Preview Newsletter
ACC AM 5/22/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Worried About 'Unintended Consequences' of Trade War
May 21, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Call it collateral damage from a trade war with China: Saudi Basic Industries Inc. says steep tariffs proposed on U.S. polycarbonate exports to China could cause the company to shift some production out of the United States. -
Hill Frets over NAFTA Dispute System Backed by Energy Firms
May 22, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Congressional Republicans and business groups are growing increasingly worried about the fate of a key investor dispute settlement process that is a top priority of energy interests as the Trump administration looks to finalize a revised version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). -
Bottled Water and the Damage Done: Coping With Plastic Pollution
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Bottled water beats out soda as the best-selling U.S. beverage, but that popularity spotlights the environmental costs of so many plastic bottles being used once and then tossed aside. -
Environmentalists, Industry Back Safer Choice Data For TSCA Prioritization
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and industry officials are generally supporting EPA's potential plan to use information from the agency's Safer Choice product labeling program to identify chemicals that are low-priority for review under the revised toxics law, but they are raising competing concerns, including how much additional data would be required. -
New Coalition Forms To Save EPA's Safer Choice Program From Cuts
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
As EPA weighs changes to its Safer Choice product labeling program, chemical and consumer products manufacturers are launching a new coalition next month to preserve and strengthen the program from critics in Congress and the Trump administration who have sought to eliminate it. -
(ACC Mentioned) Did EPA Consult With The Chemical Industry While Working To Suppress A Scientific Study On PFAS?
May 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Yogin Kothari
Today, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to EPA requesting more information about a meeting with an industry trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), attended by Richard Yamada, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Met with Industry After White House Flagged Health Study
May 22, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
EPA discussed a class of toxic nonstick chemicals with industry the day after a White House official warned that a health study of them could be a "public relations nightmare." -
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Question Industry Influence in PFAS Report Delay
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are questioning whether Trump EPA appointees were swayed by the chemical industry last January, when they acted with Defense Department counterparts to stall a draft Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) study of four PFAS chemicals, including some risk estimates stricter than EPA's. -
Environmentalists: Paper Mills Likely Major Source of Chemical Pollution in Waterways
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A number of U.S. paper mills are expected to discharge hundreds of pounds of a controversial chemical into rivers — a reality that the federal government is aware of and has signed off on, according to internal Federal Drug Administration (FDA) documents. -
Pruitt Defends Status of Controversial Toxicology Report
May 22, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday claimed he isn't blocking the release of a toxicology review that has prompted fear in the White House and outrage on Capitol Hill. -
Study: Giving Children Flame-Retardant Free Nap Mats Reduces Harmful Exposures
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Tasha Stoiber
Children are exposed to brominated and organophosphate flame retardants from nap mats at child care centers, but switching to mats without the chemicals reduces kids’ exposures, according to a new study from scientists at Indiana University and Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit organization based in Seattle. -
EPA Backpedals on Pruitt’s Timing for Paint Stripper Restrictions
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule restricting some uses of a paint stripper will soon be sent to the White House for review, the EPA says, backpedaling on the timing of that action recently described by agency Administrator Scott Pruitt. -
Landmark Lawsuit Claims Monsanto Hid Cancer Danger of Weedkiller for Decades
May 22, 2018 | The Guardian
By Carey Gillam
At the age of 46, DeWayne Johnson is not ready to die. But with cancer spread through most of his body, doctors say he likely has just months to live. -
California Sets 'No Significant Risk Level' for Vinylidene Chloride
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Proposition 65 "no significant risk level" (NSRL) of 0.88 micrograms per day for vinylidene chloride. -
Sweden Expects up to 2,600 Notifications to Nano Register
May 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) said it expects to receive up to 2,600 data notifications on nanomaterials in chemical products to Sweden’s new product register. -
CW Brexit Conference Report Marks UK Industry’s ‘Cautious Optimism’
May 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
With less than one year to go before the UK withdraws from the EU, British industry representatives say they are quietly optimistic about negotiations, a report on Chemical Watch’s second Brexit conference has highlighted. -
FERC Shifts Gears on Environmental Reviews for Natural Gas Pipelines
May 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
FERC by a 3-2 vote has denied a request for rehearing of its April 2016 decision to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Dominion Transmission Inc.'s New Market project, with the majority declaring that it will continue to take into account proposed pipelines' potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but not their impacts on natural gas production and consumption. -
Energy Exports to Play 'Massive' Role in Any Breakthrough in the US-China Trade Talks
May 21, 2018 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
Energy will play a major role in a breakthrough in trade talks between the Trump administration and its Chinese counterparts, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Monday. -
DTE, Consumers Energy Promise Clean Power to Dodge Ballot Measure
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, Michigan’s two largest utilities, must file plans over the next year to massively increase renewable energy and efficiency as part of a deal to stave off a 30 percent renewable energy ballot initiative. -
Pennsylvania Board Upholds Well Permits, Says Enviro Rights Not Violated
May 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) has denied the appeal of two environmental groups that have for years been challenging permits for six unconventional natural gas wells operated by Rex Energy Corp. near a school in Butler County. -
Chemical Safety Board, OSHA Investigate Kuraray Explosion
May 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
The Chemical Safety Board and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating the cause of a chemical explosion that injured 21 workers at the Kuraray America Eval plant in Pasadena. -
Kuraray America Chemicals Plant Blast Draws Safety Probe
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators are heading to Pasadena, Texas, to look into an explosion at a specialty chemicals plant that injured 21 workers. -
Head of Chemical Safety Board Says She’s Resigning
May 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bruce Rolfsen and Sam Pearson
The head of the federal agency that investigates refinery and chemical plant accidents is resigning. -
Senate, House Plan to Mark up Water Infrastructure Funding Bills
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
Senate and House committees are scheduled this week to mark up Army Corps of Engineers funding legislation, though debate is continuing in the upper chamber over whether lawmakers will seek to attach controversial proposed changes to an EPA infrastructure loan program to the Senate bill. -
US Federal Railroad Administration Announces $250m to Support PTC Rollout
May 22, 2018 | Global Rail News
The United States’ Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has announced grants worth $250 million in support of the implementation of positive train control (PTC). -
SAB Group Seeks Science Review Of All Major Trump EPA Climate Rollbacks
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Members of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) are seeking to review the underlying science for virtually all of the Trump EPA's major rollbacks of Obama-era climate policies, with another SAB workgroup late last week offering the latest scathing pushback of administration plans to weaken two high-profile mobile source rules, as well as the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric. -
Climate Caucus Pens Letter Opposing Riders
May 21, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibel
Members of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus today urged leaders of the Appropriations Committee to reject any provisions that would undermine efforts to combat climate change.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Industry Worried About 'Unintended Consequences' of Trade War
May 21, 2018 | Plastics News
By Steve Toloken
Call it collateral damage from a trade war with China: Saudi Basic Industries Inc. says steep tariffs proposed on U.S. polycarbonate exports to China could cause the company to shift some production out of the United States.
That's what a Sabic executive told a May 15 hearing in Washington, that the potential trade war between the two countries "would lead to unintended consequences and result in disproportionate harm" to plastics and chemicals makers.
Sabic was not alone in saying tariffs could perversely push some production offshore.
The American Chemistry Council told the panel that China's retaliatory tariffs could cause some U.S. specialty polymer producers to "reduce or end production in the United States" to stay competitive in China's large market.
But Sabic made the strongest statements, specifically linking the potential for 25 percent tariffs on U.S. resin exports to China to harm to its U.S. factories and jobs.
"If China implements these retaliatory tariffs, we would seek to maintain our market share in China," said Greg Skelton, Sabic's director and head of government relations, Americas. "This may mean moving production out of the U.S. to our existing polycarbonate facilities in other regions."
Skelton specifically mentioned the company's PC manufacturing plants in Mount Vernon, Ind., and Burkville, Ala., and said that the "good manufacturing jobs that we provide … would suffer adverse effects from a prolonged disruption in demand due to higher Chinese tariffs."
He also said reducing domestic PC production would hurt U.S. plastics processors and their customers that rely on Sabic materials.
"This would have associated cost impacts on downstream industries in the U.S., such as automotive, electronics and medical devices, that currently source their polycarbonate from our U.S. production," Skelton said. "While that's not the intention of the administration's proposed action, to bring negative repercussions to companies manufacturing in the U.S., it's important to factor in the real-world impact."
Sabic, ACC and others testified on the opening day of three days of hearings before the panel called by the office of the U.S. Trade Representative to look at the Trump administration's proposed $50 billion tariffs and fallout from Chinese retaliation.
While there are many voices in support of tariffs in the U.S. plastics industry, the Washington hearing gave skeptics of the Trump administration's tariff plans a chance to make their case in more detail than they have in the past.
ACC, for example, noted that its testimony included new concerns from member companies in the plastics industry, worried that Beijing's tariffs would price them out of the growing Chinese market.
"Some ACC members are specialty polymer producers serving global markets from U.S.-based plants and competing with non-U.S. suppliers," said Ed Bryztwa, director of international trade at the Washington-based group.
"China's retaliatory tariffs will weaken the competitiveness of U.S. producers in very important export markets," he said. "Some producers will reduce or end production in the United States in order to maintain access to China's market and others will be greatly disadvantaged."
ACC also gave an example of a company that relies on "U.S.-sourced specialty plastics products" that was worried about millions of dollars in direct impact from China's tariffs and said the Chinese tariffs "will incentivize offshoring. The company anticipates moving the production of those materials to its European or Asian operations."
Bryztwa declined to name the companies or share details but repeated ACC arguments that 40 percent of China's retaliatory tariffs are aimed at U.S. chemical and plastics makers.
Manufacturing groups at the hearing were trying to walk a line, testifying that they shared the Trump administration's concerns about China but didn't think broad tariffs were the solution.
The National Association of Manufacturers praised the administration's tax cuts and regulatory rollbacks and said it welcomed the sharper focus on China.
But it noted that, even as there's an overall deficit with China, U.S. manufacturing exports to China have grown five fold since 2001, to $97 billion, and the country is now the third-largest export market for manufacturers.
"Our manufacturers need to be able continue to tap into that enormous growth and win more sales in China in order to support and create more good-paying manufacturing jobs here at home," said Linda Dempsey, vice president of international economic affairs at NAM.
NAM, ACC and others urged a more targeted approach, with NAM advocating to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with Beijing that would better open China's markets to U.S. goods.
The plastics industry itself is split on the tariffs, according to written testimony from the Washington-based Plastics Industry Association, which did not send a representative to testify in person at the hearing.
"Support for the tariffs is split along the lines of those who have direct competitors from China and those who do not," Scott DeFife, the group's vice president of government affairs, wrote. "In general, we believe that there are more targeted ways to address the issues that plague the U.S.-China trade relationship — actions that don't put the country at risk of a trade war."
The largest U.S.-based maker of plastics machinery, Milacron Holdings Corp., said in written testimony that it supported the Trump administration's 25 percent tariff on injection molding machines from China.
However, illustrating the complex nature of global supply chains, Milacron opposed tariffs on the roughly $100 million in Chinese components it imports annually to make its equipment in the U.S.
That in a nutshell might be the challenge for the tariffs. There was repeated testimony that helping one sector hurts another.
For example, one association representing users of the molding machines said they opposed tariffs on Chinese-made plastics equipment.
The Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association, which represents 1,000 vehicle parts makers, specifically asked the USTR to remove tariffs on Chinese-made injection molding machines and plastic molds, among a long list of other equipment it wanted exemptions for.
It argued those tariffs would hurt its member companies' competitiveness without addressing concerns about China, a point echoed by NAM at the hearing.
"While tariffs may provide short-term relief to some, we are hearing regularly and broadly from manufacturers across the country who are deeply concerned about the harmful albeit unintended impacts of the proposed tariffs," Dempsey said. "These tariffs would cripple many manufacturers that depend on imports."
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180521/NEWS/180529990
-
Hill Frets over NAFTA Dispute System Backed by Energy Firms
May 22, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Geof Koss
Congressional Republicans and business groups are growing increasingly worried about the fate of a key investor dispute settlement process that is a top priority of energy interests as the Trump administration looks to finalize a revised version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism remains one of the outstanding issues in ongoing talks with Mexico and Canada on NAFTA.
Led by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the administration's negotiators have taken a dim view of ISDS, which allows foreign companies to challenge domestic policies and regulations that may run afoul of trade rules.
In one famous use of such tribunals, TransCanada Corp. brought a $15 billion ISDS claim against the United States over President Obama's rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline, although the company later dropped the effort after Trump moved to approve the project (Energywire, June 27, 2016).
In an appearance before the House Ways and Means Committee in March, Lighthizer suggested that ISDS threatens U.S. sovereignty and may incentivize the outsourcing of American jobs (E&E Daily, March 22).
Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who at the time rejected Lighthizer's arguments, said last week that ISDS remains a live issue in the talks.
"Obviously I continue to make the case for very strong investor state protections," Brady told reporters.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said ISDS is among the issues that Republicans have raised with Vice President Mike Pence, a frequent visitor to the Senate GOP caucus lunch.
"It's been communicated very, very, very clearly by members of their concerns over NAFTA," Murkowski told E&E News last week.
Business interests continue to weigh in, as well. ISDS protects "U.S. businesses from discrimination abroad," wrote the American Petroleum Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers to Trump, Lighthizer and top Cabinet officials earlier this month.
"Moving forward with a revised NAFTA that does not include such protections for U.S. businesses would threaten our economy and endanger the prospects for NAFTA 2.0 to be approved in Congress," the groups warned.
In op-ed in The Hill newspaper last month, the head of the U.S. Council for International Business argued that jettisoning or weakening the ISDS in a successor treaty was tantamount to making NAFTA "like a football game without referees."
Despite the business community's support for ISDS, Trump in March reportedly told oil and gas officials that the tribunals are not an essential component of a new NAFTA (Energywire, March 19).Internal divisions
The Trump administration itself is divided on the ISDS, according to one former official.
"Within the administration, I would say there's a consensus among the energy policy folks that we need ISDS," said the source, who noted that scrapping the tribunals "increases the costs or the risk vis-a-vis U.S. companies and those foreign operations compared to what other countries face that have an ISDS. It's really putting U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage."
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who sits on the Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees, said last week he's "vehemently" made that same point in meetings with top administration officials on trade.
"I think their thinking is that the risk premium that someone would pay to operate in Mexico would be a reason for them to not operate in Mexico rather than to operate in the United States," Cassidy told E&E News.
"But oil field services, energy companies, cannot do that because inherently their commodity is there, they need our help to produce it, we produce it in a more environmentally sound way, we create American jobs by helping them," he said, "so why are we turning our back on them?"
Rather than dropping ISDS entirely, the administration has also suggested an "opt-in" model for nations to embrace.
There's also talk of an carve-out for the energy sector on investor protections, although there's concern about the precedent of giving one sector preferences in trade negotiations, the former administration official said.
Further exacerbating concerns over ISDS is the upcoming July 1 Mexican presidential election, where front-runner Andrés Manuel López Obrador has suggested he may reverse the landmark energy reforms that country has implemented in recent years.
"There's real concern that politically you could have a situation where Mexico sort of throws the brakes on and actually reverses some of the reforms, and then ends up putting U.S. companies in an awkward spot, or coming up with a situation that produces some sort of contract disputes," said the former Trump administration official. "I think that's a real possibility."
Ultimately, Congress will have a say in what a revised NAFTA looks like. Under so-called fast-track trade rules, lawmakers will get a chance for an up-or-down vote on a revised NAFTA.
However, the administration last week blew by the May 17 deadline that House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has said that negotiations need to be concluded by to meet public notice procedures dictated by the trade law and still have enough time for a ratifying vote in both chambers before the end of the year. Ryan last week told reporters there may be some "wiggle room" on that deadline.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin over the weekend said the administration was unconcerned with the deadline, suggesting that approval of a final deal could spill over into the new Congress.
"The president is more determined to have a good deal than he is worried about any deadline," Mnuchin said on Fox News on Sunday. "So, whether we pass it in this Congress or whether we pass it in a new Congress, the president is determined that we negotiate NAFTA. That's something we're doing."
On Capitol Hill, rumors abound that the administration may submit a partial NAFTA rewrite for congressional approval later this year, possibly in the lame-duck session, while continuing negotiations on sticking points.
Ways and Means Chairman Brady dismissed that idea last week. "The bottom line is the agreement needs to be a real one," he said.
Separately, 32 Republican senators yesterday also urged the administration to avoid brinkmanship in the talks, including through a rumored "ultimatum strategy to pressure Congress into accepting an updated NAFTA to withdraw."
"In our view, a take-it or leave-it strategy could have negative unintended effects that jeopardize American jobs and economic growth," wrote the group, led by Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).
"When discussing NAFTA modernization legislation with Congress, we ask the Administration employ a strategy that emphasizes collaboration, rather than conflict."
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/22/stories/1060082303
-
Bottled Water and the Damage Done: Coping With Plastic Pollution
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Adam Allington
Bottled water beats out soda as the best-selling U.S. beverage, but that popularity spotlights the environmental costs of so many plastic bottles being used once and then tossed aside.
Critics contend the ubiquitous bottles are overflowing landfills and clogging up oceans and lakes, all while demanding more oil for plastic and siphoning public water supplies. The backlash has driven dozens of college campuses, as well as a growing number of cities and even national parks, to ban or limit the sale of bottled water.
“I think anybody that walks down the street, in almost any city, can see that we can’t just recycle our way out of this problem,” Nneka Leiba, director of healthy living science at the Environmental Working Group, told Bloomberg Environment.
The large beverage companies maintain that the impacts of more plastic circulating around the world can be mitigating by through better recycling programs, as well packaging innovations such as plant-based PET bottles.
Earlier this year, Coca-Cola set the goal of recycling one bottle or can for every beverage it sells by 2030. PepsiCo Inc. also laid out plans to increase the sustainability of its plastic footprint.
“PepsiCo is already one of the largest purchasers of recycled PET in the consumer goods industry,” said Roberta Barbieri, vice president of global water and environmental solutions at PepsiCo in Purchase, N.Y. “We have set a goal that, by 2025, 100 percent of our packaging will be designed to be recyclable, compostable, or biodegradable.”
Two Words: Plastic PollutionDespite the amount of shade being cast at bottled water, the industry keeps booming.
In 2017, 261 billion plastic bottles of water were produced—55 billion in the U.S. alone. That global number could could surge to a 324 billion by 2021, according to the market research firm Euromonitor
“All of that plastic takes a tremendous amount of fossil fuels to make,” said Peter Gleick, president emeritus of the Pacific Institute, an environmental group largely focused on water and climate.
Glieck told Bloomberg Environment it takes about 25 million barrels of oil per year just to produce the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic used in most single-used bottles.
“And that doesn’t count the fossil fuels used for transporting, refrigeration, water treatment, labeling. When you factor that in, the number is closer to 60 million barrels,” he said.
The World Health Organization also recently announced a review into the potential risks of plastic in bottled water. The move was in response to a March 2018 analysisof 259 water bottles that found tiny pieces of plastic in more than 90 percent of them.
Recycling Not the Only SolutionThe New York City Council is considering limiting the amount of PET in circulation by banning the sale of single-use plastic bottles on public property. Likewise, the City of London Corporation—London’s municipal governing body—announced in January a “significant increase” in the number of drinking fountains in the city as part of its “Plastic Free City” project.
Others say that all the talk of recycling obscures a more important fact: Even when recycled, most PET plastic isn’t turned back into bottles but made into other products, such as clothing or carpet. As a result, making new bottles still requires an ever-increasing supply of fossil fuels.
“We need to find better materials to make bottles that include recycled and renewable content, and of course reduce environmental impacts by making fewer disposable bottles in the first place,” Darby Hoover, senior resource specialist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, told Bloomberg Environment.
Even in countries with technologically advanced recycling infrastructure, only a small amount of the plastic generated is captured, Hoover said.
“Right now, the recycling rate for the plastics used in these bottles is only about 30 percent, meaning that 70 percent still ends up in landfills. So there is a lot of work to be done before the water bottling sustainability claims are tenable,” Hoover said.
Bottle vs. Tap Economics“Big Water” has also been singled out for its history of sourcing water, sometimes illegally, in areas that are prone to drought.
In 2015, Starbucks was forced to relocate its Ethos bottled water operations from California to Pennsylvania following public outcry in the midst of ongoing drought.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality approved a permit in April allowing Swiss-based food giant Nestle to increase the amount of water taken from its White Pine Springs well from 250 gallons a minute up to 400 gallons. If run at maximum capacity, around-the-clock, that translates into 576,000 gallons per day.
The request attracted a record number of public comments—with 80,945 against and 75 in favor.
“This privatization of our public water supplies is becoming an outright epidemic,” said Liz Kirkwood, executive director of FLOW, a Michigan-based nonprofit focusing on water policy. “They more they take, the more it creates this wedge between people and their municipal drinking water supply.”
Kirkwood pointed out that bottled water companies compete directly with municipal systems and cost hundreds of times more than tap water.
Companies Push BackBut beverage companies reject the idea that bottled water represents a kind of existential threat to tap water.
“Effective watershed stewardship has no connection with growth in bottled water market,” Ulrike Sapiro, senior director of water stewardship and agriculture at Coca-Cola Co., told Bloomberg Environment.
By making its 600 bottling plants more efficient, and constantly monitoring the water table, Sapiro said the company has been able to grow its business without competing with local communities.
“The good thing about water, it is indefinitely renewable,” Sapiro said. “The only drawback with water is it doesn’t always come back in the right place, or in the right quality.”
Renewable(ish) ResourceIn a public statement, Nestle contended the extra water it pumps out in Michigan will be replenished naturally . It said academic studies show the state is expected to get wetter in the future.
Unfortunately, as a renewable resource, water is not distributed equally. Some nations are forced to import water when domestic sources are not potable or are insufficient for immediate needs, as is the case in some Pacific Islands during drought.
But industry groups bristle at the idea that companies are acting in bad faith instead of simply following conservation rules that are laid out at the state and federal level.
“Ultimately it’s the government’s decision on how to maintain infrastructure so that consumers are sufficiently supplied with safe drinking water,” said Joseph Doss, president of the International Bottled Water Association in Alexandria, Va.
“To single out bottled water products and not consider all beverages and industrial water users is bias against a product, which uses water as an ingredient and would create an uneven playing field,” he said.
A Message in a BottleDoss also pointed to the utility of bottled water, outside of the marketplace, such as the millions of bottles donated to crisis-stricken communities such as Flint, Mich., as well as ongoing relief in Puerto Rico.
In its most recent annual report, Coca-Cola highlighted the risk of additional capital and regulatory costs to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and “to discourage the use of plastic, including regulations relating to recovery and/or disposal of plastic packaging materials due to environmental concerns,”
“Certainly that is a sensitivity around packaging that we’re trying to respond to,” Ben Jordan, senior director of environmental policy at Coca-Cola, said.
In October 2017, the environmental group Greenpeace launched a global campaigntargeting Coke’s growing plastic footprint.
Jordan said he’s optimistic these concerns can be addressed through innovation, including pilot projects such as Dasani PureFill stations or Coke’s Freestyle fountain machines, which allow customers to pre-pay for a set number of refills, which are then dispensed into a microchipped refillable bottle linked to their account.
“There is a lot of energy around these projects, but certainly a push to recycle more, use less virgin plastic isn’t specific to just bottled water,” he said. “It spans the whole company.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/bottled-water-and-the-damage-done-coping-with-plastic-pollution
-
Environmentalists, Industry Back Safer Choice Data For TSCA Prioritization
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
Environmental and industry officials are generally supporting EPA's potential plan to use information from the agency's Safer Choice product labeling program to identify chemicals that are low-priority for review under the revised toxics law, but they are raising competing concerns, including how much additional data would be required.
At a May 14 Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit in Oxon Hill, MD, EPA staff backed using the program's Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) of roughly 1,000 substances as a starting point for identifying the 20 low priority chemicals for review that the revised Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires.
They noted that substances on the Safer Choice program's list may have high exposure but are generally low hazard.
The June 2016 updated TSCA, requires that EPA, by December 2019, designate 20 high and 20 low-priority chemicals for review. Those tagged as high priority must be assessed within two years and if they are shown to pose risks, must be regulated to manage those risks.
But those listed as low priority face little assessment or regulatory burden for EPA. And industry officials have also favored listing many chemicals as low priority -- some have even suggested listing all Safer Choice chemicals -- because such a designation may preempt states from regulating the substances.
But EPA toxics chief Jeff Morris has cautioned that considering many chemicals for low-priority designation could pose resource burdens. He told Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) staff during a Feb. 27 meeting that if chemicals believed to be low priority are determined not to be a low priority during the year's prioritization evaluation, they become high-priority chemicals and must be assessed -- according to statutory deadlines -- along with other high priority chemicals.
Such a scenario would further “stress an already stressed program,” he said.
At the May 14 meeting, both environmental and industry officials backed the agency's proposed approach but offered competing suggestions on how to proceed. While advocates argued EPA would need to require additional data to support a determination under TSCA, industry said Safer Choice should be leveraged as much as possible in TSCA reviews, among other differences.
Melanie Benesh of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the SCIL “a great starting point,” but added that the list “was not created with TSCA in mind so new statutory requirements will have to be met before a chemical on the Safer Chemical Ingredient List can be low priority.”
But industry officials who backed SCIL as a starting place for designating low-priority chemicals for TSCA review argued that EPA should leverage data already submitted to Safer Choice, and cautioned that using information submitted to a voluntary program to support regulatory decision-making under TSCA raises significant questions.
“How is this change going to be implemented and how is this going to work?” asked Butch Dery, of Akzo Nobel, noting that the market impacts of even a low-priority designation under TSCA are unclear. He said using SCIL makes sense but that companies are “taking a wait and see attitude” on how the list will actually be used in prioritization.
Safer Choice List
EPA's Safer Choice Program's SCIL includes chemicals that the agency has evaluated and determined are safer alternatives to traditional chemical ingredients. The list is designed to help manufacturers find safer chemical alternatives that meet the criteria for the Safer Choice labeling program, according to the agency's web site.
EPA's consideration of using the Safer Choice program's SCIL to inform low-priority designations under TSCA comes as the agency's TSCA implementation efforts have been a drain on Safer Choice resources, adding to uncertainty the program has faced under the Trump administration's proposed budget cuts.
In a Feb. 21 memo, EPA's Morris announced plans to detail staff from Safer Choice and other pollution prevention programs to work on TSCA implementation. And an industry official who works closely with the Safer Choice program says staff for the program has dropped by one third from 15-10.
EPA has said that by year's end, it plans to start a process for designating 40 existing chemicals as either low or high priority for review. Under TSCA, existing chemicals are those that were in commerce when the 1970's-era law was enacted and were largely grandfathered from its provisions.
In November, EPA sought public comment on a half-dozen potential approaches for prioritizing chemicals under TSCA, including working from the agency's SCIL. During the meeting, Charlotte Bertrand, EPA's acting deputy toxics chief said the agency received comments backing that approach and are weighing how to implement it.
During the public input process, “on pre-prioritization we had comments that suggested and that we agreed with that [SCIL] could serve as a good starting point for identifying candidates for low-priority” designations, and “we want to hear more about” how this would work.
In Jan. 25 comments, the University of California San Francisco’s (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment argued that through SCIL EPA has already developed sound approaches for identifying chemicals of low concern and that modifying the existing approaches for prioritization would save resources that could be used to focus on high priority substances.
At the Safer Choice summit, officials with Walmart said that the retailer is closely tracking EPA's prioritization process and could reference EPA's low and high-priority chemical designations in information it provides suppliers on safer chemicals.
Benesh, of EWG, argued that TSCA sets a high-bar for designating a chemical as low-priority for review and that the agency should focus on the SCIL chemicals for which it has the most data, and then work to fill data gaps before designation a chemical low-priority.
She suggested the agency inform its review by consulting databases in other EPA offices or of other federal agencies, or by issuing a data call-in.
She also noted that TSCA only requires EPA to issue 20 low-priority designations and so the agency should ensure it has a process in place and move slowly before making more than the 20 low-priority designations the law requires.
James Ewell of CleanGredients, which convenes industry, government and nonprofit officials to support green chemistry, noted that the Trump administration has already sought to exclude legacy uses of chemicals in its TSCA reviews but said a decisionmaking framework for existing chemicals should measure aggregate exposures.
Jeff Brown, of BASF, argued that companies would want flexibility and clarity in any process that EPA crafts for making low-priority designations, including its use of the SCIL. He also noted that while the Safer Choice program focuses on chemicals' hazards, TSCA decision-making should include risk-based criteria that considers exposure.
Brown also agreed with Dery that EPA's prioritization process remains unclear, and suggested that EPA could create incentives for additional information to support low-priority designations, or at least clarify any process. “An effort to leverage data that is out there to fill in the gaps and identify what those real gaps are in data is very valuable for us,” he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/environmentalists-industry-back-safer-choice-data-tsca-prioritization
-
New Coalition Forms To Save EPA's Safer Choice Program From Cuts
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Dave Reynolds
As EPA weighs changes to its Safer Choice product labeling program, chemical and consumer products manufacturers are launching a new coalition next month to preserve and strengthen the program from critics in Congress and the Trump administration who have sought to eliminate it.
“The Safer Choice program has catalyzed widespread reformulation of products and creation of safer chemistries without imposing regulatory costs,” Benjamin Dunham of Holland & Knight says in a memo, noting that the program's critics, including those in the Trump administration, have called for its elimination.
“Several recent political appointees at the Environmental Protection Agency have questioned the need for Safer Choice, and the President's FY2017 and FY2018 budget requests called for elimination of the Pollution Prevention Office, which includes Safe Choice.”
The coalition says its initial goal will be to ensure the continued existence of the Safer Choice program. After that goal is achieved, the coalition will serve as a forum for considering and advocating for improvements to the program to ensure Safer Choice retains the confidence of consumers, the memo says.
The coalition is seeking members from the chemical manufacturing and product producer sections, as well as product retailers and advocacy groups.
Dunham pitched the new coalition to attendees of EPA's May 14 Safer Choice Partner & Stakeholder Summit, where producers of chemical and related product called for expanding Safer Choice to additional sectors. But agency staff sidestepped those calls, saying they will continue core efforts and urged industry to help with outreach efforts.
Clive Davies, who oversees Safer Choice said there are “activities that we're going to have to cut back on and activities we're going to have to maintain at full strength,” noting declining resources. He requested industry input on aspects of Safer Choice that are most important to retain.
While industry officials are urging EPA to increase outreach on Safer Choice, Davies deflected those calls, telling attendees that, “At the end of the day its increasingly important that folks in this room that make products make sure that consumers know about this program. The more that folks know, the more that it helps everyone in this space.”
The formation of an industry coalition devoted to preserving Safer Choice comes as the program has lost staff on details to support the agency's TSCA implementation efforts, and faced calls for elimination from the Trump administration and in Congress.
In a Dec. 20 blog post, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank, where Myron Ebell, former head of the Trump administration's EPA transition team is a director, called for Congress to defund Safer Choice, arguing that the program unnecessarily drives products from the market and forces product reformulations without regard for potential adverse safety effects.
In 2016, Safer Choice was targeted in an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have prohibited the Defense Department from using any authorized funds for certain sustainability programs, including Safer Choice. The amendment sponsored by Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) was removed during House-Senate conference.
'Intermittent' Lobbying
Cleaning products producers lobbied to preserve Safer Choice in a Jan. 24, 2017 letter to President Donald Trump, arguing that the program creates a market-based incentive for innovation, and that scrapping it would harm companies that have made significant investments in qualifying for the Safer Choice logo.
The Holland & Knight memo acknowledges past industry efforts to preserve Safer Choice, but says those efforts have been “intermittent.”
“Critics of the program are well-funded and have allies in important roles in the Trump Administration,” the memo says. “Supporters of the program have not been well-organized or well-resourced.”
Speaking to the summit, David Widawsky, director of the Chemistry, Economics and Sustainable Strategies Division of EPA's toxics office, acknowledged concerns that Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) implementation efforts are draining resources from Safer Choice, but said that the labeling program's core functions remain a priority.
“We have no intention of stopping our review of products and chemicals for the Safer Choice program,” Widawsky said, adding that TSCA implementation is a broad agency effort. “But it's not solely going to be a zero-sum game for the Safer Choice program.” We are expanding resources for TSCA agency-wide and Safer Choice is sharing in the effort, he said.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/new-coalition-forms-save-epas-safer-choice-program-cuts
-
May 21, 2018 | Union of Concerned Scientists (Blog)
By Yogin Kothari
Today, members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sent a letter to EPA requesting more information about a meeting with an industry trade group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), attended by Richard Yamada, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development.
The letter and subsequent reporting (paywalled) is based on additional documents obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists through a Freedom of Information Act request last month. EPA subsequently took down those documents, in an action similar to what happened with some of our other public records requests.
POLITICO reports:
Top House Democrats are raising concerns about a meeting between one of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s top aides and representatives of the chemicals industry one day after a White House official raised alarm about a study of contaminants that has been stalled for months.
The American Chemistry Council represents companies that could face more expensive cleanup requirements if the HHS study were finalized, and the trade group appears to have had the ear of a top EPA official when it was being discussed internally, the House Democrats said.
A meeting titled “ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort” appears on the Jan. 31 calendar for Richard Yamada, EPA’s deputy assistant administrator for research and development. The calendar was obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act and cited by the Democrats in their letter to Pruitt Monday. One day earlier, Yamada and other EPA officials had received an email from the White House seeking to delay publication of the health study poised for release by HHS that would have increased warnings about certain PFAS chemicals.
A former staffer for the anti-science chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Yamada attended a meeting with the ACC to discuss EPA’s cross-agency efforts to address PFAS. As we chronicled in 2015, the ACC has a history of obstructing stronger science-based public health protections from harmful chemicals and have frequently used tobacco industry tactics to pressure policymakers. An ACC spokesman confirmed the meeting with POLITICO but said that the suppressed PFAS study (also discovered by a UCS public records request) was not discussed.
The meeting, which occurred on January 31, was held the day after the now infamous “public relations nightmare” email was sent by an unnamed White House staffer.
The letter from members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is the latest in a string of oversight letters related to the potential suppression by the White House and EPA of a key health assessment that is being conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Late last week, Representatives Brendan F. Boyle and Brian K. Fitzpatrick led another bipartisan letter demanding the release of the ATSDR study on the human health effects of PFAS chemicals.
Tomorrow, EPA is convening a national summit to discuss PFAS and the issues that states and communities are facing around the country. Unsurprisingly, one of the scheduled speakers is Jessica Bowman, an ACC attorney, who is talking first thing in the morning. And before a story in The Intercept, EPA failed to invite any community organizations and/or members to attend. After the reporting however, EPA has invited Andrea Amico, founder of Testing for Pease.
It remains unclear whether press will be able to attend, and according to the summit website, it appears as though the public can only view parts of the meeting online. Hopefully though, the agency will use tomorrow’s meeting as an opportunity to commit vital resources and concrete next steps to help remove these toxic chemicals from our environment.
https://blog.ucsusa.org/yogin-kothari/did-epa-consult-with-the-chemical-industry-while-working-to-suppress-a-scientific-study-on-pfas
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Met with Industry After White House Flagged Health Study
May 22, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Corbin Hiar
EPA discussed a class of toxic nonstick chemicals with industry the day after a White House official warned that a health study of them could be a "public relations nightmare."
The previously unreported Jan. 31 meeting on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, was listed as "ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort" in the calendar of Richard Yamada, the top political appointee in EPA's Office of Research and Development.
It was uncovered by Democratic leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and confirmed to E&E News by the American Chemistry Council and EPA.
The agency-industry discussion came on the heels of concerns from an unnamed member of the White House intergovernmental affairs team about a draft toxicology profile of PFAS that the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) was preparing to unveil.
The official said the toxicology profile of four types of PFAS chemicals "has some very, very low 'Minimal Risk Level' (MRL) numbers," which are often used to set exposure limits for the substances and cleanup standards for areas polluted by them.
"The public, media, and Congressional reaction to these new numbers is going to be huge," the official predicted in the Jan. 30 note obtained by the Union of Concerned Scientists watchdog group.
The report, however, remains under wraps, and ATSDR's Office of Communications told E&E News last week that "we do not have a release date."
Now E&C Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), vice ranking member Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and the top Democrats on the E&C Oversight and Investigations and Environment subcommittees want to see all communications among Yamada, other top EPA political appointees, ACC and several companies that make PFAS.
The meeting and its timing, they wrote, "could indicate that Dr. Yamada, and potentially other EPA political appointees, were meeting with outside stakeholders from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to discuss the interagency process related to PFAS, and possibly their efforts to suppress the ATSDR assessment."
The E&C Democratic leaders are particularly interested in any role Nancy Beck, the top appointee in EPA's chemicals office, may have played in the meeting on broader PFAS discussions. She worked for ACC before joining the Trump administration and currently needs an ethics waiver to interact with her former employer.
EPA downplayed the significance of the Jan. 31 talk with ACC.
"The meeting was scheduled by Office of Water career staff to meet with the ACC FluoroCouncil to inform them about the Cross-Agency efforts to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances," an agency spokesman said in an email. "Several ORD staff were invited to the meeting, and an invitation was also extended to Richard Yamada."
ACC spokesman Jon Corley acknowledged the group's participation in the meeting and said in an email that "it was specifically about EPA's intra-agency effort to address PFAS."
But, he added, "ATSDR did not come up in the meeting, and Nancy Beck was not present at the meeting."
Corley also pointed to an EPA news release from December 2017 about the agency's plan to combat PFAS contamination. It included expanding "proactive communications efforts with states, tribes, partners and the American public about PFAS and their health effects."
The chemicals, used to make nonstick Teflon coatings and firefighting foam, have been shown to cause cancer and harm children's development.
The delayed health report from ATSDR, a bureau of the Health and Human Services Department, has prompted bipartisan concern on Capitol Hill (E&E Daily, May 21).
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/21/stories/1060082283
-
(ACC Mentioned) House Democrats Question Industry Influence in PFAS Report Delay
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
House Democrats are questioning whether Trump EPA appointees were swayed by the chemical industry last January, when they acted with Defense Department counterparts to stall a draft Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) study of four PFAS chemicals, including some risk estimates stricter than EPA's.
Top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a May 21 letter to Administrator Scott Pruitt questioning a previously undisclosed January 2018 meeting between Richard Yamada, the top political appointee in EPA's research office, and the chemical industry on PFAS that appears to have occurred one day after an internal email exchange between top agency officials discussing their efforts to stall the release of the report.
“The impacts of ATSDR's assessment could also be significant for several chemical companies with responsibility for sites contaminated with PFAS, primarily DuPont, Chemours, and 3M,” write Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Kathy Castor (D-FL).
The lawmakers explain that is why they are “concerned by an entry from” Yamada's January calendar a day after a chain of emails among Trump EPA officials concerned with the ATSDR draft document.
“On January 31, 2018, it appears that Dr. Yamada attended a meeting entitled 'ACC Cross-Agency PFAS Effort.' This could indicate that Dr. Yamada, and potentially other EPA political appointees, were meeting with outside stakeholders from the American Chemistry Council (ACC) to discuss the interagency process related to PFAS, and possibly their efforts to suppress the ATSDR assessment."
As Inside EPA first reported May 11, internal emails show that Trump administration officials in the White House, EPA and DOD were concerned by ATSDR's draft toxicological review, which following a flurry of January emails among EPA officials, has yet to be publicly released.
EPA officials feared the ATSDR draft assessment would be a “public relations nightmare” because risk estimates for two of the four chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, were stricter than EPA risk estimates underlying EPA's 2016 health advisories for those two chemicals.
ATSDR has since told Inside EPA that it is “preparing to release” the draft document for comment. And ATSDR Director Patrick Breysse was added to the agenda of EPA's closed-press PFAS summit, scheduled for May 22-23.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/house-democrats-question-industry-influence-pfas-report-delay
-
Environmentalists: Paper Mills Likely Major Source of Chemical Pollution in Waterways
May 21, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Miranda Green
A number of U.S. paper mills are expected to discharge hundreds of pounds of a controversial chemical into rivers — a reality that the federal government is aware of and has signed off on, according to internal Federal Drug Administration (FDA) documents.
Chemical companies Daikin America and Chemours alerted the FDA in its environmental assessments from 2009 to 2010 that paper mills using their chemical known as perfluorinated alkyl substances (PFASs) would likely distribute hundreds of pounds of the chemical in wastewater discharge per day.
PFASs are common consumer chemicals typically used to coat nonstick objects such as frying pans. In this case, the chemicals were being used to grease nonstick pizza boxes and other food packaging products.
In the 900 pages of documents obtained by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) through a Freedom of Information Act request, it shows that FDA approved the notices despite the known environmental risks.
PFASs are currently a hot-button topic as debate rages between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry over acceptable levels of the chemical in drinking water.
Reports broke last week that the EPA is fearing a "public relations nightmare" following expected new recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services that acceptable drinking water levels for PFAS are much lower than the EPA's current standards.
The chemical has been linked to thyroid disease and testicular cancer.
Environmentalists worry that FDA records show that pollution in water from paper mills is unchecked.
An analysis done by the EDF noted nine rivers flowing through 17 states were likely to contain more than the maximum content level of PFAS stipulated in EPA's health advisory. However, the group said it was not made public which plants are using these chemicals and into which waterways the chemical is being discharged.
"The insight provided by the four environmental assessments we obtained suggest that paper mills may present a significant source of PFAS," wrote Tom Neltner, chemicals policy director at the EDF, in a blog post. "Communities across the country need to know where PFASs are being used and the environmental impact of these uses."
Tuesday the EPA is scheduled to host a summit on PFASs at its headquarters.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/388615-environmentalists-paper-mills-likely-major-source-of-chemical
-
Pruitt Defends Status of Controversial Toxicology Report
May 22, 2018 | E&E Daily
By Corbin Hiar
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt yesterday claimed he isn't blocking the release of a toxicology review that has prompted fear in the White House and outrage on Capitol Hill.
"Over the past week, there has been much discussion about an unpublished study that focuses on certain PFAS chemicals," Pruitt said, referring to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
The stain- and fire-resistant class of chemicals have been linked to a host of health issues including cancer and developmental problems.
In a January email first reported earlier this month, a White House official warned EPA that a draft study of four PFAS chemicals undertaken by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry would soon find they were dangerous at levels much lower than previously thought.
Yet the ATSDR study, which the official described as a "potential public relations nightmare," remains under wraps.
"EPA is working with our federal partners to participate in a unified dialogue and to promote the development of science and tools so that there is a cohesive effort to tackle this important issue," Pruitt wrote yesterday to Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.) in a letter obtained by E&E News.
"But to be clear, EPA does not have the authority to release this study," the administrator added.
Kildee is one of several House lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, who have called on Pruitt in recent days to stop withholding the hot-button health review (E&E Daily, May 21).
EPA is convening a two-day meeting on PFAS chemicals today, only a small portion of which will be livestreamed to the public.
Pruitt told Kildee the event would lead to "concrete steps in cooperation with our federal and state partners to address PFAS and ensure that all Americans have access to clean and safe drinking water."
EPA hasn't responded to requests from E&E News for a full list of attendees to the event, which The Intercept website reported didn't initially include any public health groups.
https://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2018/05/22/stories/1060082315
-
Study: Giving Children Flame-Retardant Free Nap Mats Reduces Harmful Exposures
May 21, 2018 | Environmental Working Group
By Tasha Stoiber
Children are exposed to brominated and organophosphate flame retardants from nap mats at child care centers, but switching to mats without the chemicals reduces kids’ exposures, according to a new study from scientists at Indiana University and Toxic-Free Future, a nonprofit organization based in Seattle.
Children can be exposed to chemical flame retardants through their skin when they lie on the foam mats during naptime, or when they inhale or ingest the chemicals that have migrated from the mats into air or dust.
The study tested nap mats at seven child care centers for flame retardant chemicals. Day cares were given flame retardant free mats to replace all mats with flame retardants. Scientists sampled dust and air in the day cares before and after the switch.
The results were encouraging: After the swap, the levels of four different flame retardants decreased by 40 to 90 percent, showing that simply switching nap mat foam could cut children’s exposures to harmful flame retardants. This is especially important, as the most abundant brominated flame retardant was measured at much higher levels in child care centers than the typical U.S. home.
“Developing interventions to reduce exposures to flame retardants and other environmental contaminants is very important in providing solutions for making the child care environment, where children spend eight to 10 hours every day, a healthier place,” said Dr. Amina Salamova, assistant research scientist at Indiana University and senior author of the study.
Chemical flame retardants have been added to furniture and other foam items, like the portable foam mats used at day cares for naptime, based on the idea they would improve fire safety. But California state regulators and independent researchers have concluded that the chemicals do very little, if anything, to protect us from fire risks. What’s worse, the chemicals themselves are toxic, with some linked to cancer, nervous system problems and other harms.
For decades, most nap mats sold in the U.S. contained chemical flame retardants to comply with a California fire safety law, TB-117. When the California law was updated in 2013, furniture and other foam-products that met fire safety standards without chemical flame retardants became widely available.
States and local governments are now acting to protect public health, especially that of children. While the updated California regulations allow furniture and foam products to meet fire safety standards without chemical flame retardants, the state did not ban the use of the chemicals. Recently, the City of San Francisco passed an ordinanceunequivocally prohibiting chemical flame retardants in all new upholstered furniture and children’s products sold from retailers in the city and online. Starting in 2019, Maine will ban chemical flame retardants in furniture and Rhode Island will ban organohalogen flame retardants in bedding and furniture.
On the national level, the Consumer Protection Safety Commission granted a groundbreaking 2017 petition to ban the entire class of organohalogen flame retardants from furniture, mattresses, electronic casings and children’s products. It also warned parents and caregivers to avoid purchasing items that contain these chemicals as it moves forward to implement the ban.
Research by Toxic-Free Future and other public health advocacy organizations points to the benefits of replacing furniture and foam products with flame retardant-free options. Public policy is also essential for removing flame retardants from products and making safer choices readily available.
“Child cares are places to learn, have fun and be safe. Our study shows that by removing toxic flame retardants from foam nap mats, we can provide kids with a healthier child care environment to learn and play in,” said Erika Schreder of Toxic-Free Future.
Fewer flame retardants in products – and the air and dust – means children will be less exposed to harmful chemicals. To reduce exposures to flame retardants, EWG recommends you:Always choose flame-retardant free furniture, bedding, mattresses and kids’ foam products. Check the labels.Encourage your day care to buy nap mats that don’t contain chemical flame retardants, or encourage it to use cots instead. If your children participate in gymnastics, ask the gym about the foam in their tumbling pits.At home, swap out foam from older furniture with cushions or other products made with flame retardant-free foam.Vacuum and dust your home frequently to remove dust that harbors flame retardants and other harmful chemicals.Wash your hands and your children’s hands frequently, especially before eating, to reduce ingestion of flame retardants and other chemicals.
https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2018/05/study-giving-children-flame-retardant-free-nap-mats-reduces-harmful#.WwPnTO6FPco
-
EPA Backpedals on Pruitt’s Timing for Paint Stripper Restrictions
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Pat Rizzuto
A final rule restricting some uses of a paint stripper will soon be sent to the White House for review, the EPA says, backpedaling on the timing of that action recently described by agency Administrator Scott Pruitt.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to send a final methylene chloride rule to the Office of Management and Budget shortly, the agency said May 21 in an emailed reply to questions sent last week.
Pruitt told an Senate Appropriations panel May 16 that the agency had already sent a rule prohibiting consumer and commercial paint stripping uses for methylene chloride to OMB.
Once the agency sends the final rule to the OMB, the office will decide whether it can be issued or needs modification.
Interested parties also can ask the OMB to meet with them to discuss the final rule.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/epa-backpedals-on-pruitts-timing-for-paint-stripper-restrictions
-
Landmark Lawsuit Claims Monsanto Hid Cancer Danger of Weedkiller for Decades
May 22, 2018 | The Guardian
By Carey Gillam
At the age of 46, DeWayne Johnson is not ready to die. But with cancer spread through most of his body, doctors say he likely has just months to live. Now Johnson, a husband and father of three in California, hopes to survive long enough to make Monsanto take the blame for his fate.
On 18 June, Johnson will become the first person to take the global seed and chemical company to trial on allegations that it has spent decades hiding the cancer-causing dangers of its popular Roundup herbicide products – and his case has just received a major boost.
Last week Judge Curtis Karnow issued an order clearing the way for jurors to consider not just scientific evidence related to what caused Johnson’s cancer, but allegations that Monsanto suppressed evidence of the risks of its weed killing products. Karnow ruled that the trial will proceed and a jury would be allowed to consider possible punitive damages.
“The internal correspondence noted by Johnson could support a jury finding that Monsanto has long been aware of the risk that its glyphosate-based herbicides are carcinogenic … but has continuously sought to influence the scientific literature to prevent its internal concerns from reaching the public sphere and to bolster its defenses in products liability actions,” Karnow wrote. “Thus there are triable issues of material fact.”
Johnson’s case, filed in San Francisco county superior court in California, is at the forefront of a legal fight against Monsanto. Some 4,000 plaintiffs have sued Monsanto alleging exposure to Roundup caused them, or their loved ones, to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Another case is scheduled for trial in October, in Monsanto’s home town of St Louis, Missouri.
The lawsuits challenge Monsanto’s position that its herbicides are proven safe and assert that the company has known about the dangers and hidden them from regulators and the public. The litigants cite an assortment of research studies indicating that the active ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicides, a chemical called glyphosate, can lead to NHL and other ailments. They also cite research showing glyphosate formulations in its commercial-end products are more toxic than glyphosate alone. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.
Monsanto “championed falsified data and attacked legitimate studies” that revealed dangers of its herbicides, and led a “prolonged campaign of misinformation” to convince government agencies, farmers and consumers that Roundup was safe, according to Johnson’s lawsuit.
“We look forward to exposing how Monsanto hid the risk of cancer and polluted the science,” said Michael Miller, Johnson’s attorney. “Monsanto does not want the truth about Roundup and cancer to become public.”
Monsanto has fiercely denied the allegations, saying its products are not the cause of cancer. The IARC finding was wrong, according to Monsanto, as are studies finding glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides like Roundup to be potentially carcinogenic. Monsanto points to findings by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory authorities as backing its defense.
“Glyphosate-based herbicides are supported by one of the most extensive worldwide human health and environmental effects databases ever compiled for a pesticide product,” Monsanto states on its website. “Comprehensive toxicological and environmental fate studies conducted over the last 40 years have time and again demonstrated the strong safety profile of this widely used herbicide.”
A company spokeswoman did not respond to a request for additional comment.
How the Johnson lawsuit plays out could be a bellwether for how other plaintiffs proceed. If Johnson prevails, there could be many more years of costly litigation and hefty damage claims. If Monsanto successfully turns back the challenge, it could derail other cases and lift pressure on the firm.
According to the court record, Johnson had a job as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District where he applied numerous treatments of Monsanto’s herbicides to school properties from 2012 until at least late 2015. He was healthy and active before he got the cancer diagnosis in August 2014. In a January deposition, Johnson’s treating physician testified that more than 80% of his body was covered by lesions, and that he likely had but a few months to live. Johnson has improved since starting a new drug treatment in November but remains too weak sometimes to even speak or get out of bed, his attorneys and doctors state in court filings.
Monsanto’s lawyers plan to introduce evidence that other factors caused Johnson’s cancer, to challenge the validity of the science Johnson’s claims rely on, and to present their own experts and research supporting safety. The company has an EPA draft risk assessment of glyphosate on its side, which concludes that glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/22/monsanto-trial-cancer-weedkiller-roundup-dewayne-johnson
-
California Sets 'No Significant Risk Level' for Vinylidene Chloride
May 22, 2018 | Chemical Watch
California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has issued a Proposition 65 "no significant risk level" (NSRL) of 0.88 micrograms per day for vinylidene chloride.
An NSRL is a ‘safe harbour’ level, below which a Prop 65 warning is not required.
Vinylidene chloride, also known as 1,1-dichloroethylene, was listed as a carcinogen under the state scheme late last year. This was done under the labour code listing mechanism, based on the chemical's identification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Iarc) as a "possible" human carcinogen (group 2B).
The substance is used as a comonomer in the polymerisation of vinyl chloride, acrylonitrile and acrylates. It is also used in the production of adhesives, fibres, refrigerants, food packaging and coating resins.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67096/california-sets-no-significant-risk-level-for-vinylidene-chloride
-
Sweden Expects up to 2,600 Notifications to Nano Register
May 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The Swedish Chemicals Agency (Kemi) said it expects to receive up to 2,600 data notifications on nanomaterials in chemical products to Sweden’s new product register.
A rule requiring companies to do so entered into force at the beginning of this year. Companies have until 28 February 2019 to comply.
In an interview for Echa's newsletter, Kemi said it anticipates between 900 and 2,600 notifications, taking into account "some exemptions that have been granted to properly evaluate the new requirements". Some of these exemptions cover naturally occurring or accidentally produced nanomaterials as well as those used as pigments, it said.
Robert Johansson, Kemi's head of chemical statistics and registries, said that the figures are "uncertain" given that they are partly based on a study covering nanomaterials across the EU.
The following bodies are required to notify nanomaterials in Sweden:professional manufacturers or importers of chemical products and biotechnical organisms;those who, in their own name, package, repackage or change the names of chemical products or biotechnical organisms for further distribution;those who make mixtures of chemical products and biotechnical organisms for further distribution;manufacturers or importers of notifiable chemical pesticides; and third parties that report the products on behalf of manufacturers or importers.
Kemi said that if a company has not reported the nanomaterials that are present in their product, it can decide to publish a statement of non-compliance (Sonc) and request the missing information.
SMEs with annual turnovers of less than €500,000 are exempt from the reporting requirement.
Companies need to include the following information in the notification:the classification of the nanomaterial according to the CLP Regulation;its function in the specific product;primary particle size; average size of the agglomerate or aggregate for nanomaterials usually found in a product in an agglomerated or aggregated state;the shape of the nanomaterial;crystal structure; andthe surface area and surface treatment.
Several other EU member states, such as France, Belgium, Denmark and Norway started their own mandatory registries to which companies must provide information about the nanomaterials they use.
And Echa in June launched its EU observatory for nanomaterials (EUON), a public website aimed at increasing transparency of information on nanomaterials on the EU market. It opted not to create an EU nano register, given delays in the introduction of new REACH information requirements for nanomaterials.
https://chemicalwatch.com/67074/sweden-expects-up-to-2600-notifications-to-nano-register
-
CW Brexit Conference Report Marks UK Industry’s ‘Cautious Optimism’
May 21, 2018 | Chemical Watch
With less than one year to go before the UK withdraws from the EU, British industry representatives say they are quietly optimistic about negotiations, a report on Chemical Watch’s second Brexit conference has highlighted.
But while UK industry is aware of the consequences of a possible hard Brexit – no access to the single market, customs union or Echa – companies in the EU need to start seriously addressing the issue of supply chain disruption, attendees at the event on 17 April heard.
The report also captured calls for better supply chain communication, as well as industry-government engagement. Stakeholders provided tips on how to reach influencers and policy makers, and exchanged views on the possibility of the UK securing an associate membership of Echa.
Representatives from UK government, EU member states, Echa, NGOs, consultants, law firms and British and European industry took part in the debate.
The report also provides an in-depth analysis of Chemical Watch’s recent Brexit survey
https://chemicalwatch.com/67092/cw-brexit-conference-report-marks-uk-industrys-cautious-optimism
-
FERC Shifts Gears on Environmental Reviews for Natural Gas Pipelines
May 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By David Bradley
FERC by a 3-2 vote has denied a request for rehearing of its April 2016 decision to issue a certificate of public convenience and necessity for Dominion Transmission Inc.'s New Market project, with the majority declaring that it will continue to take into account proposed pipelines' potential greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but not their impacts on natural gas production and consumption.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to consider indirect impacts of projects. Since a 2017 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that downstream GHG emissions from burning natural gas are indirect impacts, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has taken that requirement a step further, the majority said in an order issued last Friday [CP14-497].
In recent cases, FERC has provided "the public with information regarding the potential impacts associated with unconventional natural gas production and downstream combustion of natural gas, even where such production and downstream use was not reasonably foreseeable nor causally related to the proposals at issue." But that practice is coming to an end, the three Republican commissioners said.
"That information was generic in nature and inherently speculative, providing upper-bound estimates of upstream and downstream effects using general shale gas well information and worst-case scenarios of peak use," the Commission wrote in the order.
"However, providing a broad analysis based on generalized assumptions rather than reasonably specific information does not meaningfully inform the Commission's project-specific review. Nor is it helpful to the public if the Commission provides such broad and imprecise information. Rather, doing so muddles the scope of our obligations under NEPA...
"[W]e will no longer prepare upper-bound estimates...where, as here, the upstream production and downstream use of natural gas are not cumulative or indirect impacts of the proposed pipeline project, and consequently are outside the scope of our NEPA analysis."
The two Democrats on the Commission -- Cheryl LaFleur and Richard Glick -- voted against the order. LaFleur supported the original authorization of the New Market Project and both she and Glick said they might have voted for the order denying rehearing if not for the policy shift attached to it. A project's upstream and downstream natural gas production and consumption are indirect impacts that should be considered when reviewing applications, they said.
"As I have said repeatedly, deciding whether a project is in the public interest requires a careful balancing of the economic need for the project and all of its environmental impacts," LaFleur wrote in her dissenting opinion. "Climate change impacts of GHG emissions are environmental effects of a project and are part of my public interest determination."
The majority opinion reverses FERC's recent approach to environmental reviews, according to LaFleur.
"Rather than taking a broader look at upstream and downstream impacts, the majority has decided as a matter of policy to remove, in most instances, any consideration of upstream or downstream impacts associated with a proposed project. The majority's reasoning for excluding the information and calculations is generally that it is inherently speculative and does not meaningfully inform the Commission's project-specific review. I disagree."
The majority said its decision does not change FERC's public interest and environmental review. "Our decision does not in any way indicate that the Commission does not consider, or is not cognizant of the potentially severe consequences of climate change," they said.
The decision comes as FERC prepares to review its 1999 Pipeline Policy Statement.
Last month, the Commission issued a notice of inquiry (NOI) that could lead to a revision of its policies regarding the review and authorization of interstate natural gas transportation facilities under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act [PL18-1]. The NOI was issued to examine FERC policies in light of changes in the natural gas industry and increased stakeholder interest in how the Commission reviews natural gas pipeline proposals since it adopted its current policy statement on pipeline certification nearly two decades ago. Comments on the NOI are due within 60 days of its publication in the Federal Register.
The Sierra Club warned that FERC's decision in the New Market project case may face court challenges.
"The people demanded that FERC do its job, and FERC refused. Then, the courts ordered FERC to do its job, but instead, it just keeps trying to evade the court's order and shirk its responsibilities," the Sierra Club said Friday. "FERC has broken the public's trust, and we are exploring our options in response to today's vote."
Dominion first asked for FERC approval of the New Market project in 2014. FERC staff issued an environmental assessment (EA) for the project in 2015, and gave Dominion permission to begin construction in upstate New York in March 2017, with a target in-service date eight months later. The $159 million project was designed to provide 112,000 Dth/d of firm transportation service, improve access for two National Grid subsidiaries, and add more than 33,000 hp of compression.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114453-ferc-shifts-gears-on-environmental-reviews-for-natural-gas-pipelines
-
Energy Exports to Play 'Massive' Role in Any Breakthrough in the US-China Trade Talks
May 21, 2018 | CNBC
By Tom DiChristopher
Energy will play a major role in a breakthrough in trade talks between the Trump administration and its Chinese counterparts, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Monday.
U.S. and Chinese trade negotiators agreed this weekend to put on hold tariffs that they have threatened against one another, after China agreed to purchase more American goods. The concession could move the needle on one of President Donald Trump's major goals: reducing the U.S. trade deficit with China.
To be sure, some economists have flagged challenges to increasing exports to China, from Beijing's ability to facilitate the imports to American farmers and manufacturers producing at or near full capacity.
However, oil and natural gas production is one area of the U.S. economy that is indeed booming. Meanwhile, China, the engine of the global economy, is hungry for more fossil fuels as more drivers take to the nation's roads and the government seeks to generate more electric power from cleaner-burning natural gas.
"In energy, I think there's a massive opportunity for the U.S. to become a major supplier of energy to China," Mnuchin told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Monday. "They have incredible amounts of demand at these prices for our shale and our liquid natural gas."
"I think we can easily get about $40 or $50 billion of energy, and if we can produce and send more with infrastructure, they can even take more," he said.
That would be an ambitious target. U.S. oil and gas exports to China were worth $4.3 billion in 2017, according to Reuters.
The United States is already doing brisk trade with China, which has emerged as one of the largest purchasers of U.S. oil since the Obama administration reached a compromise with Congress to lift a 40-year export ban on raw crude.
"As the U.S. crude export trade evolves we're seeing a growing trend of [very large crude carriers] being loaded, so that percentage of total exports is around 40-50 percent around any given month and the vast majority of those are heading to China," said Matt Smith, director of commodity research at tanker tracking firm ClipperData.
The shale oil Mnuchin mentioned is extracted using advanced technology to free oil and natural gas from tight rock formations in places like western Texas, the Appalachian region and North Dakota.
Oil output from shale fields is soon projected to rise above 7 million barrels a day and has boosted total U.S. production to about 10.7 million barrels a day, according to preliminary government figures. The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the United States will average 11.9 million barrels a day next year, surpassing No. 1 producer Russia.
The boom in oil production from western Texas has created bottlenecks in the region, causing prices for regional crude to fall as drillers struggle to get their product to market. Consequently, that oil is now trading at a big discount to international benchmark Brent crude, making it attractive to foreign buyers.
"When you have a Brent crude price at $80 and when you have a WTI Midland price at close to $20 below that, that's only going to incentivize more crude oil exports leaving the United States and the growing trend of large vessels heading to Asia, and particularly China," Smith said.
Mnuchin made clear on Monday that the trade will occur between companies, and it will have to be in the interest of both Chinese and U.S. firms.
China has historically used its leverage as the world's second-largest oil consumer to influence crude prices, taking advantage of discounts among different grades of crude from around the world. However, the type of light, sweet crude that comes from shale is ideal for many Chinese refineries.
The Trump administration has already made progress opening the Chinese market to U.S. natural gas exporters. A year ago, the U.S. Commerce Department reached an agreement with Chinese authorities that allowed state-owned companies to negotiate long-term contracts with U.S. natural gas exporters, something Beijing had been hesitant to do.
In February, Cheniere Energy became the first American company to sign such a contract, inking a deal with China National Petroleum to supply 1.2 million tons per year from Cheniere's Sabine Pass export terminal on the Texas-Louisiana border. China's total imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, were 26.1 million tons in 2016, according to IHS Fairplay.
However, exports of U.S. LNG — natural gas cooled to liquid form — will be limited in how much they can help reduce the U.S. trade deficit with China, at least in the short term.
There are currently only two functional export terminals in the Lower 48 United States: the Sabine Pass facility and Dominion Energy's Cove Point, Maryland, terminal, which started commercial operation in April. Three more are slated to come online through 2019, and the existing terminals are adding capacity.
According to Mnuchin, Chinese companies are preparing to enter a binding agreement to purchase LNG from a $43 billion gas project in Alaska. He said that deal could generate about $10 billion a year.
The Alaska Gasline Development, the project developer, could not immediately be reached for comment on Mnuchin's forecast.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/21/how-energy-factors-into-the-breakthrough-in-us-china-trade-talks.html
-
DTE, Consumers Energy Promise Clean Power to Dodge Ballot Measure
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Alex Ebert
DTE Energy and Consumers Energy, Michigan’s two largest utilities, must file plans over the next year to massively increase renewable energy and efficiency as part of a deal to stave off a 30 percent renewable energy ballot initiative.
In a joint May 18 announcement the companies committed to using 25 percent renewable energy and reducing overall waste by 2030. The announcement is part of a deal struck with ballot initiative group Clean Energy, Healthy Michigan, which dropped its 30 percent renewables mandate from the November 2018 ballot in return for concrete steps toward these goals in filings with the Michigan Public Services Commission.
The first of these filings, known as an Integrated Resource Plan, is due from Consumers Energy in June and every five years thereafter. DTE’s next plan isn’t due until 2019.
Consumers didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment about what changes it intends to make to meet these goals. DTE didn’t provide details on how it intends to meet the goals, but company spokesperson Stephanie Beres told Bloomberg Environment in a May 18 email that it has submitted plans to double renewable energy capacity within the next five years.
The petition is backed by billionaire Tom Steyer, who is supporting similar initiatives in Arizona and Nevada.
“We appreciate that Tom Steyer and the sponsors of Clean Energy, Healthy Michigan have taken the time to understand our commitment to carbon reduction and how Michigan’s energy plan puts the tools in place to achieve this goal in a thoughtful and affordable manner,” DTE chairman and CEO Gerry Anderson and Consumers Energy CEO Patti Poppe said in a May 18 statement.
“Our two companies are overwhelmingly in favor of renewable energy and are focused on bringing additional energy efficiency opportunities to our customers,” they said. “We will continue to work within the framework put forward by our legislature and regulators to build on our environmental initiatives to benefit all residents of the state.”
Details UnknownMichigan law requires that 15 percent of energy be derived from renewable sources, such as solar or wind energy. Earlier this year both DTE and Consumers committed to reducing their carbon emissions by 80 percent, but that doesn’t necessarily require renewable sources of energy.
In administrative filings, DTE said swapping three old coal-fired plants for one run on natural gas would reduce carbon emissions by 66 percent. The state gave DTE the go-ahead on April 27 to build that new 1,100-megawatt natural gas-fired power plant, and in state filings the company indicated it might propose a similar swap in the coming years.
Although Michigan isn’t getting a new law mandating these requirements, Clean Energy, Health Michigan Campaign Manager John Freeman told Bloomberg Environment May 21 that he isn’t worried about DTE and Consumers keeping their word.
“This is a very serious document they have committed to incorporating the terms of our agreement,” Freeman said.
Also not included in the agreement is whether DTE and Consumers have to produce the renewable energy themselves, or whether they can buy it. But either way, Freeman said, Michigan wins.
“Whatever the case may be regarding the second gas plant, DTE has publicly committed to reducing fossil fuel pollution by 50 percent—that’s a great victory for the state.”
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/dte-consumers-energy-promise-clean-power-to-dodge-ballot-measure
-
Pennsylvania Board Upholds Well Permits, Says Enviro Rights Not Violated
May 21, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
The Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board (EHB) has denied the appeal of two environmental groups that have for years been challenging permits for six unconventional natural gas wells operated by Rex Energy Corp. near a school in Butler County.
The EHB, which reviews challenges brought against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), found that the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Clean Air Council and four residents failed to demonstrate that DEP acted unreasonably or violated statutes and regulations when it issued permits for the Geyer wells in 2014. The groups filed their appeal of the permits shortly after the permits were issued, along with a separate challenge of Middlesex Township’s decision to modify a zoning ordinance that allowed oil and gas development to occur within a mile of a school.
More important, the board found that DEP’s decision to issue the permits and renew them in 2015 did not violate Article I, Section 27, an environmental rights amendment in the state constitution that reads in part, “the people have a right to clean air, pure water and to the preservation of the natural scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”
That aspect of the EHB’s ruling earlier this month further establishes a legal standard for how the amendment should be factored into energy development. Since a landmark state Supreme Court ruling in 2013, fossil fuel opponents have increasingly invoked the amendment to challenge unconventional gas development.
Last year, the state’s high court upheld the amendment in another ruling. But the justices tossed out a longstanding three-part test to determine when regulators have met their obligations under the environmental rights amendment as state trustees. Instead, the court ruled that an effective review “lies in the text of Article 1, Section 27 itself as well as the underlying principles of Pennsylvania trust law in effect at the time of its enactment.”
The EHB found that evidence and testimony in the Geyer case demonstrated that the DEP considered the environmental effects of its permit decision.
“Unlike other governmental entities who may not have the environment as a focus, the department’s mission makes consideration of environmental effects central to its responsibilities and it would be a surprise to us if department staff failed to do so when they make a permit decision,” the board said in its ruling. “The evidence presented by Delaware Riverkeeper does not convince us that the department failed to consider the potential for environmental effects in advance of issuing the Geyer well permits and renewal permits in this case.”
EHB also said its understanding of the environmental rights amendment does not require all permits to be denied if they pose a risk, which would otherwise “essentially prevent any permitting activity,” as the board said that it would be nearly impossible to allow industrial development without “some environmental impact.”
It’s unclear what comes next for the environmental groups. Both the zoning and permitting challenges brought attention when they were first filed years ago. Rex, which filed for bankruptcy last week for unrelated reasons, faced staunch opposition for its plans to drill near the Mars Area School District property, where thousands of students attend school.
Middlesex’s zoning board eventually rejected the appeal, but the groups pressed ahead with their case. It is currently pending in the state Supreme Court, where it’s on hold so the justices can hear a similar case from Lycoming County.
The cases, and others like them, pose a broader threat to the industry as they involve challenges against oil and gas development in residential-agricultural zones, where most drilling in the state occurs.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114454-pennsylvania-board-upholds-well-permits-says-enviro-rights-not-violated
-
Chemical Safety Board, OSHA Investigate Kuraray Explosion
May 21, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By Katherine Blunt
The Chemical Safety Board and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration are investigating the cause of a chemical explosion that injured 21 workers at the Kuraray America Eval plant in Pasadena.
The explosion occurred Saturday morning when part of the plant’s production system leaked ethylene, a highly flammable gas used to make many types of plastics. The release caused an explosion and a flash fire that sent 21 workers to the hospital with burns and other injuries. Eighteen have since been released.
Kuraray America, a subsidiary of the Toyko-based specialty chemical maker, said in a statement Monday that early findings indicate that one of the plant’s reactors leaked ethylene that then caught fire. It said it’s cooperating with the investigations and taking steps to prevent future incidents.
Two Houston personal injury law firms are representing some of the workers in suits against the company.
Houston attorneys Benny Agosto and Mo Aziz are representing nine injured workers. On Monday, they obtained in Harris County court a temporary restraining order to prevent Kuraray from destroying evidence related to the case.
Spokeswoman Madison Kauffman said the firm’s clients have been released from the hospital but are still being treated for burns. Some suffered orthopedic injuries after falling from scaffolding, she added.
On Sunday, Houston attorney Anthony Buzbee filed a $1 million lawsuit against Kuraray on behalf of a Eduardo Rodriguez, a badly burned worker who allegedly jumped 25 feet from a scaffold during the blaze. The suit accuses Kuraray of gross negligence and failing to maintain a safe work environment.
Chris Leavitt, an attorney on the case, said his client was released from the hospital Sunday, but was readmitted for further burn treatment on his back, arms and legs. He also sustained injuries after allegedly leaping from the flaming scaffold.
“It’s a rough choice to make,” Leavitt said. “Stay where you are and be subject to the flames, or jump 25 feet to the ground.”
The firm is representing six other workers.
Four investigators with the Chemical Safety Board arrived at the plant over the weekend. Agency spokesman Tom Zoeller said they’ll likely remain on site for the next several weeks to gather evidence and interview witnesses. The investigation and analysis is expected to take a year or longer to complete.
“They’ll determine not only what happened, but why it happened,” Zoeller said.
OSHA is conducting a parallel investigation. Spokeswoman Chauntra Rideaux said the agency will release further detail once it’s complete.
Kuraray’s Eval plant, located on Bay Area Boulevard, opened in 1986 to produce ethylene vinyl alcohol, a chemical used in food packaging. The plant is now the world’s largest of that type, capable of producing 47,000 tons annually.
The company is expanding the plant to produce 58,000 tons a year, a project expected to wrap up in the coming months.
OSHA and Chemical Safety Board records show no past violations at the site.
Company officials on Saturday said it would take at least a few days to assess the damage and determine when operations can resume.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Chemical-Safety-Board-OSHA-investigate-Kuraray-12932477.php
-
Kuraray America Chemicals Plant Blast Draws Safety Probe
May 21, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Sam Pearson
Federal investigators are heading to Pasadena, Texas, to look into an explosion at a specialty chemicals plant that injured 21 workers.
The U.S. Chemical Safety Board, which investigates industrial accidents and issues safety recommendations, said May 20 it will send a team of four to probe the accident at the Japanese-owned Kuraray America Inc. facility near Houston.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration officials confirmed to Bloomberg Environment May 21 that the agency also will investigate the explosion.
The company said in a statement that 266 employees were working at its Kuraray EVAL facility May 19 when the flash fire broke out, but there was no threat to the surrounding community.
“Preliminary findings indicate a pressure safety valve released ethylene causing a flash fire in one of our process units,” the company’s statement said, adding that Kuraray America will work with authorities to complete the investigation.
The facility manufactures ethylene vinyl-alcohol copolymers, a class of chemicals used in the food packaging, automotive, and construction industries, according to the company’s website.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/kuraray-america-chemicals-plant-blast-draws-safety-probe-1
-
Head of Chemical Safety Board Says She’s Resigning
May 22, 2018 | BNA Daily Environment Report
By Bruce Rolfsen and Sam Pearson
The head of the federal agency that investigates refinery and chemical plant accidents is resigning.
Vanessa Sutherland, chairperson of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), said May 21 she will exit the agency in June, on a date to be announced.
“I am saddened to leave the wonderful mission and incredible work of the CSB,” Sutherland said in a written statement.
She gave no reason for her resignation.
Sutherland, an Obama administration appointee and attorney, took the post on Aug. 24, 2015, following confirmation by the Senate. Her term expires in August 2020.
Prior to joining the board, she served as general counsel to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
The board is an independent agency overseen by the chairperson and four board members, all nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The departure will leave the board with three commissioners.
No WarningThe resignation decision was unexpected.
“I’m shocked and surprised at the announcement,” Glenn Ruskin, senior director for external affairs and communication at the American Chemical Society, told Bloomberg Environment. “I thought she had done a wonderful job at the agency.”
Mike Wright, director of safety for the United Steel Workers, also told Bloomberg Environment May 21 that he hadn’t expected the resignation.
The safety agency has investigated major chemical incidents at sites the union represents, such as the Andeavor Corp. refineries in Anacortes, Wash., and Martinez, Calif.
Recent investigations include an inquiry into a 2015 explosion at an Exxon Mobil Corp. refinery in Torrance, Calif., and and a 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, W.Va., that forced temporary closure of drinking water systems.
Sutherland “brought many operational improvements to the functioning of the CSB and her departure will be a challenge to overcome,” Stephen Brown, director of government relations at Andeavor Corp., said in an email to Bloomberg Environment May 21. “That said, the White House has been given an opportunity to put forward a new nominee for Chair that could build on the leadership and vision that Chair Sutherland has created.”
Worked to Build OutreachSutherland worked to rebuild the CSB’s outreach to industry, which frayed under the leadership of former Chairman Rafael Moure-Eraso, who resigned in March 2015. She also declined to support the Trump administration’s budget proposals in 2017 and 2018 to close down the agency, calling it necessary to protect the public.
In initially seeking to close the agency, the Trump administration said its mission was redundant. Congress rebuked the president and voted to continue funding for the board.
Trump in 2018 again asked for Congress to agree to shut down the agency. The House Appropriations Committee’s proposed fiscal year 2019 calls for preserving the agency. The Senate committee hasn’t issued a proposal.
Sutherland previously served as general counsel of the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and as a senior counsel at Altria Client Services, part of the Altria Group, in Richmond, Va., the telecommunications firms Digex Inc. and MCI/Worldcom.
About 40 people work at the agency. It has an annual budget of about $11 million.
https://news.bloombergenvironment.com/environment-and-energy/head-of-chemical-safety-board-says-shes-resigning
-
Senate, House Plan to Mark up Water Infrastructure Funding Bills
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
Senate and House committees are scheduled this week to mark up Army Corps of Engineers funding legislation, though debate is continuing in the upper chamber over whether lawmakers will seek to attach controversial proposed changes to an EPA infrastructure loan program to the Senate bill.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is scheduled to mark up S. 2800 May 22, but it is unclear whether a manager's amendment to the bill, also known as the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), will include language championed by Sen. John Boozman (R-AR). Boozman's language would create a new class of Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loans that would be available exclusively to states to pay for projects listed on their state revolving fund intended use plans.
Boozman's language has the support of committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-WY) and subcommittee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK), who told reporters earlier this month that there was an agreement for its inclusion.
But Democratic staff said at the same time that there was no agreement, and some groups representing drinking water utilities have warned the committee that they will withdraw their support for S. 2800 if the Boozman language is added.
The Senate bill, as introduced, includes several EPA policy measures, including codifying the agency's integrated planning policy and requiring the agency to use additional measures of affordability.
In contrast, the House version of the WRDA bill, H.R. 8, is focused solely on authorizing a variety of navigation, flood control, and environmental projects and studies carried out by the Corps. The only mention of EPA in the House bill is in a list of federal agencies the National Academy of Sciences should consult with when conducting a study of whether the Corps' functions should remain within the Defense Department.
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced H.R. 8 May 18 and is scheduled to mark up the bill May 23.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/senate-house-plan-mark-water-infrastructure-funding-bills
-
US Federal Railroad Administration Announces $250m to Support PTC Rollout
May 22, 2018 | Global Rail News
The United States’ Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has announced grants worth $250 million in support of the implementation of positive train control (PTC).
Certain Class I railroads and any railroad main lines that provide regularly scheduled intercity or commuter rail passenger services have to implement PTC by the end of 2018.
This deadline was initially pushed back from December 31, 2015, and there is the further possibility for railroads to request an extension to December 31, 2020.
US transport secretary Elaine Chao has previously stressed the urgency and importance of safely implementing PTC, which she said is the most important rail safety-orientated initiative being rolled out in 2018.
Since Congress first mandated PTC systems, the United States’ Department of Transport and its agency FRA have provided hundreds of millions of dollars in grants and loans to support its implementation.
The latest grants, announced by FRA on May 15, cover: back office systems; wayside, communications and onboard hardware equipment; software; equipment installation; spectrum; any component, testing and training for the implementation of PTC systems; and interoperability.
Recent self-reported data released by FRA (current as of March 31, 2018) shows PTC systems are in operation on approximately 60 per cent of freight railroads’ route miles that are required to be governed by PTC. This figure is up from 56 per cent last quarter.
Passenger railroads have made less progress. PTC systems are in operation on only 25 per cent of required route miles, up one percent from the previous quarter.
FRA administrator Ronald Batory said: “The railroads are making progress towards meeting the congressionally-mandated PTC requirement, but there is still work to be done.
“The FRA will continue to work with railroads and suppliers to assist in fully implementing PTC.”
https://www.globalrailnews.com/2018/05/22/us-federal-railroad-administration-announces-250m-to-support-ptc-rollout/
-
SAB Group Seeks Science Review Of All Major Trump EPA Climate Rollbacks
May 21, 2018 | Inside EPA
By Doug Obey
Members of EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) are seeking to review the underlying science for virtually all of the Trump EPA's major rollbacks of Obama-era climate policies, with another SAB workgroup late last week offering the latest scathing pushback of administration plans to weaken two high-profile mobile source rules, as well as the social cost of carbon (SCC) metric.
The new recommendations from a second workgroup, which the full SAB will consider at its meeting later this month, come after another group previously recommended SAB review the research supporting EPA's rollback of greenhouse gas standards for new and existing power plants and the oil and gas sector.
And a third workgroup has also called for SAB to review Pruitt's proposed rule seeking to limit regulatory science to publicly available data.
The latest calls, detailed in a May 18 memo about several issues under consideration for SAB review, call for further scrutiny of EPA's proposals to scrap production limits on high-emitting “glider” trucks and retreat from current light-duty vehicle GHG standards.
Environmentalists and even some industry groups have previously said EPA's justifications for its proposals are thin at best or fundamentally at odds with the technical record in support of retaining the vehicle regulations.
The workgroup also says SAB should “consider” reviewing several Trump EPA changes to the SCC -- a measure of climate damages which allows agencies to monetize the benefits of GHG cuts -- that dramatically reduce the estimated value of such emission cuts.
“This a shot across the bow from the SAB on the poor quality of EPA’s proposed rules and the data or lack of data that is cited to support changes,” one environmentalist says, adding that any full SAB review “will at minimum slow down the rules.”
This source says it is “hard to see how the glider rule can withstand a scientific review,” and that the workgroup's discussion of the vehicle standards “clearly demonstrates the need for more data to support the proposed changes.”
The SAB workgroup's critique could also point to new obstacles regarding the glider plan, which seeks to repeal production limits on glider trucks that do not meet modern emissions standards by claiming the agency lacks authority to regulate the gliders -- which combine a new body with used drivetrain components -- as “new” vehicles.
The plan was already facing obstacles after the White House reportedly balked at moving it in the absence of a regulatory impact analysis (RIA).
“The proposed [glider] rule lacks transparency regarding the sources of and basis for data regarding costs, emissions lifecycle implications, and safety,” the workgroup says.
The glider proposal merits review as a controversial measure that would create a market for gliders that “would remain in the vehicle fleet for decades,” the workgroup says, displacing purchase of new trucks and slowing fleet turnover that would lead to real-world emissions cuts.
“Given the various scientific and technical claims in the proposed rule, which appear to be based on stakeholder comments or draft studies that lack objective analysis and peer review, it is in the best interests of EPA and prudent for the SAB to engage in a review process to assure the credibility of scientific and technical information that is put forth in the rule,” the workgroup memo says.
Legal Issues
While the SAB workgroup does not weigh in on the legal issues, it scoffs at the notion that EPA's rationale is merely legal, noting that the Trump EPA relied in part on science of unknown or “dubious” merit. That includes a Tennessee Tech University emissions study, since withdrawn by the institution, purporting to conclude gliders are as clean as new trucks, the memo says.
The workgroup also notes the agency has claimed that gliders are beneficial.
“[T[he proposed rule argues that there are cost, energy, emissions and safety benefits of glider trucks, and thus in appearance is not relying solely on an interpretation of legal authority as the basis for the proposed rule,” the memo says. “It is in the best interests of the EPA to use credible technical information in a proposed rule.”
Key questions the workgroup says should be starting points for SAB review include the emission rates of glider trucks compared to other trucks; the scope of potential market penetration of the vehicles; and the implications of that penetration for GHGs and air quality.
The group adds that the plan does not quantify the repeal's health effects or acknowledge EPA testing -- released just days after the proposal was issued -- showing that glider emissions can dwarf those of new vehicles. “EPA failed to take into account its own study,” the group says.
The workgroup also chastises EPA for relying on “summaries of comments submitted by the public that have not been independently assessed or validated,” and for not describing efforts to developed needed science or peer review.
'Without Peer Review'
The workgroup also urges the full SAB to review the science underlying EPA's plan to weaken Obama-era vehicle GHG regulations out to model year 2025, noting that the high-stakes battle over the rules could fracture national and state vehicle regulatory programs.
Its language is less scathing in tone than the critiques of the glider plan, but it still provides support for critics' arguments that EPA's justification for the rollback is thin, includes errors, or simply restated auto industry claims that the standards are too onerous without independently evaluating them.
EPA's final determination to weaken the rules “relied extensively on public comment without peer review or independent evaluation or validation of claims by public commenters,” the workgroup states.
An SAB review of the light-duty vehicle rules “might begin with existing documents developed” by EPA, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB), the group says -- including the draft technical assessment report (TAR) that the Obama administration used to justify a prior finding to preserve the current GHG rules.
The group says SAB has never done a comprehensive review of the TAR -- which automakers previously have argued is flawed and merited a closer look.
But the workgroup's suggestion that prior EPA, NHTSA and CARB documents are a starting point for any SAB review could highlight the Trump EPA's challenges in justifying its claims that the current rules are too onerous, given that such documents provided extensive technical support for the Obama administration's conclusion that the industry could comply with the standards at reasonable cost.
The group's memo also cites several potential gaps in the Trump EPA's determination to weaken the rules, including its lack of discussion of climate change and human health.
“Not mentioned among the key factors is the direct impact of the standards on GHG emissions, climate change, and public health and safety, or the indirect impact of the standards with regard to co-benefits of reduced emissions of other pollutants and reduced life cycle emissions for vehicles,” the group says.
The group also pushes back on EPA arguments that the auto sector's recent increased use of banked compliance credits shows the GHG rules are too onerous. “This interpretation may be inaccurate. Another interpretation is that the banked credits have economic value to the manufacturers, and that manufacturers consume banked credits periodically in order to respond to compliance deadlines while respecting normal product life cycles.”
Other EPA statements the workgroup chides include: citing burdensome costs to low-income consumers of vehicles complying with the standards, without discussing the impact of climate change on poor populations; relying on older data to suggest lagging electric vehicle sales; embracing without analysis automaker claims that the benefits of the standards are eroded by the so-called “rebound effect” that makes driving cheaper; and embracing without review claims by critics of the standards that they will lessen MY22-25 auto sales.
EPA claims the standards “would reduce vehicle sales over those four years by 1.3 million vehicles due to higher vehicle prices, based on a study submitted as part of public comments,” the workgroup says. “However, the validity of the study, who funded it, and whether it was peer-reviewed was not mentioned.”
The group acknowledges EPA arguments that consumer acceptance of fuel efficient vehicles is a “major challenge.”
But the memo says SAB should review consumer acceptance barriers and ways to overcome them; the potential of a significant “rebound” effect; the proportion of vehicle electrification needed to comply with the standards; whether the standards slow fleet turnover; the rules' co-benefits or harms due to increases in non-GHG pollutants; and the projected fleet-level GHG and other emissions from various regulatory scenarios.
SCC Changes
Regarding the SCC, the workgroup suggests review of several Trump-era changes to the metric as part of a review of the proposed RIA supporting EPA's proposal to rescind the Obama-era Clean Power Plan GHG rule for existing power plants.
That analysis used “interim” SCC values that significantly limited the monetized value of GHG cuts by calculating climate change benefits on a United States-only basis rather than on a global scale, and using a 7 percent discount rate to calculate the present day value of any cuts, rather than a 5 percent rate used by the Obama administration.
The group suggests the SAB could review whether the SCC changes “are consistent” with prior reviews of the metric by the National Academy of Sciences, which largely backed the Obama-era estimates and outlined a process for continuously updating the tool.
Further, the workgroup suggests SAB should review a “sensitivity” analysis in the RIA that assumes cuts to particulate matter below national air quality standards have no public health benefits.
https://insideepa.com/daily-news/sab-group-seeks-science-review-all-major-trump-epa-climate-rollbacks
-
Climate Caucus Pens Letter Opposing Riders
May 21, 2018 | E&E News PM
By Arianna Skibel
Members of the bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus today urged leaders of the Appropriations Committee to reject any provisions that would undermine efforts to combat climate change.
In a letter spearheaded by co-chairs and Florida Reps. Carlos Curbelo (R) and Ted Deutch (D), members stressed the threat global warming poses in terms of rising temperatures, sea-level rise and severe weather events.
But of the 34 signees, only eight Republicans in the caucus joined the letter. More unexpectedly, a sizable chuck of Democrats also refrained from signing the letter.
"That's a great question for them," Jason Attermann, Deutch's press secretary, said in reference to the 13 Democrats who did not sign the letter. "It was open to all members of the caucus."
Attermann said members had "many weeks" to review and decide whether to sign the letter.
The lack of Republican signatories is likely to bolster the claim that the caucus, whose stated goal is to advance market-based solutions for climate change, is merely a cover for vulnerable Republicans. Curbelo's staff could not be reached before press time.
The Citizens' Climate Lobby, which was instrumental in launching the caucus, is praising the letter as a demonstration of bipartisan support for climate action.
"Curbelo has talked about using the caucus to 'block and tackle' legislation that's bad for climate change, and this is a prime example of that strategy in action," Mark Reynolds, executive director of CCL, said in a statement, adding, "This is another encouraging sign that Republicans and Democrats are willing to work together to preserve a livable climate."
In the letter, the lawmakers state that policy riders that limit or prevent funds to study climate change initiatives will curtail the country's ability to prepare.
"We agree that provisions in the appropriations bills must advance our fight against climate change, not undermine progress," the letter states.
"Given the critical importance of reducing the harmful impacts of climate change, the Committee should oppose and remove any policy provisions or riders from the Fiscal Year 2019 appropriations bills that undermine efforts to confront climate change."
Attermann said the members of the caucus "would point to past" successes in blocking anti-climate provisions and are "just hoping" to continue their success.
Last summer, members of the caucus and others formed a voting bloc to reject an anti-climate amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
https://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2018/05/21/stories/1060082279
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested