Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 08/06/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clariant Executive to Join American Chemistry Council Board
Jun 8, 2018 | Products Finishing Magazine
Clariant’s Region President of North America, Deepak Parikh, has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), beginning January 1, 2019. -
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Global Focus on Plastics Means Patterns of Growth Will Change
Jun 8, 2018 | ICIS
By Nigel Davis
Polymers demand may be outpacing economic growth now but what will consumption look like in 5, 10 or 20 years time? -
(ACC Mentioned) Total Declares Force Majeure on Impact Copolymer PP in La Porte
Jun 8, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Total Petrochemicals has declared force majeure on impact copolymer polypropylene resins made at its plant in La Porte, Texas. -
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Projects Positive Outlook for US Chemical Industry
Jun 8, 2018 | GasWorld
By Jemima Owen-Jones
According to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Mid-Year 2018 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook, the US chemical industry is set for a better performance in 2018 after what was a very mixed 2017. -
(ACC Mentioned) CCNY Study Shows Plastic Waste Can Be Converted Into Energy and Fuels
Jun 8, 2018 | The City College of New York News
Plastic waste is flooding our landfills and leaking into the oceans, with potentially disastrous effects. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Toxic Chemical Unit Narrows Scope of Evaluations
Jun 8, 2018 | The Daily Beast
The Environmental Protection Agency is handing over a big win to the chemical industry by significantly narrowing the scope of the agency’s risk evaluations of items like “dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products,” according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. -
Proposed Bill Seeks to Prevent Inaccurate Product Labeling
Jun 8, 2018 | Food Dive
By Cathy Siegner
U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. introduced the Accurate Labels Act on Thursday, which proposes to give consumers clear, accurate and meaningful nutrition information and prevent inaccurate labeling from misleading shoppers and driving up prices. -
Industry Applauds Move to 'Sustainable Regulation'
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Major industry players are breaking their silence to welcome EPA's controversial move to reconsider how it weighs the costs and benefits of rules. -
Regulatory Developments - New York Launches Disclosure Program Intended to Protect Consumers from Chemicals in Household Cleaning Products
Jun 8, 2018 | Lexology
By Bergeson & Campbell PC
In somewhat of a surprise announcement, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on June 6, 2018, released its final policy and form for manufacturer disclosures under the Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program. -
Agency to Meet on Scientific Integrity. Standing Room Only?
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
EPA employees will get tips about scientific integrity next week at agency headquarters. -
Pruitt: 'This Is A Transformational Time'
Jun 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt told a conservative gathering Friday that he and President Trump are overseeing policy changes that will be felt for decades. -
Pruitt Takes Credit for Ozone Reductions Tied to Bush, Obama Administrations
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today took credit for notching up environmental achievements — even though they were mostly due to previous administrations’ actions. -
Dem Lawmakers Seek Criminal Corruption Probe of EPA's Pruitt
Jun 8, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
House Democrats on Friday formally requested that the Justice Department investigate Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for potential criminal conduct. -
Major Trump Donor Helped Pruitt Pick EPA Science Advisers
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden and Anthony Andragna
A prominent GOP donor and President Donald Trump supporter helped EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt choose the head of the influential scientific body charged with reviewing EPA's regulations, according to newly released documents. -
IARC Is Changing Its Preamble But Will That Mean A Change In Its Credibility?
Jun 8, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Geoffrey Kabat
Last month, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which operates under the auspices of the U.N. World Health Organisation, announced it would solicit comments from interested parties prior to holding an Advisory Group meeting in November to propose revisions to its Preamble. -
What ‘Chemicals of Concern’ Are In Your Food Packaging?
Jun 8, 2018 | Packaging Digest
By Elizabeth Ritch
Hazardous chemicals that persist indefinitely in the ecosystem have no place in a circular economy. -
Trump's Energy Blitz and The Legal Showdown to Come
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration's latest bid to boost troubled coal and nuclear plants is certain to spark a legal war if it's ever finalized. -
Methane Reduction to Be Highlighted at World Gas Conference in Nation’s Capital
Jun 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Breakthroughs in finding and fixing methane leaks will be part of the U.S. focus later this month in the World Gas Conference (WGC) when the triennial event comes to Washington, DC for the first time in 30 years, June 25-29. -
Xcel’s Energy Plan Designed to Clean Up Its Act in Colorado
Jun 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Adding a dash of new natural gas-fired generation to a mixing bowl filled mostly with renewable resources, Denver-based Xcel Energy Inc. on Wednesday submitted its energy plan to Colorado regulators, proposing 11 generation sources and a $2.5 billion outlay to cut carbon emissions by 60% in 2026. -
Pa. Finalizes Emissions Plan for New Gas Wells
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf signed off on a plan to reduce the amount of methane emitted from shale gas wells, after nearly two years of contentious negotiations. -
DOI Agrees to Strengthen Policies on Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Interior Department (DOI) has agreed to further strengthen its policies in managing financial risks the department assumes for pollution from orphaned oil and natural gas wells overseen by its Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in response to findings and recommendations by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). -
Activists Urge Oil Executives to Heed Pope at Vatican Energy Conference
Jun 8, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Environmentalists and aid agencies urged executives of the world's top oil companies attending a Vatican conference on climate change on Friday to heed Pope Francis's warnings about global warming. -
Natural Gas Exports Up 8 Percent In 1st Quarter
Jun 8, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
U.S. exports of natural gas are up 8 percent in the first quarter compared to a year earlier and 66 percent more compared to the same quarter in 2016, according to a recent report from the U.S. Department of Energy. -
Tests Show Toxic Heavy Metals Near Wisconsin Sand Mine Spill
Jun 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Youssef Rddad
Wisconsin officials found elevated levels of toxic heavy metals near a frack sand mine spill that sent millions of gallons of sludge into a tributary, carrying it downstream into the Mississippi River. -
House Passes ‘Minibus’ Measure with $44.7B in Energy and Water Spending
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House passed its $44.7 billion in energy and water appropriations as part of a "minibus" package that included legislative, military construction and veterans affairs accounts. -
FRA Schedules Summer Symposiums to Address PTC
Jun 8, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has scheduled three symposiums on topics related to positive train control (PTC), with the first to be held June 15 in Washington, D.C. -
Freight Rail Sector Affirms Commitment to Local Communities in Letter to Mayors
Jun 8, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
With federal policymakers increasingly eyeing midterm elections and rail industry observers still awaiting Congressional action to fill vacancies at the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Association of American Railroads (AAR) today sent a high-level letter to mayors across the United States summarizing the foundation of the private freight rail sector’s business and external relations efforts – namely its economic impact, safety record and technological gains and aspirations. -
Pruitt's Cost-Crunching Plan Could Affect New Climate Regs
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA's move to review how it does cost-benefit analysis could have consequences for rewrites of Obama-era climate rules. -
EPA Takes Step to Keep SO2 Standard Unchanged
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA today published a proposal for leaving its primary sulfur dioxide standard unchanged, signaling the near-completion of a review launched five years ago.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) Clariant Executive to Join American Chemistry Council Board
Jun 8, 2018 | Products Finishing Magazine
Clariant’s Region President of North America, Deepak Parikh, has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), beginning January 1, 2019.
“I am proud to join the ACC’s Board of Directors and appreciate this opportunity to align further with our industry colleagues in the United States,” Parikh says. “I look forward to working with the ACC leadership to ensure the chemical industry continues building its reputation and achieving sustainable success in the U.S.”
Parikh joined Clariant’s North American operations as region president and chief executive officer of both Clariant Corp. and Clariant Canada Inc. in July 2017. A U.S. citizen, he had previously served as the company’s region president for India and Midde East Africa as well as vice chairman and managing director of Clariant Chemicals (India) Ltd. During the previous two decades, he also worked with Dow Chemical and DuPont in the USA and Asia.
https://www.pfonline.com/news/clariant-executive-to-join-american-chemistry-council-board-
-
(ACC Mentioned) INSIGHT: Global Focus on Plastics Means Patterns of Growth Will Change
Jun 8, 2018 | ICIS
By Nigel Davis
Polymers demand may be outpacing economic growth now but what will consumption look like in 5, 10 or 20 years time?
The plastics outlook is changing fundamentally as environmental pressure grows worldwide.
Despite the headwinds and practical bottlenecks, the momentum behind the drive for greater recycling has increased significantly in a very short time. There is little to suggest that it will diminish.
In the week of World Environment Day, World Oceans Day and the G7 summit, plastics have taken centre stage.
The plastics producing and converting industries have to ask themselves again whether the benefits of plastics to human well-being are sufficiently publicised and understood.
At the same time they need to address, head on, the problem of plastics litter and pollution.
“Mature industries tend to lag GDP which is around 2.5-3%, but plastic resins and rubber are growing at 5-7%. That’s a growth industry by any definition,” the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) chief economist, Kevin Swift, noted this week.
That is because the myriad use of plastics and rubber in advanced economies, and rapid demand growth in the fastest expanding, continue to underpin plastics production and processing.
But companies have to try to understand in detail how things will change. Restrictions on plastics use in the developed economies is likely to become the norm alongside significant pressure to recycle more.
Where demand growth is strongest – in China and India – it is unlikely to be business as usual – or, rather, business as the major polymer suppliers and converters would like it to be.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is expected to call on 8 June for a zero-plastics waste charter for the world’s major economies. He had raised the idea earlier this year and the proposal is expected to go further than the EU’s plastics strategy revamped in January.
Targeted will be single use plastics, including packaging, polymer recyclability and recycling systems themselves.
This week, India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi introduced a government pledge to ban all single-use plastics by 2022, targeting single use plastic bags, straws and plastic cutlery, much the same as the items highlighted in the proposed new plastics directive from the European Commission.
The UN this week targeted single use plastics even to the extent of launching a global game of #BeatPlasticPollution “to showcase positive behaviour change around how we consume plastic”.
The UN always adopts a theme for World Environment Day and this year it was plastics.
"On World Environment Day, the message is simple: reject single-use plastic. Refuse what you can’t re-use. Together, we can chart a path to a cleaner, greener world," said the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres.
The consequence of targets and pledges are difficult to assess now but by no means will it be growth as normal for the sector.
Polymer producers can expect to see demand for certain plastics fall away and, for certain grades, drop.
Across Europe and the US, sector producers and processors collectively will be actively engaged in meeting stiffer recycling volume targets and deadlines.
My colleague John Richardson has suggested in his Asian Chemical Connections blog that plastics recycling by China will lead the way as global demand for virgin polyethylene resin declines.
Most of the plastic waste that finds its way into the world’s oceans flows down the Yangtze River.
He has also suggested that the European polymer industry could become virtually self-sustaining in an efficiently functioning circular plastics economy.
Whatever processes and technologies are used to recover and recycle more, there always comes a point when the limits of what is environmentally acceptable are reached.
If European experience is anything to go by, for instance, achieving mechanical recycling rates approaching 50% will be difficult if not impossible. This is not so much a technical problem as one to do with the very nature of post-consumer waste.
While the talk may be about the circular economy, will decisions based on hardheaded environmental impact assessments be possible? This is something polymer chain participants seriously need to assess.
Incineration is held out as the most environmentally acceptable way to recover the energy stored in mixed plastics waste, for instance. It is widely practised but in Europe is roundly rejected politically now as an answer for the treatment of higher volumes of post-consumer waste.
An upsurge of consumer concern currently is forcing politicians to react. The pledges are real but the possible outcomes far from clear.
https://www.icis.com/resources/news/2018/06/08/10230100/insight-global-focus-on-plastics-means-patterns-of-growth-will-change/
-
(ACC Mentioned) Total Declares Force Majeure on Impact Copolymer PP in La Porte
Jun 8, 2018 | Plastics News
By Frank Esposito
Total Petrochemicals has declared force majeure on impact copolymer polypropylene resins made at its plant in La Porte, Texas.
A spokeswoman with Total in Houston confirmed the force majeure in a June 7 email to Plastics News. She added that "an allocation program is being implemented."
Total has more than 2 billion pounds of annual production capacity in La Porte.
The company blamed "a series of unplanned and external events that have impacted [Total's] production levels," adding that the allocation is set to begin on June 11.
It's unclear how much impact the Total outage will have on regional PP supplies. Braskem Americas also has had some minor production issues at its PP site in Marcus Hook, Pa. Sources who talked to Plastics News were split on whether that situation will have much impact.
North American PP demand growth has not been robust in early 2018, growing just over 2 percent in the first four months of the year, roughly matching U.S. GDP growth. A domestic sales increase of 2.3 percent was dampened somewhat by a reduction of almost 6 percent for sales into the export market, according to the American Chemistry Council.
But fluctuations in supplies of propylene-grade monomer feedstock needed to make PP resin have caused resin prices to gyrate wildly so far in 2018. Most recently, PP prices increased by an average of 7 cents per pound in May after falling by that same amount in March and April combined.
http://www.plasticsnews.com/article/20180608/NEWS/180609903/total-declares-force-majeure-on-impact-copolymer-pp-in-la-porte
-
(ACC Mentioned) American Chemistry Council Projects Positive Outlook for US Chemical Industry
Jun 8, 2018 | GasWorld
By Jemima Owen-Jones
According to the American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Mid-Year 2018 Chemical Industry Situation and Outlook, the US chemical industry is set for a better performance in 2018 after what was a very mixed 2017.
The report states that strong global growth prospects, rising exports, an upswing in manufacturing, balanced chemical inventories, healthy demand from end-use markets, and favourable shale gas economics are among the factors suggesting positive growth for this year. All data related to chemical production and the business of chemistry exclude pharmaceuticals.
Housing is set to extend its steady recovery in 2018. Despite a pull back from record-high vehicle sales, the automotive sector is expected to remain at relatively elevated levels. Both are important end-use customers for chemistry. The US chemical industry continues to enjoy a competitive advantage from robust supplies of shale gas and natural gas liquids, leafing to significant investment in new capacity and capital spending that will continue to grow through 2023.
The Outlook states that, “During 2018, output gains are expected to be strongest in agricultural chemicals, consumer products, coatings and bulk petrochemicals and organics.”
“In addition, production of plastic resins is set to grow at the fastest pace since 2012 as new capacity comes online and demand firms for domestic customers and those abroad. The specialty chemicals segment is also set to grow as industrial activity improves.”
In the US economy overall, modest growth will continue into 2019, led by higher business investment and, to a lesser extent, consumer spending linked to gains in employment and real wages. US GDP will rise 2.8% in 2018, while consumer spending will advance at a strong 2.6% pace next year, with growth moderating thereafter. US economic growth could accelerate as tax and regulatory burdens are removed. That said, the policy situation is fluid, and trade and other economic policy uncertainty could affect both business and consumer confidence.
Turning to the business of chemistry, broad gains in US manufacturing, construction and export markets bode well for growth. Despite a slow start to the year, US chemical production is expected to expand 3.4% in 2018 and 3.6% in 2019. Over the next eighteen months, the ACCexpect solid growth across multiple chemical sectors, especially fertilizers, crop protection, coatings, consumer products, and petrochemicals.
Over the long term, America’s chemistry industry continues to expand. The economics of shale gas has fostered new investment and growth in capacity, which is now starting to come online. Chemical production is expected to continue to increase across all regions of the US during 2018, with the most dynamic growth occurring in the Gulf Coast region, followed by the Midwest and Ohio Valley regions. American chemistry revenues will exceed $700bn by 2023.
“Due to the US chemical industry expansion and strong demand from foreign markets and domestic manufacturers downstream, total two-way US chemicals trade is expected to grow 6.2% this year to $241.0bn following a 6.0$ gain in 2017,” the report notes. “Driven by the basic chemicals sector, US chemicals exports will grow 7.2% this year to $139.2bn. At the same time, imports are projected to rise 4.9% to $101.8bn by the end of this year. The trade surplus in chemicals is projected to reach 71.4bn by 2023.”
The Outlook provides a note of caution, stating, “The projections presented for chemicals trade growth are optimistic for this year and the short-term future.” It continued, “However, there are risks to the scenario related to protectionist trade policies which will reduce the competitiveness of chemical (and other) manufacturers operating in the US Introducing barriers to trade within the chemicals sector and downstream sector will negatively impact the industry’s grade growth performance. Indeed, even the threat to such policies introduces uncertainty for future investments and the ability to fully employ the US as an export platform.”
https://www.gasworld.com/acc-projects-positive-outlook-for-us-chemical-industry-/2014904.article
-
(ACC Mentioned) CCNY Study Shows Plastic Waste Can Be Converted Into Energy and Fuels
Jun 8, 2018 | The City College of New York News
Plastic waste is flooding our landfills and leaking into the oceans, with potentially disastrous effects. In fact, the World Economic Forum predicts that if current production and waste management trends continue, by 2050 there could be more plastic than fishes in the ocean.
Why is this happening when there are processes and technologies that can effectively recycle, convert to valuable products and extract the imbedded energy from these waste plastics? According to Science Advances, as of 2015, of the 6,300 million tons of plastic waste generated in the United States, only 9 percent has been recycled, 12 percent has been incinerated, with the vast majority – 79 percent - accumulating in landfills or the natural environment.
The Earth Engineering Center (EEC|CCNY) at the Grove School of Engineering of the City College of New York is on a mission to transform plastic waste to energy and fuels.
A recent EEC study titled “The Effects of Non-recycled Plastic (NRP) on Gasification: A Quantitative Assessment,” shows that what we’re disposing of is actually a resource we can use. The study, by Marco J. Castaldi, Professor of chemical engineering Director of Earth System Science and Environmental Engineering and Director of the EEC|CCNY and Demetra Tsiamis Associate Director of the EEC|CCNY, explores how adding NRPs to a chemical recycling technology called gasification - which transforms waste materials into fuels - adds value.
Adding NRPs to the gasification process helps reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while significantly reducing the amount of waste byproduct to landfill - by up to 76 percent.
In the study, published by the American Chemistry Council, the effects of increasing the percentage of non-recycled plastics (NRPs) are measured at Enerkem, a Montreal-based energy company, in collaboration with the City of Edmonton in Alberta, Canada.
“This study demonstrates that because carbon and hydrogen rich plastics have high energy content, there is tremendous potential to use technologies like gasification to convert these materials into fuels, chemicals, and other products. We were fortunate to engage a couple of students and engineers from our team enabling them to learn about this novel process,” said Castaldi.
Tsiamis added: “Plastics have an end of life use that will be turning waste into energy, which is something we all need and use.”
Learn more by reading the full study and viewing the CUNY TV Study With the Best spotlight.
About The City College of New York
Since 1847, The City College of New York has provided a high quality and affordable education to generations of New Yorkers in a wide variety of disciplines. Today The Chronicle of Higher Education ranks CCNY #2 among public colleges with the greatest success in ensuring the social mobility of our student body; at the same time the Center for world University Rankings places it in the top 1.2% of universities worldwide in terms of academic excellence. More than 16,000 students pursue undergraduate and graduate degrees in eight professional schools and divisions, driven by significant funded research, creativity and scholarship. CCNY is as diverse, dynamic and visionary as New York City itself. View CCNY Media Kit.
https://www.ccny.cuny.edu/news/ccny-study-shows-plastic-waste-can-be-converted-energy-and-fuels
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA’s Toxic Chemical Unit Narrows Scope of Evaluations
Jun 8, 2018 | The Daily Beast
The Environmental Protection Agency is handing over a big win to the chemical industry by significantly narrowing the scope of the agency’s risk evaluations of items like “dry-cleaning solvents, paint strippers and substances used in health and beauty products,” according to documents reviewed by The New York Times. The scope of these risk evaluations will no longer include “any potential exposure caused by the substances’ presence in the air, the ground or water,” leaving an “estimated 68 million pounds a year of emissions” unstudied, the newspaper reports. The agency will instead only focus on the danger chemicals bring with “direct contact” in workplaces and other settings. Nancy Beck, the Trump administration appointee tasked to oversee the toxic chemical unit, used to be an executive for the American Chemistry Council—a chemical lobbying group that pushed for narrow evaluations that would benefit the industry.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/epas-toxic-chemical-unit-narrows-scope-of-evaluations
-
Proposed Bill Seeks to Prevent Inaccurate Product Labeling
Jun 8, 2018 | Food Dive
By Cathy Siegner
Dive Brief:U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill. and Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. introduced the Accurate Labels Act on Thursday, which proposes to give consumers clear, accurate and meaningful nutrition information and prevent inaccurate labeling from misleading shoppers and driving up prices.The proposed legislation, which would amend the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act enacted in 1967, would mandate science-based criteria for all additional state and local labeling requirements, allow state-required labeling information to be provided via SmartLabel and on websites, make sure the product information is risk-based. It would not change current federal laws regarding nutrition facts, allergens and medicines.This act sets out definitions for specific types of consumer product labeling, such as chemical composition and radiation, and lays out scientific standards that would be required under risk-based labeling. The standards include taking into account the "best available science" and how likely the product would be to cause injury.Dive Insight:The proposed bill looks to alleviate consumer confusion over a slew of more recent product labeling requirements enacted on the state level. The Coalition for Accurate Product Labels — comprised of 36 organizations, including the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Farm Bureau Federation — reported that in 2018, 30 proposals in 11 states required warning labels or ingredient listings on items like french fries and coffee that go beyond national standards.
Unfounded warning labels cost manufacturers and consumers more money, hinder interstate commerce, and expose farmers, small businesses, retailers and manufacturers to legal action, the group said.
The bill's sponsors seemed particularly irked by California's Proposition 65 mandating warning labels on products deemed to contain cancer-causing ingredients, including coffee. Backers of the legislation also mentioned warning labels on sweetened beverages, which has been proposed by New York City, San Francisco and Baltimore.
Oregon's Rep. Schrader said in a release, "When we have mandatory cancer warnings on a cup of coffee, something has gone seriously wrong with the process. We now have so many warnings unrelated to the actual health risk posed to consumers, that most people just ignore them. Enough is enough."
Manufacturers and retailers are closely following the issue as they try to balance demands for transparency with the need to be clear and accurate. Many consumers are baffled by the increasing number of labels on food and beverage products, especially when they see "non-GMO" and "organic." Despite the confusion, those words can drive sales as shoppers note that they would pay more for items carrying those labels.
Food makers also worry about the additional costs of meeting labeling requirements required by states and cities, as well as its impact to interstate commerce. They could face hefty fines if they miss a warning label, like one needed for coffee sold in California.
If the Accurate Labels Act were enacted now, it would not permit any state to impose information, warning and labeling requirements on consumer commodities or products that are in addition to, or different than, requirements under the federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.
Other congressional legislation has tried to block federal or state labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. Former U.S. Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., sponsored the Safe and Accurate food Labeling Act for that purpose, which passed the House in 2015, but a related proposal failed the following year to garner the require 60 votes in the Senate.
https://www.fooddive.com/news/proposed-bill-seeks-to-prevent-inaccurate-product-labeling/525253/
-
Industry Applauds Move to 'Sustainable Regulation'
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow
Major industry players are breaking their silence to welcome EPA's controversial move to reconsider how it weighs the costs and benefits of rules.
In late April and early May, three industry groups held meetings with the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on the proposal, titled "Increasing Consistency and Transparency in Considering Costs and Benefits in the Rulemaking Process," according to Reginfo.gov, the White House's regulatory dashboard.
But all three groups — the American Petroleum Institute, American Forest & Paper Association and National Association of Manufacturers — were tight-lipped about the discussions. They didn't respond to multiple requests for comment from E&E News seeking information about the meetings and their positions.
Since the agency announced yesterday that it was seeking public input on the preliminary plan, however, two of the groups have issued statements professing bold support.
"Manufacturers strongly support today's request for input on how to regulate better," Ross Eisenberg, NAM's vice president of energy and resources policy, said in a statement yesterday.
"For the EPA to truly reform the way it regulates, it must look at the regulatory system as a whole and make changes to that process," he said.
"We hope this regulatory review process will drive real, sustained reduction in pollution in a manner that provides more transparency, flexibility and collaboration than has been the case in the past," Eisenberg said.
Paul Noe, vice president for public policy at AF&PA, wrote a blog post yesterday describing the rulemaking as an EPA milestone.
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just taken a groundbreaking step to advance the eminently reasonable principle required by every president for over 37 years: In developing regulations, regulators should consider important tradeoffs and select regulatory options that do more good than harm."
In an interview, Noe said the proposal has the "potential to dramatically advance the concept of benefits and costs for enhancing societal well-being."
"This is an opportunity for EPA to kind of step back and rethink how it designs regulations," said Noe, who was once considered a front-runner to lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. "And I think it has the potential to make EPA a leader on sustainable regulation."'Cooking the books'
Environmental and public health groups have continued to raise concern that the rulemaking could reflect a reduced emphasis on the benefits of regulations under EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.
"Scott Pruitt only cares about himself and the bottom lines of polluters," Bill Corcoran, regional campaign director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, said in a statement yesterday.
"Instead of fighting air pollution, water pollution and climate change, today, Pruitt decided to fight EPA's ability to create life saving clean air and water protections," he said.
Sara Chieffo, vice president of government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, offered a similarly scathing assessment.
"Scott Pruitt has shown us once again that he doesn't care about the costs of pollution to human health," she said in a statement. "His claim that benefits have been inflated in EPA regulatory decision making is simply not borne out by the facts and in today's far-reaching announcement, he is doing nothing short of cooking the books so that polluters always win, and people always lose."
Critics say the Trump EPA has a history of downplaying the benefits of rules while emphasizing the costs for industry to comply (Greenwire, Jan. 26).
They point to EPA's proposal to ax the Clean Power Plan. It suggested that the rule's climate benefits could be about $20 billion less annually than the Obama administration contended, while the compliance costs could be about $20 billion more annually than previous estimates.
In justifying the rollback of the Clean Water Rule, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers similarly decided to slash the rule's previously estimated benefits (Greenwire, July 7, 2017).'Easy problem to avoid'
While the White House gave industry its ear while reviewing the plan, at least one environmental group has complained of being shut out of the review process.
The Natural Resources Defense Council was disinvited from a June meeting about the proposal with OIRA staff, according to emails the group shared with E&E News (E&E News PM, June 6).
John Walke, clean air director for NRDC, lambasted the unequal access to OIRA. And he speculated that industry wants to be associated with supporting the proposal but not influencing it.
"The Trump administration was willing to meet with industry supporting its recklessness but not public health groups like NRDC opposed to that agenda," Walke said.
"Unfortunately, many American trade associations operate covertly to hide their member companies' positions and the influence they wield with the Trump administration, because disclosure would be embarrassing to corporations with brand-name recognition," he said.
A former OMB staffer under the George W. Bush administration said it was unusual for the office to disinvite anyone from a meeting.
"We sometimes asked parties who had requested meetings to meet sooner because we knew we would be concluding review before the date the meeting was set (or requested)," the staffer said.
Stuart Shapiro, who served as assistant branch chief of the White House Office of Management and Budget from 1998 to 2003, concurred.
"It's an easy problem to avoid," said Shapiro, who now teaches at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University. "You invite them in, you nod politely even if you disagree with them, and then you go on and do your business."
He added, "Administrations, both Democratic and Republican, have been doing that for years. The idea that you would go out of your way to disinvite somebody or ignore their requests is almost like sticking your thumb in the eye of your opponent."
John Graham, OIRA chief from 2001 to 2006, and now dean at Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs, wrote in an email: "It is unfortunate that OIRA did not have the time to meet with NRDC, hopefully OIRA can meet with NRDC in the future, as this rulemaking is only at the proposal stage."
OMB spokesman Coalter Baker didn't respond to multiple requests for comment for this story.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083939
-
Jun 8, 2018 | Lexology
By Bergeson & Campbell PC
In somewhat of a surprise announcement, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) on June 6, 2018, released its final policy and form for manufacturer disclosures under the Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program. The Disclosure Program is similar to the recently enacted California Cleaning Product Right to Know Act of 2017 which requires the disclosure of cleaning product ingredients by way of website or product label. The Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program requires manufacturers of cleaning products sold in New York to disclose chemical ingredients and identify any ingredients that appear on authoritative lists of chemicals of concern on their websites. New York states that it “will be the first state in the nation to require such disclosure and the State’s program goes beyond initiatives in other states by requiring the robust disclosure of byproducts and contaminants, as well as chemicals with the potential to trigger asthma in adults and children.” NYSDEC has posted the Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program Certification Form and Program Policy and a response to comments.
DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATION FORM
The Disclosure Certification Form states that “[i]n brief, information to be disclosed should be posted on a manufacturer’s website in a manner that is obvious, noticeable and readily accessible, via the internet, to the public.” In cases where information is withheld from the public as confidential business information (CBI), “the nature and degree of the information withheld should be disclosed, but such information should not be submitted to the Department or posted on the web.” Manufacturers must submit the Disclosure Certification Form to NYSDEC and it must be signed by a senior management official certifying that the disclosed information is true, accurate, and complete to the best of their knowledge.
HOUSEHOLD CLEANSING PRODUCT INFORMATION DISCLOSURE PROGRAM POLICY
Covered Products and Definitions
The Program Policy states that cleansing products covered by the Program “include but are not limited to ‘soaps and detergents containing a surfactant as a wetting or dirt emulsifying agent and used primarily for domestic or commercial cleaning purposes, including but not limited to the cleansing of fabrics, dishes, food utensils and household and commercial premises.’” The Program does not cover “foods, drugs and cosmetics, including personal care items such as toothpaste, shampoo and hand soap”; “products labeled, advertised, marketed and distributed for use primarily as pesticides, as defined in Article 33 of the Environmental Conservation Law”; or “cleansing products used primarily in industrial manufacturing, production and assembling processes.” Other definitions include:Distributed, sold, or offered for sale in New York State -- Products offered for sale at retail and wholesale or distributed for promotional purposes, including products offered for sale via the telephone, a catalog, or the internet from the manufacturer, its authorized distributors or representatives, or authorized third parties. It does not include products offered for re-sale at second hand stores, thrift shops, or garage sales;Fragrance ingredient -- Any intentionally added substance or complex mixture of aroma chemicals, natural essential oils, or any other functional ingredient or ingredients for which the sole purpose is to impart an odor or scent, or to counteract an odor;Industrial manufacturing, production, and assembling processes -- Includes oil and gas production, steel production, heavy industry manufacturing, industrial water treatment, industrial textile maintenance and processing other than industrial laundering, and food and beverage processing and packaging;Intentionally added ingredient -- A chemical that a manufacturer has intentionally added to a covered product and that has a functional or technical effect in the finished product, including the components of intentionally added fragrance ingredients and colorants, and the intentional breakdown products of an added chemical that also have a functional or technical effect on the finished product;Nonfunctional ingredient -- An ingredient, impurity, or contaminant present in a covered product as an unintentional consequence of manufacturing and that has no functional or technical effect on the finished product. The term includes two mutually exclusive subcategories:Nonfunctional byproduct -- A chemical that: (a) was added during the manufacturing process at any point in a product, a raw material, or an ingredient’s supply chain, but which has no functional or technical effect in the finished product; or (b) was created or formed during the manufacturing process at any point in a product, a raw material, or an ingredient’s supply chain, but which has no functional or technical effect in the finished product. It includes, but is not limited to an unreacted raw material, a breakdown product of an intentionally added ingredient or a byproduct of the manufacturing process; orNonfunctional contaminant -- A chemical present in the environment as a contaminant that was introduced into a product, a raw material, or a product ingredient at any point in a product, a raw material, or an ingredient’s supply chain, as a result of the use of an environmental medium, such as a naturally occurring mineral, air, soil, or water, in the manufacturing process.
CBI and Extent of Disclosure
For purposes of the Program Policy, CBI is any record(s) that would be exempt from disclosure as either a trade secret or confidential commercial information pursuant to Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) 616.7. Where information is withheld from the public as CBI, the extent of disclosure must be displayed, but the manufacturer should not submit the information being withheld to NYSDEC or post the information being withheld on its website. A manufacturer that withholds information as CBI should maintain the justification for withholding consistent with 6 NYCRR 616.7, and provide that justification upon request to NYSDEC.
According to the Program Policy, suppliers to manufacturers may also raise a CBI claim. A supplier to a manufacturer that protects an intentionally added ingredient or nonfunctional ingredient as CBI should maintain justification for withholding consistent with 6 NYCRR 616.7, and provide that justification upon request to NYSDEC. The manufacturer should use the generic name provided by the supplier and provide the supplier’s contact information to NYSDEC upon request.
Information to be Disclosed
The Program Policy states that each category of information disclosed should be posted in close proximity to all other required categories on one web page, including but not limited to the manufacturer’s name and contact information. “Pop ups” or one-click links to a separate web page are acceptable as long as they conform with all of the requirements regarding accessibility and machine readability listed in the Program Policy. According to the Program Policy, manufacturers may post marketing language on the same web page, but may not insert the language between the statement regarding “Extent of Disclosure” and the list of product ingredients, and should not interfere with any required information entries. Manufacturers should prove a link to the Program Policy to provide more information on the meaning of commonly used terms, such as “Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number” or “nanoscale material.”
The Program Policy notes that the information required to be disclosed “may be disclosed in a hazard communication safety data sheet for a product as long as it is posted on the manufacturer’s website and meets all the requirements described in this document, including but not limited to being fully accessible and machine readable.”
Extent of Disclosure
The extent of disclosure provided for a product’s ingredients must be prominently and clearly displayed. The extent of disclosure should be indicated by providing the number and title, indicated in bold in the hierarchy below, of the level achieved:Hierarchy of Non-Fragrance Ingredients Disclosure Levels:Level 1: Full Disclosure of All Intentionally Added and Nonfunctional Ingredients. All known intentionally added ingredients are disclosed, including those present in trace quantities. All known nonfunctional ingredients are disclosed, including any present in trace quantities that appear on one or more of the lists of chemicals of concern named in Appendix B of the Program Policy;Level 2: Full Disclosure of All Intentionally Added Ingredients. All intentionally added ingredients are disclosed, including those present in trace quantities. One or more nonfunctional ingredients are withheld as CBI; andLevel 3: Partial Disclosure of Intentionally Added Ingredients. One or more intentionally added ingredients are withheld as CBI. All nonfunctional ingredients are disclosed, or one or more are withheld as confidential business information.Hierarchy of Fragrance Ingredients Disclosure Levels:Level 1: Full Disclosure of All Fragrances. All fragrance ingredients are disclosed, including those present in trace quantities;Level 2: Partial Disclosure of Fragrances; Master List Provided. One or more fragrance ingredients are withheld as CBI, but a master list of either all fragrance ingredients used by the manufacturer, or of all fragrance ingredients used in a category of the manufacturer’s designated consumer products is provided that includes all ingredients withheld;Level 3: Partial Disclosure of Fragrances; No Master List Provided. One or more fragrance ingredients are withheld as CBI, and no master list of fragrance ingredients used by the manufacturer is provided;Level 4: No Disclosure of Fragrances; Master List Provided. All fragrance ingredients are withheld as CBI, but a master list of either all fragrance ingredients used by the manufacturer, or of all fragrance ingredients used in a category of the manufacturer’s designated consumer products is provided that includes all ingredients withheld; andLevel 5: No Disclosure of Fragrances; No Master List Provided. All fragrance ingredients are withheld as CBI, and no master list of fragrance ingredients used by the manufacturer is provided.
The Program Policy states that a link to the Policy should also be provided “for the public to learn more about what each level of disclosure means.”
Ingredients
All Information disclosed under this category should be posted in close proximity to each other. The Program Policy encourages displaying the information in some type of table, but does not require it. “Pop ups” or one-click links to a separate web page are acceptable as long as they conform with all of the requirements described in the Program Policy regarding accessibility and machine readability. A manufacturer may group ingredients separately in the following categories, so long as all ingredients are included in one list, or may intermingle the categories as appropriate: intentionally added ingredients; fragrance ingredients; nonfunctional byproducts; and nonfunctional contaminants.
In all cases where an ingredient has a CAS number, it should be disclosed, unless it is being withheld as CBI. If multiple CAS numbers are associated with an ingredient, all known CAS numbers should be listed. Prior to July 1, 2020, a name from any one of the nomenclature systems listed below may be used for disclosure. After July 1, 2020, in all cases where a CAS number or chemical name is not being withheld as CBI, the name of an ingredient must be disclosed pursuant to the following hierarchy of nomenclature systems. If a name is available in the highest ranked system, that name should be used. If a name is not available in a higher ranked system, a name should be used from the next highest ranked system.Consumer Specialty Products Association Consumer Product Ingredients Dictionary, or the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients;International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry nomenclature;Chemical Abstracts Index; andCommon chemical name, or genus and species for biobased ingredients.
Intentionally added ingredients and nonfunctional ingredients should be listed in descending order of predominance by weight in the product, except that intentionally added ingredients or nonfunctional ingredients present at a weight below one percent may be listed following the other ingredients without respect to the order of predominance by weight. The actual weight percentages of any ingredient need not be disclosed.
Presence on a List of Chemicals of Concern
If an ingredient in a product is present on one or more of the lists of chemicals of concern named in Appendix B of the Program Policy, such information must be disclosed, even if the specific name or other information about the ingredient is being withheld as CBI. The Program Policy states that the fact that an ingredient appears on such a list “must be clearly and unequivocally indicated where the ingredient appears on the list of ingredients,” using one of the following approaches, terms, or phrases:Presentation of ingredients and any lists they appear on in table form, with the short name of the list provided in a column next to the ingredient column with the heading “Lists of Chemicals of Concern,” “Chemicals of Concern,” or “COC”;“Present on [provide short name] list”;“Present on list of chemicals of concern”;“Chemical of concern”; or“COC.”
According to the Program Policy, a symbol, such as an asterisk (*), may not be used as a substitute for one of these approaches, terms, or phrases, nor can font appearance or color be used. If the manufacturer uses the abbreviation “COC,” it must provide a key with the definition of what “COC” means between the heading and the start of such ingredient list, so that the meaning of the term is apparent to a reader prior to list review. The Program Policy notes that “[n]othing here precludes a manufacturer from providing a disclaimer regarding the potential impact on human health and the environment of an ingredient which appears on a list of chemicals of concern.”
The fact that an ingredient appears on the California Proposition 65 list need not be disclosed until January 1, 2023. The Program Policy states that this “in no way affects any other requirements contained in this document regarding the disclosure of ingredients.”
Each list of chemicals of concern on which an ingredient appears should be listed together in a single location for each ingredient in close proximity to the ingredient as it appears on the list of ingredients provided pursuant to the Program Policy. Manufacturers should use the short name provided and highlighted in bold, and a link to the list should be provided. “Pop ups” or one-click links to a separate web page are acceptable as long as they conform with all of the requirements regarding accessibility and machine readability in the Program Policy.
The Program lists the following lists of chemicals of concern:CA Prop 65. Chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity (including developmental, female, and male toxicity) that are listed pursuant to the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 2, Subdivision 1, Chapter 3, Sections 1200 et seq., also known as Proposition 65).EU CMRs. Chemicals classified by the European Union (EU) as carcinogens, mutagens, and/or reproductive toxicants in Category 1A and 1B in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008;EU Endocrine Disruptors. Chemicals included in the EU candidate list of Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 on the basis of Article 57(f) for endocrine disrupting properties;IRIS Neurotoxicants. Chemicals for which a reference dose or reference concentration has been developed based on neurotoxicity in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS);IRIS Carcinogens. Chemicals that are identified as “carcinogenic to humans,” “likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” or Group A, B1, or B2 carcinogens in EPA’s IRIS;EU PBTs. Chemicals included in the EU candidate list of SVHC in accordance with Article 59 of Regulation (EC) 1907/2006 on the basis of Article 57(d), Article 57(e), or Article 57(f) for persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT), or very persistent and very bioaccumulative properties;Canada PBTs. Chemicals that are identified as Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Inherently Toxic to the environment by the Canadian Environmental Protection Act Environmental Registry Domestic Substances List. We note that as of June 7, 2018, the hyperlink provided to this list by the Program Policy results in a 404 page not found error;EU Respiratory Sensitizers. Chemicals classified by the EU as respiratory sensitizers Category 1 in Annex VI to Regulation (EC) 1272/2008;IARC Carcinogens. Group 1, 2a, or 2b carcinogens identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), World Health Organization, in Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans;ATSDR Neurotoxicants. Neurotoxicants that are identified in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) Toxic Substances Portal under “Health Effects of Toxic Substances and Carcinogens, Nervous System”;US EPA Priority Chemicals List. PBT Priority Chemicals that are identified by EPA’s National Waste Minimization Program;US NTP Reproductive or Developmental Toxicants. Reproductive or developmental toxicants identified in “Monograph on the Potential Human Reproductive and Developmental Effects” published by HHS’s National Toxicology Program (NTP), Office of Health Assessment and Translation. We note that as of June 7, 2018, the hyperlink provided to this list by the Program Policy results in a “page not found” message;US EPA PBTs. Chemicals identified by EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory program as PBTs that are subject to reporting under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986;WA PBTs. The Washington Department of Ecology’s PBT Chemicals identified in the Washington Administrative Code, Title 173, Chapter 173-333. We note that as of June 7, 2018, the hyperlink provided to this list by the Program Policy results in a 404 page not found error;US NTP Carcinogens. Chemicals that are identified as “known to be” or “reasonably anticipated to be” human carcinogens in the 13th Report on Carcinogens and any subsequent revisions prepared by NTP;CA NLs. Chemicals for which Notification Levels (NL), as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 116455, have been established by the California Department of Public Health or the State Water Resources Control Board;CA MCLs. Chemicals for which primary Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) have been established and adopted under Sections 64431 or 64444 of Chapter 15 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR);CA TACs. Chemicals identified as Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) under Sections 93000 or 93001 of CCR Title 17;CA Priority Pollutants. Chemicals that are identified as priority pollutants in the California Water Quality Control Plans under Section 303(c) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and in Section 131.38 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), or identified as pollutants by California or EPA for one or more water bodies in California under CWA Section 303(d) and Section 130.7 of C.F.R. Title 40.CA Non-Cancer Hazards. Chemicals that are identified with non-cancer endpoints and listed with an inhalation or oral Reference Exposure Level by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) under Health and Safety Code Section 44360(b)(2);CA Priority Chemicals. Chemicals identified as priority chemicals by the California Environmental Contaminant Biomonitoring program pursuant to Section 105449;Marine Priority Action Chemicals. Chemicals that are identified on Part A of the list of Chemicals for Priority Action prepared by the Oslo and Paris Conventions for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic;EU Fragrance Allergens. Chemicals identified as fragrance allergens in Annex III of the EU Cosmetics Regulation 1223/2009, as required to be labeled by the European Detergents Regulation No. 648/2004;AOEC Asthmagens. Chemicals designated as asthmagens by the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics;US EPA TSCA Chemicals of Concern. Chemicals for which EPA has issued a Chemical of Concern Action Plan pursuant to the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);US EPA Ozone Depletors. Chemicals identified as a Class I or Class II ozone-depleting substance by EPA;NY DOH MCLs. Chemicals for which MCLs have been established and adopted in Tables 1, 3, 3A, and 7 of Subpart 5-1.52 of 10 NYCRR Subpart 5-1.52;GLWQA Chemicals of Mutual Concern. Chemicals identified as Chemicals of Mutual Concern developed under the 2012 U.S./Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) Annex 3; andNY Air Toxics. Chemicals identified as high toxicity air contaminants in Part 212 of 6 NYCRR Subpart 212-2.2, as defined in Subpart 212-1.2 (b)(9).
The Program Policy states that NYSDEC reserves the right to edit, add, or subtract items from these lists. NYSDEC will provide public notice and an opportunity to comment on any changes it makes to such lists. Manufacturers should update their disclosures against any newly added lists on the two-year anniversary of their last full biennial disclosure review.
Nanoscale Materials
For each ingredient that is a nanoscale material, a term describing the nanoscale material should be disclosed. For example, according to the Program Policy, if the nanoscale material is carbon, the disclosure should use the term “nanoscale” carbon. The Program Policy states that a nanoscale material “is a chemical substance that meets the TSCA definition of a reportable chemical substance manufactured or processed at the nanoscale. That definition provides, in part, that a ‘reportable chemical substance is a chemical substance as defined in Section 3 of TSCA that is solid at 25° C and standard atmospheric pressure, that is manufactured or processed in a form where any particles, including aggregates and agglomerates, are in the size range of 1-100 nanometers in at least one dimension, and that is manufactured or processed to exhibit unique and novel properties because of its size.’” The Program Policy notes that a reportable chemical substance does not include a chemical substance that is manufactured or processed in a form where less than one percent of any particles, including aggregates, and agglomerates, measured by weight are in the size range of 1-100 nanometers. The definition referenced by the Program Policy, 40 C.F.R. Section 704.20(a), is the one promulgated by EPA for the TSCA Section 8(a) reporting rule for chemical substances manufactured or processed at the nanoscale.
Role
For each intentionally added ingredient, a term describing its functional purpose should be disclosed. Such terms include, but are not limited to, “surfactant,” “colorant,” “fragrance,” and “preservative.” Nonfunctional ingredients should be labeled as “nonfunctional ingredient” or may be labeled as “nonfunctional byproduct” or “nonfunctional contaminant,” as appropriate.
Effects on Human Health and the Environment
Under the Household Cleansing Product Information Disclosure Program, manufacturers must post information on their websites regarding the nature and extent of investigations and research performed directly by or at the direction of the manufacturer concerning the effects on human health and the environment of covered products or the chemical ingredients of such products. According to the Program Policy, the posting of such information is exempt from the requirements for machine readability and Web Content Accessibility as described in the Program Policy, but “manufacturers should strive to satisfy those requirements to the maximum extent practicable.”
Such information should be provided under the phrase “Effects on Human Health and the Environment” and be posted in close proximity to all other categories of information required for a covered product. Such Information should be grouped by ingredient where applicable, and must include, but is not limited to:Any health and safety study, as defined under TSCA Section 3(8) (15 U.S.C. 2602(8)), performed by or for the manufacturer and submitted to EPA pursuant to TSCA, unless EPA has determined that a study or portion of a study may be withheld as CBI, in which case any portion of a study not withheld as CBI should be posted, including documents that have specific information redacted (for example the name of a chemical or the type of manufacturing process in which a chemical or chemicals is used). Where the manufacturer or distributor’s name has been redacted as CBI, posting of the study is not required;Any investigations or research performed by or for the manufacturer submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) pursuant to the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, unless ECHA has determined that a document or portion of a document may be withheld as CBI, in which case any portion of a document not withheld as CBI should be posted, including documents that have specific information redacted (for example, the name of a chemical or the type of manufacturing process in which a chemical or chemicals is used). Where the manufacturer or distributor’s name has been redacted as CBI, posting of the study is not required;For any investigations or research not required to be submitted under TSCA or REACH, or which are withheld as CBI under TSCA or REACH, the following information should be provided: a list of the number and types of studies (for example, animal tests, epidemiological studies, computational models, or alternatives assessments) done on a product or any of its ingredients; the entity who conducted the study; the entity who financed the study; the year in which the study was commenced; and the year it was completed. Where the CAS number and specific name of an ingredient is being withheld as CBI, or the name of the manufacturer has been withheld in relation to studies done on such an ingredient under TSCA or REACH, the information described in this paragraph should be listed in association with the generic name of the ingredient disclosed by the manufacturer, for example “fragrance,” “surfactant,” or “nonfunctional ingredient”;If a study has been published on the web and is available for review by the public without charge, the provision of a link to the study can substitute for posting;A link to the hazard communication safety data sheet (SDS) for the covered product;A list of any of the Globally Harmonized System’s (GHS) hazard characteristics that apply to the covered product and are named in Appendix C of the Program Policy. Each characteristic that a product meets should be listed together in a single location, using the short name provided and highlighted in bold in Appendix C, and a link to a description of the characteristic should be provided; andA link to the American Cleaning Institute’s Ingredient Safety Initiative, if applicable. The provision of such a link may be used to satisfy any of the requirements to post information regarding the nature and extent of investigations or research performed by or for the manufacturer, to the extent that the content provided in the Safety Initiative meets such requirements.
Date of Disclosure
The most recent date on which information was posted or updated should be provided.
Effective Date and Updates
Manufacturers must post all required information for the following ingredients by July 1, 2019, provided, however, that manufacturers that are independently owned and operated and employ 100 or less people are not required to post such information until July 1, 2020:Intentionally added ingredients other than fragrance ingredients; andNonfunctional ingredients present above trace quantities.
Manufacturers must post all required information for the following ingredients by July 1, 2020:Fragrance ingredients;Nonfunctional byproducts listed in Appendix D present at or above 100 parts per million (ppm), except for 1,4 dioxane, which should be reported at or above 350 parts per trillion (ppt), and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), which should be reported at a combined level of at or above 70 ppt.
Manufacturers must post all required information for the following ingredients by January 1, 2023:Nonfunctional byproducts that appear on one or more of the lists of chemicals of concern named in Appendix B and are present at or above the practical quantitation limit; andNonfunctional contaminants that appear on one or more of the lists of chemicals of concern named in Appendix B and are present at or above the thresholds described in the Program Policy.
All other required information should be posted by July 1, 2019, with the following exceptions:Information regarding investigations and research concerning effects on human health and the environment should be posted by July 1, 2020; andInformation regarding Category 3 GHS Skin Irritants and GHS Aquatic Toxins should be posted by July 1, 2020.
According to the Program Policy, manufacturers should update their disclosures each time they change the ingredients in a product, introduce a new product to the market, or a list of chemicals of concern is changed to include an ingredient present in any of their products. Disclosure updates related to a change in a list of chemicals of concern should be made no later than six months after the adoption of the revised list by its authoritative body. Legacy data for discontinued products should be posted for two years after the product is discontinued. All other disclosed information, including information regarding investigations and research concerning effects on human health and the environment, should be reviewed, at a minimum, once every two years, and disclosures updated as necessary.
The Disclosure Certification Form must be submitted to NYSDEC online, in machine-readable format, upon the effective dates of the Program Policy and every two years thereafter. It must include a complete list of all the manufacturers’ current (and applicable discontinued) products covered by this disclosure. In addition, an updated Disclosure Certification Form must be submitted online in machine-readable format to NYSDEC within two months of a new product entering the market, or a URL change for a current disclosure. In these instances, the Form may be an update and only needs to include information on the new product or revised URL.
COMMENTARY
The New York Cleansing Products Disclosure Program is a big deal for several reasons. First, the compliance dates are not far off, unlike the California program. Second, the scope of the Program may be just the beginning of many more product lines to be subject to disclosure. Third, the Program is quite robust and compels a level of specificity and assessment that may make those subject to it displeased. The requirements specific to nanomaterials in particular are likely to cause heartburn. Finally, that these “ingredient disclosure” programs are beginning to populate the commercial landscape is likely to be cause for concern by product manufacturers. In general, these programs seek to achieve a key goal -- ingredient disclosure, but they do so in ways that are considerably different on a state-by-state basis. The New York Program and the California law are actually quite different, aside from the lists of chemicals of concern, and there is every reason to expect other states will enact similar (but different) laws in the years ahead. Aligning these programs could well become a commercial nightmare. The use of state, federal, and international lists of chemicals of concern increases the significance of being added to one of these lists, and product manufacturers should be aware of the implications of being added to these lists. Whether consumers will be the beneficiaries of what promises to be a heroic effort and relentless disclosure is unclear.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=027ec390-0998-4ee8-a517-c0976d5f3301
-
Agency to Meet on Scientific Integrity. Standing Room Only?
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Robin Bravender
EPA employees will get tips about scientific integrity next week at agency headquarters.
Staffers have been invited to a conversation with the agency's scientific integrity official, career employee Francesca Grifo, slated for next Tuesday, according to an internal EPA email obtained by E&E News.
It's an annual event that dates back to 2013, when Grifo — a former senior scientist at the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists — was hired for the job. This time, it's being held as critics of the Trump administration are accusing EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt of sidelining science at the agency.
Last year, EPA held two scientific integrity sessions for employees because there was so much demand from employees, said an EPA staffer who has attended the meetings in the past.
"Think of where we were a year ago; we had no idea about what Pruitt was going to be like," the staffer said.
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said he understood it was "standing room only" at last year's event. "People were trying to connect via phone, and the line capacity was reached."
The conversations are aimed at offering employees an overview of the agency's scientific integrity policy and reminding people of the agency's procedures for processing allegations of scientific integrity violations, the employee said.
EPA's scientific integrity policy was issued in February 2012 under the Obama administration. It "provides a framework to ensure scientific integrity throughout EPA and to promote scientific and ethical standards, communications with the public, the use of peer review and advisory committees, and professional development," according to the EPA email sent to staff yesterday.
"As stated in the Policy, the environmental policies, decisions, guidance, and regulations that impact the lives of all Americans every day must be grounded, at a most fundamental level, in sound, high quality science," it says.
EPA's press office did not respond to a request for more details about the meeting. The EPA employee said notices of this year's event were distributed more widely than ever before, including a mass email and advertisements in headquarters.
The event will be held in a conference room in Washington, D.C., but employees can also participate remotely.
Halpern of UCS is among those criticizing the new administration's approach to science.
Scientific integrity policies across the government "were developed with the assumption that administrations would try to bury information that they found inconvenient and champion information that they felt supported their case," he said. "These guys are playing by a whole different set of rules."
Halpern added, "The new state of play is that people in the administrator's office don't even bother consulting with career expert staff when developing policies."
Halpern pointed to EPA's decision not to ban the pesticide chlorpyrifos, a move that contradicted evidence the agency had previously put forward that the chemical poses a risk to human health (Greenwire, March 30, 2017). Pruitt last year called the decision a return to "using sound science in decisionmaking — rather than predetermined results."
Halpern also pointed to Pruitt's recent proposal to restrict which scientific studies EPA uses in rulemaking. Pruitt and other conservatives have argued that the data underpinning rules should be made more transparent, but critics of his plan say the overhaul will threaten public health by preventing EPA from using credible science.
One thing to watch for is whether EPA issues an updated annual report on scientific integrity, Halpern said. The most recent report on the agency's website is from 2016.
EPA also holds an annual scientific integrity event for outside stakeholders.
Last year, a political appointee in EPA's public affairs shop, John Konkus, coordinated with a conservative think tank to invite critics of mainstream climate science to that stakeholder meeting.
Joe Bast, who then led the Heartland Institute, sent Konkus lists of climate scientists and economists to attend the event, according to emails released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Last year's stakeholder meeting was postponed due to an illness, the emails indicate (Climatewire, May 29).
It doesn't appear as though that meeting has been rescheduled.
"I haven't received an invitation to anything," said Halpern, who has attended the events previously. "I would hope and expect that they would do the external stakeholder meeting as they've done in the past."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083909
-
Pruitt: 'This Is A Transformational Time'
Jun 8, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt told a conservative gathering Friday that he and President Trump are overseeing policy changes that will be felt for decades.
“This is a transformational time. There are certain times in history that when you’re living in them you recognize that what’s happening is going to impact generations into the future,” Pruitt told the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s annual Road To Majority conference.
“This is reminiscent of the 1980s. This is reminiscent of when [former President Ronald] Reagan was in office saying that we can do better for the American people,” he continued.
“We must embrace, we must advance, we must make change.”
The embattled EPA chief did not mention any of the numerous spending and ethics controversies centering on him over recent months.
But one protester hid heckle Pruitt near the beginning of his speech with a large bottle of lotion, mocking him over a Washington Post report that he had his taxpayer-funded security detail drive him to numerous Ritz Carlton hotels to find a specific lotion he wanted.
Instead, Pruitt boasted about his aggressive deregulatory agenda, including actions to roll back major Obama administration rules on climate change, water pollution and air pollution.
“These are examples of us choosing to make sure that regulatory authority, once again, is not used to pick winners and losers,” he said.
“This administration recognizes that private property ownership and the states matter, and that they care about air quality and water quality. And that we can advance this jobs agenda at the same time that we improve the environment by engaging in partnership, as opposed to adversity.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/391338-pruitt-this-is-a-transformational-time
-
Pruitt Takes Credit for Ozone Reductions Tied to Bush, Obama Administrations
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Alex Guillen
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt today took credit for notching up environmental achievements — even though they were mostly due to previous administrations’ actions.
Speaking before the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative Christian non-profit, Pruitt argued that his critics have ignored his accomplishments.
“Here’s a newsflash: Air quality is better in this country since the Trump administration came into office. Ten percent better on ozone under this administration,” Pruitt said.
Many of the last year’s ozone gains, however, have come from continuing implementation of the 2008 ozone standard set under the Bush administration, and to a lesser extent from the Obama administration’s 2015 rule that tightened that standard further.
EPA said the 10 percent drop came from the number of counties initially designated as failing to meet the 2008 standard by the Obama administration versus Trump-era designations under the more stringent 2015 standard.
Pruitt initiated a review of the 2015 rule in what was seen as a precursor to repealing it, but has not yet taken action. Meanwhile, federal courts have ordered EPA to take the next steps in implementing the 2015 standard, forcing EPA to finish issuing area designations for most of the U.S.
Pruitt also plugged his work to clean up Superfund sites around the U.S. “This year we will see as many as ten times the number of sites cleaned up under this administration than what existed with the Obama administration in one year,” he said.
Because of the lengthy nature of Superfund clean-ups, which can take years or even decades, sites currently being removed from the Superfund list often saw their remediation begin under the Obama administration. President Barack Obama delisted 60 Superfund sites over eight years, according to EPA’s website. Pruitt has delisted seven so far.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
Dem Lawmakers Seek Criminal Corruption Probe of EPA's Pruitt
Jun 8, 2018 | AP (In The New York Times)
House Democrats on Friday formally requested that the Justice Department investigate Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt for potential criminal conduct.
In a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray and Justice criminal division chief John Cronan, six Democratic lawmakers with oversight of Pruitt's agency allege he repeatedly violated federal anti-corruption laws by seeking to leverage his government position for personal gain.
As evidence, the Democrats cite Pruitt's $50-a-night lease of a Capitol Hill condo tied to a lobbyist seeking to influence his agency, directing an EPA aide to contact a senior Chick-fil-A executive as part of an effort to land his family a franchise, and a $2,000 payment to his wife from organizers of a conference the administrator then attended at taxpayer expense.
A spokesman for Pruitt did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The letter was signed by Democratic Reps. Gerald Connolly and Donald Beyer of Virginia, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Ted Lieu of California. Connolly is a senior member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and serves as the ranking Democrat on the Subcommittee on Government Operations.
ADVERTISEMENT
President Donald Trump signaled Friday he is still standing by his embattled EPA chief, even as Pruitt's support among other Republicans has started to erode.
"Scott Pruitt is doing a great job within the walls of the EPA," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I mean, we're setting records. Outside he's being attacked very viciously by the press. And I'm not saying that he's blameless. But we'll see what happens."
For his part, Pruitt sought to laugh off the controversy this week over his using government resources to seek a "business opportunity" with the fast-food fried chicken chain whose owners are known for supporting conservative Christian causes, including outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage.
"I mean, look, my wife is an entrepreneur herself. I love, she loves, we love Chick-fil-A as a franchise of faith," Pruitt said in a TV interview on Wednesday.
In their letter, the House Democrats make their case that Pruitt's conduct rises to the level of criminal conduct.EDITORS’ PICKSBlood Will Tell, Part I: Who Killed Mickey Bryan?For ‘Columbiners,’ School Shootings Have a Deadly AllureDeciding to Change My Body
"At the very least, we know that federal ethics laws bar public officials from using their position or staff for private gain," the Democrats wrote to Wray and Cronan. "Administrator Pruitt has certainly done just that. Further, his actions related to his wife's employment and the quid-pro-quo condo situation with industry lobbyists may have crossed a line into criminal conduct punishable by fines or even by time in prison."
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2018/06/08/us/politics/ap-us-epa-pruitt.html
-
Major Trump Donor Helped Pruitt Pick EPA Science Advisers
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro
By Emily Holden and Anthony Andragna
A prominent GOP donor and President Donald Trump supporter helped EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt choose the head of the influential scientific body charged with reviewing EPA's regulations, according to newly released documents.
Doug Deason, a Dallas businessman, submitted a list of names of candidates for Pruitt's Science Advisory Board in August that had been supplied by the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, on whose board he serves.
Deason and his father, Darwin Deason, donated over $900,000 in 2016 alone to help elect Trump and other Republican candidates. His influence over the SAB appointments is the latest example of the high-level access that politically powerful conservatives have to the EPA administrator. Deason is known to be a friend of Pruitt's.
Deason and his wife have also been donors to the Koch brothers' network of organizations that raise money for Republicans running for state and national office.
Last year, Pruitt overhauled EPA's advisory boards, banning scientists who received EPA funding and replacing many of them with employees of energy companies and state agencies. The new emails, released under the Freedom of Information Act to the Sierra Club, show that some of those appointments were made at the suggestion of campaign contributors and oil and coal industry officials.
Deason's full list, which EPA did not provide, was drafted by Kathleen Hartnett White, a TPPF fellow whose nomination to run the Council on Environmental Quality flopped in the Senate after a poor showing in her confirmation hearing and her lack of scientific credentials. She had drawn fire from environmentalists and Democrats for comments dismissing climate change and downplaying the dangers of pollutants like smog.
Reached via email, Deason acknowledged that he had made the recommendations. And he did not believe Pruitt's job at EPA was in danger, saying he "is out of the woods from what I have been told by contacts in the White House. Time to move on [to the] real story." EPA did not dispute that Deason was involved in the process, but said others put forward nominations too.
Pruitt has regularly sought to build connections with top GOP donors, including some whose businesses are heavily regulated by EPA. He has huddled with Steve Chancellor, a coal executive who raised over $1 million for Trump, POLITICO reported. And he sat in coveted courtside seats at a University of Kentucky basketball game with tickets from billionaire coal magnate and Republican funder Joe Craft, whose wife is Trump's ambassador to Canada, The New York Times has reported.
Deason’s top recommendation to Pruitt was Michael Honeycutt, a toxicologist at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, who was subsequently appointed to lead the Science Advisory Board, which counsels the agency on how it uses science to write regulations and is currently reviewing sweeping rule changes Pruitt is implementing. Honeycutt has been a critic of EPA's regulations, and cast doubt on its assessments of the dangers of mercury, arsenic and ozone pollution.
According to internal emails, Deason told Pruitt’s then-scheduler Sydney Hupp in May 2017 that Pruitt “asked that I help them add a few experts on a new proposed Science Advisory Board.” EPA didn’t publicly request candidates until June.
Months later, Deason forwarded White’s list to Pruitt’s chief of staff Ryan Jackson. TPPF Executive Director Kevin Roberts said White “especially recommends Dr. Michael Honeycutt of the TCEQ,” and attached his bio first.
EPA argues Honeycutt was not chosen on Deason's recommendation alone, saying in an emailed statement from a spokesman that “he is a well-qualified and respected toxicologist, he has been nominated by multiple people and considered for EPA science advisory committees for the last several years.”
Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen, said Deason's influence in the process "raises serious concerns."
"That should have been a merit-based process of selection and not based on the wishes of personal friends and major party donors," Holman said. "It's a sad reflection of what we're seeing going on throughout the Trump administration. Trump values millionaires and billionaires and those who are very wealthy as being the type of people who are running our government, so that's who he listens to — it's really a takeover of our government by the very wealthy."
Deason’s initial email to Hupp about the science boards was sent before he met with Pruitt on May 18, an appointment that the agency never disclosed. Deason also set up a meeting that day between Pruitt and his business partner Roy Bailey, the managing director at the private equity firm Giuliani Deason Capital Interests, which is partly owned by Rudy Giuliano's firm Giuliano Partners. The Dallas Morning News has reported that Bailey was also a major fundraiser for Trump.Bailey brought along executives from Intrexon, a biotechnology company whose subsidiary now has a proposal before the agency to deploy genetically engineered mosquitoes to reduce the population of Zika-carrying mosquitoes in South Florida.
Bailey set up the meeting as a personal favor for the company’s CEO, R.J. Kirk, who is a friend, Intrexon said.
“I truly believe that Scott and his team would benefit greatly from meeting with RJ,” Deason told Hupp. “If Scott and/or Ryan Jackson have any time I would really appreciate it if they would give RJ 15 mins or so. They will learn a lot!”
Pruitt’s public calendar lists the meeting with Intrexon but does not note Bailey’s attendance. The administrator’s more detailed internal calendar item for the meeting, obtained under pubic records laws, lists Bailey and Intrexon executives, but not Deason.
The records noted that Intrexon's technology, which was previously under the FDA's jurisdiction, "will fall under the purview of the EPA."
Asked about the donors' role in the meeting, the EPA spokesman said "Administrator Pruitt meets with a wide range of regulated stakeholders and these meetings are no different.”
Deason has been a staunch supporter of Pruitt during his recent scandals, and has pressed his White House contacts to keep Pruitt at EPA, suggesting that if reports that Trump chief of staff John Kelly was pushing for his ouster, then Kelly “has no spine,” according to Bloomberg.
He also helped book Pruitt as a speaker at a TPPF and Heritage Foundation event in Washington on Nov. 30, emailing Pruitt and Jackson directly.
Jackson thanked Deason for “the help on the science boards,” noting in an email in October that they would be announced in the next few weeks. And Deason followed up after the announcement, writing, “Great news on the Science Boards, Ryan. Scott knocked it out of the park yesterday.”
The American Petroleum Institute also put forward six of its own recommendations for various science boards, and two of those ultimately landed positions advising EPA: Merl Lindstrom, the vice president of technology for Phillips 66, and Robert Merritt, a retired geoscience manager from oil giant Total SA. API Director of Federal Relations Hilary Moffett in August sent the list of candidates to Jackson and Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research and Development Richard Yamada.
Separately, Betsy Monseu, head of the American Coal Council, recommended two of the group’s members who were not ultimately picked. The organization itself did not take an official position, but Monseu emailed her names to EPA air office adviser Mandy Gunasekara in July.
The EPA spokesman said the agency had more than 700 applicants for its science boards and sought a "wider range of voices to weigh into" the selection process and now has "highly qualified" boards that are "independent and geographically diverse."
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/article/2018/06/major-trump-donor-helped-pruitt-pick-epa-science-advisers-603450
-
IARC Is Changing Its Preamble But Will That Mean A Change In Its Credibility?
Jun 8, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Geoffrey Kabat
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/08/iarc-changing-its-preamble-will-mean-change-its-credibility-13059
-
What ‘Chemicals of Concern’ Are In Your Food Packaging?
Jun 8, 2018 | Packaging Digest
By Elizabeth Ritch
Hazardous chemicals that persist indefinitely in the ecosystem have no place in a circular economy. Brand owners using packaging materials that contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS), for example, should look for better replacements to ensure the health and safety of consumers and the environment.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have gotten a lot of criticism recently from environmental groups and the media. Do you know what they are, and whether they’re in the packaging of the products you sell?
PFAS are a large family of chemicals that share a similar structure—they are all based on a backbone of carbon and fluorine bonds, which are stable and persistent in the environment. These chemicals have been widely used for commercial and industrial applications, including water-, oil- and stain-repellent fabrics, nonstick products and fire-fighting foams.
PFAS are also widely used in food packaging, where they provide water and grease resistance. A 2017 study found widespread use of fluorinated chemicals in dessert and bread wrappers, sandwich and burger wrappers, and paperboard food packaging, and the Center for Environmental Health found PFAS in 100% of the microwave popcorn bags and molded fiber food serviceware they tested.
Certain PFAS based on a chain of eight carbon atoms (such as perfluorooctanoic acid [PFOA] and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid [PFOS], also referred to as C8 chemicals) were widely used for decades and have been associated with high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia. These particular chemicals are no longer manufactured in the United States, following a phase-out initiative led by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, due to the strength and stability of the carbon-fluorine bond, they are highly persistent in the environment, so people are still exposed to them via drinking water and other sources.
When C8 PFAS were phased out, chemical suppliers and product manufacturers looked for replacement chemicals that would provide similar performance, particularly for water, grease and stain resistance. Many turned to shorter-chain PFAS that were structurally similar to those that had been phased out, but contained fewer carbon atoms, such as GenX (manufactured by DuPont and its successor Chemours).
Unfortunately, these replacement PFAS are based on the same extremely stable carbon-fluorine bonds, meaning they are also highly persistent in the environment. While less toxicity data is available about these newer chemicals, they have been associated with liver and kidney damage, and animal studies suggest an association with increased rates of certain cancers. The replacement of long-chain PFAS with short-chain PFAS seems to be a case of regrettable substitution: the substitute chemical may have similar health concerns or be only marginally better than the original.
Short-chain PFAS are still approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in food contact packaging. This is a problem both because PFAS can migrate from packaging into food, and because the chemicals persist after the end of the useful life of the package. PFAS have been detected in leachate from landfills and biosolids from wastewater. When biosolids are applied to agricultural fields, the PFAS can be taken up by crops and enter the food supply. In fact, the short-chain PFAS that are on the market today are actually more mobile in the environment than the long-chain PFAS they replaced. Since all PFAS are so persistent, including the new short-chain PFAS, the more we use them, the more will eventually end up in the environment—all the more reason to avoid them in the first place.
Increasingly, advocacy groups, the public and regulators are recognizing that substitute PFAS aren’t the solution. Recently, Washington State became the first in the country to ban all PFAS from fiber-based food packaging. The ban will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, as long as safer alternatives are identified by the Washington Department of Ecology by Jan. 1, 2020. At SPC Impact in April 2018, Jen Jackson of the San Francisco Department of the Environment said that the city of San Francisco is implementing procurement strategies and considering possible ordinances to support markets for PFAS-free compostable food serviceware.
While certain progressive jurisdictions are starting to take action, the fact is that regulations don’t always keep up with the latest information about chemical hazards in packaging. So how can brands ensure that they are part of the solution?
Malene Teller Blume, quality manager for Coop Denmark, the largest retailer in Denmark, shared her company’s story at SPC Impact. In September 2014, in light of growing evidence of harm caused by PFAS, the company decided to ban PFAS in all its private label products. At the time, it wasn’t able to find PFAS-free microwave popcorn bags, so in 2015 it actually stopped selling microwave popcorn in its stores until a safer alternative could be found. In less than six months, PFAS-free microwave popcorn bags were back on store shelves, and the positive publicity received from its strong public stance more than made up for the lost sales.
Brands that enact comprehensive, proactive policies to eliminate chemicals of concern from their packaging will be better positioned both to deal with PFAS now, as well as the next emergent chemical of concern. Given how little we know about so many of the chemicals in commerce today, there will almost certainly be more problematic chemicals that come to light.
Safer alternatives do exist, and now is the time for companies to take action. Companies should make sure they understand what chemicals are in the products and packages they sell, and what the hazards associated with those chemicals are, to avoid replacing a hazardous chemical with an equally hazardous substitute. Hazardous chemicals that persist indefinitely in the environment have no place in a circular economy.
http://www.packagingdigest.com/food-packaging/what-chemicals-of-concern-are-in-your-food-packaging-2018-06-08
-
Trump's Energy Blitz and The Legal Showdown to Come
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
The Trump administration's latest bid to boost troubled coal and nuclear plants is certain to spark a legal war if it's ever finalized.
After details of a rescue proposal leaked ahead of a National Security Council meeting Friday, energy experts set to work unpacking the legal issues and gaming out potential litigation scenarios.
The draft memo out of the Department of Energy, first published by Bloomberg News, proposes using two federal laws focused on emergencies and wartime needs to extend the life of coal and nuclear power plants at risk of retiring soon. The basic justification: Those plants offer a level of fuel security the nation cannot afford to lose.
Critics of the plan call the approach an unprecedented and unlawful intrusion on power markets. They're preparing to take it on in federal court, just as soon as the administration enacts a final policy and opponents have a clearer sense of how it works.
"It's a mystery and a mess," Niskanen Center attorney David Bookbinder said, summing up experts' frustration and uncertainty over what exactly the Trump administration is doing.
What's clear is the legal fallout will be vast. Critics including energy trade groups and environmental organizations have already vowed swift and aggressive legal action if and when the time comes.
"You're going to see everyone who represents consumer interests jump in," said Earthjustice attorney Kim Smaczniak. "You're going to see everyone who represents competing energy interests jump in, and you're going to see the environmental organizations who care about the climate consequences of such a thing, all of those folks are going to jump in."
The plan to boost the lagging coal and nuclear industries is just the latest of several proposals Energy Secretary Rick Perry has studied over the past year. It combines two ideas previously floated. First, the draft draws from Federal Power Act authority allowing DOE to order plants to continue operating in an emergency.
Second, it invokes the Defense Production Act, which allows the government to prioritize certain contracts seen as essential for national security. One provision specifically allows DOE to take action to "maximize domestic energy supplies." In this case, DOE would direct electric grid operators to get power from at-risk coal and nuclear plants (Greenwire, June 1).
The combination of the two laws could make the legal fight especially tricky. With the plan still in draft form and exact obligations unknown, future legal action remains up in the air, but experts warn it's likely to get messy.
"It's going to be an extraordinary effort if this actually establishes itself and passes judicial scrutiny without any hiccup," Dorsey & Whitney LLP energy attorney Rabeha Kamaluddin said.Federal Power Act
Making sense of the government's authority under the Federal Power Act is one of energy lawyers' simpler tasks this week. They've been here before.
The broad energy statute's Section 202(c) was first discussed as an option for aiding coal and nuclear plants more than a year ago, when Perry appeared to hint at it during an April 2017 speech (Energywire, June 19).
Under the provision, DOE can order a power plant to temporarily stay open to support the electric grid in an emergency. Legal debate over the use of that authority centers on whether the U.S. grid is facing such an urgent threat.
Electric utility FirstEnergy Corp. directly requested 202(c) relief for nuclear and coal plants in March, arguing that the retirement of several facilities in the PJM Interconnection region in the eastern United States amounts to a "present emergency."
DOE's draft proposal — which is broader than FirstEnergy's request — continues that narrative, contending that a grid emergency is imminent because the system needs "fuel-secure" facilities like coal and nuclear plants to recover quickly from natural disasters or cyberattacks. Even a brewing emergency, one that hasn't happened yet, is enough to trigger action, DOE says.
Some in the energy world aren't so sure. PJM, which oversees the grid in 13 states and the District of Columbia, has maintained that "there is no immediate threat to system reliability." Consumer rights group Public Citizen argued that "Trump is imagining a crisis that doesn't exist."
Federal courts have waded into the issue before. In a 1978 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's refusal to use 202(c) to bolster coal-fired power during the 1973 oil embargo.
The judges wrote that the FPA provision applies to temporary emergencies, "epitomized by wartime disturbances, and is aimed at situations in which demand for electricity exceeds supply and not at those in which supply is adequate but a means of fueling its production is in disfavor."
"Courts are smart enough to recognize, if this gets there, that [202(c)] is not the appropriate mechanism to use," Bookbinder said.
If a final action from the Trump administration centered on the FPA, the legal path would be relatively straightforward, similar to a FERC process: DOE would issue an order, opponents would go through lengthy rehearing proceedings, and parties would ultimately file suit in an appeals court, likely the D.C. Circuit.
"If this were an FPA 202 order, we would have all of the same administrative process that normally governs a FERC order," University of Richmond energy law professor Joel Eisen said.Defense Production Act
Last week's draft memo made clear, however, that the process will probably be more complicated. That's because of the Defense Production Act.
The Korean War-era law is designed to ensure adequate domestic supplies to keep the country safe. DOE went unchallenged when it used its DPA authority to ensure continued natural gas availability during the California energy crisis. Now the agency wants to use it to keep coal and nuclear plants level so the grid can recover quickly from a major disruption — in the interest of national defense.
With the Energy secretary part of the National Security Council advising the president on security issues, some analysts say that rationale can function almost as a trump card.
"The Defense Production Act (DPA) is a potent law that gives DOE fairly broad authority when the DOE activity relates in some way to national security matters," Morgan Stanley analysts wrote this week, adding later: "[I]n our view it may be challenging for plaintiffs to overcome a court's likely deference to DOE's judgment on this topic."
ClearView Energy Partners said, at this stage, it also considers the proposal well-positioned to overcome future court battles. Analyst Christi Tezak called it a "relatively mature proposal — developed with an eye to fending off long-promised legal challenges."
In general, courts offer wide deference when agencies are operating in their areas of expertise, and they tend to use a fairly hands-off approach when plaintiffs ask them to second-guess the federal government's national security determinations.
But there's little legal precedent to indicate how a DPA challenge would play out. While federal courts have issued decisions about contract disputes and other specific issues under the law, they haven't reached any broad rulings about the scope of authority the DPA gives DOE, said Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School.
Critics contend that DOE doesn't have the facts to support its approach.
"It's going to come down to being able to establish that connection between grid resilience and national security," said Kamaluddin, the Dorsey & Whitney lawyer. "Even if you were to interpret the DPA to apply outside of wartime, overcoming any legal challenge is going to have to reconcile those two.
"It would be an extraordinary argument," she added. "FERC has said we need no hand right now. Without any concrete evidence about the impacts of these retirements on the grid, I think it's going to be a very challenging judicial analysis."
Section 101(c) of the law, which specifically addresses energy supplies, sets a backdrop for when the authority should be used: when the materials at issue are "scarce, critical, and essential."
Eisen and Bookbinder said DOE hasn't made those findings.
"The finding that you have to make that materials are scarce and essential for energy production is not something they've done," Eisen said. "They haven't done that in the memo, so unless they're going to come up with some different record to justify that, they're going to have a problem on review."
Opponents of the coal and nuclear intervention also dispute the notion that the DPA can be applied to private companies buying and selling power among themselves. Plus, they note that DOE has regulations on the books for implementing actions taken under DPA 101(c) — featuring formal applications, DOE findings and Department of Commerce input — but last week's draft doesn't reference those procedures.
"This memo has none of that process," said Smaczniak, the Earthjustice lawyer. "There's no indication that they intend to use those regulations, so that's immediately a red flag to say, 'Look, they're trying to circumvent their normal process.'"
It's not yet clear how DOE will respond to such arguments. Last week's leaked memo was labeled as an addendum to a larger directive that's believed to elaborate on the agency's legal rationale.
Unlike the FPA, the DPA doesn't have a provision directing litigation to the appeals courts. Smaczniak said a lawsuit challenging a DPA order would likely start in federal district court and focus on whether DOE complied with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Peskoe said potential litigants should focus on the question of DOE's legal authority, rather than arguing over the agency's contention that the grid is in crisis and puts national security at risk.
"For a federal judge, it takes a lot to overturn an agency's facts, especially when there's national defense involved," he said. "But just providing those facts doesn't just magically give DOE the authority to compel contracts for uneconomic coal generators. So I'm not sure that the DPA, even when combined with the Federal Power Act, provides that authority."Entangled authority
Experts say the combination of the two laws will complicate matters in the courtroom.
"I have been thinking about this ever since the memo came out, and my administrative law professor hat is working overtime trying to figure out what the heck is going to happen," said Eisen, the law professor.
He argued that while the administration seems to be invoking the DPA to bolster the FPA approach, the combination of the two authorities still doesn't give DOE that power.
"If they invoke both statutes simultaneously, you can't just add up the two statutes and say this is some additive process where it somehow creates some new process," he said. "You have to take each statute independently."
Smaczniak said the administration "might keep it muddled to make it harder to challenge."
"Each one of those, they're supposed to be based on different findings, and then they have different remedies for if they are wrongly used," Smaczniak said. "So they go through very different pathways depending on which one's used. If you try to entangle the two of them ... you have to look at, 'What are they actually trying to achieve?'"
In other words, if DOE ultimately issues a directive ordering coal and nuclear plants to stay online, that would appear to fall more under the FPA provision. If it wades into contractual issues, potential litigants could focus more on the DPA.
For now, nobody outside the administration knows what a final policy will contain and, thus, which legal standards will apply. But Trump's team is well aware of the legal scrutiny its final actions will face.
"We want to make sure that whatever we do works and is upheld by courts. That's what we look for," Mark Menezes, DOE undersecretary of energy, told reporters earlier this week (Greenwire, June 5).
Once a policy is finalized, the legal fight begins in earnest. A huge lineup of opponents say they're ready for action.
"This is where we have to be thankful we have courts, and we're in a system that relies on the rule of law," said David Hayes, executive director of the State Energy & Environmental Impact Center and a former Obama administration official. "They're going to have to be more clear, or a court will summarily strike it down. The trouble is, they can't invent facts or potential scenarios that don't fit what these laws were intended to do."
The State Impact Center coordinates environmental efforts among state attorneys general. Joining states in the fight will be consumer advocates, energy trade groups, utilities, environmental organizations, competing energy generators, free market advocates, pipeline companies and more.
Peskoe noted that challenges to any final policy would also likely land in multiple forums, both in the courtroom and before DOE and FERC.
"I suspect there will be multiple lines of attack," Peskoe said. "Which one would ultimately be the right one? I'm not sure because we haven't seen exactly what might happen yet."
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083897
-
Methane Reduction to Be Highlighted at World Gas Conference in Nation’s Capital
Jun 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Breakthroughs in finding and fixing methane leaks will be part of the U.S. focus later this month in the World Gas Conference (WGC) when the triennial event comes to Washington, DC for the first time in 30 years, June 25-29.
From recently disputed Obama administration policies for curbing methane emissions to the multi-year effort by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and members of the oil/natural gas industry to reduce the emissions, the topic has remained in the news, and will be a part of EDF's participation in the 27th WGC. The conference, “Fueling the Future,” is the "largest global gas conference," drawing 340 sponsoring exhibitors and more than 12,000 attendees from 100 countries around the world. The organizer is the International Gas Union (IGU).
EDF through a virtual reality exhibit (Booth 3103) plans to show visitors on a hands-on basis how the industry can be more effective sealing off methane emissions and saving time and money doing it. Visitors will get help from a robot, "Bella," to find and fix leaks.
Called "Methane CH4llenge Simulation," the virtual reality learning tool takes users into a digitally simulated oil/gas field to highlight how industry can help solve what EDF officials refer to as "the important climate and energy challenge of methane emissions."
For EDF’s Mark Brownstein, senior vice president for energy, the largest methane emissions, such as the Aliso Canyon underground gas storage field well rupture in 2015, "tend to come in random, unpredictable ways, which means better technology and monitoring are among the best reduction strategies." EDF's methane virtual reality experience puts the solutions in everyone's hands, Brownstein noted.
Among the more than 600 world government and corporate leaders, and natural gas experts speaking at the WGC will be EDF President Fred Krupp and the organization's chief scientist Steven Hamburg, both of whom are expected to discuss "crucial trends and developments that make methane a central business challenge for companies globally." Other areas that EDF hopes to help make happen involve discussions on socio-political-economic issues and future technologies that can help advance both the industry and the environment.
IGU member, the American Gas Association, celebrating its 100th anniversary this year, is the host association for this year’s conference. Host partners are Chevron Corp. and ExxonMobil Corp. while principal sponsors are Cheniere Energy Inc. and Tellurian Inc.. The world conference has not been held in the United States since 1988.
As it has with its programs with various industry players, consultants and organizations during the past few years, EDF will be using the IGU conference to highlight ways that natural gas can help address global environmental problems, encourage greater advanced technology deployment, seek greater involvement from major global energy companies, promote its latest push for advancing methane research through advanced satellite use initially focused on the oil/gas industry.
EDF plans to launch a satellite into space to track and measure methane emissions, initially from the oil and natural gas sector, using its MethaneSAT. It should launch in late 2020 or early 2021 to identify global methane emissions from human sources.
Separately, EDF has partnered with oil and gas companies on the Methane Detectors Challenge to help companies improve their tracking and control of methane leaks to better manage them as a long-term business risk. Royal Dutch Shell plc, Equinor ASA (formerly Statoil) and Pacific Gas and Electric Co. are each conducting demonstration projects on next-generation methane sensors.
(NGI is a World Gas Conference Sponsor and will be hosting a booth featuring its newsletters, data and maps. Be sure to check out our latest service, Mexico Gas Price Index, as well as an on-site TV screen streaming live World Cup soccer action. Enter to win a autographed and framed Lionel Messi jersey. You can find NGI at Booth 1208, near Excelerate Energy and Venture Global LNG.)
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114653-methane-reduction-to-be-highlighted-at-world-gas-conference-in-nations-capital
-
Xcel’s Energy Plan Designed to Clean Up Its Act in Colorado
Jun 8, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Richard Nemec
Adding a dash of new natural gas-fired generation to a mixing bowl filled mostly with renewable resources, Denver-based Xcel Energy Inc. on Wednesday submitted its energy plan to Colorado regulators, proposing 11 generation sources and a $2.5 billion outlay to cut carbon emissions by 60% in 2026.
The utility plan is the outgrowth of what its executives called the "vision" of a broad coalition of stakeholders that supported an energy plan filed with the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in August 2017.
The plan calls for more than 1,700 MW, including 380 MW of natural gas-fired generation, nearly 1,100 MW of wind generation and 275 MW of large-scale battery storage, split between two existing power sites, while two coal-fired power plants in Pueblo would be shuddered.
"The plan would retire one-third of Xcel's remaining coal-fired generation in the state," said a Denver-based spokesperson.
"Last year, we introduced the Colorado Energy Plan to pursue a transformative step in response to our customers' and communities' requests for cleaner energy," said Alice Jackson, president of the company’s Colorado operations.
Plan objectives are threefold: secure long-term, low-cost power supplies; stimulate economic development in rural areas, and substantially reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The additional gas generation would include a small Boulder plant and another northeast of Denver in the Denver-Julesburg Basin. Renewable projects include four wind farms, two solar photovoltaic plants and three solar/storage projects.
Jackson said the utility holding company chose to pursue "step-changes" now to help reduce future fuel costs for the long term.
In Pueblo, where coal-fired units are slated to be closed, Xcel has proposed locating some of the new renewables in and around the city.
"We are committed to making the transition to cleaner energy work for all stakeholders and look forward to building on Pueblo's strong energy leadership," Jackson said.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114649-xcels-energy-plan-designed-to-clean-up-its-act-in-colorado
-
Pa. Finalizes Emissions Plan for New Gas Wells
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Mike Lee
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf signed off on a plan to reduce the amount of methane emitted from shale gas wells, after nearly two years of contentious negotiations.
The state, which is home to the Marcellus Shale gas field, joins Colorado, Ohio and Wyoming in working to reduce methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the main ingredient in natural gas. The oil and gas industry accounts for about one-fourth of U.S. methane emissions, according to Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection.
"Pennsylvania is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the nation behind Texas," Wolf, a Democrat, said in a statement. "We are uniquely positioned to be a national leader in addressing climate change while supporting and ensuring responsible energy development, while protecting public health and our environment."
Under the program, companies can apply for a standardized permit, known as a general permit, for new shale gas wells and facilities such as compressors if they agree to use the best available technology to reduce leaks. The state hasn't rolled out a similar strategy for the tens of thousands of existing wells and other equipment in the field.
The shale gas industry is still skeptical of the need for the permit system, saying shale drilling has helped reduce air pollution in Pennsylvania.
"Despite this positive and continued progress, we remain concerned about imposing additional requirements through operating permits, particularly those that exceed DEP's statutory authority," David Spigelmyer, president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, said in a statement.
Environmental groups say they'll press Pennsylvania for more action to reduce emissions from the drilling industry.
"This progress toward cleaner air must continue with concrete steps to reduce pollution from the hundreds of thousands of existing oil and gas facilities across the state," Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement.
The plan is scheduled to take effect Aug. 1, more than two years after Wolf first announced it. The state DEP received more than 10,000 comments, and both the Marcellus Shale Coalition and the state's Republication legislative leaders opposed parts of the plan (Energywire, June 19, 2017).
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083865
-
DOI Agrees to Strengthen Policies on Oil, Gas Wells
Jun 8, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Interior Department (DOI) has agreed to further strengthen its policies in managing financial risks the department assumes for pollution from orphaned oil and natural gas wells overseen by its Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in response to findings and recommendations by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
“Interior agreed that there are areas where BLM can improve the accuracy of its data and further reduce the risks associated with idle and orphaned wells,” GAO says in its report, “Bureau of Land Management Needs to Improve Its Data and Oversight of Its Potential Liabilities,” released June 5.
BLM's potential liabilities relate to inactive wells that private entities previously operated but for which they failed to reclaim the well sites, according to the report. Reclamation can involve plugging a well, removing structures and reshaping or revegetating land around it, GAO says. If this is not done correctly, the well can leak methane or pollute nearby surface water or groundwater, it says.
BLM requires operators to post bonds before they commence drilling, and must reclaim well sites before those bonds can be released, the report says. But wells can become orphaned if the operator fails to reclaim the well and if the bond cannot adequately cover the cost of reclamation, it says.
According to the report, the costs BLM incurs, and potential liabilities it holds, for reclaiming oil and natural gas wells on its lands likely increased between fiscal years 2010 and 2017, although the full extent of that increase is unknown because the bureau lacks a systematic method for tracking such data.
During that time, average annual reclamation costs rose from $171,500 to $267,600, according to data GAO analyzed from 13 of BLM's 33 field offices. In addition, the number of known orphan wells increased from 144 in 2010 to 219 in 2017, GAO says.
But BLM cannot give assurances that it has sufficient bonds or financial mechanisms to cover the costs for reclaiming orphaned oil and gas wells, GAO says. That is because it lacks a tracking system on costs incurred for reclamation or potential liabilities that might arise if the number of orphaned wells rises, GAO says.
Further, GAO found that field offices' implementation of BLM's well and bond adequacy review policies was hampered due to their different understandings of what comprises a well review.
GAO found BLM faces several challenges in managing its potential oil and gas well liabilities. These include BLM's unclear policy on when a well moves into “shut-in status” and has the potential to become orphaned; limited resources as well as competing priorities; and conflicting directions in policy about how field offices should conduct reviews of bonds' adequacy.
DOI generally agreed with GAO's recommendation to improve its data collection and oversight of potential liabilities BLM holds for shuttered wells. While BLM, in the wake of a 2011 GAO report on potential oil and gas well liabilities, put in place comprehensive policies to improve management of risks from orphaned wells, DOI says there are areas the bureau could further improve to boost the accuracy of its data collection and reduce risks related to these wells.
GAO's recommendations call on BLM to systematically track costs it expends to reclaim wells and data -- such as the number of orphaned wells -- needed to calculate BLM's potential liabilities; specify instructions for conducting a well review; and improve data quality from BLM's Automated Fluid Minerals Support System.
GAO also calls for strengthening the monitoring of field offices' implementation of well review and bond adequacy review policies; providing greater specificity in policies on how to manage shut-in wells; developing a resource management plan for conducting well and bond adequacy reviews; and revising bond policy to ensure that “reviews of nationwide and statewide bonds reflect the overall risk presented by operators."
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/doi-agrees-strengthen-policies-oil-gas-wells
-
Activists Urge Oil Executives to Heed Pope at Vatican Energy Conference
Jun 8, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
Environmentalists and aid agencies urged executives of the world's top oil companies attending a Vatican conference on climate change on Friday to heed Pope Francis's warnings about global warming.
Pope Francis, who wrote a major document on protecting the environment from global warming in 2015, will address the some 40 participants - including leading oil and gas executives and major industry investors - on Saturday.
The oil and gas industry has come under growing pressure from investors and activists to play a bigger role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to meet goals set out in a 2015 climate agreement signed in Paris.
Companies are betting on increased demand for gas, the least polluting fossil fuel, and to a lesser extent on renewable power such as wind and solar to meet global targets of net zero emissions by the end of the century.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Vatican has been tight-lipped about the closed-door event. But a Vatican source said the heads or senior executives of companies including ExxonMobil, Eni, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Norway's Equinor and Pemex were expected.
"Oil CEOs would do well to find common cause with the pope and ensure that their skilled staff and deep balance sheets are deployed to ensure that business is a force for good," said Nigel Topping, head of We Mean Business, a non-profit coalition which works with businesses to promote action on climate change.
As severe weather events hit least developed countries hardest, many investors were demanding that companies take heed of the Paris targets, he told Reuters.
The conference, titled "Energy Transition and Care for Our Common Home", is being held in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, housed in a secluded 16th century villa in the Vatican gardens.
"If energy companies are serious about caring for our common home, they need to take the pope’s advice and hurry up with shifting their priorities – and therefore their money – from fossil fuels to renewables," Neil Thorns, director of advocacy at Catholic aid agency CAFOD in London, said in a statement.EDITORS’ PICKSWhat Drove a Man to Set Himself on Fire in Brooklyn?The Last Days of Time Inc.How Trump Uses Conspiracy Theories Like ‘Spygate’
Groups such as CAFOD or We Mean Business are not taking part in the meeting, which is exclusively for oil executives and investors.
The participants will hear talks by top Vatican officials including Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican's department on promoting human development, who is a firm backer of the need to stem global warming.
In the 2015 encyclical, called "Laudato Si (Praise Be), On the Care of Our Common Home", Francis, the first pope from a developing nation, called for policies to drastically reduce polluting gases, saying technology based on fossil fuels "needs to be progressively replaced without delay."
Eldar Saetre, CEO of Norwegian oil firm Equinor, which changed its name from Statoil last month as part of a campaign to broaden away from its roots as an oil producer, is attending.
"We look forward to the dialogue, and the opportunity to discuss how we can address climate change and opportunities in the energy transition,” Equinor spokesman Baard Glad Pedersen said.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/06/08/world/europe/08reuters-oil-vatican-conference.html
-
Natural Gas Exports Up 8 Percent In 1st Quarter
Jun 8, 2018 | Houston Chronicle
By L.M. Sixel
U.S. exports of natural gas are up 8 percent in the first quarter compared to a year earlier and 66 percent more compared to the same quarter in 2016, according to a recent report from the U.S. Department of Energy.
The exports, which include natural gas shipped via pipeline and liquefied natural gas, averaged 9.6 billion cubic feet per day during the first quarter.
The increase in natural gas shipments also set a new nationwide milestone. The United States exported more natural gas than it imported last year, making the United States a net exporter of natural gas for the first time since 1957, the Energy Department reported.
RELATED: Are pipeline land takings in the public interest if oil, gas headed overseas?
One big reason for the boost in exports is that more LNG facilities have come on line, including liquefaction terminals in Louisiana and Maryland. U.S. exports of LNG averaged 2.6 billion cubic feet per day in the first quarter, which is 62 percent higher than the same period one year earlier.
https://www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Natural-gas-exports-up-8-percent-in-1st-quarter-12978787.php
-
Tests Show Toxic Heavy Metals Near Wisconsin Sand Mine Spill
Jun 8, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
By Youssef Rddad
Wisconsin officials found elevated levels of toxic heavy metals near a frack sand mine spill that sent millions of gallons of sludge into a tributary, carrying it downstream into the Mississippi River.
Department of Natural Resources test results showed high levels of arsenic, lead and other contaminants at the source of a spill at the Hi-Crush mine near Whitehall in western Wisconsin. The mine drained an estimated 10 million gallons of water (38 million liters) last month to rescue a contractor who became trapped inside of a bulldozer for more than two hours after sliding into a pond.
The rush of water tinted waterways orange, flooding fields as the plume swept downstream into a wildlife refuge and the Mississippi River a few days later.
Testing conducted within hours of the spill showed lead concentrations more than 10 times the allowable levels for drinking water, and arsenic at levels nearly seven times the safe levels, according to the results released late Wednesday. Testing also found far higher levels of mercury than in results collected upstream. But those levels dropped off significantly 50 yards (46 meters) downstream in the Trempealeau River.
“The lead is concerning because kids are so sensitive to it,” said Crispin Pierce, director of University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire’s environmental public health program. He added that people should not swim or fish near the spill site. “These are dangerous levels.”
The harmful health impacts of lead exposure are well-documented. It can hinder physical and mental developmental in children, causing learning and attention deficits. In adults, lead exposure can cause kidney damage.
DNR spokesman Jim Dick said samples taken from the Trempealeau River downstream from the spill met state surface water standards. The department has observed no fish kills and he said oxygen levels there can support aquatic life.
But Pierce said that the high turbidity and aluminum levels found in the Trempealeau River might diminish water clarity, making it difficult for fish to find food and reduce sunlight for aquatic plants.
The pond spillage at the 1,447-acre mine was mostly water, sand, clay and silt, according to Hi-Crush officials who’ve maintained the spill has had no health or environmental impacts.
Still, it’s raised questions for residents and local officials who been awaiting the tests to find what’s in the water and if it’s dangerous to human health and the environment.
Trempealeau County Board Chairman Tim Zeglin said the county will meet with state health and DNR officials about spill impacts in the coming days. The DNR is continuing to study rivers and waterways in the area and is reviewing any potential long-term effects on aquatic life.
Hi-Crush said in a statement to The Associated Press on Thursday that it’s making steady progress toward cleaning up the area and remediation.
“We do not expect further sample results to show any issues of concern for the community,” the statement said.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/energy-environment/tests-show-toxic-heavy-metals-near-wisconsin-sand-mine-spill/2018/06/07/fe0e43b0-6aa5-11e8-a335-c4503d041eaf_story.html?utm_term=.e75b6642374e
-
House Passes ‘Minibus’ Measure with $44.7B in Energy and Water Spending
Jun 8, 2018 | PoliticoPro - Whiteboard
By Darius Dixon
The House passed its $44.7 billion in energy and water appropriations as part of a "minibus" package that included legislative, military construction and veterans affairs accounts.
Lawmakers approved the bill, H.R. 5895 (115), on a 235-179 vote largely on party lines.
If enacted, the measure would rebuff massive cuts proposed by President Donald Trump. The House is pushing for funding boosts for basic science, and fossil and nuclear energy research at the Energy Department, compared with the current funding levels. But it would cut spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy programs.
The bill includes $268 million to resurrect the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project, a disconnect with its counterpart in the Senate, which has tried to avoid supporting the Nevada site ahead of Sen. Dean Heller’s reelection effort there. Lawmakers also didn’t heed Trump’s call to ax DOE’s ARPA-E and loan guarantee programs.
The measure would give a sizable boost to the Army Corps of Engineers’ budget, bringing it more than $7 billion.
Before the final vote, the House voted 212-202 for an amendment from Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) that would prohibit the use of the social cost of carbon in regulations or guidance documents.
Among the policy riders that led to Democrats’ opposition to the bill were provisions to repeal the Obama administration’s Waters of the U.S. rule, exempting certain agricultural practices that damage wetlands from Clean Water Act permitting, and blocking a court-ordered change in operations of dams along the Columbia and Snake river systems that would prioritize endangered salmon over hydropower production.
WHAT’S NEXT: The Senate version of the energy and water appropriations bill has made it out of committee, but it’s unclear when it will be considered on the floor.
https://subscriber.politicopro.com/energy/whiteboard
-
FRA Schedules Summer Symposiums to Address PTC
Jun 8, 2018 | Progressive Rail Roading
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has scheduled three symposiums on topics related to positive train control (PTC), with the first to be held June 15 in Washington, D.C.
The June 15 symposium aims to bring together the FRA's PTC experts and all 41 railroads that are federally mandated to implement PTC systems. Discussions will focus on the statutory requirements for the Dec. 31 deadline and answers to industry questions.
"The PTC symposium is [our] latest effort to ensure that each and every railroad is aware of their obligations and is equipped to meet the congressionally mandated deadline," said FRA Administrator Ron Batory in a press release.
On July 16, the FRA will host a symposium to review best practices for PTC system field testing and interoperability testing. The third symposium, to be held Aug. 20, will cover lessons learned and best practices for PTC safety plans, which are necessary for host railroads to obtain PTC system certification from the FRA — and to achieve full system implementation under the mandate.
Full implementation means an FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system — including all hardware, software and other components — has been fully installed and sufficiently tested. The system needs to be in operation on all route miles required to have operations governed by a PTC system under the mandate, FRA officials said.
To view the public version of each railroad's Quarterly PTC Progress Report, visit each railroad's PTC docket on https://www.regulations.gov/. Railroads' PTC docket numbers are available at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0628.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/FRA-schedules-summer-symposiums-to-address-PTC--54852
-
Freight Rail Sector Affirms Commitment to Local Communities in Letter to Mayors
Jun 8, 2018 | American Journal of Transportation
With federal policymakers increasingly eyeing midterm elections and rail industry observers still awaiting Congressional action to fill vacancies at the Surface Transportation Board (STB), the Association of American Railroads (AAR) today sent a high-level letter to mayors across the United States summarizing the foundation of the private freight rail sector’s business and external relations efforts – namely its economic impact, safety record and technological gains and aspirations. On the heels of its first ever RailxTech event, which included a white paper to summarize the state of affairs surrounding technology in the freight rail business, the AAR felt it was important to share this information with mayors, who stand at the frontlines of public policy and will be critical stakeholders as the industry pursues wider deployment of safety improving technologies.
“A significant portion of the industry’s operations are regulated by the federal government, but our impact is felt strongly in towns and cities across this country,” said AAR President and CEO Edward R. Hamberger. “While the industry will never stop in its pursuit to make our safe industry even safer, we are proud that our continued private investments help efficiently move goods throughout the U.S., serve myriad businesses that help support local economies and increasingly allow the industry to test and deploy innovative solutions. We feel it is important to extend our Washington-based dialogue to local policymakers to supplement the tireless work our members do every day in working with not just mayors, but their residents, businesses and safety officials.”
The letter makes particular mention of Positive Train Control (PTC), which the industry is on track to fully install as mandated by the U.S. Congress, as well as AskRail, the digital platform designed in concert with International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and made available to qualified first responders to access critical rail information in the case of an emergency. AskRail, along with constantly occurring training events held throughout the country, is some of the most tangible ways in which railroads interact with local communities.
The letter also makes note of continued, misguided efforts by select trucking interests to convince members of Congress to increase federal weight and length limits for large, commercial trucks – something that organizations such as the National League of Cities (NLC) and National Association of Counties (NACo) typically oppose.
https://www.ajot.com/news/freight-rail-sector-affirms-commitment-to-local-communities-in-letter-to-mayors
-
Pruitt's Cost-Crunching Plan Could Affect New Climate Regs
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Niina Heikkinen
EPA's move to review how it does cost-benefit analysis could have consequences for rewrites of Obama-era climate rules.
Yesterday, the agency called for public comment on whether EPA could make its approach to analyzing costs and benefits more "consistent" and "transparent" in rulemaking. The agency is also looking for specific suggestions on how it should measure costs and benefits in regulations in order to make the process more streamlined.
The announcement drew swift criticism from environmental and public health groups.
"This seems like a big waste of time to create another tool to weaken protections," said Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity.
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is "trying to redefine what data is acceptable under science, so here he is trying to define what are the acceptable costs under science," said Snape.
This latest proposal, if enacted, could be a prelude to how the agency would craft a replacement for greenhouse gas regulations, like Obama's Clean Power Plan. Pruitt would have to come up with some sort of replacement for the rule under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act if he decided not to go after the agency's endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, Snape added.
EPA's notice marks the latest effort by the agency to shift how it crafts regulations.
Earlier this year, EPA announced it was seeking comment on a proposed rule that would require the studies used in crafting new regulations to make their methods and data publicly available. Critics have argued that such a requirement would effectively limit the amount of public health data that could be used to justify pollution controls and would undermine the scientific backing of regulations.
This latest proposal is also the most recent in a series of actions by the agency that could reduce controls on greenhouse gas emissions from sources like power plants and automobiles.
The agency has already changed how it does some of its cost-benefit analysis related to climate change, specifically in how it values the societal costs of carbon emissions, known as the social cost of carbon. Under the Trump administration, EPA only uses domestic carbon emissions to estimate the monetary cost of climate-linked events like sea-level rise, drought and migration. This approach significantly undercuts the costs associated with emissions.
In a draft document published on EPA's website, the agency said that part of the reason for the evaluation came from comments from industry groups that wanted the agency to consider the costs of controlling individual pollutants, rather than total emissions.
EPA said other groups questioned why the agency considered reductions in pollutants not directly targeted by the regulation, known as "co-benefits," in deciding the stringency of regulations.
"EPA is requesting comments regarding perceived inconsistency and lack of transparency in how the Agency considers costs and benefits in rulemaking, potential approaches for addressing these concerns, and the scope for issuing regulations to govern EPA's approach in future rulemakings," the document read.
Some public health groups complained that EPA's notice said very little about health.
"They are asking a lot of big, complex questions and only offering 30 days for public comment. They seem to be mostly concerned about cost estimates and also, I think, trying to diminish benefits estimates," said Paul Billings, senior vice president for advocacy at the American Lung Association.
Ana Unruh Cohen, the managing director of government affairs at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that the Trump administration's own Office of Management and Budget found that Americans gained $12 in benefits for every $2 spent on environmental safeguards (E&E News PM, Feb. 26).
"Scott Pruitt's latest gambit is as misguided as it is dangerous," Unruh Cohen said in a statement. "It also is founded on a big lie: that federal rules cost more than the benefits. In fact, the opposite is true — by a country mile. The benefits of public safeguards far exceed the cost of adopting them."
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083911
-
EPA Takes Step to Keep SO2 Standard Unchanged
Jun 8, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA today published a proposal for leaving its primary sulfur dioxide standard unchanged, signaling the near-completion of a review launched five years ago.
The proposed rule would keep the current one-hour standard of 75 parts per billion set in 2010. The deadline for written comments is July 23; a public hearing will be held if requested by June 15, according to the Federal Register notice. Under a settlement last year to a lawsuit brought by environmental groups, EPA must sign off on the final rule by Jan. 28, 2019. In keeping with the same court-ordered timetable, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt had signed the draft rule last month (Greenwire, May 29).
SO2, a regulatory placeholder for the broader class of sulfur oxides, is produced mainly by burning coal and is linked to asthma and other ailments. Under the Clean Air Act, SO2 is among a half-dozen common pollutants whose standards are supposed to be reviewed every five years to ensure that they are adequate to protect public health in light of available scientific research. In reality, EPA rarely, if ever, meets that schedule. After the last SO2 review concluded eight years ago, EPA began the current assessment in 2013.
The tentative decision to leave the existing standard in place was backed by the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, a panel of outside experts. In the course of the review, EPA has so far received 28 comments, according to the Regulations.gov online clearinghouse.
Among those that weighed in, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, a trade organization for electricity producers, also endorsed keeping the 75-ppb threshold, while the American Petroleum Institute suggested that EPA should consider relaxing it. The Center for Biological Diversity, one of the environmental groups whose lawsuit led to the court-ordered deadline for the review's completion, argued that the one-hour standard should be tightened to 50 ppb.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/08/stories/1060083951
Industry and Association News
LCSA News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested