Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 28/06/18
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Save Our Seas Act’ a Win for the Ocean
Jun 28, 2018 | Packaging World
By Jim Butschli
Plastic packaging is widely blamed for causing marine litter. But even plastic packaging producers and supporters want the material to be part of the solution. -
Not Content with His War on Science, Scott Pruitt is Now Waging a War on Economics
Jun 28, 2018 | The Los Angeles Times
By Rob Verchick
As head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has wriggled from one colorful scandal to the next, using agency staff to help his wife land a Chick-fil-A franchise and enlisting members of his security detail to pick up his dry cleaning and search for his favorite moisturizer. -
If Our Science Tribe Was A D&D Game
Jun 28, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Hank Campbell
I've never been much for the word "tribe." -
(ACC Mentioned) Guidelines Finalised Covering Access to TSCA CBI
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has issued final guidance documents outlining the process by which it will disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI) to certain parties. -
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Claims 'Middle Ground' in Alternative Tests Debate
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The US EPA says it has "chosen a middle ground" regarding the pace at which it will adopt alternative test methods for use under the revised TSCA. -
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limiting Evaluation of Chemical Risks
Jun 28, 2018 | The Chemical Engineer
By Amanda Doyle
THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised how it determines risks associated with chemicals and will now only consider the risks of direct exposure, and not any potential exposure due to a substance being in the air, ground, or water. -
US EPA Round-Up
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has formally published a set of actions announced on the 22 June two-year anniversary of TSCA being amended. -
Three PFAS 'Community Engagement Events' Announced by EPA
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced plans to hold "community engagement events" on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Pennsylvania, Colorado and North Carolina this summer. -
US Voices Concern at South Korea's K-REACH Implementation
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
The US has formally raised concerns over several aspects of the implementation rules for South Korea's updated chemicals regulation K-REACH. -
OECD to Coordinate Work on Economic Impacts of Chemicals
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
An OECD project is set to take a lead role in coordinating international efforts to monetise the costs and benefits of chemicals regulation across the globe. -
DecaBDE Proposal Would 'End Recycling of Car, Electronics Plastics' in Europe
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A European Parliament proposal to set a concentration limit for the flame retardant decaBDE in substances, mixtures and articles, would put a stop to plastics from vehicles and electronics being recycled in Europe, according to recycling industry association, EuRIC. -
Online Retailers Commit to Speed Up Removal of Dangerous Products
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Four major online retailers have committed to removing dangerous products from sale more quickly and to take measures to improve suppliers’ compliance with EU product safety legislation. -
'Tomorrow's Technology will Suffer' from Siloxanes SVHC Decision
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's decision to add three siloxanes to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern has "blacklisted" them and will have a major impact on the technology of the future, according to trade group CES-Silicones Europe. -
Echa Round-Up
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Echa has launched a targeted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) consultation on the substance butanone oxime to consider its classification for specific target organ toxicity repeated exposure (Stot Re). -
Oil Producers Fault EPA's 'Punitive' Self-Audit Plan
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas industry officials told EPA today the Trump administration's plan for letting them self-report air pollution violations doesn't go far enough. -
China's Need for Alaska Gas 'Transcends' Trump Trade Fight
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) and a team of staffers yesterday afternoon climbed into the back of a large SUV en route to his next Capitol Hill appointment, this one with Alaska Rep. Don Young (R). -
After Legal Victory, Enviros Push to Block Mountain Valley
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is urging federal regulators to halt construction on the Mountain Valley pipeline in light of a recent court ruling. -
Pipeline Company Challenges Constitutionality of Steel Tariffs
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Northey
Companies reliant on imports of foreign steel are challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum that have riled the energy sector for months now. -
Minnesota Regulators Begin Deliberating Disputed Pipeline
Jun 28, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Minnesota regulators have begun deliberations on whether to approve or reject Enbridge Energy’s proposal for replacing its aging Line 3 oil pipeline across northern Minnesota. -
Report: NJ Transit to Request PTC Deadline Extension
Jun 28, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Add New Jersey Transit to the growing list of transit agencies and railroads that won't meet the Dec. 31 deadline to implement positive train control (PTC). -
Train Derails in W.Va. Near Waterways
Jun 28, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jake Zuckerman
Eighteen coal cars were thrown off the tracks when a train derailed yesterday in St. Albans, W.Va. -
States, Enviros Beef Up Defense of Obama HFC Rule
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Amanda Reilly
The legal battle over the future of the potent heat-trapping chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, is heating up. -
Is Massachusetts v. EPA a Goner?
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Amanda Reilly
The fate of a landmark Supreme Court climate change decision became uncertain after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement yesterday. -
Maine Threatens to Pull Out of Ozone Compact
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage's administration is floating the possibility of attempting to pull most of his state out of the Ozone Transport Region, the congressionally created compact that requires members to adopt added pollution control measures.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
-
(ACC Mentioned) ‘Save Our Seas Act’ a Win for the Ocean
Jun 28, 2018 | Packaging World
By Jim Butschli
Plastic packaging is widely blamed for causing marine litter. But even plastic packaging producers and supporters want the material to be part of the solution.
“We all want clean oceans and we work on solutions with environmental stakeholders and our partners in the value chain,” says Steve Russell, VP of Plastics at the American Chemistry Council (ACC), who addresses the issue in more detail in this exclusive interview.
On June 27, ACC announced that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed the Save Our Seas Act, which would reauthorize the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Program. Russell provided a statement on the news, which included the following:
“ACC strongly supports the Save Our Seas Act and encourages the House of Representatives to move forward with passage of this important legislation. While marine debris is a huge problem—it is also a solvable one. This important legislation will help direct waste management resources where they are most urgently needed.
“We strongly support the Act’s focus on international cooperation. Studies show that rapidly developing countries in Asia that lack basic waste collection and management account for the majority of waste entering our ocean. This new emphasis on international cooperation on waste management focuses on the largest sources.
“Legislation is one part of the answer. We and our members are working with governments, NGOs, and our industry peers to deliver sustainable solutions to marine debris. Through our ‘Global Declaration,’ 75 plastics associations from 40 countries have launched 355 projects that address education, research, public policy, sharing best practices, plastics recycling/recovery, and plastic pellet containment.
“We know there is much more to be done. In May America’s plastic resin makers announced an ambitious goal: to recycle or recover all plastic packaging in the United States by 2040. Achieving a more circular economy for plastics will enable society to continue to harness plastics’ essential benefits, like enhancing the safety and sanitary packaging of food and personal care products, while helping to protect and restore the environment for future generations.”
In an April 19, 2018 pre-Earth Day policy statement in which the Plastics Industry Assn. (PLASTICS), embraced a Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) policy, PLASTICS VP of Sustainability Kim Holmes noted, “Every material carries some environmental impact. But through a life-cycle analysis approach, we find that, in so many instances, plastics are the most efficient and sustainable choice, particularly when the plastics are recovered and their value can continue to be realized. The SMM approach represents the smartest way forward for the industry, the environment, and the economy, and we look forward to using it as a blueprint for how we can continue to make a positive impact.”
On May 29, 2018, The European Commission presented an ambitious new directive to tackle marine litter by introducing measures that include the reduction and restriction of selected single-use plastic products, such as disposable balloon sticks, straws, cutlery, plates, cups, and food containers. “The proposal is a meaningful addition to existing legislation and strategies. Unfortunately, however, it remains vague regarding sustainable alternatives,” said François de Bie, Chairman of European Bioplastics (EUBP).
https://www.packworld.com/article/sustainability/strategy/save-our-seas-act-win-ocean
-
Not Content with His War on Science, Scott Pruitt is Now Waging a War on Economics
Jun 28, 2018 | The Los Angeles Times
By Rob Verchick
As head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has wriggled from one colorful scandal to the next, using agency staff to help his wife land a Chick-fil-A franchise and enlisting members of his security detail to pick up his dry cleaning and search for his favorite moisturizer.
But these ethical breaches pale in comparison to the real scandal: Pruitt’s sustained effort to help polluting industries by hocking America’s natural environment and public health for a song.
His latest ploy is a proposal to change how the EPA calculates the costs and benefits of environmental regulations, a process that those industries have consistently criticized. In a notice inviting the public to comment on whether and how to change the cost-benefit analysis, released on June 7, Pruitt appears to be laying the groundwork for reforms that would allow the EPA to hide the real-world value of protections by downplaying or leaving out many of the benefits they provide.
Like Pruitt’s war on science, which culminated in a plan to ignore an entire category of scientific studies when measuring environmental risks, his war on economics could erode regulatory protections. If it moves forward, the scheme is likely to make it much easier to block new standards and endanger many of the ones we already have. The stakes could not be higher. We’re talking about air that’s clean enough to breathe and water that’s safe to drink.
It’s important to note that more efficient coal-fired power plants reduce not only mercury pollution but also the sulfur dioxide inhaled by asthmatic children.Share quote & link
As a former EPA official, I know the critical roles that science and economics play in shaping the agency’s decisions. To protect people and the environment, our laws direct the EPA to establish air and water standards that are within an adequate margin of safety and are, as the law stipulates, “economically achievable.”
To this end, the agency delves into complex questions of science, economics and technology to make sure that these standards satisfy all statutory requirements while being sensitive to needs of the regulated industry. On top of this, the White House requires the EPA and other agencies to lay out the economic costs and benefits of significant regulations to determine how they would affect the overall economy.
Every year, the evidence shows that environmental protections prevent thousands of premature deaths, thwart countless illnesses and save tens of billions of dollars. A comprehensive study conducted by the EPA in 2011 found that, from 1990 to 2020, the annual benefits of air pollution standards will have exceeded total costs by about 25 times. Even the Trump White House recently concluded that the economic benefits of all major regulations were several times higher than the total costs.
Environmental protection is a great deal for the American public, in other words. But Pruitt’s proposal seems intended to low-ball the benefits, making it easier to portray environmental rules as inefficient and unnecessary.
For instance, the proposal appears to be laying the groundwork for a rule that would disregard indirect benefits in the EPA’s economic assessments. An indirect benefit, sometimes called a “co-benefit,” is an added bonus that was not part of the primary motivation behind a measure.
Imagine that you, like Pruitt, are in the market for a good moisturizer to protect against dry skin. If the most effective moisturizer also has sunscreen and smells good, those are co-benefits. You’d be silly not to consider those pluses as part of the lotion’s value.Enter the Fray: First takes on the news of the minute from L.A. Times Opinion »
The EPA would be similarly foolish not to consider all of the good things that its policies produce. It’s important, for instance, to take into account that vehicle fuel-economy standards not only reduce carbon pollution but also save drivers up to $27 billion in gas each year. It’s also important to note that more efficient coal-fired power plants reduce not only mercury pollution but also the sulfur dioxide inhaled by asthmatic children.
Pruitt’s notice asks for input on whether to consider co-benefits and repeats the criticisms that industries have offered on the practice. Pruitt himself has repeatedly criticized consideration of co-benefits, which every previous White House since the Reagan administration had endorsed.
Yet, tellingly, Pruitt has never suggested ignoring the indirect “co-costs” that industries sometimes experience as a result of stronger environmental standards. If the sales of gas guzzlers decline because of new fuel-economy standards, that effect would go onto the EPA’s balance sheet whether the result is intended or not. He does not appear to be recommending that co-costs be disregarded.
Given his ethical scandals, it’s not clear how much longer Pruitt will be able to continue his assault on the EPA. But, if advanced, his benefits-busting policy could do long-lasting damage.
Pruitt is trying to meddle with the EPA’s processes because he can’t change the bedrock laws that the agency implements — measures like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. We can’t allow him to succeed.
Americans have until July 13 to submit comments on Pruitt’s proposal to undermine cost-benefit analysis at the EPA. We should use the comment period to remind Pruitt that, as EPA administrator, he works for all of us, and that the value of our health and environment must not be discounted.
Rob Verchick is a professor at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law and president of the Center for Progressive Reform in Washington. He served as deputy associate administrator for policy at the Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-verchick-epa-cost-benefit-analysis-20180628-story.html
-
If Our Science Tribe Was A D&D Game
Jun 28, 2018 | American Council on Science and Health
By Hank Campbell
I've never been much for the word "tribe." It sounds too insular in 2018, the kind of term (see also "zeitgeist", "heteronormative", and "schadenfreude") thrown around by barely literate postmodernists with their heads in the clouds believing what they tell each other as the real world passes by.
That's not to say it isn't an accurate description of science media.
We certainly have tribes: There are progressive ideologues in large media corporations denying reality as they frame science belief (and denial) through their politics; there are academics who believe the public simply have a deficit of information and showing them some Powerpoint slides will fix it; we have zealots who believe every skeptical question must be met with fire and brimstone.
Heck, we have so many distinct tribes there will even be people who object that I wrote the word "we" - they will say science communication is their fiefdom, their domain, and anyone different from them is not really a science communicator.
My feeling when our confederation of anarchists in science media once again turn on each other while environmental activists play nicely and cackle like Scrooge McDuck atop a pile of money.
Science media is fractured but other tribes, like environmental activists, have clearly been successful and have put aside their differences and flourished by working together. What separates them from us?
One big cultural difference is they don't let a few elites declare that success is a zero-sum game - if you win, they must lose. Starbucks made coffee an experience rather than a cheap drink with breakfast, but it did not not put diners out of business. Starbucks instead caused all boats in that market to rise. Don't let anyone in science communication tell you that you can't be part of the tribe unless you are below them in the pecking order, or you must desire to work in corporate media. It's the kind of fake appeal-to-popularity narrative we oppose when activists do it to science. If you are new to science communication, we want to publish you. Or you can write at Science 2.0 or ScienceBlogs or even start your own using Wordpress.
Science communication is like a game of D&D. Sometimes you find treasure, mostly you fight trolls.
If you don't know what Dungeons and Dragons is, I am not saying you won't be a successful science communicator, but you may lack some cultural instincts to do work that resonates with the public. No one cares about jargon, or drilling down into some arcane aspect of a field, except five of your friends. Metaphors enlighten, cultural references help. I used D&D because it has trolls, and so does the world of science. See how that works?
Anyway, if you don't know, D&D is a role-playing game invented in the 1970s - you pretend to be a character with other friends who are also characters in some mysterious or dangerous situation. Because it was based on long-standing fantasy archetypes, sword and sorcery like the worlds of R.E. Howard and Tolkein, the typical D&D group, the tribe, became a swordsman, a ranged weapon jack-of-all-trades, a magician scholar, and a clever thief or a mystic.(1) You can probably guess right away how those different types working together in science communication can be a great thing. If we can get people to do it.
Science communication has similar archetypes: Fighters, Diplomats, Explorers, and Educators.
Credits Left to right: AniaMitura, Satibalzane, Liarath, Satibalzane
A Fighter is just what it sounds like. It would be great if we lived in a world where everyone was nice, no one lied, and we could all talk and then hug it out. But that's not reality. Some people have said the American Council on Science and Health (or me personally) would be more successful if we were just nicer. It's been tried for decades, by us and many others, and it failed. When has unilateral disarmament ever worked? Anti-science activists have fighters and if we are all pacifists we'll quickly be overrun. Anyone who has had environmental groups terrorize their workplace or their home or been vilified in media because they stood up for science probably wishes they had someone to be the tip of the spear, or at least hold a shield, on their side. Someone like Dr. Alex Berezow or Dr. David Zaruk or David Gorski, MD, are a few examples of fighters in science communication. However, you've likely heard phrases such as 'if your only tool is a hammer, every problem is a nail' and that is why we can't have all fighters. If everyone is on the attack people will just be afraid.
An Explorer is like a missionary or a pioneer. They are going to leave our tribe and venture into uncharted wilderness. They do not attack the army of activism, they go around them and try to reach their supporters, who are likely well-meaning, genuine believers. If I see someone on the street canvassing for Greenpeace, I would never be hostile toward them even though I am a fighter. But if I see Ken Cook, who runs Environmental Working Group, or Andrew Kimbrell of Center for Food Safety, I am going after them, because I know they are frauds motivated solely by money.
An explorer won't bother with those guys at all, and will instead want to understand the motivations and values of their tribe members who distrust science. They have to have a lot of patience and a thick skin, because explorers are most likely to get arrows in the back. Examples of explorers are Prof. Kevin Folta, Vinay Prasad, M.D., and Dr. Jamie Wells. Since pioneers sometimes discover new lands or paths, they are needed, but they are not going to be equipped to fight off an army. They work best from a distance.
An Intellectual creates the informational tools that help fighters, explorers, and diplomats but they do not feel suited to those jobs. This will be most scientists, obviously, though will not be most science communicators. They are prized for being important sources of information, even if they don't relish the spotlight. Examples are Dr. Tommaso Dorigo, Jesse Ausubel, and Dr. Michael Dourson. Intellectuals need protection. Activists count on creating an "icy chill" effect on scholarly work by using Freedom of Information Act requests and emails to university administrators as weapons. If the public has already been reached by pioneers, or fighters can add protection, or diplomats can help with leaders, the work of intellectuals goes smoother.
A Diplomat looks for common ground. They want to build bridges between tribes. As such, they may want to cede points you don't like to concede and may want to fight just the really important battles, not every skirmish. One example: In the smoking cessation and harm reduction camps, for example, there are some who insist e-cigarettes (vaping et al.) are not tobacco products. We were diplomatic and testified at FDA that until there was an affordable optically pure nicotine that didn't come from a tobacco plant, it should be regulated as a tobacco product. FDA appreciated that, and were then more inclined to listen to us when we said the "grandfather" date for vaping devices under the "Deeming Regulations" should not be 2015, because it would create millions of casual criminals and help few people. They eventually changed the date for applications to 2022. A diplomat will recognize that conflict is sometimes a necessary part of diplomacy but will want to try to talk things out first. Examples are Dr. Brandon McFadden, Dr. Steve Savage, or Dr. Tara Smith.
As you gathered, any of these alone is going to make for a terribly short engagement against a balanced army. Fighters are going to be contained by the popular opinion outrage crafted by diplomats and intellectuals on the other side, Explorers are going to be harmed in close combat, intellectuals won't leave the library if they are at risk, and other groups will never talk if they can just overrun diplomats. Our tribe needs to be like a D&D game if we want to beat back the hordes at the gate.
Which means just because someone has a different style than you, or different politics, or a different audience, doesn't make them wrong. If we can reach four readers with a diverse, balanced effort, two on each side, rather than two who already agree with us, let's get the four. And let's stop doing the job of activists for them by tearing each other down because we didn't like some retweet.
Which are you in our D&D science tribe?
There is really no right or wrong answer here, the only time there is a wrong one is if you are one thing and someone else declares you must be like them or you are not part of the tribe.
But if you are a science communicator, I am curious to see who you envision yourself as in a comment.
Note:
(1) In "Lord of the Rings", for example, you had a ranger, an archer, a magician, and a thief as the core characters. Arguably the strongest framework for what became D&D was Poul Anderson's "Three Hearts, Three Lions", where a soldier is transported to an alternate world and his allies are a swan maiden and a dwarf and they battle a dragon, a giant, a werewolf, and a troll.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2018/06/28/if-our-science-tribe-was-dd-game-11400
-
(ACC Mentioned) Guidelines Finalised Covering Access to TSCA CBI
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Kelly Franklin
The US EPA has issued final guidance documents outlining the process by which it will disclose TSCA confidential business information (CBI) to certain parties.
The 2016 Lautenberg Act expanded the categories of people who may access information claimed as confidential under TSCA, in certain circumstances. First responders, state and local governments, and medical professionals are among those who can request CBI data, provided certain conditions are met. These include that the requester demonstrate need, and that confidential information not be disclosed to those not authorised to receive it.
The agency issued three draft guidance documents in March outlining the process for CBI disclosure. One of these concerns access for governmental bodies, while the remaining two cover access in emergency and non-emergency situations.
But a coalition of NGOs said during a subsequent consultation that the documents represented a "missed opportunity", which would fail to meet real-world needs.Response to comments
The EPA has made several amendments to the March documents, and published a response to comments document alongside the updated versions. Among changes made are expanded or modified definitions for personnel who may access confidential information, along the lines of recommendations made by the NGO Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
But the agency declined to grant two requests that surfaced in several NGO and state governments' comments:that the agency commit to specific timeframes for responding to requests for access; andthat it develop an electronic system for submission.
Regarding timeframes, the agency said it expects that information requests will "vary in scope, complexity, volume and urgency". And while it committed to responding to CBI access requests "expeditiously", it put off potential guidance on typical processing times until after it "develops more experience with handling requests".
The EPA similarly cited a lack of understanding of the types of requests is would receive in explaining why it is not yet making an electronic system available. However, it says it anticipates that after receiving several CBI requests, it will "design an appropriate electronic system to handle them."
In the meantime, it has modified the guidance to permit emailed, faxed, and telephone requests, though it has withheld the authority to also request a hard copy "to provide some assurance as to the requester's identity and eligibility for CBI disclosure".
The agency also largely declined to incorporate industry-backed amendments centred around ensuring the safeguarding of confidentiality. A rejected recommendation, for example, called for the EPA to verify that a requester has "valid policies and procedures in place to safeguard the CBI revealed" as a prerequisite for granting access.Health and safety
The American Chemistry Council was among groups questioning the guidance's assertion that the EPA is "usually required to release health and safety data, with some exceptions." In its comments, the ACC said the law includes permissive language – "does not prohibit" – which is "not a mandatory requirement for disclosure."
But in its response, the EPA characterised the ACCs argument as incorrect. "Section 14(b)(1) does not prevent the disclosure of health and safety data, and section 14(b)(2) data disclosure is not discretionary," the agency said.
Nevertheless, it also disagreed with the EDF's comment that health and safety information is not CBI.
"Health and safety studies and data are typically not entitled to confidential treatment, but there are some narrow exceptions for information that reveal portion of mixture or processing information; further, non-health and safety information is sometimes included with or embedded in health and safety information, and this information may be entitled to confidential treatment," said the response.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68099/guidelines-finalised-covering-access-to-tsca-cbi
-
(ACC Mentioned) US EPA Claims 'Middle Ground' in Alternative Tests Debate
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Andrew Turley
The US EPA says it has "chosen a middle ground" regarding the pace at which it will adopt alternative test methods for use under the revised TSCA.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68132/us-epa-claims-middle-ground-in-alternative-tests-debate?q=%22american+chemistry+council%22
-
(ACC Mentioned) EPA Limiting Evaluation of Chemical Risks
Jun 28, 2018 | The Chemical Engineer
By Amanda Doyle
THE US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has revised how it determines risks associated with chemicals and will now only consider the risks of direct exposure, and not any potential exposure due to a substance being in the air, ground, or water.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was amended in 2016 under the Obama administration, making it mandatory for the EPA to perform safety checks on hundreds of potentially dangerous chemicals, including those used in everyday consumer products such as shampoos. The overhaul was the first change to the TSCA in 40 years.
The EPA is currently reviewing ten substances, but a report by The New York Times has revealed that the EPA is narrowing the scope of its safety assessments under pressure from the Trump administration and chemical industries.
The EPA maintains that other laws such as the Clean Air Act already regulate chemicals in the air and water and a spokesperson for the EPA told The New York Times that the EPA can “better protect human health and the environment by focussing on those pathways that are likely to represent the greatest areas of concern to EPA.”
The revision means that improper disposal of a chemical will not be considered when deciding on any potential restrictions or ban of a substance. The list of ten substances currently under review include perchloroethylene, which is commonly used as a dry cleaning solvent. Under the new rules, the EPA will only consider the effects of direct exposure to perchloroethylene – which likely has carcinogenic properties – but will not evaluate the effects of exposure via drinking water despite that fact that traces of it have been found in most states. Asbestos is also on the list, but now risk evaluations will not view asbestos dumped in landfills as a potential hazard.
“With these exclusions, it is clear that the EPA will fail to evaluate the full risk of asbestos,” said Linda Reinstein, president and co-founder of the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organisation. “The end result will be a seriously inadequate risk evaluation that fails to address major contributors to the heavy and growing toll of asbestos mortality and disease in the United States, and represents an irresponsible and unjust rollback of the recent TSCA reform legislation.”
An analysis by the Environmental Defence Fund showed that the EPA will neglect the 31m kg of seven of the ten chemicals that are released into the air, water, and soil every year.
A statement from the American Chemistry Council said:
“The release of the problem formulation documents for the first 10 chemicals for risk evaluation is another important milestone in the implementation of the 2016 TSCA amendments. We will continue to support the efficient and effective implementation of TSCA. Successful implementation of this important bipartisan legislation is essential to ensuring protections for human health and environment while enabling our industry to continue to innovate, create jobs and grow the economy.”
https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/epa-limiting-evaluation-of-chemical-risks/
-
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
TSCA two-year anniversary documents formally publishedThe US EPA has formally published a set of actions announced on the 22 June two-year anniversary of TSCA being amended. The 27 June Federal Register includes:a final mercury reporting rule;a finalised strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods;notice of availability of guidance documents expanding access to TSCA confidential business information (CBI);a policy for assigning ‘unique identifiers’ to substances with confidential identities; andnotice of a consultation on a guidance document for generating ‘generic names’ for substances with identities withheld as confidential. The public comment period ends 27 August.Agency to renew TSCA inventory correction ICR
The agency is seeking to renew its existing information collection request (ICR), "Correction of Misreported Chemical Substances on the TSCA Inventory."
This relates to the process by which companies can correct "incorrectly described substances" listed on the TSCA inventory.
The current ICR is set to expire 30 June. Comments on the renewal request will be accepted through 25 July.Access to CBI
The EPA has authorised a contractor to access information submitted under TSCA, including some information that has been claimed as CBI.
Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEI) of Cambridge, Massachusetts has been granted access to data submitted through all sections of TSCA through 31 March 2023. This is to support the contractor’s work assisting the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) in preparing financial analysis of entities subject to TSCA enforcement actions.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68089/us-epa-round-up
-
Three PFAS 'Community Engagement Events' Announced by EPA
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced plans to hold "community engagement events" on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in Pennsylvania, Colorado and North Carolina this summer.
The local sessions are a part of the EPA’s ongoing efforts to address the class of substances. The agency says that public input from these meetings will inform the development of its PFAS management plan, set to be released later this year.
The Pennsylvania meeting is set for 25 July in Horsham. The agency says it "continues to work closely with the states and communities in Colorado and North Carolina to finalise details" and will provide more information as it is available.
News of the upcoming events came shortly after the conclusion of its first such community meeting. The agency said that nearly 200 people heard updates on local efforts to address PFASs found in the environment during the two-day New England event in Exeter, New Hampshire.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68133/us-epa-announces-next-three-pfas-community-engagement-events
-
US Voices Concern at South Korea's K-REACH Implementation
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Sunny Lee
The US has formally raised concerns over several aspects of the implementation rules for South Korea's updated chemicals regulation K-REACH.
The US delegation says "confusion and uncertainty" with the regulation, and its related rules and announcements, means that ensuring compliance is "challenging", in a 20 June statement to the WTO.
Noting that the implementation rules are recently published and in draft form, the US requests the postponement of the regulation's start date of 1 January 2019.
The US has requested postponement of the implementation date
It also advocates South Korea "issue English translations and comprehensive guidance in English for all industry stakeholders".
The US statement raises a number of issues. These include:reports from US industry that South Korea is denying most confidential business information (CBI) claims;the number of polymers that require registration;possible bans for companies failing to 'pre-report' substances they manufacture or import by 30 June 2019;the threat of penalties of up to 5% of the gross sales of the entire company for non-registration of substances;the required registration of all substances with the potential to cause serious danger to human health or the environment; andrequired registration for substances where the total annual volume on the market is one tonne or above.
It also expresses difficulty with the proposed tracking and reporting system for chemicals. Such a system would "impose a heavy burden, particularly on non-Korean firms" and "impose inappropriate CBI disclose requirements", it says.
The US delegation's statement came in response to South Korea's 11 June WTO-TBT notification of the enforcement decree and rules.
More details available on CW+AsiaHub
https://chemicalwatch.com/68136/us-voices-concern-at-south-koreas-k-reach-implementation
-
OECD to Coordinate Work on Economic Impacts of Chemicals
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Emma Chynoweth
An OECD project is set to take a lead role in coordinating international efforts to monetise the costs and benefits of chemicals regulation across the globe.
The organisation aims to fill the gap that exists in the monetary values that can be used to calculate the economic impacts of taking measures to manage risks associated with different hazard end points.
The project is a collaboration of two of the OECD’s committees:the chemicals committee joint meeting; andthe environmental policy committee’s working party on integrating economic and environmental policy.
It will build on two international meetings held in recent years under a project known as 'Sacame: Socio-economic analysis of chemicals by allowing a better quantification and monetisation of morbidity and environmental impacts'.
The first meeting, a 2016 workshop hosted by Echa, set the scene by looking at current knowledge and the gaps in linking chemical assessment results with economic evaluations. The second, held in 2017 in Ottawa, looked at specific substances that have been controlled and the economic evaluations surrounding those regulatory actions.
"There are still not enough valuation numbers to use in these economic assessments, even if we have endpoints identified," says Eeva Leinala, who is jointly leading the OECD project.
The project has two parts with a focus on:economic valuations; andsharing of risk management information between countries.
The first part will start with a three-year study to get "willingness-to-pay" (WTP) values for different hazards from a range of countries. This will focus on morbidity-related endpoints. Dr Leinala adds that "big question marks remain regarding valuation of environmental endpoints", which are likely to be addressed as a next stage.
The second activity, will see regulators in the different participating countries sharing risk management information, including best practice. By doing this, it is possible they may develop further guidance on economic analysis relating to risk management of chemicals.
Dr Leinala notes that the topic is complex, but adds that existing examples for mercury and phthalates include a significant amount of information. She also points out that under REACH, in socio-economic analyses done for authorisation applications, companies consider the economic impacts on their own organisation and are required to consider societal economic impacts of their business practice. However, this is not factored into the bigger picture of considering the environmental sustainability of a company, she says.
In the chemical risk management context she adds, "We need to develop practical tools and economic valuations for more impacts to deal with data gaps and complexity of chemicals". However, she says regulators in many countries are keen to pursue the work as it will help support decision making in the future.
It is hoped funding for the project will be secured by the end of the year.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68117/oecd-to-coordinate-work-on-economic-impacts-of-chemicals
-
DecaBDE Proposal Would 'End Recycling of Car, Electronics Plastics' in Europe
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
A European Parliament proposal to set a concentration limit for the flame retardant decaBDE in substances, mixtures and articles, would put a stop to plastics from vehicles and electronics being recycled in Europe, according to recycling industry association, EuRIC.
The proposal, posted on the Parliament's website, has been forwarded to the European Commission as it considers plans to recast the persistent organic pollutants (POPs) Regulation. The aim is to update the Regulation and align it with other EU legislation and the UN's Stockholm Convention.
The proposal sets a concentration level for the substance equal to or below 10mg/kg, or 0.001% by weight.
Unlike other brominated flame retardants already listed in the POPs Regulation – tetraBDE, pentaBDE, heptaBDE and octaBDE – the proposal does not include a derogation for articles or mixtures produced from recycled material.
As a result, EuRIC says that should a concentration limit of 10mg/kg – as an unintentional trace contaminant for decaBDE – become mandatory under the POPs recast, recycling plastics from end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) and electrical and electronic waste (WEEE) will come to an end in Europe.'No added benefit'
The association says producing recycled plastics containing less than 10mg/kg of decaBDE is not technically feasible at the industrial scale, even for the "best performing operators with whom EuRIC is working".
And so the proposal, it says, would effectively stop recycling companies, which have invested heavily in the development of innovative sorting and treatment processes, from recycling plastics, while "bringing no added benefit to the protection of human health or the environment".
It adds that, if adopted, the proposal would result in "major negative environmental and social impacts" because plastics waste will either have to be incinerated or placed in landfill, increasing the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).
The European Commission has not included decaBDE in its recast proposal because, according to EuRIC, a study with contributions from the association and ten EU member states, is ongoing. This aims to define the position of the EU on this low POP content limit value.
At the international level, a limit value and derogations under the UN's Stockholm Convention are yet to be agreed. The next Conference of the Parties of the Stockholm and Basel Conventions will take place next year where a decision is expected.Unwanted properties
However, NGO the European Environment Bureau has welcomed the Parliament's proposal, which it says is in line with the "clean circular economy principles". In January, the European Commission published a series of planned actions and proposed options to combat the problem of substances of concern in products and waste.
EEB's senior policy officer, Tatiana Santos, told Chemical Watch her organisation supports recycling materials as long as the final product doesn't contain substances with unwanted properties.
"If recycled materials contain a substance of very high concern, the problem of continued emission in the environment would be perpetuated."
The goal, she says, of reducing exposure to POP substances – which is one of the main objectives of the POPs Regulation – would not be met, as well as the EU 7th Environmental Action Programme's goal for a non toxic environment, material cycles and goals for hazardous substances and waste.
"Hazardous legacy is an obstacle to quality recycling needed for the circular economy. The EU needs to avoid reinjection in the economic cycle, even if to start with this may limit recyclability of contaminated material, that can then be burnt in specific incinerators from which heat recovery could be considered."
https://chemicalwatch.com/68134/eu-decabde-proposal-would-end-recycling-of-car-electronics-plastics
-
Online Retailers Commit to Speed Up Removal of Dangerous Products
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
Four major online retailers have committed to removing dangerous products from sale more quickly and to take measures to improve suppliers’ compliance with EU product safety legislation.
Amazon, Alibaba, eBay and Rakuten France have all signed the European Commission's ‘product safety pledge'.
They have agreed to respond to notifications on dangerous products from EU member state authorities within two working days and take action on notices from customers within five working days.
Risks related to chemicals comprised 22% of all notifications last year, according to a Commission report on the EU's Rapid Alert System for dangerous products (Rapex). This makes hazardous chemicals the second biggest risk to health and safety on the EU and EEA market.
The Commission has introduced the pledge because although the e-Commerce Directive states that dangerous product listings must be taken down "speedily and efficiently", it does not specify any timing.
The retailers have also agreed to:provide a clear way for customers to notify dangerous product listings;consult information on recalled/dangerous products available on the EU Rapid Alert System for dangerous non-food products and also from other sources, such as from enforcement authorities, and then take appropriate action with respect to the products concerned;provide specific single contact points for EU member state authorities to notify dangerous products and make communication on product safety easier;take measures aimed at preventing the reappearance of dangerous product listings already removed; andprovide information/training to sellers on compliance with EU product safety legislation; require them to comply with the law; and provide them with the link to the list of EU product safety legislation.
The retailers and Commission will publish a progress report on the initiative every six months.
An eBay spokesperson said: "We always work closely with trading standards and authorities to remove flagged products immediately ... and are committed to keeping our marketplace safe. It is great to see others following suit by signing the pledge."
Amazon and Rakuten France had not responded to Chemical Watch’s request for comment at the time of publishing and Alibaba declined to comment.
Vĕra Jourová, EU Commissioner for justice, consumers and gender equality, called on more online marketplaces to join the initiative.E-commerce challenge
The buying and selling of goods online has proven a challenge for national authorities, particularly with e-commerce models such as Amazon which sell third-party products.
According to a Commission press release: "More and more of the dangerous products notified in the Rapid Alert System are sold online. This shows the need for all online marketplaces to continue and further step up their efforts when it comes to removing [them]."
Last year, Amazon received a D grade in the NGO Mind the Store campaign, which ranks US retailers on their actions to eliminate chemicals in consumer products.
Also, a US study identified high levels of lead in four fidget spinner toys, bought online at Walmart and Amazon.
Amazon announced in 2017 that it will launch its chemical policy this year, but has not said exactly when.
NGOs have welcomed the launch of the pledge, but said that further measures are needed to protect consumers from purchasing products containing hazardous chemicals online.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68093/online-retailers-commit-to-speed-up-removal-of-dangerous-products
-
'Tomorrow's Technology will Suffer' from Siloxanes SVHC Decision
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
Echa's decision to add three siloxanes to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern has "blacklisted" them and will have a major impact on the technology of the future, according to trade group CES-Silicones Europe.
The substances octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4); decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) were all added to the list earlier this week. The move came after the agency's member state committee (MSC) identified them as SVHCs due to their persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
The siloxanes are used as intermediates, or basic raw materials, in the production of:silicone rubbers;gels; andresins.
They are also used in personal care products where a restriction on the use of D4 and D5 will enter into force in 2020.'Blacklisting'
Opposing the decision, secretary general for trade group CES-Silicones Europe, Pierre Germain, told Chemical Watch the SVHC identification is the equivalent of a "blacklisting". Investment in technologies reliant on these substances will shift outside of Europe, he said.
"Unfortunately those developing new technologies and products that will contribute to achieving environmental targets will not base them on these very useful substances that show little impact on the environment and human health."
Silicones are essential for "tomorrow’s technology", such as multi-glazed windows, solar panels, wind turbines, LED lights and computer circuit boards, Dr Germain said. The compounds are, and will be, needed to achieve energy and CO2 reduction goals, he added.
For every unit of CO2 produced through the manufacture of silicone, nine units are saved in their application, according to Dr Germain.
Silicones are critical structural sealants, he said, which are resistant to UV rays, high temperatures and water, but permeable to oxygen. Alternatives with these same properties do not exist, he said.
Nevertheless, the MSC agreed with Echa's risk assessment committee that D5 and D6 can be considered PBT and vPvB because of D4 impurities, and therefore meet REACH criteria for SVHC.
However, CES-Silicones Europe said that the Committee has not taken "full account of the whole body of scientific evidence".
"We are the victim of this domino effect in Europe, first there is a restriction on a single use – in this case certain cosmetics – then it moves to an SVHC identification, next it could be restrictions on all uses. After that who knows," Dr Germain said.
CES-Silicones Europe points to industry-funded analysis of data collected for the US EPA. The authors of the environmental assessment claim that D4 poses a "negligible risk to the environment". The organisation also highlights decisions made by other countries and regions.Regional decisions
Canada’s initial screening assessment had indicated D4 and D5 were PBT, but after the Board of Review, the screening assessment was annulled, and D5 was classified only as persistant, thereby not meeting the CEPA listing criteria. D4 is listed as PBT, but it has no product use restrictions in the country.
The assessment from Australia’s Department of the Environment and Energy of a range of silicone materials, including D4, D5, and D6, concludes, "[t]he direct risks to aquatic life from exposure to these chemicals at expected surface water concentrations are not likely to be significant." As such, Australia has not proposed any regulatory restrictions on the use of any of the materials.
In Japan, the government's chemical review of the three substances was conducted in December 2017 under the Chemical Substance Control Law (CSCL). As a result D4 and D6 were assigned to the CSCL "monitoring Chemicals" category because of the lack of available ecotoxicity and, for D6, health data.
Substances are included in this category if they are determined to be "persistent" and "bio-accumulative", but there are no restrictions on their use. No change was recommended for D5. Based on safety data, D5 continues to be managed under the CSCL General Chemical category.
Silicones industry groups in Europe, North America and Japan are carrying out monitoring initiatives to better understand the presence and behaviour of these substances in the environment. The groups say that these assessments "have and will continue to demonstrate both their safety and their positive impact on the global society".
Suppliers, producers or importers of articles containing candidate list substances in a concentration above 0.1% have to provide sufficient information to allow safe use of the article to their customers or upon request, to a consumer within 45 days of the request. They must also notify Echa if their article contains candidate list substances.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68107/tomorrows-technology-will-suffer-from-siloxanes-svhc-decision
-
Jun 28, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Targeted CLH consultation on butanone oximeEcha has launched a targeted harmonised classification and labelling (CLH) consultation on the substance butanone oxime to consider its classification for specific target organ toxicity repeated exposure (Stot Re).
The German Federal Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (Baua) submitted a CLH proposal for the chemical but the public consultation, which concluded in September 2017, did not formally discuss this classification.
However, a June meeting of the agency's Committee for Risk Assessment (Rac) decided it should be classified for Stot Re. This was in the context of discussing its proposed classifications for eye damage, skin irritation, acute toxicity (oral and dermal), skin sensitisation and carcinogenicity.
The deadline for comment is 10 July.Intention to restrict three flame retardants
The agency has submitted an intention to restrict three organophosphate flame retardants – TCEP, TCPP and TDCP – in flexible polyurethane foams in childcare articles and residential upholstered furniture. It may cover mattresses for adults and textiles as well as other articles, it says.
The submission is expected on 12 April 2019.Co-opted members to Rac and Seac
The closing date for expression of interest in Echa's call for co-opted members to the Committees for Risk Assessment (Rac) and Socio-economic Analysis (Seac) has been extended to 1 August.Poison centre Q&As updated
Echa has increased the content of the question and answer section of its poison centres website.
This is in light of its latest webinar on the unique formula identifier (UFI) for which it received over 300 questions.Updated draft guidance on emergency health response information
The agency has published its updated draft guidance on harmonised information relating to emergency health response under Annex VIII to CLP. It is now in consultation with the Enforcement Forum.Downstream user tag
Echa updated its website last year to create improved and more efficient metadata. This now allows searching for similar content directly from any page. By clicking the tag at the bottom of the page, a new window will display a list of similarly tagged pages in chronological order, it says.
This features works in 23 EU languages, and replaces the downstream user mindmap (the navigation support for downstream users), which was only available in English.Update to use map for imaging and printing products
The agency has updated its sector use map for imaging and printing products. As part of this, I&P Europe also provides a Chesar file containing the use description and the input parameters for worker assessment.
A guidance document for users of the information package is also available.Webinar on endocrine disruptors and biocides
Recordings and presentations are available from Echa's webinar on the scope of the EDC criteria for biocides and how the authotrities are using them.
It also guides registrants through the main advice in the newly published guidance on endocrine disruptors.Survey on dealing with chemicals in consumer articles
The German Environment Agency (UBA) is running a survey for suppliers of consumer articles in the context of the EU LIFE project AskREACH. The project 's aim is to help companies in providing information about harmful substances in articles to consumers.
The survey consists of questions on environmental, regulatory and economic issues. And any data collected will only be used for this purpose.
The questionnaire is anonymous and takes no more than five minutes to complete.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68110/echa-round-up
-
Oil Producers Fault EPA's 'Punitive' Self-Audit Plan
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Maxine Joselow and Mike Soraghan
Oil and gas industry officials told EPA today the Trump administration's plan for letting them self-report air pollution violations doesn't go far enough.
Industry representatives said they support the concept but voiced concerns that EPA's plan is too rigid and seems aimed at punishing companies that self-report violations, rather than fostering cooperation.
"A new owner audit program should not start from a punitive perspective," said Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma. "We find it should start from one of cooperation."
At a "stakeholder" meeting on the proposal at EPA's Washington headquarters, industry members said they fear the current design of the program creates confusion about state roles. Oil and gas producers generally dislike federal regulation and prefer regulation by state agencies, which often take a more cooperative approach.
Lee Fuller, executive vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said industry needs certainty about whether state or federal regulators are "driving the train."
"It's important for the regulatory entity to know who they're dealing with under all circumstances," Fuller said. "In an area like compliance, if we're dealing with the state and we're dealing with EPA and the state has delegated authority, it's important to know who the actor is going to be who's driving the train."
EPA sought to block public and press access to stakeholder meetings last month on chemical contamination, with mixed success (Greenwire, May 22).
An information sheet on today's meeting told participants that "Media will not be excluded from attending." Another session is scheduled for this afternoon.
The Trump administration's EPA enforcement chief, Susan Bodine, has proposed the self-audit plan. It is intended to address emissions from storage tanks used to hold oil, petroleum liquids and wastewater. That's one of the biggest sources of pollution from oil and gas operations (Energywire, May 7).
If approved, the proposal would allow companies that acquire new oil and gas operations to self-audit their newly acquired properties and report any problems to EPA. The companies would then have a flexible timeline to fix the problems. In exchange, EPA would waive all or most of the civil and criminal penalties that would normally apply. The plan could be in place by October.
The program is part of the administration's effort to forge a collaborative relationship with the energy industry. But officials say they won't abandon tough enforcement.
EPA already has had a "new owner" program for traditional manufacturing plants since 2008. The agency has had difficulty applying it to the oil and gas industry because a typical oil field can include hundreds of tanks and other facilities.
Storage tanks are one of the major sources of pollution from the oil and gas industry. Volatile organic compounds such as benzene can leak from pressure-relief valves or from improperly secured hatches. In many cases, truck drivers open the tanks to the atmosphere when they measure the liquids that collect in tanks. Several workers have died from the effects of the toxic gases (Energywire, Aug. 22, 2017).
The administration's proposal is similar to the approach that a half-dozen oil-producing states have taken, sometimes through informal processes. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has pushed for states to take a greater role in environmental regulation and enforcement, making "cooperative federalism" a key focus of his tenure.
Texas and North Dakota have laws on the books that allow their state oil regulators to waive penalties for companies that report their own violations, state officials said during a roundtable discussion. Texas doesn't allow penalties to be waived, though, in cases that cause actual harm.
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission adopted a similar policy in 2014, but it stipulates that the program doesn't apply to cases involving fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence. Sgamma said she worried that EPA's proposal is too similar to Colorado's "punitive" program.
Despite the focus on cooperation, Bodine has also said she is "shocked" at how often environmental violations occur. Her comments were not focused on the oil and gas industry (Greenwire, April 23).
Inspections of "energy extraction" sites dropped by one-third in Pruitt's first fiscal year, according to EPA's website. But the number of concluded cases rose slightly.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087251
-
China's Need for Alaska Gas 'Transcends' Trump Trade Fight
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Margaret Kriz Hobson
Alaska Gov. Bill Walker (I) and a team of staffers yesterday afternoon climbed into the back of a large SUV en route to his next Capitol Hill appointment, this one with Alaska Rep. Don Young (R).
In town for the World Gas Conference, Walker has spent the past two days promoting Alaska's $43 billion liquefied natural gas export project in meetings with top Trump administration officials and U.S. and foreign oil executives.
But the most important meeting to Walker may have come on Tuesday, when he met with officials of China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec.
In November, Alaska signed a nonbinding joint development agreement with Sinopec and two other Chinese companies to partner on designing, financing, building and operating Alaska's ambitious plan to commercialize the state's 35 trillion cubic feet of stranded natural gas.
That venture would include construction of a gas processing plant on the North Slope, an 800-mile pipeline, and a liquefaction and export facility in southern Alaska.
Under the pact, Bank of China Ltd. and CIC Capital Corp. would provide 75 percent of the funding — roughly $32 billion — to build the Alaska LNG project. The state would repay that loan by providing China with 75 percent of the LNG capacity of the Alaska pipeline for the length of the agreement.
The agreement gives Alaska and the Chinese companies until the end of the year to reach a final pact on the project.
But during Walker's meeting with Sinopec officials, the two sides agreed to fast-forward their work on a final agreement.
"We focused on the project, how we can move the project along quicker," Walker said. "And that's what we're trying to do, figure out how we can move ahead with more expeditious deadlines."
To speed up the timeline, the two sides plan to hold a more condensed schedule of meetings. "We're talking about negotiations [that] would take place either in Washington, D.C.; in Alaska; or in China," the governor explained. "And we're opting for Alaska."Proximity and demand
Walker's meeting with the Sinopec officials comes at a time when President Trump has vowed to impose $50 billion in import tariffs on Chinese goods. Chinese officials have responded by announcing an imposition of new duties on U.S. goods.
This looming trade war recently caused a Chinese power company to delay talks on an $84 billion investment in shale gas and chemical manufacturing in West Virginia (Energywire, June 20).
But thus far, the Alaska project has escaped such delays. Walker said his talks with Sinopec were "very, very positive. They did not bring up the trade issue, nor did I."
Why is the Alaska project moving forward when the West Virginia investment has slowed?
"I think it's the proximity. We're very close" to China, the governor said.
In addition, Alaska's natural gas "is a product that they would very much like," he observed. "And they see the opportunity of having a long-term supply at a stable price with a stable government.
"I think this transcends the current discussion on trade issues," Walker said.
With international energy executives flocking to this week's World Gas Conference, the Alaska governor also took the opportunity to touch base with Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.
In addition, Walker met with top officials from two of Alaska's largest oil and gas producers, BP PLC CEO Bob Dudley and Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods.
"We've had some very significant meetings," he said. "And that's one of the beauties of this conference. It brings together a lot of people, and you don't have to fly all over the world to meet."
BP and Exxon Mobil, together with ConocoPhillips, were involved in the original partnership with the state to build the Alaska LNG project. But in late 2016, the companies decided not to move forward with the expensive venture due to low natural gas prices and an oversupply of LNG on the world market.
Since then, the export plan has been managed by the Alaska Gasline Development Corp. (AGDC), a state-owned company.
More recently, BP Alaska agreed to sell the gas reserves from the company's Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson sites to AGDC. The parties are not disclosing how much the state would pay for the gas (Energywire, May 8).
AGDC officials say they're continuing discussions with Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips for access to their gas reserves.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087203
-
After Legal Victory, Enviros Push to Block Mountain Valley
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Ellen M. Gilmer
A coalition of environmental groups is urging federal regulators to halt construction on the Mountain Valley pipeline in light of a recent court ruling.
Appalachian Voices, the Sierra Club and other groups this week asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to suspend its approval of the project, which would ship gas from West Virginia to Virginia. The coalition says FERC cannot allow work to continue after a recent appeals court decision pulling a key water permit.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week suspended the Army Corps of Engineers' approval of the EQT Corp. pipeline's water crossings in West Virginia. The ruling blocks construction across hundreds of waterways in the state (Energywire, June 22).
While FERC has acknowledged that developers cannot move forward along the West Virginia water crossings covered by the Army Corps permit, the environmental groups say the commission must go a step further.
"Because that mandatory federal authorization is now lacking, FERC must not allow pipeline construction to continue, not only within the Corps' Huntington District but anywhere along the pipeline route," the letter says.
The coalition also includes the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Indian Creek Watershed Association, the West Virginia Rivers Coalition and Wild Virginia. They are represented by Appalachian Mountain Advocates.
Several environmental groups are also hoping to use the recent 4th Circuit ruling to take down the Army Corps' approval of water crossings in Virginia. They filed a request with the appeals court on Tuesday, asking it to halt the Virginia crossings for the same reason it halted those in West Virginia: The pipeline includes river crossings that are too complex to be covered by the general nationwide permit the agency used for the route.
"A one-size-fits-all permit is completely wrong for the Mountain Valley Pipeline,no matter if that's in West Virginia or Virginia," Chesapeake Climate Action Network attorney Anne Havemann said in a statement. "Regulators need to take a real look at the impacts from this unneeded and devastating pipeline — a blanket approach is simply unacceptable."Atlantic Coast
A separate battle is playing out over the Atlantic Coast pipeline, another Appalachian natural gas project.
Developers are seeking to keep construction on track despite delays in areas affected by another 4th Circuit ruling last month that tossed an Endangered Species Act document known as an incidental take statement for the pipeline (Energywire, May 16).
Environmentalists asked FERC to block construction on the entire route, noting that the commission's certificate for the pipeline requires complete ESA consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service. The court's order requires FWS to redo some of its work.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC and Dominion Energy Transmission Inc. agreed to halt construction in areas that contain habitat for certain species at issue in the ESA review, but they are moving forward on other sections of the pipeline route.
In a letter this week, lawyers for the project urged FERC to reject environmentalists' calls for a broader work freeze. They argue that the project's ESA consultation is still considered complete even though FWS must rework the incidental take statement.
"Most importantly, the court's order did not alter history and somehow retroactively change the fact that formal consultation by the Commission Staff with the FWS was completed last October, thereby satisfying [the FERC certificate conditions]," Atlantic Coast lawyers told FERC this week.
They also noted that the project would face expensive delays if FERC halts construction.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087173
-
Pipeline Company Challenges Constitutionality of Steel Tariffs
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Energywire
By Hannah Northey
Companies reliant on imports of foreign steel are challenging the constitutionality of President Trump's tariffs on steel and aluminum that have riled the energy sector for months now.
The American Institute for International Steel Inc. and two of its member companies — including Sim-Tex LP, a Texas-based distributor of pipeline products — filed a complaint with the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York seeking to overturn a federal statute that allowed Trump to impose tariffs on imports of steel and aluminum.
Sim-Tex and AIIS, a nonprofit corporation, argued in the filing that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 improperly delegates trade powers to the executive branch from the legislative branch in violation of the Constitution.
The suit, which names Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Kevin McAleenan, ultimately seeks to void the 25 percent tariff Trump slapped on imports of foreign steel.
"Our complaint is that the statute cannot constitutionally pass that responsibility off to the President with no guidance as to how to resolve the very difficult policy choices that imposing massive tariffs inevitably entails," the group wrote in an explanatory page on its website.
The lawsuit, being hailed as the biggest challenge so far to Trump's tariffs, is not directed at the president himself. Instead, Sim-Tex and AIIS said they're targeting the statute and Congress' failure to provide an "intelligible principle to guide the use of tariffs and quotas under Section 232."
The lawsuit arrives as a growing chorus of energy companies warns that Trump's quickly escalating trade tiff with countries like China could have a knock-on effect for oil and gas production, as well as exports of domestic gas, oil and coal. But on Capitol Hill, Republicans have been reluctant to challenge Trump.
AIIS said it's asking for a three-judge court so a decision can be appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
https://www.eenews.net/energywire/2018/06/28/stories/1060086827
-
Minnesota Regulators Begin Deliberating Disputed Pipeline
Jun 28, 2018 | AP (In The Washington Post)
Minnesota regulators have begun deliberations on whether to approve or reject Enbridge Energy’s proposal for replacing its aging Line 3 oil pipeline across northern Minnesota.
The Public Utilities Commission entered a fifth day of hearings on the project Thursday. Commissioners began deliberations after they finished questioning representatives on both sides of the debate.
Line 3 was built in the 1960s. Enbridge says it needs to replace the pipeline because it’s increasingly subject to corrosion and cracking. The Calgary, Alberta-based company also says the pipeline can currently run at only half its original capacity.
Climate change and tribal activists oppose the project. Some set up a large tripod to block one street outside the commission’s building in downtown St. Paul on Thursday morning. It bore a sign reading, “Expect Resistance.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/minnesota-regulators-begin-deliberating-disputed-pipeline/2018/06/28/1d173ef0-7af1-11e8-ac4e-421ef7165923_story.html?utm_term=.beab493e195b
-
Report: NJ Transit to Request PTC Deadline Extension
Jun 28, 2018 | Progressive Railroading
Add New Jersey Transit to the growing list of transit agencies and railroads that won't meet the Dec. 31 deadline to implement positive train control (PTC).
NJ Transit Executive Director Kevin Corbett told NBC News 4 New York this week that the agency plans to seek an extension of up to two years to complete its PTC implementation.
However, the Federal Railroad Administration this month informed NJ Transit leaders the agency is at risk of failing to meet the requirements to apply for the extension, the news station reported.
To qualify for an extension, railroads must satisfy specific requirements, including the installation of all PTC hardware and acquisition of all necessary spectrum by Dec. 31.
In March, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported that up to two-thirds of the 29 commuter railroads required to implement PTC might not meet the deadline or qualify for an extension.https://www.progressiverailroading.com/ptc/news/Report-NJ-Transit-to-request-PTC-deadline-extension--55001
-
Train Derails in W.Va. Near Waterways
Jun 28, 2018 | Charleston Gazette-Mail (In E&E Greenwire)
By Jake Zuckerman
Eighteen coal cars were thrown off the tracks when a train derailed yesterday in St. Albans, W.Va.
No injuries were reported, and there was no property damage. Police Chief Joe Crawford said there is some fear that coal could leak into two tributaries of the Kanawha River. Rain could also leach chemicals from the coal, he said.
State environmental officials responded quickly, according to local officials. The train was operated by CSX Corp.
Environmental responders set up booms designed to catch oil and chemicals that sit on the surface of the water. No coal went into the stream, but a few axles did.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087227
-
States, Enviros Beef Up Defense of Obama HFC Rule
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Amanda Reilly
The legal battle over the future of the potent heat-trapping chemicals known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, is heating up.
Eleven states and Washington, D.C., yesterday filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration illegally rolled back a 2015 rule aimed at removing HFCs from the atmosphere. The Natural Resources Defense Council earlier this week launched a similar suit against EPA.
"As long as Pruitt's EPA keeps taking lawless actions to roll back climate protections, we'll keep filing lawsuits to stop them," Lissa Lynch, an NRDC staff attorney, wrote in a blog post.
The new lawsuits come after NRDC and two chemical companies on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling striking down key pieces of the Obama-era rule (Greenwire, June 26).
The Obama administration made phasing out HFCs, which were listed as replacements for ozone-depleting substances in the 1990s, a key part of its climate agenda. While short-lived in the atmosphere, HFCs are thousands of times more potent as greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide.
In 2015, EPA issued a rule effectively banning uses of HFCs across four industrial sectors: aerosols, air conditioning for new cars, retail food refrigeration and foam blowing. It was the first of two phaseout rules that EPA issued during the Obama administration.
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year ruled that EPA went beyond its authority in the Clean Air Act. The court found the agency couldn't use a program for replacing ozone-depleting substances because HFCs don't themselves deplete the ozone (Greenwire, Aug. 8, 2017).
Months after the ruling, EPA responded to the decision with a six-page guidance document that it said would "dispel confusion and provide regulatory certainty." The agency said it had received "a significant number of inquiries" since the ruling about how broadly it would apply and how it would affect compliance deadlines.
The April document stated that, based on the D.C. Circuit's decision to throw out part of the rule, EPA would not apply any of the rule's provisions.
EPA "will implement the court's vacatur by treating it as striking the HFC listings in the 2015 Rule in their entirety," the agency said.
But the new lawsuits this week argue that EPA went beyond the court's order and unlawfully adopted the guidance without providing notice to the public or a chance to comment.
"The Trump EPA is seeking to gut critical climate protection rules through the backdoor — once again endangering New Yorkers while thumbing their nose at the law," New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood (D), who led the state lawsuit, said in a statement.
California, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia joined New York in the suit.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087185
-
Is Massachusetts v. EPA a Goner?
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Climatewire
By Amanda Reilly
The fate of a landmark Supreme Court climate change decision became uncertain after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement yesterday.
Kennedy provided the crucial fifth vote in the 2007 decision, in which the court found EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The case, Massachusetts v. EPA, set the stage for other Supreme Court decisions on greenhouse gas regulations and Obama-era efforts to address climate change.
A more conservative Supreme Court could curtail the ruling's reach, or even eliminate it altogether. At least two of the court's current conservative justices — Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — have called for it to be overturned.
Some legal experts fear that a right-leaning court wouldn't uphold any climate rules without Kennedy on the bench.
"Whomever Donald Trump appoints to succeed Kennedy, you would never get a decision like Massachusetts v. EPA," said David Bookbinder, chief counsel at the libertarian Niskanen Center, which has pushed for a carbon tax.
"With Kennedy, there was always a chance of a good decision," he said. "But with whomever comes next, there will be five votes against any climate measure whatsoever."
In Massachusetts v. EPA, several states and cities sued the George W. Bush administration to force EPA to issue greenhouse gas standards for tailpipe emissions.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion for the court, rejecting EPA's argument that the Clean Air Act was not meant to cover carbon dioxide emissions. Stevens wrote that the Clean Air Act's "sweeping" and "capacious" definition of air pollutants covered greenhouse gases.
Kennedy joined the court's liberal wing, while conservative justices dissented.
"He joined the majority in the crucially important Massachusetts v. EPA opinion that said EPA had to follow the law and look at science in deciding whether to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars," said William Buzbee, a professor at Georgetown Law.
John Cruden, who led the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division during the Obama administration, said the case "shows how important he was."
"Most of us think that there's whole parts of the Stevens decision in Massachusetts v. EPA which were done solely for the purpose of making sure that Kennedy stayed on the majority," Cruden said.
That includes the opinion's finding that the states had legal standing to challenge EPA's denial of their rulemaking petition because they occupied a "quasi-sovereign" role with interests in their citizens and the environment within their borders.
"During oral argument, he [Kennedy] let the standing issues become extraordinarily important," Cruden said. "And of course that was a key issue in Massachusetts v. EPA."
Kennedy also joined crucial opinions protecting citizen suit standing, Buzbee noted.
Kennedy "occasionally would use rhetoric that was aligned with the anti-regulatory wing of the court," Buzbee said, "but more often he looked for accountability, a fair process, and resisted jettisoning of Court precedent."
After the 2007 climate decision, the Supreme Court went on to rule unanimously in 2011 that the Clean Air Act pre-empted federal common law claims. With Massachusetts v. EPA, that decision placed the regulation of greenhouse gases squarely in EPA's court.
Bookbinder, who was formerly chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club, said he worries that Kennedy will be replaced by somebody who "presumably doesn't believe in climate change, or in fact science at all."
"Nothing environmentally good is going to come out of replacing Anthony Kennedy with anyone whom Donald Trump believes is qualified to sit on not only the Supreme Court, but any court," he said.
Ann Carlson, a law professor at UCLA, wrote yesterday that the late Justice Antonin Scalia "had already begun to lay the ground work for curtailing EPA's power to regulate greenhouse gases" in the 2014 case Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA.
"Even though the court largely upheld greenhouse gas emissions regulations for so-called 'new sources' of greenhouse gases, the UARG Court also held that EPA had overreached its authority in regulating smaller sources that had not previously been regulated," she said in a blog post. "With a new justice on the court, it isn't hard to imagine the Court imposing significant limitations on EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases."
A future Supreme Court, she added, could strike down a Democratic president's attempts to reinstate a program such as the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, which targeted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants.
Still, don't expect Massachusetts v. EPA to just disappear.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) is suing EPA for allowing companies to use potent greenhouse gases in their products. Senate Democrats/Flickr
Michael Gerrard, director of Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, noted that Chief Justice John Roberts — who wrote a dissenting opinion in Massachusetts v. EPA stating that the states did not have standing to sue — has accepted the ruling.
"So he might provide a fifth vote to uphold it if necessary," Gerrard said.
"It's also possible," Gerrard added, "that Justice Kennedy's successor will join the conservatives on the court in narrowing the standing doctrine and thus restricting access to the courts."
President Trump's shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees includes foes of expansive environmental regulation and critics of Obama-era attempts to regulate greenhouse gases.
Notably, Trump last November added Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the list. Appointed by President George W. Bush, Kavanaugh is among the D.C. Circuit's most conservative judges and often hears environmental law cases.
At the 2016 oral arguments over the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan, Kavanaugh was blunt about where he stands: "Global warming is not a blank check," he said.
In a 2012 dissent to the D.C. Circuit's decision not to rehear a case over EPA greenhouse gas regulations, Kavanaugh expressed specific concerns about the interpretation of Massachusetts v. EPA.
The case, Kavanaugh wrote, "did not purport to say that every other use of the term 'air pollutant' throughout the sprawling and multi-faceted Clean Air Act necessarily includes greenhouse gases."
Bookbinder predicted that, once Kennedy's replacement is on the court, environmental groups will work to keep climate change cases entirely out of the Supreme Court.
"If there's a bad environmental decision in an appellate court, whereas previously you might have asked the Supreme Court to take it, they will now not do so," he said. "Better to limit the damage than turn a circuit court opinion into a Supreme Court one."
Reporter Jeremy P. Jacobs contributed.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087211
-
Maine Threatens to Pull Out of Ozone Compact
Jun 28, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
Maine Republican Gov. Paul LePage's administration is floating the possibility of attempting to pull most of his state out of the Ozone Transport Region, the congressionally created compact that requires members to adopt added pollution control measures.
"Maine's attainment status for the ozone NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] is a success story of the emissions reduction strategies implemented across the nation," according to a draft petition to EPA released late yesterday by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The draft, which has not been filed with the federal agency, proposes the withdrawal of all of the state from the Ozone Transport Region with the exception of 10 cities and Acadia National Park, located on the coast.
A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for July 30 in the state capital of Augusta. While state officials don't have a firm timetable for what happens next, "I would suspect that if we do proceed forward, it would be some time this year," Jeffrey Crawford, a policy development specialist at the Maine environmental agency, said this morning in an interview.
The state had unsuccessfully submitted a similar petition in 2014, Crawford said, as EPA was in the midst of a review that led to a tightening of the ozone standard the next year from 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb.
Now that the revised standard is in place, Crawford said, the state is furnishing documentation showing that the technical analysis underlying its proposal "is still valid."
A spokeswoman for LePage, a frequent critic of environmental regulations, did not immediately reply to added questions this morning.
Aides for Sen. Susan Collins (R) and other members of Maine's four-person congressional delegation also could not be reached.
Opposing withdrawal is the Natural Resources Council of Maine, a nonprofit environmental group. "We don't think it would be a constructive precedent," Pete Didisheim, senior director of advocacy, said in an interview.
The Ozone Transport Region, created by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, currently spans all or part of a dozen states, ranging from Maine to Northern Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. Members are subject to added requirements to curb emissions of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. In sunlight, the two react to form ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog.
In the draft petition, however, Maine says it has been in attainment with federal ozone standards since 2004 and that it is an "insignificant" contributor to ozone levels outside its borders.
Taking the state out of the Ozone Transport Region would also benefit the forest products industry by providing "regulatory certainty" in regard to some emissions control requirements, the proposal says.
Any attempt by LePage's administration to drop out could also face resistance from other states in the Ozone Transport Region that want to expand, not shrink, the size of compact.
After EPA last year rejected a 2013 petition to add another nine states — mostly in the South and Midwest — to the Ozone Transport Region, New York and seven other current members are challenging that decision in court (Greenwire, Jan. 2).
Their lawsuit, filed late last year, is pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Oral arguments in the litigation have not yet been scheduled.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/06/28/stories/1060087261
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Transportation and Infrastructure News
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested