index advanced roughly 14%.

Chemical companies continue to shift their focus on attractive, growth markets in an effort to whittle down their exposure on other businesses that are dealing 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 to diversify their business and enhance operational scale. Moreover, margins are expected to see improvements due to cost-cutting measures and productivity improvement actions.

Chemical makers also continue to see strong demand from the automotive sector. A recovery across housing and commercial construction has been another supporting factor for the chemical industry recovery.

The prospects for the U.S. chemical industry looks bright. The American chemical industry is on course for strong growth this year and the next, notwithstanding a few headwinds. 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 spending.

The shale gas bounty is projecting to drive investment on plants and equipment in the U.S. Chemical makers are ratcheting up investment on shale gas-linked projects to take advantage of ample and affordable natural gas supplies.

The European chemical industry has also swung back to life after remaining in a rut for a while. The business environment for the European chemical industry has improved on the back of improving global economic sentiment and a resurgent Eurozone economy.

Q2 Performance So Far

We have crossed the midpoint of the Q2 earnings season, having already seen positive earnings surprises from a host of chemical names. As per the Zacks Industry classification, the chemical industry is under the broader Basic Materials sector. Based on our latest report , 60% of the sector participants on the S&P 500 index reported their quarterly numbers as of Jul 28. Earnings for these companies are up 9.7% from the same period last year on 4.9% higher revenues.

However, the growth picture for Q2 reflects a moderation from Q1 with earnings expected to improve by 6.2%, and revenues expected to increase by 3.3%. This is in contrast to a 15.9% increase in earnings in Q1 on 5.4% higher revenues.

How to Pick the Winners?

Given the large number of players operating in the chemicals space, picking the right stocks is apparently not an easy task. But our proprietary methodology makes it fairly simple. One can trim down the list with the combination of a favorable Zacks Rank - Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), #2 (Buy) or #3 (Hold) - and a positive Zacks Earnings ESP . You can uncover the best stocks to buy or sell before they report with our Earnings ESP Filter .
Earnings ESP - the percentage difference between the Most Accurate Estimate and the Zacks Consensus Estimate - is our proprietary methodology for determining stocks that have high chances of notching up earnings surprises in their next announcements. Our research shows that for stocks with this combination, the chance of a positive earnings surprise is as much as 70%.

Below we list three chemical stocks that have the right combination of elements to rack up positive surprises this earnings season:

The Chemours Company ( CC ), which offers performance chemicals across North America, the Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, will release its second-quarter results after the bell on Aug 2. The stock has an Earnings ESP of +4.44% and carries a Zacks Rank #2. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
The Zacks Consensus Estimate for earnings for the second quarter stands at $0.90. The company has delivered positive earnings surprises in 3 of the last 4 quarters, with an average positive surprise of 39.8%.
Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. ( AXTA ), which makes and markets coatings systems, will be reporting second-quarter results before the bell on Aug 3. The stock has an Earnings ESP of +5.26% and carries a Zacks Rank #2. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the second quarter stands at $0.38. The company has an expected long-term earnings growth of 15% and has delivered a positive earnings surprise of 8.3% in the first quarter.

International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. ( IFF ), which develops and makes of flavor and fragrance products, will report second-quarter results after the bell on Aug 8. This Zacks Rank #2 stock has an Earnings ESP of +0.69%. The company has an expected long-term earnings growth of 8.6%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the second quarter is currently $1.44.

Bottom Line

While the chemical industry remains saddled by a few challenges, its healthy momentum is on track to continue through 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.

Amid this backdrop, a sneak peek at the space for some potential winners backed by a solid Zacks Rank and a positive Earnings ESP could be a great idea for investors looking to gain from this earnings season.
Will You Make a Fortune on the Shift to Electric Cars?

Here's another stock idea to consider. Much like petroleum 150 years ago, lithium power may soon shake the world, creating millionaires and reshaping geo-politics. Soon electric vehicles (EVs) may be cheaper than gas guzzlers. Some are already reaching 265 miles on a single charge.

With battery prices plummeting and charging stations set to multiply, one company stands out as the #1 stock to buy according to Zacks research.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/3-chemical-stocks-set-for-an-earnings-beat-in-q2-cm825307

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) ACC Reports June Chemicals Growth

Aug 2, 2017 | Breakbulk

The American Chemistry Council has reported that global chemicals production rose 0.4 percent in June, indicating a positive outlook for industrial transportation demand.
The ACC published its figures in its most recent Global Chemical Production Regional Index, or CPRI, which showed a year-over-year increase of 2.1 percent. The council reports that pharmaceuticals, agricultural chemicals, consumer products, synthetic rubber, manufactured fibers, coatings, and other specialty chemicals all saw gains in June.
Capacity utilization in the global chemistry sector remained broadly stable, rising 0.1 percentage points to 80.1 percent in June but off from 80.5 percent last June and below the long-term average of 88.8 percent.
Earlier this year, the ACC predicted that growth in U.S. chemical manufacturing could drive an increase in exports and breakbulk demand with hydraulic fracturing and natural gas supporting a wave of new investments.
http://www.breakbulk.com/acc-reports-june-chemicals-growth/

Return to headline | Return to top
(ACC Mentioned) In-Vehicle Air Quality Discussions Set For 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference

Aug 2, 2017 | Today's Motor Vehicles

By Hamdy Khalil and Mark Polster

Cleveland, Ohio – For many, the intersection between the polyurethanes and automotive industriessuggests only the type of foam used to deaden sound in a vehicle. However, polyurethanes play a much more expansive role in automotive manufacturing. Moreover, the polyurethanes industry is taking the lead on establishing new quality specifications for vehicle interior air quality (VIAQ) standards that will benefit both industries.Automotive advancements with polyurethanes
Incredible advances in polyurethane chemistry help make automobiles safer and more comfortable in many ways. Different types of polyurethanes can be used to make engine covers, structural parts, chassis components, filters, cables, springs, and support bearings; interior components like consoles and steering wheels; and exterior components like bumpers, spoilers, and roof modules.
Polyurethane foams can be used to create seats and trims and add padding behind other components for safety and vibration resistance. Polyurethane coatings on the exterior of vehicles provide a high-gloss, scratch-resistant layer over the car’s paintwork. Coatings can also be used on the interior of windshields to add strength, reduce glare, and increase fog resistance. Use of polyurethane for these components adds to the overall comfort of cars and contributes to lightweighting.
In recent years, the polyurethanes industry recognized yet another important area of vehicle manufacturing where polyurethanes could play a significant role: improving the vehicle interior air quality (VIAQ). Most commonly, discussions about VIAQ focus on obvious factors, such as emissions from paint, rubber, and molded plastic.
Components just beneath the surface of the car’s interior, like polyurethane foams and coatings, are not typically at the top of the list of materials to evaluate when experts explore ways to improve VIAQ. However, they play an important role. In fact, every year, the industry unveils new research on additives, polyols and foams that informs improvement in VIAQ.
Moreover, the polyurethanes industry leads the development of harmonized standards for measuring and controlling VIAQ.Global volatile organic compound specifications
Many factors affect VIAQ, including the air above a road, exhaust gases from the vehicle, exhaust from other vehicles, air supplied by the air conditioning and ventilation system, and the evaporation of substances from materials used on the car’s interior. The scientific term for these evaporations is volatile organic compounds (VOCs) – man-made or naturally occurring chemical compounds that have a vapor pressures near room temperature.
Most smells or scents are made up of VOCs. In fact, the famous new car smell is the concentration of chemicals that are a function of material properties, temperature, soak time, ventilation, and aging of the materials used in the vehicle’s interior. Changes in temperature can impact how much evaporation these materials produce.
Because an automobile is a closed environment frequently subjected to significant changes in temperature, manufacturers carefully monitor for VOCs to identify and control any potentially harmful chemicals. VOC testing provides detailed information on which materials are in the car’s interior environment. In turn, this information allows original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and materials suppliers to work together and improve the performance of the materials.
Auto manufacturers, component suppliers and materials suppliers apply strict guidelines when it comes to VOCs to help ensure vehicles perform for the occupants. In fact, OEMs around the world maintain performance-based VOC methods and standards to develop and build vehicles that exceed VIAQ regulations and improve quality. However, a unified set of specifications does not currently exist.
Each OEM maintains its own method of testing and measuring VOCs in a vehicle. This presents issues for any company doing research and development on new materials for use in a vehicle. Say a component manufacturer wanted to use a new, lighter polyurethane foam for seating. The manufacturer must decide which OEM’s method to use when testing the material for VOCs. Many OEMs will not accept the results if the tests are not conducted according to their own specifications. So, in order to get a new product on the market, the manufacturer must run these tests multiple times over or run the risk of limiting the use of their product on the market.Finding a Solution
Efforts are underway to harmonize performance-based standards at all levels to enhance safety, benefit the OEM and customer, and facilitate compliance. The annual Polyurethanes Technical Conference, run by the American Chemistry Council’s Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, serves as a host for inter-industry discussions on VIAQ, VOCs, and progress towards global specifications.
For the past three years, meetings and technical presentations at this event have enabled chemical suppliers to meet with members of the automotive industry and talk about what they are doing collectively to standardize VOC specifications. At this year’s event, planned for October in New Orleans, panelists of internationally active experts from OEMs, academia and the polyurethanes industry will share the latest progress toward harmonized standards for VOC compliance. They will also discuss some new legislative changes around this important topic.
Many of these participants – representatives from Addivant, BASF, ChemTrend, Dow Corning, Euromolder, Evonik, Ford Motor Co., Huntsman, Lanzess, Milliken, Momentive, TOSOH Corp., Toyota, and Woodbridge Foam Corp. – are active members of an important inter-industry group taking the lead on VOC harmonization discussions: the Industry Panel for Flexible Molded Foam.
This group, established in 2005, seeks to build bridges among industry players. It is composed of OEMs and companies that either manufacture cars, assemble seats, mold foam or manufacture the chemicals for making foam. After successfully establishing a set of U.S. standards related to the foams used in seating cushions, this group has turned its attention to establishing global VOC specifications. They are prioritizing and coordinating their efforts with similar activities in standards, such as ASTM International and the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Looking to the future While progress on this scale takes time, discussion opportunities at events like the Polyurethanes Technical Conference and initiatives like the Industry Panel for Flexible Molded Foam help the development of global VOC specifications forward.
In addition to the discussions within the polyurethanes and automotive industries, working groups at the United Nations, ISO, and the Society of Automotive Engineers are among those discussing harmonized, global specifications for VOC compliance. Some potential guidelines exist, but they have not been widely adopted for use by the OEMs, including ISO 12219-3 “Interior air of road vehicles, Part 3: Screening method for the determination of the emissions of volatile organic compounds from vehicle interior” and ASTM D7706 “Standard Practice for Rapid Screening of VOC Emissions from Products Using Micro-Scale Chambers.”
As OEMs and suppliers work together to create harmonized standards, the science for VIAQ test technologies also improves. With the help of sampling and analytical suppliers, new ways of measuring and controlling VOCs are being developed. Beyond material contributions, these systems will also measure other air pollutants in the vehicle interior from various external sources. As a result, the vehicles of tomorrow can possibly have innovative air systems with advanced low-VOC materials, high capacity air filters, new sensors and intelligent software to improve and maintain interior air quality. Together, these efforts will make tomorrow’s cars even safer and more comfortable for consumers.
http://www.todaysmotorvehicles.com/article/polyurethane-industry-discussion-foam-air-quality-voc-ford-woodbridge-080117/

Return to headline | Return to top

LCSA News

Practitioner Insights: Enhancing TSCA Reform Implementation

Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By ynn Bergeson, James V. Aidala, Jr., Charles M. Auer, Richard Engler, and Oscar Hernandez

Charles M. Auer is a Senior Regulatory and Policy Advisor with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®), a Washington, D.C. law firm focusing on conventional, nano, and biobased chemical, pesticide, and other specialty chemical product approval and regulation, environmental, health, and safety law, chemical product litigation, and associated business issues. Mr. Auer, a chemist by training, was formerly the Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), from which he retired in 2009 after a 32 year career in OPPT.
James V. Aidala, Jr., is a Senior Government Consultant with B&C. He served as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances, now the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, under the Clinton Administration from 2000 until 2001.
Oscar Hernandez, Ph.D., retired as Director of the Risk Assessment Division (RAD) in EPA's OPPT in April 2013 after a 28 year career at EPA that focused on chemical assessment and management issues under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). He is now a Senior Regulatory Chemist with B&C.
Richard E. Engler, Ph.D., is a Senior Chemist with B&C and 17-year veteran of EPA. He is an expert in TSCA chemical nomenclature, the field of green chemistry, and in global chemical regulatory compliance with an emphasis on TSCA substance reviews.
Lynn L. Bergeson is the Managing Partner of B&C.. Ms. Bergeson is also President of The Acta Group (Acta®), with offices in the U.S., the United Kingdom (UK), and China. Ms. Bergeson practices extensively in all matters involving TSCA and related global chemical notification programs.

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act significantly amended the Toxic Substances Control Act. The act, which has been in force for just over a year, made substantive changes to multiple sections of TSCA that are proving to be even more consequential than anticipated (new TSCA is identified as Pub. L. No. 114-182 and old TSCA was identified as Pub. L. No. 94-469).
Because the new act was effective immediately upon President Barack Obama signing it on June 22, 2016, it presented the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and interested parties with the need to address and respond to new requirements and short statutory deadlines in key areas during the first year. EPA made significant progress in addressing these implementation challenges as seen by the:
• issuance of final procedural rule for prioritization, 82 Fed. Reg. 33753 (July 20, 2017), risk evaluation, 82 Fed. Reg. 33726 (July 20, 2017), and the reporting rule for TSCA Inventory active-inactive notification (not yet published);
• issuance of scoping documents for the set of 10 chemicals for which risk evaluations are underway, 82 Fed. Reg. 31592 (July 7, 2017);
• establishment of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC);
• issuance of final guidance to stakeholders in developing draft risk assessments under TSCA, as required under TSCA Section 26(l), 82 Fed. Reg. 33765; and
• progress toward completing the fees rule, which is expected in summer 2017, among other developments.

While EPA is to be congratulated on the timely completion of—and progress made toward—these actions, other parts of new TSCA either have not fared as well during the first year (the new chemicals program under Section 5, which has seen significant delays in completing work) or seen no discernible progress (use of new testing authority under Section 4).
This paper, authored principally by former EPA officials and a practicing TSCA lawyer, all with long experience under old TSCA, provides suggestions for new approaches or “fixes” that could assist the agency and interested groups in moving toward smoother implementation of the new law, achieving policy goals, and ensuring greater transparency. These suggestions are presented in no particular order and in the spirit of urging other stakeholders to also think of creative ways to ensure that new TSCA fulfills Congress's mandate to develop an effective domestic chemical management program.
Establish FACA Committee for TSCA
The National Pollution Prevention and Toxics Advisory Committee, established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), dissolved in 2007 after several members from the nongovernmental organization community elected to withdraw from membership in late 2006. We regretted this occurrence and have advocated to EPA the benefits that would come from forming a FACA committee focused on TSCA regulatory, policy, and program implementation issues.
We renew our call to form such a committee, recognizing that it would operate parallel to, and complement, the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals. The committee could provide a forum to discuss policy issues such as use of the new Section 4 testing authorities as part of a strategic testing effort to inform new and existing chemical assessments and approaches, and whether local effects, such as skin and eye irritation, should be considered in assessing and regulating unreasonable risk.
The EPA's Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) was established in 1995. According to its charter, the committee is “to provide policy advice, information and recommendations to EPA” on matters related to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and to “provide a public forum to discuss a wide variety of pesticide regulatory development and reform initiatives.” The PPDC has been an enormously successful mechanism to identify, discuss, and resolve issues of concern to the pesticide community.
There is every reason to believe a comparable federal advisory committee created to address TSCA issues would be as effective, especially in light of the significant changes occasioned by Lautenberg's enactment. While we appreciate EPA's and stakeholders’ investment of time in public hearings, they seldom provide the venue needed for thoughtful, reflective discourse on complicated regulatory and policy issues. The committee, for example, maintains a variety of subcommittees, whose members work on an ongoing basis to identify, discuss, and resolve issues. A FACA committee for TSCA-related issues would provide a predictable venue and ensure continuity of consideration on an ongoing basis by a well-informed membership as new questions arise. The open and public discussions also would ensure greater transparency.
Open Docket for Submission of ‘Fixes’
Many stakeholders are thinking hard about creative solutions to TSCA implementation challenges. To ensure that stakeholders know that EPA is solicitous of suggestions and proposed solutions, it may be helpful for the agency to open a docket to house these suggestions.
A docket, the opening of which would be noted in the Federal Register and listed on EPA's website, would provide an accessible, convenient, and transparent means for allowing stakeholders to review and consider suggestions, build upon them, and jump-start the development of other solutions based on submissions. This docket also could provide topics for further discussion by a new TSCA federal advisory committee.
Develop Approaches for New Chemical Cases
EPA repeatedly committed to “clear the backlog” of new chemical reviews under TSCA Section 5 by the end of July 2017. According to media reports, the backlog peaked in December 2016 and has gone down since then. The agency has worked hard to diminish the backlog and its efforts are commendable. The problem, however, is complicated as there are two parts to the backlog problem: completion of EPA's determinations on new chemical notices, and completion of any needed actions, including negotiation and execution of final consent orders under Section 5(e). The progress made to date on the backlog has been focused exclusively on the former and essentially ignores the latter, thus distorting somewhat the true measure of success.
The consent order backlog involves EPA and the submitters working together to resolve issues and agreeing on a final consent order using a voluntary suspension procedure to extend the review period beyond the initial 90 days.
A compelling argument can be made that, as amended, Congress intended TSCA Section 5 to require EPA to apply a fixed review period and to use Section 5(c) if needed to extend that period for a maximum of 90 additional days to allow for issuance of needed orders under Section 5(e) (also see our paper “Is the Section 5 Review Period Fixed or Flexible in New TSCA?“). While we offer no objection to the use of the voluntary suspension procedure, there is concern that new chemical cases languish indefinitely rather than being resolved in a timely way.
We offer the following thought-starter approach as a way to broaden the thinking while also increasing EPA's and industry's accountability to act with dispatch. One way of staging the new chemical review period is to include both an informal voluntary suspension period and a formal regulatory period in cases where the issues remain unresolved. The elements of our suggestion are as follows:
• EPA's goal should be to decide pre-manufacture notification (PMN) cases by day 90 to the greatest extent possible. This deadline, or an earlier one, should be met as a matter of course for the overwhelming majority of “not likely” determinations made under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C).
• To ensure an informed understanding of any regulatory concerns, by day 45 or earlier, EPA provides the notifier with appropriately sanitized copies of relevant initial agency assessment reports and commits to providing updated reports as they become available.
• If a case cannot be resolved by day 90, an informal voluntary suspension can be used for a maximum of 90 additional days (180 days total).
• Establish the expectation of timely responses by industry and EPA during both the initial review and voluntary suspension periods. This could involve, for example, a 15-day response deadline for submission of comments or additional information, which, if met by the notifier, is subsequently to be met by EPA in its response to the new information. Recognizing that not all issues can be resolved in 15 days, if the submitter requires more time, EPA gets a corresponding extension to prepare its response. If EPA is not timely in responding to the notifier, however, the process continues but the Office Director and Assistant Administrator are informed of the missed deadline.
• Before the end of the 180 total days, EPA will communicate a decision to drop the case (i.e., make a “not likely” determination at TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C) possibly with a non-Section 5(e) Significant New Use Rule (SNUR)), to issue in final the Section 5(e) consent order and provide the order for signature (during a short suspension period if needed), or to use an adversarial order under Section 5(e).
• If EPA decides to take the last course of action, it will use TSCA Section 5(c) to extend the review period for an additional 90 days and the procedure at Section 5(e)(1)(B) will apply. We recommend that the process include a step at day 180 when EPA informs the submitter in writing “of the substance of the determination” (this is from Section 5(e)(1)(B)(ii)), which will underlie the adversarial order.
• The order itself will be issued no later than 45 days and it will be effective in 45 days (270 total days)—an approach generally taken from Section 5(e)(1)(i). The notifier can withdraw the case from review, comply with it, or legally challenge the order.

We believe that by imposing deadlines for decisions, responses, and actions, stakeholders’ interests will be better served and more aligned with the spirit of the amended TSCA. This approach also will give submitters incentive to develop more thoughtful and complete notices that contain the requisite information for EPA to make its determinations. If such information is not included or cannot be developed in a timely manner, the notice may be withdrawn without penalty or prejudice other than the loss of the submission fee.
Certain New Chemical Polymers
EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics published May 22 a notice under TSCA Section 5(a)(3)(C) concerning a pre-manufacture notification polymer that evidently was intended to be manufactured in a way that met the polymer exemption at 40 C.F.R. § 723.250. It was identified asPMN P-17-0227.
In concluding that the substance was not likely to present an unreasonable risk based on low human health and environmental hazards, EPA added a “polymer exemption flag” to the chemical name. The polymer exemption criteria lay out specific characteristics that describe a low-hazard polymer, a priori. EPA developed the criteria while reviewing many polymer PMNs in the 1980s and 1990s and found that a polymer meeting those criteria presents low hazard to health or the environment. EPA's explanation of the flag is as follows: “The chemical must be manufactured such that it meets the polymer exemption criteria as described under 40 C.F.R. § 723.250(e)(1), in addition to meeting the definition of polymer at 40 C.F.R. § 723.250(b).”
We applaud the office's flexibility and creative use of a flag to limit the forms of the polymer that could be made based on its determination. This approach avoided the use of more burdensome regulatory action, such as a consent order and/or SNUR, which otherwise may have been needed to achieve the same end. We urge EPA to develop guidance explaining the purpose of the flag and its effect. The new flag seems to be distinctly different from other Inventory flags that indicate some status (e.g., XU = exempt from the Chemical Data Reporting rule; S = proposed or final SNUR), but do not otherwise restrict the identity of the substance or how such a substance is manufactured.
We believe there may be additional broader and more flexible approaches to resolving the issues that polymer cases can present. (We offer such a proposal, the details of which are available in “Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. Suggests New Approaches to EPA in Managing New Chemical Polymers.”) It uses the polymer name, perhaps with the addition of a definition, to limit the polymers that can be made based on a given name to a subcategory of the possible polymers that meets the polymer exemption criteria or satisfies criteria EPA developed.
The proposal is based on the agency's polymer guidance, which states that “[a]n Inventory listing for each polymer describes a category of possible chemicals that would fit that substance name, instead of just representing a single molecular structure” and can vary within that listing in molecular weight and composition (e.g., the ratios or the order of reaction of the starting monomers; Toxics Substances Control Act Inventory Representation for Polymeric Substances(1995)).
As EPA states, polymer listings on the Inventory are categories of substances and EPA can develop nomenclature methodology that permits dividing a particular category into subcategories. This approach can be used to distinguish broadly named polymers from a subcategory of those polymers that satisfy criteria signaling that they are considered low hazard by EPA.
We believe that a system based on use of the chemical identity to create subcategories that limit the forms of the polymer that can be manufactured under that name provides strong protection with minimal EPA resources, and neither a TSCA Section 5(e) order nor a Section 5(a)(2) SNUR is required. Our approach minimizes the delays in realizing the benefits of low-hazard polymers and thus gives expression to Congress's goal of encouraging the innovation of greener chemicals. Arguably, EPA could make the “not likely” determination on such polymers early in the pre-manufacture notification review process, as was the case for “polymer drops” under old TSCA (seeEPA, “Chemistry Assistance Manual for Pre-manufacture Notification Submitters“ (1997)). Further, under new TSCA, manufacture can commence once the determination is made.
We recognize that the approaches discussed in our polymer paper could be used as an alternative or as a complement to EPA's polymer exemption flag approach. In our view, the approaches and the reasoning discussed in the paper lay a foundation for a more comprehensive scheme that could provide EPA flexibility in meeting the legal and timing requirements under Section 5(a). The scheme potentially could be applied more broadly to substances with Unknown or Variable Composition, Complex Reaction Products and Biological Materials (UVCB). Such approaches also would speed commercial innovation via the introduction of low-hazard substances while at the same time avoiding the impacts of unnecessary regulatory impediments to the supply chain.
New Chemical Category Documents
EPA recently made available copies of four revised lung toxicity category documents (available from the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics). These update earlier versions of the documents and explain the basis for concerns EPA has identified in connection with certain new chemicals falling into these categories. The documents also include discussion of EPA's planned tiered-testing strategy for each category. Because of the new and increased requirements for EPA review of and actions on new chemicals, other changes such as TSCA Section 4 tiered-testing and animal welfare considerations, and the sound science provisions in Section 26, these documents play a more central role in the agency's decision-making process than was the case under old TSCA.
Many of the category documents also are quite dated. While we welcome the recently updated versions, we encourage EPA to update and improve relevant new chemical category documents to reflect more specifically the role they play under new TSCA. Section 26(l)(1) also is relevant to this discussion in its requirement that EPA within two years after enactment develop “policies, procedures, and guidance” to carry out the amendments to the law. Providing an opportunity for public review would enhance the utility of the category documents and foster transparency.
Conclusion
To its credit, the new administration has been receptive to stakeholders’ suggestions concerning the implementation of new TSCA. We offer these suggestions in the spirit of ensuring that the new legislation is implemented in a way that offers the best possible chance of success in fulfilling Congress's intent.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118024574&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118024574&jd=118024574

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Management News

(ACC Mentioned) Science Is Clear On Danger Of Fire Retardants

Aug 2, 2017 | Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

By Ronnie Green

As a career firefighter of 27 years, and a leader of the Professional Firefighters of Maine, I was disappointed to see Matthew Blais attack Maine legislation to protect firefighters from cancer-causing flame-retardant chemicals. In his Aug. 1 op-ed in the Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel, Blais, a Texas-based chemical industry trade group affiliate, offered misleading and previously debunked information in regard to L.D. 182, which recently passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and is now on the governor’s desk.
Firefighters know that flame retardants don’t save lives. Smoke detectors and sprinklers save lives. Flame retardants never worked like they were supposed to, and we now know that they can actually make fires more dangerous, by producing carcinogenic gases when they burn.
The only ones that benefit from putting flame retardants in furniture are the out-of-state companies that sell the chemicals, represented by chemical industry trade groups such as the one Blais is affiliated with: the North American Flame Retardant Alliance, created by the American Chemistry Council.
As far back as 2012, the Chicago Tribune exposed the “deceptive campaigns that led to the proliferation of these chemicals, which don’t even work as promised,” and specifically discredited Blais’ work as based on “flawed data and questionable claims.”
The Maine Legislature spent hours in public hearings and work sessions, reviewing expert testimony and looking closely at the facts to figure out what makes sense for Maine. Both Republicans and Democrats are to be commended for the time they put into this process. After reviewing all the facts, it was clear L.D. 182 is a good bill, and it passed with overwhelming bipartisan support (139-5 in the House and 34-1 in the Senate).
Cancer is the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths for firefighters. We must take action. This bill is an important step in the right direction.
http://www.centralmaine.com/2017/08/01/science-is-clear-on-danger-of-fire-retardants/

Return to headline | Return to top
Monsanto Campaigned to Make Roundup Appear Safe: Lawsuit

Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Tiffany Stecker

Attorneys in a high-profile lawsuit against Monsanto Co. released a trove of emails, text-message transcripts, and expert testimony early Aug. 1 that show the company went to great lengths to ensure its best-selling weedkiller was safe in the eyes of regulators and the general public.
The 75 documents draw particular attention to the relationship the creator of the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup has with the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the product. Glyphosate, first approved for use in the 1970s, is up for review as part of the EPA's periodic renewal of pesticide registrations.
The correspondence also unveils new information that suggests that William Heydens, a scientist with the company, sought to ghostwrite articles for other researchers in scientific journals. These articles criticized a 2015 conclusion from the International Agency for Research on Cancer that glyphosate is a “probable” carcinogen.
These documents were collected during the discovery process for multi-district litigation against Monsanto, in which more than 200 cancer patients allege Roundup triggered their non-Hodgkins lymphoma, a cancer of the blood.
Los Angeles-based law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman PC posted the documents. The files were until now kept under a court-ordered seal, but Monsanto's attorneys failed to file a motion to extend the protection by a July 31 deadline. Scott Partridge, Monsanto's vice president of global strategy, disputes this, saying that many of the documents were meant to be kept confidential under previous court orders.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers violated a standing order from court that documents designated as confidential may not be publicly disclosed unless the court orders that those documents are permitted, Partridge told Bloomberg BNA. The attorneys also posted emails that were ordered to be kept sealed under a separate order.
“They have directly violated two court orders,” Partridge said.
Attorneys with Baum Hedlund were not immediately available to respond to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118024556&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118024556&jd=118024556

Return to headline | Return to top
Monsanto’s Sway Over Research Is Seen in Disclosed Emails

Aug 2, 2017 | The New York Times

By Danny Hakim

Documents released Tuesday in a lawsuit against Monsanto raised new questions about the company’s efforts to influence the news media and scientific research and revealed internal debate over the safety of its highest-profile product, the weed killer Roundup.
The active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, is the most common weed killer in the world and is used by farmers on row crops and by home gardeners. While Roundup’s relative safety has been upheld by most regulators, a case in federal court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company’s practices and the product itself.
The documents underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company goes to protect its image. Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.
A similar issue appeared in academic research. An academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express discomfort with the process, writing in a 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”
A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of “a complete misunderstanding” that had been “worked out,” while Mr. Acquavella said in an email on Tuesday that “there was no ghostwriting” and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved.Continue reading the main storyRELATED COVERAGEWeed Killer, Long Cleared, Is DoubtedMARCH 27, 2015Key Element of Monsanto Weed Killer Not a Carcinogen, European Agency SaysMARCH 15, 2017Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces New Doubts on Safety in Unsealed DocumentsMARCH 14, 2017
The documents also show internal talk about Roundup’s safety.
“If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern,” one Monsanto scientist wrote in an internal email in 2001.
Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation.
“There is a standing confidentiality order that they violated,” said Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto. He said that while “you can’t unring a bell,” Monsanto would seek penalties on the firm.
“What you’re seeing are some cherry-picked things that can be made to look bad,” Mr. Partridge said. “But the substance and the science are not affected by this.”
R. Brent Wisner, a partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the firm that released the documents, said Monsanto had erred by not filing a required motion seeking continued protection of the documents. Monsanto said no such filing was necessary.
“Clearly Monsanto’s lawyers made a mistake,” Mr. Wisner said. “They didn’t properly take action to preserve the confidentiality of these documents.”
He added, “Now the world gets to see these documents that would otherwise remain secret.”
Mr. Miller’s 2015 article on Forbes’s website was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”
The article appeared under Mr. Miller’s name, and with the assertion that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.” The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article.
Mr. Miller did not respond to a number of calls or a Twitter message asking for comment, and the Hoover Institution, where he is a fellow, could not reach him.
“That was a collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate,” Mr. Partridge of Monsanto said. “This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”
Mia Carbonell, a Forbes spokeswoman, said in a statement, “We take this matter seriously and are in the process of looking into it.”
Mr. Miller’s work has also appeared in the opinion pages of The New York Times.
“We have never paid Dr. Miller,” said Sam Murphey, a spokesman for Monsanto. “Our scientists have never collaborated with Dr. Miller on his submissions to The New York Times. Our scientists have on occasion collaborated with Dr. Miller on other pieces.”
James Dao, the Op-Ed editor of The Times, said in a statement, “Op-Ed contributors to The Times must sign a contract requiring them to avoid any conflict of interest, and to disclose any financial interest in the subject matter of their piece.”
The documents also show that a debate outside Monsanto about the relative safety of glyphosate and Roundup, which contains other chemicals, was also taking place within the company.
In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”
In a 2003 email, a different Monsanto executive tells others, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”
She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”
The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.
Mr. Hayes said in an interview that he had not been under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction and was paid only after he left the journal.
“Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract,” he said. “It was based on input that I got from some very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/business/monsantos-sway-over-research-is-seen-in-disclosed-emails.html

Return to headline | Return to top
F.D.A. Has 6 Inspectors for 3 Million Shipments of Cosmetics

Aug 2, 2017 | The New York Times

By Eric Lipton

WASHINGTON — The Food and Drug Administration has warned Congress that it is frequently finding contamination, illegal ingredients and other problems in the soaring quantities of imported cosmetics, and that it has only “limited resources” to inspect the shipments.
The warning was part of a letter sent in late June to a House Democrat who is pushing Congress to enact legislation giving the F.D.A. greater powers and resources to regulate cosmetics.
The F.D.A. has the equivalent of just six full-time inspectors to monitor three million shipments of cosmetics coming in each year — lipsticks, eyeliners, nail polish, face powders, tattoo inks and other products — an amount that has doubled in the last decade, said the letter to Representative Frank Pallone Jr., Democrat of New Jersey. He is the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which oversees the F.D.A.
These products came from 181 countries last year, sent by 29,000 foreign companies, few of which have registered with the F.D.A., as they are not required to do so, the agency told Mr. Pallone.
“Cosmetics imports, by volume, are one of F.D.A.’s larger categories,” Anna K. Abram, an F.D.A. deputy commissioner, wrote in the June 30 letter, adding that the “F.D.A. has limited resources to examine imported cosmetics.”Continue reading the main storyThe Trump White HouseThe historic moments, head-spinning developments and inside-the-White House intrigue.Trump Loyalist Mixes Businesses and Access at ‘Advisory’ FirmAUG 1Justice Dept. to Take On Affirmative Action in College AdmissionsAUG 1Trump’s Claims on Unemployment and Business SpiritAUG 1Border Agents Test Facial Scans to Track Those Overstaying VisasAUG 1Senate Confirms Christopher Wray as New F.B.I. DirectorAUG 1
See More »
However, F.D.A. officials and industry executives said they remained confident that most cosmetics sold in the United States — imported or made domestically — were safe.
Of the three million imported cosmetics shipments, the agency physically inspected just 9,871, or about 0.3 percent, last year. It picks those products it has reason to believe might have problems, often based on past checks of material from the same company. The letter said that 15 percent of those inspections resulted in what the F.D.A. calls “adverse findings.”
Laboratory tests were conducted on a smaller sample of those shipments — a total of 364 last year — and 20 percent of those led to adverse findings. The agency found bacterial contamination, illegal color additives that can cause skin or eye injuries, ingredients that were not on the label as required, and unsafe chemical substances like mercury, the agency said.
About 2,000 shipments a year are refused entry to the United States, based on these inspections or other issues; the highest share of those blocked come from China, India, South Korea, Canada and France, the letter said. Imports from China were particularly problematic — as has historically been the case with other products, including children’s toys. Cosmetics imports from China have jumped 79 percent over the last five years, the letter says.
For example, samples examined by the F.D.A. of a Chinese-made product called Kleancolor Frameous Lash & Brow, which sells for just $1, contained hazardous levels of mold, given that its intended area of use was the eye. The F.D.A. also found dangerous levels of mercury — it can cause kidney and nervous system damage — in a product made in Mexico called “Crema Piel De Seda,” or “Silky Skin Cream.” It was marketed to whiten skin, treat acne and remove various skin blemishes.
An F.D.A. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the real problem was that the agency has no way of knowing how widespread the problem is with imported cosmetics, given that it is doing so few inspections. But she said that the agency inspects only imported cosmetics it has a reason to suspect might have problems, which inflates the rate of adverse findings. The 20 percent adverse-findings figure does not mean that the problem is that widespread in imported cosmetics over all.
“The F.D.A. believes that the vast majority of cosmetic products on the market are safe, but our information on the universe of cosmetics is limited,” said Linda Katz, director of the office of cosmetics and colors, in a written statement.
Mr. Pallone, in an interview, said that the data the F.D.A. provided could help convince Congress to take up legislation to strengthen regulation of imported cosmetics. The idea has been embraced by some congressional Republicans as well as many major companies in the industry, who could benefit if cheap imports (including sometime counterfeits of their brand-name products) are subject to more scrutiny.
“The time is ripe to deal with the cosmetic issues, given the problems with imports,” Mr. Pallone said. He intends to reintroduce his proposal to expand the regulation of cosmetics, including imports, as part of a larger bill that would fund greater oversight of over-the-counter drugs.
Lisa Powers, a spokeswoman for the Personal Care Products Council, which represents the nation’s largest cosmetics makers, declined to comment on F.D.A. statistics regarding problems found with imported products, saying she had not seen the agency letter.
Craig Weiss, an executive at the Consumer Product Testing Company, which does thousands of tests a year on cosmetics products on behalf of companies in the industry, said he questioned how serious the health threat was, as most of the issues the F.D.A. finds were minor — for instance, labeling flaws or the use of color additives that happen not to be approved in the United States.
But he agreed that federal regulations might help the industry. “I have no issue with the F.D.A. upping the game,” he said. “It would stop the craziness and the attacks from the consumer activists.”
For now, President Trump’s 2018 budget proposal for the F.D.A. would slash spending for cosmetics imports testing from the roughly 10,000 conducted last year to about 1,600, which has angered consumer advocates.
“We are flying blind,” said Scott Faber, a lobbyist at the Environmental Working Group. “And until we have the rules and resources that enforce them, we will continue to be flying blind.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/us/politics/fda-has-6-inspectors-for-3-million-shipments-of-cosmetics.html

Return to headline | Return to top

Energy News

Billionaire Behind Dakota Access Defends New Natural Gas Line

Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Naureen S. Malik

Billionaire pipeline magnate Kelcy Warren, who just months ago defeated environmentalists to finish his controversial Dakota Access oil pipeline, has stepped into the limelight once again—this time, to defend a natural gas line being built across the eastern U.S.
In a letter to U.S. lawmakers, Warren said he was “baffled” by federal energy regulators’ allegations that his company, Energy Transfer Partners LP, had violated rules in building the $4.2 billion, 700-mile (1,127-kilometer) Rover gas pipeline. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) accused the company this month of falsely promising to avoid adverse impacts to historic resources while simultaneously working to destroy a historic house.
The letter was a rare public statement for Warren, who has largely stayed out of the spotlight even as Energy Transfer's pipeline projects became mired in controversy. Thousands of protesters had camped out at the site of the Dakota Access crude pipeline before Warren issued a memo in its defense. While that pipeline is now in service, the company's still racing to finish the Rover gas line. Regulators suspended work on portions of Rover after the company disclosed massive spills of drilling fluids and are still investigating the demolition of the house in Ohio.
Warren was responding to a letter that U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) and Rep. Frank Pallone (N.J.), both Democrats, had written to FERC, calling for an investigation into what they described as “troubling incidents” involving the Rover pipeline.
An investigation like that would be “both unprecedented and unnecessary,” Warren wrote in his letter to the lawmakers July 31. “We are only too happy to share the facts.”

Separately on July 31, Energy Transfer said Blackstone Group LP had agreed to pay about $1.57 billion in cash for a 32.44 percent stake in its Rover pipeline unit.
The Rover project is meanwhile already behind schedule. Up until two weeks ago, Energy Transfer had been projecting that the first part of the line would be in service by the beginning of July.
The delays have boosted U.S. natural gas futures as traders bet more of the fuel will need to be shipped from the Gulf Coast to meet demand. Once in service, the Rover system will be capable of moving more than 3 billion cubic feet of gas from eastern U.S. shale formations to other markets daily.
For its part, the energy commission said in a filing July 31 that a third-party review of Energy Transfer's drilling program for the Rover project in Ohio failed to confirm that the company complied with standards because its records were too limited.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118024571&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118024571&jd=118024571

Return to headline | Return to top
Facing Wide-Ranging Calls, EPA Said To Plan Narrow CPP Replacement Rule

Aug 1, 2017 | Inside EPA

By Dawn Reeves

EPA is said to be crafting a narrow replacement for the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (CPP) governing greenhouse gases (GHGs) from power plants after a wide range of labor and industry groups urged officials to replace the rule rather than simply repeal it as they may have been planning.
Citing two power industry sources and Myron Ebell, an official at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who led the Trump EPA transition team, S&P Global Market Intelligence reports that the new rule “is expected to center on increasing the thermal efficiency of individual coal plants as a means to reduce carbon emissions,” suggesting the administration will focus on GHG reduction strategies that can occur “inside the fence” of a regulated power plant such as efficiency upgrades.
The news comes as White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) officials continue to meet with outside groups to discuss a draft EPA proposal expected only to repeal the rule.
But many are urging officials to replace the rule after it is repealed.
For example, during a recent meeting, industry representatives from groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) urged administration officials to replace the CPP.
A NAM source says the July 13 meeting was held to “reiterate our longstanding position that the Clean Power Plan exceeded Clean Air Act authority” and “to get the conversation started about what a replacement could look like.”
The source says NAM has “no firm answers on that, but we do believe the rule should be replaced, and we want to see something more in line with the statute.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is said to be deciding whether to move forward with a scaled-back replacement rule, as some environmentalists and industry sources say would be legally required under the Clean Air Act.
Sources say the draft proposal's legal justification for repealing the CPP could be key, because if EPA argues that it is barred under the air law from moving forward with a replacement rule for coal plants due to the so-called Clean Air Act “section 112 exclusion,” it could signal that the administration does not want to issue a narrow replacement.
But many consider that option more legally vulnerable compared with a future rule that would comport with another repeal justification the proposal likely will claim: that the CPP is unlawful because it seeks to control GHGs beyond a facility's fenceline.
Repeal And Replace
The latest White House meetings over the past few weeks underscore that so far no group is asking that the rule be rescinded without being replaced.
Last month, labor groups representing workers in the coal and utility sectors met with EPA and OMB officials to urge the administration to extend a new source review exemption for “routine maintenance” to projects undertaken to cut GHGs at coal plants to comply with a narrow CPP replacement requiring coal plant efficiency improvements.
Several private sector attorneys say that EPA faces legal risks if it were to revoke the CPP without having a replacement proposal at the ready as the agency could face new suits from rule supporters who could argue the agency has a mandatory duty to issue a replacement.
That may explain in party why NAM and other industry groups have been urging officials to develop a replacement.
For example, Edison Electric Institute (EEI) officials, who met with OMB July 26, said in a July 31 statement that they sought “to discuss possible next steps for regulating [GHG] emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. As key stakeholders, electric companies are focused on working with [EPA] and OMB on any rules to ensure that they can continue to provide reliable and affordable electricity for all customers.”
NAM added that any rule the administration develops for the power sector could set a precedent for its members. NAM is interested in the CPP issue because its members are large users of electricity and also because the rule could be a template for future GHG rules for other industrial sectors.
And while there are “no easy solutions” for a replacement, “we are thinking through some issues. . . . We're glad they're taking a hard look at this. The main point is we want to see some durable solutions. We don't want to keep coming back in or keep litigating and never get a durable rule that addresses this issue. Our preference is we get a rule.”
A chamber spokesman says the group “communicated with OMB that the process for replacing the Clean Power Plan must ensure that business will be at the table, be based on transparent modeling and practical electricity system assumptions with maximum feasibility and deference to states with diverse resources.”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/facing-wide-ranging-calls-epa-said-plan-narrow-cpp-replacement-rule

Return to headline | Return to top
US Ethane Cracker Margin Nears Six-Year Low

Aug 1, 2017 | Platts

By Nida Qureshi, and- Andrea Salazar

The US ethane cracker margin is nearing levels that, prior to 2017, were last seen in the fourth quarter of 2011 as a result of stronger ethane pricing and a weak spot ethylene market.

The US ethane cracker margin sat Monday at 12.68 cents/lb, and prior to 2017, was last below 12 cents/lb on October 20, 2011, according to S&P Global Platts data.

Ethane -- the main feedstock for ethylene -- has been on the rise this year despite relatively stable crude pricing and falling natural gas prices.

Prompt-month non-LST Mont Belvieu purity ethane has averaged 63 cents/MMBtu above the front-month natural gas futures price so far in 2017 and was last assessed Monday at $3.875/MMBtu, nearly $1/MMBtu or 35% higher than at the same time last year.
The premium "reflects the reorganization of the ethane market around higher demand, both from exports and domestic steam crackers," according to Platts Analytics' latest Market Call.

US Gulf Coast ethane prices tend to track NYMEX gas futures because the lightest NGL can be sold as gas. When the price of gas is higher than that of ethane, producers are not incentivized to extract ethane from the gas stream, or "recover" the ethane, which would incur fractionation, storage and transportation costs.

However, the opposite is true when the price of ethane surpasses that of gas, prompting producers to recover more.

US recovery of ethane has averaged 1.34 million b/d so far in 2017, a 10% increase compared with the same period in 2016, according to "Market Call: North American NGLs" from Platts Analytics' Bentek Energy unit.

Ethane's premium over gas futures reached $1/MMBtu in February and fell as low as 20 cents/MMBtu in March, before nearing $1/MMBtu again last week. Stabilizing around 75 cents/MMBtu, the premium "reflects the reorganization of the ethane market around higher demand, both from exports and domestic steam crackers," according to the Market Call report.

The US price of ethane has topped that of prompt gas futures for all but eight days in 2017, as the market prepares for eight new ethane-only steam crackers to start up on the Gulf Coast through 2018, increasing ethane demand by 535,000 b/d by 2019, according to Platts Analytics.

Sources have pointed to the imminent startup of Dow Chemical's 1.5 million mt/year steam cracker in Freeport, Texas, for the spike in non-LST ethane prices, which S&P Global Platts assessed at 25.75 cents/gal Monday.

The expected startups of the Gulf Coast steam crackers, coupled with delays in derivative polyethylene unit startups, have pushed spot ethylene prices to multi-month lows.

Spot ethylene hit an 18-month low on July 10, when it was assessed at 17.25 cents/lb FD USG. On Monday, spot August deliveries -- which are firmer than July deliveries -- were assessed at 20 cents/lb FD USG.

In addition to Dow's 1.5 million mt/year steam cracker, ExxonMobil is expecting to start up a 1.5 million mt/year cracker in Baytown, Texas, and Indorama is expected to start up its 440,000 mt/year cracker in Lake Charles, Louisiana this year.
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/petrochemicals/houston/us-ethane-cracker-margin-nears-six-year-low-21505704

Return to headline | Return to top

Chemical Security News

Experts Cast Doubt On ATF's Arson Finding In Deadly West Fertilizer Explosion

Aug 1, 2017 | Houston Chronicle

By Mark Collette

The fertilizer plant explosion that killed 15 people and injured more than 160 in the town of West may not have been sparked by a deliberately set fire as federal investigators claimed, according to attorneys, arson experts and a former top workplace safety official under President Barack Obama.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been largely silent on the 2013 West Fertilizer explosion since it announced last year that an arsonist was responsible for the initial blaze and offered a $50,000 reward for information. No arrests have been made, and the ATF won't discuss the case beyond repeating a version of its previous announcement.
But the arson finding had far-reaching implications. It delayed victims' lawsuits against the fertilizer company, gave the defendants more legal ammunition, and prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to put a hold on new chemical plant safety rules. Industry argued that a deliberately set fire meant new regulations were moot.
Legal and forensic experts immediately spotted what they say is a weakness in the ATF's May 2016 announcement, but their concerns went largely unnoticed amid the sensational news that some evildoer - maybe even from the town that was ravaged - was responsible for the fire that turned tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer into an enormous bomb.
"Our position from the beginning - even before the (announcement) - we told them that what you guys are doing is not scientifically sound," said Mo Aziz, a Houston attorney who has represented dozens of West plaintiffs.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had its doubts, too. But the ATF closely guarded its investigation, notifying OSHA, which was seeking fines against the plant, only an hour before the news conference, said Jordan Barab, the former No. 2 OSHA official under Obama.
"Even the White House could not get them to meet with anybody about it," Barab said.
Paul Bieber, a forensic investigator who runs the Arson Research Project and has worked with attorneys to debunk outdated forensic techniques in the fire service, said he ranted on a blog about the ATF findings when they came out, to no avail.
Dennis Smith, a leading expert on the technique that ATF investigators used in West, said the agency ought to recognize that forensic standards have changed and therefore change its opinion.
"That's the obligation of every investigator," Smith said.
'Negative corpus'
Essentially, the ATF used a process of elimination to declare it an arson.
"All reasonable accidental and natural fire scenarios were hypothesized, considered, tested and eliminated as being fire causes," ATF Special Agent Nicole Strong said in an email Tuesday, in an echo of comments the ATF made a year ago. "The only hypothesis that could not be eliminated was that the fire was incendiary. This means it was intentionally set. This conclusion was confirmed by extensive testing."
The agency spent three years and more than $2 million investigating, interviewing over 400 people and building life-size replicas of parts of the plant.
The process of elimination - or "negative corpus," in the parlance of investigators - to determine that a fire was deliberate has been part of arson investigations for at least 40 years. But in 2011, after mounting evidence that the practice led to faulty findings and even overturned convictions, Smith convinced the National Fire Protection Association to rewrite its standard.
Now, relying on two papers he authored, the NFPA standard reads that "it is improper to opine a specific fire cause … that has no evidence to support it even though all other such hypothesized elements were eliminated."
But consultants like Smith, and advocates like Bieber, are still fighting to get the new standard adopted by investigators from the ATF down to the local firehouse.
"They can use (negative corpus), and they're getting away with it because it fits the outcome they desire," Smith said. "There's always a lag time between when something's in the new edition (of the NFPA standards) and something gets changed in the field."
He compared the slow rejection of negative corpus to the reluctance of some prosecutors to accept exonerations based on DNA evidence.
Bieber, who reviewed all of the roughly 40 cases nationwide in which a person was exonerated on a charge of arson, said that in nearly two thirds of them, the defense proved that investigators didn't even have sufficient evidence to rule the case an arson, let alone identify a suspect. Negative corpus factored in nearly all of those cases, he said.
Investigators can be easily swayed by findings that aren't related to the fire scene, he noted. In West, early attention focused on a local paramedic who had chemicals and equipment for a small pipe bomb, but who was later ruled out as a suspect.
Cases delayed
After the arson finding, CF Industries Inc., one of the fertilizer manufacturers, sought information about the investigation. The ATF denied the request, and CF sued. Eventually, the agency handed over redacted information, but a panel of federal appellate judges allowed critical details to remain secret. An attorney for CF declined to comment.
Aziz, one of several plaintiffs' attorneys in the West litigation, has settled 95 cases. Dozens more have been delayed because of the arson ruling.
He said defense attorneys initially treated the finding as a kind of "get-out-of-jail-free" card, but the chilling effect on the litigation didn't last. That's because, regardless of the source of ignition, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board, in an elaborate investigation, found problems with the way the fertilizer was processed and stored. And they issued recommendations to improve preparedness among firefighters. Had they known of the explosive potential at the plant, West's volunteer responders might have kept their distance and survived.
Those lessons won't last if the EPA doesn't act, Barab said. OSHA, the EPA, CSB and other officials sat on the sidelines while the ATF took control of the scene at West immediately after the explosion. It's not unusual for that to last a couple of weeks. But the agencies were frustrated this time.
"They spent a whole entire month there coming up with nothing," Barab said.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Experts-cast-doubt-on-ATF-s-arson-finding-in-West-11725989.php

Return to headline | Return to top

Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.

Environment News

(ACC Mentioned) 15 States Appeal EPA Delay Of Stricter Air-Quality Standards

Aug 1, 2017 | AP (In The New York Times)

WASHINGTON — Attorneys general from 15 states filed a legal challenge on Tuesday over the Trump administration's delay of Obama-era rules reducing emissions of smog-causing air pollutants.
The states petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt's extension of deadlines to comply with the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Pruitt announced in June he was extending the deadlines by at least one year while his agency studies and reconsiders the requirements. Several pro-business groups are opposed to the stricter rules, including the American Petroleum Institute, the American Chemistry Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who was among the state officials who filed the lawsuit, said EPA's delay violates the Clean Air Act.
"Yet again the Trump EPA has chosen to put polluters before the health of the American people," Schneiderman said. "By illegally blocking these vital clean air protections, Administrator Pruitt is endangering the health and safety of millions."Continue reading the main story
Ground-level ozone can cause serious breathing problems among sensitive groups of people, contributing to thousands of premature deaths each year.
New York was joined in the case by California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia.
EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Pruitt, the former attorney general of Oklahoma, has charged ahead with efforts to weaken, block or delay a wide array of stricter pollution and public health standards following his appointment by President Donald Trump earlier this year.
Pruitt's delay of the 2015 ozone standards comes as Republicans in Congress are pushing for a broader rewrite of the rules. A House bill approved last month seeks to delay implementation of the 2015 rules at least eight years. The measure has not yet been brought to a vote in the Senate.
More than a dozen major health organizations oppose the GOP-backed measure, including the National Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Public Health Association. The head of the American Lung Association called the industry-backed bill a "direct assault" on the right of Americans to breathe healthy air.
Ground-level ozone is created when common pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, oil refineries, chemical plants and other sources react in the atmosphere to sunlight. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards adopted by EPA in 2015 reduced the allowed amount of ground-level ozone from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.
EPA estimated at the time that the $1.4 billion it would cost to meet the stricter standards would be far outweighed by billions saved from fewer emergency room visits and other public health gains.
The agency cited recent studies showing ozone at 72 parts per billion is harmful to healthy adults exercising outdoors. Children are at increased risk because their lungs are still developing and they are more likely to be active outdoors when ozone levels are high, the agency said.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/08/01/us/politics/ap-us-epa-ozone.html?_r=0

Return to headline | Return to top
Ozone Battle Widens As States Challenge EPA Delay

Aug 1, 2017 | E&E News PM

By Sean Reilly

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), joined by 15 other state attorneys general, sued U.S. EPA today over its one-year halt in implementation of the 2015 ozone standard.
The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, doesn't lay out the grounds, but Schneiderman in a statement denounced the delay as illegal and said it would endanger "the health and safety of millions."
Announced in June by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, the delay rolls back the agency's area attainment designations for the 70-parts-per-billion standard from this October until October 2018. He cited a Clean Air Act clause that allows for a yearlong pause if the agency needs to collect more information. States had turned in their attainment recommendations last year.
In a Federal Register notice, Pruitt said EPA is evaluating "a host of complex issues" — such as the impact of background ozone on compliance and the effect of ozone that originates in other countries — that need analysis before the agency makes the final designations.
Critics view that rationale as specious. In a separate suit filed last month, a dozen public health and environmental groups asked the D.C. Circuit to either stay or vacate Pruitt's decision (E&E News PM, July 12). The agency's initial response is due Thursday, according to the latest filings.
An EPA spokeswoman declined to comment today on Schneiderman's suit, saying the agency doesn't discuss pending litigation.
From an enforcement standpoint, the attainment designations are important because they start the clock on compliance efforts for areas that don't meet the 70 ppb threshold. Those efforts could ultimately require energy companies and other businesses to curb emissions of volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that contribute to ozone formation.
On Capitol Hill, industry organizations have been lobbying for the eight-year implementation delay contained in H.R. 806, which is awaiting Senate action after winning House approval last month. That lengthier postponement is also incorporated into a fiscal 2018 spending bill for EPA recently approved by the House Appropriations Committee.
Ozone is a lung irritant linked to asthma attacks in children and added breathing difficulties for people with emphysema and other chronic respiratory diseases. Under the Obama administration, then-EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy had tightened the standard to 70 ppb in October 2015, citing a Clean Air Act requirement to protect public health in light of available research on ozone's health effects. The previous benchmark, set in 2008, had been 75 ppb.
Because significant parts of the country are still in nonattainment for that earlier standard, backers of the implementation delay for the 2015 threshold say that the pause is needed to let those areas catch up and that air quality will continue to improve regardless. At Pruitt's request, the D.C. Circuit has also frozen proceedings in a broader legal battle over the 70 ppb threshold while EPA reviews its position.
In a news release announcing today's lawsuit, Schneiderman's office pointed to EPA projections that the tighter standard will annually prevent hundreds of premature deaths and yield net health savings of up to $4.5 billion by 2025. That forecast excludes California, where some areas are expected to need longer to comply.
Joining Schneiderman in the suit filed today are the attorneys general for California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. All are Democrats.
Most of the same officials wrote Congress this spring in opposition to H.R. 806 and a companion Senate bill, S. 263 (Greenwire, April 26).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/08/01/stories/1060058242

Return to headline | Return to top
States Challenge EPA Delay Of Ozone NAAQS Designations

Aug 2, 2017 | Inside EPA

A coalition of 16 states is suing EPA over its one-year delay in issuing designations for whether areas are attaining or in nonattainment with the agency's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), just weeks after environmentalists filed a legal challenge asking for an immediate ruling to block the delay.
The states' legal challenge filed Aug. 1 in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, State of New York, et al, v. EPA, formally starts litigation that argues the agency's delay violates the Clean Air Act and is arbitrary and capricious, according to a press statement from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D), who is leading the effort.
More details of the states' arguments, however, await subsequent legal filings, with the initial challenge simply referencing a legal challenge under section 307(b) of the air act which gives the D.C. Circuit the authority to review legal challenges to ambient air quality standards.
“The coalition is challenging EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s one-year delay in designating areas with unhealthy levels of smog as violating the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and as arbitrary and capricious,” Schneiderman says in an Aug. 1 press release.
Other states involved in the suit are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, and the District of Columbia. The state lawsuit responds to a June 28 Federal Register notice that announced the one year delay in implementation of the 2015 standard, citing “insufficient information” to proceed with the designations as planned in 2017. Attainment designations trigger a Clean Air Act clock for states to craft ozone emissions reduction plans, and environmentalists have argued that delaying the designations postpones health protections expected from those plans.
The suit also comes after a coalition of environmental groups in a July 12 motion called on the D.C. Circuit to immediately vacate the one-year delay or stay its effectiveness, arguing that the agency has no legal basis to postpone implementation of the 2015 standard.
`The groups that filed suit include the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, Clean Air Council, Environmental Defense Fund, National Parks Conservation Association, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sierra Club and others.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/states-challenge-epa-delay-ozone-naaqs-designations

Return to headline | Return to top
EPA Methane Standards Take Effect as Court Mulls Challenges

Aug 2, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report

By Catherine Douglas Moran and Tripp Baltz

Methane emissions limits for the oil and gas industry must take effect even as a federal appeals court mulls legal challenges to the rule, indicating a decision could come soon.
In an unsigned 9-2 decision, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied requests from states and the petroleum industry to halt implementation of the Environmental Protection Agency's rule. The states and industry had asked the court to rehear challenges to the first-ever federal methane standards (Clean Air Council v. Pruitt, D.C. Cir. en banc, No. 17-1145, 7/31/17).
The rule will go into effect even though the EPA has said it intends to reconsider the requirements. The petroleum industry had argued the methane standards should be halted to allow the EPA the opportunity to complete its review, sparing companies the need to spend money to meet requirements that might change.
The lopsided decision suggests the court could quickly rule on requests to give the case another legal hearing, Joanne Spalding, a senior managing attorney at the Sierra Club, told Bloomberg BNA.
“I am very optimistic that the court will deny those petitions,” she said. “It is an indication that they think these safeguards should be in effect immediately.”
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.
Peter Zalzal, an Environmental Defense Fund attorney, told Bloomberg BNA he also expects a “pretty swift” decision on the requests to rehear the case.
EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said in an email that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
EPA Needs Time, Industry Says
Though environmental groups cheered the decision, Sandra Snyder, environmental attorney for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, told Bloomberg BNA in an email the court decision does not signal anything about the court's upcoming response to the petitions.
States opposed to the rule and the oil and gas industry had asked the full D.C. Circuit to take up the case after a three-judge panel on July 3 ruled the standards should take effect even as the EPA evaluates the rule.
Howard Feldman, the senior director for regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Petroleum Institute, which represents ExxonMobil, Chevron Corp., and Marathon Oil Co., said in a statement that the rule should be delayed until the EPA decides whether revisions are necessary. The EPA has also proposed to halt the methane standards for two years while it reconsiders the regulations, which is not affected by the court's ruling.
“A two year stay proposal remains under consideration and it makes good business and policy sense to allow EPA to stay the rules now, and not subject businesses to on-again, off-again, requirements until EPA can reconsider the rule,” Feldman said.
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. declined to comment on the decision, deferring to the American Petroleum Institute.
“We also strongly maintain that rules such as this should be left up to the states, as a one size fits all approach from the federal government is generally not the best solution,” Tracee Bentley, executive director of the Colorado Petroleum Council, said in an emailed statement. Colorado has issued its own methane standards for the industry.

http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=118024553&vname=dennotallissues&fn=118024553&jd=118024553

Return to headline | Return to top
Environmental Regulation Makes America Great

Aug 1, 2017 | Bloomberg View

By Francis Wilkinson

Before there was climate-change denialism, there was lead-paint denialism.
As the Donald Trump administration ratchets up a multi-pronged attack on federal regulations, with two dozen environmental rules rolled back in Trump's first 100 days, it's worth recalling why many regulations exist in the first place. The story of Herbert Needleman is instructive.
Needleman was a doctor whose breakthrough research documented the effects of childhood exposure to low levels of lead. He gave rewards to kids who saved their lost teeth for him. Then he tested those teeth for lead.
"Children whose accumulated exposure to lead was highest in the group scored four points lower on an I.Q. test than youngsters whose exposure was at the lowest end," the New York Times reported in an obituary of Needleman published last week.
Needleman established the link between an environmental hazard and intellectual impairment. But it was government regulation of the hazard that spared future children the debilitating effects of lead poisoning, and mitigated the damage it posed to the U.S. economy and society overall.
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires lead-free pipes and plumbing fittings in facilities providing water for human consumption. Municipal campaigns for lead-paint abatement have safeguarded children from ingesting lead in their own homes. Regulations have restricted or eliminated lead in familiar products, including gasoline.
Those regulations were imposed over the objections of vested interests, said Jamie Kitman, a lawyer and New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, who has extensively researched the history of lead.
In an email, Kitman wrote:
Before there was global warming denialism, before there were efforts to mitigate asbestos or pesticides or tobacco or hundreds of other man-made chemicals making people sick, there was lead gasoline and the people who said, "You say it's dangerous; we say we're not sure."
Needleman's work, which established among other things the link between lead exposure and behavior disorders, IQ deficits and violent crime, was seminal. It caused him to be attacked viciously into the 1990s and 2000s -- long after lead was no longer ubiquitous -- by the lead trade organizations and mining outfits that had profited from this deadly heavy metal. For many anti-lead campaigners Needleman, in his stalwart refusal to be bullied or cowed, offered a shining example of scientific integrity in action.
In recent decades, regulation has been a constant target of Republicans. Surely, some regulations are outdated, and others never should've been written in the first place. But sensible regulation of harmful substances and activities is one of the great achievements of government.
As Bloomberg View columnist Cass Sunstein, an expert on the regulatory state, has written, "Almost no one likes regulation in the abstract, but if we are speaking of food safety, highway safety, air pollution standards or protection of disabled people against discrimination, it makes no sense to take a meat ax to the administrative state."
Regulating lead has been a public success. The comparison with climate science is imperfect, in part because of the all-consuming, global scale of climate. But a familiar pattern nonetheless holds: Science alerts us to a hazard, then government mobilizes, in fits and starts, to address it.
In the case of climate, it's unclear if government's awkward mobilization, followed by the Trump administration's retrenchment, will be sufficient to mitigate a disastrous cycle of warming. (Harm prevention and reduction are not really Trump's strong suits.)
But frustration about lack of action on climate stems less from a fear of the unknown than a documented experience of the known. Environmental regulation is part of American life. History shows that smart regulation of toxic water or acid rain or runoff improves life. Indeed, there are people living better lives -- in some cases living at all -- because of it.

Return to headline | Return to top

Add recipients

Suggested