Preview Newsletter
ACC PM Clips Report 4/26/2018
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council's Dooley Announces Retirement
Apr 26, 2018 | PR Newswire
By American Chemistry Council
After leading America's preeminent trade association representing chemical and plastics manufacturers operating in the United States for over ten years, American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley announced today that he will retire at the end of 2018 when his current contract expires. -
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. EPA Chief Proposes That Agency Regulations Rely Only on Publicly Available Data
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemican & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A recently proposed rule could significantly restrict the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect Americans’ health and the environment from pollution. Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposal, the agency would be limited to using publicly available scientific data. -
(ACC Mentioned) Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, ACC, Accepts Applications for its Annual Polyurethane Innovation Award
Apr 26, 2018 | Rubber World
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is now accepting applications for the highly regarded annual Polyurethane Innovation Award. -
(ACC Mentioned) PC, ABS, Nylon Prices on the Rise as PP, PVC Dip
Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Average North American selling prices for polypropylene and PVC resins each have seen slight drops since April 1. -
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Great Chemical Stocks to Boost Your Porfolio Performance
Apr 26, 2018 | Nasdaq
By Swarup Gupta
Ever since the shale boom began, U.S. companies have stepped up their investments on chemicals projects within the country. The shale revolution has given them abundant access to cheap ethane which provides them with a competitive edge over their foreign competitors who largely depend on naphtha derived from oil. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Proposes Controversial Science Transparency Rule
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a proposed rule to require that the science the agency uses to underpin its regulatory decisions is "fully transparent". -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The EPA has extended the public comment period on its strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods by 15 days. This follows a request from NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) for additional time. -
Small Business Definition Change Could Shift TSCA Fees Schedule
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
The US EPA is considering whether to define small businesses by number of employees, rather than by revenue. And it is requesting feedback on how such an amendment could affect the proposed TSCA fees rule. -
(ACC Mentioned) New Rule Could Force EPA to Ignore Major Human Health Studies
Apr 26, 2018 | Science
By Warren Cornwall
Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). -
BASF: Cost and Perception Remain Barriers to Green Chemistry Uptake
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The cost of bringing a new material or substance to the market remains a key barrier to scaling up 'green' chemistry, according to Patrick Harmon, BASF's industry manager in North America. -
New Research Links BPA to Breast Cancer in Lab Animals, FDA Downplays Concerns
Apr 26, 2018 | EWG
By Alexis Temkin and Sonya Lunder
New federally funded research links low doses of bisphenol A with a sharp increase in breast tumors in laboratory animals. But the Food and Drug Administration continues to insist on the safety of BPA, a compound used widely in plastic, metal food cans and receipt paper. -
Vermont Vote Fails to Overturn Governor's Chemicals Bill Veto
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A bill intended to expand Vermont's authority to regulate children's products has been defeated after the state's House of Representatives failed to secure enough votes to override a veto. -
EDC Criteria Will Increase Biocide Cases for Echa Expert Group
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's endocrine disruptor expert group is gearing up for an increase in workload after the European Commission's criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), under the biocidal products Regulation, take effect on 7 June 2018. -
EU States Agree Nanomaterial Changes to REACH Annexes
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Nanomaterial-specific information requirements would become part of the legal text for REACH for the first time under proposed changes just agreed by EU member states. -
Proof that the Clean Power Plan’s Strategy for Cutting Carbon Pollution is the Industry Standard
Apr 26, 2018 | EDF Climate Blog
By Charlie Jiang
The public comment period is just about to close on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s reckless attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and thousands of Americans — including mayors, CEOs, energy experts, and citizens concerned about the threats Pruitt’s actions pose to our children’s health and future — have already spoken out in vigorous opposition to the misguided repeal effort. -
Curtain Falls Today for Comments on Proposed Repeal
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
It's now or never for anyone that wants to comment on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan. -
LNG Tanker with Dominion's First Commercial Export Cargo Heads to Egypt, Possibly for Refueling
Apr 26, 2018 | Platts
By Harry Weber
The LNG tanker carrying the first commercial export cargo from Dominion Energy's Cove Point terminal in Maryland set its destination Wednesday for Egypt's Port Said, which has recently been used as a stopping point en route to other countries in the region. -
Enbridge Continues Push to Reroute Canadian Oil Export Pipeline in Minnesota
Apr 26, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Enbridge Inc. has vowed to try again for state approval of a partial new route across Minnesota for the proposed replacement of its half century-old Line 3 oil export pipeline that runs from Alberta to the Midwest. -
Prolific Oil Patch Could Become World's Largest
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
The next decade might see the Permian Basin turn into the world's biggest oil-producing patch, with the size of reserves coupled with advances in efficiency and technology. -
CSB, Chlorine Institute Call for Regular Assessments of Preventive Maintenance Plans
Apr 26, 2018 | Safety + Health
Chemical facility owners and operators should assess their preventive maintenance programs routinely and seek out assistance from industry groups, the Chemical Safety Board and the Chlorine Institute advise in a joint statement released Feb. 20. -
Sunlight Works Against Oil Clean-Up Efforts
Apr 26, 2018 | Chem Info
By American Chemical Society
Oil spills, whether minor leaks or major environmental disasters, are bound to happen. Chemical dispersants are one of the tools that can help mitigate the impact of such spills, but they become less effective as oil weathers in the environment. -
Pollution Remains Near Closed Calif. Battery Recycling Plant
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
Nearly two years after its discovery, the lead in soil surrounding the closed Exide Technologies battery recycling plant in Vernon, Calif., hasn't been removed. -
Metrolink, UP Mark PTC Interoperability Achievement
Apr 26, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
Metrolink yesterday announced its positive train control (PTC) system has reached interoperability with Union Pacific Railroad. -
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial: EPA’s Scott Pruitt Offers Another Gift to Polluters
Apr 26, 2018 | Valley News
Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt proposed a rule Tuesday that he insisted would enhance “transparency,” but which critics described as an attack on the use of science and scientific studies to craft regulations aimed at protecting the environment. -
Scott Pruitt, Under an Ethics Cloud, Faces Lawmakers
Apr 26, 2018 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz, Coral Davenport, and Eric Lipton
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, began the first of two appearances before congressional panels on Thursday, in what is expected to be a daylong grilling over recent allegations of ethical infractions and lavish spending. -
'I Have Nothing to Hide' — Pruitt
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said today allegations of excessive spending and misuse of his Cabinet-level authority are aimed at upending President Trump's agenda at the agency.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council's Dooley Announces Retirement
Apr 26, 2018 | PR Newswire
By American Chemistry Council
After leading America's preeminent trade association representing chemical and plastics manufacturers operating in the United States for over ten years, American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO Cal Dooley announced today that he will retire at the end of 2018 when his current contract expires.
"It has been an honor to represent the American chemical industry during a time of historic growth and transformation. Today the United States is one of the most attractive places in the world to invest in chemical and plastic manufacturing thanks to abundant domestic shale gas development and sound policy approaches," said Dooley. "I am extremely proud of what ACC has accomplished over the past ten years, especially the passage of bipartisan chemical regulatory reform legislation. It has been a privilege to work with ACC's dedicated staff and members to support the industry's role as a driver of economic growth, enabler of the products and technologies that support modern life and a provider of solutions that will make a sustainable future possible."
Dooley joined ACC in 2008 during a challenging and uncertain time for the U.S. chemical industry marked by high energy and natural gas prices and a lingering recession. Concerns about chemical safety were high due to an outdated and ineffective U.S. regulatory system that abetted the rampant spread of misinformation about chemicals and changing consumer and marketplace expectations.
Under Dooley's leadership, ACC implemented an integrated strategy comprised of aggressive federal and state advocacy, communications, coalition building, political engagement and new Association programs to address the challenges facing the chemical sector. Cal successfully positioned ACC and its members as instrumental to the bipartisan legislation known as the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act to modernize chemical regulations. He has ensured that chemical manufacturers operating in the United States can fully capitalize on the American shale gas revolution by educating policymakers that robust shale gas development could drive a U.S. manufacturing renaissance with the right policies and regulations in place. Cal launched ACC's Value Chain Outreach initiative to facilitate greater communication and collaboration between chemical manufacturers and the chemical value chain to promote the safe and sustainable use of chemicals.
"Cal has been the right leader at the right time for American chemistry," said ACC Chairman and LyondellBasell CEO Bob Patel. "Cal's leadership has helped facilitate an historic expansion of the U.S. industry as reflected by the announcement of nearly $190 billion of investment in chemicals and plastics production during his tenure. He achieved the industry's number one priority by driving the passage of bipartisan legislation to modernize the U.S. chemical regulatory system after years of political stalemate. Cal has positioned the industry for future success built on a solid foundation of sound policy, constructive advocacy and a proactive communication with the chemical value chain, regulators and policymakers and the marketplace."
Dooley's management transformed ACC into a more cost-effective and value-driven organization. During his tenure, ACC membership grew by 49 percent, in part through his innovative efforts to recruit more small and medium sized companies through introductory dues waivers and by providing them with extra support to comply with Responsible Care®, the industry's environment, health, safety and security program. He reduced the member dues rate by 44 percent and the actual dues rate paid by individual companies by an average of 39 percent. At the same time, ACC grew financial reserves and provided members two substantial dues rebates.
Patel continued, "Cal's record of bipartisanship during his time in Congress and his reputation as a pragmatic, straight shooter who is committed to intellectual consistency, sound science and good policy has helped ACC become one of the most effective and successful trade associations in Washington."
Before joining ACC, Dooley was President and CEO of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and spent fourteen years serving California's 17th and 20th Districts in Congress. He began his career as a farmer in California's central valley. Cal and his wife Linda have two daughters, Brooke and Emily and three young grandchildren.
http://www.americanchemistry.com
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) represents the leading companies engaged in the business of chemistry. ACC members apply the science of chemistry to make innovative products and services that make people's lives better, healthier and safer. ACC is committed to improved environmental, health and safety performance through Responsible Care®, common sense advocacy designed to address major public policy issues, and health and environmental research and product testing. The business of chemistry is a $768 billion enterprise and a key element of the nation's economy. It is the nation's largest exporter, accounting for fourteen percent of all U.S. exports. Chemistry companies are among the largest investors in research and development. Safety and security have always been primary concerns of ACC members, and they have intensified their efforts, working closely with government agencies to improve security and to defend against any threat to the nation's critical infrastructure.
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/american-chemistry-councils-dooley-announces-retirement-300637296.html
-
(ACC Mentioned) U.S. EPA Chief Proposes That Agency Regulations Rely Only on Publicly Available Data
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemican & Engineering News
By Cheryl Hogue
A recently proposed rule could significantly restrict the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect Americans’ health and the environment from pollution. Under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposal, the agency would be limited to using publicly available scientific data.
Pruitt’s move would affect scientific studies, models, and analyses that are critical for determining regulatory standards—including information used to estimate the health risks posed by individual chemicals and weigh the costs and benefits of regulations. Such regulations dictate allowable levels of air or drinking water pollution, how pesticides may be used, controls on production of new commercial chemicals, and cleanup requirements for hazardous waste sites.
Pruitt’s move is to ensure that critical data underlying environmental regulations “are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation,” the proposal says. “Using scientific information that can be independently validated will lead to better outcomes” and strengthen public confidence in EPA’s decisions, the proposal adds.
“The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of rulemaking process,” Pruitt says. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”
Others say that restricting EPA to using publicly available information would keep key data out of the agency’s hands.
“This proposal appears to be an attempt to remove valid and relevant scientific evidence from the rulemaking process,” says Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
Glenn S. Ruskin, a spokesperson for the American Chemical Society, concurs. “EPA has a well-regarded process for incorporating vital scientific insights into regulations. Any changes must ensure that EPA retains the ability to access and utilize the most appropriate sources of scientific information, while protecting important proprietary and personal information,” Ruskin says. ACS publishes C&EN.
The proposal claims the standards it would set regarding public availability of data are “consistent with data access requirements for major scientific journals like Science, Nature, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”
However, publishers’ requirements recognize differences across scientific fields and that all data cannot be fully shared in every case, says Jeremy Berg, editor-in-chief of the Science family of journals.
“Science requires that all data used in the analysis must be available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing or extending the analysis,” Berg says. But journal policies also have the flexibility to accommodate situations in which data cannot be shared openly, for privacy or other concerns. “Importantly, the merits of such studies can still be judged,” Berg says.
In drafting the proposal, Pruitt drew from industry-backed legislation championed by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the U.S. House of Representative’s Science, Space & Technology Committee. Smith wants EPA to rely solely on data that are available for independent analysis and for which there is “substantial reproduction of research results.” The House passed two similar versions of Smith’s bills against what he calls “secret science” at EPA, most recently H.R. 1430 in March 2017. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), introduced Smith’s bill in the Senate but the measure went nowhere.
Smith’s crusade was triggered by two epidemiology studies conducted independently in the 1990s by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society. The studies linked health problems to exposure to particulate matter air pollution. EPA used the results as a scientific basis for tighter Clean Air Act regulations that many in industry, including chemical makers, have fought vigorously. Smith, who sides with industry, sought confidential raw data from the studies, even issuing a subpoena to force EPA to hand over the information. But the agency did not possess the data, and the study authors resisted Smith’s attempts to get the information, citing protection of participants’ privacy.
Smith dismisses concerns by what he calls the “liberal media” and “environmental alarmists” about the possibilities of exposing personal information. Redaction of personally identifiable information will fix the problem, and those who need particular data to redo an analysis can be required to maintain participants’ confidentiality, he says.
However, protecting the confidentiality of epidemiology study participants isn’t as easy as simply redacting their names, says Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Union of Concern Scientists’ Center for Science & Democracy. For epidemiology studies of the impact air pollution has on health, making public information such as the participants’ locations—which may be home addresses—and their specific ailments could easily unmask their identities, she explains. The privacy risk may deter people from participating in future studies, Goldman continues. Also, making study data public may well go astray of confidentiality protections established by institutional review boards, Goldman adds.
Studies with participant privacy concerns aren’t the only type of data that the proposal could affect. AAAS’s Holt points out, “Other studies rely on public and private-sector funding sources that may limit access to underlying data.”
The proposal says it would not compel “disclosure of any confidential or private information in a manner that violates applicable legal and ethical protections.” Other federal agencies including the Department of Health & Human Services, National Institute of Standards & Technology, and Census Bureau have tools and methods to unlink private information from data, the proposal says.
But “if put into practice, EPA could prohibit, or make it incredibly costly, for the agency to use a wide swath of high-quality scientific research,” Holt says. “Despite the political rhetoric, there are existing federal guidelines that require access to the scientific information used for federal policies and regulations.”
After Pruitt signed the proposal, the American Chemistry Council, the largest lobbying group of the U.S. chemical industry, commended him and the EPA staff for work “to ensure that best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence is the basis for the regulatory decision-making process.”
But ACC also wants the final version of the rule to protect personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest, and intellectual property rights from public disclosure. Chemical makers do not want competitors to have access to the toxicity and efficacy studies conducted in advance of marketing their products.
The proposal recognizes this concern. It asks for comments from the public on how to balance protections for copyrighted or confidential business information with greater public access to the scientific data EPA uses.
It also includes an escape clause that would allow the EPA administrator to exempt individual regulatory decisions from the new requirements if complying with the criteria is impractical.
Yet the proposal wouldn’t require EPA to disclose whether it used confidential data or proprietary models as a basis for its regulatory decisions, points out Richard Denison, lead senior scientist with the Environmental Defense Fund, an activist group. “EPA may use this ambiguity to selectively consider or ignore nondisclosed data and models to reach industry-preferred outcomes,” Denison says.
Pruitt signed the proposal at an April 24 ceremony, flanked by legislators Smith and Rounds before an audience of climate change skeptics and conservative critics of environmental protections. The agency will take formal public comment on the plan and revise it before making it final. If the Trump Administration puts the final version on a fast track, this could happen later this year, even though EPA often takes 18 months to years to finalize regulations.
https://cen.acs.org/policy/regulation/US-EPA-chief-proposes-agency/96/i18
-
Apr 26, 2018 | Rubber World
The Center for the Polyurethanes Industry (CPI) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is now accepting applications for the highly regarded annual Polyurethane Innovation Award. This annual industry-wide competition recognizes the most inventive technologies and advancements in the polyurethanes industry. Innovators are encouraged to act quickly and submit their applications before June 15. “Polyurethane chemistry continues to improve the quality of our lives by increasing our comfort, contributing to the durability of products, and continually improving the energy efficiency of buildings, appliances and vehicles,” said Lee Salamone, senior director of CPI. “The Innovation Award acknowledges leaders in polyurethane industry that drive the industry forward by challenging the status quo and embracing creativity. We look forward to recognizing the latest pioneers in polyurethanes and seeing the advancements the industry has made with this incredibly durable substance over the past year.” The winner will be announced at the 2018 Polyurethanes Technical Conference, taking place October 1-3 at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis. Last year, Chemours was named the winner of the 2017 Polyurethane Innovation Award for its Chemours Opteon 1100 unique hydrofluoroolefin (HFO) blowing agent used in new generation polyurethane foam insulation. To enter the awards program, companies or individuals must submit an application no later than 5 p.m. EDT on June 15. Technologies submitted for consideration must have been brought to market between March 1, 2017, and June 15, 2018. Award entries in polyurethane chemistry may include: finished products, initiatives, training or education programs, or processes or processing equipment. Entries pertaining to a polyurethane product or polyurethane manufacture must relate to polyurethane chemistry defined as the reaction of an isocyanate with a polyol. For full terms and conditions, please see the Innovation Award submission form at www.americanchemistry.com.
http://www.rubberworld.com/
-
(ACC Mentioned) PC, ABS, Nylon Prices on the Rise as PP, PVC Dip
Apr 26, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Average North American selling prices for polypropylene and PVC resins each have seen slight drops since April 1.
Meanwhile, regional prices for engineering resins polycarbonate, ABS and nylon took the opposite path in the first quarter of 2018, climbing by several cents.
PP prices have slipped an average of 1 cent per pound, while prices for suspension PVC have declined an average of 2 cents per pound, according to market sources contacted by Plastics News.
The 1-cent drop for PP follows a 6-cent plunge that hit the market in March. Prices also had fallen 6 cents in February after jumping up 9 cents in January. This four-month roller coaster has left regional PP prices down a net of 4 cents per pound so far in 2017.
The market continues to follow supplies of polymer-grade propylene feedstock. The April decline was slightly less than expected by some buyers.
For PP, profit margin expansion "is largely being pushed out to May, according to Scott Newell, a market analyst with Resin Technology Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. "However, there will be some price points taking a portion of it."
North American PP sales through March were down more than 1 percent vs. the same period in 2017, according to the American Chemistry Council. A domestic sales decline of 1 percent was worsened by a plunge of almost 12 percent for sales into the export market.
PP posted positive domestic sales results for those three months in film — up 8 percent — and injection molded caps and closures, where sales grew more than 3 percent.
Suspension PVC falls
Regional suspension PVC prices moved down an average of 2 cents in April after increasing 2 cents for March and 3 cents in February. PVC prices had been flat in January, placing regional market prices up a net of 3 cents through the first four months of 2017.
"We'll see what's happening in building and construction to see how May shapes up," a PVC market source told Plastics News. "If volume increases, [PVC resin] prices may hold."
U.S./Canadian PVC sales grew more than 1 percent through February, with export growth of almost 6 percent making up for a decline of almost 1 percent in domestic sales. Two-month PVC sales into its flagship rigid pipe and tubing end market were down almost 3 percent, as winter weather slowed construction activity.
In other major PVC end markets, sales into film and sheet slumped almost 7 percent through February, while PVC sales into extruded windows and doors are off to a scorching start in 2018, surging almost 20 percent.
PC, ABS, nylon climb
Engineering resins markets in the first quarter were impacted by solid demand, higher raw material costs and scattered production and supply issues, according to market sources.
Regional PC resin prices increased by an average of 7 cents per pound, while ABS was up 4 cents, nylon 6 was up 6 and nylon 6/6 up 7.
Sources also indicated that regional prices for ABS and nylon 6/6 could see additional price increases in the second quarter.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180426/NEWS/180429920/pc-abs-nylon-prices-on-the-rise-as-pp-pvc-dip
-
(ACC Mentioned) 5 Great Chemical Stocks to Boost Your Porfolio Performance
Apr 26, 2018 | Nasdaq
By Swarup Gupta
Ever since the shale boom began, U.S. companies have stepped up their investments on chemicals projects within the country. The shale revolution has given them abundant access to cheap ethane which provides them with a competitive edge over their foreign competitors who largely depend on naphtha derived from oil.
Fears of a trade war between the United States and China had raised concerns that chemicals companies would reconsider their investments on new projects. However, such concerns have receded following President Trump's decision to send a delegation to China in order to negotiate on tariffs.
This development indicates that prospects of chemicals producers remain bright. Adding them to your portfolios would make for a profitable option at this point.
Shale Boom Boost Chemicals Investments
According to Martha Gilchrist Moore of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the chemical industry has stepped up investments in the United States from 2010. This is primarily due to the availability of low-cost natural gas reserves discovered by shale drillers. Moore was speaking in Pittsburgh on Apr 20.
Moore added that from 2010 up to February this year, various companies have said that they will set up 313 projects related to chemicals, together valued at $188 billion. Nearly 60% of this amount, around $113 billion, will come from foreign companies. Additionally, nearly 700 projects related to plastics as well as fresh constructions and expansions have been announced during this period.
Mnuchin's Visit Likely to Ease Trade-related Worries
However, the good fortunes of the chemicals industry have been clouded by prospects of a trade war between China and the United States. China's proposal to levy 25% tariffs on nearly $50 billion of U.S. imports would harm a major market for a range of plastics and chemicals produced in the United States.
According to the ACC, China imported $3.2 billion worth of plastic resins from the United States in 2017, which makes it one of most United States' largest trading partners. Nearly 40% of the items mentioned on China's tariffs list are chemicals, including polyethylene and polycarbonates.
But President Trump's decision to send a team to China in order to discuss tariff related issues have helped to calm fears that a trade war is likely to begin. Chinese President Xi Jinping has made several conciliatory statements in this connection earlier this month, promising to open up his economy further to investors.
Subsequently, Xi's government relaxed foreign ownership norms for auto JVs set up within China. Now, the U.S. team led by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, which includes Trump's top economic adviser Larry Kudlow and U.S. Trade representative Robert Lighthizer could ease trade-related worries further. On Apr 25, Trump stated at the White House that "We've got a very good chance at making a deal."
Our Choices
The U.S. chemicals industry seems to be in good shape as we head into the second quarter. The ACC has revealed that U.S. specialty chemicals market volumes have increased significantly over the first quarter. Further, though the ACC's Chemical Activity Barometer declined by 0.1% in April to 121.6%, it has experienced a 3.8% yearly increase
And now Mnuchin's visit to China promises to ease out trade-related worries for the chemicals industry. Investing in chemicals stocks looks like a smart move at this time. However, picking winning stocks may be difficult.
This is where our VGM Score comes in. Here V stands for Value, G for Growth and M for Momentum and the score is a weighted combination of these three scores. Such a score allows you to eliminate the negative aspects of stocks and select winners. However, it is important to keep in mind that each Style Score will carry a different weight while arriving at a VGM Score.
We have narrowed down our search to the following stocks based on a good Zacks Rank and VGM Score.
Univar Inc. UNVR is a distributor of chemicals and innovative services.
Univar has a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and a VGM Score of A. The company has expected earnings growth of 23.5% for the current year. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 14.7% over the last 60 days.
Kronos Worldwide, Inc. KRO is a global producer and marketer of value-added titanium dioxide pigments.
Kronos Worldwide has a VGM Score of B. The company has expected earnings growth of 62.8% for the current year. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 33% over the last 60 days. The stock has a Zacks Rank #1. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank stocks here .
The Chemours Company CC is a provider of performance chemicals on a worldwide basis.
Chemours has a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) and a VGM Score of A. The company's expected earnings growth for the current year is 40.6%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 1.3% over the last 30 days.
Huntsman Corporation HUN is among the world's largest global manufacturers of differentiated and commodity chemical products for a variety of industrial and consumer applications.
Huntsman has a Zacks Rank #2 and a VGM Score of A. The company's expected earnings growth for the current year is 13%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 2.3% over the last 30 days.
Eastman Chemical Company EMN manufactures and sells chemicals, plastics and fibers.
Eastman Chemical has a Zacks Rank #2 and a VGM Score of B. The company's expected earnings growth for the current year is 12.2%. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for the current year has improved by 1.2% over the last 60 days.
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/5-great-chemical-stocks-to-boost-your-porfolio-performance-cm953837
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Proposes Controversial Science Transparency Rule
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
US EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has signed a proposed rule to require that the science the agency uses to underpin its regulatory decisions is "fully transparent".
The move comes despite outcry in the scientific community and questions even from inside the agency about treatment of confidential information.
The start of the formal rulemaking process follows reports last month that the EPA would be rolling out a policy that would bar it from making regulatory decisions using studies that are not publicly available.
An agency press release confirms that the proposed rule is based on the concept that regulations should not "rely in whole or in part on data, information or methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently transparent to meet the standard of reproducibility". And, it says, they should be "developed through transparent processes that employ the best available peer-reviewed science".
"The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rulemaking process," Mr Pruitt said. "The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end."
Initial news of the new policy sent shockwaves through the environmental and consumer advocacy community. Among other concerns, groups feared that the new approach could threaten the effectiveness of TSCA.
And according to emails recently released under an NGO's public records request, those concerns have been voiced even within the agency – including by former American Chemistry Council staffer Nancy Beck.
'Secret science' emails
Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released more than a hundred internal EPA documents related to the new policy. They were obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
In them, Nancy Beck – deputy assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) – raised the alarm that mandating that data be published could pose issues for the TSCA and pesticides programmes. "Such a requirement would be incredibly burdensome, not practical and you would need to create a whole new arm of the publishing industry to publish these types of studies that nobody is interested in," she wrote in a January email.
For TSCA risk evaluations, she said, companies are likely to submit OECD studies as confidential, "to protect the costs/money they spend to do the testing – it's a competitiveness issue."
"These data will be extremely valuable, extremely high quality, and NOT published," she wrote. "This directive needs to be revised. Without change it will jeopardise our entire pesticide registration/re-registration review process and likely all TSCA risk evaluations."
A leaked copy of the proposal indicates there is not a data publishing requirement. But it is not clear to what extent concerns raised on earlier drafts of the policy were fully addressed in the final version.
In a statement this week, the ACC praised the EPA's work to "ensure that best available science and the weight of the scientific evidence is the basis for the regulatory decision-making process."
"Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations, while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights," said the trade group.
Pressure against proposal begins
Nearly 1,000 scientists have written to the agency urging it to cease development of the rule. "There are ways to improve transparency in the decision-making process, but restricting the use of science would improve neither transparency nor the quality of EPA decision making."
And Senate Democrats have demanded more details.
The new policy, says a letter co-signed by Democrats on the Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, "would likely violate several laws that mandate the use of ‘best available science’, including the Toxic Substances Control Act".
And it could force the EPA to "choose whether to ignore non-public information submitted by companies, or to disclose it publicly", such as when determining whether to allow a chemical company to manufacture a new substance.
The lawmakers have requested the agency provide further details on the policy. This includes whether it "communicate[d] with any regulated entities or trade association, such as the American Chemistry Council" about it before its release.
Senate Republicans, however, praised the announcement. US House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the move will put a stop to "hidden agendas".
Mr Smith sponsored the HONEST Act, legislation upon which the policy was initially reported to be based.
According to the recently released emails, Chairman Smith met with Scott Pruitt early this year to discuss the legislation. And his office followed up to "pitch that EPA internally implement the HONEST Act (no regulation can go into effect unless the scientific data is publicly available for review)".
The FOIA emails indicate that EPA staff continued to refer back to the legislation while developing the policy. Included in much of the correspondence was Richard Yamada, deputy assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), and a former staffer for Mr Smith.
The proposal – Strengthening transparency and validity in regulatory science – has been submitted to the White House's Office of Management and Budget for review and approval. It will be published for public comment prior to becoming final.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66267/us-epa-proposes-controversial-science-transparency-rule
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Round-Up
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Consultation extended on draft strategy to reduce animal use in chemical testing
The EPA has extended the public comment period on its strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods by 15 days. This follows a request from NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) for additional time.
The consultation will now close on 11 May.
Consultation extended on TSCA proposed fees rule
The EPA has extended the consultation on its proposed rule for collecting fees under TSCA. This will allow for additional time to review a supplemental analysis on small business size definitions, released this week.
The public comment period will now run through 24 May.
TSCA inventory aid for processors
The EPA has scheduled a webinar for 23 May to help processors with reporting substances as "active" on the TSCA inventory.
The programme will include an overview of reporting requirements for processors, a demonstration of the reporting software and time to ask questions. Registration is not required.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) is also offering assistance through a website that aims "to address processor questions about the inventory reset process".
Under the 'inventory reset' rule, the EPA is seeking to identify substances active in commerce during a ten-year 'lookback period' ending 21 June 2016. The agency's recently published inventory update is the first to include an 'active' designation, which reflects retrospective reports submitted to the agency by manufacturers and importers during the first phase of the TSCA inventory notification period.
Processors may elect to report any substances that did not get notified by upstream suppliers until 5 October. Downstream users may choose to forego reporting, but they must cease processing substances labelled inactive until the EPA is notified.
Safer Choice nominations sought
The US EPA is seeking applications for the 2018 Safer Choice Partner of the Year Awards.
The Safer Choice programme recognises products that use "safer" chemical ingredients and also meet standards for sustainable packaging and ingredient disclosure. Manufacturers can use the Safer Choice logo on their products.
The annual awards recognise programme stakeholders – including distributors and retailers as well as manufacturers – that have demonstrated leadership in advancing the cause of greener chemistry.
Nominations are due by 27 June.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66263/us-epa-round-up
-
Small Business Definition Change Could Shift TSCA Fees Schedule
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Julie Miller
The US EPA is considering whether to define small businesses by number of employees, rather than by revenue. And it is requesting feedback on how such an amendment could affect the proposed TSCA fees rule.
Published in February, the TSCA fees proposal sets out a schedule for the EPA to collect $20.05m in user fees – 25% of the estimated $80.2m annual cost of the agency’s chemical review activities. This is in accordance with the new TSCA, with directs the agency to collect a quarter of its programme costs from industry, up to $25m per year.
Under the draft rule, small businesses would be eligible for an 80% discount on specific fees relative to larger companies. It has proposed to define these smaller entities as those with annual sales of $91m – an inflation adjustment of the existing standard of $50m per year.
But in a 24 April Federal Register notice, the EPA said it was seeking comment on alternative approaches. These would either:
define a small business as a company with 500 or fewer employees; or
base the definition on thresholds for numbers of employees set by the Small Business Administration (SBA), which vary by industry sector.
According to a supplemental analysis, the EPA expects more companies to qualify for the small business discount under an employee-based definition. And because EPA must collect fees to offset a set amount of programme costs, it would need to amend the fee collection schedule to recoup those losses.
Impact on TSCA fees rule
In its supplemental analysis, the EPA says it does not expect changes to the small business definition to affect collections under TSCA section 4 and 6 – which cover testing and risk evaluations of existing substances – as these costs are shared by all companies involved in producing a chemical. "EPA expects that consortia will ensure that the full fee amount is remitted regardless of the proportion of small businesses participating" in it, the notice said.
But for new chemical reviews submitted under TSCA section 5, small business are set to pay $2,800, versus $16,000 for regular companies. And the EPA estimates that additional businesses qualifying for the lower fee under an employee-based definition would result in a loss to annualised fee collection of approximately $211,000.
The analysis evaluates recouping this deficit through amendments to section 5 general fees. This would result in an increased charge for new chemical reviews – such as for premanufacture notices (PMNs) and significant new use notices (Snuns) – from the proposed $16,000 to $16,400.
The fee for reviewing exemptions would similarly increase from $4,700 to $4,800.
The EPA has extended the consultation on its fees rule to allow additional time to consider these analyses. It is now accepting comments until 24 May.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66259/small-business-definition-change-could-shift-tsca-fees-schedule
-
(ACC Mentioned) New Rule Could Force EPA to Ignore Major Human Health Studies
Apr 26, 2018 | Science
By Warren Cornwall
Research looking at everything from links between air pollution and disease to the impact a pesticide has on children’s brains could be banned from consideration by environmental regulators under a new policy proposed yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
At an event at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C., that was closed to the press, agency head Scott Pruitt touted the new policy as a way to increase transparency and enable the public to double-check research underpinning environmental regulations. The rule would require the agency to use only studies in which the underlying data are available for public scrutiny when formulating new “significant” regulations, which typically are regulations estimated to impose costs of $100 million or more.
Specifically, the proposed rule says that EPA is seeking transparency for “the dose response data and models that underlie what we are calling ‘pivotal regulatory science.’” The agency does not define pivotal regulatory science, but says it could include studies that “are critical to the calculation of a final regulatory standard or level, or to the quantified costs, benefits, risks, and other impacts on which a final regulation is based.”
“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said, speaking to an audience that included conservative lawmakers and advocates who have questioned the science underpinning climate and health regulations. “Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”
But a number of leading epidemiologists studying the effects of pollution say the new regulations could pose a problem for existing and new studies aimed at teasing out connections between pollution and large populations. “I think this rule is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the science that’s available for the EPA to use in its decision-making,” says Peter Thorne, a toxicologist at The University of Iowa in Iowa City, and chairman of EPA’s science advisory board until late 2017, when his membership wasn’t renewed by Pruitt.
The new proposal would effectively block the use of key scientific studies and “help big polluters avoid regulations that protect human health,” warned the American Thoracic Society, a New York City–based medical association representing physicians and scientists involved in respiratory disease.
Other critics say EPA has failed to adequately calculate the costs of complying with its proposal, or clearly articulate its legal authority to issue the new rule, potentially opening the agency to a legal challenge.
Privacy concerns
The problem, critics say, is that human epidemiological studies often rely on gathering reams of sensitive information from thousands of individuals, such as their medical history and personal habits, along with exactly where they live and work. Those details are usually guarded by confidentiality agreements that bar researchers from sharing data that would allow an individual to be identified.
Existing studies could be bound by confidentiality agreements that make it impossible to give EPA the data it wants, Thorne says. And future researchers could have more trouble recruiting participants if they fear their information would be made public. “If those [confidentiality] documents say we will be required to release your private information to the U.S. government or to the public, [people] would be wise not to participate,” he says.
In its proposed rule, EPA says it wants to make data publicly available “in a manner that honors legal and ethical obligations to reduce the risks of unauthorized disclosure and reidentification” of anonymous study subjects. The agency says sensitive data could be shielded by a variety of measures, including storing them at special federal data centers and restricting who has access to them. And it suggests that the transparency requirement could, in certain circumstances, be waived if not practical to implement. It does not provide an estimate of the cost of complying with the rule.
In a press release the agency claimed the proposed provisions are consistent with data access requirements of major scientific journals include Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Science, along with many other journals, has recently adopted measures to encourage data sharing and increase transparency, Science Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Berg said in a prepared statement. Those measure can include requiring authors of published papers to deposit underlying data in a publicly available database. But he noted there are “exceptional circumstances, where data cannot be shared openly with all,” including cases where papers are based on data sets that include personal information. Journals will still publish those papers, but will tell researchers wishing to reanalyze or replicate the studies to negotiate directly with the authors to obtain the sensitive data.
In general, researchers who share their data usually first strip information such as name, date of birth, or place of residence that would enable people to trace it back to an individual, says Joel Kaufman, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington in Seattle who is studying air pollution and heart disease. He’s now preparing a “limited” data set for the roughly 7000 participants in his study, so that other researchers can work with it. “That’s the right thing to do,” Kaufman says. “But I fear that that’s not enough for what the proponents of this regulation are trying to do, which is to get data that we know we can’t provide.”
On the industry side, an American Chemistry Council (ACC) spokesperson says the Washington, D.C.–based trade group is looking at the new EPA rule, but has few detailed comments at this point. “Our industry is committed to working with EPA to help ensure the final rule increases transparency and public confidence in the agency’s regulations while protecting personal privacy, confidential business information, proprietary interest and intellectual property rights,” spokesperson Jon Corley said in a prepared statement. In the past, ACC has supported similar efforts to bar EPA from using nonpublic data in certain kinds of rulemakings, while noting that the agency often uses confidential or proprietary data provided by industry in doing its work.
For example, industries fund extensive research into the health effects of chemicals, often through private laboratories that rely on animal testing. In internal EPA emails released by the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the agency’s deputy administrator in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Nancy Beck, wrote that for a majority of industry studies, confidential business information “can be waived and the data can be made available.” (Beck was formerly a top official at the chemistry council.) But the EPA proposal also suggests such industry information could be exempted from the transparency rule.
Long history
The new EPA proposal is the latest in a long-running campaign to let the public and regulated industries sift through the raw data of epidemiologists whose work could affect pollution regulations.
In the 1990s, members of Congress pressed for legislation requiring scientists to disclose their raw scientific data, partly in response to a Harvard University study finding a correlation between more air pollution and lower life expectancy. Several times in recent years, the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring public disclosure of data from any new studies used by EPA to write regulations, but the proposal never made it out of Congress. The champion of that bill, Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), flanked Pruitt at Tuesday’s unveiling of the new proposal, smiling.
EPA will now accept public comments on the proposal for 30 days, then is expected to issue a final rule.
Environmental groups and others have already said they expect to challenge the rule in court. Potential lines of attack, attorneys say, include claims that EPA has not met the letter of federal law in evaluating the rule’s costs and benefits, or explained which federal law has provided it with the authority to issue the new requirements.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/04/new-rule-could-force-epa-ignore-major-human-health-studies
-
BASF: Cost and Perception Remain Barriers to Green Chemistry Uptake
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The cost of bringing a new material or substance to the market remains a key barrier to scaling up 'green' chemistry, according to Patrick Harmon, BASF's industry manager in North America.
Next month, Dr Harmon will join other panellists at the 13th Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) roundtable. Organised by the US-based multi-stakeholder group the roundtable is an annual forum for business leaders to exchange strategies and best practices on how to scale up green chemistry across supply chains.
Speaking to Chemical Watch ahead of the forum, Dr Harmon said bringing a new material or substance to the market involves large costs related to research and development and, with the further implementation over the years of REACH and the new TSCA, "there is more testing required than ever before".
This isn't a bad thing, he said, but it does incur additional costs which is likely to halt some companies, particularly smaller firms, from fully developing and achieving large scale supplies of green alternatives.
The cost of making a new material or substance beyond the pilot plant – a small version of a future large-scale plant – "can be in the region of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to scale up".
Before you get people to invest, said Dr Harmon, you need to have a market and the availability of new chemical products is inhibiting this.
"I have found that start-up companies have a lab scale or pilot plant scale substance," he said. "Sometimes we’re looking at things we need five or ten years down the line, which means this sort of scale isn't an issue. However, I have ideas for some products that I'd like to see available in a couple of years and unfortunately the new materials and substances at this scale are not commercially available.
"While there is demand for green chemistry in certain sectors and applications, there is a big need to create stronger demand across the marketplace," said Dr Harmon.
And this is where consumer awareness and interest in greener chemicals and products plays a key part. He says there is still not enough knowledge or interest from the consumer side at this point.
Perception
The differences in perception, definition and understanding of green chemistry across the supply chain also make mainstreaming it an uphill struggle, he said.
As an example, Dr Harmon said certain people will, when thinking about green chemistry, immediately turn to bio-based materials from renewable resources. While this is a part of it, he adds, it isn't the only aspect of green chemistry.
"Because of this common perception and lack of understanding around green chemistry, often those connecting it to bio-based substances will assume it's too expensive, may not work and so will avoid going down this route," he said.
At this year's GC3 roundtable, which will be held in Tennessee on 8-10 May, Dr Harmon will be speaking about BASF's technology scouting network, where start-up companies, and other organisations, such as universities, are invited to collaborate on potential green chemistry solutions.
Dr. Harmon's "pitch" forms part of the GC3's Green and Biobased Chemistry Startup Network Technology Showcase. The aim of this network, said Professor Joel Tickner, director of the GC3, is to drive the development and market pull of green chemistry technologies by creating a forum to "connect innovative startups with larger GC3 member chemical suppliers, brands, retailers and investors for partnerships and investment".
https://chemicalwatch.com/66349/basf-cost-and-perception-remain-barriers-to-green-chemistry-uptake
-
New Research Links BPA to Breast Cancer in Lab Animals, FDA Downplays Concerns
Apr 26, 2018 | EWG
By Alexis Temkin and Sonya Lunder
New federally funded research links low doses of bisphenol A with a sharp increase in breast tumors in laboratory animals. But the Food and Drug Administration continues to insist on the safety of BPA, a compound used widely in plastic, metal food cans and receipt paper.
Today, an independent peer review panel will meet to assess the first results of a two-year study funded by the National Institutes of Health. The most important finding was a threefold increase in combined cancerous and benign breast tumors in rodents who were given very small doses of BPA. The study also found other significant effects on the heart, and on the male and female reproductive systems.
Yet a month before the panel is scheduled to meet, the FDA issued a statement asserting that the study found “minimal” effects. This has been the FDA’s posture for more than a decade: defending the safety of BPA exposures while independent scientists report BPA is toxic to the brain, thyroid and reproductive systems.
Scientists involved in the study have levied sharp criticism at the FDA for drawing premature conclusions from incomplete data.
“FDA’s data show significant effects at low doses, particularly in mammary glands,” Heather Patisaul, a professor of biological science at North Carolina State University, told EWG. “But instead of acknowledging this, they use analytical tricks and reasoning not supported by modern science to explain these effects away and undermine their own findings. Clearly this is not in the interest of sound science or public health.”
Starting in 2010, the FDA partnered with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, as well as 14 independent researchers, in a massive safety study known as CLARITY-BPA. The goal was to reach a clear conclusion about BPA safety and the proper methods for studying hormone-disrupting chemicals. The FDA’s part of the study followed longstanding guidelines for safety testing, while the academic investigators ran tests they believed could reveal more sensitive indicators of harm.
Today’s review panel will not consider the results of 10 peer-reviewed studies already published by academic researchers, nor dozens of upcoming academic publications. These studies undercut the FDA’s assurance of BPA safety. For example:
A 2017 study from North Carolina State University found that prenatal BPA exposure affects the expression of genes in the amygdala, a part of the brain responsible for emotions. This may help to explain the results of human studies that link higher prenatal BPA exposure to behavior problems like anxiety, depression and hyperactivity in children.
University of Cincinnati researchers reported in 2017 that BPA exposure impairs the ability of the heart muscles to pump blood. This effect was also observed in the FDA arm of the CLARITY study.
Researchers at the University of Missouri at Columbia reported in 2015 that for female rats, prenatal exposure to BPA impaired learning and memory.Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign reported in 2017 that BPA exposure affects the level of sex steroids and the number of ovarian follicles, which hold immature eggs.
Future publications are expected to examine the risk that BPA causes obesity, diabetes, prostate cancer, breast cancer and thyroid problems.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/04/new-research-links-bpa-breast-cancer-lab-animals-fda-downplays-concerns#.WuIYBfnwa-s
-
Vermont Vote Fails to Overturn Governor's Chemicals Bill Veto
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
A bill intended to expand Vermont's authority to regulate children's products has been defeated after the state's House of Representatives failed to secure enough votes to override a veto.
The bill, S103, had sought to amend the state's existing children's product reporting scheme (Act 188). But Governor Phil Scott vetoed it, saying it was "duplicative" of existing laws and a threat to the local economy.
Last week, the Senate voted 22-8 to override his veto.
However, on Wednesday, the House voted 94-53, falling just four votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to uphold the bill. That vote, mainly along party lines, means the governor's veto will stand.
Among the bill's provisions were proposed changes to the exposure and health impact criteria needed to propose product restrictions or to add substances to the chemicals of concern list. And the bill would have reduced the role of an advisory committee in the regulatory process.
Industry groups opposed the bill. According to the Toy Association, it would have "removed critical scientific criteria from existing law and eliminated important procedural mechanisms for regulating children’s products".
NGOs, however, decried the House’s vote.
"It’s a sad day for Vermont’s children," said the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (Vpirg). "We’re very disappointed with this outcome, but we will continue to fight to protect Vermonters from toxic chemicals."
https://chemicalwatch.com/66372/vermont-vote-fails-to-overturn-governors-chemicals-bill-veto
-
EDC Criteria Will Increase Biocide Cases for Echa Expert Group
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Dr. Emma Davies
Echa's endocrine disruptor expert group is gearing up for an increase in workload after the European Commission's criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs), under the biocidal products Regulation, take effect on 7 June 2018.
"There are high uncertainties about the number of cases that will come over the next years, but we are expecting that we will have significantly more biocide cases," said Peter Lepper, chair of the expert group. "We need to think about our capacity," he added.
Human health and the environment
Echa and the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) are currently finalising guidance to accompany the EDC criteria. It emphasises the importance of taking into account all available data, both on human health and environmental effects.
This is not always the case for substances evaluated via the Community Rolling Action Plan (Corap), according to the minutes of the group's November 2017 meeting. In particular, failure to consider the relevance of mammalian data for human health assessment when predicting environmental endocrine-disrupting effects – and vice versa – is a recurring issue.
Indeed, the issue came up again during some of the substance discussions at the expert group's meeting on 18-19 April 2018. "We should not, from the start, make a distinction between data relevant for assessment of endocrine disruption [ED] for humans or for the environment, but try to consider the available data holistically to identify potential ED properties and data gaps," said Dr Lepper. The expert group itself does not have separate discussions for effects in humans and the environment.
However, in some cases the problem lies in the fact that certain member states have limited crossover between agencies dealing with human health and the environment, said Dr Lepper. Echa meanwhile is trying to promote collaboration between such agencies.
Fish sexual development test
During its April meeting, the expert group also began to consider questions raised by Echa's Member State Committee (MSC) on using a fish sexual development test (OECD test guideline 234) to pick out possible EDCs from REACH dossier evaluations.
Short-term or long-term toxicity tests (if applicable) on fish are standard information requirements for REACH registration. Substances need to be added to Corap for further evaluation if non-standard information is considered necessary to clarify a concern.
The MSC is considering whether the test could be requested when a concern for endocrine disruption has been identified for a substance with a data gap for long-term fish toxicity testing. The committee is asking for advice on the issue, including which data would trigger a request for the test, and on setting the concentration range.
The expert group is looking into whether it is possible to "achieve two objectives with one action", said Dr Lepper. "We could ask for a test that could give us information on whether or not there is indication of endocrine disruption, but at the same time would provide information suitable for deriving (no)-effect levels."
https://chemicalwatch.com/66364/edc-criteria-will-increase-biocide-cases-for-echa-expert-group
-
EU States Agree Nanomaterial Changes to REACH Annexes
Apr 26, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
Nanomaterial-specific information requirements would become part of the legal text for REACH for the first time under proposed changes just agreed by EU member states.
At a meeting of the REACH Committee today, states voted in favour of amending several REACH annexes to clarify registration requirements with regard to the controversial materials.
The aim of the changes, they say, is to address the current "knowledge gap" relating to:
the substances registered under REACH that are placed on the market as nanomaterials; and
the corresponding quantities, broken down in terms of the specific nanoforms.
They will provide information on: basic characteristics; uses; safe handling techniques; potential risks to human health and the environment; and risk control methods.
REACH has always applied to nanomaterials, but has not previously contained specific provisions for them. This, some have argued, has led to confusion about how to register them.
VCI, the German trade association for the chemical industry, welcomed the vote, saying in a statement that the changes brought legal certainty and clarity for companies.
The draft Commission Regulations, with the revised annexes, will now be submitted for a three-month scrutiny period by the European Parliament and Council, before adoption by the Commission.
Background
The Commission's draft changes to the annexes, published last year, attracted strong criticism from NGOs during the public consultation. They accused the Commission of failing to "future proof" the annexes and of being unacceptably late by timing the proposal so that it would have no impact on the final REACH registration deadline.
Subsequently, industry asked the Commission to delay changing the annexes until after completion of the process for revising the Commission's Recommendation on the nanomaterial definition.
Several REACH registrations for substances marketed as nanomaterials have led to legal disputes between industry and regulatory authorities over the provision of information. Of these, the registration of titanium dioxide has arguably garnered most attention, owing to the huge volumes for manufacture and use, as well as the myriad of applications.
The REACH registrants for the substance elected to submit just one registration, covering all forms, for the 2010 deadline. Via an evaluation Decision, Echa asked for more substance identity information for the nanoforms covered by registration. But the registrants argued before the Board of Appeal that they need not provide such information, according to the REACH legal text, and the board annulled the contested Decision.
https://chemicalwatch.com/66375/eu-states-agree-nanomaterial-changes-to-reach-annexes
-
Proof that the Clean Power Plan’s Strategy for Cutting Carbon Pollution is the Industry Standard
Apr 26, 2018 | EDF Climate Blog
By Charlie Jiang
The public comment period is just about to close on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s reckless attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan, and thousands of Americans — including mayors, CEOs, energy experts, and citizens concerned about the threats Pruitt’s actions pose to our children’s health and future — have already spoken out in vigorous opposition to the misguided repeal effort.
There is a lot at stake. The Clean Power Plan would prevent 4,500 early deaths and 90,000 childhood asthma attacks each year. It would cut carbon pollution by 32 percent from 2005 levels, and would substantially reduce other harmful air pollutants from power plants.
By slashing air pollution and helping mitigate the threats of climate change, the Clean Power Plan would secure significant benefits to public health while growing the clean energy economy.
Yet, as Pruitt continues his misguided effort to turn back the clock on lifesaving climate protections, momentum is growing in states and the power sector to slash carbon pollution and usher in a clean energy future.
States and companies are moving away from carbon-intensive sources of electricity generation, and are increasing their use of cleaner technologies — deploying the same cost-effective strategies to cut carbon pollution that EPA relied upon when establishing emission reduction targets under the Clean Power Plan. Pruitt’s attempt to repeal the Clean Power Plan is putting this flexible approach to ambitious and low-cost emission reductions under attack.
Meaningful federal actions to reduce carbon pollution, such as the Clean Power Plan, remain essential to mitigate climate change. But in the meantime, states and companies – by making continued progress toward emission reductions through time-tested methods – are providing solid evidence that the Clean Power Plan’s approach is not only reasonable, but is the industry-standard for reducing carbon pollution from the power sector.
The clean energy transformation is accelerating
Carbon pollution from the power sector fell to 27 percent below 2005 levels in 2017, continuing a clear downward trend since the mid-2000’s even as the U.S. economy continues to grow. Carbon pollution levels from the power sector in the U.S. have now fallen below emissions from transportation, demonstrating remarkable progress in cleaning up our electric grid.
The rapid decarbonization of the U.S. power sector continues to be driven by a shift toward clean energy technologies. Renewable energy including solar, wind, and hydropower generated a record 18 percent of U.S. electricity in 2017, and new renewables comprised nearly half of utility-scale generating capacity installed in 2017. As more and more high-polluting coal plants become scheduled for retirement, power companies and regulators from Colorado to New Mexico to Wisconsinare increasingly replacing them directly with renewables.
A precipitous drop in costs has made the outlook for clean energy increasingly bullish in recent years. The cost of utility-scale solar power fell by more than 77 percent from 2010 to 2017. Worldwide, the cost of solar and onshore wind power declined by 18 percent in the last year alone.
As of 2017, the lifetime cost of unsubsidized wind and utility-scale solar is now below that of coal and on par with the cost of natural gas combined cycle technology.
Low-cost projections for clean energy are increasingly becoming a reality on the ground. In Colorado, for example, a recent solicitation for new renewables resulted in bid prices for wind and solar plus energy storage that are cheaper than the operating cost of nearly all coal plants in the state.
States and power companies continue to lead
Across the country, state governors and major power companies have continued to ramp up forward-looking commitments to cut carbon pollution and deploy clean energy — recognizing these clear power sector trends and driving increasingly ambitious climate progress.
Here are some recent examples:
Power companies
American Electric Power, the nation’s largest generator of electricity from coal, laid out a strategy in February to reduce carbon pollution by 60 percent below 2000 levels by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. “There is no question the electrification of our economy is accelerating,” said CEO Nick Akins. “Today, we are taking a longer-term view of carbon by setting new goals for carbon dioxide emission reductions for the future based upon resource plans that account for economics, customer preferences, reliability and regulation.”
Southern Company, the nation’s third largest power producer, announced a goal this month to reduce carbon pollution by 50 percent below 2007 levels by 2030 and to achieve “low- to no-carbon operations by 2050.” The commitment comes in the wake of a rapidly changing generation mix for Southern, with its share of generation from coal declining to 28 percent in 2017 from 70 percent in 2010.
In March, Oregon’s Portland General Electric committed to reducing carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050, in part by achieving Oregon’s target of 50 percent renewable energy by 2040 and transitioning away from coal by 2035.
PacifiCorp subsidiary Rocky Mountain Power plans to add more than 1,300 megawatts of wind power by 2020 — a $1.5 billion investment.
Across the Midwest, a slate of electric utilities recently committed to slash carbon emissions and transition away from coal:
PPL Corporation plans to reduce emissions by 2050 to 70 percent below 2010 levels, including retiring the bulk of the company’s coal plants in Kentucky.
Wisconsin’s largest utility, WEC Energy Group, plans to reduce carbon pollution by 40% below 2005 levels by 2030.
In Indiana, Vectren announced plans to reduce carbon pollution by 60 percent by shuttering three coal-fired power plants.
Ameren Missouri committed to reducing emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, and plans to invest $1 billion to add at least 700 megawatts of wind power by 2020.
In February 2018, Michigan utility Consumers Energy announced plans to reduce emissions by 80 percent and phase out coal by 2040.
States
This month, New Jersey lawmakers passed a sweeping clean energy bill that will put the state on a path to becoming a national clean energy leader. Governor Phil Murphy directed the state to begin negotiations to rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative(RGGI) – a multi-state program to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector. Governor Murphy also signed an order adding New Jersey to the U.S. Climate Alliance of states committed to upholding the Paris Agreement goals, and has outlined a goal of powering the state with 100 percent clean energy by mid-century.
In a show of bipartisan commitment to ambitious climate action,Maryland also joined the U.S. Climate Alliance this January, and participated in a multi-state process to strengthen RGGI.
Alaska Governor Bill Walker — an Independent — signed an orderin October 2017 establishing an advisory team to propose actions, including “statutory and regulatory changes,” for the state to reduce carbon pollution and support the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Just last week, environmental and energy regulators from thirteen states — California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington — delivered a letter to Administrator Pruitt opposing repeal of the Clean Power Plan and highlighting important progress across states to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector. “Low natural gas prices, declining costs of renewable energy technologies, and low demand growth are all existing power sector trends that have allowed our states to reap positive economic benefits from reducing emissions. The CPP would amplify these trends and make emissions reductions easier and more cost-effective,” the states write in the letter.
Shared prosperity under a stable climate
As the impacts of climate change — from wildfires to hurricanes — continue to threaten vulnerable communities across the U.S. and around the world, concerted actions to cut climate pollution are more important than ever.
At the same time, efforts to transition to a clean energy economy are delivering myriad benefits — from millions of good-paying clean energy jobs, to critical public health protections, to more affordable and more reliable electricity.
The leadership demonstrated by a growing group of states and major power companies to advance climate progress is critical to securing the benefits of a stable climate and clean energy future for millions of Americans. With continued leadership, and a return to meaningful federal action, America will see a global clean energy transformation and secure shared prosperity for all.
http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2018/04/26/proof-that-the-clean-power-plans-strategy-for-cutting-carbon-pollution-is-the-industry-standard/
-
Curtain Falls Today for Comments on Proposed Repeal
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Arianna Skibell
It's now or never for anyone that wants to comment on the proposed repeal of the Clean Power Plan.
With the public comment period ending today, hundreds of stakeholders — ranging from corporations to individuals — have already submitted comments to EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt urging him to either repeal, replace or leave intact former President Obama's signature climate rule.
Global food companies Danone SA, Mars Inc., Nestlé SA and Unilever NV recently sent a letterurging Pruitt to forgo his repeal of the plan, which enacts carbon emissions guidelines for existing electric utility generating units.
"The global food system is under pressure like never before," they wrote. "As major food manufacturers we recognize that climate change is bad for farmers, agriculture, business and consumers. Drought, flooding and hotter growing conditions threaten the world's food supply and contribute to food insecurity."
On the other side of the issue, the National Mining Association said its members support "full repeal" of the rule. In a letter to Pruitt, NMA's Hal Quinn wrote that a repeal is essential for three core reasons: the Clean Air Act doesn't authorize the rule, it would devastate the country economically and it would not provide any benefits.
"EPA must repeal the CPP because it is unlawful, embodies damaging policy and would produce no discernable [sic] benefit," Quinn wrote.
Pruitt formally initiated the repeal last year and has started the process of issuing a replacement rule. While there has been debate about what shape a new rule might take, the Trump administration is believed to be looking for an "inside the fence line" regulation that would target specific plants.
The inside-the-fence-line move is supported by business groups that argued against a total repeal of the rule. Others, however, argue that an inside-the-fence-line approach would actually do more harm than no rule at all (Greenwire, April 17).
The administration has said it plans to finalize the repeal of the climate rule by October.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/26/stories/1060080203
-
LNG Tanker with Dominion's First Commercial Export Cargo Heads to Egypt, Possibly for Refueling
Apr 26, 2018 | Platts
By Harry Weber
The LNG tanker carrying the first commercial export cargo from Dominion Energy's Cove Point terminal in Maryland set its destination Wednesday for Egypt's Port Said, which has recently been used as a stopping point en route to other countries in the region.
Dominion became the second US exporter of LNG produced from shale gas when it shipped its first commissioning cargo in March. Since then, it shipped a second commissioning cargo and three commercial cargoes that remain at sea, including the one aboard the Adam tanker. That vessel passed through the Strait of Gibraltar in recent days and set course for Port Said, S&P Global Platts vessel-tracking software cFlow shows.
Recently, vessels that have stopped at Port Said from the US have not loaded or unloaded a cargo but continued onto other destinations, suggesting that they may be refueling there and that the Adam, too, could eventually be heading somewhere else.
In January, Egypt's petroleum minister said the country planned to stop importing LNG by the end of June as it ramped up domestic gas production from newly discovered fields. To date, Egypt has imported five US LNG cargoes, all from Cheniere Energy's Sabine Pass terminal in Louisiana, cFlow data shows.
Dominion has repeatedly declined to comment on its commercial deliveries, beyond saying that commercial service commenced earlier this month under long-term agreements with Gail India and a joint venture of Sumitomo Corporation and Tokyo Gas. Shell had a deal to offtake Cove Point 's commissioning cargoes.
The most recent vessel from the US to stop at Port Said was the Maria Energy LNG from Sabine Pass, which stopped at the Egypt terminal for less than 24 hours before heading to India for delivery at Hazira. This is a possibility for the Adam as Egypt is moving toward halting LNG imports.
The two other commercial cargoes exported from Cove Point, aboard the LNG Sakura and Meridian Spirit tankers, remained at sea Wednesday, with no destination yet set by the captain, cFlow data shows. It is not uncommon for the final destinations of LNG tankers to not be set until the end of their voyage due to fluctuation in market prices and efforts by shippers to reap the highest netback. How much LNG will leave Cove Point over the next few months remains unclear. Japan, the world's biggest LNG importer, has been bringing nuclear power generating facilities back online and Gail commenced a long-term commercial agreement with Cheniere's Sabine Pass in March. S&P Global Platts Analytics estimates Gail will have around seven cargoes a month to market, import or sell via shipments from Sabine Pass and Cove Point as of next month.
Cove Point feedgas volumes have declined by over half to just under 300 MMcf/d since the recent departure of the Meridian Spirit on April 24. As of Wednesday afternoon, the Cove Point LNG terminal was not expecting any unladen LNG vessels to arrive in the coming days, which could keep feedgas volumes low.
https://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/lng-tanker-with-dominions-first-commercial-export-21888230
-
Enbridge Continues Push to Reroute Canadian Oil Export Pipeline in Minnesota
Apr 26, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Gordon Jaremko
Enbridge Inc. has vowed to try again for state approval of a partial new route across Minnesota for the proposed replacement of its half century-old Line 3 oil export pipeline that runs from Alberta to the Midwest.
A company statement says the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) would be asked to overrule an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) recommendation to restrict construction exclusively to “in-trench replacement” of the aged pipe with a new one.
“Overall, we are pleased that the ALJ has agreed that there is a clear need for the pipeline as it is a critical safety- and maintenance-driven project,” Enbridge said. “It will also ensure reliable and adequate supply of crude oil to Minnesota and regional refineries, providing significant economic benefits.”
But the Calgary-based pipeline conglomerate said it “continues to believe our preferred route is the best route for Minnesota when all factors are considered.”
The proposed change would create a new corridor for 47% of the line’s current 282-mile path across the state, increasing the length to 337 miles while avoiding two Indian reservations and environmentally sensitive areas.
“The final environmental impact statement approved by the MPUC demonstrates that on balance, our preferred route is least impactful on tribal/cultural resources, proximity to drinking water and high consequence population areas,” Enbridge said.
A final commission decision is expected in June.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114153-enbridge-continues-push-to-reroute-canadian-oil-export-pipeline-in-minnesota
-
Prolific Oil Patch Could Become World's Largest
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Energywire
The next decade might see the Permian Basin turn into the world's biggest oil-producing patch, with the size of reserves coupled with advances in efficiency and technology.
"The technology is the biggest driver," said Rob Thummel, managing director and energy portfolio manager at Tortoise. "The basin in and of itself could end up being the largest oil field in the world, even bigger than Ghawar in Saudi Arabia."
The Ghawar oil field is currently the biggest in the world, producing 5.8 million barrels per day.
The International Energy Agency estimates that by 2023, output from the Permian may hit 4 million barrels per day.
The 3.18 million barrels per day projected for the end of the May already puts it in league with output from countries like Iran (with 3.81 million barrels per day) and Iraq.
"If the Permian was part of OPEC, it would be the fourth-largest OPEC member, right behind Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq," said Thummel. "By the end of the year, the Permian probably overtakes Iran".
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/04/26/stories/1060080097
-
CSB, Chlorine Institute Call for Regular Assessments of Preventive Maintenance Plans
Apr 26, 2018 | Safety + Health
Chemical facility owners and operators should assess their preventive maintenance programs routinely and seek out assistance from industry groups, the Chemical Safety Board and the Chlorine Institute advise in a joint statement released Feb. 20.
CSB Chair Vanessa A. Sutherland and Chlorine Institute President Frank Reiner are urging facility owners and operators not to let “the pressure of everyday operations and short-term budgeting concerns” overshadow the need for constant improvement of preventive maintenance programs, especially as new technology is implemented.
“Preventive maintenance is neither an option nor a luxury – it is one of the most important elements of safety in the chemical sector,” Sutherland and Reiner say in the statement, which highlights three cases in which CSB investigators determined that insufficient preventive maintenance plans were a causal factor. In one case, a refinery industry practice proved inadequate at predicting high-temperature hydrogen attacks, which can lead to steel equipment failure in certain conditions.
“To be effective, facility owners, operators and employees must put time and resources into developing and executing preventive maintenance programs,” the statement reads. “Yet merely sticking to a plan, however necessary, is insufficient in light of the changing nature of the industry and the workplace.”
The statement calls for facility owners and operators to seek out both general resources and those specific to their operations. It also points out the work of the Chlorine Institute, which “regularly updates its written guidance for chlorine producers and users by working with its member companies to determine best practices and contracting external scientific expertise.”
http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/16955-csb-chlorine-institute-call-for-regular-assessments-of-preventive-maintenance-plans
-
Sunlight Works Against Oil Clean-Up Efforts
Apr 26, 2018 | Chem Info
By American Chemical Society
Oil spills, whether minor leaks or major environmental disasters, are bound to happen. Chemical dispersants are one of the tools that can help mitigate the impact of such spills, but they become less effective as oil weathers in the environment. Now, one group reports in Environmental Science & Technology Letters that sunlight has a much greater impact than previously thought on the effectiveness of these dispersants.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 10-25 million gallons of oil spill each year in the U.S. In large marine oil spills, chemical dispersants are often used. Dispersants break up floating oil into small droplets, which can be eaten by microbes or fall onto the soil at the bottom of the body of water, decreasing the risk of oil accumulation on shorelines.
As spilled oil floats on the water's surface, it undergoes weathering processes, such as evaporation and emulsification, in which the oil forms a temporarily stable mixture with water, making chemical dispersants less effective.
These are the major processes currently taken into account in field manuals and oil spill response guides for responders. According to these resources, photochemical oxidation, or chemical changes to the oil in response to sunlight, is a minor factor. However, in recent research, Collin P. Ward and colleagues determined that photochemical oxidation is a dominant weathering process. Now, these researchers wanted to examine how sunlight impacts the effectiveness of dispersants.
In the laboratory, the researchers analyzed samples of oil from the Macondo well, which was the location of the Deepwater Horizon spill in 2010. They confirmed that simulated sunlight has a larger impact on the oil's properties than evaporation. In addition, dispersant effectiveness or performance decreased four-fold more when oil was exposed to sunlight than it did when the oil underwent evaporation in the absence of sunlight.
To examine effects in the field, the team combined their estimates of how fast sunlight oxidizes oil with speeds of oil floating in the Gulf of Mexico and the locations of 412 aerial applications of dispersants on the Deepwater Horizon spill. Based on these data, the researchers say that many of the applications targeted oil that had undergone photochemical oxidation that lowered the dispersant effectiveness below 45 percent, which is below the threshold set by EPA for dispersants to be used in a spill.
The team recommends that the effects of sunlight be considered in future field manuals and oil spill response guides for responders.
https://www.chem.info/news/2018/04/sunlight-works-against-oil-clean-efforts
-
Pollution Remains Near Closed Calif. Battery Recycling Plant
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
Nearly two years after its discovery, the lead in soil surrounding the closed Exide Technologies battery recycling plant in Vernon, Calif., hasn't been removed.
State regulators discovered that the lead levels in the soil were above 1,000 parts per million.
Lupe Perez lives in nearby apartments, and she said she struggled to keep her 3-year-old daughter away from the yard.
"I try to tell her not to touch the dirt or play with the dirt, but, I mean, she's going to step on it, it's going to be all over the house," Perez said. "I can't keep her inside all day."
Currently there is no start date for cleaning the area. The Vernon facility's decades of air pollution contaminated about 10,000 properties. Cleanup efforts were supposed to begin last summer.
Perez suspects that if she lived in a wealthier area, the cleanup "would have been done a long time ago".
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/26/stories/1060080191
-
Metrolink, UP Mark PTC Interoperability Achievement
Apr 26, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
Metrolink yesterday announced its positive train control (PTC) system has reached interoperability with Union Pacific Railroad.
The agency now can use its PTC system on tracks owned by UP on the Ventura County Line north of Moorpark station and the Riverside Line. The Class I will operate PTC on tracks owned by Metrolink on the Ventura County Line south of Moorpark station and the Antelope Valley Line.
"With this development, [we have] significantly expanded PTC across [our] network of shared track," said Metrolink Chair Andrew Kotyuk in a press release.
In June 2015, Metrolink launched PTC in revenue service demonstration across its entire 341-mile network, becoming the first U.S. passenger railroad to operate such a system during regular service on all its hosted lines. Since it achieved interoperability with BNSF Railway Co. in October 2017, it’s now the first U.S. commuter railroad to attain interoperability with both BNSF and UP, Metrolink officials said.
The successful interoperability efforts with Metrolink trains in southern California are a major step in enhancing safe operations between freight and passenger railroads, said Lupe Valdez, UP's public affairs director in southern California.
"It will be important that all railroads continue working together to ensure smooth and safe transitions as PTC is implemented,” he said.
Metrolink is coordinating with its remaining operating partners — Amtrak and North County Transit District — to achieve interoperability this year across all shared tracks in the region.
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Metrolink-UP-mark-PTC-interoperability-achievement--54524
-
(ACC Mentioned) Editorial: EPA’s Scott Pruitt Offers Another Gift to Polluters
Apr 26, 2018 | Valley News
Environmental Protection Agency Director Scott Pruitt proposed a rule Tuesday that he insisted would enhance “transparency,” but which critics described as an attack on the use of science and scientific studies to craft regulations aimed at protecting the environment.
Under the rule, the EPA could consider only studies for which the underlying data are made public. Although that may sound like something that would enhance the scientific basis of the agency’s work, in fact the new rule — long on the wish list of conservatives — would reward the very industries the agency is supposed to regulate. For instance, it would make it harder for EPA to use studies based on the health effects of pollutants to limit the damage they cause.
Notably, Pruitt is doing by fiat what Congress has steadfastly refused to do: adopt the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, who believes human-caused climate change to be a myth and who has, as chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, routinely defied science to help the fossil-fuel industry. Iterations of Smith’s bill were backed by groups such as Koch Industries, ExxonMobil and the American Chemistry Council, according to The New York Times.
Pruitt said cynically on Tuesday: “The American people ought to be able to have confidence, assurance that the findings, the record that we build ... can be analyzed by those that are offering comments to us in rule making.” But that’s a pretext; it has long been clear that Pruitt’s top priority is to weaken the agency’s ability to regulate industry.
Scientists who routinely conduct studies and comment on proposed regulations say there is nothing wrong with the system the agency currently uses. Many studies about the health impacts of pollutants are based on the private medical records of individuals. But under this proposed rule, any study that promised those individuals confidentiality could not be used. “These are phony issues that weaponize ‘transparency’ to facilitate political interference in science-based decision-making, rather than genuinely address either,” nearly 1,000 scientists said in a letter opposing the rule. “The result will be policies and practices that will ignore significant risks to the health of every American.”
Scientists who submit studies for peer review or for publication in a scientific journal don’t generally have to turn over such confidential data.
Pruitt’s move follows his directive last year that scientists who receive grants from the EPA can no longer serve on the agency’s scientific advisory boards because, he argued, they have a conflict of interest. The result: Industry representatives and industry-friendly state officials have replaced academics in helping the agency frame policy. Pruitt has also ordered a rollback of higher emissions standards for motor vehicles, consolidated in his office decision-making on which waterways fall under the Clean Water Act and targeted for repeal more than 20 other regulations. Fortunately, several state attorneys general and nonprofit environmental watchdog groups have formed something of a legal firewall with court challenges over Pruitt’s dangerous actions. But suing isn’t the same as winning, and more reasonable voices in Washington must stand up to Pruitt and to the threat he poses to clean air and water, and to the health of the nation.
Pruitt has to go. His ethical lapses are legion. He allegedly took a sweetheart deal last year for cheap living space in a Washington townhouse co-owned by the wife of an oil lobbyist. He has squandered taxpayers’ money on a soundproof phone room in his office, on exorbitant trips, and in using a round-the-clock security detail even when on personal business. The EPA say he needs the security (which has already cost nearly $3 million) because of threats; a BuzzFeed reporter, however, says the agency told him that it could find no records of threats.
But the real problem with Pruitt is his unrelenting efforts to undermine the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other protections that have reduced pollution and saved millions of American lives without undermining the U.S. economy. Making a profit and having a clean, safe environment are not mutually exclusive.
http://www.vnews.com/Editorial-Scott-Pruitt-offers-up-another-gift-to-polluters-17106595
-
Scott Pruitt, Under an Ethics Cloud, Faces Lawmakers
Apr 26, 2018 | The New York Times
By John Schwartz, Coral Davenport, and Eric Lipton
Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, began the first of two appearances before congressional panels on Thursday, in what is expected to be a daylong grilling over recent allegations of ethical infractions and lavish spending.
The E.P.A. chief, whose job may be hanging by a thread, is delivering a typically lawyerly performance.
As Democrats opened an aggressive, coordinated line of questioning — on Mr. Pruitt’s spending, housing arrangements, security team and raises for political appointees — he stayed quiet and calm, giving answers that deflected and defused, never raising his voice or his temper, but rarely giving direct answers to those questions.
A live stream of the first hearing, with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, is available above and at this link.
Here are the highlights so far:
An opening barrage from Democrats
Representative Paul Tonko, Democrat of New York, asked Mr. Pruitt to say “yes or no” to whether he had approved pay raises for two E.P.A. employees he brought with him from Oklahoma.
Mr. Pruitt said he had delegated the authority to grant such approvals, or as he put it, “There was delegation given in my authority.” He said, “I was not aware of the amount, and I was not aware of the bypassing that was going on.” Mr. Tonko said the answer suggests “you have no idea what is going on” under Mr. Pruitt’s name at the agency.
Representative Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, was even more direct in his opening remarks. “You are unfit to hold public office and undeserving of the public trust,” he told Mr. Pruitt. “Every indication we have is you really should resign.”
He followed up by asking Mr. Pruitt whether he had sidelined or demoted at least five employees who disagreed with him, demanding a “yes or no” answer as to whether he had called for these changes.
“I don’t ever recall a conversation about that,” Mr. Pruitt said.
“I’ll take that as a yes,” Mr. Pallone responded.
“You shouldn’t take that as a yes,” the administrator pushed back.
Mr. Pallone continued to press. “Has it always been your practice to fire people who disagree with you?”
He then moved on to talk about a toxic chemical that was on track to be banned when action was delayed by the agency under Mr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt responded that the review had not been closed. Mr. Pallone responded that the lack of action on that chemical and others “makes a mockery of the E.P.A.”
A more cordial welcome from Republicans
Republicans also chastised Mr. Pruitt in opening remarks, but their questions tended to be much more gentle.
Representative Joe Barton of Texas, who has long denied the overwhelming evidence of human effects on climate change, offered sympathy. “Mr. Pruitt, you’re not the first victim of Washington politics,” he said.
As to Mr. Pruitt’s penchant for first-class travel, Mr. Barton said: “You’ve been attacked for flying first class. Was that illegal? It may look bad, but it’s not illegal.”
Representative David B. McKinley, Republican of West Virginia, told Mr. Pruitt sympathetically that the attacks on him “have an echo of McCarthyism.”
The phone booth
Representative Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, drilled down on some of the ethics questions concerning Mr. Pruitt’s expenses in office and his past financial dealings.
She first asked about Mr. Pruitt’s famous soundproof booth, installed in his E.P.A. office at a cost of $43,000. The Government Accountability Office has ruled that the expenditure broke the law.
Mr. Pruitt had previously testified that the expense was appropriate. In light of the recent ruling, Ms. DeGette asked whether Mr. Pruitt knew that the purchase had violated the law and whether anyone would be penalized.
“We are investigating this internally,” he said.
“Would you agree that public officials should be held to the highest standards of ethical conduct?” she asked. He responded that he did.
Representative Tony Cárdenas, a California Democrat, also brought up the phone booth.
“I was not aware of the approval of the $43,000,” Mr. Pruitt told him, “and if I had known about it, congressman, I would not have approved it.”
Mr. Cárdenas responded that “if someone was spending $43,000 in my office, I would know about it.”
Travel expenses
Representative Anna G. Eshoo, a California Democrat, had scathing criticism for Mr. Pruitt when her turn for questioning came. “You have a solid record of violating ethics rules from the state level to the federal government,” she told him. “I think it’s an embarrassment.”
Then she asked: “Do you have any remorse? Yes or no?”
Mr. Pruitt responded: “I think there are changes I’ve made already. I’ve made a change from first class to coach travel.”
She returned to her call for a yes-or-no answer, and asked Mr. Pruitt whether he would reimburse the government. He launched into a long response, but she cut him off.
“With all due respect, I may be elected, but I’m not a fool,” she said. “This is not ‘dodge-question’ day.”
Oklahoma real estate
Ms. DeGette also questioned Mr. Pruitt about his involvement in real estate deals in Oklahoma, referring to the purchaser of his home as a “shell company.”
“It’s not a shell company,” he said quickly, and said that such financial structures were commonly used to purchase real estate in Oklahoma.
She then asked Mr. Pruitt whether he had paid taxes on rent he received. He said such issues had been handed over to an accountant.
“I’m not doing this to hassle you. I’m doing this as an elected official,” Ms. DeGette said as she ended her questions. “Everything we do has to be to the highest ethical standards.”Research ‘transparency’
When asked about his announcement this week that the E.P.A. would restrict the kinds of scientific studies that it would use in forming policy, Mr. Pruitt responded: “It seems to me that it’s common sense that as we do rule-making, we base it on scientific conclusions that we should be able to see the data and methodology that causes those conclusions. That makes sense to me.”
Tensions with California
Mr. Pruitt said that the agency was “not at present” planning any efforts to revoke a decades-old waiver that allows California to enforce its own emissions standards on automobiles.
But he would not say definitively whether that was a final position. The E.P.A. is “working very diligently and diplomatically with California to find answers on this issue,” Mr. Pruitt said, in response to questions from Representative Doris Matsui, a California Democrat who has sought to protect her state’s ability to regulate emissions.
The White House reaction
It is Mr. Trump’s opinion of the E.P.A. administrator that matters most at the end of the day, and his Twitter account may offer insight into Mr. Pruitt’s fate. Two weeks ago, Mr. Trump tweeted his support of Mr. Pruitt, writing: “While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at EPA. Record clean Air & Water while saving USA Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate, travel expenses OK. Scott is doing a great job!”
On Wednesday, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the president’s press secretary, said a White House review of Mr. Pruitt’s ethics issues was “ongoing” but offered no details. “We’re evaluating these concerns and we expect the E.P.A. administrator to answer for them and we’ll keep you posted,” she said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/26/climate/scott-pruitt-congress-hearing.html
-
'I Have Nothing to Hide' — Pruitt
Apr 26, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Kevin Bogardus
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said today allegations of excessive spending and misuse of his Cabinet-level authority are aimed at upending President Trump's agenda at the agency.
Pruitt appeared before the House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee this morning — the first of two hearings today — as speculation swirled about how much longer the administrator would last in the job.
Several Democrats, along with a few Republicans, have called on the EPA chief to resign or be fired, while White House staff have grown tired with the negative headlines frequently generated by Pruitt.
In his opening statement, Pruitt acknowledged that his tenure at EPA has not been perfect but stressed that the attacks on him are attacks on Trump's plans to transform the agency, rather than genuine concern over the appropriate use of taxpayer dollars.
"Let me be very clear. I have nothing to hide as it relates to how I have run the agency over the past 16 months," Pruitt said.
But he added, "Facts are facts, and fiction is fiction. And a lie doesn't become truth because it appears on the front page of the newspaper.
"Those who have attacked the EPA and attacked me are doing so because they want to attack and derail the president's agenda and undermine this administration's priorities," Pruitt said. "I'm simply not going to let that happen."
Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), chairman of the full E&C Committee, told the administrator: "I am concerned that the good progress being made on the policy front is being undercut by allegations about your management of the agency and use of its resources. These issues are too persistent to ignore, and I know many members are looking for more clarity from you today."
Pruitt came under rapid-fire questioning from Democrats on the growing list of scandals that have swamped EPA under his watch. Often, Pruitt would turn to actions by career officials and say he wasn't aware or didn't recall details of every instance.
Full committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said, "You have blamed your staff, your security detail, your critics — pretty much anyone but yourself. You are accountable for your agency and all of these scandals. The buck stops at your desk."
Pallone, echoing other Democrats at the hearing, told Pruitt: "Every indication we have is you should resign."
'There is no truth'
Rep. Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the subcommittee's ranking member, pressed the administrator on his knowledge of substantial pay raises for two EPA aides who came with Pruitt from Oklahoma.
"I was not aware of the amount, nor was I aware of the [White House personnel] process being bypassed," Pruitt said about one of the raises, noting that the authority to make raises was delegated to EPA chief of staff Ryan Jackson.
Pallone said he was very concerned about "this troubling pattern of retaliation" regarding reports that top officials at EPA who raised worries about Pruitt's spending requests were either demoted or reassigned. The Democratic lawmaker asked what Pruitt knew about those personnel actions.
"I don't ever recall a conversation," Pruitt said.
Later, Pruitt told Rep. Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) that "there is no truth to that," regarding allegations that agency leaders retaliated against career officials who questioned the administrator's spending.
Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) asked Pruitt whether he would direct one of his top advisers, Albert "Kell" Kelly, to testify before the committee, given that he had canceled on an earlier appearance.
Kelly, a former Oklahoma banker picked to lead a Superfund task force at the agency, is facing a lifetime ban from the financial industry, issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
"I don't know if I have that authority. I would encourage him to do so," Pruitt said.
Democrats also sought to tie Pruitt's closeness to industry to policy decisions at EPA. Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.) said the EPA chief was looking to reward his friends at oil and gas companies.
The congressman took aim at a proposed rule announced just this week that would require EPA regulations to be based on publicly available scientific data, which critics say could limit the use of public health studies that rely on confidential information.
"Protections for children who suffer asthma, seniors with respiratory illnesses — that demonstrates a disregard for true scientific study, scientific process and confidentiality of people who want to participate in our furthering of knowledge to protect the public good," Ruiz said, "allowing your rich and powerful corporate friends to increase pollution and increase profit at the expense of the common good, children with asthma and seniors with COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]."
Republican, EPA rebuttals
Many Republicans stuck to policy questions for Pruitt but also took the opportunity to push back on their Democratic colleagues, saying their criticisms of the administrator have grown too personal.
"This has been a classic display of McCarthyism," said Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.). "People are ignoring the progress that you are making and want to make this another attack on President Trump."
Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), known for his tough questioning of other witnesses, said, "I think it's shameful today that this hearing today has turned into a personal attack hearing."
Pruitt's appearance on Capitol Hill was his first since stories of ethics mishaps went into overdrive late last month, beginning when news broke of him living part of last year in a Capitol Hill condo tied to a lobbyist whose firm's clients have business interests before EPA.
EPA's public affairs office emailed out press releases during the hearing noting agency actions under Pruitt. It also sent out quotes from the administrator repeated by reporters over social media.
Before this morning's hearing, the agency shared a research document with some lawmakers on the Hill on the various ethics allegations against Pruitt.
The 23-page memo, obtained by E&E News, attempts to rebut many of lingering stories centered on the administrator, including his first-class travel and expansive security, as well as accusations by Kevin Chmielewski, a former top EPA aide and Trump appointee on the outs with agency leadership.
It compares allegations against the administrator with past actions taken by President Obama's EPA leaders, Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner even gets a mention, who lived in a banking executive's home during his early months on the job, according to the document.
'Killer and liar'
Environmental groups and a handful of Democratic Energy and Commerce lawmakers rallied this morning outside the Capitol in advance of the hearing, bashing the EPA chief's policy and ethics record and unfurling a "Boot Pruitt" sign.
"We know the Democrats will be tough and strong. The question is which Republicans will actually challenge him on the spot and call him for his lies," said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters, who helped to lead the rally.
Collin O'Mara, the president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation, said there should be broad bipartisan calls for Pruitt's ouster. But, he noted, only four Republican House members and no GOP senators have called for his resignation.
"Partisanship has to be set aside to stand up for the public good," said O'Mara, who said he was hopeful that today's hearings would increases pressure from both parties for Pruitt to step down.
Karpinski, a fierce Pruitt critic who labeled him a "killer and liar," said he does not believe a strong performance by the EPA chief could put Pruitt on the road to rehabilitation. But, he said, that might not matter with a Republican in the White House.
"Let's be clear: In the eyes of Trump, he is doing what Trump likes in terms of doing the bidding of the polluters," he added.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/04/26/stories/1060080215
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested