Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 10/16/17
-
Hearing on OPM, GSA Nominees
Oct 18, 2017 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Location: 342 Dirksen / 10:00 AM. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Regulatory 'Reform' Group Gears Up for Hill, Administrative Battles
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A new industry coalition is ramping up its advocacy around proposals that could place an array of new limits and oversight on EPA and other federal agencies -- an effort that appears geared primarily to legislative efforts in 2018 and beyond but which may inform administrative actions by the Trump White House. -
(ACC Mentioned) Firms Act On Ocean Plastic From Southeast Asia
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Two initiatives involving industry aim to stop ocean plastic pollution at the source. -
(ACC Mentioned) Chemours Prevails Over BASF And Covestro To Win 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 13, 2017 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) has named Opteon 1100 from Chemours (Wilmington, DE) the winner of the 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award. -
(ACC Mentioned) Wildland Firefighter Bailey McDade: An Everyday Hero
Oct 13, 2017 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
A video, online gallery and multi-city exhibit bring the stories of everyday heroes like Bailey McDade to life and showcase the personal protective equipment that keeps them safe. -
(ACC Mentioned) Take Action: Tell Your Senators to Vote Against EPA Nominee with Chemical Industry Ties
Oct 16, 2017 | Beyond Pesticides
Tell your U.S. Senators to oppose the Trump Administration’s nominee for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael L. Dourson, Ph.D., who has spent a good deal of his career helping chemical companies resist restrictions on their toxic compounds. -
NAFTA Demise Emerges As a New Risk For Investors
Oct 15, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jacob M. Schlesinger
Donald Trump’s presidency has so far been largely good for big business and investors, with deregulation in train, hopes for corporate tax cuts, and stocks hitting records. -
Commerce's Bid To Reform EPA Rules May Hinge On Second Trump Term
Oct 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The success of the Department of Commerce's recent report urging reform of EPA Clean Air Act rules such as new source review (NSR) and ambient air standards in order to reduce regulatory burdens might hinge on whether President Donald Trump wins a second term, sources say, given that the effort will take several years to implement. -
White House Environmental Adviser's Confirmation Faces Logjam
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump's pick for the White House's top environmental adviser faces a slow path to confirmation and strong opposition from Senate Democrats. -
EPA Seeks Input On Potential TSCA Reporting Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is seeking public input on how to reduce reporting burdens for certain chemicals' to inform a potential Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule, after a negotiated rulemaking committee required under the recently revised TSCA failed to reach a consensus that would have required the agency to craft a rule. -
Costco Turns to Berkeley Researchers for Green Chemistry Help
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Costco Wholesale Corp. will craft strategies for managing its products in what the retailer says is the first partnership between a major retailer and a university's green chemistry safety center. -
Transparency: Fundamental Protection Against Toxic Chemicals
Oct 16, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Avinash Kar
Transparency or “right-to-know” is a fundamental concept in protecting public health against exposures to toxic chemicals. -
Will U.K. Chemical Firms Lose EU Market Access Under Brexit?
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Brexit may disrupt access to the European market for major chemical companies that register their products for sale from the U.K., legal professionals told Bloomberg BNA. -
European Union Wants More Information on Companies’ Nanomaterials
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
3M Europe, Solvay S.A., and other companies that produce chemicals at the nano-scale would have to provide the European Chemicals Agency more detailed information on their products under a draft European Union regulation. -
EU Requests Guidelines On Phthalates In Medical Devices
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has asked its Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks (Scheer) to produce guidelines relating to the use of phthalates in medical devices. -
Boom in American Liquified Natural Gas Is Shaking Up the Energy World
Oct 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
A shale gas drilling boom over the last decade has propelled the United States from energy importer to exporter, taking the country a giant leap toward the goal of energy independence declared by presidents for half a century. -
Fourth Train Complete At Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG Plant
Oct 13, 2017 | Reuters (In Business Insider)
By Julie Gordon
Cheniere Energy Partners LP said Friday that the fourth train at its Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas plant was substantially complete, boosting output from the first LNG export terminal in the United States by a third. -
Federal Regulators Approve Two Major East Coast Pipelines
Oct 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Julia Manchester
Federal regulators on Friday approved two major natural gas pipelines for construction on the East Coast, a move heralded by business leaders and condemned by environmentalists. -
State Challenges Feds To Block Pipeline For Natural Gas Power Plant
Oct 13, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Marie J. French
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration is challenging a federal decision to overrule New York’s denial of a water quality permit, in a test of the authority that states have to block natural gas pipelines. -
(ACC Mentioned) Moure-Eraso: Chemical Accidents Can Be Prevented
Oct 14, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Rafael Moure-Eraso
Hurricane Harvey has reminded us that much of America's chemical infrastructure is in serious peril. -
Small Chemical Firms Face Safety Issues With Less Resources
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Small and mid-size chemical companies face the same challenges as large chemical companies when it comes to safety processes, but bigger firms have more manpower, money, and time to do so. -
Report: Rail Industry Should Do More To Safely Move Crude Oil, Ethanol
Oct 13, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The rail industry needs to repair track defects, upgrade tank-car design and increase training of emergency responders in order to improve safe transportation of crude oil and ethanol, says a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. -
We Must Keep Trains Rolling Safely And Fairly
Oct 15, 2017 | The News Tribune
By Rep. Dick Muri
As a state representative, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying and learning about rail safety. It’s a subject I take seriously. I live in the Town of Steilacoom, where trains are a way of life. -
(ACC Mentioned) Former OSHA Official Urges EPA To List nPB As Hazardous Air Pollutant
Oct 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Former Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official and EPA science adviser Adam Finkel is urging EPA to list the chemical n-propyl bromide (nPB) as a Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutant (HAP), citing dat -
Green Investors Seek More Data from Companies, More Frequently
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Annual sustainability reports just aren't cutting it as investors pump more money into ethical investment funds. -
Bipartisan House Caucus Urges Pruitt To Halt Repeal
Oct 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers urged U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today to abandon his proposed repeal of President Obama's Clean Power Plan.
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
Oct 18, 2017 | Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Regulatory 'Reform' Group Gears Up for Hill, Administrative Battles
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
A new industry coalition is ramping up its advocacy around proposals that could place an array of new limits and oversight on EPA and other federal agencies -- an effort that appears geared primarily to legislative efforts in 2018 and beyond but which may inform administrative actions by the Trump White House.
The new group, called the Coalition for Regulatory Innovation and launched this month with several policy white papers, has yet to formally endorse specific legislation but has issued white papers offering general principles that it says would bolster agencies' transparency, scientific integrity and accountability. Many of the changes would require congressional action to implement, such as requiring lawmakers' approval of agency rules or forcing EPA to release all underlying data for its rules.
Observers say the effort is important to track for whether it offers a prelude to Trump administration regulatory actions or a justification for steps the administration is already taking.
“We are in a pretty aggressive education and recruitment phase,” the group's spokesman Patrick O'Connor, told Inside EPA in a recent interview about the new coalition.
He touted the group's efforts to garner bipartisan support, saying its ideas should garner support from both parties concerned both short and long term about the overreach of a presidential administration from another party. “Maybe that is going to prevent the administration of one party going too far beyond the pale for the members or another party and vice versa,” O'Connor said. “Hopefully creating some kind of middle ground in the regulatory space for both parties.”
But some observers doubt such a centrist consensus is possible, given the group's early policy advocacy for ideas long associated with mostly Republican deregulatory efforts that Democrats generally oppose, including a proposed new congressional veto of federal rules.
“These talking points . . . are all pretty standard right wing stuff, nothing really centrist about it,” argues Center For Progressive Reform's (CPR) senior policy analyst James Goodwin, in reference to the new coalition's early papers. CPR generally advocates for greater public health and environmental protections.
New Coalition
The Coalition for Regulatory Innovation boasts an array of business groups as members, including the National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, National Automobile Dealers Association and Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council -- as well as the North America's Building Trades Unions (NABTU).
Several other members of the group are focused on fossil fuel production or refining, including Independent Petroleum Association of America, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, Ohio Oil and Gas Association, and the Colorado Mining Association.
A source familiar with the group says its membership is still growing, and that over the long term the group hopes to become a clearinghouse for news and academic research and information about regulatory “reform."
The source says that the group also favors a legislative push aimed at fixing the regulatory process though the source says the group is not endorsing any specific measures as of yet. The source adds the group has additional white papers in the works but did not offer a specific timetable for release.
The fact that regulatory reform legislation appears stalled for now on Capitol Hill suggests the group is readying itself for opportunities that arise in 2018, and perhaps beyond, with 2018 also an election year.
But an initial round of white papers already available on policy steps to address concerns about agency transparency, scientific integrity, and accountability offer some early details of the group's stance, including both implicit and explicit references to existing legislation and ideas already under discussion at EPA and other federal agencies.
Examples include language in the accountability paper stating “Congress should prudently reclaim its authority,” through means including “more effective checks on agency discretion.”
While the group has not settled on a “definitive list” of possible policies, the paper floats options including congressional approval of new major regulations before they could take effect -- a proposal already enshrined in the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. That bill has garnered fierce criticism from environmentalists and public health groups.
White Papers
The accountability paper also nods to legislation by Sens. Robert Portman (R-OH) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) that would require a new cost-benefit regime for rules and ensure that major rules are reviewed at least once every 10 years.
Meanwhile, the coalition's white paper on transparency calls on Congress to release “all relevant underlying data and technical information” before agency's propose or finalize rules or guidance documents, and it includes a long-standing industry complaint going back decades about the lack of public release of data from mortality studies related to particulate matter deaths. That data proposal closely tracks controversial legislation by House Science Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) approved by the House in March 2017.
The group in its scientific integrity white paper touches on ideas already under discussion both at the legislative and administrative level related to the membership of advisory panels at EPA and other agencies.
For example, it calls for EPA science advisory panels to include “more than just scientists from academia,” stating, “toxicologists and other scientists from state regulatory agencies and industry can provide different, and in many cases real-world, perspectives on key issues.”
That point echoes remarks from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in a May interview with conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, in which the agency chief said that he wants to emphasize new panelists' “geographical representation” as well as their scientific credentials.
Scientific Integrity
Meanwhile, the Coalition for Regulatory Innovation's scientific integrity paper also includes language calling for “several modest steps” to strengthen scientific integrity, including that policymakers should also consider using a conflict of interest policy employed by the nonprofit Toxicological Excellence In Risk Assessment (TERA).
“TERA's 'Conflict of Interest Policy' identifies several situations that would create real or perceived conflicts of interest,” the white paper says, offering examples that include “working for an organization that sponsors or contributes to the document to be reviewed.”
TERA has been getting recent attention because the non-profit group's founder, Michael Dourson, is the Trump administration's nominee to head EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, amid opposition to the pick among Senate Democrats who have raised concerns about his industry ties.
In a similar vein, CPR's Goodwin also says he is skeptical of claims made about TERA's conflict of interest policy. “Whatever that conflict of interest policy may say, it is not working,” he says, citing a concern that TERA is too close to regulated industries.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-regulatory-reform-group-gears-hill-administrative-battles
-
(ACC Mentioned) Firms Act On Ocean Plastic From Southeast Asia
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical & Engineering News
By Alexander H. Tullo
Initiative aims to stop plastic pollution from Southeast Asia
Two initiatives involving industry aim to stop ocean plastic pollution at the source.
At the Our Ocean 2017 conference, held in Malta earlier this month, the Ocean Conservancy—in partnership with the Trash Free Seas Alliance, Closed Loop Partners, PepsiCo, 3M, Procter & Gamble, the World Plastics Council, and the American Chemistry Council—unveiled a plan to raise $150 million to fund waste management projects in Southeast Asia.
The project aims at the root of the problem, the partners say. They say only five countries—China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—are responsible for 8 million metric tons of ocean plastic pollution each year, half of the world’s total.
The partners say the oceans today are contaminated by 150 million metric tons of plastic, a number that could rise to 250 million metric tons by 2025.
Closed Loop Partners, an investor in recycling companies and technologies, will manage the fund. It plans to use the money to support municipalities, entrepreneurs, and nongovernmental organizations in their efforts to improve waste management systems.
“Plastics play an important role in commerce,” said Jack McAneny, P&G’s director of sustainability. “But clearly they don’t belong in our waterways and oceans.”
Also at the Our Ocean conference, the Austrian polyolefins maker Borealis announced its own plan to put $5 million towards a waste management project for Indonesia. Borealis said it will partner with municipalities to create “zero-leakage” pathways for garbage that increase recycling rates while creating jobs and public health benefits.
https://cen.acs.org/articles/95/i41/Firms-act-ocean-plastic-Southeast.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Chemours Prevails Over BASF And Covestro To Win 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award
Oct 13, 2017 | Plastics Today
By Clare Goldsberry
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC; Washington, DC) has named Opteon 1100 from Chemours (Wilmington, DE) the winner of the 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award. One of three finalists, Chemour’s winning entry was announced during the closing session of the 2017 Polyurethanes Technical Conference in New Orleans in September.
Commending Chemours, Lee Salamone, Senior Director of CPI, said, the company's "pioneering application of polyurethane chemistry is a testament to our industry’s commitment to technological progress and the hard work, expertise and creativity of so many individuals.”
Chemours’ Opteon 1100 is a unique hydro-fluoro-olefin (HF) blowing agent that addresses critical polyurethane industry needs, including formulation stability and flexibility with existing components, materials compatibility, long-term insulation performance and a sustainable approach to meeting changing regulatory requirements for low global-warming-potential products.
“Chemours is very excited and proud to be the 2017 CPI Innovation Award winner,” said Joyce Wallace, North American Marketing Manager for Chemours. “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.”
This year’s finalists also included BASF’s Irgastab PUR 70, an amine-free, aromatic solvent-free, anti-scorch system for polyol and PUR foams; and Covestro’s PUReWall, a new spray polyurethane foam formulation that allows for residential wall panel production.
“Each year, the CPI Innovations Award finalists represent our industry-wide drive to transform ideas into new products and technologies that enhance the quality of life,” Salamone said. “I’m thrilled to mark our 60th anniversary with such an incredible display of what’s possible when visionary members discover new applications of polyurethane chemistry.”
https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/chemours-prevails-over-basf-and-covestro-win-2017-polyurethane-innovation-award/141544502457655
-
(ACC Mentioned) Wildland Firefighter Bailey McDade: An Everyday Hero
Oct 13, 2017 | EHS Today
By Sandy Smith
A video, online gallery and multi-city exhibit bring the stories of everyday heroes like Bailey McDade to life and showcase the personal protective equipment that keeps them safe.
We all know everyday heroes. They run into burning homes, brave raging floodwaters, battle devastating wildfires and help stop epidemics.
“Protecting Our Heroes: A Tribute to Safety and Innovation” is an online gallery, video and multi-city, pop-up exhibit launched Oct. 13 by Plastics Make it Possible. Working with the International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA), Plastics Make it Possible identified a dozen everyday heroes across the country – firefighters, policemen, medical professionals and other rescuers – and tells their personal stories of harrowing experiences on the job.
These real-life heroes rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) to help keep them safe. Often, this equipment is constructed of plastic, such as the strong polycarbonate plastic helmets and goggles that help prevent head and eye injuries, and innovative neoprene plastic dry suits that help protect water rescuers from frigid temperatures and debris.
“I’ve spent over 1,100 hours fighting the recent fires in Montana, Idaho and Oregon,” says wildland firefighter Bailey McDade, a featured hero and one of many firefighters facing an especially busy 2017 fire season. “For all the protective gear you wear, there’s nothing that can prepare your nerves for the roaring intensity of a wildfire. To keep me here – and the fires out – we rely on plastic protective equipment that’s resistant to heat and flames, yet very lightweight.”
In an interview with EHSToday.com, McDade, who is based in Arizona but who travels wherever she’s needed as a wildlands firefighter with the U.S. Forest Service, says that her educational background is in land conservation and she first became interested in fighting forest fires by conducting and studying controlled burns, which have a long history in wildlands management. Controlled burning is conducted during cooler months to reduce fuel buildup and decrease the likelihood of serious hotter fires during the fire season. It stimulates the germination of some trees, which helps to renew the forest.
In countries like the United States, authorities oversee the controlled burns. From that beginning, McDade realized that firefighting was her calling and she trained for and became a wildlands firefighter.
Wildlands versus Structural Fires
The gear worn by wildlands firefighters like McDade and the structural firefighters we see at our local fire stations is very different, just as the process of fighting those fires – wildlands versus structural – is every different. Wildlands firefighters often spend hours hiking in to the location of fire and camp out near the fire line for days, if necessary. They don’t work “regular” hours or shifts and McDade says her gear bag – which contains her protective clothing, PPE and firefighting gear – is always packed and ready to go at a moment’s notice.
“It’s not like being a firefighter in Montana, where you work a regular shift and get called to a fire by the side of the road,” says McDade. “I’m always on call for the whole fire season. A typical day for me involves always being ready [to fight a wildlands fire somewhere in the United States].”
Rather than the large turnout gear worn by traditional firefighters, McDade and her fellow wildlands firefighters wear lightweight pants and shirts made out of Nomex, boots, helmets, safety glasses and gloves. They carry backpacks, also made from blended plastics, that hold their food, water and shelters. Hoses and a bladder bag holding five gallons of water (which weighs 45 pounds!) are made of flexible nylon and strap onto the backpacks.
One especially important piece of equipment is her face and neck shroud. Also made from Nomex, the shroud is Velcroed to the back of her hard hat and can be wrapped around her face and neck to protect her airway and protect her face and neck from heat, flames and embers. “Our job is to hold that fire line. When you hear, ‘shroud down,’ you immediately pull your shroud around your face and neck. When I do that, it’s like closing an oven door,” she says.
She says her family and friends are supportive of her choice to be a wildlands firefighter, although they do worry about her safety. It’s unusual for a woman to choose it as a career and McDade is younger than many of her fellow firefighters.
When asked if she thinks of herself as an everyday hero, McDade countered by saying: “I don’t think of it in those terms. I love working on a crew. I grew up playing sports and I loved being on teams. What we do… it feels important, bigger than yourself. We know we are part of a much bigger effort.”
PPE Saves Lives
McDade credits training, her fellow crew members and appropriate PPE in helping her do her job safely. “As we face a country battling devastating fires right now, people may not realize how important our equipment is,” she says. “We take our personal protective gear for granted sometimes, but when you head into the smoldering mouth of a wildfire, you realize what you’re wearing and using are ultimately saving your life.”
“According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 4,000 workers are killed on the job in a given year. When used correctly, PPE can help bring those numbers down,” says ISEA President Charles Johnson. “May we be ever diligent to put protection into every practice of our lives and be thankful for the technology and the innovations that allow our heroes to do their jobs.”
In addition to McDade, the online gallery and interactive exhibit for “Protecting Our Heroes: A Tribute to Safety and Innovation” include a search-and-rescue specialist who helps save victims in floods, a smokejumper who parachutes into remote locations to fight wildfires and the nation’s first female bomb technician, who uses a plastic bomb detector with sensors to locate and disarm explosives, sometimes in the midst of sandstorms. These three heroes are highlighted in a short video that airs in the pop-up exhibit, as well as online at www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/heroes.
“Plastics makers are proud to have a role in protecting the brave Americans who protect us all,” said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics at the American Chemistry Council, which sponsors Plastics Make it Possible. “High-performance plastics provide the critical combination of strength, durability and mobility that protect the heroes who protect us.”
The “Protecting Our Heroes” online gallery can be found at www.plasticsmakeitpossible.com/heroes. The pop-up exhibit is free-of-charge and open to the public at Copley Place in Boston from Oct. 13-15, followed by an exhibit at Greystone in Piedmont Park in Atlanta from Oct. 20-22. Additional exhibit sites will be announced in the future
http://www.ehstoday.com/ppe/wildland-firefighter-bailey-mcdade-everyday-hero
-
Oct 16, 2017 | Beyond Pesticides
Tell your U.S. Senators to oppose the Trump Administration’s nominee for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Assistant Administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Michael L. Dourson, Ph.D., who has spent a good deal of his career helping chemical companies resist restrictions on their toxic compounds. The U.S. Senate’s August 20 hearing on Dr. Dourson’s nomination, was abruptly postponed on August 19, with no reason offered, but later held on October 4 under a cloud of controversy.
Write your U.S. Senators now!
Critics, including former EPA officials, Congressional Democrats, and public health scientists say that Dr. Dourson’s close ties to the chemical industry should disqualify him from becoming the country’s chief regulator of toxic chemicals.
U.S. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said, “Dr. Dourson’s consistent endorsement of chemical safety standards that not only match industry’s views, but are also significantly less protective than EPA and other regulators have recommended, raises serious doubts about his ability to lead those efforts. This is the first time anyone with such clear and extensive ties to the chemical industry has been [nominated] to regulate that industry.”
Dr. Dourson’s professional history provides important context for considering his nomination. He did a turn at EPA from 1980 to 1994, starting as a staff toxicologist, and then leading a pesticide and toxics group that supports EPA’s regulatory work. However, in 1995, Dr. Dourson started the consulting group, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), which has done contract work for chemical companies, producing research and reports that often “downplayed the health risks posed by their compounds.”
TERA’s clients have included Dow Chemical Company, Koch Industries Inc., Monsanto, Chevron Corporation, and the industry lobby group, the American Chemistry Council –companies that make pesticides, processed foods, cigarettes, plastics, and other chemical products. The Associated Press reports that Dr. Dourson has, for some time, received payments for his critical assessments of peer-reviewed studies that identified concerns with the safety of his clients’ products. Examples of the kinds of “industry shielding” work TERA did can be reviewed here.
Write your Senators now!
According to the New York Times, Adam Finkel, executive director of the Penn Program on Regulation at University of Pennsylvania Law School, who worked as a partner on a project with Dr. Dourson, said, “Most of what he has done over time is to rush headlong to exonerate chemicals.” Four controversial toxic chemicals –1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, trichloroethylene and chlorpyrifos– currently under EPA review are manufactured by Dow, a company that Dr. Dourson represented. If confirmed, he would oversee the regulation of these chemicals, which are associated with severe health issues, including cancer, birth defects, and developmental problems in children.
The Associated Press cites the example of Dr. Dourson’s Dow-sponsored review of chlorpyrifos (a neurotoxic pesticide that harms children’s brains, even at very low exposure levels), which claimed flaws in peer-reviewed studies linking delays in fetal development with exposure to the chemical. The credibility of EPA’s regulation of chlorpyrifos is already in question due to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s decision to overrule the recommendation of agency scientists that would have banned the chemical. Mr. Pruitt claims the science is “unresolved” and has delayed a decision on chlorpyrifos until 2022.
Dr. Dourson is a recent example of the “revolving door” phenomenon –the movement of people between roles as agency regulators or legislators, and positions in the industries that are regulated by those government roles. The door revolves in both directions, with regulators leaving government to join industry, and vice versa. This ready switching of roles creates unavoidable conflicts of interest. Indeed, ethics experts say that, if confirmed, Dr. Dourson’s work on behalf of industry could constitute significant conflicts of interest.
Industry has a long history of using the revolving door. When people are allowed to move from industry to regulatory agency (or the reverse) without constraint, the resultant conflicts of interest not only unduly shape policy or ratchet up industry influence, but cast huge doubt on the individual’s ability to act independent of industry’s interests, and in the best interest of the public and an agency’s charge.
http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2017/10/take-action-tell-senators-vote-epa-nominee-chemical-industry-ties/
-
NAFTA Demise Emerges As a New Risk For Investors
Oct 15, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Jacob M. Schlesinger
WASHINGTON— Donald Trump’s presidency has so far been largely good for big business and investors, with deregulation in train, hopes for corporate tax cuts, and stocks hitting records. But the risk of a serious jolt now looms: the potential end of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which has governed continental commerce for a quarter-century.
Because the likelihood of a collapse has seemed so remote, analysts are only now starting to assess the implications. The early read: It wouldn’t necessarily be catastrophic, but it would be a net negative for the overall economy, cause a big squeeze to some sectors and states and could dent stocks.
“The reversal of Nafta leads to a decline in real GDP, trade, investment, and employment in the U.S., Canada and Mexico,” concludes one of the first detailed studies on the subject, by ImpactECON LLC, a Colorado-based economic consultancy. The firm estimates that while some production would move north of the border with Mexico, the U.S. would still suffer a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs over three to five years. Mexico would lose 951,000 jobs and Canada 125,000.
Nafta isn’t dead yet. Talks to rewrite the pact are continuing, with fresh rounds scheduled through year-end. Even successful negotiations hit rough patches, as partners lay down extreme demands assuming they’ll soften during bargaining.
But the current round—launched last week and slated to run through Tuesday—has proved unusually contentious. U.S. proposals, like a sunset clause that would subject the deal to regular renewal or a requirement that cars have 50% U.S.-only content to qualify for Nafta breaks, have been branded unacceptable by Mexico and Canada. With wide gaps remaining, all sides now talk openly about the risk of a Nafta collapse.
“We don’t desire that it will, we don’t believe that it will,” Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told an audience Wednesday at the Dentons law firm Washington office. But, he added, “it is at least a conceptual possibility.”
Most economists are staying away from calamitous warnings. “It would be like a mini-Brexit, with very modest effects on U.S. growth,” says Harvard’s Kenneth Rogoff, referring to the U.K.’s similar move to extricate itself from the European Union. Just as dire predictions before last year’s British referendum have proven exaggerated, so too may be warnings about Nexit. “Most estimates of Nafta’s effects on the U.S. have been relatively small in the aggregate,” he adds.
The ImpactECON report sees a drop in U.S. GDP of less than a 10th of a percent, with bigger hits of about half a percent to Canada, and nearly 1% to Mexico.
If the pact disappeared without any negotiated unwinding, the three countries would likely impose tariffs on each other equal to those facing their other non-free-trade-agreement partners: a 3.5% average by the U.S., 4.2% by Canada, and 7.5% by Mexico, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics. If the U.S. and Canada agreed to keep their pre-Nafta free-trade pact in place, they could still have zero tariffs between them.
In Brexit, the ultimate impact depends heavily on the terms and timing, still being negotiated more than a year after the referendum passed. An American exit could have a similarly long transition, on terms less disruptive than worst-case scenarios floated. The interdependence built up under Nafta may prove more durable than Nafta itself. The Mexicans would have the authority, say, to impose 9.5% tariffs on U.S. corn, but might not want to raise prices so much on the $2.5 billion their consumers have gotten used to purchasing.
“Even if the legal framework of Nafta is formally repealed, the infrastructure that Nafta has created will remain,” predicts Guillermo Ortiz, former head of Mexico’s central bank.
That doesn’t mean a painless death. Just as some towns and companies suffered under Nafta, sectors and regions thriving under the pact risk getting pinched. Border states like Texas and farm states like Iowa have been among the biggest winners from Nafta, and would likely face the biggest hits from any reversal.
The ImpactECON study sees small gains in U.S. production and employment in some machinery and chemical sectors. But those would be offset by bigger losses among auto, food, and apparel makers that have crafted elaborate, efficient supply chains around duty-free passage of parts and goods across borders. Even the restoration of small tariffs would be disruptive and raise costs. The American Automotive Policy Council calls Nafta withdrawal a “$10 billion tax” on the U.S. industry, while auto parts makers say it would force them to cut up to 50,000 U.S. jobs.
Brexit may not have pushed the U.K. immediately into recession, but analysts now see supply constraints and other longer-term problems emerging, like slower worker productivity growth, chilled investment from uncertainty over future rules and higher inflation due to the pound’s drop following the vote. In a similar vein, economists warn of a Nexit’s incalculable, slow-motion damage to the U.S.
Nafta’s collapse would raise broader doubts about American support for the international free-trading system, which most economists believe has lifted U.S. and global growth. “The death of Nafta and what that implies for protectionism and trade wars—if the risk increased, we’d surely see a stock market correction,” says Allen Sinai, chief economist at Decision Economics Inc.
Even some Nafta critics believe withdrawal would do the U.S. more harm than good. Robert Scott of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute wrote the 2011 report widely cited by Nafta opponents claiming 700,000 U.S. jobs lost from the pact.
Killing Nafta, Mr. Scott says, won’t bring them back. With the resulting higher costs, “multinationals like GM , Ford, and Toyota may just decide to shift production to Asia or Europe,” he says. “The U.S. benefits from having that production in North America, even if it’s in Mexico.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nafta-demise-emerges-as-a-new-risk-for-investors-1508086822
-
Commerce's Bid To Reform EPA Rules May Hinge On Second Trump Term
Oct 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
The success of the Department of Commerce's recent report urging reform of EPA Clean Air Act rules such as new source review (NSR) and ambient air standards in order to reduce regulatory burdens might hinge on whether President Donald Trump wins a second term, sources say, given that the effort will take several years to implement.
Many of the proposals -- such as reviving calls for NSR reform that have run afoul of federal appellate court rulings, or modifying the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) program -- face likely lawsuits from environmentalists and others, sources say, or would require Hill action.
“In order to complete everything on this list, Trump is going to have to win another term,” says a second industry source, in reference to the proposed air program changes. The source, however, contends that at least some of the ideas are achievable during Trump's first term.
In the short term it is also unclear how EPA, and its air program in particular, will juggle the priorities with other policy fights and requirements, including multiple deadlines for implementing requirements in Trump administration deregulatory executive orders and ongoing fights over the agency's Clean Power Plan (CPP).
Still, one industry source claims that “most of the items” on the report's list of possible changes to the NSR permitting program “can be done fairly easily either through guidance or through regulation.”
The Department of Commerce quietly released its regulatory reform report on Oct. 6, focusing heavily on changes to EPA's air program as a top priority, including revision to the NAAQS and NSR included in a list of “priority areas for reform” in order to help boost the manufacturing sector. The report claims that the existing programs are overly burdensome and stifling potential growth in manufacturing.
The report acknowledges its recommendations would take a mix of administrative action and legislation to implement, and includes an array of recommended changes at EPA for air, water and waste, including on Clean Air Act Title V operating permits, the ozone NAAQS, and the agency's air toxics program.
Several observers note the report, and particularly its air program recommendations, sheds little light on what comes first as the agency also faces an array of other tasks to implement Trump's deregulatory agenda. Those other tasks include its high-profile CPP repeal, attacks on Obama-era methane regulations.
The first industry source expresses frustration at a slow pace of Trump administration action on EPA rules to date, but expresses optimism that the pace is about to pick up substantially once the Senate confirms the Trump administration's nominee for EPA's air office, William Wehrum. The Senate Environment & Public Works Committee is slated to vote on Wehrum and other agency nominees at an Oct. 18 business meeting.
“Once Bill Wehrum is confirmed, we will probably have a better sense” of how EPA's air office will sequence its priorities,” the source says.
'No Prioritization'
But a third industry source says in reference to the Department of Commerce recommendations, “Here is the overarching issue. There is literally no prioritization. There is no way . . . all of this can be pushed through the [regulatory pipeline]. They’ve got about an eight inch pipe and . . . about 10 feet of issues they want to shove through.”
Several industry sources expect the Trump EPA will now take a run at implementing many of the proposed NSR changes through rules or even guidance documents.
The first industry source says that pursuing the regulatory reforms as guidance could be a viable strategy for at least some changes because courts may not see it as final agency action ripe for legal challenge. Federal appeals courts have issued orders in the past rejecting suits over guidance for such a reason.
In addition, several industry sources suggest that one of the NSR recommendations -- essentially reviving a proposed Bush administration NSR regulation to ease emissions calculations related to project “aggregation” and netting -- may be potential low hanging fruit, with one singling it out as a rule changes that could yield particularly “significant benefits to industry."
But the second industry source says that for items on the Commerce Department list that require a full rulemaking, that process could take two years or more, even before the need to defend air program changes is taken into account. And that means that moving to implement all of the priorities, even assuming success would likely be a two presidential term strategy.
One environmentalist, meanwhile, contends the outlook for major changes to the NSR program, absent statutory revisions that would be massively controversial, is bleaker than the report suggests.
“It is important to remind yourself of the Clean Air Act language,” the source says, referencing statutory language that defines any modification at a facility that significantly increases emissions as being subject to NSR review.
Multiple industry sources also warn against the danger of overreaching on NSR reform, referencing as a tricky issue the report's call to pursue broader NSR exemption for “routine maintenance” projects at facilities.
The report itself notes that the routine maintenance effort could require a combination of statutory and administrative change, and the sources argue that EPA may have options here but should not overreach.
“The agency can try to provide more certainty and relief, but the [legal] precedents coming out of the [Bush administration's [prior reform efforts] hamstrings” changes to some degree, the third industry source adds, citing as an example the 2006 United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruling in State of New York v. EPA. Known informally as the New York II case, it tossed out an EPA regulation seeking to define as routine projects costing under 20 percent of the value of a facility.
“Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered,” the source adds, broadly emphasizing the danger of creating legal backlash that actually makes the NSR program less flexible.
'High Legal Risk'
The second industry source likewise calls the issue of revisiting routine maintenance with a less ambitious revision a possibility, but says it could carry “high legal risk."
“These things are going into the process, and not all will come out the other end,” adds a fourth industry source in reference to the Commerce Department recommendations.
There is also some confusion on the scope of some of the report's NSR recommendations, with one source noting in reference to the report's call to ease use under NSR on flexible facility emissions caps known as plant-wide applicability limits, “It's not a lot of bang for the buck.”
The source notes that the Bush administration successfully issued a rule to broaden their use, and wants more clarity on what the report is driving at with respect to additional flexibility.
More broadly, sources say the Commerce Department report raises the issue of EPA's bandwidth to accomplish numerous Trump administration directives. The report, for example, references an end of this year deadline, applicable to regulatory task forces at EPA and other agencies, for an action plan that describes “specific actions” that could be taken to implement the report's recommendations.
But EPA has also been wrestling with other deadlines for implementing several Trump administration executive orders on deregulation, including a requirement to produce recommendations on alleviating burdens on energy production and work on the next unified agenda, which is expected for the first time to identify deregulatory options under the Trump administration's so called 2 for 1 executive order.
Over the long term, another industry source says the deregulation report creates risks if the Trump administration cannot deliver, to the extent it suggests quick action on longstanding industry complaints, many of which have lingered for years without resolution.
“Two or three years from now, somebody is going to be accountable. What is the explanation going to be, 'it is too hard?”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/commerces-bid-reform-epa-rules-may-hinge-second-trump-term
-
White House Environmental Adviser's Confirmation Faces Logjam
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Dean Scott
President Donald Trump's pick for the White House's top environmental adviser faces a slow path to confirmation and strong opposition from Senate Democrats.
Kathleen Hartnett White previously served on the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2007, including as its chairwoman, and was nominated by Trump to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality late Oct. 12. But White's nomination adds to a growing pile of nominations before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, where six nominees—four of them high-level EPA positions—are awaiting a committee vote, according to a Republican committee aide.
White's nomination will be slotted in with a smaller pool of other nominees who haven't had hearings on their confirmations, including Trump's nominee for deputy Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Andrew Wheeler, as well as nominees for the Tennessee Valley Authority.
White has drawn fire from environmental groups and Senate Democrats for her views on carbon dioxide, the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas produced by power plants, as well as her stances on other fossil fuel combustion and forest cutting. The Council on Environmental Quality has coordinated high-level environmental policies and regulations for more than 45 years and has helped presidents since Richard Nixon mesh those policies across multiple agencies including the EPA and Interior Department.
Jim Connaughton, who was President George W. Bush's CEQ chairman and worked with White after she was named to head the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in 2003, said criticism from environmental advocates and Senate Democrats should not be enough to sideline what he considers a well-qualified nominee.
“Do I agree with Kathleen White on a lot of things? Yes. Are there areas I disagree? Sure,” Connaughton said. But the biggest unknown ahead is whether the council will have a significant role in deciding policy, he said.
Beneficial Emissions?
White has argued that carbon dioxide emission are beneficial, essentially greening the Earth as plant food. There are “all kinds of examples of the really beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, satellites already are showing a greening of the Earth in part from the very small amounts of carbon dioxide involved in using fossil fuels,” White said in a December 2015 video.
“Her stated alliance with the fossil fuel industry makes her unfit to hold the highest environmental post in the government to advise the president on the real moral threat to our county: climate change,” said Christy Goldfuss, vice president of energy and environmental policy at the Center for American Progress and the former managing director of the White House environmental quality council.
White served as a lobbyist for the Texas Public Policy Foundation until late last year, according to Texas Ethics Commission records. The Austin-based group has received funding from companies such as ConocoPhillips, Chevron Corp., Devon Energy Corp., and Koch Industries Inc., according to a document obtained by the Texas Observer.
Brooke Rollins, president and chief executive officer of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, where White currently works, hailed her as a strong leader, particularly in “ensuring that Texans have the energy and natural resources they need to prosper.”
The Texas Public Policy Foundation has opposed the EPA's attempts to regulate greenhouse gases and is one of three groups that have petitioned EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to reconsider the agency's landmark 2009 finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and the environment and should be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
In a 2012 report, White argued that EPA rules to cut smog, tiny particles and other pollutants threatened the “loss of coal-fired electric generation” and hundreds of thousands of jobs. She said EPA had erred in its accounting of health benefits of cutting pollution, calling the estimated lives saved a “statistical fiction.”
Still Other Positions to Fill
White's nomination still leaves a vacuum in other key White House science and environmental policy positions, including the next head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. OSTP spokesman Ross Gillfillan told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 13 that there's been no announcement for the position.
Past OSTP directors, including John Holdren, who served under President Barack Obama, have also usually served as the president's top science adviser.
White is currently listed as a distinguished senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and director of its Armstrong Center for Energy and Environment.
Environmental groups blasted not only White's nomination but also Trump's nominee announced Oct. 11 to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a Commerce Department office that oversees the National Weather Service. The nominee, Barry Myers, leads AccuWeather, a private weather forecasting firm and has complained that the NWS forecasts are unfair competition for his private entity.
“We've seen a pattern in this administration of appointees who have significant conflicts—they come from the very industries they'd be overseeing, or have a record of opposition to the science-based implementation of the laws and rules they'd be implementing,” said Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative with the Center for Science and Democracy of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
A Department of Commerce spokesman said Myers has been a strong proponent of keeping weather data free and open to the public. The White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about White.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116387&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116387&jd=122116387
-
EPA Seeks Input On Potential TSCA Reporting Rule
Oct 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA is seeking public input on how to reduce reporting burdens for certain chemicals' to inform a potential Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) reporting rule, after a negotiated rulemaking committee required under the recently revised TSCA failed to reach a consensus that would have required the agency to craft a rule.
In an Oct. 12 Federal Register notice, EPA announces that it will seek public input for 60 days, through Dec. 11, on possible approaches for limiting chemical data reporting (CDR) requirements under TSCA for inorganic byproducts that are recycled, re-used, or reprocessed.
“Though the Committee has concluded its discussions, EPA is providing an opportunity for the public to offer input about approaches that would reduce burden associated with the reporting of inorganic byproducts while maintaining the Agency’s ability to receive the information it needs to understand exposure,” the agency notice says.
EPA in the notice also cancels the final meeting, formerly scheduled for Oct. 25-26, of the CDR Inorganic Byproducts Negotiated Rulemaking Committee.
The committee's talks collapsed during a Sept. 14 meeting in Washington, D.C., when panelists failed to agree on a proposed rule that would meet industries' goal of reducing reporting burdens, while satisfying environmentalists' push for EPA to have adequate data for assessing potential exposures.
EPA staff told the Sept. 14 meeting that failure to reach consensus would require the agency to start the agency's effort to craft a burden reduction rule over again, but that the committee's discussions could inform agency deliberations on any future rule.
In an Oct. 12 blog post, officials with Bergeson & Campbell, P.C., a firm that advises industry clients, suggest EPA may struggle to make use of comments received in time to issue a final rule in advance of future reporting.
“It is unclear if EPA will be able to complete the myriad of tasks needed to take a proposal received during the public comment period to final implementation before the 2020 CDR reporting cycle, as this would require EPA to complete a thorough analysis of additional proposals, consider potential impacts to the EPA offices, develop a proposed rulemaking, obtain public review and comment on the proposal, issue a final rulemaking, and provide clear and detailed guidance on the new approaches for reporting on recycled inorganic products prior to the 2020 CDR reporting cycle,” the blog says.
Section 8(a)(6) of the revised TSCA, which former President Barack Obama enacted in June 2016 directs EPA to convene a negotiated committee to address industry concerns about the CDR program and potentially craft a rule limiting reporting requirements for inorganic byproducts in some cases.
The CDR rule is the mechanism by which EPA receives most of its information on chemical production in the United States. EPA's latest regulatory agenda, released earlier this year, indicates that the agency plans to revise the CDR sometime in Spring 2018.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/epa-seeks-input-potential-tsca-reporting-rule
-
Costco Turns to Berkeley Researchers for Green Chemistry Help
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Costco Wholesale Corp. will craft strategies for managing its products in what the retailer says is the first partnership between a major retailer and a university's green chemistry safety center.
The company is partnering with the Berkeley Center for Green Chemistry, where scientists will study Costco's practices, supply chains, and product criteria, and make recommendations, Tom McKeag, the center's executive director, told Bloomberg BNA. The center has previously worked with companies like Levi Strauss & Co., Patagonia Inc., W.L. Gore and Associates.
Craig Wilson, Costco vice president for quality assurance and food safety, told Bloomberg BNA the agreement is the start of what the company hopes will be a long-term partnership.
Costco lacks in-house staff to perform the work, Wilson said. But, the company has done some chemical testing during the past 18 to 20 years. “We wanted to get a better understanding of this whole chemical environment,” Wilson said, “and what consumers are thinking, and we needed some really good expertise.”
While, the partnership will help the company's customers, McKeag said Costco will face challenges “striking a good balance between the company's business objectives and controlling chemicals of concern within products in a very complex and extensive supply chain.”
Costco boasts more than 90 million customer members and a revenue of $126.2 billion in fiscal 2017. The company operates 514 warehouses and a number of adjacent gas stations in the U.S. It was the third-largest retailer in 2016, behind The Kroger Co. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., according to the National Retail Federation.
Chemical Critics
While Costco enjoys a reputation for paying its store employees—many of whom are unionized—much higher wages than competitors like Wal-Mart and Target, advocates say the company has lagged behind its peers in programs to flag harmful chemicals in the products it sells.
In a report card by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families released last year, Costco ranked near the bottom, with a grade of ‘F’, for what the group said was its failure “to develop even basic safer chemical policies.”
At Costco's annual meeting in January, activists from a group of nonprofit organizations brought petitions urging the company to do more to manage chemicals in its products.
Wal-Mart last year named eight high-priority chemicals it intends to phase out of its products, including butylparaben, triclosan, and formaldehyde, after working with the Environmental Defense Fund to develop a chemical management program beginning in 2013.
Costco launched a Smart Screening program earlier this year to test some items at third-party laboratories for unspecified chemicals “of regulatory and social concern” and help suppliers replace them with safer substances.
Wilson said the Berkeley agreement was not in response to the activists’ demands, but rather was “about getting appropriate expertise.”
Future Impacts?
Laurie Valeriano, executive director of Toxic-Free Future, which lobbied Costco at the meeting, told Bloomberg BNA the announcement was a good first step, but more information was needed to know if it will have an impact.
Consumers will judge Costco on which chemicals it ultimately reduces and how it accomplishes the reductions, Valeriano said.
“I think they still have a ways to go to really be a leader in this area,” Valeriano said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116382&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116382&jd=122116382
-
Transparency: Fundamental Protection Against Toxic Chemicals
Oct 16, 2017 | Natural Resources Defense Council
By Avinash Kar
Transparency or “right-to-know” is a fundamental concept in protecting public health against exposures to toxic chemicals. It refers to the consumer’s or the public’s right to know about what is in the products they use or that are being released into their environment. We should all be able to know what we are being exposed to, bringing into our homes, or putting into or on our bodies.
That’s why NRDC co-sponsored the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 (SB 258) that Governor Brown signed into law today. The new law requires cleaning products—for the first time—to disclose the bulk of their ingredients, particularly chemicals of concern, on their labels and online. In a first for any product category, chemical ingredients in fragrances—previously a black box to consumers—will also have to be disclosed.
It took months of negotiations with industry to get there, but eventually key players in the cleaning product industry and the public health coalition—including NRDC, other co-sponsors of the legislation, domestic and janitorial worker groups, community groups, progressive industry voices, and coalitions like Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy—agreed on a way forward.
This agreement reflects the growing consumer demand for transparency. That demand for transparency is no surprise.
The simple fact of having to disclose what’s in a product or being released to the environment can have profound and powerful impacts:Consumers can make more informed decisions and choose products that are better for their health and their families’By choosing better products, consumers can create incentives for better products and an even playing field for companies that are trying to do the right thing.Because consumers often choose to avoid chemicals associated with adverse health impacts, companies often reformulate their products to avoid those chemicals. The result is safer products with fewer dangerous chemicals for consumers nationwide.Innovators who are leading the way on the use of safer chemicals have a better opportunity to compete. Others in the industry are pushed to improve because consumers are better able to compare products, making products containing chemicals of concern, or those lacking ingredient information, less attractive.Having information about the components of products allows regulators to take targeted action on problem chemicals when necessary.
If we don’t know what’s in the products on the market, it is much harder to stop the use of the true problem chemicals or to choose the healthier product. That is why we start from the fundamental premise that consumers and the public have a right to know what they are being exposed to. That’s why passage of SB 258 is a big step forward for Californians and people across the country.
This bill is part of NRDC’s multi-pronged approach to make sure the public and agencies have the information they need to protect public health.For instance, we are also working on making sure that California programs like the Safer Consumer Products Program are gathering sufficient information from manufacturers to evaluate the products and chemicals they are considering for an analysis of safer alternatives to the chemicals of concern in those products.Similarly, we are working to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency takes full advantage of its authorities under the updated Toxic Substances Control Act to gather and evaluate information on all foreseeable uses and risks associated with the chemicals they are charged with reviewing.
Getting EPA to do the right thing during the Trump/Pruitt administration will be an uphill climb. But the adoption of the Cleaning Product Right to Know Act demonstrates that even while EPA is in the grip of chemical manufacturers like Dow, we can still make progress on informing and protecting the American public. We can’t give up that fight, and we won’t.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/avinash-kar/transparency-fundamental-protection-against-toxic-chemicals
-
Will U.K. Chemical Firms Lose EU Market Access Under Brexit?
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
Brexit may disrupt access to the European market for major chemical companies that register their products for sale from the U.K., legal professionals told Bloomberg BNA.
Under the European Union's all-encompassing REACH chemicals law, substances must be registered with the European Chemicals Agency as a condition of access to the EU market. However, registrants must have a legal presence in the EU or in the European Economic Area (EEA) countries of Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, which participate in the EU single market.
ECHA clarified last month that U.K. companies’ REACH registrations will “be regarded as non-existent” once the country leaves the EU in March 2019.
Once the U.K. exits the EU, companies that filed REACH registrations from the U.K.—including BP Chemicals, Tata Chemicals Europe, and the BOC Group—need to transfer their registrations to legal entities within the bloc to ensure their continued participation in its lucrative single market.
Shannon Wiseman, spokesman for BP Group, which includes BP Chemicals, said the company was “aware of the Brexit discussions around REACH registrations and we will of course continue to ensure we comply with regulations.”
Tata Chemicals Europe and the BOC Group did not immediately respond to requests for comment on their plans.
‘Genuine Massive Risk’
It is possible that the exit agreement that the U.K. government negotiates with the EU will allow for the U.K.'s continued involvement in REACH—and therefore for the continuation of REACH registrations—but “no business in its right mind” would count on that, said Peter Sellar, an advocate with Axiom Advocates in Edinburgh, Scotland.
It is “a genuine massive risk” that the date of the U.K.'s departure from the EU will arrive with no exit agreement in place, and chemicals companies based in the U.K. that do not put into place contingency measures could find themselves shut out of the EU market, Sellar said.
European Chemicals Agency spokeswoman Hanna-Kaisa Torkkeli told Bloomberg BNA Oct. 12 that there were “indications that companies are inquiring about the possibility of undertaking a legal entity change,” but it was “too early to say” how many companies would switch their REACH registrations out of the U.K.
Chemical companies that operate out of the U.K. or use it as their point of entry to the EU's single market account for 6,362 REACH dossiers covering 2,563 substances.
Marcus Navin-Jones, a partner with Keller and Heckman LLP in Brussels, said U.K. REACH registrants “should at least have a contingency plan in place” to ensure their REACH registrations remain valid after Brexit, especially because the U.K. government's post-Brexit plans “still don't appear finalized or clear, and therefore seem up in the air at the moment.”
Britain has said it wants a transition period of about two years after Brexit to allow companies to adjust to life outside the bloc, but the detailed arrangements are unclear.
Transfer Registrations
Douglas Leech, technical director of the U.K. Chemical Business Association, which represents companies that trade chemicals, told Bloomberg BNA that multinational companies such as BASF SE, DowDuPont, and GlaxoSmithKline should be able to transfer their registrations to entities in other EU countries.
However, non-EU companies that import chemicals into the EU through the U.K. could incur significant “additional burden, cost, and hassle,” Leech said.
As of Sept. 20, companies in the U.K. had filed 6,362 of the 52,963 substance registration dossiers received by ECHA, 12 percent pf the total, according to the agency's website.
The U.K. trails only Germany in terms of the number of registration dossiers filed. The ECHA data excludes substances covered by other EU legislation that are considered already registered under REACH.
The need to make arrangements also will affect consultancy companies that act as agents through which non-EU companies obtain REACH registrations, so-called “only representatives” in the U.K.
Under REACH, “it's absolutely clear that an only representative needs to be established in the EU and have sufficient background in the practical handling of substances and the information related to them,” said Navin-Jones. Non-EU companies that use U.K. only representatives also need a “contingency strategy” to ensure the continuation of their REACH registrations, he said.
Limited Options
Options for U.K. registrants to continue their REACH registrations are to route them through a subsidiary, an associated company, or an only representative in one of the remaining EU countries.
The REACH Fees Regulation (EC) No 340/2008 states that the fee to be paid to ECHA for a “change in identity of the registrant involving a change in legal personality” is 1,631 euros ($1,912), with reduced fees for small companies.
For companies that don't themselves hold REACH registrations, the options are more limited and could be much more expensive.
For instance, Leech said a large number of Chinese companies import into the EU via the U.K., with the REACH registration held by the U.K. importer. With that registration no longer valid, a Chinese company would have to look for another point of entry to the EU, or to appoint an only representative in the EU, Leech said.
Neither option would be a “cheap enterprise,” and would entail getting new contracts, and possibly new registration fees. So some non-EU companies with limited EU business might prefer to drop out of the EU market, Leech said.
‘Dual Regulatory Regimes’
U.K. companies and companies that trade chemicals through the U.K. also must plan for the third and final REACH registration deadline of May 31, 2018, 10 months ahead of Brexit. The deadline applies to substances manufactured in or imported into the EU in annual volumes of 1 to 100 metric tons. Previous deadlines, in 2010 and 2013, applied to higher volume and hazardous substances.
Sellar said companies in the U.K. “definitely should” register their substances with ECHA by the 2018 deadline, even though the registrations might have to be re-routed through entities in other EU countries after a few months.
This is because the U.K. government has so far said it will continue to apply REACH, even outside the EU, Sellar said. In principle, companies in the U.K. that hold REACH registrations will be able to use those registrations to continue to access the U.K. market post-Brexit, he said.
Those companies will face “dual regulatory regimes” for chemicals post-Brexit—one set in the EU and one set in the U.K.—and need to plan for both, Sellar said.
The impact of Brexit on chemical companies might be postponed if the withdrawal agreement between the EU and the U.K. specifies that REACH will continue to apply in the U.K. for a transition period, and if the withdrawal agreement has direct legal effect, Sellar said.
In this case, companies would have a “softer landing” and more time to make arrangements to continue their REACH registrations, he said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116383&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116383&jd=122116383
-
European Union Wants More Information on Companies’ Nanomaterials
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Stephen Gardner
3M Europe, Solvay S.A., and other companies that produce chemicals at the nano-scale would have to provide the European Chemicals Agency more detailed information on their products under a draft European Union regulation.
The EU's draft regulation seeks more information about the toxicological risks and safe-use data of nano-scale chemicals, which could impose more testing and reporting costs on chemical manufacturers. Until now, there has been no requirement under the EU's overarching REACH chemicals law to provide nano-specific information separate from data on the same substances at normal scale when chemicals are registered.
The proposed regulation is important because chemical makers currently report “very little nano-specific information,” despite “extensive efforts” to get more data, the European Chemicals Agency said.
A variety of other companies would be required to provide the additional information, said David Carlander, regulatory affairs director of the Nanotechnology Industries Association, which represents companies such as 3M Europe and Solvay.
“If you are a company producing a powder more or less of any kind you would have to check if you are producing a nanoform to understand if you fall under these new provisions,” he told Bloomberg BNA.
For example, companies producing pigments in powder form would be “very much impacted” by the regulation, though “not all pigments are nanomaterials,” Carlander said.
3M Europe declined to comment and Solvay S.A. did not respond to a Bloomberg BNA request for comment.
Once finalized, the draft regulation's provisions on providing more information on nanomaterials—defined as materials that range in size from 1 nanometer to 100 nanometers—in REACH registration dossiers would take effect Jan. 1, 2020.
Companies would be “very strongly advised” to check and update if necessary their REACH registration dossiers ahead of the requirements taking effect, Carlander said.
The requirements of the draft regulation “might raise compliance costs” but in general the Nanotechnology Industries Association welcomed the draft regulation because it would clarify what the European Chemicals Agency can ask companies to provide in terms of information on nanomaterials, Carlander said.
Realistic Requirements?
How much the draft regulation could cost companies is still unclear and the European Chemical Industry Council said it was still evaluating the proposal's effects.
The draft regulation is “a welcome step” and would “further increase transparency and demonstrate the safety of nanomaterials,” Maria Linkova-Nijs, a spokeswoman for the European Chemical Industry Council, told Bloomberg BNA.
The additional testing and reporting requirements still have to be approved by a regulatory committee. The draft regulation is out for public comment until Nov. 6.
There is a risk the draft regulation could impose requirements on companies to provide information about nanomaterials when the science of nanomaterials is still developing and techniques to derive the required information might not yet be available, Anthony Bochon, a senior associate with law firm Squire Patton Boggs in Brussels, told Bloomberg BNA.
“Certain methodologies don't exist today. We are still waiting for tools. We are still waiting for protocols. There are a lot of uncertainties,” Bochon said.
Companies that could be affected by the additional information requirements should comment on the draft regulation by the Nov. 6 deadline if they have any particular concerns about their technical ability to provide the nano-specific information, he said.
The delay until 2020 before the draft regulation would take effect would give some time for scientific developments to better characterize and identity the hazards of nanomaterials, Bochon added.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116396&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116396&jd=122116396
-
EU Requests Guidelines On Phthalates In Medical Devices
Oct 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has asked its Scientific Committee on Health, Environment and Emerging Risks (Scheer) to produce guidelines relating to the use of phthalates in medical devices.
The guidelines, DG Growth says, should, for an individual device:
· analyse and estimate potential patient or user exposure to the substance;
· analyse possible alternative substances; and
· justify why possible substance and/or material substitutes, if available, or design changes, if feasible, are inappropriate.
It also asks Scheer to:
· identify any relevant knowledge gaps; and
· consider what extent of new evidence would be needed, to justify updating the guidelines before the maximum period of five years.
The deadline for the work is 31 March 2019.
https://chemicalwatch.com/60093/eu-requests-guidelines-on-phthalates-in-medical-devices
-
Boom in American Liquified Natural Gas Is Shaking Up the Energy World
Oct 16, 2017 | The New York Times
By Clifford Krauss
HOUSTON — A shale gas drilling boom over the last decade has propelled the United States from energy importer to exporter, taking the country a giant leap toward the goal of energy independence declared by presidents for half a century.
Now the upheaval of the domestic energy sector is going global. A swell of gas in liquefied form shipped from Texas and Louisiana is descending on global markets, producing a broader glut and lower energy prices.
The United States was supposed to be a big L.N.G. importer, not a world class exporter. The frenzy of drilling in shale gas fields across the country changed that over the last decade, creating a glut far larger than domestic demand could possibly consume. Companies that spent billions of dollars to build import platforms suddenly had useless facilities until they spent billions more to convert them for export.
The switch will remake the global gas market for decades to come. Energy experts are predicting that the transformation will weaken Russia’s dominance over European power markets, help clean the air in cities across China and India by replacing the burning of coal and eventually provide cheaper and cleaner fuel to African villages.
The full dimensions of the wave over the next four or five years, including its impact on the environment and climate change, are hard to predict, in part because they will depend on the policies adopted by many governments. But as several American multibillion-dollar export terminals come on line, few doubt that the influence of more gas, as the cleanest burning fossil fuel, will be consequential for powerful and poor countries alike.Mexico Could Be a Model
Experts point to Mexico as an example of how transformative gas can be in a matter of only a few years. As the American shale boom accelerated, producing more gas than its northern neighbor could consume, Mexico decided to import as much cheap gas as possible. Mexico replaced its dirtier burning coal and petroleum products, and now more than a quarter of the country’s electricity is powered by American gas.
Four additional cross-border pipelines are to be completed over the next two years, and many more are in the planning phase. The gas imports have improved air quality, helped Mexico reach goals to reduce its carbon footprint to meet Paris climate agreement targets and freed capital to invest in more exploration and production of oil, which is more valuable on world markets.
Because Mexico has a border close to Texas oil and gas fields, pipelines have made the transformation relatively easy. Exporting and importing liquefied gas is more complicated. Gas is expensive to ship overseas because it must be cooled to minus 260 degrees, condensing it to what is called liquefied natural gas, or L.N.G., to be shipped in giant tankers. The importing country then has to turn the liquid back into gas so it can be transported by pipelines. But even though liquefied gas is usually more expensive than piped gas or even coal, demand and supplies are growing fast.
“This bulge of L.N.G. is going to completely upset the apple cart of world energy politics and the global competition of fuels that is still hard for people to comprehend,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, an energy security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Russia will be the loser. We can already see their leverage on the gas market in Europe and the leverage they are trying to create over China dissipating.”
Enough L.N.G. export capacity is under construction to catapult it from 33 percent to nearly 40 percent of the total international gas trade by 2022, even while piped gas shipments are also growing globally.
Roughly 60 percent of the new L.N.G. export capacity is being built in the United States, which only began exporting large supplies last year, giving Washington a new tool for its foreign policy toolbox and raising the country to the top tier of exporters, which includes Qatar, Australia and Russia.
Lithuania became the first former Soviet republic to import a shipment of American natural gas in August, a symbolic move that came as Washington pledged to reduce the dependency of Europe on Russia, which has been known to use gas as a political weapon.
The Lithuania shipment came only a month after Poland became the first Eastern European country to import American gas. Russia has already been forced to lower its gas prices to Europe in an attempt to diminish European thirst for American gas. That effort has cost Russian companies revenues and made expansion of L.N.G. facilities in the Arctic less economically feasible.
Russia has gained European market share, in large part because North Sea and Dutch production are declining. But energy experts say that the United States will surely cut into Russian market share with its new L.N.G. exports because Europe is alarmed by President Vladimir Putin’s aggression against Ukraine and interference in the elections of several Western democracies. There are few ways to punish Russia more than reducing its energy revenues, which account for nearly half of the Kremlin’s budget and spreads political benefits to President Putin’s powerful cronies.
“Forcing Russia to compete in a more competitive gas market in Europe and giving European consumers alternative sources of supply significantly weakens Russia’s geopolitical influence in Europe,” said Jason Bordoff, who was a senior energy adviser to President Obama and is now director of Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “The transition of the U.S. to one of the world’s largest gas exporters has very significant economic, environmental and geopolitical implications.”L.N.G. Skeptics in Europe
Europeans tend to be suspicious of hydrocarbons like gas, and especially the hydraulic fracturing methods that coax gas from hard shale rock, much preferring renewables. Many skeptics in Europe and the United States note that the production and transport of gas can leak methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, making it less reliable as an environmental solution.
Natural gas consumption in Europe had been declining in recent years as the continent moved strongly to renewables and as some countries also burned more cheap coal to replace nuclear. But demand for gas rebounded in 2015 and 2016, principally at the expense of coal.
The United Kingdom may be leading the way, with carbon pricing and other policies designed to phase out coal power by 2025, thus giving gas a big opening. For most of the other big economies, gas is a supplement, especially in France when its nuclear plant fleet needs repairs as it did in 2016. German gas-fired power plants that were dormant in 2015 have come back on.
Oil company executives with a stake in natural gas say gas is a perfect complement to Europe’s push for renewable energy, by maintaining power when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow.
“Increasingly, European countries are seeing that they do need gas-fired power generation to balance out renewables,” said Tor Martin, senior vice president for marketing and supply at Statoil, the Norwegian oil and gas company that is also investing in offshore wind power.
The biggest increase in demand for liquefied natural gas will come from China and India, as their growing middle classes demand more power and as their industries grow.
The International Energy Agency estimates an annual growth rate of 8.7 percent in Chinese gas consumption through 2022.
Gas is more expensive than coal in China, but the government is phasing out coal-fired boilers and switching to gas-fired ones, principally to help relieve air contamination in Beijing and other cities. The government is aiming to replace coal in textile factories.
Under the country’s five-year economic plan, through 2020, gas is the only fossil fuel that is supposed to increase its share in the energy consumption mix for heating, cooling and even commercial truck fleets — from 6 percent to up to 10 percent by 2020. Cheaper L.N.G. could also offset China’s future dependence on piped Russian gas and force Russian companies to lower prices to stay competitive.
In India, the energy agency projects an average growth of 6 percent annually of gas through 2022, in part driven by cheaper L.N.G. deliveries. Demand for it could increase by 11 percent annually.
“In many cases the increased use of gas, particularly in some of the importing markets in Asia, has the potential to displace coal, so it can play a very positive role in mitigating the growth of emissions,” said Tim Gould, a senior energy analyst at the energy agency.L.N.G. Importers Grow Rapidly
Only 15 countries imported liquefied gas in 2005. Twelve years later it has more than tripled, with such major economies as Pakistan, Thailand, Jordan, Egypt, Poland and Colombia becoming importers in the last few years.
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Ghana, Haiti, Namibia, Panama, the Philippines and Uruguay are building import terminals, according to the International Energy Agency.
At the same time, gas demand for public transport is growing in Iran, Pakistan and Argentina.
Germany has largely given up on nuclear power, and it needs natural gas without Russian strings to replace some of the lost power. African countries are beginning to deploy offshore modular terminals to import gas, which should help deliver power to rural villages, although the lack of pipelines will slow the process.
Even Saudi Arabia is looking to invest in export terminals around the world to import gas to replace some of the oil the country burns for power.
Such an investment, which could come with the initial public offering of Saudi Aramco planned for next year, could free significantly more oil on global markets.
Many countries see the replacement by gas of coal and heating oil as a relatively painless way to reduce their carbon footprint, especially if potential methane leakage can be addressed. But many environmentalists say gas is only useful as a bridge fuel to a new age of renewables, if the bridge is short.
Major oil companies are understandably bullish on gas in the hope that it extends their economic sustainability as the world moves to new, cleaner energy.
“In the near term, gas will replace coal, in the medium term it will partner with renewables,” said Maarten Wetselaar, director of integrated gas and new energies at Royal Dutch Shell, “and in the long term it will take care of those parts of energy demand that cannot be electrified,” such as ships and aircraft.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/business/energy-environment/liquified-natural-gas-world-markets.html
-
Fourth Train Complete At Cheniere's Sabine Pass LNG Plant
Oct 13, 2017 | Reuters (In Business Insider)
By Julie Gordon
Cheniere Energy Partners LP said Friday that the fourth train at its Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas plant was substantially complete, boosting output from the first LNG export terminal in the United States by a third.
LNG plants are made up of trains, which are liquefaction facilities used to supercool natural gas for transport on ships.
Offtake from the train, which has a 4.5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) nameplate capacity, is contracted to GAIL (India) Ltd for a 20-year period, with shipments to commence in March 2018.
Until then, LNG produced from the train will be sold by Cheniere into the market, spokesman Eben Burnham-Snyder said.
A fifth train is under construction at the facility, which will further boost capacity at the export terminal from 18 Mtpa to 22.5 Mtpa by the second half of 2019.
At least five other export terminals are set to come online on the east coast of the United States over the next few years, including Cheniere's own Corpus Christi facility in Texas. (Reporting by Julie Gordon in Vancouver)
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-fourth-train-complete-at-chenieres-sabine-pass-lng-plant-2017-10
-
Federal Regulators Approve Two Major East Coast Pipelines
Oct 13, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Julia Manchester
Federal regulators on Friday approved two major natural gas pipelines for construction on the East Coast, a move heralded by business leaders and condemned by environmentalists.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted approvals for the Mountain Valley and Atlantic Coast pipelines, according to The Associated Press. One of the three commissioners dissented.
The Mountain Valley Pipeline, which is slated to cost $3.5 billion, would span 300 miles from the northern portion of West Virginia all the way to Danville, Va.
The Atlantic Coast Pipeline, which will amount to $5 billion, will stretch 600 miles from north-central West Virginia, through Virginia, and through eastern North Carolina.
Business advocates say the pipelines will lower energy costs and jumpstart economic development, however opponents argue the pipelines will interfere with property rights and have a negative impact on the environment.
“Given the environmental impacts and possible superior alternatives, approving these two pipeline projects on this record is not a decision I can support,” said commissioner Cheryl LaFleur, an Obama-era appointee who dissented on Friday, according to the AP.
The decision is the latest victory for pipeline advocates. It comes days after a federal judge ruled that the Dakota Access pipeline could continue its operation during a federal review of the project’s environmental impact.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/355429-federal-regulators-approve-major-east-coast-pipelines
-
State Challenges Feds To Block Pipeline For Natural Gas Power Plant
Oct 13, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Marie J. French
ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s administration is challenging a federal decision to overrule New York’s denial of a water quality permit, in a test of the authority that states have to block natural gas pipelines.
The Department of Environmental Conservation on Friday filed a petition for a rehearing with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the commission's decision to overrule the DEC's rejection of the 7.8-mile Millennium Valley Lateral project.
DEC rejected the permit in August, arguing federal regulators hadn’t considered the project’s climate change impacts. FERC didn’t account for the emissions from the CPV Valley power plant the pipeline would supply, the department said.
In September, FERC ruled that the DEC waived its authority to approve or deny a water quality permit because the agency missed its statutory one-year deadline to act on the permit under federal law. That ruling has already led the backers of the Constitution Pipeline, for which the Cuomo administration rejected a key permit, to appeal to FERC on the same grounds.
The state’s petition focuses on whether the one-year deadline for action was triggered by the first application submitted by Millennium, which the state said was incomplete, or the refiled application.
"Under FERC's erroneous interpretation of Section 401, the waiver period would commence upon the Department's receipt of any request for a [water quality certificate], however perfunctory," the petition states.
If DEC simply denied incomplete applications as FERC's September decision suggested, it "would be inefficient and penalize both the Department and an applicant by foreclosing the opportunity to work cooperatively to ensure that a given application contains all the necessary information for a Department to render a decision on the merits," it says.
The state's requirement for a complete application is also consistent with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' practice, according to the state.
The power plant the pipeline would supply is part of a corruption case against Joe Percoco, a top former aide to Cuomo. Environmental activists have seized upon that link in calling for blocking the plant. The alleged corruption scheme did not involve permits or other state actions benefiting the 685 megawatt Orange County plant, but Percoco did play a role in a bi-state agreement — since ended — with New Jersey that benefited a CPV plant in that state.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/story/2017/10/new-york-challenges-feds-to-block-pipeline-for-natural-gas-power-plant-163396
-
(ACC Mentioned) Moure-Eraso: Chemical Accidents Can Be Prevented
Oct 14, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By Rafael Moure-Eraso
Hurricane Harvey has reminded us that much of America's chemical infrastructure is in serious peril. The fires and explosions at the Arkema peroxide plant in Crosby, which sickened first responders and terrified the surrounding community, illustrate what happens when industry is allowed to operate for decades without effective safety oversight.
Arkema capitalized on the weakness of the current regulatory system, even as the company lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency to keep those rules unchanged. The current rules largely omit coverage for reactive chemicals like Arkema's peroxides - just as those rules still do not cover the fertilizer ammonium nitrate that detonated and leveled much of West, Texas in April 2013, killing 15 people.
Arkema filed its federally required risk management plans but did far too little to reduce the actual danger from an obvious and acknowledged hazard - the loss of power to the refrigeration systems needed to keep its highly reactive organic peroxides from decomposing explosively.
This highlights a fatal design weakness in current rules. Companies can substantively comply with the rules by generating paperwork showing that they have analyzed their chemical risks and possible worst-case scenarios. But these companies are under no obligation to actually reduce these risks to the lowest practicable levels by applying safer technologies and utilizing the most up-to-date industry best practices.
The U.S. approach is radically different from that of other developed nations. A number of overseas regulators require companies to develop what's called a "safety case" - a detailed report showing how each catastrophic risk is being reduced and establishing specific, legally binding requirements for each hazardous facility.
Each safety case report is periodically reviewed by government technical experts and may be rejected if it is found inadequate, which bars the facility from operating. And this system works: According to reinsurance industry statistics, overseas nations have an accident rate that is at least three times lower than the U.S. Here, California recently overhauled its regulations to bring them in line with the new international standard.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates chemical disasters, has found time and again that major accidents at U.S. plants could have been avoided by following known safety practices. While serving as CSB chairperson in 2014, I wrote in The New York Times that the U.S. "is facing an industrial chemical safety crisis" and called for the federal government to mandate the use of safer chemicals and technologies and take other steps to minimize risk.
The article caused a furor among industry lobbyists, who used their considerable influence in Congress to undermine the CSB and to deflect potential regulatory changes. Large trade associations such as the American Chemistry Council dismissed the proposed rules, asserting that accidents primarily afflicted small "outlier" companies that did not participate in industry-sponsored voluntary safety programs. But major accidents at industry leaders such as Exxon, Chevron and DuPont belie those rosy claims.
A few weeks before his administration ended, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency finalized a modest update to its risk management rules. The EPA's new leadership under Scott Pruitt has now frozen even these timid regulatory changes indefinitely, while the Trump administration has recommended to Congress that the CSB be eliminated due to "the duplicative nature of its work."
None of those actions will help Houston and all the other communities that depend on safe, reliable chemical operations. Instead, here's what should happen right away:
1Federal regulators should overhaul the current, antiquated system of safety rules governing oil and chemical plants. We need a modern framework for minimizing technological risks, based on the safety case system used widely overseas.
2The regulations need to be broadened to cover the full range of chemical hazards - not only reactive chemicals like organic peroxides and ammonium nitrate, but also dangerous chemicals used in upstream oil and gas production.
3The agencies tasked with developing and enforcing the rules - and investigating any mishaps - need far more personnel, technical expertise and resources. Competent inspectors need to be inside these plants every year.
4There needs to be much better public reporting of chemical facility fatalities, accidents, near-misses and other safety performance measures. Community groups and labor organizations need seats at the table in developing new laws, regulations and safety practices - because ultimately their lives are the ones at stake.
Moure-Eraso is a professor emeritus of chemical engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Lowell. From 2010 to 2015, he served as chairperson of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board.
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/outlook/article/Moure-Eraso-12278604.php
-
Small Chemical Firms Face Safety Issues With Less Resources
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Nushin Huq
Small and mid-size chemical companies face the same challenges as large chemical companies when it comes to safety processes, but bigger firms have more manpower, money, and time to do so.
But, chemical process safety enhancements at those plants can stem from reviewing risks despite resource constraints, according to Greg Milewski, a Texas-based manager with KMCO.
When Milewski joined the Crosby, Texas-based company, he said time was a limited resource. The company had grown from a start-up into a large facility but its safety controls were not strong enough, he said at an Oct. 12 panel discussion in Houston on implementing safety plans.
“We needed something more robust,” Milewski said at the Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates ChemStewards National Safety Symposium. “I was worried about the time element, we needed to get something in place before a significant incident” occurred.
Instead of spreading limited resources over all the hazards in the plant, Milewski said it's better to get management to prioritize. For KMCO, a facility that has 28 reactors and 580 storage tanks on 15 acres, that meant first reviewing all hazards and then singling out the biggest risks. The company did an inventory of all the hazards: safety, operational, and business and put in place barriers to prevent those potential hazards.
The Receiving End
Another major process safety challenge is understanding the exact nature of the materials give them to process, Larry Birdsell, custom processing business director for Trecora Chemical, said.
Trecora is a large scale producer of by-product polyethylene wax and wax derivatives. The LaPorte, Texas, company does custom processing for major chemical companies when those firms need additional work done on chemical products before they are ready for market.
“We need to understand the true nature of materials and hazards,” Birdsell said. “Initial representation of materials may not be what you receive. Representative samples of material may be hard to provide or not accessible.”
When Trecora does a project selection, it looks at the probability of success. The company has to be capable of handling multiple hazards, Birdsell said. Because of that, they also decline projects because those hazards need to be handled in specially dedicated facilities.
Engaging Employees
Of the 14 elements of process safety, employee engagement is No. 1, Dana Cooper, CEO and President of Cooper-Hayes LLC, said. Her consulting company helps small chemical companies focus on getting all their employees engaged, giving them an industry advantage.
“You are outperforming your peers when you are able to do that,” Cooper said. “With engaged employees, you can hire better people and outperform competitors.”
The key drivers for employee engagement include interaction of managers, confidence in managers, and pride in company, Cooper said.
Are We There Yet?
While regulation is needed to set a common playing ground for companies, more regulations will not prevent more accidents, Sam Mannan, a chemical engineering professor and director of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center at Texas A&M University, said during a keynote address at the conference.
Despite regulations on the books to prevent chemical safety hazards, incidents keep happening. For example, ammonium nitrate is subject to a variety of regulations, Mannan said, but they failed to prevent two recent explosions in 2015 at a container storage station in Tianjin, China, and in 2013 at a West, Texas, fertilizer plant.
“Ammonium nitrate is not a very complex compound to understand or to store,” Mannan said. “If we can't do such a simple activity without blowing things up, that's a problem.”
In both cases, operators ignored known information and didn't take precautions, Mannan said. The West, Texas, plant wasn't in compliance with existing regulations, and the federal agency in charge of enforcing the rules hadn't been to the plant in the last 28 years.
“You think adding another regulation will solve the problem?” Mannan said. “Another 20 regulations wouldn't solve the problem as long as it just stays in the books and it's not enforced.”
The main causes of accidents are usually the same, Mannan said, including failing to fully understand equipment design and a lack of effective communication systems to report system deficiencies or check the integrity of the equipment. Investigations should also dive deeper and discover the root causes, he said. It's not enough to say the cause of an incident was human error, he said, and even the smallest mishaps deserve attention.
“If you work on lower tier incidents, higher tier [incidents] will never happen,” Mannan said.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116400&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116400&jd=122116400
-
Report: Rail Industry Should Do More To Safely Move Crude Oil, Ethanol
Oct 13, 2017 | Progressive Railroading
The rail industry needs to repair track defects, upgrade tank-car design and increase training of emergency responders in order to improve safe transportation of crude oil and ethanol, says a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.
In their report, the academies raise concerns about the safety of rail in transporting energy liquids and gases, particularly in relation to track defects, rural communities' emergency response preparedness and the older tank-car designs that will continue to be used in unit trains, the report says.
A committee representing the academies studied the dramatic increase in the long-distance movement of domestically produced crude oil, ethanol and natural gas since 2005. The study began in late 2015, during the national debate about the safety of transporting domestic energy products.
The surge in domestic production resulted in a glut of energy resources that railroads were transporting in parts of the country that lacked sufficient barge and pipeline capacity.
"Railroads, tank cars and tank barges were hauling oil and fuel ethanol in increasingly larger quantities and over longer distances, often on routes passing through communities that had little, if any experience with regular and large quantities of flammable liquids traffic," according to a press release issued by the academies.
Railroads began transporting hazardous liquids in tank cars that had not previously carried those flammable materials in bulk and with shippers that lacked experience transporting them, the report found. In response to derailments, the industry's and regulators' focus was on making tank cars that were crashworthy and resistant to thermal fire.
"The committee determined that incomplete understanding of the dynamics of tank-car unit train derailments and a lack of clear guidelines and resources for state and local emergency responders continues to present safety risks," academy officials said.
It's imperative that derailments are prevented as the new tank cars that meet the new compliance standards are phased in, they added.
The committee also recommended that more work is needed to prepare local emergency responders — particularly volunteer fire departments that serve rural areas — to assist when such derailments occur.
"Clear guidelines are lacking on the kinds of traffic data that railroads should be providing state and local agencies to prepare for energy liquids transportation emergencies," the press release stated. "Further complicating matters, information sharing among emergency planning agencies in some states differ, making it unclear if this information is being transmitted to the first responders."http://www.progressiverailroading.com/safety/news/Report-Rail-industry-should-do-more-to-safely-move-crude-oil-ethanol--53029
-
We Must Keep Trains Rolling Safely And Fairly
Oct 15, 2017 | The News Tribune
By Rep. Dick Muri
As a state representative, I’ve spent quite a bit of time studying and learning about rail safety. It’s a subject I take seriously. I live in the Town of Steilacoom, where trains are a way of life.
In fact, the Puget Sound coastline in my district is defined by the rail line. And, it’s not just about moving freight. Amtrak will soon transport passengers at a very high speed through Lakewood and DuPont. Rail safety is a big deal for our communities.
In 2014, more than 119 million tons of freight traveled by rail over more than 3,000 miles of rail tracks across the state. This activity supports Washington businesses across a variety of important industries, from lumber to agriculture to oil.
Freight rail is also directly responsible for nearly 4,000 jobs and supports tens of thousands more throughout the state.
The good news is the rail business is thriving in Washington. However, continuing to find ways to improve safety needs to remain a priority. Just last week, state regulators approved $50,000 for safety upgrades at Tacoma’s McCarver Street rail crossing, protecting our community.
Railroads have also prioritized important infrastructure and safety investments over the last 20 years. Building on these improvements is key to our state’s economic future.
State and federal officials need to work together to preserve the balanced regulatory environment that has enabled freight rail to develop into the world’s safest rail network.
According to Washington State Department of Transportation, travel by train is 23 times safer than travel by car.
This is true for freight as well: A 2016 safety study conducted by OneRail found the accident rate for freight rail is far lower than transportation by freight trucks, largely due to freight rail’s focus on investing in its infrastructure.
This success did not happen overnight. Heavy regulation throughout much of the 20th century nearly brought the industry to the point of extinction. When profits decreased, railroads could not sustain their networks, leading them to fall into disrepair.
Deregulation in the 1980s with the federal Staggers Act saved the industry and highlighted how balanced regulations promote rail infrastructure investment and safety.
Current proposals such as forced access, requiring railroads to share their networks at government set prices, threaten the industry’s ability to maintain its infrastructure once again.
Under these policies, railroads would be unable to build on the $635 billion in private dollars they’ve invested in infrastructure since the passage of Staggers.
These investments have played an integral role in improving rail safety. Since 2000, train accidents have fallen by 44 percent.
Improvements include: stricter regulations on tanker cars, lower speed limits, and the development and installation of new braking technology called Positive Train Control (PTC), making an already-safe system even safer.
PTC technology monitors train speeds and locations with GPS signals and digital tracking. Once operational, PTC will detect any problems and can apply the brakes in the unlikely event that a conductor cannot, which helps eradicate accidents caused by human error.
PTC remains a priority for freight railroads, which have spent nearly $8 billion to design and install the technology across the U.S.
As railroads continue to implement this and other safety initiatives, lawmakers at the national and state level must keep in mind smart regulations are integral in enabling the rail industry to make these investments in infrastructure and technology.
Rep. Dick Muri, R-Steilacoom, represents the 28th Legislative District in the state House of Representatives. He’s a former Pierce County Councilman.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/article178769296.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) Former OSHA Official Urges EPA To List nPB As Hazardous Air Pollutant
Oct 13, 2017 | Inside EPA
By Maria Hegstad
Former Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) official and EPA science adviser Adam Finkel is urging EPA to list the chemical n-propyl bromide (nPB) as a Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutant (HAP), citing data from OSHA and elsewhere on nPB's risks that he says warrants the listing and rules to curb nPB emissions.
In written comments on the proposed listing, Finkel is also urging EPA to exclude agency toxics appointee Nancy Beck from any role in a final decision because of her prior work on behalf of the chemical sector regarding the chemical, which is also known as 1-bromopropane (1-BP).
“1-BP is a hazardous air pollutant that can cause grave harm, and that its manufacturer concedes does cause grave harm,” Finkel writes in Oct. 1 comments on a proposal floated by the Obama EPA to list the solvent nPB as an air toxic, responding to petitions seeking that action from an industry trade group and the state of New York. Listing would trigger an air law mandate to write regulations to reduce risks from the pollutant.
“No other analysis is needed to grant this petition expeditiously; certainly not one that nitpicks how much 'less grave' that harm might be at levels less far above, or below, frank effect levels,” Finkel's comments say.
Finkel, now a clinical professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan's public health school, argues that EPA has long had sufficient data to grant the petition and add nPB to the HAP list. He argues the bar for justifying listing is low, because HAP listing is based purely on a hazard finding, not a risk finding. As a result, more complex dose or exposure levels and risk analysis are unnecessary to the decision, he argues.
The Trump EPA extended the comment period on the listing proposal through Oct. 1 at the request of an nPB manufacturer, Albemarle Corp. The company argued in comments last January that EPA should extend the comment period to allow for review of Toxics Release Inventory data which were made available for the first time in in July 2017.
“There is no need for EPA to make a decision on whether nPB should be listed as a HAP, or finalize its rationale for doing so, based on a broad range of emission estimates, when important and reliable nPB source, usage and emission data will be available less than 90 days after the current comment period closes,” the company wrote in its Jan. 19, 2017 extension request. “Albemarle Corporation respectfully requests that the comment period be extended to October 1, 2017 so the most up to date and accurate nPB source, usage and emission data is available.”
At press time Albemarle had yet to submit comments to EPA's docket, and a company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for any comments.
HAP Listing
Finkel's written comments counter claims that the agency lacks adequate data to list nPB as an air toxic. Finkel argues that providing exposure information is irrelevant, because a HAP listing is based on its hazard, not its risk. He says that two companies stopped producing the chemical in the early 2000s because of concerns over inability to keep workplace exposure low enough to prevent harm to workers.
The pending determination responds to a 2010 petition by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance, Inc. (HSIA), which represents makers and users of halogenated solvents, which in some cases are competitors of nPB. HSIA's petition was later joined by a 2011 petition from the state of New York, also seeking the air toxics listing. Both petitions argued that nPB causes adverse health effects, including neurological harm in workers, reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, effects they say meet the Clean Air Act's criteria for adding chemicals to the HAP list.
Finkel says that while the listing decision lies within EPA's Office of Air & Radiation, it could also involve input from the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention (OSCPP). If that happens, he writes, OCSPP Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator Beck should recuse herself from any role in the decisionmaking because of her prior role as an American Chemistry Council toxicologist. “I urge that Nancy Beck . . . play no part in this listing, because of her fundamental misunderstandings of 1-BP’s toxicity and risk,” Finkel writes. “Whether they result from confusion, bias, or conflict of interest, her input cannot improve this decision.”
Finkel references a May 2016 meeting of the now-defunct EPA Chemical Safety Advisory Committee (CSAC), which conducted a peer review of a separate EPA toxics office risk assessment of nPB. Beck on ACC's behalf spoke during public comments at that meeting, raising concerns about EPA's risk assessment.
Beck questioned whether lung tumors seen in female mice were relevant to humans, based on the biological mechanism -- an issue that industry has raised with several other chemicals that EPA has sought to assess in recent years. She also argued that the chemical's biological mechanism should be better understood before completing the assessment.
Finkel argues that in her remarks at the meeting, as seen in a provided transcript, “Beck demonstrates bias and an inability to be objective by: (1) repeatedly 'manufacturing doubt' by utterances such as 'there may be something going on with the female mouse lung tumors, right?' … and (2) insisting that we 'really need to understand the mechanism' before acting or listing. This argument is doubly troubling: in fact, we do understand the mechanism, at least in the sense that 1-BP is part of a chemical series ... that are reliably carcinogenic and show mutagenic activity. But more importantly, we don’t have to understand the mechanism in order to list or to regulate.”
Finkel also attaches to his comments updated information about workplace exposure to nPB. Finkel calls it an “undisputed fact that 1-BP IS emitted in substantial quantities today, and IS present in workplaces at very significant levels. Again, these are not requirements for [HAP] listing, but they have been met in this case without doubt. Indeed, the most troubling aspect of this process is that EPA has had undisputed knowledge for many years that U.S. workers currently are exposed to 1-BP at concentrations far ABOVE levels known to be hazardous both in humans and in rodents.”
Toxicology Studies
Finkel cites several nPB toxicology studies, noting that they indicate the “frank effect level for human neurotoxicity is around 1-5 [parts per million (ppm)]. . . . No extrapolation of any kind, no risk assessment modeling of any kind, is required to conclude that workplace concentrations in the 50 ppm range are FAR greater than that needed to cause neurological damage and oncogenicity.”
Finkel adds that OSHA data indicates that workplace exposure levels are not infrequently well above these levels. He provides EPA with his analysis of data recently released on OSHA's website resulting in some 261 air samples taken at job sites where nPB was present between 1998 and 2015.
Of these, Finkel reports that the “average concentration [of nPB] is now just under 30 ppm . . . but ranged up to more than 422 ppm. More than 14 percent of all the samples exceeded 62.5 ppm... Exposures in the 10-75 ppm range are simply unconscionable, and there is no doubt that such exposures are occurring as I write these comments and have been occurring daily over the 7 years EPA has been contemplating making this listing decision. So, not only is 1-BP capable of causing adverse human health effects when emitted into the air (the simple, necessary, and sufficient scientific condition to make listing it as a HAP mandatory), it is causing these human health effects as an air pollutant today (making listing not only mandatory, but long, long overdue).”
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/former-osha-official-urges-epa-list-npb-hazardous-air-pollutant
-
Green Investors Seek More Data from Companies, More Frequently
Oct 16, 2017 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Emily Chasan
Annual sustainability reports just aren't cutting it as investors pump more money into ethical investment funds.
“There are huge gaps between what investors are saying is important, and companies figuring out how to implement it, quantify it, and then talk about it,” said Audrey Choi, chief sustainability officer at Morgan Stanley.
In a report this week, Morgan Stanley's Institute for Sustainable Investing said companies aren't meeting investor needs on sustainability reporting. They must better align that information with financial reporting and include more uniform metrics in quarterly calls and annual filings, or even hold separate quarterly calls with investors, the report said.
Equity research analysts at the firm said in the report that they lack access to consistent sustainability data from companies. A couple of pages in quarterly results -- rather than a long report at the end of the year -- would allow for more real-time discussions of the value of environmental, social, and governance issues (ESG), they said.
“There's a misperception that investors aren't interested in ESG,” Choi said in comments to the Bloomberg Sustainable Business Summit in New York on Oct. 12. “There's an epidemic of silent interest in ESG among investors.“
$23 Trillion
When companies don't talk about sustainability because investors don't ask, that could leave value on the table, Choi said. Sustainable investing has become one of the fastest-growing strategies on Wall Street.
Global socially responsible investments, which reached $23 trillion by the start of 2016, have outpaced growth in invested assets under management broadly, according to the Global Sustainable Investment Alliance.
At the summit in New York this week, investors, companies and analysts said they all still struggle to speak the same language on sustainability.
“There's still a fairly big disconnect,” said Dave Stangis, chief sustainability officer at Campbell Soup Co. While the food maker is seeing more demand for sustainable products from consumers and engaging with institutional investors, the language is missing from quarterly earnings calls, he said.
“Investors are still very focused on our earnings,” Stangis said.
A global survey of 4,900 companies by KPMG published Oct. 11 found that only 28 percent of companies acknowledge the financial risk of climate change in their annual reports. Only a small portion of S&P 500 companies mention climate issues on quarterly earnings calls, according to a Bloomberg review of transcripts.
Investors need sustainability information because they want to know about how to manage risks, said James Hnat, general counsel at JetBlue Airways Corp.
“There's an inherent business reticence,” Hnat said at the summit. “But there's no point in hiding from the risk assessment because it will find you.“
JetBlue created a report this year using Sustainability Accounting Standards Board information for investors.
http://news.bna.com/deln/DELNWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=122116392&vname=dennotallissues&fn=122116392&jd=122116392
-
Bipartisan House Caucus Urges Pruitt To Halt Repeal
Oct 13, 2017 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibell
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers urged U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today to abandon his proposed repeal of President Obama's Clean Power Plan.
Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R) and Ted Deutch (D), who chair the Climate Solutions Caucus, sent a letter to the EPA chief stating there should be no disagreement that climate change must be addressed and that he should support regulations on building new power plants.
"Given the reductions we've already seen, our government and private sector are positioned to make the United States the leader in the fight against climate change," they wrote.
"We urge you to consider how you can put your own agency to work to achieve solutions that will provide good jobs, economic growth, and a safe climate for us and future Americans," they said.
Of the 25 lawmakers who signed the letter, three were Republicans — Curbelo and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.
While repeal of the Clean Power Plan has long been in the works, Pruitt this week formally proposed its rollback. The climate regulation was intended to curb emissions by electric utilities by 32 percent by 2030.
"Such a reduction in carbon emissions is critical to addressing the growing threat posed by climate change to our states and communities," caucus members wrote. "Climate change is already a threat to life and property, as it drives rising temperatures, sea levels, and worsening impacts from severe weather events."
The Noah's Ark caucus, which adds Republicans and Democrats in pairs, is dedicated to finding market-based solutions to address global warming. While the group has managed to gain 30 Republican members, critics argue that unless those lawmakers take action, their membership is meaningless.
Curbelo has said he will not push his members to take policy positions until they are ready to do so. He has said he is currently concentrated on educating lawmakers and urging them to block anti-climate legislation.
Reporter Nick Sobczyk contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/10/13/stories/1060063637
Congressional Hearings
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested