Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 11/16/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Director of State Regulators Group to Lead Region 1
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn will lead U.S. EPA's New England office. -
(ACC Mentioned) Covestro LLC Announces Upcoming Leadership Changes
Nov 16, 2017 | Spray Foam
By Alice Sox
Covestro LLC announced that, effective Feb. 1, 2018, Jerry MacCleary, currently president and managing director of Covestro LLC and head of the Polyurethanes business unit in North America, will assume new responsibilities as chief executive officer and chairman of the board of Covestro LLC. -
(ACC Mentioned) ECOS Chief Picked to Lead EPA’s New England Region
Nov 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has picked Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of States, to run EPA's Region 1, which covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. -
US EPA Seeks Input on Methods for Prioritising Chemicals Under TSCA
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has release a discussion document outlining six potential approaches for prioritising chemicals for review under the new TSCA. -
US EPA Explains New Chemicals Decision-Making Process
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has issued draft documents explaining its decision-making process for assessing the risk of new chemicals and offering guidance for submitting new chemical notifications under the amended TSCA. -
EPA Posts Agenda and Discussion Document for December 11, 2017, Approaches for Identifying Potential Candidates for Prioritization for Existing Chemical Risk Evaluations Meeting
Nov 16, 2017 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On November 14, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the agenda and meeting materials for its December 11, 2017, Approaches for Identifying Potential Candidates for Prioritization for Existing Chemical Risk Evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) meeting. -
US EPA Approves Manufacture of Print Additive
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has found that a print additive is "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" in a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) ruling. The action comes under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C). -
(ACC Mentioned) Opposition by Republican Senators Casts Doubt on Dourson Nomination
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
North Carolina's two Republican senators have said they will vote against Michael Dourson's nomination to head the US EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, casting doubt on whether he will get the job. -
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Push for National Labeling Law to Override States’ Requirements
Nov 16, 2017 | Insurance Journal
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
The Grocery Manufacturers Association and dozens of other trade groups are pushing for a federal law that could override state ingredient-disclosure rules and warning labels, including California’s landmark Proposition 65. -
(ACC Mentioned) California Lists PFOA and PFOS as Reproductive Toxicants Under Prop 65
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as developmental toxicants under Proposition 65. It base its action on the US EPA's findings even though the agency has not officially regulated the substances. -
Collins ‘Leaning Against’ Trump EPA Chemical Nominee
Nov 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A third GOP senator says she's "leaning against" approval of President Trump’s controversial nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety office. -
GOP Opposition Puts Dourson on the Ropes
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Two Republican senators yesterday evening formally declared their opposition to Michael Dourson's nomination to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program, leaving the toxicologist just one vote away from failing to win confirmation. -
GOP Opposition Endangers Trump’s Pick to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Nov 16, 2017 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
Two Republican senators have announced they would oppose President Donald Trump’s controversial pick to become the nation’s top regulator of toxic chemicals, putting his nomination in serious jeopardy. -
Echa Consults on First REACH Authorisation Review Reports
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has launched a public consultation on the first two review reports received in the REACH authorisation process. -
Consumer Electronics Takes the Lead in Conflict-Free Sourcing
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer electronics companies are more advanced than jewellery retailers in promoting conflict-free sourcing from the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to a just-released NGO report. -
Whether You Love or Hate Natural Gas, Stopping Methane Emissions Now is Crucial
Nov 16, 2017 | EDF Energy Exchange
By Mark Brownstein
The International Energy Agency’s new 2017 World Energy Outlook contains the agency’s strongest language yet about the urgent need to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the huge opportunities that exist to do so. -
N.D. Oil Producers Exceed State's Flaring Limit
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota's oil producers exceeded the state's regulatory limit for natural gas flaring in September, and the industry will struggle to control the waste until it builds an additional $11 billion worth of pipelines and processing plants. -
FERC Denies N.Y. Appeals Over Gas Project
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The disagreement between New York and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over a gas pipeline looks set to go to federal court — again. -
Arkema Fire Should Wake Up Industry — Chemical Safety Board
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board warned the chemical industry yesterday to strengthen emergency plans as natural disasters increase. -
4 Big Climate Rules Still Alive Under Trump
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen and Camille von Kaenel
President Trump has proudly declared the death of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, but that and other climate rules are still lingering. -
US Tells UN Climate Conference: ‘We Continue to be a Leader’ on Clean Energy
Nov 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A State Department official on Thursday called the United States a “leader” on clean energy issues and told United Nations delegates the U.S. is still committed to global climate work, despite President Trump’s opposition to the Paris climate agreement. -
Why Honeycutt is Such an Alarming Choice for EPA's Science Advisory Panel
Nov 16, 2017 | EDF Blog
By Elena Craft
Michael Honeycutt – the man set to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s prestigious Science Advisory Board – has spent most of his career as a credentialed counterpoint against almost anything the EPA has proposed to protect human health. -
OTC Demands EPA Immediately Issue Ozone NAAQS Designations
Nov 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states is pressing EPA to immediately issue overdue designations of areas in attainment or nonattainment with the agency's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after EPA missed an Oct. 1 deadline to issue designations for hundreds of areas.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Director of State Regulators Group to Lead Region 1
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
Alexandra Dapolito Dunn will lead U.S. EPA's New England office.
Dunn is executive director and general counsel for the Environmental Council of the States, the national association for environmental regulators across the country. As head of EPA's Region 1 branch, Dunn will oversee EPA efforts in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.
"Alexandra Dunn is exceptionally qualified to carry out administrative duties to lead our New England office," said Administrator Scott Pruitt in a statement today.
"Not only has she spent the last several years developing effective environmental policies for our state partners, but has also helped shape a number of aspiring environmental lawyers at one of the nation's leading environmental law programs."
At ECOS, Dunn has been critical of the Trump administration's fiscal 2018 budget blueprint for EPA, which proposed deep cuts for the agency. Specifically, she has scrutinized the plan slashing nearly $469 million or almost half of EPA's funds for categorical grants. The grants support state environmental programs, including to clean up air and water pollution.
"To have cooperative federalism, you have to have financial support," Dunn told E&E News regarding President Trump's budget plans for EPA. "There is a fairly significant disconnect going on" (Greenwire, April 4).
ECOS has sought more funding for EPA programs that will help state regulators. But the group has worked with EPA on its "cooperative federalism" concept, which could see state environmental agencies, rather than their federal counterpart, take the lead on certain issues (E&E News PM, July 17).
Prior to joining ECOS in 2014, Dunn was executive director and general counsel for the Association of Clean Water Administrators. She also worked as counsel at the American Chemistry Council and as an associate for Winston & Strawn LLP early on in her career, according to her LinkedIn profile.
In addition, Dunn has taught environmental law at several universities, including American University, Catholic University and Pace University. She serves on the board of regents of the American College of Environmental Lawyers and is on the executive committee and board of directors of the Environmental Law Institute.
Under the Trump administration, EPA has struggled to fill its top political posts. It has only two Senate-confirmed officials, Pruitt and Bill Wehrum, sworn in this week as head of its air office.
Nevertheless, the agency has moved much more quickly to appoint its regional administrators, who do not require Senate confirmation. With Dunn's appointment, EPA will have seven of its 10 regional posts filled.
Dunn will be sworn into office on Jan. 8, an EPA spokesman told E&E News.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/stories/1060066749/search?keyword=%22American+Chemistry+Council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) Covestro LLC Announces Upcoming Leadership Changes
Nov 16, 2017 | Spray Foam
By Alice Sox
Covestro LLC announced that, effective Feb. 1, 2018, Jerry MacCleary, currently president and managing director of Covestro LLC and head of the Polyurethanes business unit in North America, will assume new responsibilities as chief executive officer and chairman of the board of Covestro LLC.
MacCleary will be succeeded in his role as head of the Polyurethanes business unit by Christine Bryant, currently head of Coatings, Adhesives and Specialties.
Dr. Erik Haakan Jonsson, currently chief operating officer, will succeed MacCleary as president and managing director of Covestro LLC.
MacCleary, who currently represents Covestro as vice chairman of the board, a member of the Executive Committee and an officer at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), will become chairman of the ACC Executive Committee Jan. 1.
MacCleary joined Covestro (then part of Bayer) in 1979 as an accountant, before embarking on a diverse career path that included sales, marketing and strategic management roles throughout the United States and Germany. In 2004, MacCleary was named head of the North American Polyurethanes business unit – a role he maintained after becoming president of Covestro LLC in 2012.
MacCleary led Covestro’s North American business through its separation from Bayer AG and establishment as an independent company in 2015.
He has a strong history of leadership in the chemical industry. In addition to his roles at the ACC, MacCleary serves on the board of directors of the National Association of Manufacturers, the International Isocyanate Institute and the Center for the Polyurethanes Industry.
In Pittsburgh, which is home to Covestro’s North American headquarters, MacCleary serves on the board of directors of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, the United Way of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Variety the Children’s Charity and the Imani Christian Academy. He also serves as a member of the board of trustees for the Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh Foundation.
“I’m happy to continue my executive leadership role at Covestro,” MacCleary said. “At the same time, I am excited for the opportunity to make an even stronger contribution at ACC, which plays a critical role for Covestro and the entire chemical industry.
“I’ll be working to advance our industry leadership position at Covestro and, in conjunction with the ACC, promote industry issues, such as sustainability, innovation and safety. I’m also a Pittsburgher at heart and eager to continue my community service activities in this region.”
Bryant has led Covestro’s Coatings, Adhesives and Specialties (CAS) business in North America since 2012 and also leads the unit’s global key account business. She joined Covestro in 1989 and has held increasing roles in marketing, sales, distribution and business development throughout her career. A chemical engineer by training, Bryant’s focus has been on creating stronger relationships with customers and developing new business and markets within the CAS area. She is also an advocate for STEM education and an active community leader, working closely with the United Way of Southwestern Pennsylvania, as the current co-chair of the Women’s Leadership Council.
Jonsson joined Covestro in 1992 as a scientist in Pittsburgh. His career has led him throughout the United States and Germany, as he took on diverse roles in manufacturing, innovation, supply chain and business development. Jonsson has served on the board of directors of various chemical industry, community service and educational organizations. He is a chemical engineer and holds his Ph.D. in polymer technology.
“I’ve spent my entire career with Covestro and am incredibly proud of the people and culture we have today. The North American organization is no exception,” said Jonsson. “Under Jerry’s leadership, Covestro has built its reputation in this region as a strong, bold and innovative company. I’m grateful for the opportunity to support him in carrying the torch forward—and I’m glad to be back in Pittsburgh, the city I call home.”
About Covestro LLC:
Covestro LLC is one of the leading producers of high-performance polymers in North America and is part of the global Covestro business, which is among the world’s largest polymer companies with 2016 sales of EUR 11.9 billion. Business activities are focused on the manufacture of high-tech polymer materials and the development of innovative solutions for products used in many areas of daily life. The main segments served are the automotive, construction, wood processing and furniture, electrical and electronics, and medical industries. Other sectors include sports and leisure, cosmetics and the chemical industry itself. Covestro has 30 production sites worldwide and employed approximately 15,600 people at the end of 2016.Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may contain forward-looking statements based on current assumptions and forecasts made by Covestro AG. Various known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors could lead to material differences between the actual future results, financial situation, development or performance of the company and the estimates given here. These factors include those discussed in Covestro’s public reports which are available on the Covestrowebsite at www.covestro.com. Covestro assumes no liability whatsoever to update these forward-looking statements or to conform them to future events or developments.http://sprayfoam.com/foam-news/covestro-llc-announces-upcoming-leadership-changes-/3133
-
(ACC Mentioned) ECOS Chief Picked to Lead EPA’s New England Region
Nov 16, 2017 | Politico Pro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has picked Alexandra Dunn, executive director of the Environmental Council of States, to run EPA's Region 1, which covers Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut.
Earlier this year, ECOS, a state-focused nonprofit group, called for a "recalibration" of the roles of EPA and the states on environmental regulation, which the group called "cooperative federalism 2.0.” That echoed Pruitt’s call for states to take on a greater role in both regulation and enforcement.
Dunn has been at ECOS since 2014, and was recently elected to the American College of Environmental Lawyers' Board of Regents. Prior to ECOS, Dunn headed the Association of Clean Water Administrators and was an attorney for the American Chemistry Council.
https://www.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
US EPA Seeks Input on Methods for Prioritising Chemicals Under TSCA
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has release a discussion document outlining six potential approaches for prioritising chemicals for review under the new TSCA.
The document is intended as the basis for discussion at a stakeholder meeting scheduled for 11 December and an ongoing "dialogue" that the agency expects to last "approximately six months".
The path chosen by the agency "may include a number of differing approaches and tools, or components of differing approaches and tools, that could work in tandem," the document says.
The EPA published final prioritisation regulations in June. These received sharp criticism, and later a legal challenge, from NGOs. While the regulations set out principles for prioritisation, the agency's current draft seeks input on specific methods it could use to carry out the prioritisation process.
The EPA identified the first ten substances subject to risk evaluation in November 2016, and the law requires the agency to name at least 20 more high- and at least 20 low-priority chemicals by the end of 2019. To meet that schedule, the agency says, it must "begin the nine to 12-month prioritisation process by no later than the end of March 2018".
In addition, the EPA said it is "committed" to identifying more than the required 20 low-priority chemicals through the prioritisation process.
The six approaches the EPA has identified for discussion include:
applying the methodology used to screen chemicals for the 2014 TSCA Work Plan, which was based on numerical scoring of hazard, exposure, and potential for persistence and/or bioaccumulation. It is likely this method will be part of the mix, the EPA acknowledges, because the Lautenberg Act requires that half of the high priority chemicals identified come from the Work Plan. However, the document notes that this would not be of any help in identifying low-priority chemicals;
piggybacking on Canada's Chemical Management Plan (CMP), which categorised and prioritised more than 4,300 chemicals, then evaluated those identified as priorities. The last of three phases is underway now. The process has identified "low concern" chemicals as well as those that were regulatory priorities. The EPA noted that "work would be required to verify that the Canadian approaches (models and data used) are consistent with our statutory requirements." In addition, the CMP process did not consider worker exposure, as that is regulated at the provincial or regional level in Canada;
using the EPA's Safer Chemicals Ingredients List (Scil) to identify low-priority chemicals. It was developed by the EPA in 2012 "as a list of safer chemicals available to product manufacturers";
a "functional category approach" identifying groups of chemicals with similar functional use in industrial applications or in commercial or consumer products;
a "functional category approach" that groups chemicals based on their "structure and physico-chemical properties to achieve a particular function at the chemical level"; and
integration of traditional and new approach methods (NAM), using "a software tool and databases" to focus the EPA's "efforts to identify those chemicals that may or may not present hazard or exposure potential".
https://chemicalwatch.com/61109/us-epa-seeks-input-on-methods-for-prioritising-chemicals-under-tsca
-
US EPA Explains New Chemicals Decision-Making Process
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The US EPA has issued draft documents explaining its decision-making process for assessing the risk of new chemicals and offering guidance for submitting new chemical notifications under the amended TSCA.
The draft New Chemicals Decision-Making Framework and guidance document were published on the agency’s website in anticipation of a public meeting scheduled for 6 December. At this meeting officials will discuss the documents and accept public comment.
In the documents the EPA says it will find that a new chemical — or new use — presents an unreasonable risk if it exceeds set benchmarks. It will require additional testing only when such a finding is on the cards or it deems the available data insufficient.
The framework describes a two-step process, where the EPA first determines if a submitter has presented sufficient information to make a determination on a chemical's safety.
If there is sufficient data, the EPA will find that a chemical is "likely to present an unreasonable risk" if:
"Health or environmental risks under the conditions of use are above risk benchmarks;"
"Risk-related factors – such as severity of endpoint, reversibility of effect, or exposure-related considerations – lead the EPA to determine that the risks are unreasonable under the conditions of use," and
the EPA's concerns "have not been adequately addressed" through a significant new use rule (Snur).
The document defines risk benchmark as "estimated risks above which the EPA generally has had concern." For example, it says, "a 1 x 106 cancer risk estimate has often been considered a benchmark above which the EPA has concerns for exposure to the general population".
It says decisions on the severity of adverse impacts will consider the EPA's "confidence in the data used in the risk estimate" as well as "engineering controls and other worker protections" identified in the original submission or in response to EPA concerns.
Snurs are standard
Where the agency has concerns about "reasonably foreseen conditions of use," other than those proposed by the submitter, the document says, as a general matter, the EPA will "address such concerns through Snurs".
If the EPA finds it does not have enough information "to conduct a reasoned evaluation," it will make a determination of "insufficient information" or "insufficient information and may present unreasonable risk". The latter designation is triggered, the draft says, if "there is some indication, such as by information on an analog or a structural alert, of potential health or environmental concerns for the substance".
The draft says the EPA will require testing "to reduce uncertainty associated with assessments that gave rise to a finding of ‘may present unreasonable risk’ or to an ‘insufficient information’ determination".
At a recent conference, speakers said the EPA had reversed its initial policy of requiring testing based on "foreseeable uses" and now only requires additional tests where there is a concern with the submitter’s specific proposal.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61106/us-epa-explains-new-chemicals-decision-making-process
-
Nov 16, 2017 | Lexology
By Lynn L. Bergeson and Margaret R. Graham
On November 14, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the agenda and meeting materials for its December 11, 2017, Approaches for Identifying Potential Candidates for Prioritization for Existing Chemical Risk Evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) meeting. EPA states that during this meeting, it will describe goals, guiding principles, and possible approaches for identifying potential candidate chemicals for prioritization; and take comment on possible approaches. Under amended TSCA, EPA is required to establish processes for prioritizing and evaluating risks from existing chemicals. The meeting materials include:
Agenda for Public Meeting. The Agenda includes the following topics: identifying potential candidates for prioritization: background, goal, guiding principles, and milestones; overview of TSCA Work Plan methodology; TSCA Work Plan as a tool for identifying potential candidates; Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan; EPA’s Safer Chemicals Ingredients List; Functional Category Approach, based on use and exposure potential; Functional Category Approach, based on chemical structure and function; and systematic integration of traditional and new approaches. Featured speakers are Nancy Beck, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) and Jeff Morris, Ph.D., Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT).
Discussion Document -- Possible Approaches and Tools for Identifying Potential Candidate Chemicals for Prioritization. EPA states that the discussion document introduces a set of approaches that it is considering to help guide the identification of potential candidates for prioritization, and is intended to be a starting point for a dialogue with stakeholders on best practices for EPA’s activities during this phase. EPA is asking for input on the approaches presented here, as well as any additional recommendations.
The December 11, 2017, meeting will take place from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (EST) at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, Horizon Ballroom, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., in Washington, D.C., and will be available by remote access for registered participants. Online requests to participate must be received on or before December 5, 2017. EPA will be accepting questions from the public in advance of the meeting, and will respond to these questions at the meeting as time allows, if such questions are received by November 20, 2017. Questions and comments can be submitted in Docket No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0586 on www.regulations.gov with a copy to TSCAmeetingsupport@abtassoc.com. Registration for this meeting is available online. In addition to hearing oral comments at the meeting, EPA is also accepting written comments and materials submitted to the docket for this meeting until January 25, 2018.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5a71a0f4-603e-4c15-a9da-6a0282c783ed
-
US EPA Approves Manufacture of Print Additive
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has found that a print additive is "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" in a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) ruling. The action comes under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
The finding, issued on 2 November, was for the generic:carbomonocyclic dicarboxylic acid, polymer with alkenedioic acid, substituted
heteropolycycle, substituted heteromonocycle, alkanediol, alkanedioic acid, alkoxylated
substituted dicarbomonocycle, alkoxylated substituted dicarbomonocycle and alkanetriol,
carbomonocyclic carboxylate alkanoate.The agency noted that it could also be used as an additive in paints and coatings.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61107/us-epa-approves-manufacture-of-print-additive
-
(ACC Mentioned) Opposition by Republican Senators Casts Doubt on Dourson Nomination
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
North Carolina's two Republican senators have said they will vote against Michael Dourson's nomination to head the US EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, casting doubt on whether he will get the job.
Democrats have steadfastly opposed Dr Dourson, whose work on behalf of chemical companies they excoriated at a hearing on 4 October. The 15 November defections by senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis mean opponents probably only need to score one more Republican "no" vote to block the nomination.
"Over the last several weeks, senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr Dourson's body of work," said a statement from Tillis' office. "Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination."
In his statement, senator Burr cited current local controversies over chemical contamination at the Camp Lejeune marine base and water pollution in the city of Wilmington.
"With his record and our state's history of contamination … I am not confident he is the best choice for our country," senator Burr said.
Democrats, NGOs demand oversight
Meanwhile, House Democrats are demanding oversight hearings on the EPA's chemical management programme, and on whether Nancy Beck, deputy assistant administrator for Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, violated ethics rules in participating in rulemaking benefiting her former employer, the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
And five environmental groups called on the EPA's Office of General Counsel to order Dr Beck to recuse herself from ongoing rulemaking of interest to the ACC.
NGOs and Democrats have been complaining since Dr Beck was appointed that her past allegiance amounts to a conflict of interest. Specifically, they mention her possible role in altering the TSCA prioritisation and risk evaluation framework rules finalised by the agency in June.
The immediate impetus for a renewed campaign is an article published in The New York Times on 21 October. This was based on claims by Wendy Cleland-Hamnett, a former top EPA chemicals official, who provided internal documents she says show Dr Beck worked to make those regulations more friendly to the ACC and has also pushed for re-evaluation of pending proposals to ban certain uses of methylene chloride (dichloromethane), n-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) and trichloroethylene (TCE).
NGOs asked that Dr Beck be forced to cease participation in work on those chemicals.
"If these rules are delayed or weakened, more than two million workers and consumers will be needlessly exposed to serious, well-documented health risks," said Liz Hitchcock, government affairs director at Safer Chemicals Healthy Families.
Democrats who sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee renewed demands for documents related to Dr Beck's role at the EPA to be released. They also called for an Inspector General investigation into "the protections in place at the EPA to prevent conflicts of interest and unethical abuses of power".
They also sent a separate letter to the committee's chairman, requesting oversight hearings to examine the review and management of toxic chemicals and "probe questionable ethics waivers issued to EPA staff connected to regulated industries".
The letters were signed by Representative Frank Pallone, Jr (D-New Jersey), the committees top Democrat, and the top Democrats on two of its subcommittees.
"Recent news reports have underscored the need for real, immediate, and expansive oversight of EPA's activities related to toxic chemicals," the members wrote to Chairman Greg Walden (R-Oregon). "The Committee bears a responsibility to the American public to make sure EPA is protecting human health and the environment, and to ensure the effective and impartial implementation of the protections afforded by a reformed TSCA."
Finally, Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology demanded that its chairman, Representative Lamar Smith (R-Texas) hold hearings on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's industry contacts and his recent decision to bar anyone receiving grant money from the agency from serving on its scientific advisory panels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61145/opposition-by-republican-senators-casts-doubt-on-dourson-nomination
-
(ACC Mentioned) Trade Groups Push for National Labeling Law to Override States’ Requirements
Nov 16, 2017 | Insurance Journal
By Lauren Coleman-Lochner
The Grocery Manufacturers Association and dozens of other trade groups are pushing for a federal law that could override state ingredient-disclosure rules and warning labels, including California’s landmark Proposition 65.
About 50 trade organizations have backed an effort for a national labeling law, saying a unified rule is needed instead of a patchwork of differing state requirements. They contend that the chaos of state legislation has become too much for businesses to bear.
“We ask for your support for a national solution to this growing list of state labeling and disclosure requirements,” according to a letter seeking lawmakers as sponsors and signed by organizations such as the American Chemistry Council and the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. “The time to establish a federal, science-based solution is now.”
The effort could challenge laws like Proposition 65, a set of rules that’s been immortalized in signs and labels across California — and frequently outside the state as well.
The trade groups, whose members include 3M Co., General Mills Inc. and other top companies, argue that states “do not uniformly have the scientific capacity and robust infrastructure to ensure adherence to the highest standards of scientific integrity and risk analysis,” according to the letter, which was viewed by Bloomberg.
The ACC circulated a document earlier this year to other trade groups laying out its case and seeking support for a national labeling law. It suggested amending the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act to include what it called “minimum scientific standards” for listing warnings or benefits. The document also discussed a “reform” of Proposition 65 to “require sound scientific basis for the listing of substances.”
Grandfathered Law
Protecting that law was part of the agreement to update the 40-year-old federal Toxic Substances Control Act last year, which grandfathered in Proposition 65 and some regulations in other states, said Ansje Miller, director of policy and partnerships at the Center for Environmental Health. “Now, with this attempt, the chemical lobby is clearly breaking that promise,” she said.
The California proposition, also known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, took effect in 1986. It requires the state to maintain an updated list of chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm and for businesses to give “clear and reasonable” notice of exposure to those chemicals. That’s usually in the form of signs and labels.
Critics say such warnings can be excessive. They point to a current lawsuit that seeks to add warnings about a chemical in coffee. But proponents say the law has been successful in alerting consumers to hazards like lead.
Beyond California
Proposition 65 has served as a template for other states. In recent years, a number have enacted or weighed legislation regulating the use of certain chemicals in products. About 35 states have passed 173 measures, and more than 100 other bills are under consideration in two dozen states, according to environmental health coalition Safer States.
California recently passed a law that contains the strictest disclosure requirements in the country for listing ingredients in cleaning products, a measure opposed by the chemistry council and grocery association. New York is hammering out a similar measure.
Such actions can stymie consumers, said Claire Parker, a spokeswoman for a group of businesses that is forming called the Coalition for Accurate Product Labels.
“A growing number of states and localities are considering requirements for new disclosures or warning labels about specific ingredients on consumer-product packaging,” Parker said in an emailed statement. “Several groups have had discussions to explore the need for federal legislation establishing science-based, uniform, national standards for government-mandated ingredient disclosure and warning label programs.”
She cited a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision blocking a San Francisco law that required health warnings on soda advertisements, as well as an editorial in the Los Angeles Times warning that Prop 65 labels that aren’t supported by research can be counterproductive and dangerous.
Federal Standards
The passage last year of the EPA’s updated toxics law limits states’ abilities to enact new regulations, and instead promotes a unified federal system.
Efforts to override state disclosure requirements for consumer products come on the heels of a battle last year over whether to require labels of genetically modified ingredients in food. Industry groups sought a national law that would supersede individual state mandates such as Vermont’s.
The final law signed last year makes the information available via QR codes or 800 numbers but doesn’t require on-package labels.
With chemical labeling, the same risk of a state-by-state hodgepodge exists, Parker said.
“The criteria and rationale for these initiatives is not consistent, threatening to leave consumers and retailers even more confused about what is and is not safe,” she said.
https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2017/11/16/471437.htm
-
(ACC Mentioned) California Lists PFOA and PFOS as Reproductive Toxicants Under Prop 65
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) has listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as developmental toxicants under Proposition 65. It base its action on the US EPA's findings even though the agency has not officially regulated the substances.
In their comments on the notice to list the substances, industry groups protested against this use of the law's "authoritative body listing mechanism". This requires a chemical be listed under Proposition 65 if it has been found to be a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant by a designated authority.
Oehha cited conclusions by the EPA that "in several documents that PFOA and PFOS cause adverse developmental effects," the EPA's identification of acceptable exposure levels for drinking water and "the scientific evidence relied upon" by the EPA in its decision making.
However, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) argued that because the EPA has issued only non-regulatory guidance on the chemicals it "has not formally identified either PFOA or PFOS as causing reproductive toxicity".
PFOA and PFOS are surfactants that have been used in a variety of consumer products. These include:
carpets;
textiles;
leather;
non-stick cookware; and
food packaging.
The EPA took the approach of working with industry to phase out their use by the end of 2015 under a stewardship programme. ItA proposed a significant new use rule (Snur) to codify the voluntary phase out and apply it to manufacturers who were not party to that agreement, but the Snur has not been finalised.
In October 2016, industry groups argued against the prioritisation of PFOA and PFOS for preparation of hazard identification materials in California, and similarly argued in December against listing the chemicals under Proposition 65.
Oehha said in its response to the comments that while "many organisations which may be considered authoritative do not treat the identification of chemical hazards as a regulatory endpoint," documents used in the regulatory process "will likely identify a chemical as a cancer or reproductive hazard with finality long before the standard is finally adopted".
The Proposition 65 regulations establish an intention that identification of a hazard "will be sufficient indication of a 'final action' on the issue of hazard identification to conclude that the chemical has been 'formally identified'," the agency said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61103/california-lists-pfoa-and-pfos-as-reproductive-toxicants-under-prop-65
-
Collins ‘Leaning Against’ Trump EPA Chemical Nominee
Nov 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
A third GOP senator says she's "leaning against" approval of President Trump’s controversial nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) chemical safety office.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters Thursday that she has not made a final decision on Michael Dourson’s nomination, but “I think it’s safe to say that I am leaning against him.”
Collins’s doubts come a day after North Carolina GOP Sens. Thom Tillisand Richard Burr announced that they would vote against Dourson to be the EPA’s assistant administrator for chemical safety and pollution prevention.
In statements late Wednesday, Burr and Tillis cited a pair of major chemical safety problems in North Carolina — water contamination at the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune and the recent discovery of the as-yet-unrelated chemical GenX in the Cape Fear River. They said Dourson did not seem to be the right person to take on those problems.
Republicans hold 52 of the Senate’s 100 votes. If Collins, Tillis, Burr and all other Democrats vote against Dourson and all other Republicans vote for him, the vote would fail.
“I have a lot of concerns about Mr. Dourson,” Collins told reporters. “But I certainly share the concerns that have been raised by Sen. Burr and Sen. Tillis.”
Collins is one of the most centrist Republican senators, and has voted against a handful of Trump’s nominees that the rest of the GOP has supported.
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who has supported many of Trump’s nominees that other Democrats have opposed, declined to say Thursday whether he would vote for Dourson.
Dourson was already facing some of the strongest opposition of any Trump nominee by Democrats.
He worked for two decades as a chemical toxicologist, where he was paid by companies, states and others to conduct reviews of the harm of certain chemicals.
He frequently concluded that chemicals were less harmful to humans and the environment than what the EPA, universities or states had found.
Dourson has promised to use the best science at the EPA, and Republicans have defended him as a highly qualified choice.
After a contentious hearing in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year, EPA head Scott Pruitt hired Dourson as a senior adviser, a rare move for individuals nominated to Senate-confirmed positions before their confirmations.
Tillis said he isn’t sure if Pruitt should keep Dourson on as an adviser or kick him out if he doesn’t get confirmed.
“I’ll leave that up to the EPA to decide,” Tillis said, adding that he is confident Trump can pick an acceptable replacement nominee for the chemical post.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360702-sen-collins-leaning-against-trump-epa-chemical-nominee
-
GOP Opposition Puts Dourson on the Ropes
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Corbin Hiar
Two Republican senators yesterday evening formally declared their opposition to Michael Dourson's nomination to lead U.S. EPA's chemicals program, leaving the toxicologist just one vote away from failing to win confirmation.
"I will not be supporting the nomination of Michael Dourson," North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in a statement. "With his record and our state's history of contamination at Camp Lejeune as well as the current Gen X water issues in Wilmington, I am not confident he is the best choice for our country."
Earlier this year, Burr introduced S. 758, known as the "Janey Ensminger Act." The bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), would expand health care for Camp Lejeune's military veterans who were exposed to toxic chemicals.
Tillis' office also announced last night the senator would vote against the nomination of Dourson for assistant administrator of chemical safety and pollution prevention, which cleared the Environment and Public Works Committee last month on a party-line vote.
"Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson's body of work," the office said in a statement. "Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination."
North Carolina is currently weathering a public health scare tied to high levels of an unregulated chemical known as GenX that has been found in the state's waters (Greenwire, July 6).
Dourson, who ran a nonprofit toxicology firm before going into academia, often did industry-funded research on chemicals like GenX that consistently found them to be safer than government standards recommended.
The hard line Burr and Tillis are taking against Dourson was first reported by the Wilmington Star-News. But they had been publicly wavering on him for weeks. As a result, Rick Berman, a public affairs consultant known as "Dr. Evil," came to Dourson's defense (Greenwire, Nov. 15).
With all 48 Democrats in the Senate expected to vote against the nomination, Republicans cannot confirm him if they lose any more senators.
Wyoming Republican Sen. John Barrasso, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, has left the beleaguered nominee's fate in the hands of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
"Sen. McConnell will have to decide the scheduling" on Dourson's floor vote, he said at the Capitol this morning.
Meanwhile, Tillis expects the Trump administration to abandon Dourson and put forward another chemicals chief pick.
"I do know that we have a good queue of other nominees that the administration has considered," he told reporters. "So I expect us to have a nominee that we can support, moving quickly with the confidence of the administration."
While EPA declined to comment on the growing opposition to Dourson, a spokesman noted that the nominee's former firm helped determine that a leaking septic system was poisoning a Kentucky family and its farm animals.
At his confirmation hearing, Dourson said the experience was "very gratifying, although honestly, dealing with the public one-on-one like that was not the most direct part of our pro bono" (E&E Daily, Oct. 5).
The EPA spokesman also provided a letter of support for Dourson from a lawyer he helped by providing expert testimony at a trial about trichloroethylene contamination in 130 California homes.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/16/stories/1060066763
-
GOP Opposition Endangers Trump’s Pick to Regulate Toxic Chemicals
Nov 16, 2017 | NBC News
By Suzy Khimm
Two Republican senators have announced they would oppose President Donald Trump’s controversial pick to become the nation’s top regulator of toxic chemicals, putting his nomination in serious jeopardy.
Sen. Richard Burr and Sen. Thom Tillis, both of North Carolina, said Wednesday they could not support Michael Dourson to lead the Environmental Protection Agency’s office of chemical safety, citing their concerns about his record. If a third Republican senator comes out against Dourson, Democrats may be able to block his confirmation.
Dourson has elicited a fierce backlash from Democrats and public-health advocates for his long record of industry-funded research, which chemical manufacturers have used to downplay the risks of potentially hazardous substances. Both Burr and Tillis said that Dourson’s work fueled their opposition to his nomination.
“Over the last several weeks, Senator Tillis has done his due diligence in reviewing Mr. Dourson’s body of work. Senator Tillis still has serious concerns about his record and cannot support his nomination,” said Tillis spokesperson Daniel Keylin.
“With his record and our state’s history of contamination at Camp Lejeune as well as the current Gen X water issues in Wilmington, I am not confident he is the best choice for our country,” Burr said in a statement.
The EPA declined to comment on Burr and Tillis’s decision to oppose Dourson.
Dourson has conducted industry-funded research on trichloroethylene, a known human carcinogen that contaminated the drinking water at Camp Lejeune, a North Carolina military base. Earlier this year, the federal government promisedto pay more than $2 billion in disability benefits to veterans exposed to the toxic drinking water at Lejeune, which was contaminated by TCE and benzene, among other chemicals.
Dourson also helped defend DuPont after the chemical giant was sued for exposing West Virginia residents to PFOA, a chemical linked to cancer that the company used to make Teflon. DuPont has since introduced GenX to replace PFOA, but the new chemical has recently raised concerns after high levels were found in North Carolina’s drinking water.
At his October confirmation hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Dourson defended his work as “sound science” and drew praise from GOP committee chair Sen. John Barrasso, who called him as “highly qualified” for the job.
But other Republican legislators have remained non-committal since the committee advanced Dourson's nomination last month.
“As he has with all of the Trump Administration’s nominees, Rob will thoroughly review his record prior to a vote on the Senate floor,” said Emily Benavides, a spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/gop-opposition-endangers-trump-s-pick-regulate-toxic-chemicals-n821416
-
Echa Consults on First REACH Authorisation Review Reports
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has launched a public consultation on the first two review reports received in the REACH authorisation process.
Waste recycling companies Vinyloop Ferrara and Plastic Planet have applied for the following two authorised uses of recycled soft PVC containing the phthalate DEHP:
industrial use of recycled soft PVC containing DEHP in polymer processing by calendering, extrusion, compression and injection moulding, to produce articles: (1) used outside of the interior space in applications in the field of construction, civil engineering, garden features such as ponds and roofing, agriculture (including horticulture) and industrial workplaces, without potential for mouthing or prolonged contact with human skin or any contact with mucous membranes; (2) used in interior space in industrial and agricultural workplaces; or (3) footwear used in professional, industrial and/or agricultural workplaces; and
formulation in compounds and dry-blends.
The review period for the uses of DEHP expires on 21 February 2019, and the companies submitted their review reports with the aim of being allowed to continue using the substance in recycled soft PVC.
Vinyloop Ferrara requested review periods of seven years, with an annual tonnage used of between 50 and 500. Plastic Planet applied for a review period of 12 years and an annual tonnage used of 10-100.
Meanwhile, Indestructible Paint made an initial application for two the following uses of pentazinc chromate octahydroxide:
formulation of mixtures; and
in stoved epoxy primer for corrosion protection of aircraft engine components in aerospace and aeroderivative applications.
The review period requested is 12 years.
Deadline for comments on all of the consultations is 10 January 2018. These can be submitted via Echa's website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61089/echa-consults-on-first-reach-authorisation-review-reports
-
Consumer Electronics Takes the Lead in Conflict-Free Sourcing
Nov 16, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer electronics companies are more advanced than jewellery retailers in promoting conflict-free sourcing from the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to a just-released NGO report.
The Enough Project carried out an in-depth study of 20 well-known brands that source gold, tin, tungsten and tantalum (3TG) in their supply chains.
And it has published a ranking on their efforts to improve supply-chain transparency and support conflict-free mining in the DRC.
Although other sectors also source 3TG, the report focuses on consumer electronics and jewellery. This is because they "have demonstrated the potential to be catalytic in the development of new policies and practices regarding responsible sourcing, and they are also particularly attuned to consumer pressure."
Apple, Alphabet (Google), HP, Microsoft and Intel were ranked highest in the consumer electronics industry, with Apple making the top score of 114 out of a possible 120 points, plus an additional eight points in extra credit.
There were two opportunities for extra credit: for taking steps to ensure the company’s minerals did not originate from national parks; and for making financial contributions to the Conflict-Free Smelter Program (CFSP) Initial Audit Fund.
Toshiba, Samsung, Sony and IBM were the lowest scorers in the consumer electronics sector.
Signet and Tiffany came top in jewellery retail, with Walmart and Neiman Marcus scoring the least points.
Companies from this sector generally lagged far behind, with the remaining eight jewellery retailers scoring between zero and 20 points.
Annie Callaway, report author and advocacy manager at the Enough Project, said the results of the company rankings showed that "some are beginning to more thoroughly understand and embrace due diligence and responsible sourcing practices". But she added that "all companies that use these minerals should commit additional resources in support of a truly conflict-free mining trade."
This means "actively contributing to collaborative multi-stakeholder and livelihood initiatives in order to build long-lasting systems that benefit the Congolese people, consumers, investors, and corporate supply chains alike," she said.
Criteria
Companies were ranked, based on four criteria:
conducting conflict minerals sourcing due diligence and reporting;
developing a conflict-free minerals trade and sourcing these
from Congo, particularly gold;supporting and improving livelihoods for artisanal mining communities in Eastern Congo; and
conflict-free minerals advocacy.
The report noted that many of the ranked companies "have consistently improved the quality of their due diligence programmes, including developing and implementing more sophisticated risk management processes and moving beyond annual reporting."
It recommends that companies:
improve and support public reporting on supply-chain due diligence;
conduct continuous due diligence, not just annual reporting;
engage in multi-stakeholder projects to design and support progressive initiatives;
support conflict-free sourcing opportunities and livelihood opportunities in mining communities with financial investment and public support; and
"set the bar higher" by continuing to improve efforts.
It also calls on other industries, including aerospace and defence, medical equipment, automotive and banking to join the effort to build transparency in global supply chains and "create behavioural shifts that favour responsible business".
Strong legislation
The report also says that companies’ efforts needed to be "bolstered by strong legislation, which reinforces the importance of collective efforts to address conflict minerals."
It calls on members of the US Congress to reject any amendments to defund or repeal Dodd-Frank Section 1502, which the NGO says would "undo significant progress made over the past five years, since the law was implemented".
Dodd-Frank Act Section 1502 requires publicly traded companies to conduct due diligence and report to the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) on whether their sourcing of 3TG is supporting armed groups in the DRC or its neighbouring countries.
Meanwhile, the US treasury department has called for scrapping the rule requiring disclosure related to conflict minerals, as well as other parts of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Acting SEC Chairman Michael Piwowar issued a statement in April, suggesting that the agency would not seek enforcement for failure to submit 'enhanced disclosure' documents, but companies are reported to have largely continued the practice.
On 3 November Bill Huizenga (R-Michigan), chair of the House Financial Services Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee, introduced bill (HR 4248) to the House of Representatives. Its aim is to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to repeal certain disclosure requirements related to conflict minerals, and for other purposes.
Mr Huizenga also added a provision to the pending appropriations bill that would bar funding for enforcing the provision.
Methodology
Companies were first contacted about the Enough Project’s intention to rank them in February and were given one month to respond to the survey questions.
The NGO then consulted with the companies to find out extra information and reviewed their websites and SEC filings.
It is the fourth ranking the Enough Project has conducted since its first in 2010.
https://chemicalwatch.com/61113/consumer-electronics-takes-the-lead-in-conflict-free-sourcing
-
Whether You Love or Hate Natural Gas, Stopping Methane Emissions Now is Crucial
Nov 16, 2017 | EDF Energy Exchange
By Mark Brownstein
The International Energy Agency’s new 2017 World Energy Outlook contains the agency’s strongest language yet about the urgent need to reduce methane emissions from the oil and gas sector, and the huge opportunities that exist to do so.
Some have taken issue with IEA projections on the overall role of natural gas, suggesting they are beyond what is environmentally sustainable. Others think IEA is underestimating growth potential. Whatever you believe the trajectory for gas is — or should be — the benefits of reducing methane emissions are both enormous and irrefutable.
The good news: IEA estimates the industry can reduce their worldwide emissions by 75 percent – and that up to two thirds of those reductions can be realized at zero net cost. “These emissions are not the only anthropogenic emissions of methane,” says the report, “but they are likely to be among the cheapest to abate."
Two paths to meet growing energy challenge
Conveniently, IEA presents two energy pathways. The somewhat confusingly named “New Policies” scenario is actually business-as-usual, reflecting strictures currently in place or pending, while the “Sustainable Development” path assumes additional measures to hold warming by 2100 to 2⁰C while also global energy access goals are met.
Either way, the case in favor of rapid oil and gas methane reductions remains overwhelming.
Under current policies, IEA says global energy demand will grow more slowly than in the past, but will still be 30% higher than today by 2040 (effectively adding an extra China or India). They project average annual economic growth of 3.4 percent, and an increasingly urbanized 2040 population of 9 billion people, up from 7.4 billion now.
Renewables will meet 40% of that projected increase, and account for two-thirds of new power plant investment. Oil demand is predicted to grow, but at a decreasing pace. Significantly, however, natural gas consumption rises 45% by 2040 in this scenario, with much of that in industrial uses. Eighty percent of projected gas growth comes from mainly from China, India and other developing economies.
Gas demand stays strong in sustainable scenario
Even in IEA’s Sustainable Development scenario, where renewables and efficiency rule the day, demand for gas – and hence the urgent need to reduce associated methane emissions – remains strong.
Low-carbon sources double their 2040 share of the energy mix to 40 percent. Coal drops like the proverbial stone, and oil demand peaks much sooner than in the business-as-usual estimates. But there’s a catch: “As oil and coal fall back and renewables ramp up strongly,” IEA says, “natural gas becomes the largest single fuel in the global mix.”
Under this scenario – which is, remember, built around a an energy mix necessary for 2⁰C climate path – natural gas consumption still grows 20 percent by 2030, and holds steady for a decade after that. Gas plays an especially big role in the future transformation of today’s coal-dependent developing countries like China and India.
Forecasts vary, but some facts are clear
Energy forecasts, of course, vary, and IEA provides us with one set of views, but most credible estimates for a low carbon future consistent with the Paris Accord suggest that oil and gas will be with us for some years to come. Even assuming a rapid transition to 100% renewable electricity, it’s important to remember that two-thirds of worldwide natural gas production is currently used outside the power sector, including for applications where ready substitutes are harder to come by – like fertilizer, chemicals and plastics.
What we know for certain is that right now, today, oil and gas industry methane emissions are enormous: seventy-six million metric tons of methane a year, according to IEA. Based on today’s gas prices and IEA’s data, as much as 34 billion dollars’ worth of global gas supply is lost each year. This is equal to all of the gas produced by Norway, the world’s 6th largest producer. And that’s likely an underestimate.
So no matter what you think the market for gas looks like 20 years hence, we still have our work cut out for us now.
No room for delay
Some argue that focusing on methane distracts from the greater goal of eliminating fossil fuels, and that reductions could even be taken as license extend our dependence on natural gas in particular. These are reasonable concerns. It’s crucial to slash carbon emissions as much as possible as fast as possible; the expanding clean energy revolution still isn’t happening quickly enough.
But the potent effects of methane – which is responsible for a quarter of the warming we’re experiencing today – combined with the straightforward solutions in the oil and gas sector, make this an opportunity to protect the climate that we simply cannot afford to miss.
http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2017/11/16/whether-you-love-or-hate-natural-gas-stopping-methane-emissions-now-is-crucial/
-
N.D. Oil Producers Exceed State's Flaring Limit
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
North Dakota's oil producers exceeded the state's regulatory limit for natural gas flaring in September, and the industry will struggle to control the waste until it builds an additional $11 billion worth of pipelines and processing plants.
Companies in the Bakken Shale formation burned 17 percent of gas production, or 323 million cubic feet, up from 14 percent in August, state Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms said.
"That is a lot of gas — when I started this job, the state didn't produce that much gas," Helms said on a conference call with reporters.
The advent of fracking in the Bakken formation has turned North Dakota into the second-biggest oil-producing state after Texas. But the oil field, located near the Montana-North Dakota border, is so remote that it's been hard to build pipelines to handle the new output.
It's economical to transport oil to market by truck, but gas prices have been so low for the last few years that companies often burned it in flares rather than pay for pipelines and compressors. In 2011, companies were flaring 36 percent of their gas.
The state Industrial Commission, led by then-Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R), passed regulations in 2014 that require the oil industry to gradually reduce the level of flaring to 9 percent of production by 2020 (Energywire, July 2, 2014).
That's still far higher than most other oil-producing states allow.
The industry has generally met the percentage goals, although the overall volume of gas being flared has increased as production has risen. The current flaring limit is 15 percent, and it drops to 12 percent next year (Energywire, Aug. 15).
Helms said the amount of flaring rose in September because of temporary shutdowns, known as force majeure events, on pipelines and at compressor stations and processing plants. Oil companies may continue to miss the goals through the winter, as North Dakota's extreme cold makes it harder to operate pipelines.
Ultimately, the industry will need an additional 1.5 billion cubic feet a day in gathering and processing capacity, which could cost about $11 billion, Helms said. So far, companies have spent $13 billion statewide on those systems.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/16/stories/1060066677
-
FERC Denies N.Y. Appeals Over Gas Project
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Saqib Rahim
The disagreement between New York and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over a gas pipeline looks set to go to federal court — again.
FERC yesterday denied New York's multiple appeals over the Valley Lateral Project, a short gas pipeline proposed by Millennium Pipeline Co. The state and federal authorities have been sparring for months over which body has the final say on whether the project can be built.
FERC said yesterday that its interpretation over the relevant Clean Water Act language is superior. And it dismissed New York's claims that letting project construction go ahead — which FERC authorized on Oct. 27 — would irreparably damage the environment.
"We disagree with the New York [Department of Environmental Conservation]'s contention that New York DEC, as the certifying state agency, is the appropriate agency to interpret 'any ambiguous terms of the CWA,'" FERC said in an order. "In general, courts do not afford deference to state agency interpretations of federal law even where state agencies are delegated substantial roles in cooperative federalist schemes."
But the legal dispute has risen from the dead multiple times, and another reincarnation seems likely.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) last month asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to block construction. Yesterday, the court said it'll hear New York's and FERC's arguments on Dec. 5.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/16/stories/1060066693
-
Arkema Fire Should Wake Up Industry — Chemical Safety Board
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board warned the chemical industry yesterday to strengthen emergency plans as natural disasters increase.
Arkema Inc. in Houston was forced to burn tons of organic peroxides used in plastic making, creating a public health disaster, after Hurricane Harvey flooded the facility. The company was unprepared for the 6 feet of water dumped on the plant.
Officials hope CSB's Arkema review will wake up the industry.
"We're hoping our investigation will have broad national impact," said board Chairwoman Vanessa Allen Sutherland.
Internal company documents obtained by the Houston Chronicle showed the company had minimal flood emergency planning and was prepared for 3 feet of water (Greenwire, Nov. 15). Its backup generators used as a last line of defense were too close to the ground and destroyed by floodwaters.
The board hopes to conclude its Arkema investigation by the 2018 hurricane season, which will start in June for Texas.
Sutherland said companies need to get ready for stronger and more frequent storms in the future.
"No one has a crystal ball, but we don't want people to be lulled into a false sense that the plan they may have done two or three years ago is still going to be adequate," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/16/stories/1060066711
-
4 Big Climate Rules Still Alive Under Trump
Nov 16, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen and Camille von Kaenel
President Trump has proudly declared the death of the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, but that and other climate rules are still lingering.
"Boom, gone," Trump said of that rule at a rally in Huntsville, Ala., in September, as he slashed an "X" through the air with his finger.
The president was referring to the landmark 2015 climate regulation on carbon emissions from power plants that he and U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt have targeted for elimination as part of their broader efforts to torpedo Obama-era rules, promote domestic energy production and advance Pruitt's "Back to Basics" EPA agenda.
But despite Trump's public pronouncements, work to scythe through regulations on greenhouse gas emissions is far from over. Lawsuits challenging major climate rules are stalled in the courts, and actions to eliminate them are working through long bureaucratic processes. These roadblocks could impede the administration's deregulatory push and could ultimately mean the rules' fate is decided by the next administration.
Here's where the planned rollbacks of four major climate regulations stand:
1. Clean Power Plan
President Obama's signature climate rule was meant to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants. Axing the rule became a prominent talking point for both Trump and Pruitt, who have vowed to revive the U.S. coal industry and see cutting this regulation as a means of doing that.
Now, the Clean Power Plan is stuck in legal limbo. The Supreme Court blocked its implementation, and legal challenges to the rule are currently stalled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Late last week, the federal court announced it would suspend litigation for yet another 60 days. EPA would have to file a status report every 30 days, as it has done previously (Greenwire, Nov. 10).
At the same time, EPA is working on developing a formal plan for repeal. The agency is seeking public comment on the plan and recently extended the deadline to Jan. 16. So far, the proposal has garnered roughly 2,100 comments online. EPA will also host a two-day hearing in Charleston, W.Va., on Nov. 28-29 on the proposed elimination. The deadline for speakers to register is today. The proceedings may be extended an additional day, depending on demand, according to the agency.
It's unclear whether EPA plans on hosting additional public hearings, which has drawn the condemnation of groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council. In a letter to Pruitt this week, NRDC called for EPA to hold additional hearings in Washington, D.C., and other communities around the country harmed by climate change.
"Holding a single hearing on the proposed repeal in Charleston will not give an adequate opportunity to be heard to the broad range of Americans across this country with a stake in this vital rule," wrote David Doniger, director of NRDC's climate and clean air program.
EPA is still weighing whether it will put something in the place of Clean Power Plan once it is repealed. Some industry groups have favored this option in part as a way to prevent future administrations from putting in place even stricter regulations. A plan for replacing the rule has gone to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. Progress remains opaque; there is no publicly available evidence that OMB and EPA have held meetings yet on the replacement plan.
2. CO2 limits for new power plants
Like the Clean Power Plan, this sister rule is aimed at cutting carbon emissions from power plants — in this case, plants that are either new or significantly modified. But unlike the Clean Power Plan, the new source rule is already in effect even as it faces stalled legal challenges in federal court.
In a recent update to the D.C. Circuit on Oct. 27, EPA asked for legal proceedings to remain stalled until the agency is done reviewing the rule and "any resulting forthcoming rulemaking." EPA will be required to provide another update at the end of January 2018.
It's unclear what the Trump administration intends to do with the rule, but some observers say it could provide a guide for how to replace the Clean Power Plan, if that's the course the administration chooses to take (Climatewire, Oct. 11).
3. Methane controls for oil and gas wells
EPA isn't just looking to get rid of regulations on carbon dioxide. The agency has also sought to stall rules to curb a more potent heat-trapping gas: methane.
Obama-era standards finalized in 2016 control methane emissions from new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. Pruitt formally proposed a two-year delay in implementing parts of the rule even though it was already in effect. The agency is now soliciting public comment on a "notice of data availability" it published last week. The document provides more information on the costs and benefits of delaying the rule, including calculations of the dollar value of the lost climate benefits from not implementing it, which the agency said would be between $4.3 million and $13 million per year.
However, the agency's calculation for the "social cost of methane" included only domestic emissions and high discount rates, a calculation that many environmentalists and economists say significantly underestimates the monetary value of climate regulations.
Separately, EPA had attempted to put a 90-day stay on part of the methane rule, but that delay was struck down by the D.C. Circuit this summer.
The Obama administration had also planned to write regulations governing methane emissions from existing sources in the oil and gas industry, but wasn't able to do so before the end of the term. That administration had, however, begun the process by asking for more information from the oil and gas industry about their operations.
In March, Pruitt withdrew the information request, signaling that further development of methane regulations for the oil and gas industry was unlikely — at least anytime soon. The move effectively killed the agency's data collection effort for the time being, and Pruitt noted at the time that EPA would be taking a "closer look" at whether it needed more information from the industry. The decision happened a day after he received a letter from 11 Republican leaders calling for an end to the process (Climatewire, March 3).
4. Tailpipe rules
The Obama administration strengthened clean car and truck rules that would have brought average fleetwide fuel efficiency to around 36 mpg by 2025, but the Trump administration is proposing to unravel them, bit by bit.
In March, Trump flew to Michigan to tell auto executives and employees he would reconsider EPA's flagship tailpipe rules for passenger cars and trucks to make it easier on them.
His administration must now negotiate with automakers and California, which has a special authority to set its own — potentially more stringent — rules, for model years 2021 to 2025. They have until April 2018 to decide whether to lower the targets, per a schedule negotiated with automakers back under the Obama administration. The White House kicked off talks in a September phone call to California. No agreement has yet been reached, raising the possibility of a lengthy legal battle (Climatewire, Sept. 27).
So far, the administration has been giving the auto industry what it wants — a new review of the standards — and then some. It expanded the review to include model year 2021, a rule that is already formally on the books, in a surprise move. Both Congress and the agencies are weighing automaker petition and bills that would tweak the rules to make compliance easier and carbon reductions lower.
EPA officials met for the first time with counterparts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which also sets tailpipe rules, late last month on the review. NHTSA has said it would send its version of the rules to the White House for approval by the end of December.
California and the dozen other states that have signed on to its rules have vowed to maintain strict targets and sue the federal government in case of a federal rollback. The Trump administration has responded by floating the idea of revoking the Golden State's waiver — which allows it to set its own climate rules for cars — although Pruitt has told California lawmakers the current Clean Air Act waiver is not under threat right now.
Pruitt has also targeted another part of Obama's clean vehicles program. He proposed to repeal emissions standards for glider kits, which are new truck frames fitted with refurbished engines, last week after meeting with the flagship manufacturer (E&E News PM, Nov. 9).
The provision would have applied for the first time in 2018 and is part of Obama's program for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. EPA will hold a public hearing on the repeal on Dec. 4. A federal court put a stay on another provision of the big rig rules that would have applied for the first time to trailers to give EPA more time to review the industry's concerns.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/16/stories/1060066669
-
US Tells UN Climate Conference: ‘We Continue to be a Leader’ on Clean Energy
Nov 16, 2017 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Devin Henry
A State Department official on Thursday called the United States a “leader” on clean energy issues and told United Nations delegates the U.S. is still committed to global climate work, despite President Trump’s opposition to the Paris climate agreement.
“Although [Trump] has indicated that the United States intends to withdraw at the earliest opportunity, we remain open to the possibility of rejoining at a later date under terms more favorable to the American people,” Judith Garber, an acting assistant secretary of State, said at a plenary session of the Bonn, Germany, climate talks.
Garber said the U.S. is committed to “universal access to affordable and reliable energy” and that it would support “a balanced approach to climate mitigation, economic development, and energy security that takes into consideration the realities of the global energy mix.”
Garber did not speak about the threat climate change poses to her country, a subject for many of the officials speaking before the U.N. conference this week.
Instead, she emphasized the United States' work on clean energy and carbon emissions reduction. She also highlighted the way the U.S. has worked with other nations on clean energy issues, including through technological research and deployment in Africa and the Caribbean.
“Irrespective of our views on the Paris Agreement, the United States will continue to be a leader in clean energy and innovation, and we understand the need for transforming energy systems," she said.
Garber’s statement comes near the end of the United Nation's annual climate summit, the first held since Trump said this summer he would pull the U.S. out of the landmark Paris climate agreement.
After Syria signed on to the accord earlier this month, the U.S. became the only nation not supporting it.
The U.S. has emphasized its support for nuclear power and emissions curbs for fossil fuel energy at the conference, while a group of Democrats has told delegates there is still support for the Paris agreement in the United States outside the Trump administration.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360686-us-tells-un-climate-conference-we-continue-to-be-a-leader-on-clean
-
Why Honeycutt is Such an Alarming Choice for EPA's Science Advisory Panel
Nov 16, 2017 | EDF Blog
By Elena Craft
Michael Honeycutt – the man set to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s prestigious Science Advisory Board – has spent most of his career as a credentialed counterpoint against almost anything the EPA has proposed to protect human health.
Fortunately, his lone voice for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality rarely carried beyond the Lone Star State. Until now.
The EPA science advisory panel Honeycutt will chair is supposed to provide the agency with independent scientific expertise on a wide range of issues. In a highly unusual move, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt picked the Texan for the job even though he has never been a member of the board.
More than Honeycutt’s inexperience, however, what worries me most is his faulty logic and what this means for science at the EPA.
Honeycutt downplays ozone dangers
A toxicologist by training, Honeycutt has criticized the EPA’s health-based standards for ozone because “most people spend more than 90 percent of their time indoors,” reducing their exposure to the ubiquitous pollutant.
Houston residents know differently. The city’s worst day for lung-damaging ozone this year happened while many people were outside for long hours of cleanup after Hurricane Harvey.
Honeycutt doubled-down on his position that ozone is not harmful to human health in a 2014 interview with the Texas Tribune.
“I haven’t seen the data that says lowering ozone will produce a health benefit,” he said. “In fact, I’ve seen data that shows it might have a negative health benefit.”
Honeycutt’s statement suggests he believes that more air pollution might actually be good for you.
…even though ozone can cause premature death
I am a toxicologist in Texas, too, and here is the truth about ozone: The pollutant can exacerbate asthma, lung disease and heart disease – and even lead to premature death.
The current acceptable limit, recommended during the George W. Bush administration and set under Obama’s in 2015, is 70 parts per billion, a standard that the public health community still believes is too high. The EPA’s own science advisors had recommended a limit as stringent as 60 ppb to protect human health.
Honeycutt spent millions to refute science
In his Texas role, Honeycutt responded to the recommendation by paying more than $2.6 million for research that says tighter ozone rules would cost the state billions of dollars annually with little or no impact on public health.
“Every part per billion that they don’t lower it is millions of dollars,” Honeycutt told the Houston Chronicle. “So we think that the return on investment in this is just phenomenal. Just phenomenal.”
And it’s not just ozone that seems to be a target for Honeycutt. He also has issues with protections against mercury, particulate matter and air toxics.
The reality is, however, that by failing to improve air quality, we’re paying more in health and social costs. This is real money lost on hospital visits, and on missed work and school days.
…and now he’ll steer EPA science
All this matters because Honeycutt, as the board’s chair, will help prioritize which issues the EPA decides to investigate. He will also pick the scientists who review studies and reports before they come to the full board.
My worry is that he will continue down a path that is destructive to public health protections, a well-known pattern within the Trump administration.
We know that clean air and a strong economy go hand-in-hand – and that industry doomsayer claims are unsubstantiated.
But none of that matters to an administration that scrubs qualified scientists from serving on advisory committees, that eradicates scientific data from websites that do not support the its agenda, and that does not want to be challenged.
Honeycutt’s appointment is yet another attack against science. With American health at stake, we cannot stay silent about this latest EPA development.
https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/11/16/why-honeycutt-such-alarming-choice-epas-science-advisory-panel
-
OTC Demands EPA Immediately Issue Ozone NAAQS Designations
Nov 16, 2017 | Inside EPA
The Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states is pressing EPA to immediately issue overdue designations of areas in attainment or nonattainment with the agency's 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS), after EPA missed an Oct. 1 deadline to issue designations for hundreds of areas.
In a formal resolution adopted at its Nov. 15 Fall meeting in Washington, D.C., OTC “requests that the EPA immediately comply with its requirements” under the Clean Air Act “and promulgate final designations and classifications for the 2015 ozone NAAQS."
The Obama EPA set the NAAQS at 70 parts per billion (ppb), tougher than the prior level of 75 ppb set in 2008 by the Bush administration, and the Trump EPA is now reconsidering the Obama standard.
Designations are required so that states can craft air quality plans to attain the NAAQS, but this planning process will now be delayed for many areas. Classifications define air quality levels corresponding to various levels of nonattainment ranging from “marginal” to “extreme.” Areas in more serious nonattainment must impose tougher pollution controls, but also have longer to comply.
EPA Nov. 6 issued designations of “attainment” or “unclassifiable” for 2,646 of more than 3,100 counties in the United States, and is slated to publish those designations in the Federal Register Nov. 16, starting a 60-day clock for lawsuits over that decision.
Environmentalists already have an ongoing suit over the agency's earlier since-rescinded attempt to delay all of the attainment and nonattainment designations until October 2018. They have warned the designations issued this month are incomplete because they exclude any designations for nonattainment areas, and are therefore unlawful.
The areas designated so far will not have to take additional steps to ensure their own compliance with the NAAQS, but may still face “good neighbor” obligations to reduce their air emissions that contribute to ozone problems in downwind areas, such as the OTC states.
At their meeting, OTC-area air regulators warned that because EPA will issue nonattainment designations out of step with attainment designations, and possibly in several further steps, future planning will become complex and onerous for states to achieve. Attainment dates could vary for different areas within states.
States would have to conduct multiple air quality modeling runs, using different datasets, straining limited state resources further, OTC Modeling Committee Chair Jeff Underhill, of New Hampshire, said.
https://insideepa.com/the-daily-feed
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested