Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 12/13
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. Economic Expansion Could Become Longest on Record
Dec 13, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ben Leubsdorf
Forecasters are increasingly optimistic the U.S. economic expansion could continue beyond the 2020 presidential election, aided by Republican tax legislation that is expected to lift growth over the next several years. -
(ACC Mentioned) Agency Met With 85 Industry Reps in 3 Months
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
U.S. EPA held 85 meetings, calls and visits with industry representatives since October as part of its Smart Sectors program. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Recycling Partnership Names New Executive Committee
Dec 13, 2017 | Waste 360
The Recycling Partnership, a national nonprofit that applies corporate funding to improve recycling efforts in communities across the country, has named its new executive committee. -
(ACC Mentioned) Why China Isn't Taking America's Garbage Anymore—Literally
Dec 13, 2017 | Big Think
By Philip Perry
Most of us don’t think of what happens to the plastic items we put in the recycling bin. -
TSCA: Work Plan Process Likely to Serve as Basis for Chemical Prioritisation
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Natacha Cingotti
The US EPA should update its workplan process as the main basis for prioritising chemicals for risk assessment under the new TSCA, stakeholders agreed at a 11 December meeting. -
Ninth Circuit Will Review Two of Three TSCA Framework Rules
Dec 13, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On December 11, 2017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) case on the petition for review of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA (Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments v. EPA, Case Nos. 17-1926, 17-2040, and 17-2244 (consolidated)), the Fourth Circuit granted the petitioners’ motions to transfer to the Ninth Circuit. -
Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Turning Political Deadlock Into an Opportunity for Human Health Protection and Innovation
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Natacha Cingotti
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have regularly made the headlines over the last few months, often accompanied by the tag ‘emerging issue’. -
Proposition 65: Reducing the Burden?
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The past two years have seen several efforts to reform California’s Proposition 65 to reduce the burden of regulation on companies doing business in the state. -
A Disconnected Issue
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Like all broad concepts, sustainability means different things to different people. -
Nano Regulation Reform: No Small Matter
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Andrew Warmington
The status of nanomaterials in European chemical law is, in many people’s view, uncertain. -
Chemicals: A Core Issue at Apple
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Apple’s devices span the globe. More than one billion are used around the world today. However, while technological breakthroughs have driven this digital movement, it is the improvements achieved around the environmental performance of the company’s products, including the phase-out of a number of chemicals of concern, that have been getting recognition of late. -
Canada: Draft Report Says Three Sensitisers Are Not Harmful
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Three sensitising substances used in personal care products, such as nail polishes, eye adhesives and bubble baths, are safe, the Canadian government has provisionally concluded. -
Canadian Government Publishes Triclosan Environmental Quality Guideline
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The Canadian government has published a federal environmental quality guideline (FEQG) for triclosan. -
BoA Annuls Echa Decision on BASF Cosmetics Animal Test
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has annulled an agency Decision to request BASF Personal Care and Nutrition to conduct a prenatal developmental toxicity (PNDT) study, using rats or rabbits. -
Industry Voices Doubts Over 'Missing' REACH 2018 Substances
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concern after Echa revealed it is yet to receive dossiers for more than 20,000 substances it had expected would be registered by next May's REACH deadline. -
EU Pesticides Committee Adopts Revised EDC Criteria
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) has voted in favour of revised criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). -
Pruitt Promotes Gas Exports in Trip Abroad
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt pitched American gas exports this week as part his environmental talks in Morocco, thrilling the energy industry and infuriating environmentalists. -
Steelmaker Failed to Test for Toxin After Blue Spill
Dec 13, 2017 | Chicago Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Hawthorne
A major steel manufacturer neglected to test for a highly toxic chemical after spilling a blue liquid into a tributary of Lake Michigan in October, according to documents released yesterday by Indiana regulators. -
Cyber Advisers Urge Trump to Brace for Tech Breakthroughs
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A high-level advisory group is calling on the Trump administration to prepare for a sci-fi world "in which the physical, cyber, and virtual merge," according to a report released last week. -
Obama-Picked Leader Announces Ban on Oil and Gas Investment
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The World Bank dealt a blow to the Trump administration yesterday by expanding its ban on fossil fuel support even as President Trump moves to promote those fuels abroad. -
New Air Boss Outlines Next Steps for Doomed Climate Rule
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The Trump administration will "very soon" ask for public comment on how it could replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA's new air office chief said yesterday. -
Greens Question Exxon Mobil Settlement
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of environmental groups is questioning whether a tentative settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp. is as hard-hitting as officially advertised.
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) U.S. Economic Expansion Could Become Longest on Record
Dec 13, 2017 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ben Leubsdorf
Forecasters are increasingly optimistic the U.S. economic expansion could continue beyond the 2020 presidential election, aided by Republican tax legislation that is expected to lift growth over the next several years.
The slow-but-sturdy expansion that began in mid-2009 already is the third-longest in U.S. history and, if it continues into the second half of 2019, will exceed the 10-year record set by the 1990s economic boom.
Most of the private-sector economic forecasters surveyed in recent days by The Wall Street Journal said the odds of a new recession by late 2020 were below 50%. The average probability of a recession in the next year was 14%, with the odds creeping up to 29% in two years and 43% in three years.
Economists were more pessimistic about the outlook before Donald Trump was elected president in November 2016. In the Journal’s October 2016 survey, economists on average saw a 58% probability of a recession starting in the next four years.
The lower recession odds could reflect a number of factors, not least the economy’s strong performance over the past year. Another possible contributor is legislation overhauling the tax code that Congress may soon send to Mr. Trump’s desk.
Some 90% of economists surveyed said the tax bill would increase the pace of growth for the next two years, with most seeing a modest boost to the annual growth rate for gross domestic product. Forecasters remain split over its likely long-term effects: Nearly half, 47%, said growth in the long run would be unchanged or weaker than its current trend.
Those results were similar to economists’ predictions in October, when the tax plan was in an earlier form.
A plurality of economists surveyed, 42%, said they believed the tax bill, if enacted, would make a recession in the next three years less likely than it would have been had the tax code remained in its current form.
“Tax reform will foster greater capital formation and economic growth,” said Thomas Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council.
Some 37% said the tax bill would make no difference and 22% said it would make a recession more likely by late 2020.
Some of the economists who warned the tax overhaul would increase the odds of a recession pointed to the possibility of aggressive interest-rate increases from the Federal Reserve if the central bank feels fiscal stimulus will cause the economy to overheat and generate damaging inflation.
“Tax-cut stimulus, if fully realized as its framers claim, will make for a very aggressive Fed response, upsetting the apple cart,” said Rajeev Dhawan, director of Georgia State University’s Economic Forecasting Center.
As 2017 draws to a close, forecasters predicted this year’s strong growth would continue into 2018, and the odds of a near-term downturn continued to fall.
On average, economists projected GDP growth of 2.5% this year and 2.6% in 2018, followed by a return in 2019 and 2020 to the roughly 2% trend that has prevailed since the 2007-09 recession. Economists saw the pace of hiring moderating over the next year and the unemployment rate dipping below 4% by the end of 2018.
Some 68% of economists said risks to the outlook for growth were tilted to the upside, while 23% saw risks tilted to the downside and 9% said the risks were balanced. Upside risks included fiscal stimulus, while disruptions to foreign trade were listed by a number of forecasters as a downside risk.
The Journal’s latest survey of 62 business, academic and financial economists was conducted Dec. 8-11. Not every economist answered every question.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-economic-expansion-could-become-longest-on-record-1513179000
-
(ACC Mentioned) Agency Met With 85 Industry Reps in 3 Months
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
U.S. EPA held 85 meetings, calls and visits with industry representatives since October as part of its Smart Sectors program.
That figure includes 38 meetings with trade associations, 10 meetings with individual companies and eight informational site visits, EPA spokeswoman Daisy Letendre told E&E News this week.
The Smart Sectors team launched on Oct. 3 to "re-examine how EPA engages with industry" (Greenwire, Sept. 25). It covers sectors including agriculture, chemical manufacturing, iron and steel, forestry, mining, oil and gas, and utilities and power generation (Greenwire, Sept. 28).
Critics of the program have derided it as yet another channel through which industry can provide input on the rulemaking process. But EPA officials have touted Smart Sectors as a means of boosting efficiency at the agency.
During an EPA Clean Air Act Advisory Committee meeting yesterday, Letendre said the team helps the agency "meaningfully collaborate with regulated sectors."
She said, "The goal of this is really to take the time to invest in helping agency leadership understand different industries and their nuances on a deeper level."
Letendre added, "The administrator likes to say, and I'll repeat it, but too often we hear that you can't be pro-environment and pro-business. We think that the Smart Sectors program is a really good way of rebuking that directly."
Attempts by E&E News to determine which companies and trade associations have participated in the program were unsuccessful this month.
Jonathan Corley, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, redirected questions to the trade association's May comments to EPA on regulatory reform.
"Based on my conversations here, we've tried to identify some specific issues for recommendation, but, so far, it is pretty much everything that we previously identified in our May comments to EPA about regulatory reform," Corley said in an email.
Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at the American Forest and Paper Association, said in an emailed statement, "Paper and wood products manufacturers represent one of the largest manufacturing sectors in the nation, and we appreciate the Environmental Protection Agency's work to better understand the needs of our industry as we continue to improve our environmental performance."
He added, "Those efforts include the Smart Sectors program and its staff with whom we have recently met."
When asked whether the National Association of Manufacturers had participated in Smart Sectors, a spokesman simply confirmed that a NAM representative was present at the program's launch and quoted in the EPA press release.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068915
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Recycling Partnership Names New Executive Committee
Dec 13, 2017 | Waste 360
The Recycling Partnership, a national nonprofit that applies corporate funding to improve recycling efforts in communities across the country, has named its new executive committee.
The committee will be led by incoming Chairwoman Sarah Dearman, sustainable packaging program director, Coca-Cola North America, and incoming Vice Chairman Stephen Sikra, global lead for packaging material science and technology at Procter & Gamble. Kathleen Niesen, PE, director, recycling, NABQ Sustainability, PepsiCo North American Beverages, will join the committee as a member.
Along with Dearman, Sikra, and Neisen, the executive committee will consist of Secretary Derric Brown, director of sustainability for the Carton Council of North America and director of sustainability of Evergreen Packaging; Treasurer William Culbertson, BakerHostetler. Outgoing Chairwoman Megan Daum, vice president of sustainability at Can Manufacturers Institute, and outgoing Vice Chairman Craig Cookson, director of sustainability and recycling for the Plastics Division of the American Chemistry Council, will remain on the committee as a members.
“The Recycling Partnership has grown immensely over the past three years and I look forward to my new role with the team,” incoming Chairwoman Sarah Dearman said in a statement. “I am honored to have the opportunity to work with my fellow committee members to increase the number of partners and cities served in the coming years.”
Since 2015, The Recycling Partnership has assisted more than 500 communities in improving their recycling efforts, reaching more than 26 million households, and has invested more than $27 million of corporate funding in recycling infrastructure.
“Our executive committee brings with them incredible industry knowledge and a deep desire to achieve their sustainability goals. Working with The Recycling Partnership allows them to meet their goals and improve local community recycling programs at the same time,” Recycling Partnership CEO Keefe Harrison said in a statement. “We are very grateful for their guidance and partnership in our mission to improve recycling across the nation.”
http://www.waste360.com/recycling/recycling-partnership-names-new-executive-committee
-
(ACC Mentioned) Why China Isn't Taking America's Garbage Anymore—Literally
Dec 13, 2017 | Big Think
By Philip Perry
Most of us don’t think of what happens to the plastic items we put in the recycling bin. It’s a matter of out of sight, out of mind. Some believe manufacturers turn them all into new products, but is that the case? What really happens after that plastic bottle leaves your hand? In truth, only 9.5% of all plastic in the U.S. is recycled. Surprisingly, 15% is burned for electricity or heat.
About one-third is exported. Of that, half ends up in China, but not for long. The rest goes to landfills, where it can take up to 500 years to breakdown. As it does, it turns into toxins which poison our land and water. Over time, a lot of our plastic makes its way into the ocean—8.8 million tons of it enter our oceans every year, to be exact. By then, it’s become microplastics, tiny beads mere millimeters long. These are a significant threat to the environment and are also very difficult to clean up.
Pretty soon, America may be putting a lot more of its own plastic into landfill. Beginning January 1, 2018, China plans to ban the import of yang lajior “foreign garbage,” including certain plastics and other materials that are unable to be recycled. The ban was filed this summer with the World Trade Organization. Beijing has listed 24 waste products that it says are a threat to China’s environment and public health.
As a manufacturing powerhouse, China has imported waste materials from other countries to help fuel its economic rise for several decades. It turned these plastics from abroad into resin, which was made into carpeting, plastic bottles, pipes, and all other manner of items. But now, a robust Chinese middle class with more Westernized consumption habits produce enough material to fill China’s needs from within.
As such, Beijing filed its ban with the WTO last July, which includes certain plastics, textiles, and mixed paper. It isn’t only America that’ll have to make other arrangements. China is the world’s biggest importer of such waste. It took in 7.3 million metric tons of plastic last year. This accounts for 51% of the world’s total plastic scrap.
The West Coast of the US has been particularly hard hit. In many cases, recyclers have nowhere to put these materials. Some operations are hauling them off to landfill to dump. Steve Frank of Pioneer Recycling in Portland, Oregon, told NPR that once China shuts down operations completely, it’ll become a serious problem. "The rest of the world cannot make up that gap,” he said.Hopes for an End to Plastic
Rather than burning plastic refuse and contributing to global warming, storing it until a market opens up, or sending it to the landfill, many in recycling and environmental sciences believe this could be a watershed moment where we finally change our relationship with plastic. Bans on disposable plastic are one route. Some cities, states, and even whole countries are banning plastic bags, for example, producing or selling plastic bags is now illegal in Kenya, with a fine of $40,000 as a consequence. An awareness campaign to steer consumers away from plastic and toward other, more sustainable options might also make an impact.The U.S. Response? Produce More Plastic
Rather than a problem, the U.S. chemical industry may see it as an opportunity, at least somewhere down the line. One solution for all this waste nobody wants, is to break down discarded plastic into its chemical components for use by the petroleum industry. Others such as aviation, transportation, and food packaging might also find uses.
The U.S. fracking boom has made natural gas incredibly cheap for the moment, which makes the U.S. one of the cheapest places in the world to produce plastic. The chemical industry is looking to capitalize, investing $185 billion to expand its capacity, according to the American Chemistry Council. Four new U.S. plastics plants will be operational by the end of 2017. The industry is planning to produce and ship high quality resin to China for profit, as the nation is shifting to a preference for "virgin" plastics, rather than plastic scrap that must be cleaned, processed, and so on. Ultimately this means more plastic in the world, not less, as profit opportunities are prioritized over long-term consequences. What Can You Do?
Look at what plastic you buy and throw out on a daily or weekly basis and try to replace those items with sustainable alternatives. For instance, opt for reusable water bottles, sandwich bags, food storage bags, shopping bags, and other such things. When it’s time to buy something, try to purchase items made from natural materials such as bamboo, wood, cloth, or glass.
Repurpose and reuse as many things as possible before throwing them away (if you must). Remember the mantra: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. And check with your town’s department of public works about what items are and aren’t recyclable. Though we assume so, not all plastic is. In fact, many aren’t. To find out which is which, click here.
Lastly, write to three (or more) of your favorite brands, restaurants, or cafes and ask them to change their packaging to use less plastic. Let them know it is important to you, and encourage friends and family to do the same. Evolving habits and consumer pressure matters to companies that want to remain competitive.
Should we shoot our garbage into space and solve the problem that way? See what Bill Nye thinks:
http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/why-china-isnt-taking-americas-garbage-anymore-literally
-
TSCA: Work Plan Process Likely to Serve as Basis for Chemical Prioritisation
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Natacha Cingotti
The US EPA should update its workplan process as the main basis for prioritising chemicals for risk assessment under the new TSCA, stakeholders agreed at a 11 December meeting.
NGOs urged the agency to make use of its testing authority to avoid selecting chemicals based on data availability and criticised its plan to emphasise designation of low priority chemicals.
The process for identifying workplan chemicals under the old TSCA whittled the list of candidates down in stages, based on scoring for hazard, exposure and persistence. This resulted in a list of 83 priority chemicals, later updated to 90.
The new TSCA requires the EPA to take at least half of the substances designated as high priority for risk evaluation from the 2014 workplan list.
Dan Chang, a scientist in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), said the agency is considering rescreening chemicals assessed at different stages to incorporate new data and methodology, and possibly including additional criteria, such as storage near drinking water sources.
How to consider chemicals not evaluated in the workplan process is an open question, officials said. OPPT Director Jeff Morris said the EPA would consider looking at chemicals that were commercially inactive but "still present exposure potential".
Industry representatives emphasised that the criteria should be transparent, risk-based and use the "best available science".
NGOs noted that some chemicals had been evaluated for specific uses, while the new TSCA requires the EPA to also consider potential uses. They also said that previously data availability was considered in a way they do not want the agency to repeat.Data sufficiency
Robert Stockman, senior attorney at the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), urged the EPA to "use its information gathering authority" early in the prioritisation process, "to obtain more information about the chemicals in the 2014 workplan as well as the chemicals identified as potential candidates for information gathering."
"EPA cannot decline to exercise those authorities now and then point to the deadline later as a reason for not collecting information," Mr Stockman said.
"EDF is concerned about establishing a process that introduces a bias toward information rich chemicals," added Lindsay McCormick, a project manager with the organisation.
She said the EPA should not rely entirely on voluntary data submissions as companies could "cherry pick" what they submit.
Saskia Mooney, an attorney representing the Battery Council, said a focus on "data rich substances" would also penalise some industries, such as the battery sector, because the substances they use "have been heavily researched and risks are known".
Focusing on "low hanging fruit chemicals, which will be easy to evaluate", would do "a disservice to industry and the public", Ms Mooney said.
The NGOs expressed concern at the EPA's consideration of using functional categorisation as a means to move groups of substances through the prioritisation process.
Chemicals should be analysed individually, not as a group or in comparison with others in a group, said Richard Denison, lead senior scientist at the EDF. "Just about everybody across the whole spectrum" agrees that the EPA "should not be using a question of whether there are alternatives available to a chemical as a factor in prioritisation," he said.Low priority chemicals
NGOs criticised the EPA's intention, as stated in a discussion document released ahead of the meeting, to identify more than the 20 "low priority" chemicals to be dismissed from further evaluation that TSCA requires be identified by the end of 2019.
"The driving force behind TSCA reform was frustration around the thousands of existing high priority chemicals that really had not undergone any meaningful evaluation in the last 40 years," said Melanie Benesh, legislative attorney at the Environmental Working Group (EWG).
Dr Denison said TSCA "sets a higher evidentiary bar" for designating low priority substances, while high priority chemicals can be designated, based on "evidence only of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure".
He said the EPA must ensure they have "sufficient time to focus on each candidate and the public has ample opportunity to comment on each". And the agency should not identify entire categories of chemicals as low priority, as some industry groups have advocated.
"It's also clear from the law that the lack of data on hazard and exposure can't be the basis for low priority listing," added Robert Sussman, a consultant and former EPA official.
If the agency fails to use rigorous criteria, it will "be giving the public a false sense of security by listing as low priority chemicals that have not been shown to be safe," he said. "High priority listings should be EPA's predominant task and low priority listing should be a secondary focus."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62549/tsca-work-plan-process-likely-to-serve-as-basis-for-chemical-prioritisation
-
Ninth Circuit Will Review Two of Three TSCA Framework Rules
Dec 13, 2017 | The National Law Review
By Lynn L. Bergeson
On December 11, 2017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) case on the petition for review of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) framework rule Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation under TSCA (Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments v. EPA, Case Nos. 17-1926, 17-2040, and 17-2244 (consolidated)), the Fourth Circuit granted the petitioners’ motions to transfer to the Ninth Circuit. This was not entirely unexpected, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit) recently denied the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA or respondent) motions to transfer to the Ninth Circuit the consolidated cases on the petition for review of one of the other TSCA framework rules, Procedures for Prioritization of Chemicals for Risk Evaluation (Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families v. EPA, Case Nos. 17-72260, 17-72501, and 17-72968 (consolidated)) to the Fourth Circuit. Now both of these cases will be decided in the Ninth Circuit. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) case on the petition for review of the TSCA framework rule TSCA Inventory Notification (Active-Inactive) Requirements (EDF v. EPA, Case No. 17-1201), neither the petitioner or the respondents have moved to transfer this case so it will in all likelihood stay in the D.C. Circuit.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ninth-circuit-will-review-two-three-tsca-framework-rules
-
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Natacha Cingotti
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) have regularly made the headlines over the last few months, often accompanied by the tag ‘emerging issue’. Yet these chemicals and the challenges they pose in terms of identification and regulation in the public interest are nothing new – the EU’s first EDC strategy dates back to the last century. What the four-year debacle over the identification criteria for pesticides and biocides has revealed, however, is a clear need for a coordinated approach among European decision makers in order to finally implement measures that truly protect human health and the environment.
EU-wide polls have shown that European citizens are concerned about the presence of chemicals in their daily lives and the serious, long-term health effects those chemicals may have, such as increasing the risk of breast or prostate cancer, falling sperm rates or neurodevelopmental problems among children. The ball is now in the court of European decision makers to turn the current deadlock into an opportunity and come up with an integrated strategy which puts public health and reducing exposure at the core.
EDCs are ubiquitous: from high-profile substances, such as the bisphenol A used in plastic bottles to some of the phthalates found in cosmetics, the flame retardants used in sofas, the pesticides sprayed on food or the biocides included in cleaning products. They can be found pretty much everywhere at home and in the workplace. All of us – children and adults alike –are exposed.
Urine tests and hair samples from populations all across Europe show the presence of chemicals that should not be found in people’s bodies. For instance, a study carried out in France in 2015 found no less than 21 EDC residues per woman tested, including toxic chemicals that have been banned from the market. The adverse health effects of EDCs have been highlighted by scientists for decades – from infertility to cancer and behavioural problems such as autism. Our knowledge keeps on expanding by the day.Challenge on many fronts
EDCs are a challenge to traditional toxicology in that their adverse health effects can manifest themselves at very low doses. Exposure of individuals during specific windows of vulnerability, such as pregnancy or puberty, can be critical and contribute to the onset of diseases that will manifest themselves sometimes only decades later, as seen in the case of diethylstilboestrol.
For all these reasons, addressing EDCs – both by identifying them and regulating them accordingly – truly is one of the defining and pressing public health challenges of our times.
The Endocrine Disruption Exchange lists over 1,400 potential EDCs and many more suspected substances need to be investigated. This is not anecdotal when read in the European context: a recent Eurobarometer survey found that two out of three European citizens are concerned about exposure to chemicals in their daily lives through food, air, drinking water and consumer products or other items, as well as in the workplace; whereas less than half of the same group feel well informed about the potential dangers of chemicals.
Yet, the lack of ambition of the EU’s regulatory attempts when compared to the challenge is blatant and shows the lack of an integrated strategy, which should be based on science precaution. Even well-known and scientifically well-documented culprits like bisphenol A have only recently been added to the REACH list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs) for endocrine-disrupting properties for human health, leaving the suspicious bisphenol cousins bisphenol F and S (to name a couple) unaddressed and Europe at risk of carrying a very toxic legacy for future generations.
Earlier this autumn, the European Commission officially adopted two sets of EDC identification criteria for pesticides and biocides respectively, to be greenlighted by the European Parliament. This was the end of a four-year process, delayed by the Commission’s lack of political ambition on the one hand and by strong lobbying from business on the other.
Along with HEAL, respected scientific societies (such as The Endocrine Society), public health and cancer voices (such as the International Association of Nonprofit Health Insurers, AIM and the European Cancer Leagues) and civil society groups (such as the EDC-Free Europe Coalition) have all raised the alarm bell about the proposed criteria.
They are not science-based, require too high a burden of proof before a substance can be identified as an EDC, let some chemicals off the hook through a problematic exemption and would also be very difficult to translate into other pieces of legislation. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) objected to the pesticides criteria, highlighting that the proposed exemption for some EDCs is also an illegal reopening of provisions agreed under the pesticides legislation.Opportunity arises
Some commentators have warned that the Parliament’s veto, which is essentially sending the Commission back to the drawing board, is opening a dangerous Pandora’s Box. We would argue that this is actually a unique opportunity to get the criteria right in order to identify the numerous suspected pesticide EDCs that are used in our daily environment.
Such an opportunity should also be approached in close connection with the recent Commission commitment to launch a global strategy on endocrine disruptors. This much needed strategy would address obvious loopholes in the current regulations beyond pesticides and biocides - including food packaging, cosmetics and toys.
This is also an opportunity because the European public health budget is currently burdened by €163bn through diseases arising from exposure to EDCs, at a conservative estimate. On the contrary, a science-based, practical and consistent approach to EDC identification could strongly benefit the entire EU economy by allowing faster removal of numerous chemicals from the shelves, thereby boosting the substitution and innovation that truly serve health protection. Doing so would also contribute to a more predictable environment for businesses operating in Europe.
We welcome the fact that some member states - such as France or Denmark - have understood that such an integrated strategy is the real endgame of the discussions on identification criteria. Key issues are to address all EDCs across the board and uses, truly reduce people’s exposure, better track health effects of both single and mixtures of substances, and continuously support the improvement of scientific knowledge and testing methods.
National governments and the European Commission must seize this opportunity to follow the example of pioneer member states and resume discussions on the pesticides criteria and agree on an ambitious European action plan. The ubiquity of EDCs and citizens’ well-founded concerns about their health effects, including cancer risk, will not go away but grow stronger. And this should give decision makers impetus to untap the benefits of bold and innovative action, guided by the principles of science and prevention.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62574/endocrine-disrupting-chemicals-turning-political-deadlock-into-an-opportunity-for-human-health-protection-and-innovation
-
Proposition 65: Reducing the Burden?
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The past two years have seen several efforts to reform California’s Proposition 65 to reduce the burden of regulation on companies doing business in the state. However, from some stakeholder points of view, those efforts have not gone far enough and in some respects could prove counterproductive.
Proposition 65 requires regulated parties to provide "clear and reasonable" warning to employees and consumers using labelling or signs about products that contain a substance the state lists as a carcinogen or reproductive toxin. The law allows private parties to "enforce" it with lawsuits, spawning a coterie of lawyers taking aim at companies over allegedly inadequate warnings.
Advocates say that Proposition 65 has had a positive effect not only in California but nationally, as companies reformulate products to exclude toxic substances. According to Gina Solomon, deputy secretary for science and health at the California EPA, the benefit "is not in the warnings, but in the quiet product substitutions that occur when a chemical gets listed and a manufacturer takes a closer look at their product".
Ms Solomon was speaking at Chemical Watch’s US Regulatory Summit in October. Another speaker, Anthony Samson, a senior attorney and policy adviser at Arnold & Porter, who represents the California Chamber of Commerce (CalChamber), responded that "silent reformulation is not necessarily a good thing." It can be unnecessary and raise costs for businesses and consumers, so it is not always a positive, "especially if you are just trying to avoid an absurdity in the law."Warning amendments
California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (Oehha) adopted amendments in September 2016 on how clear and reasonable warning should be provided under Proposition 65, in an effort to make the warnings more useful for consumers and clarify responsibilities for businesses.
The changes, which are to take effect in August 2018, will require them to give the name of at least one substance for which notice is being provided under the law. A pictogram – an exclamation mark inside an equilateral triangle – must also be included.
The original rules said that warning materials should be provided by manufacturers, rather than retailers, "where practicable". In an effort to help retailers, the new regulations make suppliers responsible for complying with the mandate, either by placing warning labels on products or by providing warning materials to retailers.
The amendments also provide "tailored" warnings for specific kinds of exposures, including from dental care, furniture, automobiles and amusement parks. "If you follow the tailored warning it provides certainty," Mr Samson said. Business interests, he added, supported some of the changes. However, the new requirement to name specific chemicals creates "a new compliance hurdle" and new opportunities "for plaintiffs to argue there are defects in warning programmes".Second language issue
Amendments proposed by Oehha in July aimed at clarifying the new rules could also have side effects, possibly exposing manufacturers to litigation if retailers post consumer information in a language other than English.
This is currently required when a sign or label "used to provide a warning, includes consumer information in a language other than English". It is now proposed for when "a sign or label used to provide consumer information about a product, is provided in a language other than English".
CalChamber said in its comments that if the mandate is triggered by providing any consumer information about a product in a second language, rather than applying only when that information is on the Proposition 65 label, Oehha "creates a much broader obligation … If a retailer adds a multilingual sign in its store related to the product, or posts something on its internet retail site, even without the manufacturer's knowledge, the manufacturer would be subject to litigation because its warning was only provided in English," the chamber said.Legal reforms
At the same time in 2016 that Oehha was adopting changes to the warning rules, California’s Office of the Attorney General (OAG) promulgated amendments to its regulations, in an effort to rein in some of the problems related to private litigation under Proposition 65. These:capped the value of additional settlement payments (ASPs) paid in lieu of civil penalties;ensured that penalty payments are used for purposes relevant to furthering the goals of Proposition 65; andclarified the standards for determining whether a "significant" public benefit has been conferred when a manufacturer or retailer is forced to changes its policies, which is required for a plaintiff to be awarded attorney's fees.
Legislation signed into law on 5 October builds on that initiative by adding transparency to private actions under Proposition 65. A 'private enforcer' must now give 60 days notice before taking legal action alleging a violation. The notice, sent to the alleged violator and the state attorney general, must contain a 'certificate of merit', stating that an expert has been consulted.
The attorney general is also sent information on the basis of the claim and can opt to pursue an action on behalf of the public. If he decides that a claim "has no merit", the new amendment requires him to say so in a letter that is sent to the claimant and made public.
The law also makes the information behind claims obtainable for use in a legal proceeding, so that the alleged violator – who often has been unable to learn the details of the charge – can obtain it.
"Publicly posting these formal communications will be helpful for members of the regulated community to detect trends in how specific private enforcers execute their obligations for substantiating their claims," wrote San Francisco-based attorney Ann Grimaldi in June. She regularly writes and speaks on chemical and product regulation topics.
"The new requirement may even encourage private enforcers to be extra careful in factually justifying their claim, to avoid being identified on what may end up being the attorney general's 'webpage of shame'."
However, Mr Samson said at the summit, while these reforms will be helpful, capping awards and requiring plaintiffs to give up documentation "could drive up the cost of litigation as they could raise their demands to cover the cost of providing the information."Lawsuit questions authority
Another ongoing effort to alter the rules of Proposition 65 is taking place in the courts. Monsanto is challenging whether California can legally rely on assessments of chemical risk by foreign authorities to add chemicals to the warning list. It brought the suit after Oehha announced its intention to list glyphosate as a carcinogen, based on findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc).
A judge ruled in January that Proposition 65's use of international standards "does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency". If higher courts were to rule against the state, this would have implications for many other chemicals. Industry has repeatedly protested against adding chemicals to the Proposition 65 list based on Iarc’s hazard-based judgements.
Most recently, in October, Oehha listed the flame retardant tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) as a carcinogen under Prop 65, based on Iarc's determination. This was despite a protest from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) that there is no evidence that the substance is hazardous through current use and exposure levels.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62562/proposition-65-reducing-the-burden
-
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Like all broad concepts, sustainability means different things to different people. It encompasses many issues, largely associated with equally broad topics like the so-called three pillars, ‘people, planet and profit’. But one issue that has historically been left out of sustainability is the safe management of chemicals.
Around this time last year, I witnessed this first hand, having attended the Sustainable Brands conference in Copenhagen, where delegates heard from sustainability experts, shared ideas on how to tackle environmental and social issues and showcased their efforts to becoming more responsible businesses.
On my return, I wrote about the key takeaways from the conference – the main one being that chemical management was not mentioned or discussed as an issue within the context of sustainability. It was clear that, within this community, safe chemical management was not regarded as one of the more pressing problems.
Offering some reasoning at the time, Bjørn Hansen, head of the chemicals unit at the European Commission’s DG Environment and soon to be director general of Echa, said that, while we are able to measure the impact of certain environmental and
societal problems – two degrees in global warming, biodiversity loss, smog in cities, water quality and so on – "unfortunately, there is no one way of measuring the problems associated with chemicals."
This, he said, makes it very difficult to sell the importance of the issue. Since then, however, interest in it has grown. This year, for example, Echa commissioned a study, which was carried out by the consultancy RPA, of how the REACH and CLP Regulations impact company sustainability strategies.
The study, which involved interviews with executives from 19 companies, concluded that, while REACH and CLP are primarily considered to have a direct impact on corporate compliance programmes, these regulations are not seen to affect sustainability strategies directly. Echa’s director of risk management, Jack de Bruijn, says that the agency wanted to discover the role that chemical management plays in these strategies.
"We can see that chemical management doesn’t play a big role in sustainability strategies, at least in the companies that we’ve interviewed. They are very much focused on energy, climate change, waste and use of natural resources. Specific chemical management goals or objectives are often not set. This slightly surprised us but I think it’s an important takeaway," adds Mr de Bruijn.
The report is an important step in the evolution of Echa, which is currently developing its strategic objectives for the next five years. Sustainability and its relationship with chemical management is going to be part of this, according to Mr de Bruijn, but the details of exactly what the agency will do still need to be discussed within the agency as well as with stakeholders, member states and the European Commission.
Echoing the report’s findings, NGO ChemSec’s senior business and investor adviser, Sonja Haider, says: "Chemical management in European companies is seen more in the light of legal compliance than a part of sustainability and therefore this work is not often seen publicly."
But it is certainly happening she adds. "European companies have to work hard on their chemical management due to REACH – and that is valid for all, not only for a handful of progressive ones. For example, identifying substances of very high concern (SVHCs), the phase-out of candidate list chemicals, or implementing risk management measures required to get an authorisation."Europe and the US
In comparison with this high standard of compliance required across the board in Europe, the regulatory framework in the US has seen a very different situation emerge.
Mark Rossi, executive director of NGO Clean Production Action, says that companies in Europe see compliance with REACH as addressing their chemical management needs. In the US, where regulations are weaker and more fragmented, they are developing chemical management policies that go beyond regulations.
Leading companies, he adds, are integrating chemical management into business strategies to address chemical, redesign and reputational risks.
"Companies in the US and globally are increasingly vulnerable to chemical-related reputational risks, as consumers and their business customers want to know that products contain, and manufacturing processes use, inherently safer chemicals."
However, beyond the few leading companies in the building, retail, electronics, apparel and footwear, consumer goods and medical sectors, very few companies are integrating chemical management into business strategy, says Dr Rossi.
Strong federal policy could help bring the two together, according to David Levine, president and CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC), a network of companies and business associations. Non-public facing companies are rarely connecting chemical management to sustainability. This is why, Mr Levine says, we need regulations and minimum thresholds nationally to ensure they take responsibility.
However, a growing number of companies do see chemical management as a key component of their efforts. This has become apparent with a broad range of businesses in ASBC’s Companies for Safer Chemicals initiative. These companies, he says, have not only instituted internal programmes but have also been actively involved in advocating for key policy initiatives, such as the reform of TSCA and the Ingredient Disclosure bill passed in California earlier this year.
Mr Levine adds that including chemical management in a company’s sustainability strategy makes "good sense". However, sustainability is often marginalised and de-prioritised, rather than being core to a company’s "mission and value for stakeholders". Investors and the CFP
Among the 19 companies interviewed by Echa, three were investment firms. The aim was to understand if their investment strategies specifically include considerations of regulatory compliance.
Again, the report found that the focus is on assessing "core sustainability issues" rather than chemicals directly. It was noted that, with regard to REACH, CLP and chemical reporting, while EU companies are "generally good at sustainability reporting, there tends to be little and variable detail on chemical substance portfolios and future regulatory risk related to their chemicals portfolio."
The report confirmed, however, that companies with a strategy for proactive substitution are regarded positively, and one company commented that EU and US consumers are willing to pay a premium for more sustainable products.
Despite this, sustainability reporting tools are not giving chemical management the attention it needs. Ms Haider says that guidelines for sustainable reporting, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, do not cover chemical management; nor is there a specific UN Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) for it.
Therefore, she says, companies following these rules may report on chemical management issues, but it is then buried in ‘product stewardship’, safety or, when it comes to the SDGs, sustainable consumption and innovation.
The absence of effective chemical management reporting saw the launch in 2015 of the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP), an initiative of the NGO Clean Production Action and other partners that helps companies measure and report on their progress on transitioning to safer chemicals. It also provides a tool for benchmarking companies as they select safer alternatives and reduce their use of chemicals of high concern.
Sally Edwards, senior research associate at Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts and one of those working on the CFP, says that it is clear many investors are looking for data on corporate chemical management and see this as a missing piece of sustainability reporting. Reporting mechanisms exist for energy, water, forestry and others, but not chemicals.
"We designed the CFP survey to fill in this gap in reporting," says Dr Edwards. So far, almost 70 organisations – around 30 of which are investment organisations – have signed up to the CFP.
"I think that many of the companies that are participating in CFP see it as part of their overall sustainability strategy."
It is worth noting that, earlier this year, the Dow Jones Sustainability Indices (DJSIs) were updated and now ask companies for more data on the chemicals used in their products. The DJSIs evaluate the sustainability performance of the largest 2,500 companies listed on the Dow Jones Global Total Stock Market Index.
For investors, hazardous chemicals represent ‘the new carbon’, according to Jan Amrit Poser, chief strategist and head of sustainability at Bank J Safra Sarasin. In a statement on the CFP website, he says: "Similar to greenhouse gas emissions, the investment community needs to grasp the implications of this evolution in chemical knowledge and action to fulfil our fiduciary duty and contribute to a more sustainable future."Closing the gap
The RPA study puts forward a number of recommendations for Echa to consider. These include further investigating ways to encourage companies to include good chemical management in integrated corporate sustainability strategies, by developing reporting tools and benchmarks together with industry.
"We really want to make sure that if we get into the topic of sustainability and chemical management that it links with ongoing developments," says Mr de Bruijn. "We don’t want to set up another system in parallel to what companies are doing – it should link to the work that companies have already put in place to help them build on this further."
While chemical management seems to remain absent from the majority of company sustainability strategies for the time being, it is clear that awareness around its importance is growing among companies and investors. Initiatives, such as the CFP and Companies for Safer Chemicals, show that work is under way to ensure chemical management is not perceived as a separate issue but an important and integrated part of a company’s business strategy.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62544/a-disconnected-issue
-
Nano Regulation Reform: No Small Matter
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Andrew Warmington
The status of nanomaterials in European chemical law is, in many people’s view, uncertain. No nano-specific regulation is in place, nor is any based on chemical structure or form, other than the globally applicable Stockholm Convention on POPs. Most rules are essentially use-based, with REACH covering the substances and uses not covered by other regulations.
Conversely, some regulations can require nanomaterials to be assessed differently to other forms of the same substance, which may mean separate testing. Although particle characterisation is not currently discussed in REACH Annex VI, the guidance on registration states: "When the registrant manufactures or imports the substance in the nanoform as well as in the bulk form, the registration dossier should include the information of the substance in both the bulk form and nanoform."
In addition, the possibility of characterisation by particle size, and whether or not a substance is a nanomaterial, are both mentioned in section 4.2.3 of the guidance document ‘Guidance for the identification and naming of substances under REACH and CLP’ as a possible additional parameter for substance identification.
All this does not necessarily mean that a registrant must characterise such materials. However, during an evaluation, Echa might check if there is enough substance identity information to assess whether the relevant data in the dossier is applicable to the nanoform of the material, according to Dr Neil Hunt, senior regulatory scientist at Yordas.
Dr Hunt was speaking at the second stakeholder day of the NanoMonitor project at Lancaster University, UK, on 24 October. Nanomonitor is an EU-funded project to develop a real-time information and monitoring system for the concentration of engineered nanomaterials in indoor workplaces and the environment. Yordas - known until recently as The REACH Centre - is one of the coordinators.Changing picture
REACH currently applies to nanomaterials in the same way as to other forms of a substance. The inclusion and exclusion criteria, the timetable and the basic information requirements based on production volumes are the same. The information in the registration dossier applies to the substance placed on the market and testing must be adapted to its properties.
The picture could change under forthcoming revisions to the REACH Regulation and there has been some movement in that direction in recent years. According to the text of the draft Regulation amending REACH to take account of nanomaterials, the changes will apply from 1 January 2020.
A European Commission ‘non-paper’ on the proposed changes, published in May 2014, introduced the concept of ‘nanoforms’ to REACH for the first time, but did not define them. This year, Echa’s published guidance on how to prepare registration documents that cover nanoforms, said that, although it does not appear in the legal text, the term has been used in the context of REACH.
Echa, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) and the Joint Research Centre (JRC) defined nanoform in 2016 as "the term ... to distinguish forms of a substance that fulfil the EC Recommendation on the definition of the term ‘nanomaterial’ but differ with regard to size distributions, shape and/or surface chemistry".
Based on the wording in Echa’s guidance document, it is likely that the form of words in the REACH revisions will be basically similar, Dr Hunt said, but "it is not clear how a registrant should decide whether they have one or more nanoforms on the market. It will probably be up to the registrant and there may well be extensive legal arguments if they and Echa disagree."
Some indication of the future direction of REACH regarding nanomaterials can also be found in recent Echa Board of Appeal decisions, he said. In each case, the principle that nanoforms do not have specific obligations associated with them under REACH
was maintained, while leaving open the possibility that recommendations that registrants may currently disregard might become obligations under the revisions.
For instance, in March the board upheld an appeal from industry against Echa’s decision that registrants of titanium dioxide should include details of all nanoforms as part of substance characterisation, because this was not in line with Annex VI. However, it also highlighted the need to show that data in the dossier is applicable to the substance placed on the market. "Essentially the board was saying ‘You aren’t required to do this, but we think you should have’," Dr Hunt commented.
Particle testing
At present, he continued, particle characterisation is not required by Annex VI, but registrants should be able to prove that data in the dossier is applicable to their product throughout its lifecycle. Particle characterisation will probably be more prominent when REACH is revised and may become compulsory for nanoforms. It will cover, as a minimum:
particle size distribution;
surface functionalisation;
shape, aspect ratio and other morphological features; and
surface area.
Most of the recommended adjustments to standard testing procedures, currently in the appendices to endpoint-specific guidance for nanomaterials, will become compulsory. Substances with nanoforms may be on Annex III and therefore would not have the reduced testing options for substances in the 1-10 tonnes band. This will depend on the use made of them or articles containing them.
In addition, grouping between different nanoforms and between the bulk and nanoform will need to be scientifically justified, so simply having the same chemical structure will not be enough to do this. Higher tier testing may be required for each nanoform irrespective of their individual tonnage, Dr Hunt added.
There will be an obligation for guidance on safe use to discuss nanoforms and this should match the information in safety data sheets (SDSs), which may mean that SDSs must mention them. There should not be any additional requirements for new registrants, but existing dossiers may need to be updated, including those for registered powders that are not expected to be nanomaterials. Possibly, all registrants of a solid will need to submit updated characterisation reports and extensive testing may be required on different nanoforms of existing substances.
Although the definition of a nanoform as opposed to a non-nano form is facilitated by the draft nanomaterial definition, defining different nanoforms of the same substance could be more difficult. More than one can be defined for almost all nanomaterials, which might mean that they have to be tested separately.
Where all the particles take the same form, definition is easy enough, but in most cases they are a mixture of shapes and/or have different aspect ratios. It is likely that it will be the registrant who sets the limits on the nanoform and these could be challenged during evaluation.Definition debated
While the word ‘nanomaterial’ is not used in the draft revision, it will remain important because nanoforms cannot be defined without it. In 2011, the Commission adopted a Recommendation on the definition of "a natural, incidental or manufactured material containing particles, in an unbound state or as an aggregate or as an agglomerate and where, for 50% or more of the particles in the number size distribution, one or more external dimensions is in the size range 1-100 nm".
In September, the Commission opened its consultation on a revision of this. The first deadline, of December 2014, had been pushed back while a report was awaited from the JRC, which was finally published in July 2015. Stakeholders, including Echa as well as NGOs and the Competent Authorities Subgroup on Nanomaterials (CASG-Nano), have expressed anger at the delay and the lack of clarity in the process.
Since the NanoMonitor stakeholder day, indeed, a coalition of NGOs has arguedthat the proposal to revise the REACH annexes to address nanomaterials is not sufficiently ‘future-proof’, while the delays have ensured that specific nano requirements cannot be in place before the final REACH registration deadline. Industry associations, meanwhile, are more concerned that the current definition may inadvertently define paints, coatings and inks as nanomaterials.
From Dr Hunt’s perspective, a major difficulty of the current definition is that it is based on precisely the parameters that analytical tools struggle to measure accurately. In terms of the dimensions involved, agglomerates can be broken relatively easily into their constituent primary particles, but with aggregates it is not easy to do this without damaging particles.
Many tools would either measure the dimensions of a particle and find it was an agglomerate, or overstate its dimensions and conclude that it is not a nanoparticle. In any case, it is also not clear if size is always key in risk assessment, he said.
Measuring the number/size distribution of particles is also tricky; certain analytical techniques can do this for some samples, notably particle tracking analysis, but they measure the particle as it exists rather than the primary particle size. Number, volume and intensity (as measured by light scattering) distributions will produce different results to each other; the latter two have a bias to the longer dimensions.
The current definition discusses the shortest dimension of a particle, which can be significantly different to the longest for rods, needles and plates. Many analytical tools that can measure particle size distribution will measure the longest dimension. Microscopy can help when assessing the applicability of distribution results, but it is not an easy tool to use to measure size distribution directly.
Thus, Dr Hunt said: "It is not a trivial matter to determine whether your substance is a nanomaterial or not." Hopefully, he added, the revised definition "will be in place before any revision of REACH, to avoid replication of work for registrants".Intelligent strategy
One key clarification in the proposed revised definition is that the term ‘nanomaterial’ does not cover individual molecules like macromolecules and dendrimers. However, it is not clear whether particles with a dimension of <1 nm will remain nanomaterials. A specific surface area of <5m2/cm3 may be used to define substances that are not, while the 50% by number size distribution may be regarded as indicative, with other values being more relevant in certain situations.
Certain REACH hazard endpoints have been identified that could be adapted to testing nanomaterials, details of which are in the REACH guidance documents. This is not a requirement specific to nanomaterials, however, as the basic tests work very well for a simple organic substance but also may need to be adapted to deal with inorganic substances, UVCBs and highly volatile substances, as well. Thus, when defining a nanomaterial, a range of tests is required to reach a justified conclusion, Dr Hunt said.
These projects have highlighted the importance of proper characterisation, both before and during studies. The ability of one nanoform to transform into another, possibly with a different hazard profile, increases the complexity of risk assessment for nanomaterials. To reduce their complexity, the ability to group nanoforms into categories will be essential. This approach has already proven to be useful under REACH for hydrocarbon-based UVCBs.
In some Regulations, nanomaterials are already treated differently to bulk forms. Under the biocidal products Regulation, an active substance in a nanoform must be authorised separately to the same substance in the bulk form. A similar provision applies under the cosmetics Directive for nanomaterial ingredients performing certain roles in the product.
The food contact materials Regulation states that the nanoform of a substance cannot be regarded as being on the Union List of authorised substances even if the bulk form is. Assessment and authorisation is on a case-by-case basis. In the medical devices Regulation, meanwhile, the degree of risk assessment required depends on the likelihood of nanomaterials being released from the device.
"The definition of a nanomaterial is important for biocides, cosmetics and food contact materials - perhaps not so much at the moment in REACH, but this could change," Dr Hunt said.
"If the revisions of REACH come into force, identifying nanomaterials will become vital. Registrants must be ready to adapt accordingly."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62565/nano-regulation-reform-no-small-matter
-
Chemicals: A Core Issue at Apple
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Apple’s devices span the globe. More than one billion are used around the world today. However, while technological breakthroughs have driven this digital movement, it is the improvements achieved around the environmental performance of the company’s products, including the phase-out of a number of chemicals of concern, that have been getting recognition of late.
In 2006, Apple was ranked fourth from bottom out of 14 major electronics firms in the first edition of Greenpeace’s Guide to Greener Electronics. "The company fails to embrace the precautionary principle, withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)," the NGO said.
Since then, Apple has phased out PVC and BFRs across all its product lines. It is one of the few major electronics retailers to publish a list of substances that must be restricted in the manufacturing of its devices. In 2014, the company banned the use of benzene, which is restricted in certain products under REACH, and n-hexane, which is suspected of damaging fertility, in its final assembly facilities. It is also one of the leading electronics companies to address the issue of conflict minerals.
These actions have seen Apple come top of four recently released NGO reports, which rank global electronics companies on their efforts to address hazardous chemicals and conflict minerals:
Greenpeace's latest Guide to Greener Electronics (chemicals);
Enough Project's Demand the Supply report (conflict minerals);
Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families’ Mind the Store retailer report card (chemicals); and
Amnesty International’s Time to Recharge report (conflict minerals).
So what has changed at Apple? How does a company go from a laggard to a leader on these issues and what is driving its actions on chemicals and conflict minerals?
Unfortunately, Apple declined to answer questions on the reasons behind this cultural change within the company. Instead, a Apple’s spokesperson highlighted its latest supplier responsibility report, which states that the company has a "long-standing commitment to eliminate unsafe chemicals from our products and processes."
"In addition to reviewing chemical handling practices in our core audits, our chemical management programme focuses on eliminating or reducing the use of hazardous substances through product design, substitution with safer alternatives and re-engineering of manufacturing processes," the report continues.
However, the authors of the NGO reports have given their outside perspectives on what they think is making these issues a priority for the company. Apple had been a target of NGO campaigns in years past, most notably Greenpeace’s Green My Apple campaign in 2006 and 2007, says Mike Schade, director of the Mind the Store campaign. This campaign targeted Apple after it was the "least responsive" to Greenpeace’s critique from its first guide.
"My sense is, that definitely helped prompt Apple to move more aggressively in restricting key chemicals and materials of concern and develop a more robust approach to chemicals," Mr Schade says, adding that there are growing concerns over the serious risks that the manufacturing and disposing of electronics pose to workers and communities in global supply chains.
"Companies that are not properly managing chemicals face growing reputational, regulatory and financial risks," he says. "There has been a growing scientific consensus on the dangers of chemicals commonly found in electronics, such as halogenated flame retardants, phthalates, PVC and chlorinated solvents."
Furthermore, chemicals in electronics are increasingly facing regulations in US states and around the world, according to Mr Schade. For example, this year legislators in Washington State proposed legislation restricting flame retardants in certain electronics.
Gary Cook, one of the lead authors of Greenpeace’s latest Greener Electronics Guide, says that pressure from consumers and NGOs has "certainly played a key role in its better performance". He too highlights the Green My Apple campaign, as well as fellow NGO Green America’s campaign to get the company to remove chemicals of concern from its products.
However, Mr Cook says, staff changes have also been a factor. "Apple has become much more proactive and responsive in addressing its environmental performance and the impact of its supply chain since Tim Cook became CEO." Mr Cook took over from Apple’s co-founder Steve Jobs in 2011.
Gary Cook also takes note of the hiring of ex-EPA administrator Lisa Jackson as Apple’s vice president of environment, policy and social initiatives in 2013. Ms Jackson, he says, has been "a significant catalyst in their improving performance."
In 2010, under the Obama administration, Ms Jackson made the safety of chemicals one of the agency’s top five priorities. She was also involved in reviewing the US’s outdated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which was modernised last year.
Conflict minerals
Annie Cathaway of the Enough Project, which recently released its Demand the Supply report, ranking companies on their efforts to address conflict minerals, says: "What's become clear through our 2017 rankings, and since the Enough Project first began engaging with Apple several years ago, is that the company has really doubled down on its efforts to develop responsible mineral supply chains for its own products and it is also demonstrably committed to ensuring others in its industry and beyond are able to do so as well."
As of December 2016 - and for the second year in a row - all identified smelters and refiners in Apple’s supply chain participated in an independent third-party conflict mineral audit programme for several conflict minerals, including the so-called ‘3TGs’ - tin, tungsten, tantalum and gold. Apple urged smelters and refiners to complete the audit process and simultaneously removed those unwilling to participate from its supply chain; 22 smelters were removed in 2016.
However, it was the firm’s development of a holistic risk assessment tool which caught the eye of the Enough Project team. This was developed for internal use but "is now being rolled out with the help of the Responsible Business Alliance so that essentially any company can have access to it," Ms Cathaway says.
Of the 250 identified smelters and refiners of certain minerals, 75% have completed this additional risk assessment on issues beyond the scope of current third-party conflict minerals audits. Apple was the only company, she says, to receive full credit for the criterion where it asked about companies following up on red flags along their supply chains.
"Its risk readiness assessment programme and related company practices no doubt contributed to that score. Several companies mentioned that they were following up with suppliers, but Apple was the only company to publicly note that it had also followed up with traceability programmes like iTSCi and the Better Sourcing Programme," she adds.
In April, Apple extended its responsible sourcing initiative to cover cobalt, a key component in lithium-ion batteries which power mobile phones, laptop computers and other portable electronics devices and electric vehicles. More than half of the world’s cobalt comes from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
Earlier in the year, a report by Amnesty International said that electronics companies and electric car makers could be using components incorporating cobalt mined by children. The NGO’s most recent report, Time to Recharge, ranked Apple as a ‘Best performer’ among the downstream companies surveyed.
The company’s policy, the report says, is the most detailed in terms of its articulation of expectations for suppliers and sub-suppliers with respect to risk assessment, risk mitigation and due diligence transparency. "Apple’s system for mapping its cobalt supply chain back to mines and associated risks appears relatively robust and suitable for carrying out human rights due diligence in accordance with international standards."
The report goes on to say that it is positive that Apple has disclosed the names of its smelters; however, gaps in information continue to exist. "It still has much to do, particularly when it comes to disclosure of information about its assessment of its suppliers’ risks and mitigation or remediation efforts."Room for improvement
On chemicals, Apple can make even more progress by setting public, quantifiable goals for reducing and eliminating chemicals of concern and expanding its Full Material Disclosure initiative to brand name products sold in Apple stores and on Apple.com, says Mr Schade of Mind the Store.
He also encourages the company to become a signatory to the Chemical Footprint Project (CFP) and pilot it with key private label suppliers. The CFP is an initiative of the NGO Clean Production Action and other partners that helps corporations measure their progress on transitioning to safer chemicals.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace's report says that, although it welcomes Apple’s increased transparency around processed chemicals it is restricting (and to what level) in the manufacture of its products, these lists are "relatively short in comparison to the amount of chemicals used in production".
For conflict minerals, Ms Cathaway says two areas in particular need increased company attention: conflict gold and support to livelihoods projects in Congolese mining communities. Apple, she says, is already a leader in these areas in many ways, but across the board she has found that these two issues need additional work, including through enhanced company practices and financial contributions.
"Apple's proven leadership so far places the company in a position to further propel relevant industries towards solutions for these ongoing challenges," she says.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62556/chemicals-a-core-issue-at-apple
-
Canada: Draft Report Says Three Sensitisers Are Not Harmful
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Three sensitising substances used in personal care products, such as nail polishes, eye adhesives and bubble baths, are safe, the Canadian government has provisionally concluded.
Phthalic, maleic and trimellitic anhydrides do not meet any of the criteria set out in section 64 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (Cepa), the draft assessment says. The conclusion would result in the government taking no further regulatory risk management measures in relation to the substances.
The three substances – carboxylic acid anhydrides – are primarily used as intermediates in the production of other substances, such as resins, plasticisers, pigments and dyes. They are also used in DIY products, such as spray paints and floor polishes, and personal care products.
They are recognised as hazardous to human health across multiple endpoints. Most notably, under EU CLP, all three substances have mandatory category 1 skin and respiratory sensitisation classifications. Other eye, skin, acute toxicity and single-target organ toxicity classifications apply to at least one of the three.
But the Canadian assessment concludes that the exposure levels are sufficiently low that they do not present significant risks to human health or the environment. The assessment does not address occupational use.
It uses the 'ecological risk classification of organic substances’ system, published by Environment and Climate Change Canada in 2016, for assessment of risk to the environment. The system applies weightings to a range of data sources and combines them in a matrix.
For the risk to human health from phthalic anhydride, the assessment focuses on respiratory sensitisation via consumer products and indoor air. For the risk from maleic anhydride, it focuses on kidney and bladder adverse effects. Meanwhile, the risk to human health from trimellitic anhydride was not determined because the assessment assumes that exposure is negligible.Eight carboxylic acid anhydrides
The three substances were originally part of a group of eight carboxylic acid anhydrides identified as requiring assessment under the country's Chemicals Management Plan. The other five substances were addressed in a draft screening assessment, published earlier this year. This provisionally cleared 74 substances of posing a risk to human health and the environment.
The government has launched a 60-day public consultation period for the draft screening assessment of phthalic, maleic and trimellitic anhydrides. Interested parties have until 7 February 2018 to submit comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62539/canada-draft-report-says-three-sensitisers-are-not-harmful
-
Canadian Government Publishes Triclosan Environmental Quality Guideline
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Julie A Miller
The Canadian government has published a federal environmental quality guideline (FEQG) for triclosan.
FEQGs provide voluntary environmental benchmarks, but can also be used to inform regulatory action.
Canada intends to publish a revised risk management approach for triclosan no later than November 2018, and a final instrument by May 2020.
The country has published a risk assessment that found the substance is not harmful to human health, but is to the environment, particularly to plants and animals in rivers and lakes.
Canada already restricts the amount of triclosan that can be used in cosmetics, non-prescription drugs and natural health products.
The substance is used as a preservative and antimicrobial agent in cosmetics, drugs and natural health products.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62579/canadian-government-publishes-triclosan-environmental-quality-guideline
-
BoA Annuls Echa Decision on BASF Cosmetics Animal Test
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
Echa’s Board of Appeal (BoA) has annulled an agency Decision to request BASF Personal Care and Nutrition to conduct a prenatal developmental toxicity (PNDT) study, using rats or rabbits.
The company registered the substance reaction mass of sodium hydrogen N-(1-oxooctadecyl)-L-glutamate and stearic acid exclusively for use as an ingredient in cosmetic products. Its dossier included the testing proposal, which is a standard information requirement under REACH.
Instead of doing the test, the company proposed a read-across adaptation, based on data derived from a PNDT study on an analogous substance. But in its draft Decision, Echa rejected this and required the test to take place.
BASF Personal Care and Nutrition expressed its concern that the substance is registered for use as an ingredient in cosmetic products only and performing a test on the substance using vertebrate animals, may lead to a marketing ban. However, Echa adopted its Decision.
During the BoA case, the agency argued that the dossier shows there is potential worker exposure to the chemical and that, consequently, the fact that the substance is registered exclusively for use as an ingredient in cosmetic products is not relevant to the Decision.
However, in its ruling, the BoA said Echa’s Decision did not mention the use or potential worker exposure. And the agency did not state its reasons for its Decision, as is required under REACH.
The BoA has now passed the case to Echa’s competent body and decided the appeal fee must be refunded.
Dr Julia Baines, a science policy adviser for the Peta International Science Consortium, which supported BASF Personal Care and Nutrition in its appeal, said Echa's justification for the required test "was neither ethical nor legally robust".
In March last year, an official adviser to the European Court of Justice said that the EU marketing ban on cosmetic products containing animal-tested ingredients, must prevent companies from relying on in vivodata to demonstrate the safety of cosmetics.
REACH applies "without prejudice" to the animal testing bans laid out in the cosmetics Regulation, Dr Baines says.
Going forward, registrants "would be well advised", she says, to use only non-animal approaches to the hazard assessment of cosmetics ingredients. And, she adds, where Echa has serious hazard concerns, "these should be raised with the relevant member states in accordance with the law."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62577/boa-annuls-echa-decision-on-basf-cosmetics-animal-test
-
Industry Voices Doubts Over 'Missing' REACH 2018 Substances
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
By Luke Buxton
Trade bodies have expressed concern after Echa revealed it is yet to receive dossiers for more than 20,000 substances it had expected would be registered by next May's REACH deadline.
The agency reported last week that, with less than six months to go, it has received dossiers for only 5,856 total substances, 3,600 of which have not been registered before. Echa has confirmed to Chemical Watch that its estimate of "up to" 25,000 substances is for those which will be registered for the first time. And it has admitted that "at this pace, it may be that we will not reach" the estimation.
Echa told Chemical Watch recently that it is helping SMEs "as much as possible" to comply with their obligations and that a recent SME study showed that 95% of respondents were aware of their obligations. It adds that it has set up internal processes "to deal with last minute rush" of registrations as it did for previous deadlines.
But SME trade body Ueapme says it is "seriously concerned" about the size of the shortfall. Advisor Marko Susnik says that "either we have a problem with the methodology of our estimations or we really have a problem with the registrations, because it’s hardly possible that another 20,000 substances will be registered in less than half a year."
Echa says its original 2018 estimate was based on an impact assessment done before REACH and "does not fully reflect the current market situation". The agency says it is "monitoring the situation carefully, although industry associations have not yet raised this as a concern".
However, Mr Susnik challenged this as "incorrect". Ueapme has frequently highlighted to Echa, the Commission and EU member states that it has a "potential problem" with the deadline, he says. Its most recent intervention, at the meeting of the Competent Authorities for REACH and CLP (Caracal) on 15-16 November, reflected this.
The trade body has done much awareness-raising work, Mr Susnik says, but "in the end the problem is it's the huge unknown [and it] would be less of a problem if we are talking about 100 and not thousands" of substances.
"I am still meeting companies who are only now starting to work on dossiers," he said. They are importing, manufacturing or using substances while the importer "doesn't know anything about REACH registrations".
Mr Susnik says that Echa, authorities and stakeholders have done "great work" on registration awareness, but Ueapme "needs to stress that the current registration statistics do not allow us to sit back".
"We are probably still missing about 60% of the individual substances predicted for between 2008 and 2018," he says, "and according to some industry estimates – even more."'Impossible' task
Timo Unger from the European Automotive Industry Association (Acea) says it has heavily invested resources into finding out "how large the problem" of these 'missing' substances is. But the task, he says, is "impossible to complete".
Like Ueapme, Acea has communicated the issue and has also been comparing industry substance inventories with Echa's list of substances with lead registrants. The investigation is not finalised, Mr Unger says, "but the resulting list may include 3,000-4,000 substances" that are not registered.
And the downstream users of chemicals coordination group (Ducc) says the registration process is "challenging" but its members are "still engaging" with suppliers to ensure key sector substances are registered on time.'Under control'
Cefic's Erwin Annys says there is "much more uncertainty" now about what is on the market compared with the situation that existed as the 2010 and 2013 REACH deadlines approached.
However, he says the message coming from chemical companies and national associations is that "most have their situation under control, not only for substances they manufacture but also for ones they purchase".
Steve George of the Aerospace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD) REACH working group says that for his industrial sector, the issue is "not just about missing substances, but also about ensuring registrations have been made by relevant importers of mixtures or their only representatives.
"Despite various communication campaigns, we are yet to be assured of supply chain continuity after May 2018."
https://chemicalwatch.com/62341/industry-voices-doubts-over-missing-reach-2018-substances
-
EU Pesticides Committee Adopts Revised EDC Criteria
Dec 13, 2017 | Chemical Watch
The EU’s Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) has voted in favour of revised criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
The result came after a problematic exemption in the draft amendments to the plant protection products (PPP) Regulation, was removed from the European Commission's original proposal.
MEPs vetoed the first proposal because, they said, the Commission exceeded its mandate by proposing to exempt some substances, designed to attack an organism's endocrine system, from the criteria, even when they cause harm to non-target organisms of the same group of species.
NGO Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) says the latest is "only one step in the right direction". The text, it says, "partly" takes into account Parliament's demands, by removing the exemption that would have left numerous endocrine disruptors unaddressed.
But HEAL says it is concerned "about the very high burden of proof required in the criteria that have now been adopted".
Member states "failed to seize the opportunity" offered by the European Parliament’s decision "to significantly improve the criteria", executive director Genon Jensen says. They "will not allow for the swift identification of health adverse substances", she adds.
The Commission's first proposal followed a year-long deadlock in a pesticides committee.
The proposal will now undergo three months of scrutiny by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. They can either veto or allow the Commission to adopt it.Good guidance?
Echa and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) intend to publish draft guidance on the implementation of the criteria in early December. This will coincide with their coming into effect "presumably be in late spring 2018", the agencies confirmed last month.
But HEAL says concerns have been raised about the approach chosen to identify substances. And as part of the European Endocrine Disruptors Expert Group, it will actively continue to engage in the discussion through the ongoing public consultation on the guidelines.
The ad-hoc Echa-Efsa ED consultation group is currently running a third, and final, consultation on the draft guidance, seeking public views. Over 1,800 comments were received during the second consultation.
https://chemicalwatch.com/62586/eu-pesticides-committee-adopts-revised-edc-criteria
-
Pruitt Promotes Gas Exports in Trip Abroad
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
U.S. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt pitched American gas exports this week as part his environmental talks in Morocco, thrilling the energy industry and infuriating environmentalists.
The EPA chief traveled to North Africa to meet with foreign officials, "update" an environmental work plan under the Morocco Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. and discuss Morocco's interest in importing liquefied natural gas, according to a press release the agency sent last night.
"These meetings allowed us to directly convey our priorities and best practices with Moroccan leaders, as well as identify opportunities for continued cooperation, as our two countries further talks around the Environmental Work Plan," Pruitt said in a statement. "We are committed to working closely with countries like Morocco to enhance environmental stewardship around the world."
The trip wasn't publicly announced beforehand, and EPA officials didn't immediately respond when asked whether Pruitt visited other countries.
EPA said Pruitt met with Moroccan Secretary of State to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mounia Boucetta to discuss collaboration between the two countries. He then met with Moroccan Minister of Energy, Mines and Sustainable Development Aziz Rabbah to "discuss new and ongoing areas of collaboration under the Free Trade Agreement and the country's interest in importing LNG."
Pruitt also toured the IRESEN's Green Energy Park in Ben Guerir, north of Marrakech, which houses laboratories that do research on solar photovoltaic and thermal energy.
While Pruitt's LNG message aligns with President Trump's "energy dominance" agenda, his promotion of gas exports angered advocates of clean energy and climate action.
"It's a sad day when America's top environmental protection officer is a salesman for fossil fuels," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate program. "I think this is quite unusual. I'm not aware of prior examples of the EPA head turning himself or herself into a pitchman for the fossil fuel industry."
Indeed, the administration's full-throated effort to boost domestic coal and gas exports has regularly been delivered by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke or President Trump himself.
In the works is a White House effort to expand the use of domestic coal and natural gas abroad with cooperating countries and counterbalance a growing international anti-coal coalition that's grown out of the United States' inaction on climate change (E&E News PM, Dec. 11).
Driving the effort is White House energy aide George David Banks. Working under Banks on the National Security Council are Tristan Abbey, a former Republican staffer on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Mark Eshbaugh, according to sources.
LNG exporters are eagerly eyeing potential new business throughout India and Asia, where Trump has championed sales to China and other parts of Asia to generate jobs and reduce U.S. trade deficits. Cheniere Energy Inc. currently owns the only export plant in operation in the United States — the Sabine Pass LNG Terminal along the Gulf Coast.
It's not clear from the EPA press release how interested Morocco might be in importing LNG. A net energy importer, Morocco has boosted renewable energy and efficiency in recent years to reduce its dependence on foreign fuel for electricity. As a signer of the Paris climate accord, the nation has set a goal of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 32 percent by 2030.
The Trump administration appears to be pressing many levers — and looking for new ones — to spur more and faster LNG exports.
The Energy Department announced efforts to fast-track small-scale LNG sales abroad, while the U.S. Trade and Development Agency launched an initiative last month to promote the development of importing infrastructure in target markets (Energywire, Nov. 17).
And Commerce Department officials stationed across a number of foreign embassies — including Portugal, Poland, Brazil and Croatia — are promoting domestic gas exports and looking for matchmaking opportunities, said Fred Hutchison, who leads LNG Allies, a group that advocates for expanding LNG shipments.
"Across the executive branch, there's just dozens of LNG-related things going on," Hutchison said. "We're contemplating an incredibly busy 2018."
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068933
-
Steelmaker Failed to Test for Toxin After Blue Spill
Dec 13, 2017 | Chicago Tribune (In E&E Greenwire)
By Michael Hawthorne
A major steel manufacturer neglected to test for a highly toxic chemical after spilling a blue liquid into a tributary of Lake Michigan in October, according to documents released yesterday by Indiana regulators.
U.S. Steel Corp. accidentally released a liquid with "visible solids" into a man-made waterway near a complex of steel mills near the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore.
When an official from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management came to U.S. Steel's facility last month, the company told the inspector it did not test for hexavalent chromium, the toxic metal infamously depicted in the movie "Erin Brockovich."
Another spill at the plant earlier this year released more than 900 pounds of hexavalent chromium into the waterway.
In a report after last month's visit to the plant, the Indiana environmental official said there was "visual evidence of operational deficiencies, such as discolored effluent or solids leaving the facility."
That evidence, the official said, "should lead the facility to monitor for hexavalent chromium to determine the extent of the impact, even if the on-site personnel believe there will be none or little."
The plant's monitoring equipment was also suspect, and the spill could have been worse if a contractor didn't notice that one of the plant's treatment tanks was overflowing, the report said.
U.S. Steel, which asked regulators to keep the incident a secret when it notified them of the spill, said it was making improvements to its monitoring equipment (Michael Hawthorne, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 12). — NS
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068913
-
Cyber Advisers Urge Trump to Brace for Tech Breakthroughs
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Energywire
By Blake Sobczak
A high-level advisory group is calling on the Trump administration to prepare for a sci-fi world "in which the physical, cyber, and virtual merge," according to a report released last week.
The National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, a group of 23 technology executives, warned that "maintaining the status quo is inadequate and unacceptable" for dealing with breakthroughs ranging from autonomous vehicles to artificial intelligence.
"The Government must act with unprecedented speed and rigor to address cybersecurity challenges, making fiscal and regulatory commitments that enable upgrades in technology and utilizing security models that improve governance and operational efficiency," wrote members of the committee, chaired by Renée James, director of software giant Oracle Corp.
The report, dated July 14 but only recently made public, highlights the pros and cons of virtualization technology that could rewrite the rules for operating the U.S. power grid and other critical infrastructure networks.
Such "software-defined networking" hasn't yet caught on among large power utilities, experts say, though a few companies have launched pilot projects. The technology offers a way to manage grid networks at a virtual level distinct from the constant chatter among physical control system switches and devices.
That central control layer could have a "two-edged effect" for critical infrastructure, the report concluded, allowing for faster recovery from disruptions, while raising the risk that a successful cyberattack could quickly ripple across an entire network.
"It's going to be groundbreaking," said Mike Smith, founder and CEO of Acacia Security and a former cyber policy adviser at the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. "The sooner you embrace and start investigating these types of leading edge technologies, the sooner you'll get to a point where you're more secure and resilient."
Smith consults for Veracity Industrial Networks, a firm that specializes in software-defined networking for control systems. Veracity is currently working on a research project with DOE, industrial automation firm Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories and utility Sempra Energy to manage grid field networks from a central, secure controller, dubbed "Chess Master."
Separately, grid regulators at the North American Electric Reliability Corp. are looking to add software-defined networking guidelines to the next set of critical infrastructure protection standards.
The National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee considers the technology to be "near-term transformative" and urged homeland security officials to review its effects on emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
"Fully realized, SDN and virtualization could significantly enhance the resiliency of critical networks and become an important [national security/emergency preparedness] tool," the report said.Internet of things
The committee also addressed "daunting" security challenges from the fast-growing "internet of things," a category of connected devices that can include everything from webcams to pacemakers.
The report called on the White House to "develop plans to manage security risks created by current and future IoT deployments," expected to exceed 20 billion devices by 2020.
Emergency planners "may need to start treating parts of the IoT architecture as critical infrastructure that should be protected during incidents," the report added.
"Many people think of IoT as a consumer problem ... things like the smart lightbulb, the connected fridge," said Ted Harrington, executive partner at Independent Security Evaluators and an expert in IoT security. "But IoT is about communication; the ability for devices to communicate with each other and with humans and the outside world."
By that definition, IoT includes key sensors on grid networks, gas pipelines and water delivery systems, Harrington noted. He said he agreed with the report's recommendation to treat IoT as critical infrastructure and secure it accordingly.
"As companies, people and governments are deploying these connected devices, they're deploying news ways that adversaries can attack — yet they're not, in many cases, being adequately considered in the security model," he said. "The danger is lying in wait right now."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068861
-
Obama-Picked Leader Announces Ban on Oil and Gas Investment
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Jean Chemnick
The World Bank dealt a blow to the Trump administration yesterday by expanding its ban on fossil fuel support even as President Trump moves to promote those fuels abroad.
World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim, a two-time Obama appointee, announced at an international climate summit in Paris that the bank would stop supporting upstream oil and gas exploration and development beginning in 2019.
Kim promised the gathering he co-hosted with French President Emmanuel Macron and U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres that the bank's policies would "change dramatically" even as it maintains some exceptions for development in the poorest countries. A similar exception is in place for coal-fired power plants and mining, but Kim said the bank hasn't funded any since 2010.
The move delighted environmentalists, who had long argued that the bank's support for fossil fuels was out of step with not only its stated support for the Paris Agreement but its mission to help improve quality of life for poor populations.
"It's a bit of a surprise, and it's a really pleasant one," said Alex Doukas, program director for Oil Change International, who has advocated for years that the bank should divest from fossil fuels.
Over 100 civil society organizations signed a letter last week ahead of yesterday's Paris meeting and the second anniversary of the Paris deal demanding that multilateral lending institutions like the bank abandon fossil fuel projects by 2020.
Also yesterday, the bank committed to adopt a shadow price on carbon and improve the carbon transparency of its projects, among other commitments.
The move away from fossil fuel investment flies in the face of the Trump administration's multilateral development policies.
Trump in July reversed an Obama-era guidance, enabling U.S. representatives to the World Bank and other multilateral funding institutions to approve public financing of coal-fired power plants abroad. And an administration official told E&E News yesterday that those lending institutions could support a new Trump White House initiative aimed at promoting the deployment of "clean" coal overseas (E&E News PM, Dec. 11).
But Trump's team appears to have minimal control over Kim and the organization he heads, at least on issues of energy and climate change. Kim was reappointed in September 2016 for a second five-year term, meaning Trump likely won't have a hand in choosing a World Bank head unless he wins a second term. The bank's president has always been a U.S. citizen nominated by the United States.
"Right now, it's pretty clear there's a very big difference of opinion between President Kim and President Trump, so the U.S. informal influence is likely to be a lot weaker," said Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, global director for the Sustainable Finance Center at the World Resources Institute.
Kim looked at home at yesterday's birthday party for the Paris Agreement, speaking of the importance of pricing carbon — an idea that's going nowhere in Washington.
But it's not off-limits everywhere.
Yesterday, Washington and Oregon joined Canadian provinces and five nations in the Americas in pledging to redouble efforts to price carbon. And China is expected to roll out its long-awaited trading system, which will be the world's largest, later this week.
Martinez-Diaz noted that while the United States remains a powerful shareholder in the World Bank, Kim evidently sees ample support from other developed and developing powers for the bank's continued focus on climate mitigation.
"That's why Kim, I think, was comfortable sticking his neck out and making this kind of announcement here, because he knows there's a lot of support behind him even if the United States is not on board," he said.U.S. still has sway
Some observers wonder whether Trump cares about wielding his "America first" power at the World Bank.
But it's clear the United States can still throw its weight around when it wants to. It has worked this year to prevent China from achieving its goal of expanding its role in the bank and the International Monetary Fund and managed to kill a proposed budget increase in October for the bank's global anti-poverty mission.
Yesterday's bank commitments do not require approval from the board of directors, where the United States controls a substantial block of votes that hovers below 20 percent of the total. Individual projects will require the board's approval. Still, Kim's move means the bank's staff will discourage applications in the oil and gas space that might otherwise be submitted, making it less likely that they will be approved. With the coal policies still in place, that means the bank will effectively be out of the fossil fuel business by the end of this decade.
The United States would need help approving projects that fall outside the bank's anti-fossil-fuel policy. But even some of the countries that White House energy adviser George David Banks hopes to work with on the new "Clean Coal Alliance," like Australia and Japan, might balk at publicly supporting established and high-emitting projects with scarce anti-poverty dollars.
"I think you're going to see a lot of countries that do have coal interests and champion coal in other forums do that a lot less now in some of these large multilateral banks," said Martinez-Diaz.
Doukas said the bank spent about $1 billion annually on upstream oil and gas activities between fiscal 2015 and 2017. These include providing equity, loans, grants and guarantees to help encourage investment in developing countries like Egypt and Peru. The sum does not include infrastructure like pipelines, and it's unclear whether the bank's new policy extends to those projects, either. A bank spokesman did not immediately respond to inquiries.
It also remains unclear whether the new policy will bar the bank from supporting companies that engage in petroleum development and that might use fungible capital to engage in those activities, though the press release's promise to "no longer finance upstream oil and gas, after 2019" would seem to open the door for criticism if it did.
"Civil society will keep a close eye out for that and is already working to close the loopholes that allow for World Bank finance to slip through financial intermediaries and into fossil fuel projects," said Doukas.
"The true test of these policies is implementation, and after all the lights fade away, the question is: What are they doing when no one is paying attention?" said Justin Guay of the Packard Foundation. "And that's where the U.S. can wreak havoc if it's a policy that has wiggle room."
Guay pointed to the policy's exception language, noting that it's the same wording as the bank uses in its coal policy, which allowed it to advance a controversial coal-fired power plant in Kosovo.
"In exceptional circumstances, consideration will be given to financing upstream gas in the poorest countries where there is a clear benefit in terms of energy access for the poor and the project fits within the countries' Paris Agreement commitments," the bank's announcement reads.
Guay dismissed that as a "loophole you could drive a truck through."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068867
-
New Air Boss Outlines Next Steps for Doomed Climate Rule
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
The Trump administration will "very soon" ask for public comment on how it could replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, U.S. EPA's new air office chief said yesterday.
In one of his first public appearances since taking the air job, Bill Wehrum told reporters that he hopes Administrator Scott Pruitt will sign an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) on a replacement for the Obama-era climate regulation within a "few days." Wehrum said of the timing, "It's not my decision, it's the administrator's, so that's why I can't be more specific."
How — and whether — the Trump administration replaces the Clean Power Plan is being closely watched. Prior to Wehrum's confirmation as assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, the administration announced its intention to repeal the rule that aims to slash power plants' greenhouse gas emissions. Since his Senate confirmation last month, Wehrum has been helping to guide the administration's plans for what comes next — which many predict will be a dramatically pared-down version of the Obama rule that regulates individual power plants.
Wehrum spoke yesterday at a semiannual meeting of EPA's Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, which includes advisers from states, environmental groups and industries. He faced a number of questions from members about the fate of EPA's climate rules.
Of the Clean Power Plan notice, Wehrum noted that the ANPR hadn't yet been released from the White House Office of Management and Budget, which reviews agency rulemaking documents before they're released publicly.
"It's been at OMB for some time now, for the past week or so I've made it a priority to get it out of OMB review, and I think we are making progress," he said.
The document will seek public comments on two main areas: the scope of federal and state authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and how those emissions could be regulated.
The agency may frame a potential replacement in the model of a new source performance standard (NSPS), rather than following the first building block of Obama's Clean Power Plan, which focused on improving power plant efficiency, according to Wehrum.
"[It is] an NSPS in the way NSPS has been done up until now is to look at the emitting entity, in this case a power plant, and then figure out what represents best demonstrated technology on that entity," he said.
That process could also consider various options for improving power plant efficiency and the viability of using carbon capture technology.'We are on a fast boat'
Wehrum attempted to reassure the committee that EPA was moving as quickly as possible to provide regulatory guidance for those affected by regulations on power plant emissions. Some critics have suggested the agency's decision to propose an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking was an effort to slow-walk a decision by the agency on whether to pursue regulations.
"Don't construe the ANPR as meaning we are on a slow boat here. I believe we are on a fast boat. These are very important issues. We owe it to ourselves and to everyone who has interest in these rules to be decisive and be clear and create long-term certainty," he told the group.
"Asking questions without answering them for a long time doesn't give anyone any certainty at all," he added.
Last week, during a hearing on Capitol Hill, Pruitt stated that a replacement for the climate rule would be coming soon.
However, Wehrum stopped short of confirming that the agency would definitely replace the Clean Power Plan, referring to the prospect as "if we go down the road of CPP replacement."
The pending release of the ANPR comes as the agency has sought public comment on repealing the Clean Power Plan, including a public hearing in West Virginia. EPA recently announced that it would host three additional hearings around the country, though dates are still being arranged.
Wehrum noted that it wasn't inconsistent for the agency to be considering both a repeal of the Clean Power Plan and a potential replacement.
"[The options are] on one end keeping it all as it is and on the other end making it all go away, and somewhere in between is occupying some of the ground that was occupied by the CPP, but maybe not all of it," he said.
Tomás Carbonell, lead attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund and a member of the advisory group, asked Wehrum whether the agency would be considering the environmental impacts of different proposals.
Wehrum replied that considering best demonstrated technology does not in itself include an analysis of the environmental benefits but on figuring out which technologies have been shown to work.
"Having said that, the effectiveness of control is obviously something we will look at and think about," he said.
A key question the ANPR seeks to answer is what authority the federal government has under Section 111(d) to regulate carbon emissions. The Obama administration had sought through the Clean Power Plan to create sectorwide emissions regulations, but the Trump administration has taken a much narrower view of the question.
"There are many, myself included, [who] believe the CPP got that wrong. I believe the CPP was more of a federal mandate and not a federal suggestion. I believe 111 actually requires ... EPA to set guidelines, but that states make the regulatory decisions," Wehrum said.
He noted that if a CPP replacement were on the books, the agency would have to eventually answer the question of whether existing state emission-control programs would be enough to fulfill that regulatory requirement.
Wehrum cautioned not to consider his comments an official decision of the agency.
"We've made no decisions," he said.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068823
-
Greens Question Exxon Mobil Settlement
Dec 13, 2017 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
A coalition of environmental groups is questioning whether a tentative settlement with Exxon Mobil Corp. is as hard-hitting as officially advertised.
The proposed consent decree, lodged with a federal court in late October, would require the Houston-based firm to take new steps to control and monitor flaring-related emissions at eight petrochemical plants in Texas and Louisiana at a projected cost of $300 million, according to a Justice Department summary.
But that estimate appears to include past expenditures, the Environmental Integrity Project and four other organizations said in an analysis filed late last week with the Justice Department.
While U.S. EPA has not explained the basis of the $300 million estimate, they wrote, "it appears that [Exxon Mobil] installed much of the equipment referenced in the consent decree before the consent decree was lodged to comply with pre-existing permit requirements" or to avoid triggering other regulatory prerequisites for recent expansions.
They also wrote that a 98 percent combustion efficiency requirement for some flaring operations may be weaker than the standards in the company's Texas permits. In a news release yesterday, they added that the proposed $2.5 million fine is small in relation to both Exxon Mobil's size and the 6,000 tons of volatile organic compounds "illegally released every year."
The Trump administration "held up this settlement to demonstrate that it is serious about protecting the environment, but how much of this is just hot air?" said Eric Schaeffer, a former EPA civil enforcement chief who is now executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project, in the release.
DOJ and EPA had held a joint Oct. 31 teleconference to herald both the tentative Exxon Mobil deal and a separate agreement with Colorado-based PDC Energy Inc. as evidence of their resolve to enforce the Clean Air Act (Greenwire, Oct. 31).
The proposed consent decree is still awaiting a judge's signature in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In an email this morning, DOJ spokesman Mark Abueg said the department "is committed to diligent prosecution of environmental violations and welcomes public input on this important settlement."
"We will be responding to public comments, including EIP's criticisms, as part of the judicial proceedings in this case," Abueg said.
The Environmental Integrity Project submitted the analysis on behalf of the Sierra Club's Lone Star Chapter, Public Citizen's Texas office, the Louisiana Bucket Brigade and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2017/12/13/stories/1060068921
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