Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 10/5/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemours Wins 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 5, 2017 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Staff
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry of the American Chemistry Council named Chemours' Opteon 1100 as the recipient of the 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award. -
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Unveil $150 Million Investment Fund to Fight Plastic Ocean Pollution
Oct 5, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The environmental group Ocean Conservancy and the plastics and consumer products industries unveiled plans Oct. 4 for a $150 million investment fund to target plastic marine litter in Southeast Asia, one of the world's hotspots for such pollution. -
(ACC Mentioned) Ocean Conservancy Announces $150M Marine Plastic Initiative Run by Closed Loop Partners
Oct 5, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cody Boteler
At the Our Ocean conference in Malta, the Ocean Conservancy, joined by the Trash Free Seas Alliance, Closed Loop Partners, PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the American Chemistry Council, and the World Plastics Council announced a funding plan to help prevent the flow of plastic waste into the ocean. -
EPA Promulgates Final SNUR for Bimodal Mixture Consisting of MWCNTs and Other Classes of CNTs
Oct 5, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On October 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and other classes of carbon nanotubes (CNT), which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-11-482. -
Democrats Attack Dourson's Chemical Industry Ties at EPA Nomination Hearing
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Democrats have attacked toxicologist Michael Dourson's work for chemical industry clients with emotion and vitriol, at a 4 October hearing on his nomination to lead the US EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. -
Chemical Safety Nominee Faces Tough Questioning By Democrats
Oct 5, 2017 | Chem Info
By Jeff Horwitz
President Donald Trump's nominee to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency promised Wednesday to apply sound science in his new job and defended his history on behalf of corporate clients of endorsing far higher exposures to toxins than the government now allows. -
San Francisco Moves to Protect Children from Flame Retardant Chemicals
Oct 5, 2017 | EWG
By Tasha Stoiber
San Francisco could soon become the first U.S. city to prohibit chemical flame retardants in all new upholstered furniture and children’s products sold in the city, including online sales. -
Washington State Requires Reporting of 20 Additional Chemicals in Children's Products
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The Washington Department of Ecology has added 20 chemicals and deleted three others from the list of substances reportable under the state's Children's Safe Products Reporting Rule. -
Call it the 'Walmart Effect:' Large Retailers Step in as EPA Tries to Roll Back Chemical Safety
Oct 5, 2017 | Forbes
By Elizabeth Sturken
Just as the Trump administration tries to hollow out a new law that protects consumers from toxic chemicals, some unexpected champions of safer products are stepping up to the plate and leading the charge: retailers. -
Echa Assesses Impact of REACH and CLP on Sustainability Strategies
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A study commissioned by Echa has found that legislation like REACH and CLP has only an indirect link to businesses' sustainability strategies. -
European Automotive Group Develops List of Absent SVHC ‘Unique Identifiers’
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The European Automotive Industries Association (Acea) has developed a list of unique substance identifiers missing from the REACH candidate list. -
Trump's Repeal is Coming. Industry is Watching the Clock
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Industry has a message for U.S. EPA as it prepares to scale back the Clean Power Plan: Do it right, and do it quickly. -
US Shale Gas Casts a Long Shadow Over Petrochemicals
Oct 5, 2017 | Platts Blog
By Shashank Shekhar
Middle Eastern petrochemical companies are known for their lavish hospitality, but at a cocktail party organized by a major Saudi company in Berlin recently, the atmosphere was quite somber. A conversation with one of the hosts on the impact of shale gas went some way to explaining this. -
Winter Forecast Shows Perfect Storm for Fuel Demand
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Colder weather, utility fuel switching, exports and growing industrial demand will come together to push natural gas demand to record levels this winter, but strong production and high storage levels are expected to keep pace with demand and hold prices steady, according to an industry forecast. -
Nixed Court Date Clouds Fate of LNG Export Challenges
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges will not hear oral arguments over whether the Department of Energy failed to fully consider climate impacts from liquefied natural gas exports. -
Court Restores BLM Methane Reg in 'Stinging Rebuke' to Trump
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court last night rebuffed the Trump administration for unlawfully delaying an Obama-era rule to restrict methane emissions from the oil and gas industry. -
How Utilities Can Enter the Energy-Saving Business This Energy Efficiency Day
Oct 5, 2017 | EDF - Energy Exchange Blog
By Kate Zerrenner
Today is Energy Efficiency Day in the U.S. As someone who’s advocated for energy efficiency for nearly a decade, I’m glad to see the resource celebrated. Efficiency, from LED lightbulbs to insulation, is the most critical energy resource we have – energy we don’t use is our cleanest and cheapest option. -
US Agencies Weighing Greater GHS Harmonisation
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA are both studying regulatory amendments to better align US rules with the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) and Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS 2015), officials said at a recent Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC) conference. -
National Academies Study on Rail ECP Brake Efficacy Inconclusive
Oct 5, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
A National Academies committee tasked with reviewing DOT-conducted train brake testing could not conclude whether an advanced system that regulators have required for unit trains carrying hazardous materials like oil performs better in emergencies compared to others, according to a report released today. -
House Rail Subcommittee Hears from Industry Stakeholders
Oct 5, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials yesterday held a hearing to gather stakeholders' perspectives on what's needed to improve the nation's rail infrastructure. -
New Ozone Pollution Rules Take Effect Over Objections From Trump's Team
Oct 1, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ken Silverstein
New ozone pollution rules are taking effect today that are aimed at reducing medical costs and saving lives. But those regulations are the same ones that the Trump administration had wanted to rewrite and to delay.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemours Wins 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 5, 2017 | Rubber & Plastics News
By Staff
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry of the American Chemistry Council named Chemours' Opteon 1100 as the recipient of the 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award.
Opteon 1100 is a hydrofluoroolefin blowing agent that addresses polyurethane industry needs, including formulation stability and flexibility with existing components, materials capability, and long-term insulation performance, according to a ACC release.
This year's Polyurethane Innovation Award finalists also included BASF's Irgastab PUR 70, an amine-free, aromatic solvents-free, anti-scorch system for Polyol and PUR foams, and Covestro's PUReWall, a spray polyurethane foam formulation that allows for residential wall panel production.
"Opteon 1100 is an excellent example of true innovation that will take the PU industry to new heights—innovation for our customers and innovation for the world, keeping us warmer in the winter and allowing us to choose solutions that are better for our environment," Joyce Wallace, North American marketing manager for Chemours, said in a statement.
Chemours' winning entry was announced during the closing session of the 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference in New Orleans, La. The conference also featured 14 technical sessions, 18 posters and 73 exhibitors, as well as a professional development program.
http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20171005/NEWS/171009972/chemours-wins-2017-polyurethane-innovation-award
-
(ACC Mentioned) Groups Unveil $150 Million Investment Fund to Fight Plastic Ocean Pollution
Oct 5, 2017 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
The environmental group Ocean Conservancy and the plastics and consumer products industries unveiled plans Oct. 4 for a $150 million investment fund to target plastic marine litter in Southeast Asia, one of the world's hotspots for such pollution.
The Asian fund aims to replicate what the social investment group Closed Loop Partners has done in North America, where it raised $100 million from retailers and brand owners to help finance recycling operations.
Under this new initiative, announced at the Our Ocean 2017 conference in Malta, CLP will set up a similar fund for Southeast Asia.
The effort is targeting Southeast Asia because they say half of the estimated 8 million metric tons of plastics waste that flows into the oceans each year comes from Asia, particularly from Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand, countries with long coastlines and less-developed waste collection.
"Our research has found that by improving waste management in Southeast Asian countries, we can cut the flow of plastic going in the ocean by half by 2025," said Susan Ruffo, managing director of international initiatives at the Washington-based Ocean Conservancy.
Ruffo said it's a long-term project, with the groups hoping to have the investment fund fully operational in three to five years. She said she could not make announcements now about where the $150 million would come from.
Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, said plastics materials companies are evaluating contributing to that $150 million.
ACC and the World Plastics Council have already contributed money, along with other groups, to fully fund the initial start-up phase for the Closed Loop Partners work in Southeast Asia, he said. PepsiCo, 3M and Procter & Gamble also are part of the Asia project.
Russell said the plastics industry sees potential in applying that Closed Loop model in Southeast Asia to build collection, sortation and reprocessing capabilities for handling plastic waste.
"The reason we are so excited about this is that it takes a model that is working, a catalytic investment fund, and adds it to the menu of solutions in the region," he said.
Both he and Ruffo said the fund would seek to leverage its $150 million to attract other sources of investment.
"That $150 million will be leveraged four to one, five to one, six to one," Ruffo said. "That is traditionally how they work."
Ruffo said the new fund wants to demonstrate the financial viability of recycling projects in the region.
"If we can show these are bankable projects, we can attract other capital," she said. "It's a pretty new area in terms of creating viable investment projects, as opposed to grant projects."
Russell said $150 million in financing is not a lot of money in comparison to the scope of the problem in Southeast Asia, but participants want to show recycling as a solid investment.
He said the plastics industry has carefully studied what the fund wants to do, and likes what it has seen.
"There won't be a single silver bullet but this proposal met all their criteria," he said, including transparency, participation by multiple sectors and a CLP model that has worked in North America.
There are waste and recycling initiatives ongoing in Southeast Asia that warrant more support, he said.
"There are all sorts of really creative things happening," he said. "The challenge is scale."
The fund hopes to share initial results of its work in the next year and begin to attract investors.
"Through this initiative, we will invest in and support the municipalities, entrepreneurs, investors and NGOs working to reduce ocean plastics and improve waste management in Southeast Asia," said Rob Kaplan, managing director of Closed Loop Partners.
Several large plastics companies and groups, including DowDuPont, Amcor Ltd., Dart Container and ACC, are part of the Ocean Conservancy's Trash Free Seas Alliance.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20171004/NEWS/171009950/groups-unveil-150-million-investment-fund-to-fight-plastic-ocean-pollution
-
Oct 5, 2017 | Waste Dive
By Cody Boteler
Dive Brief:
At the Our Ocean conference in Malta, the Ocean Conservancy, joined by the Trash Free Seas Alliance, Closed Loop Partners, PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the American Chemistry Council, and the World Plastics Council announced a funding plan to help prevent the flow of plastic waste into the ocean.
The funding initiative will focus on waste management and recycling solutions in Southeast Asia. According to Susan Ruffo, managing director of international initiatives for the Ocean Conservancy, improving waste management practices in the region could "cut the flow of plastic going in the ocean by half by 2025."
Closed Loop Partners, which has so far invested in domestic projects, will operate the new funding mechanism. During a recent interview with Waste Dive, the organization's chief investment and financial officer said marine debris is a main focus and the goal is to be "instrumental in stemming that tide."
Dive Insight:
There is enough plastic on the globe for every person alive to have more than 1 metric ton to themselves — and most of that material comes from virgin sources. Due to a myriad of reasons, including high contamination rates, poor waste management practices and the sheer demand for plastic goods, plastic can get lost from the waste stream and become pollution that often finds its way into the ocean. Since nearly half of all marine plastic is believed to enter the ocean from a small number of Southeast Asian countries, it makes strategic and practical sense that this partnership is targeting the region.
Marine debris is a hot topic in the waste industry, especially outside of the U.S. One of the International Solid Waste Association's (ISWA) focuses at the World Congress/WASTECON 2017 in Baltimore was reducing marine litter and closing the loop on waste. ISWA just put out a report on marine litter, saying that the global community is now "at a critical moment in history" when it comes to dealing with marine litter and other environmental issues. This has spurred a wave of policies on plastic packaging and even led some countries to establish harsh punishments for violations.
The issue is also seen as a top priority by environmental advocates and some industry groups in the U.S. due to many domestic signs of marine pollution. For example, tens of millions of pounds of plastic debris enter the Great Lakeseach year. A growing number of cleanup efforts, corporate sponsorships and local ordinances have all been created in an effort mitigate the problem. However, none may be as useful as finding ways to make it more profitable to recycle and extract value from plastic rather than toss it in favor of virgin material.
http://www.wastedive.com/news/ocean-conservancy-announces-150m-marine-plastic-initiative-run-by-closed-l/506499/
-
EPA Promulgates Final SNUR for Bimodal Mixture Consisting of MWCNTs and Other Classes of CNTs
Oct 5, 2017 | National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
On October 3, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final significant new use rule (SNUR) under Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for the chemical substance identified generically as bimodal mixture consisting of multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) and other classes of carbon nanotubes (CNT), which was the subject of premanufacture notice (PMN) P-11-482. This action requires persons who intend to manufacture (defined by statute to include import) or process the chemical substance for a use that is designated as a significant new use by this final rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity. Manufacture and processing for the significant new use is unable to commence until EPA has conducted a review of the notice, made an appropriate determination on the notice, and taken such actions as are required with that determination. According to the June 8, 2017, proposed SNUR, the generic use of the PMN substance will be as a specialty additive. Based on test data on analogous respirable, poorly soluble particulates and nanocarbon materials, EPA identified concerns for pulmonary toxicity and oncogenicity. Based on test data for other nanocarbon materials, EPA identified concerns for environmental toxicity. Under the SNUR, significant new uses are:
Protection in the workplace: Requirements as specified in 40 C.F.R. Section 721.63(a)(1), (a)(2)(i), (a)(2)(ii), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6) (particulate), and (c). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to be exposed as required for Section 721.63(a)(1) and (a)(4), engineering control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation, general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures (e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and implemented to prevent exposure, where feasible. A National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified air purifying, tight-fitting full-face respirator equipped with N-100, P-100, or R-100 cartridges, or power air purifying particulate respirator with an Assigned Protection Factor (APF) of at least 50 meets the requirements of Section 721.63(a)(4);
Industrial, commercial, and consumer activities: Requirements as specified in Section 721.80(k) and (q). A significant new use is any use involving an application method that generates a vapor, mist, or aerosol;
Disposal: Requirements as specified in Section 721.85(a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(2), (c)(1), and (c)(2); and
Release to water: Requirements as specified in Section 721.90(b)(1) and (c)(1). Any predictable or purposeful release of a manufacturing stream associated with any use of the substance from any site is a significant new use other than the water releases described in the manufacturing process of PMN P-11-482.
This final rule is effective November 2, 2017.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/epa-promulgates-final-snur-bimodal-mixture-consisting-mwcnts-and-other-classes-cnts
-
Democrats Attack Dourson's Chemical Industry Ties at EPA Nomination Hearing
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
Democrats have attacked toxicologist Michael Dourson's work for chemical industry clients with emotion and vitriol, at a 4 October hearing on his nomination to lead the US EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
"You have been the defendants' chemical lawyer who now becomes the judge over the bogus science you have been propounding," said Senator Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts). "You are not just an outlier, you are outrageous in how far from the mainstream of chemistry you really are."
Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey) called Dr Dourson a "corporate lackey", pointing dramatically to the visitor seats opponents had filled with people affected by exposure to chemicals the nominee had worked on during his career. "These people behind you view your nomination with trepidation and fear."
However, Senator John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, quoted toxicology professionals who described Dr Dourson as "highly qualified" and "a leader in the field of risk assessment".
Once the committee approves the nomination, which it is expected to do on a party-line vote, Democrats would have to persuade three Republicans to vote against Dr Dourson on the Senate floor to block confirmation.
After he left an EPA staff position in 1994, Dr Dourson began a non-profit consulting firm, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera). The consultancy became the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati, in Ohio, where he is a professor.
Environmental groups have campaigned against his nomination, since it was announced in July.
Recusal demanded
Democrats repeatedly asked Dr Dourson to recuse himself from EPA determinations on specific chemicals he had been paid to review, and from work on flame retardants. He held a position on the North American Flame Retardant Association (Nafra) advisory board until June. Dr Dourson said he would rely on guidance from EPA ethics officials.
Dr Dourson mostly avoided defending specific studies or taking a position on appropriate exposure levels, as Democrats asked about dioxane, trichloroethylene (TCE), perchlorate and the pesticide chlorpyrifos, among others.
"I have been objective in my work and applied sound science to come to my conclusions," he said.
And when Democrats asked for commitments that he would not seek to weaken EPA standards for dioxane, TCE and other chemicals, Dr Dourson said: "We'll bring the best science forward. We'll be transparent. We will be collaborative. I commit to that."
https://chemicalwatch.com/59759/democrats-attack-doursons-chemical-industry-ties-at-epa-nomination-hearing
-
Chemical Safety Nominee Faces Tough Questioning By Democrats
Oct 5, 2017 | Chem Info
By Jeff Horwitz
President Donald Trump's nominee to oversee chemical safety at the Environmental Protection Agency promised Wednesday to apply sound science in his new job and defended his history on behalf of corporate clients of endorsing far higher exposures to toxins than the government now allows.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee was widely expected to approve along party lines the nomination of Michael L. Dourson to become head of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Democrats on the committee, lacking the ability to block Dourson's confirmation, challenged Dourson with open scorn at a hearing.
"This is an absolute atrocity," Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., said, "You're advocating for levels that will poison people." Booker likened Dourson to a Disney villain.
Dourson largely did not respond to criticisms by Democrats. Asked whether he would recuse himself from decisions regarding chemicals made by companies that paid him to evaluate their safety, Dourson repeatedly declined to make such a pledge.
"I'm going to rely on guidance from EPA ethics officials," Dourson said, adding that he has not always reached conclusions favorable to his paying clients.
"I just don't understand why you don't recuse yourself" from matters involving former clients, Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., said. He pointed to 10 examples where Dourson endorsed chemical exposures far higher than the EPA ultimately concluded was safe.
Dourson's work at the Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment — a nonprofit that performs research bankrolled by chemical companies and government agencies — has drawn fire from environmental and public health organizations. His past clients include Dow Chemical Co., Koch Industries Inc. and Chevron Corp, as well as trade associations representing the pesticide, processed food and cigarette industries.
Republicans on the Senate panel questioned Dourson about his philosophical approach and asked how he might deal with what they viewed as the Obama administration's overreach on environmental regulation. All seemed generally satisfied with his answers.
Among the hearing's most dramatic moments came from Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who represents Hoosick Falls in upstate New York, where groundwater is polluted with the chemical PFOA. In 2001, Dourson helped oversee industry-funded research that concluded PFOA exposures of less than 150 parts per billion were likely safe.
Hoosick Falls residents have sickened and died from illnesses believed linked to PFOA, Gillibrand said, despite exposures far lower.
"These families are so frightened," she said, choking up as she spoke. "I can't imagine what it would be like to not know if the water your children are bathed in is safe."
The EPA itself now considers exposures to PFOA levels unsafe as low as 0.07 billion parts per billion.
Separately, Gillibrand pressed Dourson to explain recommendations from a 2002 report for West Virginia he oversaw that found levels of 2,000 times that limit were acceptable.
"The science has progressed significantly," Dourson said. He said he did not know the research was funded by DuPont, although DuPont's funding was acknowledged when the report was commissioned.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said he was comfortable with Dourson's motivations, noting that both he and Dourson have children and grandchildren.
"Despite what the critics today think," Inhofe said, "we want them to grow up in a healthy environment."
https://www.chem.info/news/2017/10/chemical-safety-nominee-faces-tough-questioning-democrats
-
San Francisco Moves to Protect Children from Flame Retardant Chemicals
Oct 5, 2017 | EWG
By Tasha Stoiber
San Francisco could soon become the first U.S. city to prohibit chemical flame retardants in all new upholstered furniture and children’s products sold in the city, including online sales.
A proposed ordinance under consideration by the Board of Supervisors would ban added flame retardants from kids’ products including play and nap mats, nursing pads, changing pads, infant seats, highchair pads and strollers. The proposal, expected to come up for a vote Oct. 17, would also require flame retardant-free foam to be used when furniture is reupholstered.
Flame retardants have been linked to cancer, endocrine disruption and developmental problems in kids. Scientists have gathered reams of evidence that these chemicals migrate out of furniture foam and end up in people’s bodies. Biomonitoring studies have found flame retardants in the bodies of Americans nationwide, and children often have higher levels than adults.
Flame retardants have been intentionally added to foam products for more than 40 years. In 2013, California concluded that adding flame retardants to furniture was not actually making products safer, resulting in enacting a major overhaul of the state’s fire retardant rules.
Children especially at risk
During critical stages of development, children are especially vulnerable to the health hazards of flame retardants. In 2013, a study by University of California at Berkeley researchers showed that prenatal and childhood exposures to one class of flame retardants, bromine-based chemicals known as PDBEs, are linked to attention, coordination and learning problems. A 2017 study led by researchers at the University of California at San Francisco found that exposure to PBDEs was associated with lowered IQ in children.
EWG researchers have found high levels of PBDEs and other flame retardants in utero, in mothers’ milk, and in 3-to-5 year olds’ bodies. In a 2008 study of 20 families in 11 states, we found that children’s PBDE levels were three times higher than those of their mothers.
In 2016, a joint study by EWG and Duke University researchers demonstrated that California children had average levels of a flame retardant in their bodies that were 15 times higher than those of their mothers, as well as higher than those of children in New Jersey.
Consumers turning to flame retardant-free products
Concerned about health effects, consumers are causing a market shift away from added flame retardants. Although many major manufactures have phased out the use of flame retardants in their products, recent monitoring by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission found that harmful bromine- and chlorine-containing flame retardants are still found in more than one-fifth of children’s products.
The San Francisco Department of Environment has been working with retailers in the city to educate them on the new law and has been encouraging sales of flame-retardant free furniture. Over 50 retailers in the city currently sell flame retardant-free furniture.
In July, Maine passed a similar law banning the sale of furniture containing flame retardants beginning in 2019. San Francisco’s ordinance would extend this ban by including a broad range of children’s products that contain foam ingredients, such as bassinets, booster seats, changing pads, floor play mats and nap mats, nursing pads and pillows, and many other products. Rhode Island recently passed a ban on organohalogenflame retardants in bedding and furniture that will also take effect in 2019.
EWG continues to push for strong federal action action on flame retardants. EWG has called on the Consumer Product Safety Commission to get flame retardants out of products sold in stores nationwide.
If you live in places where state and local governments have not yet taken action to protect citizens from flame retardants, check out this EWG infographic to learn more about how to avoid these chemicals in consumer products.
http://www.ewg.org/enviroblog/2017/10/san-francisco-moves-protect-children-flame-retardant-chemicals#.WdZg4_mPK-s
-
Washington State Requires Reporting of 20 Additional Chemicals in Children's Products
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The Washington Department of Ecology has added 20 chemicals and deleted three others from the list of substances reportable under the state's Children's Safe Products Reporting Rule.
The department's final decision, published on 29 September, significantly expands the Chemicals of High Concern for Children (CHCC) list, which had contained 66 substances. Manufacturers must report the use of the substances in children's products, including toys, personal care products, and clothing.
The additions include 13 flame retardants, four phthalates, and two chemicals – bisphenol S and bisphenol F – often used as a replacement in hard plastic for bisphenol A (BPA), which the state bannedfrom baby bottles, sippy cups, and sports bottles in 2010.
Three substances were removed from the list because the agency decided they do not meet the statutory criteria.
Substances added to the CHCC list include:
bisphenol S (BPS);
dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP);
diisobutyl phthalate (DIBP);
triphenyl phosphate (TPP);
di(2-methoxyethyl) phthalate (DMEP);
tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (TDBPP);
tri-n-butyl phosphate (TNBP);
dipentyl phthalate (DPP);
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA);
bisphenol F (BPF);
ethylhexyl diphenyl phosphate (EHDPP);
tricresyl phosphate (TCP);
tris (2chloroisopropyl) phosphate (TCPP);
nonylphenol 4-nonylphenol (branched);
bis (2-ethylhexyl) 2,3,4,5-tetra bromophthalate (TPBH);
bis(chloromethyl)propane-1,3-diyl tetrakis-(2-chloroethyl) bis(phosphate);
isopropylated triphenyl phosphate (IPTPP);
decabromodiphenyl ethane (DBDPE);
short-chain chlorinated paraffins; and
2-ethylhexyl-2,3,4,5-tetrabromobenzoate (TBB)
Substances removed from the list are:
phthalic anhydride;
octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); and
molybdenum.
The state published its initial proposal in March, following a stakeholder consultation that began in August 2016. Several dozen substances were considered for removal or addition during the process. The department received input from 13 organisations and 249 individuals during the comment period that ended on 12 May.
After considering the comments, the state agency:
agreed to add DMEP to the CHCC list but refused NGOs' request to add the phthalates DIPP and DIOP, concluding that they had not produced sufficient evidence of potential exposure;
found that a request to add chemicals that degrade into PFOA is "outside the scope of this rulemaking," but amended the listing for PFOA to add the phrase "and related chemicals";
refused to keep D4 on the CHCC list because "mixed results" on reproductive toxicity were insufficient;
refused an NGO request to add dechlorane plus because "available toxicity data are limited" and inconclusive; and
removed the flame retardants tris(4-tertbutyl phenyl) phosphate and butylated triphenyl phosphate from consideration after industry representatives offered additional evidence regarding toxicity and indicating that they are used only in mixtures that are already listed.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59772/washington-state-requires-reporting-of-20-additional-chemicals-in-childrens-products
-
Call it the 'Walmart Effect:' Large Retailers Step in as EPA Tries to Roll Back Chemical Safety
Oct 5, 2017 | Forbes
By Elizabeth Sturken
Just as the Trump administration tries to hollow out a new law that protects consumers from toxic chemicals, some unexpected champions of safer products are stepping up to the plate and leading the charge: retailers.
Last week, Walmart released an ambitious update to its 2013 chemicals policy. Two other retail giants – Target and CVS – are among a growing number of companies that are now taking steps to scale up chemical safety. By leading the way, these corporations are showing, with tangible and measurable actions, that their consumers demand safe and healthy products.
Toxic-free consumer products, in other words, are good for business.
Walmart: 55 million pounds of chemicals will be cut from products
At EDF, we worked with the world’s largest retailer to roll out the first chemical safety policy in 2013 that covers almost 90,000 products in beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning sold at its stores.
This policy has now been broadened to include a 10-percent weight reduction by 2022 of all chemicals of concern the company has identified in its product categories. This new target is equivalent to 55 million pounds.
To better understand the impact of this commitment, remember that Walmart owns 5,352 stores in the United States and 700 global suppliers produce the products under evaluation.
Over the course of our ten year partnership with Walmart, we have witnessed both growing consumer demand for healthier products and action from the retailer to earn consumer trust. “We know our customers are interested in what goes into products and how they are made. It’s important for them, and we are advocating for them by encouraging innovation and transparency into that process,” Zach Freeze, Walmart’s sustainability lead, saidafter his team worked with us over the past year to develop the new goals.
The company will continue to publicly report out progress on an annual basis to show that the improvements it promises consumers are, in fact, happening. So far we see evidence that they mean business. Their landmark achievement of a 96% reduction in their first chemicals policy earned them the #7 spot in Fortune Magazine’s 2017 companies that Change the World.
Target: New chemicals policy affects 600 stores
In January, Target announced a new chemicals policy that applies to all products sold in its 600-some stores and to its operations. The nation’s eighth-largest retailer for sales, Target is focusing its attention on removing perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) and flame retardants from apparel by 2022. PFCs persist in our bodies and the environment, and have been linked to developmental changes, liver toxicity, and lower sperm count. Certain flame retardants have been linked to everything from neurodevelopmental disorders to cancer and reduced fertility.
It’s also targeting five classes of chemicals of concern, such as formaldehyde donors and phthalates, from formulated products in its beauty, baby care, personal care and household cleaning departments by 2020. Formaldehyde donors, which are not labeled as formaldehyde on product labels, release small amounts of formaldehyde over time – a chemical that many authoritative bodies consider a known carcinogen. Certain phthalates have been linked to asthma, reproductive disorders, and neurological effects.
To meet these goals, the company is investing $5 million into green chemistry innovation while promising to share progress with us on an annual basis.
As GreenBiz reported when Target announced its policy, we’ve reached a “tipping point” for chemical transparency.
CVS: Toxic chemicals will be removed from 600+ products
In April, CVS updated its list of chemicals restricted from use in its private label baby, beauty, personal care, and food products.
The company, today the nation’s fifth-largest retailer, will remove parabens, phthalates and formaldehyde donors by 2019 from more than 600 products – and said it will focus on additional product categories in the future.
Together, these retailers are driving change toward safer products – something all Americans want.
A growing movement
Toxic chemicals in products have negative consequences on human health, with new research each day connecting exposure to serious conditions and diseases such as ADHD, infertility, and cancer. The impact of these voluntary policies cannot replace a strong federal toxic safety law, but they demonstrate leadership and prove the business case for action.
Unsurprisingly, Best Buy recently said that it’s stepping up efforts to screen products for toxins.
Will American consumers soon have a toxic-free experience? Probably not, but we’re making progress – even in the current political climate. The actions retailers take today give us hope, regardless of what the Administration may do.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/edfenergyexchange/2017/10/05/call-it-the-walmart-effect-large-retailers-step-in-as-epa-tries-to-roll-back-chemical-safety/#39c862fc7ac1
-
Echa Assesses Impact of REACH and CLP on Sustainability Strategies
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
A study commissioned by Echa has found that legislation like REACH and CLP has only an indirect link to businesses' sustainability strategies.
However, the two pieces of legislation can also be considered to play a critical role in creating and stimulating incentives for companies to be "sustainability leaders rather than laggards", the study says.
Nineteen companies participated in discussions with the agency for the study. Overall the message was that sustainability is of increasing importance, but market demands and investors have a more direct impact on the development of such strategies.
Chemicals management is considered very important and can form a baseline for sustainability activity, the study says. Yet for those companies that are solely focused on continuing to be compliant with all relevant regulation, "sustainability is not a focus".
However, the candidate list of SVHCs is a major driver of innovation and substitution to less hazardous substances. In particular, it impacts market demand and is being used as a measure for investors to benchmark a company's sustainability performance, the study says.
It makes a series of recommendations. One recommendation is that the agency should encouraging companies to integrate good chemicals management into their corporate sustainable strategies, for example by working with industry to develop reporting tools and benchmarks.
Echa said it will soon discuss the findings with industry, NGOs and other stakeholders.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59751/echa-assesses-impact-of-reach-and-clp-on-sustainability-strategies
-
European Automotive Group Develops List of Absent SVHC ‘Unique Identifiers’
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The European Automotive Industries Association (Acea) has developed a list of unique substance identifiers missing from the REACH candidate list.
Acea says that there is a growing number of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) entering the REACH candidate list without these, such as a Chemical Abstract Service (Cas) or European Community (EC) number. This, it says, is making it difficult for the automotive industry to meet its communication and notification obligations, such as those under Article 33 (see box).
Candidate list entries without unique identifiers have come under group entries, where more than one substance is covered. Acea’s list contains 385 substances with Cas numbers for the 171 candidate list entries.
Project lead Stefan Riewer, head of chemical analysis at Ford Europe, told Chemical Watch that "depending on the chain length, a number of chemicals could fall under a category of candidate list substances."
"Echa says that candidate list entries are not exhaustive for Article 33 communication, therefore there is no legal certainty that if we were to only focus on those Cas numbers on the list, it could be that others are also in scope," he adds.
Speaking on behalf of Acea, Timo Unger, Hyundai’s environmental affairs manager, says that "this is an uncomfortable situation for many sectors because most only search for Cas numbers that are officially on Echa’s candidate list."
Keeping track of substances on the list is a challenge by itself, says Mr Unger, but now "companies are being told that they have to be aware of substances that come under scope but aren’t on the list."
Acea's list is made available on its website and the trade body is encouraging others to add to it "as it is non-exhaustive". It plans to offer the list to Echa for official use.
Numerical identifiers 'not mandatory'
In a statement to Chemical Watch, Echa says it fully understands why the use of unique identifiers in the candidate list would be beneficial.
The agency, it continues, makes every effort to ensure that the information it provides on the substance group is sufficiently clear. It does this to "enable users of chemicals to determine whether their substance falls within the definition of that group".
"Echa would like to highlight that numerical identifiers are not mandatory for the identification of substances under REACH and that they need only be provided if they are available or appropriate."
It is important to note, the statement says, that substances without a Cas and EC number covered by these candidate list entries can "exhibit the same property/properties, hence the same concern exists".
It added that if Acea offers this list for official Echa use, any new numbers proposed to be associated with particular entries "would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis".
Acea raised this issue in 2011 and two years later, the trade body wrote to Echa calling for all chemicals listed as SVHCs or nanomaterials under REACH to be given unique substance identifiers.
REACH Article 33
Article 33 of REACH requires manufacturers to respond to a consumer’s request for information on whether a product contains any SVHCs above a concentration of 0.1%. They must provide the information free of charge and within 45 days.
https://chemicalwatch.com/59761/european-automotive-group-develops-list-of-absent-svhc-unique-identifiers
-
Trump's Repeal is Coming. Industry is Watching the Clock
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Zack Colman
Industry has a message for U.S. EPA as it prepares to scale back the Clean Power Plan: Do it right, and do it quickly.
But there are competing ideas about what that means. And some question whether taking time to sort things out could mean the Trump administration effectively punts the issue to the next president.
EPA will soon issue a notice that it's repealing President Obama's signature domestic climate policy, while simultaneously asking for comments about how to replace it. An eventual proposal is expected to leave some sort of regulation of power plants' carbon dioxide emissions in place.
There's always tension between constructing legally sound regulations and getting rules out quickly. The move to take comments — by putting out what's known as an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking — underscores that dynamic and has split industry. While most industry officials E&E News consulted said they were fine with the step, some lamented that it adds time to a process that they've already described as slow and sluggish.
"It just takes a lot of time to do regulatory action, and at this point, if you're already not moving quickly ... and if it's just one term, you are running out of time," a utility industry official said.
An advanced notice isn't required by law, though it's seen as a way to demonstrate a good-faith effort to consult diverse interests before writing a rule. To the strategy's supporters, that could shield EPA from quickly ending up in court.
"If you just punched out a piece of the old rule, somebody would have come in and said that's problematic," a litigator familiar with the Clean Power Plan said. Some observers speculate that the administration's preferred course of action is to set new efficiency standards for power plants — which is one part of the broader Obama-era rule.
Some industry officials are concerned the lengthier process may mean the Trump administration, if it lasts just one term, won't be able to defend its rule if it ends up in court. A Democratic successor could potentially wipe away the proposal and then work on a stricter rule.
Adding to that, some question whether EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt genuinely wants to construct a replacement rule. It's possible the EPA chief won't push to complete an alternative rule in a timely manner, leaving electric utilities trying to plan investments in the lurch.
"It's an open question now how much of a priority a proposed rule is and how quickly it can be done," the utility industry official said. "That's a fair question right now, and that's obviously a question for us. And I'm sure some folks would like it to be done more quickly."
Janet McCabe, who led EPA's air office under the Obama administration, said in her experience, industry wants certainty from the agency.
"I don't think this is good for business to have such a whipsaw in terms of backtracking or retracting recently adopted policies," she said. "We worked very, very closely with industry on all of our rules."
She noted that by starting with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking and soliciting broad comments, the Trump administration is adding an extra step to an "already lengthy" rulemaking process. The extra step "is a way legitimately to solicit a wide range of views," but "I don't know that anybody would feel like this extra opportunity to comment would likely be very successful in any sort of a dramatic change in the policy direction that has been articulated pretty explicitly" by the Trump administration.
The Obama administration spent more than two years on the Clean Power Plan. Obama directed EPA to start the rules in June 2013; the agency issued a proposed rule in June 2014 and a final rule in August 2015.
Lawsuits can add delays, too. Even if Trump finalizes a replacement rule, McCabe added, it's "likely to draw legal challenges."
Trump coal ally wants 'full repeal'
Some of Trump's most vocal allies in the energy sector are also on the opposite side of industries calling for a replacement rule.
"Our position has always been we want a full repeal," said Gary Broadbent, a spokesman with Murray Energy Corp. "And if they decide to replace it with something, we will review that."
Murray Energy CEO Bob Murray, a close ally of Trump, appeared at EPA in March when Trump signed an executive order directing the agency to review the Clean Power Plan.
A coal industry official said the longer the delay, the better the situation for mining companies. Still, uncertainty could affect utility customers' investment plans, resulting in unknown outcomes for coal firms.
Manufacturers, especially those in energy-intensive industries that must budget for power price swings, are looking for a clearer picture on the regulatory front, said Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and natural resources policy with the National Association of Manufacturers. He called the move to go with an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking "a bit of a surprise," but was supportive of getting some sort of federal climate change regulation on the books.
"This isn't the only climate policy being debated," he said, referring to state and regional climate efforts, as well. "This all kind of plays together, and depending on where you are at the country, at the end of the day — just like every thorny issue — manufacturers just want to know what the rules of the road are."
Utilities aren't waiting around
Regardless of the rule, utilities are making investments that are reducing power plant emissions, the utility industry official noted. That activity is likely to continue, the official said, noting that many power companies aren't waiting for the administration.
Heath Knakmuhs, senior director for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Energy Institute, noted utilities already are making investments on 20-year time horizons. He said he wasn't concerned about snags in the rulemaking process so long as the Obama version — which called for a 32 percent power-sector emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2030 — disappeared.
The important thing for utilities, Knakmuhs said, is that there's discernible movement toward some rule — even if some of the president's allies in the coal industry object.
"I'm aware that there are a diversity of views on what should occur, but I know that the overwhelming ... balance of our membership views both the uncertainty and the potential liability for always being subject to tort citizen-state suits at every power plant across the country is not a preferable option," he said.
Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co. said future carbon regulations have factored into its resource planning but that those investments aren't guided by any one policy.
"Our planning has not been based on what has been happening with the Clean Power Plan," spokeswoman Melissa McHenry said in an email, noting the utility's fuel mix has shifted from 70 percent coal in 2005 to 47 percent today, helping to reduce carbon emissions 44 percent since 2000. "It is a long-term strategy based on adding cleaner energy resources to diversify our fuel mix and for the benefit of our customers."
National Grid PLC spokeswoman Paula Haschig said in an email, "We have long supported federal regulatory initiatives, including the CPP in its original form. That said, regardless of what happens at the federal level, we remain committed to our states' ... ambitious GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction goals."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/10/05/stories/1060062681
-
US Shale Gas Casts a Long Shadow Over Petrochemicals
Oct 5, 2017 | Platts Blog
By Shashank Shekhar
Middle Eastern petrochemical companies are known for their lavish hospitality, but at a cocktail party organized by a major Saudi company in Berlin recently, the atmosphere was quite somber. A conversation with one of the hosts on the impact of shale gas went some way to explaining this.
“We are worried that the Americans will be able to sell their products [polymers] into China at prices cheaper than we can,” he fretted.
He was referring to an expected rise in imports of polymers manufactured using shale gas as a feedstock in the US, which, from the end of 2017/early 2018, is expected to hit every market into which Middle Eastern companies sell.
The Middle East has long enjoyed the status of the petrochemical-producing region with the lowest feedstock costs in the world. Even though the Saudi government hiked the price of ethane to $1.75/MMBtu, more than double its longstanding fixed price of $0.75/MMBtu at the end of 2015, it still remains the lowest-cost polymers producer in the world.
However, the advent of shale has helped US-based petrochemical companies narrow the cost gap to $20/mt of ethylene or even less. “That means, if companies in the US can negotiate their freight well, they can land their products into China at prices cheaper than us,” the Saudi host said.
Though a small volume of polymers manufactured from shale feedstock in the US is already being exported, this figure is expected to soar by December and in early 2018. About 1.7 million mt/year of new polyethylene capacity is expected to start up by end-2017.
According to data from Platts Analytics, the US will have a PE surplus of about 4.11 million mt during 2017 and this will touch 5.94 million mt in 2018. It will then rise on to 7.13 million mt in 2019 and 7.54 million mt in 2020.
This surplus is expected to put petrochemicals producers in the Middle East and Europe under pressure. While this has been a major cause for concern on the part of companies in those regions, who expect an erosion of net profits as early as the fourth quarter, it has also forced them to innovate and focus on an alternative product streams.
According to figures from the Gulf Petrochemicals and Chemicals Association, petrochemical companies in the Gulf Cooperation Council spent $700 million on research and development in 2016, up 40% from 2015 and more than double 2010’s $300 million.
The efforts are being led by Saudi Basic Industries Corp, or Sabic, which is importing ethane for its cracker in Wilton, Northeast England, besides making an investment in a shale-based project in the US and in a coal-to-olefins plant in China.
Along with Saudi Aramco, it has invested in producing crude-to-olefins petrochemicals in Saudi Arabia. All these projects have a timeline for completion by 2025.
The European industry is trying to produce more propylene, butadiene and their downstream products. C3s and C4s are valuable alternative streams to ethylene, which ethane produces in high volumes when cracked.
Some of the largest European petrochemical companies have plans to begin producing more C3 and C4 streams of products.
These include companies such as Borealis and MOL. At the end of September, Borealis moved to the front-end engineering design phase for a new, world-scale 740,000 mt/year propane dehydrogenation plant at Kallo in Belgium.
Borealis has also identified recycling polymers as a part of its strategy to compete with US companies.
These steps go beyond to those taken by companies such as Ineos, Borealis and Sabic UK to import shale ethane to produce polymers within Europe.
http://blogs.platts.com/2017/10/05/us-shale-gas-casts-long-shadow-petrochemicals/
-
Winter Forecast Shows Perfect Storm for Fuel Demand
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Jenny Mandel
Colder weather, utility fuel switching, exports and growing industrial demand will come together to push natural gas demand to record levels this winter, but strong production and high storage levels are expected to keep pace with demand and hold prices steady, according to an industry forecast.
In its annual winter outlook, the Natural Gas Supply Association predicts that supply and demand pressures will be "flat" this winter compared with last year, when natural gas at the Gulf Coast's Henry Hub averaged $3.01 per million British thermal units.
"The picture that emerged for the upcoming winter is of a natural gas market experiencing substantial growth in both demand and supply. Record demand in the residential and commercial sector is primarily driven by colder weather, with a longer-term shift to natural gas in the electric and industrial sectors driven by competitive prices and environmental benefits," Scott Moore, NGSA's chairman and a senior vice president with Anadarko Petroleum Corp., said in a statement.
NGSA's prediction rests in part on forecasts that this year will see temperatures 13 percent colder than last year's mild winter, though the forecast is for 1 percent higher temperatures than the 30-year average. Electric sector demand will account for 1.6 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) of additional demand this winter compared with last winter, the group said, as a result of both greater heating demand and utilities turning to gas-fired power over other sources.
The group pointed to industrial growth led by the petrochemical and fertilizer industries as another source of increased demand, accounting for 0.3 Bcf/d. Further increases in industrial gas use are expected over the next several years as a series of projects conceived to take advantage of cheap domestic gas supplies come online.
Natural gas exports account for another portion of the projected natural gas demand growth. Pipeline exports to Mexico are forecast to grow by 0.4 Bcf/d, while liquefied natural gas exports account for an additional 1.6 Bcf/d, more than doubling from 1.2 Bcf/d last winter to reach 2.8 Bcf/d this winter.
NGSA expects the upward demand pressure to be met with an additional 6 Bcf/d of natural gas production compared with last winter, an 8 percent increase, complemented by some drawdown of natural gas storage stocks and Canadian gas imports.
All told, NGSA expects natural gas demand to reach a record 96.8 Bcf/d this winter, up from 89.5 Bcf/d last year.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/05/stories/1060062675
-
Nixed Court Date Clouds Fate of LNG Export Challenges
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
Federal judges will not hear oral arguments over whether the Department of Energy failed to fully consider climate impacts from liquefied natural gas exports.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit yesterday announced that it would decide a trio of Sierra Club challenges to DOE export approvals based on legal briefs already on file, rather than hearing arguments that had been scheduled for Oct. 18.
The court's decision is considered an inauspicious sign for the Sierra Club, which has worked for years to block LNG exports. The group says federal regulators failed to closely consider a host of environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions associated with increased exports. The cases included in yesterday's order challenge exports from the Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana, the Cove Point terminal in Maryland and the Corpus Christi terminal in Texas.
A panel of D.C. Circuit judges decided a similar case regarding exports from Texas' Freeport LNG terminal in August, siding with DOE. Court watchers say the cancellation of arguments suggests the panel handling these cases may be poised to follow the Freeport decision.
Last year, the D.C. Circuit was weighing several lawsuits that challenged the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for its role in approving export terminals. Judges rejected challenges to FERC's approval of the Sabine Pass, Freeport and Cove Point LNG terminals. The court then decided to skip oral arguments for a remaining challenge to FERC's approval of the Corpus Christi terminal, and a month later issued a two-page decision siding with the government in that case.
ClearView Energy Partners LLC analyst Christine Tezak noted the similarities between how the court handled the FERC challenges and how it now appears to be approaching the DOE cases.
"It would appear to us that the panel scheduled to hear these three cases may believe that the underlying records are sufficiently similar to the case unanimously decided on August 15 upholding DOE's export license to Freeport LNG (FLEX) that they have what they need to make a decision," she said in an email.
Lawyers for industry backers of the LNG projects did not respond to requests for comment on the court's decision to skip arguments. They and government lawyers have repeatedly pressed D.C. Circuit judges to apply the court's Freeport analysis to the other cases.
The Sierra Club, meanwhile, has attempted to differentiate the pending projects from Freeport. Sierra Club attorney Nathan Matthews noted, for example, that DOE has detailed information about where natural gas production will take place to feed exports from the Cove Point terminal.
"It's clear that LNG exports are going to increase gas production," he said. "For Cove Point, we know where they're going to increase gas production. That's going to mean more fracking, more harmful air pollution, and Sierra Club's view is still that the Department of Energy has not explained why a project that exposes the public to more pollution and a higher energy price is in the public interest.
"There's been a lot of argument on these issues before the D.C. Circuit," he added. "But we don't have a ruling on the merits in these cases yet, so we'll see what the court ends up doing."
Environmental groups got a ray of hope just after August's Freeport defeat when a different panel of judges from the D.C. Circuit ruled that FERC failed to adequately consider indirect climate impacts from the Sabal Trail natural gas pipeline and related projects in the Southeast. The panel rejected agency arguments that closely align with DOE's defense for not looking more closely at indirect impacts from the LNG exports.
Many legal experts have speculated that the D.C. Circuit panel handling the pending LNG cases could take the approach of the Freeport decision and side with DOE, or opt for the Sabal Trail approach and side with Sierra Club.
The cases are before Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee; Senior Judge Harry Edwards, a Carter appointee; and Senior Judge David Sentelle, a Reagan appointee.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/05/stories/1060062667
-
Court Restores BLM Methane Reg in 'Stinging Rebuke' to Trump
Oct 5, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A federal court last night rebuffed the Trump administration for unlawfully delaying an Obama-era rule to restrict methane emissions from the oil and gas industry.
In a decision with immediate impacts for drillers, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the Interior Department violated federal law in June when it froze key provisions of the Bureau of Land Management's methane rule.
The court found that Interior misused a provision of the Administrative Procedure Act to justify postponing upcoming compliance deadlines. All of the regulation's provisions will now take effect as scheduled.
Separately, Interior has proposed a broader freeze of the methane rule through a public notice and comment process. That kicks off in earnest today and won't be finalized until November at the earliest (see related story). Yesterday's court decision means that oil and gas companies must scramble in the meantime to make sure they're ready to meet the next round of compliance deadlines.
The legal and political implications of the ruling are huge. The opinion is a public rebuke of the Trump administration for attempting to scuttle Obama-era policies without going through proper procedures.
"It's really a pretty stinging rebuke to the whole Trump administration practice of rolling back environmental rules without analysis just to do a favor to the oil and gas industry," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Michael Saul told E&E News.
CBD was part of a coalition of environmental groups, along with California and New Mexico, that sued Interior for delaying the rule.
The same district court last month smacked down the administration for a similar attempt to postpone a rule affecting how royalties are calculated for federal fossil fuels. Another court in July rejected U.S. EPA's attempt to freeze separate methane standards for the oil and gas industry.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) called yesterday's decision a win for the rule of law.
"No one is above the law," he said in a statement. "As a result of this Rule's implementation, oil and gas operators on federal and Indian lands will be compelled to prevent the waste of natural gas. Natural gas emissions threaten the health of nearby residents and contribute to climate change."
Kate Kelly, public lands director at the Center for American Progress, said the decision sends a message to the Trump administration that it cannot shortcut the administrative process.
"The Administration's 'stay and delay' tactics, through which it is allowing industries to bypass pollution controls and dodge royalty payments, are patently illegal," she said in an email. "Today's decision should be a wake-up call to Secretary [Ryan] Zinke that neither he nor the oil and gas industry is above the law."
A detailed critique
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte's decision is a detailed critique of the Trump administration's approach to disabling the Obama rule.
She found that Interior is not entitled to deference in its decision to delay parts of the regulation because the agency completely misapplied the Administrative Procedure Act in justifying the delay (Energywire, Oct. 4).
Interior relied upon APA Section 705, which allows agencies to delay the "effective date" of regulations that are facing legal challenges when "justice so requires." Critics have argued that Section 705 was never intended for already-effective measures like the methane rule, which took effect in January.
Government lawyers countered that the APA provision can be used to postpone various compliance deadlines, which function as effective dates.
Laporte rejected BLM's position as "circular" reasoning and found that it was contrary to the plain language of the APA.
She continued by criticizing the administration's argument that prohibiting the use of Section 705 on compliance deadlines robs the agency of its prerogative to maintain the regulatory status quo when a rule is facing legal challenges. In fact, she said, the Trump administration is to blame for regulatory uncertainty.
"After years of developing the Rule and working with the public and industry stakeholders, the Bureau's suspension of the Rule five months after it went into effect plainly did not 'maintain the status quo,'" Laporte said. "To the contrary, it belatedly disrupted it.
"Regulated entities with large operations had already needed to make concrete preparations after the Rule had not only become final but had actually gone into effect," the decision continued. "The uncertainty that can arise from this kind of sudden agency reversal of course is illustrated by its impact on the regulated entities here."
Finally, Laporte found that BLM did not meet Section 705's threshold of postponing a rule when "justice so requires." She noted that such a determination must be based on an analysis of the impacts of delaying a rule, and she found that BLM had "supported the Postponement Notice by only considering one side of the equation" — relief to the oil and gas industry.
Opponents of the Obama rule had urged the district court to consider leaving the postponement in place even if it ruled against the Trump administration. They said operators would face "unnecessarily disruptive" consequences, being forced to spend millions to quickly comply with requirements they thought had been sidelined.
Laporte rejected the request, noting that the industry was well aware that the administration's effort to delay the compliance deadlines was legally vulnerable.
"If some of the regulated entities of the oil and gas industry will not be able to meet the January 17, 2018 compliance date ... that is a problem to some extent of their own making and is not a sufficient reason for the Court to decline vacatur," she wrote.
What's next?
The Trump administration is licking its wounds after the court's decision, but the party most affected is the oil and gas industry.
Drillers have been on a legal and regulatory roller coaster with BLM's methane rule since its release last fall. First, a Wyoming district court rejected their attempt to enjoin the rule in January. Next, they suffered a narrow defeat on Capitol Hill when the Senate voted against using the Congressional Review Act to scuttle the measure.
Interior quickly responded to the CRA failure by announcing the June postponement of upcoming compliance deadlines for key provisions of the rule. Now, industry is back where it started: facing imminent new standards, even as the Trump administration crafts a potentially sturdier plan to ditch them.
"Some companies are already starting to get prepared for compliance; others are not," said Saul, the CBD lawyer. "These constant illegal attempts to undo the rules just create uncertainty, but given how comprehensive the judge's rebuke is today, I think it makes sense for industry just to get to work on entering into compliance."
After a similar court decision on EPA's separate methane restrictions, industry representatives said operators planned to fully comply with those standards (Energywire, Aug. 22).
The industry's most vocal opponents of the BLM rule — the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Western Energy Alliance — have so far stayed mum on last night's court decision. They did not respond to requests for comment.
Interior and BLM also kept quiet on the legal news, though they had trumpeted the latest rollback plans earlier yesterday.
Environmental advocates are already eyeing the next legal battles over the methane rule. Once the Trump administration finalizes its new attempt to freeze the rule, several groups are likely to sue. Saul noted that the court's decision yesterday does not bode well for further rollback efforts.
"I think Judge Laporte's ruling calls into question their substantive basis for both taking a second crack at delaying the rule and ultimately repealing it," he said. "They can't ignore the regulatory impact analysis which found that costs of the waste rule are greatly outweighed by the benefits. They can't ignore those benefits."
Most likely, Trump officials will abandon the Obama administration's approach to weighing costs and benefits, which included use of the "social cost of methane" tool to calculate the cost of emissions. President Trump in March ordered agencies to stop using the calculation.
Interior may instead find that the methane restrictions do not generate enough in increased royalties to justify the costs to industry.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/10/05/stories/1060062725
-
How Utilities Can Enter the Energy-Saving Business This Energy Efficiency Day
Oct 5, 2017 | EDF - Energy Exchange Blog
By Kate Zerrenner
Today is Energy Efficiency Day in the U.S. As someone who’s advocated for energy efficiency for nearly a decade, I’m glad to see the resource celebrated. Efficiency, from LED lightbulbs to insulation, is the most critical energy resource we have – energy we don’t use is our cleanest and cheapest option.
So, why isn’t everyone jumping on the efficiency bandwagon? In part it’s because utilities don’t usually encourage customers to save electricity. Electric companies make money by selling more electricity, so they’re reluctant to reduce use and their profits.
Nevertheless, utilities are logical places for energy efficiency programs, given their electricity relationships with customers.
Many states have efficiency goals that require utilities to invest in efficiency programs for customers, but much more could be done if the utility business model were reformed to align utility incentives with customer energy efficiency. Fortunately, several states across the country are reimagining the role of electric utilities in America’s 21st-century energy system, which could unlock efficiency’s potential.
Benefits of efficiency
Energy efficiency is a win-win-win solution. Reducing demand saves money and cuts pollution while enhancing grid reliability and resiliency. Certain energy efficiency improvements even have the potential to offer some protection during extreme weather events – like the latest technologies making windows energy efficient AND hurricane resistant.
Efficiency is also the ultimate water conservation tool. Coal and nuclear are the thirstiest energy resources; wind and solar PV use negligible amounts of water; and energy efficiency uses absolutely none. Saving energy saves water.
Furthermore, efficiency generates jobs at every level, from installer to engineer to architect to maintenance. Many of these jobs can’t be outsourced, and over 2.2 million Americans now work in energy efficiency-related jobs.
Flipping the paradigm
Historically, one of the stumbling blocks we’ve faced is the idea that saving and selling electricity comprise a zero-sum game: For utilities to profit, consumers have to buy more. Why can’t we design an electricity-saving approach that benefits both sides?
One potential pathway is for utilities to be paid to provide a service rather than just electricity. In today’s world, customers of any service have a myriad of different technology choices, and unprecedented access to data is empowering people to make more informed decisions. Electric utilities will remain behind the curve if they’re not thinking about how to embrace technology and new demands as opportunities to make money and keep customers.
For example, once utilities view customers as people with differing needs and wants — rather than as homogenous, anonymous ratepayers — a different demand paradigm may form. One possibility is a relationship in which people want to reduce their energy (and water) footprints but need and are willing to pay for the utility’s help to do so.
A new approach
What would that look like? Instead of selling kilowatts or electrons, utilities could bundle services and even provide offerings connected through smart meters or smart home technology, like home security systems. This type of business model could flip the incentive for a utility, and energy efficiency could be one of the services offered (rather than a built-in money loss for the traditionally-organized utility).
Moreover, positioning electric utilities as service providers could enable them to better integrate new technologies, enhance reliability, and better customize service packages.
Some states are forging forward on transforming their utility sectors to be friendlier to energy efficiency. New York’s Reforming the Energy Vision initiative, for example, looks to align how utilities make money with the benefits they provide to their customers, and encourages them to support a decentralized energy system that ultimately benefits the environment.
A part of this effort is the Neighborhood Program, previously known as the Brooklyn-Queens Demand Management Program. Con Edison, the state’s biggest electric utility, created the Neighborhood Program to motivate customers to reduce energy use during periods of peak (or high) demand to relieve stress on the grid. By using energy efficiency – in combination with solar, batteries, and energy management programs – in a particular geographic area, the utility is improving its operations and even suspended the construction of $1 billion in electricity infrastructure in Brooklyn. It saves money by using the utility’s relationship with their customers.
Illinois has embarked on a similar “utility of the future” process titled NextGrid, and Environmental Defense Fund is participating to ensure it results in a more dynamic, efficient grid designed to support this new paradigm. The effort comes on the heels of the historic Future Energy Jobs Act, which is set to double the state’s energy efficiency portfolio. As a result, Illinois’ largest utility, ComEd, has already agreed to invest hundreds of millions to expand its efficiency programs.
On Energy Efficiency Day, it’s encouraging to see states and utilities considering a more flexible way of doing business. Updating the old utility business model can open the door to a more efficient, cleaner, and customer-oriented energy system.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/10/05/how-utilities-can-enter-the-energy-saving-business-this-energy-efficiency-day/
-
US Agencies Weighing Greater GHS Harmonisation
Oct 5, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration and EPA are both studying regulatory amendments to better align US rules with the Globally Harmonised System (GHS) and Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS 2015), officials said at a recent Society for Chemical Hazard Communication (SCHC) conference.
But they also acknowledged at the conference in Arlington that the Trump administration may not move forward.
Osha last updated its hazard communication standard (HCS) in 2012, aligning it with an older version of the GHS. Maureen Ruskin, director of the Office of Chemical Hazards-Metals, said the agency is working on a proposal to update the HCS with the intent of improving alignment with GHS and WHMIS.
Variations between the two countries' approaches are not great and it should be possible for manufacturers to meet both sets of requirements with one label, Ms Ruskin said.
Under Osha's rules, a manufacturer can claim "trade secret" protection for the exact concentration of an ingredient. Harmonising this rule with what Canada eventually adopts is "something we could discuss in our future rulemaking", she said.
She noted that the Trump administration has not named a political appointee to head her branch of Osha, who will have to review any rulemaking. "I don't know when we will have a proposal ready for you," Ms Ruskin told the conference.
Workplace safety is Osha's domain, but the EPA was given specific responsibility for regulating pesticides by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (Fifra).
The EPA considered harmonising its pesticide regulations with GHS in 2006, but refrained in the face of stakeholder opposition. However, the agency is looking at such harmonisation again in the context of an initiative that is weighing approval of alternatives to animal testing, Kaitlin Keller, an environmental protection specialist in the Office of Pesticide Programs, told the conference.
"It's been a winding road for us back to GHS," Ms Keller said.
Global classification list
Ms Ruskin and Rosslynn Miller-Lee, Director of Health Canada's Workplace Hazardous Materials Bureau, said both the US-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council and a GHS subcommittee are discussing potential changes in how information is arranged on small labels and the feasibility of adopting a single set of prescribed pictograms.
Edmund Baird, counsel for standards at the US Department of Labor, said another GHS subcommittee is weighing the feasibility of developing a global chemical classification list. Delegations from the US, Russia and Echa each studied one chemical and gave presentations on differing regulatory regimes. Mr Baird said the group was able to agree on classifications for each chemical but the process was very labour intensive.
"The only way this can go forward is if it is a non-binding list," he said. "GHS can't say 'if you accept GHS you accept these classifications also'".
https://chemicalwatch.com/59774/us-agencies-weighing-greater-ghs-harmonisation
-
National Academies Study on Rail ECP Brake Efficacy Inconclusive
Oct 5, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Lauren Gardner
A National Academies committee tasked with reviewing DOT-conducted train brake testing could not conclude whether an advanced system that regulators have required for unit trains carrying hazardous materials like oil performs better in emergencies compared to others, according to a report released today.
That finding, based on results produced by DOT, may pave the way for the department to roll back a 2015 mandate for certain trains to install electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. Congress required studies of the requirement in the FAST Act and directed DOT to use the results to either justify its costs or repeal it by the end of 2017.
The latest report builds off an initial study released in February that determined DOT didn't adequately support why it planned to use certain parameters and factors to analyze ECP brakes and their performance relative to other systems. The panel made recommendations on that issue in advance of physical tests in the field and in a lab, which the members witnessed in the spring.
"DOT’s efforts to validate its modeling and simulation approach in response to the committee’s request do not instill sufficient confidence in DOT’s comparison of the estimated emergency performance of ECP braking systems with that of" others, the report said.
A 2016 Government Accountability Office report on competing ECP braking studies from DOT and the railroad industry concluded that both sides' studies suffered from a lack of data to support their claims, in part because at that time the railroad industry had shared limited data.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
House Rail Subcommittee Hears from Industry Stakeholders
Oct 5, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials yesterday held a hearing to gather stakeholders' perspectives on what's needed to improve the nation's rail infrastructure.
Several representatives of railroad and transportation labor organizations testified before the subcommittee members. The hearing was held as the subcommittee and committee prepare for the Trump administration's infrastructure package proposal.
Subcommittee Chairman Jeff Denham (R-Calif.) opened the hearing by encouraging rail industry witnesses to comment on ways to improve existing federal funding, such as the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing and railroad grant programs.
"Stakeholders can provide unique opinions on best ways to improve our infrastructure through enhanced safety, reliability, efficiency; they can discuss expansion opportunities for such programs; and offer ways to leverage investments and promote public-private partnerships," said Denham, according to a prepared statement.
Among those addressing the committee were Association of American Railroads(AAR) President and Chief Executive Officer Edward Hamberger; American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) President Linda Bauer Darr; Railway Supply Institute (RSI) Honorary Chairman Thomas DeJoseph; and Larry Willis, president of Transportation Trades Department (TTD), AFL-CIO.
AAR's Hamberger made the case for polices that encourage sustained private investment in the nation's rail network so that freight rail can continue to support the economy.
"In 2014 alone, America's major freight railroads supported 1.5 million jobs, $274 billion in economic output, and $88 billion in wages," said Hamberger in a prepared statement. "It's in the nation's best interest that the benefits of freight rail continue to accrue, but that can't happen unless rail infrastructure is up to the task. That only happens when railroads can reinvest in their networks."
To ensure a vibrant rail network, Hamberger encouraged Congress to maintain balanced economic regulations; promote public-private partnerships; encourage regulatory flexibility that allows railroads to develop and improve infrastructure safety and performance; and embrace a user-pay model that addresses modal inequities as well as rehabilitates the Highway Trust Fund.
RSI's DeJoseph emphasized to the subcommittee that the railway supply industry is vital to the economy. He stressed the importance of investment in infrastructure, sensible tax reform and balanced regulation, along with continued focus on funding proven measures that impact rail safety.
"We are pleased with the [Trump] administration's effort to scrutinize existing and proposed regulations to ensure they do not unduly burden industry and economic growth," DeJoseph said, according to an RSI press release.
ASLRRA's Darr addressed the "considerable concern that the kind of projects that will attract private capital are not feasible" in the nation's rural communities.
ASLRRA supports federal funding programs that can help stimulate investment in smaller communities, such as the Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) and Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) grant programs, as well as a rural set-aside program that will benefit short-line railroads, Darr said, according to an ASLRRA press release.
"But, given the opportunity to testify, I am here to say that the 45G short line railroad rehabilitation tax credit is the most economical and effective way to maximize investment in our portion of the national rail system," Darr added.
TTD's Willis warned lawmakers against using infrastructure investment legislation as a way to attack workers' rights, jeopardize safety or weaken the Federal Railroad Administration's authority. He also encouraged Congress to support significant public funding for transportation, including through the Highway Trust Fund.
"With strong support from the public, a promise from our President, and bipartisan interest in Congress, the time to end the lost generation of infrastructure investment is now. Failing to act has jeopardized millions of good jobs, stifled economic expansion, and worsened wage inequality," Willis said in a prepared statement. "Voters wonder why the richest country in the world no longer places a premium on high quality, modern infrastructure, and too many working families have been left behind."
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/House-rail-subcommittee-hears-from-industry-stakeholders--52966
-
New Ozone Pollution Rules Take Effect Over Objections From Trump's Team
Oct 1, 2017 | Forbes (in Real Clear Energy)
By Ken Silverstein
New ozone pollution rules are taking effect today that are aimed at reducing medical costs and saving lives. But those regulations are the same ones that the Trump administration had wanted to rewrite and to delay.
The Obama administration had initially approved the rule in 2015. Ground-level ozone pollution is created when the emissions from power plants, cars and factories have reacted to sunlight. It’s especially bad during the summer and in congested cities. As a result of the chemical reaction, smog forms that is tied to respiratory illnesses and heart ailments.
But manufacturing groups, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Association, had said that the rules would burden business and that the total cost to comply could be in the billions and exceed EPA’s own estimates. They furthermore note that ozone pollution levels have fallen 33% since 1980, leading them to ask Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency to delay the rules — something that the administration had sought to do in June. However, EPA changed its mind in August after getting sued by 16 state attorney generals.
“Our research shows that efforts to reduce ozone extend lifespans,” says Michael Greenstone, co-author of a report issued by the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute. “While previous research had suggested this, the especially novel finding here is that pollution reductions lead to significant reductions in the purchase of medications that protect people from becoming sick or even dying prematurely … The implications for air pollution policy are potentially enormous.”
The Congressional Research Service adds that about 40% of the U.S. population live in regions that do not yet meet the national standards.
The current ozone rule sets the standard at 70-parts per billion. Under the Bush administration, it had been 75-parts per billion — a rule adopted in 2008. The Clean Air Act requires a review of the law every five years, although it does not necessitate that it be changed.
Manufacturers and oil and gas developers are saying that the ozone rule is too costly and that it is inflexible. That said, those same groups earned a victory of sorts with regard to the 2015 ozone rule because the Obama team backed off its efforts to lower that standard to as little as 60-parts per billion. Environmentalist, meanwhile, wanted the standard to be 65-parts per billion.
As it stands now, state and metropolitan governments would need to be in compliance with the 70-parts per billion standard by 2025. As such, they must develop game plans to achieve success. If they fail to comply, then the federal government could withhold federal funding for such things as highways. It would be EPA’s job to monitor the market.
Obama’s EPA had estimated that by 2025, the 2015 standard of 70-parts per billion will prevent 230,000 asthma attacks in children. The American Lung Association concurs, saying that 115 million Americans breathe unhealthy air tied to smog. The agency has also said that the Obama-era ozone rules would produce benefits of $3 billion to $6 billion a year while the cost of it would be about $1.4 billion annually.
The Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives is sympathetic to businesses’ position, passing legislation in June that would delay the implementation date of the ozone rule until at least 2025. But getting a bill out of the U.S. Senate is unlikely given that 60 votes are necessary there to overcome a filibuster.
“States, along with business and industry, have been working hard to improve the U.S. air quality for many years,” the US Chamber of Commerce wrote, in support of that legislation.
"Indeed, ozone levels have decreased 33% since 1980, and ozone levels will continue to decline as states implement the 2008 ozone (ambient air standards,” it added. “EPA itself projects that most of the U.S. will meet the 2015 ozone standard of 70 parts per billion by 2025 simply by implementing existing air standards, such as the 2008 ozone standards.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/10/01/new-ozone-pollution-rules-take-effect-over-objections-from-trumps-team/#3d4d593f544f
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested