Preview Newsletter
PM ACC 17/8/17
-
What's the Status of GenX Investigations, Lawsuits?
Aug 17, 2017 | Star News
By Adam WAgner
In the wake of revelations about the unregulated chemical GenX being found in the area’s drinking water, several state and federal entities have opened investigations into Chemours’ activity. -
Collusion Or Coincidence? Records Show EPA Efforts To Slow Herbicide Review Came In Coordination With Monsanto
Aug 17, 2017 | The Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Newly released government email communications show a persistent effort by multiple officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to slow a separate federal agency’s safety review of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide. -
Study: Common Food Preservative, Teflon Chemical Linked to Obesity
Aug 17, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
Three hormone-disrupting chemicals commonly added to processed foods, waterproof clothing and other everyday products may cause obesity, according to a new study from researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. -
Companies Remain Committed to US Conflict Minerals Reporting
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Companies remain committed to conflict minerals due diligence, despite promises of relaxed enforcement of US reporting requirements, a recent study has found. -
Echa Round-Up
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has advised that it is running a stakeholders' day on 30 and 31 January 2018 in Helsinki, to give help with the final REACH registration deadline of 31 May next year. -
Interim Customs Proposal Casts Doubt over UK Regulatory Continuity
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK government’s proposal for an interim Customs Union agreement after Brexit could bring about regulatory uncertainty, the Chemical Industries Association says. -
(ACC Mentioned) Report Quantifies Emissions from Plastics-To-Fuel Technologies
Aug 17, 2017 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
A new report prepared for the American Chemistry Council that examined emissions from a family of technologies known as pyrolysis has determined that emissions from these processes are likely to be very low—much lower than the emissions profiles from other industries, such as food processing, auto manufacturing, and even lower than institutional buildings, such as hospitals and universities. -
Manufacturers to Perry: Don't Ship off Too Much LNG
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Exporting too much U.S. natural gas could hurt job growth at home and use up much of a domestic resource that's viewed as practically inexhaustible, according to a new analysis by a domestic manufacturing group. -
(ACC Mentioned) Harrison Bluntly Dismisses Shipper Group's Concerns about CSX Service
Aug 17, 2017 | Trains
By Bill Stephens
CSX Transportation CEO E. Hunter Harrison fired back at a shipper group on Wednesday, saying that the Rail Customer Coalition was using the railroad’s service issues as an excuse to further its longstanding regulatory reform goals. -
Some Democrats See Tax Reform as a Path to Taxing Carbon
Aug 17, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
With a sweeping overhaul of the tax code on the horizon, two Senate Democrats believe this is the moment to broach the third rail of climate change policy: a carbon tax. -
EPA Extends Comment Period on Repeal Bid
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA is giving the public more time to weigh in on its proposed repeal of the Obama-era rule that defines which wetlands and small waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. -
Climate Advisory Group Died Quietly
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
An Oklahoma jury has awarded $220,000 to a company that says hydraulic fracturing of a horizontal oil well damaged its conventional oil well.
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
What's the Status of GenX Investigations, Lawsuits?
Aug 17, 2017 | Star News
By Adam WAgner
In the wake of revelations about the unregulated chemical GenX being found in the area’s drinking water, several state and federal entities have opened investigations into Chemours’ activity. The agencies have been joined by several other groups promising legal action against the company for its actions associated with the release of the man-made chemical into the Cape Fear River.
Here’s a round-up of half-dozen investigations or lawsuits that have started since the StarNews first reported in early June about GenX making its way into local water supplies:
DEQ/DHHS investigation: The N.C. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and N.C. Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) have launched a joint-investigation into Chemours’ activities.
That investigation has included water sampling at multiple sites along the Cape Fear that has, in recent weeks, indicated the amount of GenX found in the water has declined significantly. Three major developments support that, including Chemours agreeing to transport wastewater from the vinyl ether process that resulted in GenX as a byproduct offsite for incineration; Chemours identifying and stopping additional discharges; and Chemours on July 28 ending this round of its vinyl ether production process.
“DEQ and DHHS are working with the EPA and Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention to obtain more research that can be used to develop regulatory guidance for GenX and other emerging compounds,” DEQ spokesman Jamie Kritzer said.
The agency also is continuing to monitor the Fayetteville Works facility, he added, to ensure that discharge has ceased.
DEQ will also investigate the specific identifying information Chemours used to inform the department what was being discharged into the Cape Fear.
“Based on what we learn,” Kritzer said, “DEQ will take any appropriate enforcement actions related to its investigation.”
Federal attorney investigation: Two weeks ago, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued a subpoena to DEQ for documents. It is not immediately clear if the office issued similar demands on other entities, including Chemours.
“DEQ has started gathering documents in response to the federal subpoena,” Kritzer said. “We will make those available to the U.S. Attorneys’ Office in a rolling production.
EPA investigation: The EPA has, according to a spokeswoman, started investigating Chemours’ compliance with a 2009 consent order allowing it to manufacture GenX. In addition, the agency is investigating additional toxicity data submitted by Chemours and updating its risk assessment for the chemical using that information.
Typically, in the course of a review for Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) compliance, the agency will review the production process and environmental controls by reviewing records and often conducting an on-site inspection.
The agency is also analyzing water samples to determine whether three other chemicals related to GenX are present. Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid, perfluoro-3,5-dioxahexanoic acid and perfluro-3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic acid are all under review by the EPA.
In each instance, an agency spokeswoman said, the EPA does not have manufactured chemical standards for the substances and is using molecular measurement and fragmentation patterns to determine whether the chemicals are present.
Chemours’ permit review: Chemours has been legally operating under an expired permit since October.
The company filed the appropriate paperwork in a timely fashion, but DEQ has said they have a growing backlog of unreviewed permit applications -- including Chemours’ -- that the agency attributes to a lack of manpower.
Nevertheless, the Chemours permit will undergo evaluation once the DEQ and DHHS investigation is completed.
“DEQ will prioritize review of Chemors’ permit review,” Kritzer said. “As Gov. Cooper announced, DEQ will deny Chemours’ permit request to release GenX and a new permit will be developed.”
Attorney General’s investigative demand: On July 21, N.C. Attorney General Josh Stein issued a civil investigative demand -- an action that has powers similar to a subpoena in that it compels a party to produce documents -- on Chemours.
The letter noted that the Attorney General’s office is largely focused on how Chemours had marketed GenX and the veracity of the company’s claims about the chemical, such as its sustainability and it being less likely to be released into the environment.
“We need to know more about how Chemours markets GenX, its risks and its environmental sustainability -- that’s what this action demands,” Stein wrote.
The letter has a 30-day deadline for when the documents must be produced, a period that ends Monday at 10 a.m. In an email this week, an Attorney General’s Office spokeswoman said discussions are ongoing between Chemours and Stein’s office.
“We have not yet received documents, we have had a little correspondence,” she wrote.
Lawsuits: Conservative organization Civitas and the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA), which is the main public water provider for Wilmington and New Hanover County, have both notified Chemours of their intention to sue the chemical company.
Both organizations in early August gave Chemours 60-day notice of legal action, periods that will expire in early October.
In response to questions about the investigations and potential for legal action against it, Chemours has routinely provided a response stating that it intends to continue to work with local, state and federal officials.
But Chemours did address the possibility of lawsuits against it in a quarterly report to investors for the period ending June 30.
“The Company believes it would have valid defenses to any such litigation, including that the discharges did not impact the safety of drinking water or cause any injury,” the report said, adding that it is impossible to predict lawsuits and that they could impact the company’s operations.
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170817/whats-status-of-genx-investigations-lawsuits
-
Aug 17, 2017 | The Huffington Post
By Carey Gillam
Newly released government email communications show a persistent effort by multiple officials within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to slow a separate federal agency’s safety review of Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide. Notably, the records demonstrate that the EPA efforts came at the behest of Monsanto, and that EPA officials were helpful enough to keep the chemical giant updated on their progress.
The communications, most of which were obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, show that it was early 2015 when the EPA and Monsanto began working in concert to stall a toxicology review that a unit tied to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was conducting on glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s branded Roundup herbicide products. The details revealed in the documents come as Monsanto is defending itself against lawsuits alleging that it has tried to cover up evidence of harm with its herbicides.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a federal public health agency that along with the CDC is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is charged with evaluating the potential adverse human health effects from exposures to hazardous substances in the environment. So it made sense for the ATSDR to take a look at glyphosate, which is widely used on U.S. farms, residential lawns and gardens, school playgrounds and golf courses. Glyphosate is widely used in food production and glyphosate residues have been found in testing of human urine.
The ATSDR announced in February 2015 that it planned to publish a toxicological profile of glyphosate by October of that year. But by October, that review was on hold, and to this date no such review has yet been published.
The documents reveal this was no accident, no bureaucratic delay, but rather was the result of a collaborative effort between Monsanto and a group of high-ranking EPA officials.
For Monsanto, the timing of the ATSDR review was worrisome. In March 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had declared glyphosate to be a probable human carcinogen, and Monsanto feared ATSDR might have similar concerns about the chemical. Previous reports have described how one EPA official, Jess Rowland, communicated to Monsanto in April 2015 his willingness to try to kill the ATSDR review. Rowland, who retired in 2016, was the deputy division director within the health effects division of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). Allegations of collusion between Rowland and Monsanto have prompted a probe by the EPA’s Office of Inspector General.
But the trove of documents newly obtained from within EPA and HHS demonstrate that the assistance to Monsanto came not only from Rowland but also from even higher-level EPA officials. Rather than encourage and assist the toxicology review of glyphosate, Monsanto and EPA officials repeatedly complained to ATSDR and HHS that such a review was unnecessarily “duplicative” and should take a back seat to an EPA review also underway.
The following timeline shows how the events unfolded:
May 19, 2015 – Michael Dykes, who at that time was Monsanto’s long-time vice president of government affairs, wrote directly to the EPA’s Jim Jones, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention. Jones had oversight of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and was a presidential appointee who carried significant clout. The afternoon was waning when the email came in at 3:28 p.m. Dykes reminded Jones that they had recently discussed the HHS’ ATSDR glyphosate review at a meeting. “You were not aware of their review. Did you learn anything more about their efforts?” Dykes asked.
Jones did not waste time. Roughly an hour later he forwarded the message to OPP Director Jack Housenger, writing “Monsanto thinks atsdr is doing a glyphosate Assessment. Could you guys run that down?” Housenger responds quickly: “Yes. Jess checked with them…. It has been difficult to get information.”
Within an hour Jones instructed a member of his staff to get him contact information for the head person responsible for ATSDR. She replied the next morning that Dr. Patrick Breysse was the point person. Breysse joined the CDC in 2014 as director of its National Center for Environmental Health, overseeing the NCEH’s ATSDR.
May 20, 2015 It was only a little after 8:30 a.m. but Jones told the staff member to instruct Housenger to get in touch with Breysse, and within two hours Housenger had penned an email to Breysse explaining that an EPA’s own re-evaluation/risk assessment of glyphosate was nearing completion, and asking Breysse if “you would still feel the need to do your assessment.” Housenger told Breysse that he already had reached the individual assigned to the ATSDR assessment and she had indicated she would “coordinate” with EPA, but that was not sufficient. Housenger did not mention Monsanto’s outreach to EPA on the issue, but instead questioned “whether this is a good use of government resources” for ATSDR to continue with its review. Breysse responded that he would “look into this” and Housenger thanked him for his quick response. Breysse then reached out to an ATSDR division director named James Stephens to arrange a discussion about the EPA request.
May 21, 2015 James Stephens wrote back to Patrick Breysse that the ATSDR team thought the EPA work “overlaps but isn’t totally duplicative…” and stated that the ASTDR team has not been able to see draft copies of the EPA’s work. “I think we would all welcome further discussion with EPA but would hope to use it to help us find out more about what they are doing, ” he told Breysse. After hearing from Stephens, Breysse wrote back to Housenger saying ATSDR staff would be in touch to discuss. Housenger replied with his reiteration that the ATSDR review would be a “duplicative government effort” and that the EPA draft would be out in July of 2015. (As of this writing, that EPA preliminary risk assessment still has not been released, though in 2016 the EPA did release a cancer assessment report that declared glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.)
June 4, 2015 Pressing the issue, EPA’s Housenger wrote again to Breysee to say he had not heard from anyone yet. The ATSDR’s Stephens wrote back promising to make sure “someone gives you a ring.” Internal Monsanto emailsshow that at the same time, Monsanto was also pushing the “duplicative” narrative with HHS, meeting on June 4 with HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Health Mitchel Wolfe to ask him to help repudiate the IARC classification and to recognize that a review of glyphosate was “not the primary role” for his agency. “Dr. Wolfe said he would follow up on what was going on with ATSDR and he was encouraged to have discussions with EPA staff, as well,” a Monsanto memo detailing the meeting states.
June 9, 2015 Henry Abadin, an ATSDR supervisory scientist, reported to Stephens that he had talked with Housenger and explained that the agency did not believe it was “duplicating efforts.” Nevertheless, he said he told EPA, “we did not have a problem with putting the glyphosate profile on hold, pending the OPP final report.”
June 19, 2015 To further ensure the ATSDR review didn’t move forward, Monsanto’s Dykes talked again with HHS’s Wolfe, asking for an update on ATSDR. “I explained… our question was about the purpose and scope of such a duplicative review by ATSDR. I also told him that we were concerned that ATSDR may come out any day with a report. I again stressed that we were concerned that they were even reviewing glyphosate as were the people we talked with at EPA,” Dykes wrote to colleagues.
June 21, 2015 It was a Sunday, but Monsanto’s Dykes was still concerned enough about the ATSDR review to copy multiple colleagues on a late night email to report that he had continued to press the “duplicative” point with ATSDR but was concerned about a “glyphosate review coming any day.” In a text message sent that same day, Monsanto Eric Sachs reached out to a former EPA toxicologist named Mary Manibusan asking for contacts at ATSDR. “We’re trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur w this group. may need your help,” Sachs wrote. The text messages were among certain internal Monsanto records obtained by cancer victims who are suing Monsanto alleging Roundup caused their diseases.
June 23, 2015 By Tuesday, Monsanto’s Jenkins had good news: He had heard from Housenger that the EPA official had been successful in garnering a promise from ATSDR to put its report “on hold.” The review was not dead, however, he wrote: ATSDR argues “that their process is distinguishable and not duplicative. They look at different endpoints and told EPA they don’t “make a call on cancer”, but I think we should continue to be cautious.”
On June 24, 2015 Monsanto’s chief scientist William Heydens responded:“’Distinguishable and not duplicative’? Seriously? And I will believe the not ‘making a call on cancer’ part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid...” Jenkins wrote back, acknowledging that Monsanto had much more to fear from ATSDR than EPA as the two agencies had arrived at “different conclusions” on other issues. He reported he had been told ATSDR was “VERY conservative and IARC like…”
By October 23, 2015 EPA and Monsanto had the ATSDR review fully on hold. EPA’s Housenger wrote to update Monsanto’s Jenkins: “They are waiting for our glyphosate RA. And they agreed to share what they do.”
That same month, the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), which was chaired by Rowland, issued an internal report stating that contrary to IARC, the EPA’s review of glyphosate found it “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
The EPA still has yet to issue the overall new risk assessment it said would be out in 2015. The agency has offered ever-changing timelines for the assessment, but now says its intends to release a draft risk assessment sometime this year. That will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. After the public comment period the EPA will determine whether any risk management is needed. In the meantime, Monsanto has cited the EPA’s backing of glyphosate safety as repudiation of the IARC finding both in court and with regulators in Europe who are also looking at glyphosate safety issues.
The EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its efforts to delay the ATSDR report or communications with Monsanto regarding that effort.
But Brent Wisner, a lawyer representing many of the cancer victims who are suing Monsanto, said the documents offer damning evidence of improperly close ties between the EPA and the chemical company.
“I think it’s very clear… that EPA officials and Monsanto employees worked together so accomplish a goal of stopping that analysis at ATSDR. That is collusion. I don’t know what else you’d call that,” said Wisner.
For its part, the ATSDR said this week that the review it started in 2015 “is not complete” but that it anticipates a draft glyphosate toxicological profile to be issued for public comment by the end of this year. A spokesperson for the agency declined to discuss the circumstances surrounding the delay in the review.
And Jones, whose EPA job ended when the Trump administration took over, defended his responsiveness to Monsanto’s concern about the ATSDR review, saying it had only to do with the “efficient use of government resources.”
“Had any party contacted me and informed me that another agency within the Administration was simultaneously assessing a chemical as my organization, I would have intervened,” Jones said. “There is no value to the same government investing limited resources to work on the same issue. As you know resources at the federal level were and are scarce which made duplication even more problematic.” Jones said additionally that “when two organizations assess the same chemical, it is very likely there will be differences in their assessments. Even when these differences don’t matter from a public health perspective, an enormous amount of energy is spent attempting to resolve these differences” and that is not ultimately in the “public interest.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/collusion-or-coincidence-records-show-epa-efforts_us_5994dad4e4b056a2b0ef02f1
-
Study: Common Food Preservative, Teflon Chemical Linked to Obesity
Aug 17, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Monica Amarelo
Three hormone-disrupting chemicals commonly added to processed foods, waterproof clothing and other everyday products may cause obesity, according to a new study from researchers at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.
The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, used a new method of testing stem cells to show how even low doses of these chemicals can interfere with signals from the digestive system to the brain that let people know when they are full during meals.
“We discovered that each of these chemicals damaged hormones that communicate between the gut and the brain,” lead researcher Dhruv Saheen said in a news release.Saheen, an assistant professor of biomedical sciences at a Cedars-Sinai research institute, said the damage was much worse when the test cells were exposed to all three chemicals at the same time.
Saheen’s team tested these chemicals that can contaminate food:Butylhydroxytoluene, or BHT, an EWG dirty dozen food additive and antioxidant commonly added as a preservative to breakfast cereals;PFOA, a chemical formerly used to make Teflon, grease-resistant food wrappers, stain-resistant carpets and waterproof clothing; andTributyltin, a compound in paints that can end up in water and accumulate in seafood.
The damage was found in early-stage stem cells, suggesting that a defective hormone system could harm a pregnant mother and the fetus. Scientists have previously tested these chemicals in animal studies, but this is the first study to suggest that the effects of endocrine disruptors can be passed down to future generations in humans.
For the experiments, the team obtained blood samples from adults and introduced reprogramming genes, which converted the cells into immature stem cells. From those cells they grew human epithelium tissue, which lines the gut and neuronal tissues. Epithelium tissue regulates appetite and metabolism.
Observing the effects inside the cells from chronic exposure to the three chemicals, the researchers found that each one damaged the hormones needed to communicate between the brain and the stomach.
BHT produced some of the strongest health effects. The chemical is added to food to protect nutrients and prevent fats from turning rancid. It’s also used in a wide range of personal care products.
More than one-third of U.S. adults are considered to be obese, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The researchers believe the discovery of how hormone disruptors interrupt signaling could help prevent obesity in people.
The innovative test method shows potential for evaluating the human health effects of other chemicals and chemical mixtures to which people are exposed everyday. PFOA and tributyltin have largely been phased out, but chemical companies have replaced them with compounds that have not been adequately studied for their ability to disrupt hormones. The new testing method may enable a systematic evaluation of how these replacement chemicals are impacting our hormone systems.
Additives such as BHT are found in many foods available in your local grocery store. Use EWG’s Healthy Living app, with ratings for more than 120,000 food and personal care products, to make healthier purchases. The app combines the power of the Skin Deep® and Food Scores databases so you can have EWG’s ratings at your fingertips wherever you shop.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/08/study-common-food-preservative-teflon-chemical-linked-obesity#.WZXBeFUjHIU
-
Companies Remain Committed to US Conflict Minerals Reporting
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Companies remain committed to conflict minerals due diligence, despite promises of relaxed enforcement of US reporting requirements, a recent study has found.
The report, by NGO Development International, evaluates the 1,153 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) conflict minerals filings submitted in accordance with section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Act.
This requires publicly traded companies to investigate and disclose their use of the conflict minerals – tantalum, tin, tungsten and gold (3TG) – to prevent the support of armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and neighbouring countries.
And although earlier this year acting SEC Chairman, Michael Piwowar, issued a statement suggesting that the agency would not seek enforcement for failure to submit ‘enhanced disclosure’ documents, companies are reported to have largely continued the practice. Development International also shows improved levels of compliance scores. ‘Minimal impact on market practices’
Mr Piwowar’s stated in April that it was "difficult to conceive of a circumstance that would counsel in favour of enforcing Item 1.01(c) of Form SD", which mandates that companies submit a conflict minerals report (CMR) if 3TG in their supply chain originates from a covered country.
And although the study reported a 7.5% overall drop in companies filing these CMRs compared with the 2015 reporting year (RY), Sasha Lezhnev of the NGO the Enough Project told Chemical Watch that the "overwhelming majority of companies" are still doing so.
"It's highly risky if they do not," said Mr Lezhnev. "One commissioner at the SEC cannot make policy unilaterally, and companies are still required by law to file reports."
Michael Littenberg, a partner at law firm Ropes & Gray, told Chemical Watch the SEC’s statement had "minimal impact on market practice" because most companies had began preparing their filings when the statement was released and did not want to spend time and expense on modifying their disclosure.
Also, they "wanted to get credit from NGOs and other external stakeholders for all of their hard work".
Mr Littenberg added that companies had concerns with "following a statement that was so clearly being driven by an interim SEC chair for political reasons."
The drop in CMR filings could be attributed to the overall drop in filings, which he said "was driven largely by mergers and acquisitions activity, and to a lesser extent tighter product scoping, and was only around the margins due to the SEC statement."
Mr Lezhnev of the Enough Project also suggested the drop could be tied to progress on supply chain transparency, "to the point that some retailers realise that the specific products in scope for the SEC filings don't contain minerals from Congo or the region, so they stopped filing."
Improved compliance scores
Report co-author Christopher Bayer said that, more broadly, the great majority of companies had either continued or ramped up their conflict mineral due diligence.
"This is evidenced by the fact that 313 companies – 27.1% of all filers – earned at least 75% on the combined SEC-OECD score, representing an increase of 197 companies that made it into this cohort as compared with RY2015," he said.
Development International has its own scoring system, based on its interpretation of "the particular legislative intent of section 1502 and of the SEC rule, as well as other subsequent SEC statements and communication".
The report found that among issuers that filed a CMR, the average SEC compliance score improved by five percentage points compared with RY2015 – from 79% to 84%.
The OECD conformance score of CMR filers also improved by 2 percentage points from RY2015, with 132 CMR filers earning an OECD score between 75% and 100%.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58176/companies-remain-committed-to-us-conflict-minerals-reporting
-
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Stakeholders' DayEcha has advised that it is running a stakeholders' day on 30 and 31 January 2018 in Helsinki, to give help with the final REACH registration deadline of 31 May next year.
The conference programme includes:
· REACH 2018 case studies from companies;
· one-to-one advice;
· IT tool training; and
· what happens after the latest deadline.
Registration will start in September. There is no charge but the conference can also be followed live via web streaming, the agency says.Substances potentially subject to compliance checks
Echa has added 29 new substances to the list of those that might be chosen for compliance checks.
Registrants are advised to check this and, if needed, update their related registration dossiers and tonnage bands by 31 October. The list makes updates possible ahead of the compliance check, it says.
However, the agency advises that it is "indicative and non-exhaustive" and reserves the right to open further checks on any dossier at any time and without prior notice to the registrants.Conference to 'take stock' of authorisation process
Echa is to run a conference with the European Commission to appraise – or 'take stock of' – the REACH authorisation process in terms of substitution, risk reduction and its cost effectiveness in November.
The programme will address three themes:
· how the process has contributed to risk reduction and the substitution of substances of very high concern;
· how it has evolved in 2016 and 2017; and
· outlook for the future.
It will also provide a forum to discuss improvements, the agency says.
The conference will take place in the Echa conference centre from 13 November (13:00) to 14 November (16:00). Registration is open from August. Presentations will be available on Echa's website for those unable to attend.
The conference is a follow-up to the workshop on streamlining applications for authorisation held in Brussels on 17 November 2015 and the 'Lessons Learned' conference held in Helsinki on 10-11 February 2015.CLH intention
And the agency has added a harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) intention to its registry for the substance resorcinol diglycidyl ether.
The Netherlands is proposing a future entry of acute toxicity 4, H302; acute toxicity 3, H311; skin irritation 2, H315; eye irritation 2, H319; skin sensitiser 1, H317; mutagenicity 2, H341; carcinogenicity 1B, H350; and aquatic chronic 3, H412 and expects to submit a dossier by 1 October.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58196/echa-round-up
-
Interim Customs Proposal Casts Doubt over UK Regulatory Continuity
Aug 17, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The UK government’s proposal for an interim Customs Union agreement after Brexit could bring about regulatory uncertainty, the Chemical Industries Association says.
In its policy paper released on Tuesday, the government proposed the possibility of a "model of close association with the EU Customs Union for a time-limited interim period" after the UK leaves the EU in March 2019. This, it says, will allow businesses more time to adapt to new long-term arrangements.
In her comments prior to the general election earlier this year, prime minister Theresa May said the UK would leave the EU single market and not pursue full membership of the Customs Union.
Following Ms May’s failure to secure a majority for her Conservative party at the general election in June, however, industry associations said a ‘soft’ Brexit was more likely. This, they said, might mean the UK retains access to the EU single market, the Customs Union and free movement of skilled labour.
The CIA has questioned the value of an interim Customs Union agreement and says that the best way to guarantee "no adverse disruption" to business, during a transition period, is to seek to retain existing membership of the single market and the Customs Union.
This should be done, it says, "rather than pursue a ‘close association’ with the Customs Union that still leaves key questions around regulatory continuity, tariff and non-tariff barrier impacts".
The EU market remains "by far the most critical" for chemical imports and exports, CIA chief executive Steve Elliott says.
In its paper, the government says it could take one of two "broad" approaches: a "streamlined" arrangement that would mean no customs checks at UK-EU borders; ora customs partnership that mirrors the EU’s external border regime.
Mr Elliott says that simultaneous negotiations on new free trade agreements (FTAs) and the UK’s future relationship with the EU will be "inter-related and therefore incredibly complicated".
It is very possible, he adds, that countries outside of Europe, with whom the UK seeks a new trading relationship, "will want to know the final new deal we secure before they agree anything with the UK".
The UK government has made the full transition to Brexit "unnecessarily complex", the CIA says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/58257/interim-customs-proposal-casts-doubt-over-uk-regulatory-continuity
-
(ACC Mentioned) Report Quantifies Emissions from Plastics-To-Fuel Technologies
Aug 17, 2017 | Packaging World
By Anne Marie Mohan
A new report prepared for the American Chemistry Council that examined emissions from a family of technologies known as pyrolysis has determined that emissions from these processes are likely to be very low—much lower than the emissions profiles from other industries, such as food processing, auto manufacturing, and even lower than institutional buildings, such as hospitals and universities.
As ACC explains, pyrolysis is a versatile process that can convert non-recycled plastics into liquid fuels, lubricants, waxes, or even polymer feedstocks. This group of technologies, sometimes referred to as “plastics-to-fuels,” complements mechanical recycling by keeping greater amounts of useful materials out of landfills while reducing the need for virgin resources.
These findings follow Argonne National Laboratory’s determination that the production of ultra-low diesel derived from post-use, non-recycled plastics results in lower greenhouse gas emissions and water and energy use compared to ultra-low sulfur diesel derived from conventional petroleum. ANL’s findings were presented in the peer-reviewed journal Fuel (Volume 203, 1 September 2017, Pages 11-22).
This new report, “Comparison of Plastics-to-Fuel and Petrochemistry Manufacturing Emissions to Common Manufacturing Emissions,” was prepared by Good Company for the ACC.
In addition to the low emissions profile, Good Company modeling found that the typical plastics-to-fuel and petrochemical facility would not only process 15,000 tons of non-recycled plastics that would otherwise be disposed in a landfill, but also potentially create 2.5 million gallons of transportation fuel per year.
The analysis looked at emissions for six criteria air pollutants, commonly known as CAPS, and found them to be very low. In addition, the study found that these facilities would produce very low levels of what are known as hazardous air pollutants—so low, that emissions would fall below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency permitting requirements.
“Our analysis shows that the emissions produced by plastics-to-fuel and petrochemical technologies were below regulated levels, below the well-known industries that we examined in every category of emissions, and in most cases both,” says Josh Proudfoot, co-founder and principal of Good Company.
“This analysis further demonstrates the environmental benefits of converting non-recycled plastics into fuels for transportation and manufacturing feedstocks through pyrolysis,” says Tom Waltermire, Chairman of ACC’s Plastics-to-Fuel and Petrochemistry Alliance and board member of Vadxx Energy. “Plastics-to-fuel technologies can produce a range of useful products with an emissions profile that is comparable to a hospital heating and power system.”
Adds Craig Cookson, ACC’s Senior Director of Recycling and Recovery, “Plastics-to-fuel technologies complement plastics recycling and represent an important area of domestic innovation and more sustainable use of our post-use plastic materials. Communities evaluating pyrolysis technologies as an alternative to landfill disposal for non-recycled plastics can look to this study, which inspires confidence and reinforces that these facilities generate very low emissions.”
https://www.packworld.com/article/sustainability/waste-energy/report-quantifies-emissions-plastics-fuel-technologies
-
Manufacturers to Perry: Don't Ship off Too Much LNG
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Exporting too much U.S. natural gas could hurt job growth at home and use up much of a domestic resource that's viewed as practically inexhaustible, according to a new analysis by a domestic manufacturing group.
A letter sent yesterday to Energy Secretary Rick Perry by the Industrial Energy Consumers of America — a lobbying group that represents domestic companies in energy-hungry industries like chemicals, metals manufacturing and food processing — shows the group struggling to make its voice heard in a presidential administration focused on extending American "energy dominance" through expanded exports of oil, coal and natural gas.
During the Obama administration, IECA urged the Energy Department to limit the volume of liquefied natural gas that it permitted for export as the domestic shale gas boom pushed a flood of new gas into the market and created a sense of urgency within the natural gas industry to find new markets abroad. IECA has continued to push that message to Trump administration officials.
In its letter to DOE, IECA lays out two scenarios for natural gas exports, one with modest growth in LNG exports between now and 2050 and one with an aggressive LNG export profile.
Under the moderate export scenario, the group uses a U.S. Energy Information Administration forecast of LNG exports rising from the 9.7 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) that is built or under construction today to reach 12.1 Bcf/d of exports by 2035. In that scenario, domestic consumption combined with LNG and pipeline exports would consume 58 percent of the natural gas considered technically recoverable today by 2050, the group said.
A more aggressive LNG export scenario envisions construction of 54 Bcf/d of shipment capacity, taking as its endpoint the total volume of LNG exports that DOE has authorized and which is widely viewed as not likely to be built given financing and other constraints. In that case, IECA says, by 2050 the country could have used up 71 percent of the natural gas that is currently considered technically recoverable.
DOE is required by law to approve applications to export LNG to free-trade partner countries "without modification or delay," but IECA's message to DOE is that the agency should put a moratorium on further approval of exports to non-free-trade countries, which it said are "inconsistent with President Trump's fair-trade and 'America First' policies."
In addition to using up a considerable share of domestic natural gas, the group argued, exports raise domestic prices for the fuel while lowering them overseas, particularly in Asia.
"LNG exports, specifically to [non-free-trade-agreement] countries lowers our competitors' costs and increases ours, directly and negatively impacting competitiveness and our ability to justify reshoring," the group wrote.
The letter also revealed IECA's struggle to find a friendly ear at DOE, given the agency's slow progress in staffing the many politically appointed positions that shape policy on issues like gas exports.
"We recognize that the DOE is still staffing up to properly manage the many important matters that the department handles. And for this reason, we are providing you with a record of IECA communications regarding LNG exports," IECA wrote in its letter, providing a list of its communications with federal agencies over the past four months.Assumptions 'don't hold water'
In a response to the group's letter, Hinson Peters, a spokesman for the Center for LNG, said the new analysis is based on "unrealistic assumptions that don't hold water."
"In order to duplicate IECA's forecast for 54 Bcf/d in U.S. exports in 2050, every single U.S. LNG project that has been proposed would have to be built and operate 24/7 at maximum capacity in a world with no global competition from other LNG exporters. This is more than triple the amount of the forecasts made by professional energy economists and forecasters at EIA, who project that the U.S. will actually export about 12 Bcf/d in 2050," Peters said.
He also took issue with the premise that today's estimate of technically recoverable gas would remain standing decades from now, pointing out that if estimates of U.S. natural gas from 1966 had held steady, the country would have run out of the fuel in the 1990s.
"The big picture is that LNG exports contribute to U.S. economic growth, that exports will be met by new production and that constraining exports based on an artificial scenario would undermine our commitment to open trade," Peters said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/17/stories/1060058875
-
(ACC Mentioned) Harrison Bluntly Dismisses Shipper Group's Concerns about CSX Service
Aug 17, 2017 | Trains
By Bill Stephens
CSX Transportation CEO E. Hunter Harrison fired back at a shipper group on Wednesday, saying that the Rail Customer Coalition was using the railroad’s service issues as an excuse to further its longstanding regulatory reform goals.
The coalition, an umbrella group for nearly four dozen trade associations representing manufacturing, agricultural, energy, and retail industries, on Monday urged Congress to prod the Surface Transportation Board to launch an investigation of what it called widespread service disruptions at CSX.
The coalition also asked Congress to push the STB to adopt new rules for reciprocal switching, a long-sought regulatory remedy that would allow a second railroad access to certain captive shippers.
Harrison said the coalition’s letter contained “many unfounded and grossly exaggerated statements...related to the service experienced by some customers as we implement Precision Scheduled Railroading, which has a proven history and long track record of delivering superior transportation services for customers.”
The shipper group did not bring its concerns to CSX before writing Congress, Harrison wrote, “most likely because your statements were made to advance your longstanding attack on the balanced approaches of the Staggers Act.
Shippers will benefit from the new CSX operating plan, Harrison insists.
“The changes we are implementing today will deliver measurable improvements in key service metrics, resulting in our customers’ freight moving more consistently, reliably, and cost efficiently across the CSX network,” he wrote.
But he acknowledged that operational changes have produced service problems.
“In the midst of our efforts, there have been some unfortunate disruptions to our service, which we are addressing aggressively,” Harrison wrote. The railroad is addressing customers’ concerns while it works to improve communication with shippers, he wrote.
What CSX will not do, Harrison said, is talk about service with the Rail Customer Coalition.
“Since coalitions do not have service issues, we do not intend to continue a discussion with you about the service we provide to our customers,” he wrote.
Harrison did say that CSX would be happy to discuss “other completely unrelated topics like reciprocal switching, which are more central to your agenda.”
Harrison said CSX would continue to work with the STB, which on Monday ordered the railroad to provide detailed operations metrics every week so that it could better monitor its service recovery efforts.
“We welcome the engagement of the expert Surface Transportation Board staff and respect their authority,” Harrison wrote in his letter, which was addressed to the Rail Customer Coalition in care of Cal Dooley, who heads the American Chemistry Council.http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2017/08/17-ehh-fires-back
-
Some Democrats See Tax Reform as a Path to Taxing Carbon
Aug 17, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
With a sweeping overhaul of the tax code on the horizon, two Senate Democrats believe this is the moment to broach the third rail of climate change policy: a carbon tax.
The plan by the senators, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Brian Schatz of Hawaii, to level a $49 per metric ton fee on greenhouse gas emissions is widely acknowledged as a long shot. But the lawmakers, along with climate activists and a cadre of conservative supporters, insist the tax reform is a way to create bipartisan support. The senators propose to use a portion of the estimated $2.1 trillion they anticipate in carbon tax revenue over the first 10 years to reduce the top marginal corporate tax income rate, something the White House has called for.
They also hope to have an ally in President Trump’s economic adviser, Gary D. Cohn, who met in February with a prominent group of Republicans advocating a similar plan.
No Republican lawmaker has signed on to the Senate measure. Mr. Trump, who routinely proclaims his affection for coal, during the presidential campaign flatly rejected via Twitter a suggestion that he might put a price on carbon pollution. The senators steering the effort admit they haven’t even broached a carbon tax directly with members of the administration, and the White House has distanced itself from the policy.
Yet even the fiercest critics of a carbon tax say they can’t afford to dismiss the effort.
“What is that Taylor Swift song? We are never, ever, ever getting back together? This is never, ever, ever going to happen,” said Grover Norquist, the anti-tax lobbyist and founder of Americans for Tax Reform. But, he added, the possibility of a carbon tax routinely re-emerges. “This time there is money for promoting that this idea might happen someday,” he said.
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, which promotes fossil fuels, agreed. “It’s so much revenue that it’s always going to be on the table and it’s always a threat,” he said.
Amid concern that tax reform might be delayed because of the political turmoil caused by Mr. Trump’s statement at a news conference Tuesday that “both sides” were to blame for violence over the weekend at a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., top White House officials asserted the president’s words would not hamper the tax reform plan.
“We are going to hit the ground running, literally this month on tax reform,” Cohn told reporters in Trump Tower on Tuesday after the president left the podium. Asked if the president’s agenda is still on track, he said, “We are here to execute his agenda.”
The carbon tax movement’s biggest jolt came this year when a coalition of Republican elder statesmen, led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, made the case to the White House that a fee on the burning of fossil fuels coupled with a monthly dividend to American households would be good for the economy, as well as the planet. Those discussions are continuing, said Ted Halstead, founder of the Climate Leadership Council, a think tank dedicated to free market solutions to climate change, who has been working with the conservative leaders.
In the meantime, Senators Whitehouse and Schatz say, they have their eyes on the tax overhaul debate. The White House wants the corporate rate cut to 15 percent from its current 35 percent. Whether or not that is realistic, they say, getting even partway there will take bipartisan compromise.
The carbon tax bill they have proposed uses part of the revenue to reduce the marginal corporate income tax rate to 29 percent.
“There are only a handful of options in terms of generating revenue for broad-based tax reform, and they’re all very close to dead on arrival. This is the one proposal that could attract a significant number of Democrats,” Mr. Schatz said. He acknowledged, though, that using revenue to cut the corporate income tax rate could turn off some Democrats, too.
The legislation calls for the tax, which would increase annually by 2 percent, to be collected at its source — at coal mines, oil refineries or ports of entry. The rest of the revenue would come back to taxpayers in an annual inflation-adjusted $550 refundable tax credit, or $1,100 for married couples filing jointly. Money would also be devoted to veterans and to coal country for job training programs.
The idea of a carbon tax dates to the 1920s, when the British economist Arthur Pigou observed that some goods had social costs that society ended up paying for — like alcohol, or pollution. In the early 2000s economists and other supporters of taxing companies for the carbon they send into the atmosphere formed the Pigou Club in his honor.
Some conservative heavyweights, like Arthur Laffer, often called the father of supply-side economics, and Darren W. Woods, the chief executive of Exxon Mobil, have thrown their intellectual and political heft behind the idea. Economists argue that the revenue from a carbon tax could be used to reduce or eliminate income, payroll or other taxes. Some business leaders say it is preferable to onerous regulation or a cap-and-trade program.
Asked where a carbon tax stands in the administration’s deliberations, a White House spokeswoman, Kelly Love, said in a statement, “We don’t officially comment on legislation unless it’s something we are actively supporting or is about to be considered in Congress.”
Mr. Norquist and other opponents like Mr. Pyle say they welcome a debate on a carbon tax. They and others recalled that Democrats lost the House in the 1994 midterm elections in large part because President Bill Clinton proposed but failed to get passed a “B.T.U. tax” on fuels that would have raised energy costs.
A 2013 Congressional Budget Office analysis found that a carbon tax half as big as the one Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. Schatz propose would raise gasoline prices by 20 cents a gallon and electricity bills by 16 percent on average. Coal-heavy states would see even steeper price increases.
The idea that a national tax on carbon dioxide emissions could generate billions of dollars for ailing coal communities does not seem to have won over many lawmakers. Senate Democrats who recently wrote to Republican leaders laying out their conditions for bipartisan tax reform did not mention a carbon tax.
But supporters note that if the White House hopes to cut tax rates without raising the deficit, it will need to find new, taxable economic activity. So optimistic are Mr. Whitehouse and Mr. Schatz about winning bipartisan support that they unveiled their bill at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. (A representative was quick to note, though, that hosting the carbon tax debate was not an endorsement of the policy.)
Mr. Whitehouse insisted the Republican votes are there. They are just, for now, hiding, he said.
“There are Republicans willing to work with us, and not just a few,” he said. “They just need the prospect of safe passage through the political kill zone.”
Republican lawmakers, for their part, range from outright opposed to skeptical. Representative Mark Meadows, Republican of North Carolina, who leads the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said he did not support a carbon tax. Democrats have been pitching his office, however, and Mr. Meadows said one of his aides believed the idea has merit.
Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, was circumspect about a carbon tax. Congress, she noted, is an unpredictable place.
“I haven’t heard anybody within the administration taking point on this, so my sense would be no. But things happen around here,” she said. Ms. Murkowski once considered the idea of a carbon tax but in 2015 voted to prohibit a federal fee on emissions.
After the Senate’s failure to pass health care legislation, pundits note that both Congress and Mr. Trump need a win.
“I won’t say it’s likely, but it’s more likely than it has been in some time,” said Eli Lehrer, president of the R Street Institute, a conservative think tank that supports a carbon tax. “And if the stars align perfectly, I could see a carbon tax happening.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/climate/carbon-tax-reform-climate-change.html?_r=0
-
EPA Extends Comment Period on Repeal Bid
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Ariel Wittenberg
U.S. EPA is giving the public more time to weigh in on its proposed repeal of the Obama-era rule that defines which wetlands and small waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act.
The comment period for repeal of the Clean Water Rule, also known as Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), was set to end Aug. 27. It's now been extended by another 30 days to Sept. 27.
"EPA and the Army are extending the comment period by 30 days for the proposed first step of the review of the definition of 'Waters of the U.S.' to provide additional time for stakeholders to weigh in," EPA said in a statement.
Finalized by the Obama administration in 2015, WOTUS immediately drew fire from members of the agriculture, development and energy industries who said it amounted to government overreach.
Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists had pressed EPA to give stakeholders more time to review and comment on the proposal.
In June, more than 70 lawmakers, led by Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) asked EPA to allow people at least 120 days to comment on the proposal (E&E Daily, June 30).
With the extension, the proposed WOTUS repeal will have been posted in the Federal Registerfor 60 days. EPA released a pre-publication version of the proposed rule on its website in June, 30 days before the actual proposal was posted in the Federal Register (E&E News PM, June 27).
The length of the comment period on the proposed repeal may not be as important if House Republican appropriators have their way. Multiple spending bills advanced by the Appropriations Committee this summer include a rider that would allow EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to repeal WOTUS without needing to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (E&E Daily, June 29).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/08/17/stories/1060058891
-
Climate Advisory Group Died Quietly
Aug 17, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Soraghan
An Oklahoma jury has awarded $220,000 to a company that says hydraulic fracturing of a horizontal oil well damaged its conventional oil well.
Advocates for vertical well owners called the verdict against Devon Energy Corp. a significant victory in the bitter fight between small producers and large independents in the state.
"This might just open the floodgates of justice for producers who have lost wells to horizontal fracking," said Mike Cantrell, legislative director and board member of the small producers' group, called the Oklahoma Energy Producers Alliance.
Small companies operating vertical wells have filed numerous lawsuits in Oklahoma against larger independent producers that drill long horizontal wells nearby. The small companies say their wells have been damaged by the high-pressure fracture treatments performed on the horizontal wells. The fight has also spilled into the state Legislature.
Devon, based in Oklahoma City, declined comment on the verdict, first reported by OK Energy Today.
The jury sided with H&S Equipment Inc. of Oklahoma City on private nuisance and "subsurface trespass" claims but with Devon on claims of negligence. H&S had said it suffered $2.5 million in damage for the profits it would have made from the damaged well and the costs of plugging the well and drilling a new one.
H&S had a conventional vertical well in Blaine County, Okla., that had been producing oil since 1981. In August 2015, Felix Energy of Denver fracked a well nearby. Devon bought Felix assets in the area in a deal announced in 2015.
In fracturing, water, sand and chemicals are pumped at high pressure into a well to crack open rock and release oil and gas. H&S alleges the frack fluid shot past the area where Felix was to produce and toward the H&S production area.
The day after, the frack fluid started erupting from the well into the air, H&S alleged, as a result of what's called a "frack hit."
The frack hit caused serious damage, H&S claimed in the suit, "ruining the well and rendering it incapable of producing oil and gas." H&S alleged that Felix had fracked "recklessly."
Devon attorneys argued that Felix had "fully complied" with the rules of the state oil and gas regulators at the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.
They also argued that Felix had not been reckless.
"If a 'frack hit' occurred, it was at most inadvertent, and Felix's engineers did not consciously disregard the risk," Devon attorneys wrote in a motion, saying fracking fissures are hard to control.
They cited a previous ruling that the cracks created by fracking are "of immeasurable length and uncontrollable direction."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/08/17/stories/1060058877
Industry and Association News - There are no clips to report at this time.
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested