Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 2/22
-
(ACC Blog) Using Plastics Means Less Waste in the First Place
Feb 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Governments. Businesses. NGOs. Everyday citizens. Today, many of us are taking important steps to help reduce waste and protect our environment. I think we can all agree that’s a very good thing. -
(ACC Mentioned) The Heat Is on Plastics. What's the Proper Response?
Feb 22, 2018 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
I was trading emails with a longtime plastics industry executive about the current state of the industry. He wasn’t happy. -
Companies Cut down on Plastic as Public Alarm Grows
Feb 22, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
By Danica Kirka
Big companies are making changes to their plastic use as consumers grow increasingly alarmed about plastic pollution that gets into marine ecosystems. -
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Deadline Caused Manufacturers 'Significant Issues'
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Chemical manufacturers in the US have reported difficulties reporting on their chemical use for the TSCA inventory deadline, according to industry associations. -
Plan for US Assessment of Uranium Published
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published its plan for the forthcoming assessment of specific risks associated with uranium, under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme. -
US Analysis Raises Concern about Household Chemical Product VOCs
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The proportion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions caused by household chemical products is rising relative to that from transportation, according to analysis by scientists in the US and Canada. -
MEPs Back Push for Global Ban on Cosmetics Animal Testing
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Members of a European Parliament committee have overwhelmingly approved a resolution that aims to establish a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics by 2023. -
Member States Back Classification of MIT as Allergen in Mixtures
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted to approve a harmonised classification of the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MIT) as an allergen in mixtures like paint and detergents. -
Echa Round-Up
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has updated the number of registrations received for the forthcoming May REACH deadline. -
EU Commission Authorises Three Uses of Sodium Dichromate
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has authorised applications for three uses of sodium dichromate, each with recommended review periods expiring on 21 September 2029. -
Unilever Reveals Fragrance Ingredients Online in UK, France
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer products giant Unilever has disclosed the fragrance ingredients in its personal care and home care products sold in the UK and France. -
Trump's Plan for Energy Star Sparks Industry Uproar
Feb 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is facing strong opposition in his drive to eliminate federal funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) popular Energy Star program. -
Midwest Utilities Quiet as EPA Continues Repeal Efforts
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
It was six hours into U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan listening session when Missouri's environmental regulator sat at the speakers' table, smiled for a photo taken by one of her deputies and launched into her short speech. -
BLM Revisions Don't Get to Heart of Local Troubles
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
If the Trump administration finalizes its proposal to change guidance for natural gas waste on public lands, a key region in the debate over the regulation may see some economic benefit. -
Cheniere Wants to Send More U.S. LNG to China
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A major U.S. liquefied natural gas exporter is looking to expand its customer base in China, promising investors good things to come. -
New Surge in Civil Lawsuits Tied to Deepwater Horizon Spill: Study
Feb 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A recent skyrocketing of filed federal civil environmental lawsuits is stemming from new decisions and settlements made related to the Deepwater Horizon lawsuit in Louisiana, according to a report released Wednesday. -
Industry Sees Gold in Trump's Infrastructure Push
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
The mining industry wants to turn the infrastructure push at the White House and on Capitol Hill into achieving its top goal: making permitting move faster. -
Where's Pruitt's Red-Team Debate?
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Scott Pruitt has been promoting a public climate science debate for most of his tenure atop U.S. EPA. But that effort appears stalled — at least for now.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Blog) Using Plastics Means Less Waste in the First Place
Feb 22, 2018 | American Chemistry Matters
By Steve Russell
Governments. Businesses. NGOs. Everyday citizens. Today, many of us are taking important steps to help reduce waste and protect our environment. I think we can all agree that’s a very good thing.
But earlier this week, the Editorial Board at the LA Times called for California to phase out all “single-use” plastics. This was a serious proposal. But if our goal is to reduce waste and shrink our environmental footprint, then acting on it would be a serious mistake.
There are good reasons certain products are designed for just one use, many of which center around promoting health and hygiene. Eliminating those products because they are made of plastic would deprive consumers of everyday products we depend on, such as bandages, contact lenses, diapers and the vast majority of our food packaging. (And that’s before we get to medical necessities, such as IV tubes and sterile packaging for things like syringes, pharmaceuticals, sutures, and gauze.)
The reason these and other essential products are made with plastic is because plastic does its job better than alternatives. Strong yet lightweight, plastics are incredibly efficient and often let us do more with less material, and that’s critical for reducing environmental impacts. Using less material in the first place is a tremendous environmental benefit that results in dramatic reductions in resource and energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and waste. A 2016 study by the firm Trucost found the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer goods and packaging is nearly four times less than if plastics were replaced with alternative materials. In other words, switching from plastics to alternatives would dramatically increase environmental impacts. Of course, no one wants that.
That’s not to say we as a society can’t do more to reduce waste, to reuse more, and to keep the plastic we do use out of the environment—including our oceans.
That’s why America’s plastics makers support efforts to phase out microbeads in rinse-off products, allow customers to choose not to take a straw if they don’t need one, and bring reusable bags shopping or recycle the bags they do use. Plus we led the formation of a global declaration aimed at bringing together plastics groups in other countries to help end marine litter.
In addition, we and our partners are investing in solutions to keep plastics in use and out of our oceans. Our vision is for every piece of post-use plastics to be recycled or remade into raw materials for new products—including, new plastics. Innovative technologies and programs promise to make this possible. Some of these include:Chemical recycling (or depolymerization), which converts used plastics back into the building blocks (i.e., monomers) of new plastic raw materialsRecycling programs for wraps, bags and other flexible packaging, like WRAP and Materials Recovery for the FutureCompatibilizers, which can boost the compatibility and performance properties of mixed recycled resinsPrograms that allow residents to bag non-recycled plastics and place them in their recycling carts to be processed into fuels or manufacturing feedstocks.
The quest for a more circular approach to managing our plastics resources is real, and it’s happening right now. Innovative approaches already underway are making real progress, so the plastics we use today can become the plastics we’ll rely on—for better health, hygiene and efficiency—in the future.
But doing the R&D and investing in these technologies is not enough. Because if editorial boards at major daily papers seriously think we can or should ban essential products like these, then that should be a wake-up call for all of us.
https://blog.americanchemistry.com/2018/02/using-plastics-means-less-waste-in-the-first-place/
-
(ACC Mentioned) The Heat Is on Plastics. What's the Proper Response?
Feb 22, 2018 | Plastics News
By Don Loepp
I was trading emails with a longtime plastics industry executive about the current state of the industry. He wasn’t happy.
He was upset by the news that Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, the majority leader of California’s state Assembly, had introduced a bill that would make it a crime for a sit-down restaurant to offer customers a straw with a beverage unless it was specifically requested.
The proposed penalty: up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
Criminalizing plastic? Is that necessary?
Until now, Plastics News had not written about the proposal because our general rule is that we only cover bills that have a realistic chance of passing. Any legislator can propose a bill. But if it can’t at least get out of a single committee, it’s just an exercise in generating publicity. And this one didn’t seem to have a prayer.
But quite a few mainstream newspapers and websites covered it anyway, and I had shared some of their reports on social media.
The plastics executive called the stories “incredible and distressingly disgusting.” He had made a living making plastics products. He wondered how we have gotten to this point where it’s socially acceptable to attack plastics or any other material.
Why can’t Calderon get on board with voluntary efforts to reduce waste? I asked. Why not encourage restaurants to hand out straws only upon request, instead of making it illegal? The American Chemistry Council, the trade group that represents most U.S. resin manufacturers, has embraced that approach.
Still, I understand his strategy. Unless threatened with action, industry may be unmotivated to change.
For plastics, this is nothing new. There’s always been a stigma attached to plastics, which have been branded as artificial, made from oil and full of toxic chemicals. Much of the criticism is misguided or inaccurate.
On the other hand, overuse of single-use plastics isn’t sustainable. We need to inject some common sense into this debate.
I’ve recently written that recyclers can help the industry deal with unfair attacks. But some readers are skeptical. We all know of plenty of major investments in plastics recycling that ended up failing and costing millions of dollars. But I’m still optimistic because I’ve seen plastics recycling work.
Some readers suggest that what’s needed is some sort of extended producer responsibility to help make recycling successful over the long term. I’ve offered editorial support to that concept for a long time, namely with bottle deposits. The plastics industry would be smart to get behind that now, but it doesn’t go far enough. I think we’re going to see more EPR legislation targeting specific products and maybe even some resins.
There are plenty of nonlegislative efforts happening, too. Brand owners and some major packaging companies have stepped up with recent commitments to use more recycled plastics. Industry attitudes seem to be changing. That’s a positive sign.
All that said, there’s one industry practice that annoys the environmental community more than any other: It’s the effort to stop cities from banning plastic products by passing laws on the state level that make local bans illegal. It’s the equivalent of Calderon’s straw law — legislation that goes too far in response to bans that don’t make sense in every community.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider what the proper response should be. What strategy is both reasonable and defensible?
Loepp is editor of Plastics News and author of “The Plastics Blog.”
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180222/BLOG01/180229958/the-heat-is-on-plastics-whats-the-proper-response
-
Companies Cut down on Plastic as Public Alarm Grows
Feb 22, 2018 | Associated Press (In E&E Greenwire)
By Danica Kirka
Big companies are making changes to their plastic use as consumers grow increasingly alarmed about plastic pollution that gets into marine ecosystems.
Over the last few months, several companies that together account for over 6 million metric tons of plastic packaging every year announced a commitment to switching to reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2025.
"Some of the companies that might have been seen as the worst offenders are the ones moving forward," said Abigail Entwistle of Fauna & Flora International, a 115-year-old conservation organization. "They have the most to lose."
Companies participating in the 2025 goal include Evian, Mars Inc., Coca-Cola, Walmart, PespsiCo Inc. and L'Oréal SA.
In addition, Adidas AG is using recycled plastic bottles to make clothes, and the British supermarket Iceland Foods Ltd. is phasing out plastic packaging from the products in its house brand.
"It's not about one innovation, one regulation, one action. We need all of them at the same time," said Rob Opsomer, who leads the Ellen MacArthur Foundation's New Plastics Economy project. "We need to have more and bolder ambitions."
Plastic that gets into oceans and rivers harms wildlife and enters the food chain.
At least one market research group says we could eventually see a "social stigmatization" of plastic cups and cling film.
"There is money to be made, but more importantly, there's money to be lost," said Ben Punchard, global packaging analyst at Mintel. "It is being used as a virtue signal. It's showing you are doing the right thing" (Danica Kirka, Associated Press, Feb. 21).
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074507
-
(ACC Mentioned) TSCA Deadline Caused Manufacturers 'Significant Issues'
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Chemical manufacturers in the US have reported difficulties reporting on their chemical use for the TSCA inventory deadline, according to industry associations.
Manufacturers and importers were required to file Notices of Activity (NOAs) by 7 February on their chemical use for the 'inventory reset rule', required under the reformed TSCA.
The data will be used to determine the substances active in commerce, ensure confidential business information (CBI) claims are current and to better focus the chemicals programme under section 6 of TSCA, which provides the EPA with the authority to prohibit or limit the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use or disposal of a chemical.
An EPA spokesperson confirmed the agency received more than 85,000 individual NOAs by the deadline, which he said "represents a significant effort by manufacturers".
He urged chemical manufacturers and importers who missed the deadline to file as soon as possible "so that the agency can accurately designate substances as active or inactive on the TSCA inventory at the close of the full retrospective submission period on 5 October". Industry problems
Robert Helminiak of the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (Socma) told Chemical Watch that "a large number" of its member companies had met the deadline. But he added that reporting through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) had presented "a number of difficulties".
Socma member companies experienced "system errors that caused entire submissions to essentially vanish, requiring additional time and effort to resubmit their notices".
He said that coordinating joint submissions with foreign supplier entities had also been "very challenging, since they are likely not familiar with the CDX platform".
"Collecting information in a multi-party supply chain also presents serious difficulties, since submitters who import may not be familiar (or in contact) with additional companies that manufactured or processed a substance and may run into confidentiality issues with ascertaining its particular chemical identity," he said.
Socma's members also said they did not receive enough support from the EPA during the process. Mr Helminiak said that formal guidance promised by the agency was never provided.
Although the EPA ran three informative webinars in Autumn 2017, he said the transcripts of these were published less than a week before the deadline.
Mr Helminiak added that Socma members had raised concerns about how quickly the agency would be able to produce a draft inventory for the remaining processor period.
"If the window between the release of the draft inventory and the close of the processor period is too narrow, there are chances that chemical substances may inaccurately be labelled as inactive," he said.
Jon Corley, a director in the communications department of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), said manufacturers and importers had experienced "significant issues" being able to provide notifications for mixtures with CBI protections.
This, he said was because the notifications required participation from at least two parties. "In some cases, a participant was a foreign supplier (or multiple foreign suppliers) with less understanding of the importance of, and how to participate in, the reset process."
He called on the EPA to conduct early outreach to processors, "including hosting webinars and posting questions and answers and other processor-specific guidance as soon as possible after the draft inventory is published".
Processors (downstream users) have until 5 October. They are not required to report, but must do so to avoid having a chemical labelled inactive.
Mr Corley added that the EPA should offer separate, specific training on the CDX platform to processors who may not be familiar with it.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64226/tsca-deadline-caused-manufacturers-significant-issues
-
Plan for US Assessment of Uranium Published
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has published its plan for the forthcoming assessment of specific risks associated with uranium, under the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) programme.
The assessment will exclude cancer and health effects caused by radiation, as well as exposures other than oral exposure. Additionally, it will focus on drinking water and consider both natural and depleted uranium, but not enriched uranium.
The agency's Office of Land and Emergency Management says it is interested in an assessment in relation to response or remedial actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Uranium mining, milling and processing have released uranium into the environment leading to elevated levels of uranium in affected soils and dusts. Evaluation of cleanup needs at sites with contamination generally requires assessment of both the risks from the chemical toxicity of uranium and the radiological risks, the plan says.
The agency's Office of Water says that it needs an IRIS assessment of uranium that examines the more recent literature. The EPA previously regulated uranium as a drinking water contaminant in 2000 based primarily on radiological effects, but also on kidney toxicity.
The plan says that absorbed uranium is retained in many organs. The highest levels are found in the bones, liver and kidneys.
The assessment will build on the toxicological profile published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 2013 and seek to derive an oral reference dose (RfD).
The EPA has launched a 30-day public consultation period. Interested parties have until 2 March to submit comments.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64270/plan-for-us-assessment-of-uranium-published
-
US Analysis Raises Concern about Household Chemical Product VOCs
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The proportion of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emissions caused by household chemical products is rising relative to that from transportation, according to analysis by scientists in the US and Canada.
Cars and other vehicles powered by petroleum fuels emit VOCs, which react to produce fine particulate matter and ozone, both of which are harmful to the respiratory tract.
However, the study found that while emissions from transportation are falling, those from volatile chemical products are declining more slowly. Such products include:coatings;printing inks;adhesives;cleaning agents;personal care products; andpesticides.
The report authors say that household chemical products can therefore be judged as an emerging source of urban VOCs. They point out that exposure to air pollution is the fifth-ranking human health risk factor globally, following malnutrition, dietary risks, high blood pressure and tobacco.
The scientists, led by Brian McDonald at the University of Colorado, support their conclusion with:energy and chemical production statistics;measurements of transportation emissions taken by the road, together with laboratory testing of chemical products;ambient air measurements away from the road; andindoor air measurements.
They say that the composition of chemical products has changed to address issues relating to ozone. In particular, product stewards have removed chlorofluorocarbons and switched solvents for water.
But regulations in the US exempt many chemicals that lead to secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), the precursors for fine particulate matter levels.Significant contribution
Their analysis suggests that volatile chemical products have begun to contribute significantly to formation of such SOAs outdoors.
Straight, branched and cyclic alkanes accounted for 42 ± 4% of SOA formation potential from volatile chemical products. They were followed by:oxygenated VOCs (29 ± 12%);alkenes and terpenes (17 ± 5%); andaromatics (12 ± 3%).
Furthermore, the SOAs generated were diverse. The use of petroleum distillates was a major source of heavier alkanes and cycloalkanes (C5 to C15), as well as aromatics, such as toluene and xylenes. Fragrances were also major contributors, most prominently of limonene, a-pinene, b-pinene and 3-carene.
The scientists add that the fraction of fine particulate matter from volatile chemical products will grow as diesel particle filters and oxidation catalysts become more widespread.
The research is published in Science.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64232/us-analysis-raises-concern-about-household-chemical-product-vocs
-
MEPs Back Push for Global Ban on Cosmetics Animal Testing
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Members of a European Parliament committee have overwhelmingly approved a resolution that aims to establish a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics by 2023.
During an Environment Committee meeting on Tuesday, the resolution – drafted by eight MEPs in October last year – received 63 votes supporting it and one abstention. It will now be put to a vote at the European Parliament's March plenary session in Strasbourg.
The resolution calls on the European Commission, Council and member states to:advocate for a global ban on animal testing for cosmetics in meetings with institutions from other countries, regions and at the international level, in particular with the UN secretary-general;use their diplomatic networks to build a coalition in support of achieving a global ban;draft an international convention against the testing of animals for cosmetics within the UN framework and, in particular, to call for the global ban to be included as an item on the agenda of the next meeting of the UN General Assembly; andmake sure that the EU ban is not weakened by any ongoing trade negotiations, or by WTO rules.
The sale of all animal-tested cosmetics has been banned in the EU since 2013 under the Cosmetics Products Regulation. The resolution says that the EU’s "landmark ban" has successfully shown that phasing-out animal testing for cosmetics is possible.
Other countries, such as Guatemala, Iceland, India, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Turkey, have since put in place bans. In addition, South Korea and Australia have made "significant progress" towards such a ban, the resolution says.
However, the push for a global ban is being proposed because around 80% of the world’s countries still allow animal testing and the marketing of cosmetics tested on animals.
The European Commission did not comment on specific parts of the resolution but told Chemical Watch that it has been promoting the EU model at the international level and is following the proposal closely "with interest".Impact on industry
The resolution says that the EU ban on animal testing has not jeopardised the sector’s development, which is instead "thriving" as the largest market for cosmetics products in the world. It also says that compliance with the testing and marketing bans in place is very high.
However, the lack of complete and reliable animal-testing data for cosmetics imported into the EU from countries where animal tests are still required, remains a "serious issue" that needs to be tackled as a priority.'Not a magic bullet'
Troy Seidle, vice president of research and toxicology at NGO the Humane Society International, told Chemical Watch that although a UN treaty could have value from a "symbolic perspective", the reality is that most major beauty markets are already working to bring their cosmetic legislation in line with Europe.
"While it's true that 80% of countries do not expressly prohibit cosmetics animal testing, that doesn't mean that it is actually taking place in these countries."
If a country is not home to a manufacturing industry for cosmetic products or ingredients, there may be no cosmetic animal testing to ban, he adds.
Meaningful change, says Mr Seidle, comes by targeting major cosmetic-producing nations and steering their beauty sector towards the cruelty-free model.
"Having a UN treaty in place can't hurt, but it's unlikely to be a magic bullet either."
Julia Baines, science policy advisor for Peta UK, told Chemical Watch that although a UN treaty cannot guarantee a global ban on cosmetics tests on animals, it would be a bold and progressive step in the right direction.
"It would encourage China and the few remaining countries that do mandate testing to modernise and stop blinding, poisoning and killing animals for lipstick, mascara, blusher and other products."
But, says Dr Baines, even in the EU there are "loopholes" that allow animal-tested cosmetics to be sold in the region. She says that under REACH, the European Commission and Echa permit tests on animals for cosmetics ingredients under certain circumstances. And some companies, whose products are tested on animals in China, are marketing these same products in Europe, she adds.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64233/meps-back-push-for-global-ban-on-cosmetics-animal-testing
-
Member States Back Classification of MIT as Allergen in Mixtures
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
EU member states have voted to approve a harmonised classification of the preservative methylisothiazolinone (MIT) as an allergen in mixtures like paint and detergents.
The vote by members of the REACH committee on 20 February means that such mixtures must be labelled when they contain more than 0.0015% of MIT – a limit value lowered from 1%.
In addition, those mixtures must bear the warning "Contains methylisothiazolinone. May cause an allergic skin reaction."
The decision amends Annex VI of the CLP Regulation, as part of the European Commission’s adaptation to technical progress.
The Commission’s 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.MIT controls
The Danish EPA has worked with the country’s allergy knowledge centre to investigate allergic reactions to the substance and has pushed for EU-wide controls.
The head of the EPA’s chemicals unit, Isabelle Navarro Vinten, says the agency has seen evidence of allergies to MIT "since the drug was allowed in cosmetics in 2005". There have also been "several bad cases" of MIT allergy "directly related to paint", she adds.
Consumers can avoid MIT by choosing Swan-ecolabelled cosmetics and by reading content declarations on paint and detergents, she says.
The Commission’s ban on the use of MIT in cosmetic ‘leave-on’ products, such as deodorants and creams, came into force in February 2017. Meanwhile, a lower limit of MIT from 0.01% to 0.0015% in 'rinse-off' products, such as shampoo and soap, will be implemented from 28 April.
The substance has been also restricted in toys for children under three years and toys intended to come into the mouth since November last year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64277/member-states-back-classification-of-mit-as-allergen-in-mixtures
-
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
REACH statistics updateEcha has updated the number of registrations received for the forthcoming May REACH deadline. As of 16 February, 15,817 registrations had been submitted for 6,764 substances. Germany, the UK and France have submitted the most registrations.Evidence call on three chromates
The agency is assessing the need for a proposal to restrict the use of three lead chromates:lead chromate;lead sulfochromate yellow; andlead chromate molybdate sulphate red.
Interested parties should submit any information they have on the substances by 9 April.Tips on avoiding unnecessary animal testing
Echa has highlighted its guide giving companies advice on how to avoid unnecessary animal testing.
Under REACH, testing on vertebrate animals such as rats, other mammals and fish, can only be used as a last resort to fulfil information requirements for registration.Iuclid Cloud tutorial
The agency has made available a tutorial showing users how to create the lead registrant dossier for a joint submission in the Iuclid Cloud and how to submit it using REACH-IT. It is accessible via the Euchemicals YouTube channel.Questions from stakeholders' day
Echa said it was not able to answer all the online questions it received when it held its REACH stakeholders' day at the end of last month. Therefore, it has published a list of 50 unanswered questions and their answers. The document is available on Echa's website.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64274/echa-round-up
-
EU Commission Authorises Three Uses of Sodium Dichromate
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has authorised applications for three uses of sodium dichromate, each with recommended review periods expiring on 21 September 2029.
AkzoNobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals AB (Sweden), AkzoNobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals Oy (Finland) and AkzoNobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals SAS (France) are permitted to use the substance as:an additive for suppressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of sodium chlorate with or without subsequent production of chlorine dioxide.
Meanwhile, AkzoNobel Pulp and Performance Chemicals AB (Sweden) has been granted authorisation to use sodium dichromate as:an additive for suppressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of potassium chlorate.
And Arkema France is permitted to use the substance as:an additive for suppressing parasitic reactions and oxygen evolution, pH buffering and cathode corrosion protection in the electrolytic manufacture of sodium chlorate with or without subsequent production of chlorine dioxide or sodium chlorite.
Sodium dichromate is listed on REACH Annex XIV – the authorisation list – due to its carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic qualities.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64278/eu-commission-authorises-three-uses-of-sodium-dichromate
-
Unilever Reveals Fragrance Ingredients Online in UK, France
Feb 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Consumer products giant Unilever has disclosed the fragrance ingredients in its personal care and home care products sold in the UK and France.
The ingredient listing for brands including Cif, Vaseline, Persil, Lynx, Dove, Domestos, Radox, Simple and Sure has been published on the company's What’s In Our Products webpage in the two countries.
Information is provided about fragrance ingredients above 0.01% (100 parts per million).
The page also provides information about Unilever’s approach to developing safe products, explanations of ingredient types and support for people with allergies to find suitable products.
The company has pledged to roll out the effort to the rest of Europe by the end of 2018.
It is the latest step in Unilever's transparency initiative, which saw it reveal fragrance ingredient information for almost 100 products in the US online and on its SmartLabel app last year.
Unilever chief research and development officer, David Blanchard, said the company is delivering on its promise to "give people the information they need to choose the right products for them".'Smart move'
Peter Pierrou of the NGO ChemSec called on other companies to follow Unilever's lead. "Disclosing ingredients should be the norm, not the other way around. Unfortunately too many companies hide behind the so-called 'CBI excuse' – confidential business information," he told Chemical Watch.
This, he said, "is very often used to hide unwanted ingredients in products, which leaves clients and customers in the dark about the inherent risks of their products."
Unilever has solved this issue by withholding a small percentage of the fragrance content and only disclosing the chemical name, not the weight or amount in order to protect the proprietary information.
"It's a smart move that will put them ahead of the competition, not only in terms of satisfying their customers who are asking for transparency, but also in terms of emerging legislation. This puts pressure on other companies to do the same," Mr Pierrou said.
Other companies to launch similar initiatives include cleaning products giant SC Johnson, which discloses its fragrance palette on its transparency website. This covers 52 countries and is available in 34 languages.
https://chemicalwatch.com/64268/unilever-reveals-fragrance-ingredients-online-in-uk-france
-
Trump's Plan for Energy Star Sparks Industry Uproar
Feb 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
President Trump is facing strong opposition in his drive to eliminate federal funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) popular Energy Star program.
With the Department of Energy’s help, the voluntary Energy Star program sets efficiency benchmarks for appliances, electronics, building materials, lighting and other products, and lets companies use the Energy Star label on products that meet the specifications.
In his budget request to Congress for fiscal year 2019, Trump asked lawmakers to eliminate the $42 million in federal funding for the program. He instead proposed allowing the EPA to fund the energy efficiency certification through fees charged to companies that use it. The idea has been pushed in conservative circles for years.
The Trump administration and supporters of the plan say it would shift the burden for its costs to the companies that benefit from it.
“By administering the Energy Star program through the collection of user fees, EPA would continue to provide a trusted resource for consumers and businesses who want to purchase products that save them money and help protect the environment,” the agency told lawmakers in its budget request.
“Entities participating in the program would pay a fee that would offset the costs for managing and administering the program.”
But groups that represent manufacturers, retailers, utilities, environmentalists and others who benefit from the program are lining up against Trump’s plan.
They cite, among other things, the estimated $30 billion in energy savings that users of Energy Star products achieve each year, arguing that it’s a hugely successful program that should be embraced.
“Placing the burden solely on the manufacturers that use the label isn’t really fair,” said Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, which counts among its members appliance makers, utilities and others interested in energy efficiency.
“The ultimate beneficiaries of this are the consumers who are saving money,” Callahan said, adding to the list states with efficiency standards, schools and building owners.
“The beneficiaries are so wide. And we’re all benefitting when we’re avoiding greenhouse gas emissions.”Lowell Ungar, senior policy adviser at the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, said the proposal is “highly problematic.”
“We’re glad that they’re not proposing to eliminate the program. That’s certainly a step forward,” Ungar said, pointing to Trump’s previous budget request, which sought to abolish Energy Star altogether.
“Certainly the concern is whether this is a viable business plan, when there is no business plan,” Ungar said. “Can they actually raise enough money to run the program? Who’s going to pay for it? How is this going to work?”
Any change to the fee structure would require congressional action. The EPA said it would then go through a regulatory process to set the fee structure in a way that’s fair and takes into account various stakeholder concerns.
Trump’s proposal last year to eliminate Energy Star was also met with significant backlash. More than 1,000 companies and groups signed onto a letter in April to leading congressional appropriations leaders supporting the program.
The House ended up voting to preserve Energy Star, but cut its funding to $31 million. The Senate never voted on an appropriations bill for the EPA.
Energy Star has long enjoyed bipartisan support among lawmakers, who see it as a boon to consumers, retailers and manufacturers in their state, all at a relatively low cost to the government.
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee that oversees the EPA’s budget, pledged to fight for Energy Star.
“Energy Star is a win-win for businesses and consumers that has saved Americans more than $400 billion on their utility bills over the past 25 years. I’ve heard from builders, realtors, manufacturers, and retailers and they all support this important program,” she said in a statement.
“It is deeply disappointing that the Trump administration wants to discontinue direct funding for Energy Star, increase costs for consumers, and make it harder for our country to conserve energy and protect natural resources.”
Sen. Tom Udall (N.M.), the top Democrat on the Senate's EPA funding panel, said he is "skeptical at best" about Trump's idea.
"The Pruitt EPA appears determined to undermine the EPA in every way possible, so it's not surprising that they even took aim at the popular, bipartisan and consumer-friendly Energy Star program," he said.
The program’s backers are also worried that switching to a reliance on industry funding would erode its standing as an objective certification.
“One of the main strengths of the Energy Star program has been independence and the integrity that the government brings,” said Noah Horowitz, director for energy efficiency standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“If Energy Star is dependent on industry funding, that could create some difficult situations where the independence of the program could be challenged.”
But conservative advocates who want the government out of the energy efficiency business say Trump’s proposal is a step in the right direction.
“If companies want to contribute some sort of fee to fund the general awareness of the savings associated with energy conservation, that’s fine,” said Nick Loris, an economist at the Heritage Foundation.
“I would still question why it needs to be overseen by the federal government in an era when we have more access to information than ever for when companies want to promote their energy efficient appliances.”
Loris conceded that the $42 million price tag for Energy Star is not the main driving factor behind his opposition. He said the government simply has no place in advocating for energy efficiency.
“I think there’s a whole range of reasons why a household may not choose to purchase the most energy efficiency light bulb or appliance or invest in energy efficient windows,” he said.
Myron Ebell, director for energy and environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed that Trump’s proposal is a good first step.
“The companies that benefit from Energy Star labeling should pay for the program,” he said. “The next step would be to privatize Energy Star. There are many similar successful programs funded by the affected industry that provide independent testing, monitoring, and labeling of products.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/374940-trumps-plan-for-energy-star-sparks-industry-uproar
-
Midwest Utilities Quiet as EPA Continues Repeal Efforts
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Jeffrey Tomich
It was six hours into U.S. EPA's Clean Power Plan listening session when Missouri's environmental regulator sat at the speakers' table, smiled for a photo taken by one of her deputies and launched into her short speech.
"Missouri believes the Clean Power Plan as it was originally promulgated was intended for one purpose and one purpose only — to shut down the nation's coal-fired power plants," said Carol Comer, director of the state's Department of Natural Resources.
Comer went on to question the benefits of using the Clean Power Plan to slash power-sector carbon emissions as promised by President Obama's EPA, especially compared with compliance cost estimates put forward by critics of the rule.
Comer knows the talking points well, having come to Missouri from Indiana, where she headed Indiana's Department of Environmental Management under Vice President Mike Pence when he was the state's governor. Comer was also rumored to be under consideration for EPA administrator.
But on this day, harsh criticism of the Obama administration's signature effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions was the exception. Aside from Comer and a few others, Clean Power Plan opponents generally stayed home. So did most coal-burning utilities, many of which have accelerated plans to replace aging power plants with wind farms and solar arrays.
Instead, three hearing rooms in the basement of a U.S. Department of Agriculture office building in southeastern Kansas City were filled mostly with local residents and activists from the Sierra Club and other groups who took turns imploring the Trump administration to leave the Clean Power Plan intact.
The agency, led by Scott Pruitt, a staunch critic of the regulation when he was Oklahoma's attorney general, has argued the rule goes beyond the scope of the Clean Air Act. Earlier this month, Pruitt's EPA renewed its request that federal judges keep Clean Power Plan litigation on hold, as the agency moves forward with a plan to repeal and possibly replace the rule.
In Kansas City, dozens of speakers shared personal stories about family members suffering from asthma and other respiratory diseases. They recited statistics about the jobs and other economic benefits associated with new wind, solar and energy efficiency investments. And they spoke on the effects of climate change and dangers of failing to rein in greenhouse gas emissions.
"I'm a bit appalled that we're even having this hearing," said Peter Lavaute, a farmer from rural Howard County in central Missouri. "I'm just amazed that we're talking about taking steps backward instead of going forward."
Also speaking out against repeal of the Clean Power Plan was Kansas City Mayor Sly James (D), one of the 236 mayors who signed a letter Tuesday urging Trump not to repeal the Clean Power Plan.
"While climate change may be global, the effects of climate change are felt local," James said, noting that hotter, longer summers and heavier, more frequent rainstorms associated with climate change are putting increasing pressure on the city's infrastructure.
James said Kansas City is taking steps to address climate change, such as moving to cleaner compressed natural gas vehicles and establishing a 100 percent renewable energy goal. But more cooperation from state and federal government would help those efforts.
"They sit in buildings and legislate and obfuscate and talk about issues," he said. "But when push comes to shove, we're the ones that have to come to operate the hospitals; we're the ones that have to take care of the poor."Energy transition
The arguments made yesterday aren't materially different from the ones made four years ago, when many of the same parties filled a room at EPA's Region 7 headquarters in Lenexa, Kan., to sound off on the Obama administration's plan to limit carbon emissions.
More than political power and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have changed since the last "listening session."
Coal-burning utilities across the Midwest, many of which pushed back against the Clean Power Plan or joined a lawsuit to stop it, have since stepped up plans to shut down aging plants. Meanwhile, they have put forward their own carbon reduction goals, have embraced renewable energy and, in many cases, are doing so at a savings to ratepayers.
Clean energy advocates say the trend undercuts warnings by Clean Power Plan opponents that the rule would lead to steep electric rate increases.
Ashok Gupta, an energy economist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the carbon rule would only further a transition already underway.
"The Clean Power Plan would be great for the economy of this region," he said. "It would lower electricity costs, it would create jobs, and it would align with the clean energy goals of the Midwest utilities and cities."
Gupta said the rule was written with flexibility to let states choose how best to meet the carbon reduction targets, realizing that most older coal plants would be hard-pressed to run more efficiently.
But Jim Gulliford, EPA's administrator for Region 7, disagreed with the characterization.
"It's not like we're giving them flexibility," he said in an interview with E&E News. "We're requiring them to do something."
Even without the Clean Power Plan, market forces are driving the energy-sector transition, Gulliford said.
"We like the fact that that has resulted in a greater diversification than we've ever had and power companies are looking at alternatives in terms of how they manage resources and how they put together the mix that best serves their constituents," he said.'We'll react to it'
One of the utilities making the transition away from coal is Kansas City Power & Light Co.
While coal still fuels 44 percent of the utility's power plants, the company continues to shut down older fossil plants, add more wind and solar generation to its fuel mix, and reduce energy use through energy efficiency programs. KCP&L has reduced CO2 emissions by 39 percent from 2010 to 2017 as a result, said Paul Ling, director of compliance.
In fact, in a 2016 filing with Missouri regulators, Ling said KCP&L is "in position to comply" with the Clean Power Plan in both Missouri and Kansas "assuming a reasonable state plan is developed in each state."
Still, the utility urged EPA yesterday to repeal the regulation and replace it with a new version with a focus on more narrowly tailored "inside the fenceline" emissions reductions.
"Responsible, cost-effective regulation that is consistent with the agency's statutory authority will provide regulatory certainty while promoting the environment and the economy," Ling said.
Meanwhile, Comer, the Missouri environmental regulator, said EPA should repeal the Clean Power Plan and scrap plans for a replacement.
In an interview after her comments, Comer said she couldn't speak to the state's policy stance on climate change. She also didn't answer whether she believes that humans are the primary cause of climate change.
But if another rule is proposed that addresses climate change, "we'll react to it," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074469
-
BLM Revisions Don't Get to Heart of Local Troubles
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Pamela King
If the Trump administration finalizes its proposal to change guidance for natural gas waste on public lands, a key region in the debate over the regulation may see some economic benefit.
But gains for energy operators in northwest New Mexico — and elsewhere — could come at an annual cost of $23 million in lost royalty payments to the public, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report.
That loss has been overlooked in the Bureau of Land Management's proposed update to the 2016 Methane and Waste Prevention Rule, said Amanda Leiter, who served as deputy assistant secretary of land and minerals management at the Interior Department, overseeing BLM under former President Obama.
"This is not a waste of private resources that are owned by these oil and gas companies," said Leiter, who is now a professor at the American University Washington College of Law. "It is a waste of the public's mineral resource wealth."
BLM's proposed revisions, which were revealed last week and are scheduled to appear in today's Federal Register, would relinquish cost savings between $629 million and $824 million from gas recovery over a 10-year period.
"We worked pretty carefully through the costs and benefits of [the 2016 rule], recognizing that operators would be able to sell any gas that the rule required them to capture," Leiter said.
In its rule rewrite, BLM calculated a net benefit of $625 million to $900 million over a decade. But the benefits come from reduced industry compliance costs (Energywire, Feb. 15).
"Right now, the industry is externalizing the cost of the wasted gas on the public," Leiter said. "All we were doing was asking them to internalize the costs of their business."
BLM's 2016 rule captured attention in New Mexico in part because it introduced new requirements for an industry whose decline had depleted state coffers (Energywire, July 5, 2017).
Opponents and backers of the 2016 regulation have raised concerns about the rulemaking's impact on local revenues. Critics of the original rule said it would squeeze producers — especially the small ones — in towns once buoyed by booming oil and gas production.
"The impacts of BLM's Obama-era venting and flaring rule would be devastating to the economy of New Mexico, which relies on the production of energy resources for thousands of jobs along with roughly 30-40 percent of the state's operating funds," Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) said in a statement. "The full implementation of this rule would directly threaten funding for schools, teachers, hospitals, law enforcement and other essential services our communities rely on."
Independent analysts say oil prices — not federal regulations — are the primary driver of industry performance (Energywire, Aug. 4, 2017).
Supporters of the 2016 rule see the Trump administration's changes as a threat to BLM's ability to collect royalties on wasted gas. For Don Schreiber, a New Mexico rancher and proponent of the Obama-era rule, last week's revisions lose sight of what he sees as BLM's "North Star" goal of waste minimization.
"I'm lost in the details here," he said. "I'm lost in the arguments."
Alongside colleagues from the pro-conservation Western Leaders Network, Schreiber fought to save the 2016 rule when it faced the possibility of congressional repeal early last year (Energywire, May 11, 2017).
Schreiber and others have pointed to a methane hot spot above the Four Corners region as one reason for BLM to crack down on gas flaring, leaking and venting on public lands (Energywire, Aug. 16, 2016). Natural gas is composed primarily of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
He said he will be participating in BLM's 60-day comment period, which opens today.
"It is critical to participate and not simply throw in the towel," Schreiber said. "How strongly you make those comments and in what fashion you do that is very important.
"I'm certainly not going to give up at this point."'A world of hurt'
Over the last few months, rising oil prices have lifted New Mexico's economy slightly, but the state, particularly its gas-rich northwest corner, is miles away from boom-time riches.
"New Mexico is still in a world of hurt," said Carla Sonntag, president of the New Mexico Business Coalition.
During the push to kill the Obama rule in Congress, Sonntag frequently cited an estimate that the regulation could shut in thousands of wells in her region. Retrofits could run up to $50,000 per well, she said.
Creators of the 2016 rule have highlighted provisions that granted exemptions for marginal wells (Energywire, March 13, 2017).
Sonntag said she recognized the authors' intent to protect against shuttered wells but questioned how the original rule would have been implemented.
"When you see new rules go into effect, there are unintended consequences," she said. "It's just the way that it happens."
Although BLM's latest revisions may provide some relief for New Mexico operators, it's unlikely to spur an economic renaissance in the gas patch, said Tom Taylor, a member of the nonprofit Four Corners Economic Development and a former Republican state legislator.
"We have a huge problem because our state is an energy-based economy," he said. "If we today went back to the level of drilling and production that we were at 10 years ago, it would happen with one-third of the people, because they know how to do it cheaper and quicker."
Taylor said he disagreed with the 2016 rule but is only somewhat hopeful that the Trump administration can change the game for energy firms operating on public lands.
"I'm pretty fatalistic about this," he said.Lawsuits expected
Of the two provisions of the 2016 rule BLM has said it would keep, neither addresses core waste minimization concerns, Leiter said.
Those elements offer BLM the flexibility to raise onshore oil and gas royalty rates above 12.5 percent.
"I'm glad they're not changing those, but that doesn't get to the underlying waste prevention problem," Leiter said.
The remaining provisions certainly don't address GAO's earlier findings that the Interior Department, including BLM, was deficient in its duties to protect against fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer resources, Leiter said (Energywire, Feb. 27, 2017).
But that may not matter much, she added.
"The recommendations are very strong, but it's not as though the GAO has authority to override what the president views as his election mandate, which is to reduce regulations," Leiter said.
This administration's focus on relieving regulatory burdens shouldered by the fossil fuel industries may leave the rule vulnerable to legal challenges, she said.
"We worked pretty hard to put out a strong justification for why the approaches we were requiring were cost-effective and made sense," Leiter said. "Agencies can and do reverse course, but they have to explain why their new approach is also supported by the science and the technology.
"I question whether they'll be able to do this," she said.
Industry groups have indicated that they are prepared to defend the latest iteration of the BLM rule. Expected litigation would add a new step to the regulation's twisted path through the courts (Energywire, Feb. 15).
"The new rule is a vast improvement over the original, as it adheres to BLM's authority to regulate waste," said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma. "We wouldn't be in the courts today if the original rule had just stuck to BLM's authority and not included air quality regulations that are the responsibility of states and EPA."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074423
-
Cheniere Wants to Send More U.S. LNG to China
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Nathanial Gronewold
A major U.S. liquefied natural gas exporter is looking to expand its customer base in China, promising investors good things to come.
In a call with analysts yesterday, Cheniere Energy Inc. CEO Jack Fusco said the company's recently signed long-term LNG supply agreement with China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) is only the beginning. He said it has opened an office in Beijing staffed with locals and is coordinating its global operations in an effort to get more Chinese customers to sign up for importing large volumes of U.S. LNG.
More deals with Chinese customers could also compel Cheniere to expand an under-construction LNG export platform in Corpus Christi, Texas. The company is close to an investment decision on a third liquefaction train at Corpus Christi LNG.
The CNPC contract will help executives "build upon Cheniere's growing activities and presence in China, including more than 35 cargoes of LNG delivered from Sabine Pass and opening up an office in Beijing in a broad and intense effort involving Cheniere employees from across our offices in Beijing, Houston, Washington, London and Singapore," Fusco said.
"We are honored to be involved in this historic deal, the first direct, long-term LNG supply contract between a Chinese company and a U.S. LNG exporter," Fusco added. "It is a significant milestone in energy cooperation between the U.S. and China."
Cheniere presented investors with a bullish outlook on its China business during yesterday's fourth-quarter and full-year 2017 financial earnings call. The company says it shipped more than 200 cargoes in total of LNG from its flagship operation at Sabine Pass on the Texas-Louisiana border.
The top three destinations for exports were Mexico, South Korea and China, in that order. Over time, China may rise to become its No. 1 export destination. Market experts say China topped South Korea as the second-largest market last year for the world's LNG shipments overall, and some believe the Middle Kingdom is destined to surpass Japan as the world's largest LNG importer.
Fusco said the booming sales to China last year cannot be attributed to a mean winter alone. "It was their blue sky initiative," he said. "In China, they are serious about minimizing their coal-fired power production and coal-fired heating to increase their air quality, and having been there multiple times, I can tell you they need to be extremely serious about it. The air quality in Beijing has a long ways to go yet to where it's healthy to breathe."
When prompted, Chief Commercial Officer Anatol Feygin clarified that Cheniere's contract with CNPC does not preclude it from seeking other customers in China in any way.
"It does not limit us from any other discussions with any Chinese buyers, and you should assume that we're all over that market," he said.
Last year, Cheniere sent cargoes of U.S. LNG to ports throughout the world. Customers were as varied as the Dominican Republic, Lithuania, Malta, Kuwait, Thailand and Chile. The company identified 25 countries as destinations for its LNG shipments last year.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074465
-
New Surge in Civil Lawsuits Tied to Deepwater Horizon Spill: Study
Feb 22, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A recent skyrocketing of filed federal civil environmental lawsuits is stemming from new decisions and settlements made related to the Deepwater Horizon lawsuit in Louisiana, according to a report released Wednesday.
During the last quarter, which ended January 2018, 745 civil environmental lawsuits were filed in federal court, a big jump from the 198 suits filed the previous quarter, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.
That data shows an overall 276-percent increase in civil environmental lawsuits filed in the four-month period. In January of this year alone, 172 cases were filed, according to the study.
The majority of the cases in the past quarter were driven by litigation in the Eastern District of Louisiana in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the study found.
The 2010 disaster in the Gulf of Mexico killed 11 workers on the rig, which was leased to oil and gas giant BP at the time, and ultimately released 4.9 million barrels of oil into the ocean over a 87-day period. The catastrophe has cost BP more than $60 billion.
While the disaster occurred nearly a decade ago, the litigation process has been slow. Funds from BP's 2016 settlement first became available last April to states affected by the spill. So far this year, the court has released orders on a number of medical benefits settlements and damages claims.
The report also found that nearly half of all of the federal civil environmental litigation filed either between companies, against the government or by the government between 2014 and end of January 2018 were filed in the same district in Louisiana.
"Clearly rulings and setting deadlines to do things generates activity," said TRAC's director Susan Long of the Deepwater Horizon new court settlements. "It’s not hard because this is a multi-district litigation. There are lots of parties here. It’s just huge litigation—as you can see you can really drive the numbers. Initially we said, 'Oh wow (lawsuits are) up,' and then we looked to see what accounted for it."
The report found that when taking out the environmental litigation stemming from the Louisiana gulf spill, federal civil environmental suits filed have actually steadily dropped overall from their height in the October 2016 quarter.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/375074-deepwater-horizon-decisions-driving-huge-increase-in-civil
-
Industry Sees Gold in Trump's Infrastructure Push
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Dylan Brown
The mining industry wants to turn the infrastructure push at the White House and on Capitol Hill into achieving its top goal: making permitting move faster.
Developers of the Pebble gold and copper venture in southwestern Alaska see themselves as an example of what's wrong with the system — bureaucracy, environmental opposition and litigation.
Now, like other companies, Pebble backers want to benefit from reforms envisioned as part of Washington's effort to improve roads, bridges, railroads, ports and energy systems. They're also looking for relief in a law already in the books.
In a July 28, 2017, letter, obtained by mine opponents through the Freedom of Information Act, Pebble LP asked the Trump administration to add mining to the list of industries eligible for streamlined permitting under the nation's last major infrastructure overhaul.
The 2015 Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act condenses the National Environmental Policy Act process for "covered projects" from certain sectors if investment tops $200 million and more than two regulatory agencies are involved in the review.
The interagency panel created by the FAST Act, the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC), can add another industry to the list by majority vote.
"The Pebble Partnership is not seeking to avoid rigorous environmental review," Pebble CEO Tom Collier wrote. "We seek only to avoid the unnecessary delays that have frequently occurred on such projects in the past."
The National Mining Association, which supports putting its activities on the FAST Act list, contends that a mine usually takes seven to 10 years to approve, while environmentalists point to the two-year average found by a 2016 Government Accountability Office report (E&E News PM, Feb. 22, 2016).
Pebble's mine plan includes already-eligible work — a new power plant, roads and a port — but the company wants to "remove any doubt."
"Ensuring that the mining industry has access to processes set out in the FAST Act will be a small but important contribution to keeping our domestic mining industry competitive," Collier wrote.
That mirrors the goal of President Trump's recent executive order on critical minerals — elements deemed essential to national or economic security.
A recent draft list of such minerals helped underline long-running industry and Republican concerns about the nation's dependence on foreign sources (Greenwire, Feb. 19).A procedure, but no vote
Despite the president's ambitions to boost American mining, FAST Act changes have yet to occur.
In August, the acting FPISC executive director, Janet Pfleeger, gave each agency's chief environmental review and permitting officer a template response to Pebble.
"The Permitting Council is working to develop policies and procedures for adding additional sectors to FAST-41," Pfleeger wrote in an August email obtained by mine opponents.
On Dec. 14, Pfleeger signed off on a new standard operating procedure, obtained by environmental law firm Earthjustice.
A council member can submit a request and information making the case to add an industry. After reviewing the materials, the council votes. "There is not currently a vote scheduled to add any sectors," an FPISC spokesman said.
That has not stopped critics from scoffing at Pebble's claims that it wants a thorough scientific review of the project, which Alaska Native and fishing interests believe poses a dire threat to salmon-rich Bristol Bay.
"The company's request for expedited permitting — made months before a mine plan was even released — completely undercuts this earlier assertion," Bristol Bay Native Corp.'s Dan Cheyette said in a statement. "Alaskans have good reason to be concerned about the federal permitting corners [Pebble] is trying to cut."
Pebble spokesman Mike Heatwole said the company and industry colleagues will continue working to make NEPA more efficient without compromising environmental protection.
"All of us continue to look at a range of initiatives for finding ways to accomplish this," he said.Trump plan
One way may be through the White House infrastructure plan, which doesn't mention mining explicitly but is replete with permitting reform proposals (Greenwire, Feb. 12).
"Specificity is always welcomed, but we're satisfied that the intention in the executive order is there," NMA spokesman Luke Popovich said. "After all, we're the front end of the supply chain."
Many of the president's proposals mirror legislation the House is looking to pass for a third time, H.R. 520, from Nevada Republican Rep. Mark Amodei (E&E Daily, Feb. 16). A key provision would task one agency with taking the lead on environmental reviews.
The White House plan requires the lead agency "to develop a single Federal environmental review document to be utilized by all agencies, and a single ROD to be signed by the lead Federal agency and all cooperating agencies," which it says "would reduce duplication and create a more efficient, timely review process."
The president's infrastructure plan would impose a two-year deadline on permitting, even shorter than the 30 months allowed by Amodei's bill.
The infrastructure blueprint also aims to crack down on litigation regarding environmental reviews, or "paralysis by analysis," as NMA wrote in a recent blog post.
Federal agencies would establish guidelines for how long a study can be used before it becomes outdated. "Courts would be precluded from reviewing any claims based on the currentness of data, so long as agencies were in compliance with their established guidelines," the Trump plan states.
The top mining watchdog group called the whole plan a "scam."
"Gutting environmental reviews and severely restricting the public's ability to hold corporations accountable has nothing to do with giving this country the infrastructure overhaul it badly needs," Earthworks Executive Director Jennifer Krill said in a statement.
"Allowing mining, oil and gas companies to build pipelines and toxic waste dumps with little oversight will have far-reaching and detrimental consequences for the environment and the health of our communities across the country," she said.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074523
-
Where's Pruitt's Red-Team Debate?
Feb 22, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
Scott Pruitt has been promoting a public climate science debate for most of his tenure atop U.S. EPA. But that effort appears stalled — at least for now.
Despite reports that President Trump supports such an effort, there has been administration infighting about how it should occur, if the debate takes place at all. And some conservatives who are pushing the administration to challenge the prevailing climate science don't think Pruitt should lead the charge. They question whether wading into the politically charged issue could backfire for the administration if the outcome isn't what some Trump supporters are hoping for.
Meanwhile, the clock is ticking, and observers acknowledge that any sweeping assessment of established climate science would take a while.
"My impression is that the reason this has been slowed down is because there are questions to be resolved about how the thing is launched, where it's administered and how it proceeds," said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "My impression is that the White House is receptive to doing it but is not receptive to starting it next week."
Pruitt has been touting the idea of a climate science "red team" since at least July. He told Reuters last summer that "the American people deserve an honest, open, transparent discussion" about climate science. "What do we know? What don't we know? Does it pose an existential threat, what can be done about it?"
Who better to do that, Pruitt said, than "red-team scientists and blue-team scientists getting together and having a robust discussion about that for all the world to see." He suggested then that the debate should be televised.
Flash forward several months, and Pruitt is still talking about the red team, although his language has changed.
The EPA boss told House lawmakers in December that the red-team idea was part of "an ongoing review internally, and it's something we hope to do." He said then, "We may be able to get there as early as January next year."
That came and went.
Shortly after Pruitt's testimony, EPA air chief Bill Wehrum attended a White House meeting with Trump energy aide Mike Catanzaro, Deputy Chief of Staff Rick Dearborn and others to discuss the future of the debate, an administration official told E&E News. After the talk, the red team was "put on hold," according to someone familiar with the meeting (Climatewire, Dec. 15, 2017).
Late last month, Pruitt told a Senate panel that the exercise was still "under consideration." The EPA boss disputed reports that the White House had asked EPA not to go forward with the red-team debate, but he didn't offer any updates on timing or how the effort might unfold.
EPA's press office did not respond to a request for comment about the status of the red team.
Sources outside the administration point to a host of reasons the effort has languished.
First, there's the internal debate. Trump has privately said he supports a public debate to challenge mainstream climate science, according to administration officials. But Trump's team hasn't been unified behind the idea, and an administration official told E&E News in December that "there are still many issues to be ironed out."
One of those issues, according to observers, is who ought to take the lead. Among Trump officials, Pruitt has been the most vocal proponent of the exercise.
Wehrum told E&E News last month that he thinks his agency is the appropriate venue, given that many of those pushing for the red-team debate are hoping to unravel the scientific endangerment finding that underpins EPA's climate regulations.
"The endangerment finding is an EPA action, so to the degree we were to convene a process to take a look at the underpinnings for that EPA finding, I think almost necessarily it would be an EPA activity," Wehrum said (Climatewire, Jan. 4).
But some conservatives have questioned Pruitt's long-term commitment to the cause, and some think others are better suited to lead the charge.
"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise is vague, probably would not be effective, and is unlikely to come about," Heartland Institute CEO Joseph Bast wrote in an October email that summarized a meeting his group held about the climate debate.
"More likely to occur," Bast wrote, "is a similar exercise directed by the head of another department" — like NASA, NOAA or the White House science office — "with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate and more likely to stick around to see the results" (Climatewire, Oct. 16, 2017).
Ebell said in an interview, "I don't think that EPA would be a credible place to lead the effort." He said there's a political danger that if the debate is housed in the wrong place, "it will not have sufficient credibility with the public."
Proponents of the debate note vacancies in top offices that might play a role. Trump still hasn't picked a White House science adviser. His nominee for the White House Council on Environmental Quality recently withdrew herself from consideration amid criticisms of her climate science views. And the president's nominees to lead NOAA and NASA still haven't been confirmed.
The issue of climate change is "just not on the front burner right now, so there's really no reason that the Trump administration should really be pushing on this," said Judith Curry, a former professor at the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology whose name has been circulated as a possible red team member.
Curry said there are various groups advancing the red team: those that want "to see the integrity of science upheld" and others that "start from the point of 'Protect my short-term profits from fossil fuels, and anything that threatens that, I'm going after it.'"
Some groups pushing for the debate appear to be in waiting mode.
"I'm not aware that there's been any movement on the red team," said H. Sterling Burnett, a research fellow on environmental policy for the Heartland Institute. The conservative group held several workshops last year focused on how to convene a climate red team.
"I'm not overly concerned. I think that [Pruitt] has got a lot on his plate," Burnett said in an interview. "The red team would be one small thing in his large portfolio."
But if it doesn't happen eventually, he added, "I think it will be very disappointing."
There are also questions about political risks the administration would take by kicking off such a debate. What happens if the red team is unable to unravel mainstream climate science?
"I like to think that even Scott Pruitt recognizes what a loser this is for them," said Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University. "The impacts of climate change are now obvious to anyone with an even half-open mind, and I suspect that their own focus groups and polling tell them that their anti-science tropes no longer are playing well with the public."
It's also unclear whether those who support mainstream climate science would participate in the endeavor. "I would not legitimatize such a transparently political ploy by participating in it, and I would hope that other self-respecting climate scientists wouldn't, either," Mann said.
David Doniger, senior director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate and Clean Air Program, called the exercise "phony." All the administration can do "is appeal to the base; it'll never get anywhere in terms of bending the scientific consensus," he said.
The military relies on red teams, Doniger said, for situations like trying to figure out whether a building in the desert in Syria is a nuclear reactor. A red team is brought in to try to critically challenge the thinking of a blue team. "The science on climate change is conducted in a totally different way," he said. "It's one giant peer-review exercise; it's one giant debate."
Burnett of Heartland said there's no way the red team could lose if the debate takes place.
"Right now, one side is not getting heard, and that's the whole point of it, to show that there's another side out there," he said. "The debate wouldn't be to settle the science for all time; you can't settle the science for all time. It would be to give one side a hearing that currently it's not getting."
Ebell said his priority is credibility, rather than speed.
"We're not as concerned about getting it launched this week or next month," he said. "Once you've started it, it's going to be very difficult to correct things that have been done in the wrong way."
Of course, if the red team leads to an attempt to unravel the endangerment finding, it could take years. That would include lengthy court battles that could stretch well beyond the 2020 presidential election.
"Sure, but it would probably be concluded in the second Trump term," Ebell said. "Everything takes time."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/02/22/stories/1060074449
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested