Preview Newsletter
PRACTICE ACC PM Shelly 30/11/17
-
(ACC Mentioned) Prices on the Rise for PP, Nylon and Recycled PET
Nov 30, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices ticked up another penny per pound in November, while regional prices for nylon 6 and 6/6 resins and some recycled grades of PET bottle resin have increased in recent months as well. -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Backs Manchin in New Ad
Nov 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
The American Chemistry Council is out with a new ad praising Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who is facing a tough reelection bid in 2018. -
Too Little, Too Late: Why SNURs Alone Are Not a Sufficient Alternative to Consent Orders for New Chemicals
Nov 30, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of making some major changes to its policies and practices governing new chemical reviews. -
Revise Nano Definition Before Amending REACH Annexes, Industry Says
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concerns over the European Commission’s timing of the publication of its draft revised REACH annexes to address nanomaterials. -
REACH New Substance Registrations Estimate 'May Fall Short'
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has revealed that the number of new substances registered for the 2018 REACH registration deadline is less than expected and may not meet estimated figures. -
EU Green Criteria Backs Need for Flame Retardants, Says Trade Group
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The European Flame Retardant Association (Efra) said it welcomed the EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria for furniture. -
Echa Round-Up
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa has published a series of letter templates that companies, especially SMEs, can use when starting negotiations with co-registrants for sharing data and submitting jointly for REACH registration. -
Choosing a Safe Mattress for Your Baby's Crib
Nov 30, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko Ph.D. and Tasha Stoiber
During the first few years of their lives, infants can spend most of their time sleeping or crawling in the crib. -
US NGO Highlights Drop in Toys Recalled for Excessive Lead
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
No toys were recalled for containing excessive levels of lead over the last year, compared to 11 products the previous year, according to a report by the US Public Interest Research Group. -
Carpet Manufacturers 'Stepping Up Efforts' on Ingredient Disclosure
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Leading US carpet manufacturers are stepping up efforts to communicate the components of their products — and their relationship to human and ecological health — according to US trade association the Carpet and Rug Institute -
Regulatory Agencies Reluctant to Use Mathematical Models of Organisms
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Regulatory agencies remain reluctant to use physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models, according to an expert survey by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). -
EPA to Hold Biofuels Quota Steady in 2018
Nov 30, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has backed off its proposal to slightly cut the federal biofuels mandate. -
Final EPA RFS for 2018 Prompts Criticism from Refiners, Biofuels Groups
Nov 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has met its Nov. 30 deadline for issuing the final 2018 renewable fuel standard (RFS) blending targets for alternative and renewable fuels, prompting criticism from all sides as refiners argue that goals are too high and show why Congress should reform or repeal the RFS while biofuels groups say the targets are too low. -
Senate Parliamentarian Tells GOP to Change ANWR Provision or Pull From Tax Bill
Nov 30, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Republican efforts to open up oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through the tax bill now under debate in the Senate have been held up for violating Senate rules. -
Power Shift: How Natural Gas and Renewables Dethroned King Coal
Nov 30, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
American electricity production is changing dramatically. -
Report Warns of Hacking Risk to Refining Sector
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The refining industry's rush to adopt digital technology could open doors for hackers, according to a report this week from the Deloitte consultancy. -
California Governor Says Republicans ‘Have to Get Out of the Way’
Nov 30, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Gov. Jerry Brown of California understands why climate change is so politically polarizing. -
Trump Pick on Climate Science: 'We Can't Dispute the Facts'
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
President Trump's pick to head the NOAA took an unusual approach for an administration official: He agreed with mainstream climate scientists. -
Tillerson Exit Would Bring Climate Disbelief to State
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick and Hannah Northey
If CIA Director Mike Pompeo replaces Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as the top U.S. diplomat, he would bring a careerlong skepticism of climate science with him to Foggy Bottom. -
DOE Floats Another Contentious Overhaul of Standards
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy is considering additional changes to energy efficiency standards that environmentalists say raise "serious concerns" about the future of the program.
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) Prices on the Rise for PP, Nylon and Recycled PET
Nov 30, 2017 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
North American polypropylene resin prices ticked up another penny per pound in November, while regional prices for nylon 6 and 6/6 resins and some recycled grades of PET bottle resin have increased in recent months as well.
The 1-cent PP hike marked the second straight month that market prices had moved up by that amount. Prices had jumped 7 cents per pound in September as the market reacted to temporary shortages caused by Hurricane Harvey.
North American PP sales grew just over 1 percent in the first 10 months of 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. Domestic sales grew 2.5 percent in that period, but were softened by a 32.5 percent plunge in exports.
Domestic sales of PP into injection molded housewares surged almost 5 percent for that 10-month stretch. PP sales into sheet jumped almost 9 percent.
Nylon prices rise
Higher feedstock costs and strong demand from the automotive market sent nylon 6 prices up an average of 6 cents per pound and nylon 6/6 prices up an average of 8 cents per pound since Sept. 1, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News.
North American nylon 6 and 6/6 prices already had surged a total of 18 cents this year.
For recycled PET, a 3-cent increase for clear pellets was fueled, in part, by higher demand and concerns surrounding an anti-dumping petition filed against U.S. PET imports, according to the PetroChemWire LLC consulting firm in Houston.
Strong demand partially has resulted from end users meeting end-of-year production quotas for bottles and packaging with recycled content, the report added.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20171130/NEWS/171139989/prices-on-the-rise-for-pp-nylon-and-recycled-pet
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Backs Manchin in New Ad
Nov 30, 2017 | PoliticoPro
By Kevin Robillard
The American Chemistry Council is out with a new ad praising Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who is facing a tough reelection bid in 2018.
"Working for bipartisan solutions, Sen. Joe Manchin is fighting for West Virginia," the narrator says in the ad, citing Manchin's work on the economy, infrastructure, coal and the opioid epidemic. "Call Sen. Manchin and tell him to keep fighting for real results,"
The American Chemistry Council has also aired ads backing Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, Nevada Sen. Dean Heller and Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow in recent weeks.
Watch the ad here.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, Rep. Evan Jenkins and coal magnate Don Blankenship are all running for the GOP nomination to challenge Manchin.
https://www.politicopro.com/campaigns/whiteboard/2017/11/american-chemistry-council-backs-manchin-in-new-ad-173669
-
Nov 30, 2017 | Environmental Defense Fund
By Richard Denison
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is in the process of making some major changes to its policies and practices governing new chemical reviews. This post discusses one of the most troubling ones.
The SNUR-only approach EPA is now deploying differs dramatically from and provides far less risk protection than would result from it simply doing what the law requires: using orders, with SNURs as backup.
As I have previously described, last year’s Lautenberg Act made extensive changes to section 5 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which governs the review of new chemicals prior to their manufacture and use. Among these changes is a requirement that EPA must evaluate potential risks, and mitigate potential unreasonable risks, of a new chemical under its “conditions of use,” which the new law defines to include “reasonably foreseen” circumstances of production, processing, distribution, use or disposal, as well as those intended by the company submitting notice of the new chemical to EPA. If EPA identifies potential risk or significant exposure or lacks sufficient information on a new chemical, it must issue an order prohibiting or limiting the conditions of use of the chemical in order to mitigate any unreasonable risk.
After passage of the Lautenberg Act until recently, and in keeping with the new law, if EPA’s review identified risk concerns relating to conditions of use beyond those strictly identified by a company submitting a new chemical notice to EPA, the agency made a “may present an unreasonable risk” finding and pursued development of a consent order with the company sufficient to ameliorate those concerns. (While EPA has authority to issue unilateral orders, it typically negotiates with the company to arrive at a consent order that both parties sign.)
Now EPA is indicating it will instead make a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding for the intended conditions of use, and says it can address any concerns over reasonably foreseen uses without issuing an order by developing only a significant new use rule (SNUR). This “SNUR-only approach” is inconsistent with the law, a matter I won’t discuss further here. However, it also raises a host of policy concerns, some of which I lay out in this post.
The SNUR-only approach EPA is now deploying differs dramatically from and provides far less risk protection than would result from it simply doing what the law requires: using orders, with SNURs as backup.
There are ample reasons why Congress called on EPA to use orders to address concerns and then use SNURs as backup: Orders (including consent orders) and SNURs are not created equal. This post discusses 12 key differences, with respect to:legal requirements available in a consent order vs. a SNUR;the scope of risk review under a consent order vs. a SNUR;the requirements for issuing a consent order vs. promulgating a SNUR; andthe incentives and disincentives companies face under a consent order vs. a SNUR
(Spoiler alert: Deep dive ahead. Let me apologize to and warn readers in advance that this post gets rather into the weeds, as the issues are complicated and the details are important.)
Legal requirements available in a consent order vs. a SNURA consent order imposes legally binding conditions on the company that signs it. Where EPA identifies potential risk or a lack of sufficient information, TSCA requires that it impose binding conditions that must regulate the chemical “to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.” Even where a SNUR defines a significant new use to be any activity outside of those same conditions, the conditions are not binding and the only requirement on a company is to notify EPA prior to engaging in that significant new use (by filing what is called a Significant New Use Notification, or SNUN). The SNUN then undergoes a review similar to that for a premanufacture notification (PMN). Only if that review leads to a risk finding, an exposure-based finding, or an insufficient information finding can EPA impose binding conditions – which would likely be done through a consent order applicable to the SNUN submitter. (Note also that the provisions in a PMN are not legally binding on the submitter; only if codified in a consent order would they be binding.)Consent orders are readily enforceable because the party subject to a consent order is known and has consented to abide by the conditions of it. A consent order must also be posted visibly within any workplace where activities subject to the consent order are taking place. In contrast, EPA has very limited means to know if companies are complying with the conditions of a SNUR or should have, but did not, file a SNUN.Testing requirements cannot be imposed through SNURs, but can be through consent orders. Section 5 of TSCA requires EPA to issue an order whenever “the information available to the Administrator is insufficient to permit a reasoned evaluation of the health and environmental effects of a chemical substance,” without limitation to a company’s intended uses, and section 5 orders provide a critical direct mechanism for EPA to address the data gaps that characterize the great majority of PMNs.
Given that only about 10-15% of PMN submissions include chemical toxicity and/or fate data as part of the submission, EPA is typically making determinations based on insufficient data about the PMN substance, often relying exclusively on analogs. There is no current ability to quantitatively evaluate how predictive an analog is of the PMN substance’s properties; at best EPA can make a qualitative determination. Relying on a SNUR instead of a consent order provides no opportunity either to generate new information or to use that information to reassess EPA’s initial evaluation based on limited information.Consent orders can be reopened and revised based on new information (including results of required testing). If testing shows a chemical is more toxic than initially thought, EPA can tighten conditions in the order. No such option exists with a SNUR: If companies are engaging in activities that do not trigger notification under a SNUR but later those activities are found to present potential or actual risk, those activities cannot be brought under the original SNUR or addressed by a new SNUR, because they are now ongoing uses. EPA’s only option at that point would be to pursue action under section 6 of TSCA: designate the substance as high-priority and undertake a risk evaluation.
In contrast, a consent order includes both actual restrictions to protect against the unreasonable risk and a “reopener” provision: If testing indicates that EPA underestimated the magnitude of the unreasonable risk, then the terms of the consent order allow EPA to modify it to require new restrictions to protect against the unreasonable risk. In the SNUR-only scenario, because there is no testing requirement, EPA will not even be able to learn whether its initial estimate of the risks was accurate.
Scope of risk review under a consent order vs. a SNURUnder the reforms made by the Lautenberg Act, Congress required that EPA subject new chemicals to risk reviews and risk determinations that extend to reasonably foreseen as well as intended conditions of use. The law requires an order to be issued following a risk finding, an exposure-based finding, or an insufficient-information finding for either category of conditions of use.
In contrast, a SNUR-only approach at best defers or evades altogether the risk or related finding requirement with respect to reasonably foreseen uses. This is because a risk or related finding is not required to be made in order for EPA to issue a SNUR, only consideration of certain factors delineated in TSCA section 5(a)(2). A SNUN submitted in response to a SNUR undergoes a review similar to that for a PMN. If EPA chooses to similarly limit that review only to the new intended use(s) identified by the submitter of the SNUN, it may yet again not make a risk finding, an exposure-based finding, or an insufficient information finding, and hence again not issue a consent order imposing binding conditions on that company.
To summarize and bring together the points made above: Under the Lautenberg Act, EPA’s review of a new chemical requires a risk review and risk determination, whereas EPA may issue a SNUR without such a review or determination. Similarly, the terms of an order issued under section 5 of TSCA must meet a specific, protective risk standard: EPA must issue an order that regulates the chemical “to the extent necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, … including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation.” In contrast, the terms of a SNUR, standing alone, do not need to meet any specific risk standard.Congress gave EPA a mandate under the law to consider both intended and reasonably foreseen uses of a new chemical in deciding whether conditions, to be imposed through an order, are warranted. It did not intend for EPA to pursue a more piecemeal approach under which EPA evaluates only intended uses initially and promulgates a SNUR to address any concerns over reasonably foreseen uses.
In addition, under its SNUR-only approach, it appears EPA is warping the concepts of intended vs. reasonably foreseen uses. When a PMN is submitted and EPA finds potential risks based on the scenarios in the PMN, EPA apparently now typically works with the company to identify additional conditions to include in the PMN to protect against the risks. In its SNUR-only approach, EPA is de facto redefining the intended uses to be inclusive of the additional PMN conditions, and redefining the intended uses without those additional conditions (i.e., what the submitter originally intended and was in the original PMN) as the reasonably foreseen uses. As previously noted, however, the provisions in a PMN are not legally binding on the submitter; only if codified in a consent order would they be binding.
The result is that EPA will typically make a “may present” finding for intended uses only if there is no feasible way for the company to add conditions to its PMN sufficient to protect against the risk. In other words, EPA and the submitter iterate the process – with EPA effectively serving as a free consultant or coach to the PMN submitter. The process effectively keeps moving the goal posts until a “not likely” finding can be made that avoids EPA ever having to make the initial “may present” finding and issue an order, clearly not what Congress intended. And crucially, even these additional conditions added to the PMN are not binding on the PMN submitter in the absence of an order.
EPA appears intent on further warping Congressional intent by asserting as a new operating principle that it is redefining “reasonably foreseen” to mean “probable,” thereby setting a higher evidentiary bar EPA would have to meet than Congress intended in order to include in its review ways in which a new chemical could reasonably be used after it enters commerce.Relying on a SNUR instead of a consent order may result in EPA only analyzing the specific intended use(s) of the new chemical in isolation and never analyzing the chemical substance comprehensively, whereas section 5 of TSCA contemplates that a new chemical substance will receive a comprehensive analysis based on sufficient information, to the extent practicable. That is, deferring the review of potential risks arising from reasonably foreseen uses to a setting that is removed in time and divorced from the risk review of intended uses provides no assurance that EPA will ever conduct a robust review of potential risk under all of the new chemical’s conditions of use.
In addition, the specific proposed use in the PMN only reflects the knowledge that the PMN submitter has of its market and downstream users at the time of PMN submission, which may be quite limited and not reflect the full range of potential uses and users. If EPA only looks narrowly at the conditions of use in the PMN to make its determination, its review and determination may well not reflect or be representative of the actual conditions of use once the chemical enters commerce. Congress clearly intended for EPA to take a more expansive and prospective approach when reviewing new chemicals under reformed TSCA.EPA proposes to relegate its consideration of any potential risk beyond that specifically presented by a PMN to a SNUR instead of protecting against those risks in an order. To even begin to achieve a sufficient level of protection, EPA would need to write a SNUR in a way that does not allow any activity that could present additional potential risk beyond the activities specified in the company’s PMN to occur without prior notification. Otherwise, EPA’s proposed approach will not provide a pathway to achieving protection comparable to that provided by an order (coupled with a SNUR) addressing reasonably foreseen conditions of use. This is because EPA will be allowing risks to occur (with no consequence) that extend beyond those it deemed acceptable when it determined that the PMN was not likely to present unreasonable risk. Consider, for example:
A PMN specifies a company will require its workers to use a respirator with an air protection factor (APF) of 1000. Unless the SNUR triggers notification if a company does not require its workers to use a respirator with the same level of protection, a “risk gap” will result.
A PMN specifies a company will produce 50,000 pounds of a chemical annually. If the SNUR does not set a volume trigger or sets a volume trigger that would allow more than 50,000 pounds of the chemical to be produced annually when aggregated across what could be multiple producers that are each in compliance with the SNUR, a “risk gap” will result.
In such cases, the SNUR-only approach would allow risk in excess of that EPA deemed “not likely” in reviewing the PMN. That excess risk – even though it by definition does not meet the “not likely” bar – will never be reviewed, let alone subjected to conditions, because the SNUR notification requirement will not be triggered.
The only way the SNUR-only approach could seek to prevent any “risk gap” would be to have the SNUR notification triggers so tightly aligned with the PMN specifications as to effectively lock in the conditions specified in the PMN, with any deviation whatsoever triggering notification. Otherwise, EPA will have conducted a new chemical review with an outcome insufficient to address the risks of the chemical’s reasonably foreseen uses, in clear violation of the law.
Requirements for issuing a consent order vs. promulgating a SNURWhile orders can simply be issued, SNURs must be promulgated through an involved process of rulemaking. This raises numerous uncertainties:
EPA’s designation of what constitutes a significant new use applies upon proposal of a SNUR. However, even upon proposal, that significant new use can be engaged in until the SNUR is finalized (assuming it is in fact finalized), at which point such activity must cease, either altogether or pending the outcome of EPA’s review of a subsequently-filed SNUN.
If there is a time gap between a PMN submitter’s commencement of manufacture (which puts the new chemical on the Inventory) and EPA’s proposal of a SNUR for that chemical, it runs the risk that a company (including the PMN submitter) could engage in the significant new use activity about which EPA is concerned. The company would then be able to argue that its activity negated EPA’s ability to propose the SNUR because that use would then be ongoing.
While EPA can try to promulgate a SNUR as a direct final rule, if anyone files, or notifies EPA of their intent to file, an adverse comment, EPA must withdraw the rule and propose it for public comment.
Once a SNUR is final, it can be judicially challenged, with any final resolution significantly delayed and subject to significant uncertainty.
While some EPA staff have informally suggested they will seek to finalize a SNUR before making a “not likely” finding that allows the PMN submitter to commence manufacture, EPA has not made any public commitment to this approach nor identified any means to ensure this will happen. Nor has it addressed the scenario of what happens in the event of an adverse comment being filing on a direct final SNUR or a judicial challenge to the final SNUR.
In contrast to the SNUR-only approach, a consent order includes provisions that bind the PMN submitter, and indirectly its downstream users, to the conditions of the order throughout the interval until a SNUR is promulgated.Seeking to address a new chemical’s risks through rulemakings rather than orders has several additional downsides.
While, under an informal agreement with EPA, OIRA does not currently call in SNURs for regulatory review, that agreement could be changed at any point. OIRA has considerable discretion to determine what constitutes a significant regulatory action and is subject to an OIRA-managed interagency review.
The extent to which Trump’s regulatory executive orders apply to SNURs is highly uncertain. Certain aspects apply to all rules, and the EOs give OIRA considerable discretion in deciding which provisions apply to which rules.
Administrator Pruitt has included SNURs among the potential regulatory actions at EPA that must be logged into his new EPA regulatory database upon initiation, signaling that SNURs may be subject to greater scrutiny under this Administration.
Finally, the anti-regulatory climate that prevails at present will likely mean that all new proposals to promulgate rules will be closely scrutinized.
Incentives and disincentives under a consent order vs. a SNURIf EPA fails to ensure that a final SNUR is in place before it provides a PMN submitter with a “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding, and EPA instead makes that finding in advance of a finalized SNUR and allows the submitter to proceed to commence manufacture, that company might have a strong incentive to oppose, seek to delay or weaken, or even judicially challenge a SNUR applicable to its chemical. This is because that SNUR would apply to the submitter and could constrain its future ability to expand use of its new chemical. And because the company would not be subject to a consent order, it would not already be constrained.
Companies have long complained that SNURs “stigmatize” their chemicals, which would also add incentives for the PMN submitter to resist promulgation of a SNUR. The company would have a number of means by which it could seek to prevent, delay or weaken the SNUR, including:
-preventing its issuance as a direct final rule by notifying EPA of its intent to file adverse comments;
-filing adverse comments;
-seeking to have OIRA subject the SNUR to interagency review;
-using its political influence with EPA management, the White House and Congress; and
-challenging the SNUR in court.
In contrast, a PMN submitter subject to a consent order would have significant incentive to support EPA’s promulgation of an accompanying SNUR, in order to “level the playing field” with its competitors who are not subject to the order.
Only through such a SNUR would its competitors likely be held to most of the same conditions that the submitter is already subject to through the consent order.
The Lautenberg Act contemplates that such SNURs would likely be promulgated, by requiring EPA, within 90 days of issuance of an order, to either initiate development of the SNUR or publish a statement indicating why one is not necessary [see TSCA section 5(f)(4)].
In conclusion, I hope this post makes abundantly clear how different the SNUR-only approach EPA is now proposing differs dramatically from and provides far less risk protection than would result from it simply doing what the law requires: using orders, with SNURs as backup.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2017/11/30/too-little-too-late-why-snurs-alone-are-not-a-sufficient-alternative-to-consent-orders-for-new-chemicals/
-
Revise Nano Definition Before Amending REACH Annexes, Industry Says
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concerns over the European Commission’s timing of the publication of its draft revised REACH annexes to address nanomaterials.
Metals trade body Eurometaux has said the revision of the Commission’s Recommendation on the substances' definition should be completed before tackling the REACH annexes, in order to ensure "the best possible" regulation.
Its comments to the consultation on the long-delayed text, and those of other industry stakeholders, have recently been published.
SME trade body Ueapme said the fact there is no final definition of a nanomaterial is "a more pressuring problem" than the delayed revision to the annexes. Not having this causes "significant uncertainty and may lead companies to take wrong decisions and waste resources for something that is not needed to fulfil legal requirements". It is something that "may be fatal" for a SME, it added.
Eurometaux said the terms ‘nanomaterial’ and ‘nanoform’ are "not clearly distinguishable" and "create confusion" in the text, because they are not defined in the Commission Recommendation.
It recommended adding a separate definition for each term – ‘nanomaterial’, ‘nanoform’, ‘distinct substance’ – while clarifying their relation to each other.
Belgium’s Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment said that the introduction of new and undefined terminology such as ‘set of nanoforms’ into definitions should be avoided. Instead, it proposes to replace it with ‘clearly defined groups of similar nanoforms’. This, it said, is expected to ensure "sufficient level of legal clarity" for both registrants and authorities.
Meanwhile, Cefic and the German chemical industry association (VCI) said that further explanations on how to identify the different nanoforms should be included in the guidance and not in the legal text. "This will allow modifying guidance if needed, instead of having to reopen the legal text," it added.Read-across
The Commission’s proposed changes create "a high burden" of tests and the use of the read-across approach becomes "unclear", Eurometaux said. It added that the non-ferrous metals industry would like to have a "clear picture" of which type of justifications are necessary for read-across.
Cefic and VCI said a "pragmatic and flexible approach" is "absolutely essential in order to guarantee the safe use of nanomaterials" without an unreasonable addition to the burden of registration. Communication between authorities and registrants "will be an essential need", they added, to comply with the amendments "in a workable manner".
And the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (Anses) said that possible substance groupings if the responsibility of the declarant "must be scientifically justified". The categorisation or grouping of families of nanomaterials "can only be done for a specific use".Tonnage band data
The text must also clarify data requirements for nanomaterials, based on their tonnage band, stakeholders said in their responses.
The tonnage threshold "must be clearly linked" to that of the nanomaterial and not the substance, Eurometaux said. Otherwise, it added, this could lead to "unnecessary high burden for the production of few kilos" of nanomaterials of a substance registered (for the bulk form) in the highest tonnage bands.
It "will result in huge costs and in products taken from the market and creating high hurdles for innovation", Cefic and VCI said. "The approach taken must be pragmatic, and not adversely affect EU innovation both current and in future."
According to the draft text, the Regulation will enter into force on 1 January 2020.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62139/revise-nano-definition-before-amending-reach-annexes-industry-says
-
REACH New Substance Registrations Estimate 'May Fall Short'
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Echa has revealed that the number of new substances registered for the 2018 REACH registration deadline is less than expected and may not meet estimated figures.
The agency has so far received 12,918 dossiers covering 5,856 total substances for the May deadline, which is just six months away.
While the agency says this is in line with its original estimates, it also acknowledges that only 3,713 of the substances have not been registered in either of the previous 2010 or 2013 deadlines. And, it says, the number of these 'new' substances is less than it expected at this point.
"Currently, companies seem to mainly be registering those substances for which a registration already exists," the agency said in its latest newsletter.
"At this pace, it may be that we will not reach the estimated 25,000 registered substances by the deadline. We need to monitor this carefully, although industry associations have not yet raised this as a concern."
Approximately 15% of registrations are from SMEs, it says.2018 REACH deadline figuresTotal registrations to date: 12,918Total expected registrations: 60,000Total substances to date: 5,856Total expected substances: 25,000Directors' Contact Group
At a meeting on 27 November, the REACH Directors’ Contact Group (DCG) issued a recommendation, urging companies to improve efforts to communicate their 2018 registration intentions to customers.
The DCG is an informal group of directors from the European Commission, Echa and industry associations. It was set up to respond to concerns arising from companies' REACH registration obligations.
Disseminating this information, they said, will avoid crucial substances not being registered and help ensure supply chains are not disrupted. Companies should also identify the uses their registrations intend to cover and communicate them downstream, the group said.
Industry associations represented in the DCG "are committed" to pass on this recommendation to their members, Echa says.
The directors also agreed to publish a factsheet on access to EU finance. According to Echa, it provides helpful advice to companies that need to find resources to ensure safe handling of their substances, and also to those that choose to take action on substituting their chemicals with more sustainable alternatives.
In an interview with Chemical Watch earlier this month, Echa head Geert Dancet said the high cost of registrations is "the main stumbling block" in the process.
The DCG will next meet on 15 December to review the solutions it established for the 2010 and 2013 REACH registration deadlines.
It will also continue discussions to endorse an approach for easing the financial burden on SMEs, preparing to submit registrations in the one-ten tonnage band.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62114/reach-new-substance-registrations-estimate-may-fall-short
-
EU Green Criteria Backs Need for Flame Retardants, Says Trade Group
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
The European Flame Retardant Association (Efra) said it welcomed the EU Green Public Procurement (GPP) criteria for furniture.
The trade body's president Edie Engels told Chemical Watch that, because the criteria does not introduce new restrictions on flame retardants, the European Commission was "reaffirming the importance of fire safety" and acknowledging the chemicals are "used to save lives and in accordance with fire safety standards".
The voluntary guidelines — published in August — aim to help public authorities purchase products and services with reduced environmental impacts.
Mr Engels said that because flame retardants are classified under the REACH and CLP Regulations based on their individual toxicological properties, restricting their use as a group of chemicals would be "inconsistent and incoherent with the EU regulatory framework".
"That is precisely why in the GPP criteria technical report the Commission is urging procurers that have decided to specifically restrict the use of flame retardants to consider each of them on the merits of its individual REACH registration and CLP classification," he said.
He also said that flame retardant restrictions "should be avoided" in EU GPP criteria because they may conflict with specific countries’ legislation.
The criteria has been welcomed by the European Furniture Industries Confederation (Efic) because it warnsthe use of flame retardants "may have negative effects for the environment, health, durability and quality of products, and may lead to cost increases".
In the US, San Francisco banned the sale of upholstered furniture and children's products made with or containing an added flame retardant chemical in October. More than a dozen US states have banned some categories of the chemicals.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62103/eu-public-procurement-criteria-backs-need-for-flame-retardants-says-trade-group
-
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Letter templates for joint REACH registrationsEcha has published a series of letter templates that companies, especially SMEs, can use when starting negotiations with co-registrants for sharing data and submitting jointly for REACH registration. The templates are available as a download on Echa's website in Microsoft Word format.REACH substance evaluation conclusions published
Seven new substance evaluation conclusion documents are now available on the agency website for:acetone oxime, added to the Corap list in 2016 and evaluated by Austria;chloromethane, added to the Corap list in 2012 and evaluated by Italy;resorcinol, added to the Corap list in 2016 and evaluated by Finland;cyclohexylamine, added to the Corap list in 2016 and evaluated by Belgium;tetrahydrofuran, added to the Corap list in 2013 and evaluated by Germany; andhydroquinone, added to the Corap list in 2012 and evaluated by Italy.Opinions on two uses of diglyme
Echa has published the consolidated Opinions of the Committees for Risk Assessment and Socio-economic Analysis (Rac and Seac) for an application for authorisation for two uses of bis(2-methoxyethyl) ether (diglyme) by Acton Technologies.Compliance checking substances
Echa has added 149 new substances to the list of those that might be chosen for compliance checks.
The substances are mostly selected together with related substances based on structural similarity, read-across or category information. Registrants are advised to check the list and update their related registration dossiers by 16 February 2018.REACH 2018 registration infographic
The agency has released an interactive map of Europe showing REACH 2018 registrations in each country.
Users can click on a specific country on the map to gain access to more detailed information. There is also the possibility to view the data in graphs and tables, and to compare data between two EU/European Economic Area (EEA) countries.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62135/echa-round-up
-
Choosing a Safe Mattress for Your Baby's Crib
Nov 30, 2017 | Environmental Working Group
By Olga Naidenko Ph.D. and Tasha Stoiber
During the first few years of their lives, infants can spend most of their time sleeping or crawling in the crib. Choosing children’s products that are good for air quality in the baby’s room can be a difficult task. To help with that choice, EWG talked with Dr. Brandon E. Boor, an assistant professor of civil engineering at Purdue University.
Since 2011, Boor has been researching indoor air quality and sleep microenvironments. Studies published by Boor and colleagues at The University of Texas at Austin in 2014and 2015 found that crib mattresses released nearly 30 different types of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, and other potentially harmful airborne chemicals such as endocrine-disrupting phthalates and fragrance allergens.
“Our research shows mattresses can be a significant source of chemical contaminants in the nursery and bedroom,” Boor said.
Crib mattresses are typically composed of polyurethane foam, a petroleum-derived synthetic material. They also contain adhesives and other chemical additives. The foam core is usually enveloped with a waterproof cover. These mattress components can release harmful VOCs, some of which can cause respiratory and nervous system damage.
Boor said VOC exposures are especially troubling for babies.
“A baby’s exposure to chemical contaminants in their crib mattresses can be amplified since they sleep for 12 to 14 hours every day and inhale air just inches above the mattress surface, where the concentrations of the VOCs can be about twice as high as standing just a few feet away," he said. "Their body heat also increases VOC emissions.”
Airing out a new mattress can reduce VOCs, but other harmful chemicals could still be present.
“VOC emissions from new mattresses are four times greater than those from used mattresses," said Boor. "VOC emissions tend to decay over time, but airing out will not get rid of less volatile chemicals, such as phthalates and flame retardants, that leach slowly for years and tend to accumulate in house dust.”
Mattress testing also revealed the surprising presence of fragrance ingredients, such as chemicals associated with lemon and lavender scents, that can act as allergens. Researchers don’t know exactly why these chemicals were present in mattresses. Fragrance ingredients can be used by manufacturers to mask other odors, as can happen in a product that can get wet with use.
Mattress dust and microbes are readily released into the air when a baby moves in bed, kicking up the dust. To reduce allergens, Boor recommends vacuuming the mattress once per week.
“Vacuuming a mattress may not sound fun, but research has shown that it is an effective way to reduce the amount of dust mite allergens and microbes that accumulate on the surface,” he said.
Boor's ressearch has moved from crib mattresses to carpets, which can harbor the same chemicals and bacteria.
“We are studying how infants are exposed to dust and microbes stirred up from carpets as they crawl, using a robotic infant," he said. "We are also relating real-time measurements of microbes in the air to the activities and movements of children in a child care setting. I hope my research could help in the future design of safer bedrooms, cribs and play environments for babies.”
EWG recommends that parents look for low-VOC emitting crib mattresses that have been independently verified by a third-party certifier, such as Greenguard or Oeko-Tex Standard 100, and mattresses made without polyurethane foam. For additional tips on air quality in your baby’s room, visit EWG’s Healthy Living: Home Guide and watch EWG’s video on mattresses and crib mattresses.
For more information about Boor’s research and practical tips for creating a healthy bedroom, watch a short CNN video filmed at the Purdue lab.
In part two of our interview, Boor will discuss his work on endocrine disruptors in crib mattresses.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2017/11/choosing-safe-mattress-your-babys-crib#.WiAy4lWWbIU
-
US NGO Highlights Drop in Toys Recalled for Excessive Lead
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
No toys were recalled for containing excessive levels of lead over the last year, compared to 11 products the previous year, according to a report by the US Public Interest Research Group.
Its annual Trouble in Toyland report found that between October 2016 and October 2017, no toys were recalled for violations of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) toxic heavy metal standard.
The standard requires that all accessible components of children's products contain no more than 100 parts per million (ppm) of lead.
Despite the improvement, the report says that "toys containing metals that pose a health risk to children continue to make it onto American store shelves."
US PIRG advocate Dev Gowda told Chemical Watch: "We've noticed that year after year, there have been improvements in toy safety, partly due to the work that consumer advocates and CPSC has been doing, but parents should still be cautious since there may be potentially hazardous toys out there."
Joan Lawrence, senior vice president of safety standards and regulatory affairs at US trade group the Toy Association (TA), attributed the drop in product recalls for lead to "continued vigilance and enforcement to ensure the products in store shelves are compliant".
She told Chemical Watch: "We have had stricter requirements for lead and phthalates in the last several years and we also have requirements for mandatory testing and certification of products before they reach store shelves, so that helps to ensure that what’s on store shelves is indeed safe."Fidget spinners
But the report does warn that some fidget spinner toys may contain high levels of the heavy metal.
It says US PIRG identified two fidget spinners for sale that contained excessive levels of lead according to the federal standards for lead in children’s products.
However, the CPSC classifies some fidget spinners as general use rather than children’s products.
Karla Crosswhite-Chigbue of CPSC said: "If a product is a toy designed and intended primarily for children 12 and younger, CPSC regulations for lead and phthalates apply. These requirements do not apply to items, including fidget spinners, which are not marketed to children."
She added that the CPSC would be reviewing the Trouble in Toyland report.
On the issue of fidget spinners, Ms Lawrence said that some of the products were aimed at an older market and consumers needed to use discernment in choosing appropriate products for children.
The TA provides toy safety information for consumers on its "Play Safe" website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62108/us-ngo-highlights-drop-in-toys-recalled-for-excessive-lead
-
Carpet Manufacturers 'Stepping Up Efforts' on Ingredient Disclosure
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Leading US carpet manufacturers are stepping up efforts to communicate the components of their products — and their relationship to human and ecological health — according to US trade association the Carpet and Rug Institute.
CRI president Joe Yarbrough told Chemical Watch that they were doing this through Health Product Declarations (HPDs) and certified Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).
Mr Yarbrough's comments are in response to a recent report by the NGO Healthy Building Network (HBN), which called for the fundamental redesign of the carpet industry to eliminate toxic chemicals so that carpets can be more recyclable.
The HBN report claims that manufacturers consistently fail to fully disclose carpet ingredients and green certifications did not address some of the key substances of concern.
Mr Yarbrough said that carpet manufacturers "work with a variety of certification programmes to evaluate and verify the safety and sustainability factors of products, such as Cradle to Cradle and Declare".
He added that 95% of carpet meets the CRI's Green Label Plus programme. This sets standards and limits for indoor air quality and "ensures that customers are purchasing the very lowest emitting products on the market".Disclosure
In response to the report, Interface, the world's largest manufacturer of commercial carpet tile, said that it is the first in the industry to disclose product ingredients — through EPDs and HPDs — globally on its website.
Chief science and technology officer, John Bradford, told Chemical Watch that "the industry has followed suit in disclosure, but there is more work to be done to educate the market about specific materials of concern, especially where there is potential for exposure".
Interface has committed to having no negative environmental impact by 2020, part of which includes removing known harmful materials from its products.
"Through a global initiative, all of our designated materials of concern will be removed globally in early 2018, which keeps our loop clean and enables us to scale recycling to greater volumes," Mr Bradford said.
He added that while he agreed with the sentiment of the HBN report, he would like to see it place more emphasis on recycling.
"We believe that recycling is a critical piece of the puzzle and we would love to see the industry implement protocols and guidelines to ensure that it can scale up quickly and safely," he said.
As well as "working to drive recyclability" of its products, he said that Interface supported regulatory efforts to encourage carpet recycling, such as the California bill (AB 1158, Chu) which was signed into law in October. This mandates recycling 24% of post-consumer carpet waste by 2020, a doubling of the state's current carpet recycling rate.
CRI's Mr Yarbrough said that carpet is more complex to recycle than other products, because it is made from many materials that are bound together in different ways, "making it complicated to deconstruct, sort and process".
However he said "industry's resolve in this challenge is strong" and it was committed to "investing in innovation and sustainability, product health and safety and the careful use of natural resources".
The issue of removing hazardous chemicals from waste streams is a hot topic of discussion in Europe.
The European chemicals agency's (Echa) newly appointed head, Bjorn Hansen, said at his inaugural address to the European Parliament's Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (Envi) last month that the decision to have different regulations for chemicals in recycled materials than for chemicals in primary products is a key challenge for the circular economy.
Meanwhile, environmental NGO Greenpeace, recently warned that without eliminating the use and releases of harmful chemicals from production chains, "the circular dream could well become a toxic recirculation nightmare",
https://chemicalwatch.com/62140/carpet-manufacturers-stepping-up-efforts-on-ingredient-disclosure
-
Regulatory Agencies Reluctant to Use Mathematical Models of Organisms
Nov 30, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Regulatory agencies remain reluctant to use physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models, according to an expert survey by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Widely used in industry and academia, PBK mathematical models describe how chemicals pass through the body, which is represented as a series of interconnected compartments. The models are becoming increasingly popular, particularly for use with non-animal test results and quantitative structure activity relationship (Qsar) predictions. For example, they are often used to help extrapolate from in vitro results to the in vivo situation.
Of 93 people that filled out an online survey, 27 described using PBK models for submitting dossiers, opinions or risk assessments to regulatory agencies. Together with scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Oak Ridge Institute and Slovakian consultancy Klimeto, the JRC team has summarised the PBK situation and come up with recommendations to boost regulatory acceptance.
A lack of standardised good modelling practice (GMP) guidelines, together with a wide range of computing platforms, may be the "greatest obstacles" for PBK model use in regulatory risk assessment, they write in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
Establishing GMP throughout the modelling community could lead to a "standardised checklist" to evaluate the quality of a PBK model, which would help regulators, the authors say.Challenges of newer PBK models
PBK models are often developed to answer specific scientific questions related to certain chemicals. However, when the purpose is to use a PBK model to support regulatory decision-making, the models require careful vetting of parameter values, model code and structure, they add.
Developing new models can be labour intensive and data hungry. The researchers warn that newer PBK models bring "additional challenges" for risk assessors attempting to review them for regulatory decision making.
When there are no experimental in vivo data to compare model predictions with, regulatory agencies are likely to remain reluctant to use models in their chemical safety assessments, they say.
Finally, the report suggests that the next generation of PBK models could be developed solely using data from in vitro and in silico methods.
The JRC and EPA are co-leading an OECD project to harmonise characterisation, validation and reporting of PBK models.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62129/regulatory-agencies-reluctant-to-use-mathematical-models-of-organisms
-
EPA to Hold Biofuels Quota Steady in 2018
Nov 30, 2017 | The Hill
By Devin Henry
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has backed off its proposal to slightly cut the federal biofuels mandate.
The agency finalized a rule Thursday that would instead hold blending quotas under the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) flat for 2018.
The rule will require refiners to mix 19.29 billion gallons of renewable fuels into the gasoline supply in 2018. That’s about 25 percent lower than the target Congress established in a 2007 law, but the EPA has routinely finalized RFS blending quotas below the statuary requirements.
EPA regulators will require refiners to blend 15 billion gallons of conventional corn-based ethanol into the fuel supply, as well as 4.29 billion gallons of advanced biofuels. The agency will also mandate 2.1 billion gallons of biodiesel to be blended into the diesel fuel supply.
In July, the EPA proposed an overall 19.25 billion-gallon blending target, a level that included cuts to the biodiesel target.
"Maintaining the Renewable Fuel Standard at current levels ensures stability in the marketplace and follows through with my commitment to meet the statutory deadlines and lead the agency by upholding the rule of law," EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement.
The RFS mandates how much ethanol and other biofuels refiners are required to mix into the fuel supply. Biofuels producers have long pushed the EPA to scale up the quotas, while refiners and the oil industry have urged the opposite.
Biofuels producers and lawmakers from agriculture states urged the EPA to back off its July proposal to trim the mandate. President Trump, who ran on a platform of supporting the RFS, personally asked Pruitt not to change the biofuels standard last month.
Potential changes to the RFS became a sticking point in Senate negotiations over EPA nominees earlier this year. Midwestern GOP lawmakers had threatened to hold up the nomination of William Wehrum to lead the EPA’s air and radiation office if they didn't receive assurances on the biofuels mandate.
Once Pruitt committed to not change the program, the Republicans dropped their objections and confirmed Wehrum to the post.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/362541-epa-to-hold-biofuels-quota-steady-in-2018
-
Final EPA RFS for 2018 Prompts Criticism from Refiners, Biofuels Groups
Nov 30, 2017 | Inside EPA
EPA has met its Nov. 30 deadline for issuing the final 2018 renewable fuel standard (RFS) blending targets for alternative and renewable fuels, prompting criticism from all sides as refiners argue that goals are too high and show why Congress should reform or repeal the RFS while biofuels groups say the targets are too low.
The competing attacks on the final fuel volumes suggest likely litigation over the RFS once EPA publishes it in the Federal Register. Oil groups, ethanol advocacy organizations and others have filed suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in previous years over other annual RFS targets, and the agency has had a mixed record defending some of its specific fuel production goals in those challenges.
The RFS aims to promote fuels that have lower lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional gasoline. Conventional ethanol must achieve a 20 percent cut in GHG emissions relative to gasoline, advanced biofuels must achieve a 50 percent cut, and cellulosic fuels a 60 percent reduction. Advanced biofuels include some biodiesel, which in practice satisfies much of the advanced biofuels requirement.
As expected, EPA's final 2018 RFS rule maintains the corn ethanol “implied” volume at 15 billion gallons (bn gal), the statutory level. There is no explicit corn ethanol mandate, but most of the overarching “total renewable fuels” category is still met by corn ethanol. The 2017 conventional volume is also 15 bn gal.
EPA increases the advanced biofuels volume slightly from the proposed version of the 2018 RFS that the agency floated in July, from 4.24 bn gal to 4.29 bn gal. This compares with a final 2017 RFS level of 4.28 bn gal, and therefore represents a slight increase over current levels.
The final 2018 cellulosic biofuel volume is set at 288 million gallons (mn gal), up slightly from the proposed 238 mn gal, but down from the final 2017 level of 311 mn gal.
EPA also sets a separate biodiesel volume for 2019 at 2.1 bn gal, unchanged from the 2.1 bn gal already set for 2018.
The volumes are in line with a commitment from EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt to set volumes at least at proposed levels, or slightly higher, in a letter to GOP corn-state senators Oct. 19.
However, after intense lobbying from ethanol-producing states to increase proposed volumes, EPA has still set cellulosic fuel levels lower than the biofuels sector sought.
Groups' Reaction
Biofuels groups split in their reaction to the announcement, with the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) calling it a “marked improvement” over the proposal.
But the group still urged EPA “to closely monitor the commercialization of new cellulosic technologies, particularly regarding corn kernel fiber conversion, because we believe greater cellulosic production is likely. The RFS needs to remain a forward-looking program, driving investment in these new technologies.”
Growth Energy, representing corn ethanol producers, said, “We applaud the administration for standing up against efforts to destabilize” the RFS, but echoed RFA to add, “We would like to have seen a boost to the target blending levels for cellulosic biofuels.”
However, the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) said, “We are disappointed that EPA did not significantly raise the advanced biofuel volumes in line with the industry’s ability to produce them. The agency is arbitrarily limiting growth for low carbon biofuels in 2018 and into the future by looking backward, rather than forward.”
Further, “The cellulosic biofuel industry is positioned for continued growth in 2018. EPA has begun to make progress in approving new cellulosic biofuel technologies and production facilities, such as those that use corn kernel fiber as a feedstock. Unfortunately, EPA did not adequately account for the potential of new technologies as it set the 2018 cellulosic volumes,” BIO adds.
The Iowa Biodiesel Board also expressed disappointment, saying, “these flat volumes send a weak signal to the market at a time when our plants could significantly increase production and expand capacity.”
Some environmentalists, meanwhile, were also critical of EPA's continued support for conventional ethanol, which they blame for environmental degradation along with some forms of biodiesel.
Waxman Strategies, an environmental campaign group led by former California Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, issued a statement saying “the volume rule issued today tethers us to corn ethanol and soy biodiesel while leaving cellulosic fuels to languish below last year’s levels. This approach is totally backward.”
'Broken' RFS
Meanwhile, the oil sector has seen its interests further undermined by the final rule. Although Pruitt has been an avowed opponent of the RFS before his service as EPA administrator, President Donald Trump has publicly supported ethanol, an important commodity to many in his rural base of support. Trump's intervention resulted in an RFS that still underpins the rural economy in states such as Iowa, at least as far as conventional biofuel is concerned.
American Petroleum Institute official Frank Macchiarola in his Nov. 30 reaction was critical of the program -- but not of Pruitt. “The Renewable Fuel Standard is broken and needs comprehensive reform. Since the RFS was instituted more than a decade ago the U.S. has greatly reduced its dependence on crude oil imports. So this program is trying to solve a problem that no longer exists while creating real problems for consumers. Administrator Pruitt, therefore, faces the daunting task of implementing a broken program that was based on incorrect assumptions made over a decade ago.” -- Stuart Parker (sparker@iwpnews.com)
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/final-epa-rfs-2018-prompts-criticism-refiners-biofuels-groups
-
Senate Parliamentarian Tells GOP to Change ANWR Provision or Pull From Tax Bill
Nov 30, 2017 | Houston Chronicle
By James Osborne
Republican efforts to open up oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge through the tax bill now under debate in the Senate have been held up for violating Senate rules.
According to the news service Roll Call, the Senate Parliamentarian's office told Republicans the language of the ANWR provision would need to be adjusted or removed before the tax bill could go to the Senate floor for a vote, which is expected before the end of this week.
Sen. Lisa Murkowksi, R-Alaska, told reporters Wednesday that she was in the process of working out a fix.
"We are finishing up the last of that and expect to have a curative amendment if you will as part of the process going forward," she told Roll Call.
The confusion drew further attacks from environmentalists that Republicans were trying to sneak an unpopular provision into the tax bill that could not pass the Senate on its own.
"This is what happens when you cut corners and try to sneak drilling into an already terrible tax bill," said League of Conservation Voters Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Tiernan Sittenfeld. "A rider turning the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field should not have been part of this tax bill in the first place."
More than a decade after former president George W. Bush tried but failed to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, oil companies are now poised to gain access to what is one of the country's largest and most remote wilderness areas.
Under legislation designed to help pay for an historic corporate tax cut, the U.S. government would begin leasing a 1.5 million acre section of ANWR, where one of the largest oil fields is believed to lie.
But with oil prices below $60 a barrel, and environmental groups poised to go to court to block any development within the refuge, the question remains whether enough oil companies would be interested in drilling in one of the harshest and most remote corners of the world to produce the kind of revenues Republicans in Congress are promising to offset the costs of the tax cuts and their impact on the deficit.
The Senate is expected to vote on its version of the tax plan next week.
"Any discoveries in ANWR would face significant obstacles before reaching first oil," said Alison Wolters, an analyst at the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. "Oil companies would have to decide if they think the opportunity is worth the potential delays and a lot of legal wrangling and back and forth with regulators."
http://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/ANWR-12394701.php
-
Power Shift: How Natural Gas and Renewables Dethroned King Coal
Nov 30, 2017 | Wall Street Journal
By Erin Ailworth
American electricity production is changing dramatically.
For decades, burning coal was the primary way power companies generated the electricity to cool homes, run factories, and brighten streets. But coal has been steadily losing market share to natural gas and renewable energy. Natural gas last year surpassed coal as the leading source of electricity in the U.S. for the first time in more than half a century.
In 1950, coal produced 46.9% of all electricity generated by U.S. utilities. Its abundance and low cost made it the preferred power-making fuel in the ensuing decades.
By 2000, the amount of electricity produced by coal had multiplied more than 12-fold, and coal-fired generation was responsible for 53.4% of all utility-made power. The electricity sector became the top consumer of coal.
Wind turbines and solar arrays don’t generate power all the time, and natural-gas plants depend on fuel supplies not stored on site. For those reasons, Energy Secretary Rick Perry has proposed changing market rules to favor producers such as coal and nuclear plants that run around the clock with fuel stored on site.
The proposal has run into criticism from gas producers and renewable energy groups, along with manufacturers and other power customers, who call it anticompetitive. But without it, supporters say, more coal and nuclear plants will likely close due to economic pressures.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/power-shift-how-natural-gas-and-renewables-dethroned-king-coal-1512043200
-
Report Warns of Hacking Risk to Refining Sector
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
The refining industry's rush to adopt digital technology could open doors for hackers, according to a report this week from the Deloitte consultancy.
As downstream oil and gas facilities add connected sensors and automation tools, the risk of a "broader impact" cyberattack costing tens of millions of dollars "becomes increasingly more likely and more consequential," the study claims.
"Cybersecurity will become increasingly important to downstream oil and gas companies, due in part to the sophistication of would-be attackers but mostly due to the sheer complexity and scale of digitizing the business," Deloitte concludes.
Andrew Slaughter, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Energy Solutions and one of the report's authors, said there can be safety and efficiency benefits from adopting "internet of things" technologies and automated controls.
"But the flip side is, if you don't manage it correctly from the start, you open up cyber vulnerabilities," he said.
The report cites a 2014 cyberattack on a German steel mill that caused catastrophic damage to a blast furnace, painting the mysterious case as a cautionary tale for refiners.
"If bad actors were to get into a refinery operating system ... that could be catastrophic in terms of business interruptions, safety and environmental impact," Slaughter said.
The report notes that the hazard, so far, is largely "speculative." The Department of Homeland Security's Industrial Control Systems Cyber Emergency Response Team could point to just two U.S. incidents with "significant impact" to control systems in fiscal 2016, neither of which was made public. Hackers aren't known to have physically damaged any U.S. refining facilities or energy control systems, though such networks have been targeted in the past.
Unlike large electric power utilities, U.S. oil and gas companies don't face binding cybersecurity rules for their control systems. The American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, a major refining industry trade group, opposes mandatory cybersecurity standards in favor of voluntary guidelines set through the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
"Even though the risk of cyber breaches is ever-present, tremendous steps have been taken to ensure refineries and petrochemical facilities are safe against the increasing amounts of cyber threats facing our facilities," the group noted in a policy paper on the issue.
Deloitte's report did not address the regulatory landscape for refiners, but it did include some tips for energy companies. For instance, the study suggested that downstream oil and gas firms set up a "digital twin" of their control systems, so operators can raise red flags when the duplicate and the real networks fall out of sync.
Still, Slaughter cautioned against relying too much on technological fixes for the cybersecurity dilemma.
"You don't get to a health and safety culture by issuing hard hats and putting barriers around dangerous equipment — much of it is behavior," he said. "It's the same with cybersecurity."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/11/30/stories/1060067637
-
California Governor Says Republicans ‘Have to Get Out of the Way’
Nov 30, 2017 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman
Gov. Jerry Brown of California understands why climate change is so politically polarizing. But he still thinks Democrats know best.
“Republicans have to change or they have to get out of the way,” Governor Brown, a Democrat, told entrepreneurs, activists and policymakers here in San Francisco on Wednesday night as part of ClimateTECH, a conference from The New York Times.
Governor Brown’s comment came in response to a question from the Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who asked how the coalition of blue states that pledged their commitment to the Paris agreement after President Trump’s rejection of the pact might attract Republicans. (You can see the full video here.)
Governor Brown, who has been in politics since the 1960s, offered his analysis of how climate change had become mired in partisanship. “Dealing with climate change takes very assertive governmental action,” he said. “You can’t just say, ‘I hope the market will work it out.’ You do need policy, you need leadership, you need rules.” In other words, regulation: something anathema to Republican orthodoxy.
Yet rather than talking about ways to reach across the aisle on climate change or offering clear ideas on how to work with fossil fuel-heavy red states on reducing emissions, Governor Brown said Republicans had sole responsibility for shifting positions. “It might be easier to remove them from office than it will be to convert them,” he said.
That was an easy applause line for the friendly audience at this climate conference. But by Governor Brown’s own assessment, decarbonizing the country, much less the planet, in time to avoid the worst effects of rising global temperatures is going to take “heroic action.” That suggests both parties would have to develop a bipartisan consensus.
The world also needs an “energy miracle,” as the Microsoft co-founder and philanthropist Bill Gates has said. That’s where some of the world’s top innovators and entrepreneurs come in. The conversation continues today with a lineup of policymakers and technology leaders discussing solutions to global warming. Videos of the panels will be collected here.
“It’s a real race against time,” Governor Brown said of curbing emissions. “I do think that what’s required is massive, continuous innovation and the investment for that.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/climate/climate-fwd-climatetech.html
-
Trump Pick on Climate Science: 'We Can't Dispute the Facts'
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Scott Waldman
President Trump's pick to head the NOAA took an unusual approach for an administration official: He agreed with mainstream climate scientists.
Barry Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather Inc., had avoided taking a public opinion on climate change for years. At his confirmation hearing yesterday, after being pressed by Democratic lawmakers, he did not waffle on climate change in the way other Trump administration officials have in recent months.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) grilled Myers in a series of rapid-fire questions that forced the nominee to outline his climate views and to commit that he would not interfere in climate change research, since NOAA is one of the world's premier agencies for such research and produces essential data used by scientists around the world.
Upon scrutiny, Myers paused for a few seconds in silence, then said he agreed that humans are the primary driver of climate change.
"I've read the reports, and I have no reason to disagree with them," he said.
While critics quickly pointed out that it wasn't a particularly strong statement, it is still a break with many Trump Cabinet officials who reject the mainstream scientific consensus that humans are the driving cause of climate change.
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) pressed Myers on whether or not he agrees that climate change presents a serious challenge for the military, and that the data gathered by NOAA signal that preparation is necessary. Duckworth said she wants a NOAA administrator who is willing to stand up to an administration that devalues climate research.
"The Trump administration has done everything it can to prevent the executive branch from even talking about climate change, and this is reflected in the dramatic cuts, 32 percent, for NOAA's climate change office," Duckworth said.
Myers agreed that climate data suggest that the military should prepare for climate change. He cited the work of Defense Secretary James Mattis to address climate change risks.
"If the ice is melting, the ice is melting, and one's opinion about it is really not relevant, it's a fact," Myers said. "I fully support the ability of scientists to do their work unfettered, that this information then needs to be made available. Science should take us wherever it takes us, and we can't dispute the facts once they're in front of us, and we need to act upon them."
Other Trump administration nominees, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, all acknowledged global warming but rejected the long-established scientific conclusion that humans are the primary drivers of it. In their confirmation hearings, other Trump administration nominees said they wanted more data and more certainty. After their confirmations, however, their agencies quickly reassigned climate scientists to other duties, scrubbed climate change references from government websites and called for a renewed debate on climate change science.
But those agencies are more focused on policy than they are on climate change research. Both NOAA and NASA conduct the bulk of the nation's climate science, and the agencies have continued to publish reams of research since Trump took office that clearly shows human are warming the planet at an unprecedented pace.
Myers' pause in answering questions about his belief in climate change and his agreement to hear from a variety of climate scientists are proof that he will listen to skeptics, said Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who has long attacked mainstream science.
"He knows when you get into a committee meeting like that, he's going to expect harassment, and he will respond to it, but he's going to use his best judgement in making decisions," Inhofe said in a brief interview after the hearing.
Inhofe noted Myers' hesitation to answer Markey's questions about whether or not he believed in climate science. The Oklahoma senator said he plans to bring in skeptical researchers, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Richard Lindzen, to present an alternative version of climate science.
"I said afterward, 'Are you willing to listen to all scientists?' and he said, 'Yes,' so he handled that very well," Inhofe said of Myers.
If confirmed by the Senate, Myers will join an agency that is now being led by another Trump administration pick who also accepts climate science. In October, the Senate confirmed retired Rear Adm. Timothy Gallaudet as NOAA's deputy administrator. Gallaudet is a former oceanographer in the Navy, and has extensive experience preparing the military for climate change effects.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/11/30/stories/1060067645
-
Tillerson Exit Would Bring Climate Disbelief to State
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Jean Chemnick and Hannah Northey
If CIA Director Mike Pompeo replaces Secretary of State Rex Tillerson as the top U.S. diplomat, he would bring a careerlong skepticism of climate science with him to Foggy Bottom.
The New York Times reported today that the former Kansas Republican congressman might be poised for a move to State after months of strained relations between Tillerson and President Trump.
Trump told reporters Tillerson is still "here," while White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said during a briefing that there are "no personnel announcements at this time."
But while Tillerson, the former Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO, raised environmentalists' hopes last year with his belief in man-made climate change and support for continued U.S. involvement in the Paris climate accord, Pompeo has a history of disputing that humans play a significant role in global warming.
During his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Pompeo said President Obama's suggestion that climate change is a top-tier national security threat was "ignorant, dangerous and absolutely unbelievable."
And as a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee before his nomination to the CIA post, Pompeo blasted Obama's "radical climate change agenda" during the 2015 climate talks in Paris and voted to scrap U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan.
"If anything, Pompeo's record of climate science denial and opposition to renewable wind power puts him well to the right of Secretary Tillerson, who as a former CEO of Exxon had to at least admit climate science and the viability of renewable energy," said Paul Bledsoe, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former Clinton White House climate adviser.
Bledsoe said the Trump administration is "trending to the far-right fringe" in picking Pompeo and is "dominated by false views on climate and energy that simply would not be tolerated even by major publicly traded oil and gas corporations."
But Pompeo has been more tight-lipped about climate science in recent months, dodging pointed questions. During his confirmation hearing, he declined to answer whether he agreed with the scientific consensus that humans are driving climatic changes (E&E Daily, Jan. 13).
When asked by Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) in his confirmation hearing if he had any reason to doubt then-CIA Director John Brennan's findings that climate change is driving global instability, Pompeo said he was unfamiliar with the analysis.
Still, Pompeo doesn't appear to have interfered with the National Intelligence Council's Worldwide Threat Assessment, released in May with input from the CIA, which stated again that climate change was contributing to security threats around the world.
"It's possible that Pompeo's views have evolved, and not least because he's no longer looking to be re-elected and sitting at an agency that has for a long time looked at climate issues," said Francesco Femia, co-president of the Center for Climate and Security.
But it's doubtful whether Pompeo would support international policy to curb warming.
Myron Ebell, the director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a well-known skeptic of mainstream climate science, applauded the rumored Pompeo move to State.
"I'm much more positive and upbeat about the prospect of Secretary Pompeo," said Ebell, who worked closely with Pompeo in a bid to ax the wind energy production tax credit.
While Tillerson supported staying in the Paris climate pact, Ebell said he thinks Pompeo "would be an enthusiastic supporter of the president's decision to withdraw from Paris and to stay out."
Pompeo might also reconsider U.S. support for a climate agreement finalized under the Obama administration, known as the Kigali Amendment, that limits refrigerants and coolants that greatly contribute to climate change.
Environmentalists have criticized Tillerson for failing to persuade Trump to stay in the Paris Agreement, shutting down the special envoy for climate change office initiated under Obama and backing a 30 percent budget cut that would hobble U.S. diplomatic interests, including on the environment.
But Tillerson has reasserted the department's role in driving U.S. climate diplomacy, including most recently by sending a State Department team to U.N. climate talks in Bonn, Germany, to negotiate the rulebook on Paris. The team had directions to work constructively.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/30/stories/1060067727
-
DOE Floats Another Contentious Overhaul of Standards
Nov 30, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Christa Marshall
The Department of Energy is considering additional changes to energy efficiency standards that environmentalists say raise "serious concerns" about the future of the program.
DOE issued a request for information this week to examine the "process rule," internal agency procedures on how efficiency standards are developed. It follows a notice Monday to assess modeling efficiency requirements after fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles (Greenwire, Nov. 27).
The document floats the idea of making it mandatory for test procedures on appliances to come before rules, and for DOE to use test procedures set by industry. Test procedures are used by manufacturers to certify compliance with DOE's efficiency rules.
Andrew deLaski, executive director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, said he was concerned that making it mandatory to complete test procedures before efficiency rules would set up the agency to not meet legal deadlines. Congress set the timeline of when efficiency standards should be released.
"The test method becomes an excuse to not get the standard done. It can't be an excuse to not do what Congress said you must do," he said.
DOE is already behind this year on several energy efficiency deadlines on a half-dozen products, he said.
While it is generally a good idea to use industry test methods, DOE has to make sure they fairly represent actual product performance, deLaski said.
"Test procedures that lack adequate precision or details can open the door to cheating, which hurts all the manufacturers that play by the rules and hurts consumers who get products that are less efficient than claimed," deLaski said. He noted that a refrigerator manufacturer once cheated by programming its refrigerators to detect the test procedure conditions and shut off energy-using components.
But DOE said industry has raised many concerns about the existing process rule, which is more than two decades old. It received comments after President Trump issued an executive order in February to set up task forces at agencies to identify regulations that should be replaced or changed.
"Specifically, commenters requested that DOE consider using the industry standards, without modification, as the test procedure. This approach could lead to process efficiencies and ease the test burden on manufacturers," DOE said.
It also noted companies urged DOE "instead of rushing to complete a standards rulemaking, [to] take the time and resources needed to gather the necessary technical information and develop the appropriate test procedure prior."
DOE said it would hold a public meeting Jan. 9 on the process rule. Comments would be accepted 90 days after the document's publication in the Federal Register.
Many environmentalists consider DOE's efficiency standards program to be a key tool in fighting climate change. President Obama pledged to release standards that would cut carbon dioxide emissions by 3 billion tons as part of his Climate Action Plan.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/11/30/stories/1060067715
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