Preview Newsletter
ACC PM 05/07/18
-
Dems Seek Probe Into Allegations Pruitt Altered Calendars
Jul 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two House Democrats want the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) internal watchdog to investigate allegations that Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to hide certain events from his publicly released calendar. -
(ACC Mentioned) How Pruitt's EPA Finds a Dangerous Chemical is Safe: Ignore Most Exposures to It
Jul 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund (Blog)
By Richard Denison
The 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) expanded and enhanced Congress’ vision for how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should evaluate and mitigate the potential risks of chemicals. -
EPA Consults on Draft IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced a consultation on its draft IRIS assessment plan for naphthalene. -
DOJ Argues ATSDR Action Moots PFAS Litigation
Jul 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is alerting a federal appeals court to recent action by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that DOJ says strengthens its position that the Superfund law's bar on challenges to cleanup decisions prohibits Pennsylvania residents from seeking medical monitoring from the Navy. -
UN Publishes List of Identified Endocrine Disruptors
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The UN has published a list of chemicals that, having gone through at least one "thorough scientific assessment", have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals or potential EDCs. -
European Commission Seeks Public Comments on EDC Roadmap
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is seeking comments on a roadmap for an initiative on a more comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors. -
Downstream Users Raise Concerns over Siloxanes SVHC Decision
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
European trade groups representing downstream users of silicones have raised concerns with Echa’s decision to add three siloxanes to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern. -
Echa Round-Up
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission has revised the fees for REACH authorisation applications to encourage companies to apply together. -
E.P.A. Drafts Rule on Coal Plants to Replace Clean Power Plan
Jul 5, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
The Trump administration has drafted a new proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, one that is far less stringent than the climate plan finalized in 2015 by former President Barack Obama. -
Ineos Says New European Ethane Cracker to Benefit from U.S. Natural Gas
Jul 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Global petrochemical giant Ineos said Tuesday it plans to invest more than $3 billion to build a world scale ethane cracker and propane dehydrogenation unit in northwest Europe to take better advantage of U.S. natural gas supplies. -
Propane Prices Are Fired Up
Jul 5, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember
You may not have noticed it when buying propane for that Fourth of July barbecue, but the cooking fuel’s price has risen by more than half over the last year. -
China Keeps LNG Off Tariff List for Now, Could Be Trade Weapon Later
Jul 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Meng Meng and Aizhu Chen
China's omission of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its vast list of U.S. products that face hefty import duties from Friday has preserved a potential weapon should the trade war with Washington deepen. -
Shell CEO Says 'Foolhardy' to Set Carbon Reduction Targets
Jul 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso
Royal Dutch Shell's boss said it would be "foolhardy" for the oil and gas producer to set hard targets to reduce carbon emissions as it risked exposing the energy giant to legal challenges. -
Trump Touts 'Indestructible' Coal, and Gas Industry Fumes
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump has a new talking point in his "Make America Great Again" tour: Gas pipelines are vulnerable to cyberattacks, and coal is "indestructible." -
US Refineries Persist in Using Toxic Acid, Despite Safer Alternatives
Jul 5, 2018 | Truthout
By Daniel Ross
Fifty refineries across the United States use hydrofluoric acid. Because this highly toxic substance can travel for miles in the form of a potentially fatal ground-hugging cloud, however, use of the chemical continues to prove highly controversial — rarely more so than now, given recent accidents at some of these refineries and potential rule changes that call into question the chemical’s long-term future in the oil refining industry. -
Ozone Implementation Rule at White House for Review
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA has sent a long-delayed final version of implementation regulations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. -
Court Revives Litigation over Ozone Standard
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After a hiatus lasting some 15 months, a federal appellate court is restarting legal proceedings in litigation over EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard. -
E-Waste Offers an Economic Opportunity as Well as Toxicity
Jul 5, 2018 | The New York Times Magazine
By Brook Larmer
The police raid on a junkyard on the outskirts of Bangkok had all the trappings of a drug bust.
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
-
Dems Seek Probe Into Allegations Pruitt Altered Calendars
Jul 5, 2018 | The Hill - E2 Wire
By Timothy Cama
Two House Democrats want the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) internal watchdog to investigate allegations that Administrator Scott Pruitt sought to hide certain events from his publicly released calendar.
In a Thursday letter to EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins, Reps. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) say Pruitt’s “secret” calendars, as described in a Tuesday CNN report, could violate the Federal Records Act.
“The proper maintenance of official federal records is set forth by the Federal Records Act,” the Democrats wrote.
“Willful concealment or destruction of such records is a federal crime carrying penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.”
They asked Elkins to investigate to “protect public trust, and establish whether Administrator Scott Pruitt violated the Federal Records Act, and if so, determine what he concealed and why.”
Tia Elbaum, a spokeswoman for Elkins, said the office received the request and is reviewing it. The EPA did not respond to a request for comment.
CNN reported this week that Pruitt’s staff kept a full secret calendar of his activities and then would “scrub” it before releasing entries to the public.
The scrubbed entries included a meeting in Italy with Cardinal George Pell, who has multiple accusations of sexual assault against him.
In another case, the calendar didn’t show a meeting Pruitt had with conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt, pertaining to a Superfund site in Hewitt’s home county.
“We had at one point three different schedules. One of them was one that no one else saw except three or four of us,” Kevin Chmielewski, a former close staffer to Pruitt, told CNN. “It was a secret ... and they would decide what to nix from the public calendar.”
American Oversight, a watchdog group established by former Obama administration staffers, is asking a federal judge to force the EPA to certify in court that it released Pruitt’s full calendars.
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the group obtained calendars from Pruitt that left off some of the items CNN later found.
Pruitt is already being investigated in more than a dozen federal probes into allegations that he violated ethical or spending standards while serving as EPA administrator. Those investigations include Pruitt's reportedly buying a $43,000 soundproof phone booth, improperly asking his aides do personal tasks and renting an apartment from a lobbyist.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/395603-dems-seek-probe-into-allegations-pruitt-altered-calendars
-
(ACC Mentioned) How Pruitt's EPA Finds a Dangerous Chemical is Safe: Ignore Most Exposures to It
Jul 5, 2018 | Environmental Defense Fund (Blog)
By Richard Denison
The 2016 Lautenberg Act amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) expanded and enhanced Congress’ vision for how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should evaluate and mitigate the potential risks of chemicals.
The industry’s interest is simple: The fewer exposures to a chemical EPA looks at, the more likely it is to find those it does look at safe.
The original TSCA was intended to encompass the full lifecycles of chemicals, from manufacturing to use to disposal, authorizing EPA to regulate any of those activities. It gave EPA co-authority with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over chemical exposures in workplaces and with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) over chemical exposures from consumer products. And it provided a wide array of means by which EPA could regulate chemicals to address unreasonable risks it identified, ranging from requiring warnings to limiting the amount of a chemical that could be used in a certain way to an outright ban on all uses of a chemical. Unfortunately, the original law also contained fatal flaws that rendered this vision unachievable in practice.
Congress finally stepped in to address those flaws through the 2016 amendments. But the amendments also did something else: they added several elements that further expanded what EPA was to include in addressing chemical risks. Congress explicitly required that EPA identify and protect against risks not only to the general population, but to vulnerable subpopulations at potentially greater risk due to heightened exposure or greater susceptibility to a given exposure. It mandated that EPA prioritize chemicals, and evaluate and regulate their risks, under the chemicals’ “conditions of use,” a term Congress defined broadly to encompass not only the full chemical lifecycle, but also all of the “intended, known, or reasonably foreseen” activities that occur at each lifecycle stage.
And Congress directed EPA to determine whether a chemical’s risks were unreasonable and warranted regulation based solely on its effects on human health or the environment, without regard to costs or other non-risk factors. Only after EPA completed its science-based evaluation of risks and determined regulation was warranted, was EPA to consider costs and other non-risk factors, and then only in deciding how best to eliminate the unreasonable risk. Congress also retained the provision of TSCA that relegates to the very last step any consideration of whether other authorities – be they EPA’s or other agencies’ – could be used instead of TSCA.
Each of the new elements has a strong basis in the large body of science that has emerged over the decades since TSCA first passed in 1976 that elucidates how we are exposed to chemicals, how they can affect our basic biology, and how variability in the human population mediates the potential impacts.
Any objective reading of the new law would lead one to expect, therefore, that the breadth and depth of EPA’s chemical risk evaluations would grow considerably. And for most of the first year after passage of the new law, that was where things appeared to be heading.
Enter the Pruitt EPA.
A year ago EPA issued its final rule governing risk evaluations that was a 180° turn from its earlier proposed rule, by asserting sweeping authority to ignore known conditions of use and the resulting exposures to dangerous chemicals, including exposures to workers or consumers and exposures to chemicals like asbestos that are still in widespread use though not domestically manufactured. The rule closely mirrors the chemical industry’s wish list, not surprising since it was drafted by an EPA political appointee that had arrived fresh from the American Chemistry Council. The industry’s interest is simple: The fewer exposures to a chemical EPA looks at, the more likely it is to find those it does look at safe.
The final rule strays so far from the law that EDF and 14 other health, labor and environmental groups are challenging the rule in court.
But EPA has now applied that rule to specific chemicals – and the results are even worse than expected. Last month, EPA issued so-called “problem formulations” for the first 10 chemicals it is charged with evaluating under reformed TSCA. They represent an astounding retreat from both the spirit and the letter of the law as well as from use of the best available science.
I’ll use the rest of this post to describe one of these 10 documents for a chemical called 1,4-dioxane. EPA classifies 1,4-dioxane as a likely human carcinogen; it’s also toxic to the liver, kidney, and central nervous system as well as to aquatic plants and invertebrates. This chemical is produced for intentional use as an industrial solvent; in adhesives and sealants; in wood pulping; in animal and vegetable oil extraction; in textile processing; and for many more uses. It is also present as a byproduct contaminant in many products, including detergents and other cleaning products, and cosmetics and other personal care products such as deodorants and shampoos.
Exposures can occur through direct contact with the chemical by workers in industrial facilities making or using the chemical, or from contact with commercial products or processes using it. Consumers using products where the chemical is present as a byproduct contaminant can also be exposed. Exposures can also occur through the environment: EPA estimates that 700,000 pounds of the chemical are released every year into air, water and waste, which can in turn lead to exposures of both humans and other animals and plants.
So, which of these exposures will EPA be examining in conducting its risk evaluation for 1,4-dioxane? In this case, it’s more telling to examine the much longer list of exposures EPA will NOT look at – those it will formally exclude from its risk evaluation, based on the authority it illegally claims to have under the new law.
First, EPA will not consider any exposures to consumers. None. It argues that the myriad consumer exposures to the chemical as a byproduct contaminant in everyday products don’t count, because they are not “intended conditions of use.” But recall the law requires that EPA look at known and reasonably foreseen, as well as intended, uses of a chemical.
EPA will also exclude worker exposures to the chemical where it is a contaminant in industrial or commercial products they use in their jobs.
The chemical and formulated products industries pushed hard for EPA to exclude any consideration of the chemical as a byproduct (see here, here and here), and they won. EPA says it may look at byproduct exposures at some point in the future, when it gets around to looking at the parent chemicals that give rise to 1,4-dioxane as a byproduct. But that future look, if and when it happens, will be done in isolation from other exposures to the same chemical, and hence won’t represent people’s actual exposure to 1,4-dioxane.
Second, EPA will ignore all emissions of the chemical into the aircoming from all commercial and industrial stationary sources, and all associated inhalation exposures of the general population or terrestrial species. To justify this sweeping exclusion, EPA goes farther even than it did in its final risk evaluation rule. It asserts that the existence of authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to regulate 1,4-dioxane suffices to assume that the known air emissions – an estimated 135,000 pounds annually – pose no risk whatsoever. Yet the CAA regulates only certain industrial sources of the chemical, and does so using a technology, not health-based, standard.
EPA devotes two short paragraphs to dismissing these exposures and risks. It has not conducted any assessment of the breadth or effectiveness of the CAA standards or the risks posed by the emissions that are legally allowed under those standards. It ignores Congress’ clear mandate to consider those exposures in combination with other exposures to the same chemical. Finally, it illegally moves to the very front of the risk evaluation process a step – consideration of whether other legal authorities could be used to address a risk – that Congress required EPA to undertake only at the very end, after considering all of the risks a chemical presents in completing its risk evaluation.
Third, EPA will ignore all exposures through drinking water, because of the mere existence of the Safe Drinking Water Act. There is no National Primary Drinking Water regulation for 1,4-dioxane; it is only present on the “Contaminant Candidate List” (CCL), which EPA itself describes as a “list of unregulated contaminants.” Many more steps have to be taken to actually regulate a CCL chemical, which have not been taken for 1,4-dioxane. An estimated 561,000 pounds of the chemical are released to water every year. Recent monitoring by EPA found that 7% of public water systems nationwide serving more than 7 million Americans in 27 states were contaminated with 1,4-dioxane at levels exceeding the level EPA has found to increase the risk of cancer by one per million people, the level EPA generally aims to meet for general population exposures. Here again, EPA assumes all of these exposures pose zero risk.
Fourth, EPA will ignore all exposures arising from wastes. That excludes exposures to the chemical when it is present in hazardous wastes as well as other industrial and municipal wastes. It excludes exposures from waste handling, storage, and transport. It excludes releases from landfills, injection wells, surface impoundments, and incinerators. All of these exclusions are based on the existence of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates some of these disposal facilities. Some are regulated by individual states, however, and even EPA acknowledges: “States may also establish additional requirement [sic] such as for liners, post-closure and financial assurance, but are not required to do so.” EPA even cites data demonstrating 1,4-dioxane has been detected in landfill leachate. Nonetheless, EPA concludes: “Therefore, EPA does not expect to include this pathway in the risk evaluation.”
I could go on. The document includes numerous further exclusions or conclusions of negligible risk that are based on cursory calculations, assumptions or judgments, with little or no documentation or analysis.
What’s left after all this? EPA intends at this point to examine only occupational exposures directly arising from the industrial and commercial uses of 1,4-dioxane it has identified. No consumer or general population exposures will be examined further.
But even that limited scope is at risk. Recall that EPA’s risk evaluation rule asserts authority to ignore occupational risks based on the existence of OSHA – something the chemical industry is pushing hard for EPA to do.
Lest you think I am describing an outlier, most of the problem formulations for the other nine chemicals have very similar exclusions. And EPA’s documents indicate still more exclusions may be forthcoming as it conducts its risk evaluations.
The new TSCA was supposed to restore public confidence in our chemical safety system, by driving robust assessments of chemical risks using the best available science. Instead, under this Administration EPA is taking steps to render implementation of the new law toothless and in some ways weaker than the old TSCA Congress just fixed. All with the aim of elevating narrow industry financial interests over public health, which will suffer severely as a result.
http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/07/05/how-pruitts-epa-finds-a-dangerous-chemical-is-safe-ignore-most-exposures-to-it/
-
EPA Consults on Draft IRIS Assessment Plan for Naphthalene
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The US EPA has announced a consultation on its draft IRIS assessment plan for naphthalene. The 30-day public comment period began 5 July and ends 6 August. This is in advance of a public science webinar planned on 23 August.
The assessment plan outlines objectives and type of evidence considered most relevant to address scoping needs.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68300/epa-consults-on-draft-iris-assessment-plan-for-naphthalene
-
DOJ Argues ATSDR Action Moots PFAS Litigation
Jul 5, 2018 | Inside EPA
The Department of Justice (DOJ) is alerting a federal appeals court to recent action by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that DOJ says strengthens its position that the Superfund law's bar on challenges to cleanup decisions prohibits Pennsylvania residents from seeking medical monitoring from the Navy.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit heard oral argument earlier this year in the consolidated appeals of Kristen Giovanni, et al., and Dorothy Palmer, et al. v. Navy, where the plaintiffs are asking the appeals court to overturn a lower court's rulings that dismissed their cases as being prohibited under section 113(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Superfund law, which bars pre-enforcement judicial review of cleanup decisions.
The plaintiffs were exposed to two per- and polyfluoroakyl substances (PFAS) -- perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonate -- that have been linked to several latent and serious diseases, including cancer. They want the court to require the Navy to fund medical monitoring of their exposure to PFAS, which originated at military facilities and argue the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act allows them to bypass the service's sovereign immunity and other defenses against the claims they brought under state law.
In a July 3 letter, DOJ informs the court that since oral argument, ATSDR has funded the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials to support the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s assessment of health information in the communities surrounding the military facilities.
“Specifically, ATSDR has supported the implementation of a 'pilot biomonitoring program for residents in Bucks and Montgomery Counties,' where plaintiffs reside,” DOJ says. “As we explained in our response brief, health assessment and surveillance activities conducted by ATSDR 'fall within the statutory definition of removal actions,'” and therefore fall under the 113(h) bar, the letter says
The ATSDR-funded PFAS biomonitoring pilot intends to randomly select approximately 400 residents in three Pennsylvania communities for inclusion in the study, according to a May 1 ATSDR letter DOJ includes with its message to the court.
“Because plaintiffs seek an order requiring the Navy to perform medical monitoring, blood testing, and a health assessment or health effects study, . . .they challenge ongoing actions taken by ATSDR and other federal agencies,” DOJ says. Therefore, the district court was correct in finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law challenge to these ongoing actions taken by federal agencies under CERCLA, DOJ says.
https://insideepa.com/daily-feed/doj-argues-atsdr-action-moots-pfas-litigation
-
UN Publishes List of Identified Endocrine Disruptors
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Leigh Stringer
The UN has published a list of chemicals that, having gone through at least one "thorough scientific assessment", have been identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals or potential EDCs.
The list – which totals 45 substances under 18 chemical groups including phthalates, bisphenols and parabens – is presented in one of three reports. The aim of these is to give a global overview of the initiatives, policies and scientific knowledge around identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals.
In 2016, UN Environment commissioned the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) – a global network of scientists established in 2008 – to review existing scientific knowledge of environmental exposure and effects, as well as regulatory frameworks and policy initiatives, on EDCs.
The IPCP evaluated 28 different approaches and then based its list on substances reviewed under three of them. These were:the EU's candidate list of substances of very high concern (SVHCs);NGO ChemSec's Substitute-It-Now (SIN) List; andan evaluation carried out using the Danish EPA's criteria.
These initiatives, it says, have been identified as having used the most robust and transparent selection criteria, based on the WHO/IPCS 2002 definitions and selection processes (see box).
The list is presented in the second of the reports – Overview Report II.List of lists
The finalised reports and list of 45 EDCs have come out of a draft that was consulted on in 2016. This assessed 24 existing EDC lists and suggested 77 substances warranting further scrutiny.
However, the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) called for UN Environment to withdraw, or significantly revise, the draft because it disputed the use of lists to identify actual and potential EDCs as lacking scientific reliability and robustness. NGOs on the other hand urged the UN body to use it as a basis for an official list.
Since then, drafts of the three reports were reviewed at a meeting organised by UN Environment in April 2017, with representatives from governments, industry, NGOs and academia. Different approaches
Report one, Worldwide initiatives to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and potential EDCs, says substantial efforts have been made by a wide variety of stakeholders across sectors worldwide in identifying and categorising EDCs.
However, it continues, the intended purpose and scope of these initiatives, the criteria and processes used to develop them, and the information they provide to the public may differ considerably.
"Consequently, individual initiatives can result in varied recognitions and associated actions or recommendations for the same chemicals, which can be challenging for stakeholders, not familiar with the details of these initiatives, to comprehend."
In total, more than 1,000 chemicals have been identified as EDCs, or potential EDCs, across all of the reviewed activities. As they "have variability in the processes and assessment criteria used, the numbers of chemicals identified differ across each of [them]," it says.
The report also makes comparisons, which "highlight inconsistencies" in methods used, the lack of input from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, and the need for further clarification of their meaning and purpose.
The third report provides an overview of existing national, regional and global regulatory frameworks and policy efforts that address EDCs. Its key observation is that publicly accessible information on existing frameworks – such as documents and websites – is often scattered, complex and/or inconsistently linked or referenced.
"The terminology and characteristics, such as scope, approach and processes, can differ considerably across existing explicit regulatory frameworks," it says.
After much debate and controversy,the European Commission adopted criteria to identify EDCs in plant protection products (PPPs) in April. WHO/IPCP EDCs definition
An endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC), according to the widely recognised WHO definition (WHO-IPCS) of 2002, is "an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations".
https://chemicalwatch.com/68296/un-publishes-list-of-identified-endocrine-disruptors
-
European Commission Seeks Public Comments on EDC Roadmap
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
The European Commission is seeking comments on a roadmap for an initiative on a more comprehensive EU framework on endocrine disruptors.
The current strategy on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) dates back to 1999. Last year, the Commission announced that it would begin work on a "comprehensive framework" on EDCs.
According to the roadmap, the initiative will take stock of progress achieved so far and identify areas where further action needs to be taken. It may include actions on:addressing knowledge gaps;linking science and regulation; andglobal cooperation.
"Endocrine disruption is a subject of extraordinary complexity," says the roadmap document.
But one comment from Italy's National Institute of Health (ISS) suggests removing this phrase. "It seems to recall a hopeless situation which might be dealt with only either through straight precaution or by overlooking the problem," says Alberto Mantovani, from the Institute.
He also suggests that the roadmap should look towards a "broader international cooperation" with countries or regions that are major players in the global market but which have a limited presence in the international debate on EDCs.
NGOs have yet to submit roadmap comments. However, Ninja Reineke from CHEM Trust told Chemical Watch that the roadmap does not mention the commitment in the EU's 7th Environment Action Programme to minimise exposures to endocrine disruptors.
"Any comprehensive EU framework must have this as the overall goal and then set out measures with timelines to achieve this goal," she said. "We need specific actions for closing current policy gaps, such as in the regulation of EDCs in food contact materials, and there must be a clear plan for speeding up the identification of EDCs and for regulating mixtures."
Now that criteria for identifying EDCs have been agreed for biocides and pesticides, the Commission is coming under increasing pressure to take broader action.
In May, a coalition of more than 70 health and environmental NGOs called on the Commission to publish its strategy on EDCs before the summer.
That same month, at an event organised jointly by NGO the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) and European Parliament's environment committee vice-chair Pavel Poc, several MEPs, government representatives and scientists also called for an updated strategy.
Speaking at the meeting, Henrik Søren Larsen from Denmark's Ministry of Environment and Food outlined a need for a strategy to test and assess all suspected EDCs and a "holistic" approach to EDC risk management under different regulations.
The deadline for feedback on the roadmap is 19 July 2018.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68295/european-commission-seeks-public-comments-on-edc-roadmap
-
Downstream Users Raise Concerns over Siloxanes SVHC Decision
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
By Tammy Lovell
European trade groups representing downstream users of silicones have raised concerns with Echa’s decision to add three siloxanes to the REACH candidate list of substances of very high concern.
Octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane (D4), decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) were recently added to the list due to their persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) and very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) properties.
The substances are used as monomers in the manufacture of silicone polymers and are therefore present as impurities in sealants. They are also an ingredient in silicone mixtures used in cosmetic applications such as skin creams and deodorants.
Personal care trade group, Cosmetics Europe, and the British Sealants and Adhesives Association (BASA) say the decision could impact their markets now and in the future.
A spokesperson for Cosmetics Europe told Chemical Watch that it would result "not only in additional legal obligations but also a highly negative perception of these substances and rising pressure to use alternatives".
BASA secretary general, Lorna Williams, said that if the SVHC status leads to authorisation it could "impact European manufacturing of silicone sealant".
Echa assesses the substances added to the candidate list to determine which should be included in the authorisation list, a measure under REACH that aims to ensure that SVHCs are replaced.
BASA, she said, would be closely monitoring the situation.‘No immediate impact’
Ms Williams added that although authorisation would cause problems, the decision to add the siloxanes to the candidate list "should not have any immediate impact for the UK silicone sealant industry, due to the already low impurity levels in the existing sealant formulation".
The Association of the European Adhesive and Sealant Industry (Feica) said levels of byproduct siloxanes are "already low in the silicone products used by sealant producers and are further reduced by the addition of other chemicals during formulation of the final products."
Feica secretary general, Philip Bruce, said: "The silicones industry will continue to work closely with regulatory authorities to ensure that silicones can continue to be used with confidence."Disappointment
Cosmetics Europe said it was "disappointed" with the decision to identify them as SVHCs, "despite the scientific evidence showing that these unique chemicals behave differently in the environment from what is predicted under the current PBT and vPvB REACH criteria."
BASA's Ms Williams said: "We feel that greater notice should be taken of the environmental assessment by other countries, like Canada and Australia, which have concluded that no product concentration restrictions are needed."‘Victory for science’
Meanwhile, NGO the European Environmental Bureau has welcomed Echa’s decision as "a victory for science and EU citizens at a time when science-based decision making and safety are sidelined by vested interests."
EEB's senior policy officer, Tatiana Santos, disputed industry claims that the siloxanes have little impact on the environment and human health.
"The authorities have scrutinised all available scientific information and rightly concluded that the new data did not invalidate the previous conclusions," she told Chemical Watch.
She added that if the siloxanes were to enter the authorisation list (REACH Annex XIV), and industry claims that they are of beneficial use to society and no safer alternatives exist were true, they would "very easily get an authorisation granted", she said.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68292/downstream-users-raise-concerns-over-siloxanes-svhc-decision
-
Jul 5, 2018 | Chemical Watch
Authorisation application fees adjusted
The European Commission has revised the fees for REACH authorisation applications to encourage companies to apply together. While Echa will continue to charge an unchanged base fee covering the applications for one substance and one use, fees for additional uses have increased. The revised fees take better account of the amount of work involved in assessing the applications, the agency says. On the other hand, it adds, no fees will be charged for additional applicants – previously they had to pay 75% of the base fee. If companies are of a different size, the highest applicable fee will be levied. In the new Fee Regulation, each additional use increases the fee by 90% from the base fee, compared with the earlier increase of 20%. Product categorisation system guide published
Echa has published a guide to the European product categorisation system (EuPCS).
It is intended to provide support to industry over the harmonisation of information for the purposes of Article 45 and Annex VIII to the classification, labelling and packaging (CLP) Regulation.
The guide focuses on:explaining the principles and purpose of the EuPCS;providing detailed descriptions of individual product categories; andhighlighting those product categories where special consideration is required.Materials from EUSES tool workshop available
The presentations and recordings from Echa's workshop reviewing the EUSES tool are now available online.
The aim of the June workshop was to look at the tool's environmental exposure assessment of chemicals and find out how to best update it to support regulatory assessment under REACH and the biocidal products Regulation.Video on preparing a CSR
Echa has released an animation to help registrants to prepare a chemical safety report and keep it up to date. It advises on what needs to be considered to assess a chemical's safety and where more information can be found.
https://chemicalwatch.com/68272/echa-round-up
-
E.P.A. Drafts Rule on Coal Plants to Replace Clean Power Plan
Jul 5, 2018 | The New York Times
By Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer
The Trump administration has drafted a new proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, one that is far less stringent than the climate plan finalized in 2015 by former President Barack Obama.
In writing the new rule to replace Mr. Obama’s Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration is essentially accepting, for now, that the federal government is legally obligated to take action to address the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, even as President Trump has dismissed established climate science. But the new proposal is likely to spur only small tweaks to the nation’s energy system.
Details of the plan, which is being drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and is expected to be sent to the White House for approval in coming days, were described to The New York Times by industry officials who have worked closely with the agency to shape the rule.
Allison D. Wood, a partner at Hunton & Williams who represents several electric utilities, described it as “very significant” that the administration was putting forward a regulation that acknowledged the obligation to regulate planet-warming emissions.
ADVERTISEMENT
The proposal, according to industry attorneys familiar with the plan, would recommend regulating the emissions of individual coal plants, which would call for modest upgrades, such as improving efficiency or substituting fuel. That contrasts with the more ambitious goals of the Clean Power Plan, which encouraged utilities to make broader systemic changes to cut emissions, such as switching from coal to natural gas or renewable power.
The move comes as Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the E.P.A., faces fresh questions about his tenure. Mr. Pruitt is the subject of 13 federal investigations into his ethics, spending and management practices. John F. Kelly, the White House chief of staff, has urged his departure. Still, Mr. Pruitt enjoys a strong relationship with President Trump. If Mr. Pruitt were to resign, several people close to him said, it would likely be on a high note after a significant regulatory victory.
A new plan to address emissions from power plants might, perhaps incongruously, fit that bill.
Last October, when Mr. Pruitt announced that he would formally repeal the Clean Power Plan, industry leaders applauded the move. But behind the scenes, they also urged Mr. Pruitt to put forward a replacement, preferably one far weaker than the original.
The reasoning was twofold. Many companies worried that simply repealing the climate rule without offering a substitute would not hold up in court — and could leave an opening for even tougher regulations under a future Democratic president. But some companies also wanted to signal that they took climate change seriously.
“The climate issue is, we think, here to stay, so we do think it makes sense to have some sort of regulation,” said John M. McManus, senior vice president of environmental services at American Electric Power, one of the country’s biggest electric companies.EDITORS’ PICKSYou Can’t Hurt Lindsay Lohan NowHow Conservatives Weaponized the First AmendmentA Family in Transition
ADVERTISEMENT
For months, Mr. Pruitt — who had made a name for himself as attorney general of Oklahoma for opposing Mr. Obama’s climate policies — was skeptical of the benefit of crafting a replacement. Robert E. Murray, a mining executive and a longtime Trump donor, asserted that the E.P.A. should instead challenge the entire legal foundation for regulating greenhouse gases, a 2009 agency ruling known as the endangerment finding.
“Virtually everyone who cares about this issue has argued otherwise,” said Jeffrey R. Holmstead, a partner at the firm Bracewell and a former E.P.A. air chief. “Industry believes the E.P.A. has an obligation to regulate CO₂ from power plants, and they would be better off with a replacement rule.”ImageScott Pruitt, the E.P.A. chief.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times
Ultimately, Mr. Pruitt chose that path, and the E.P.A. crafted a new plan that would technically regulate carbon dioxide without forcing major changes on the industry. Among other things, the new proposal would give states significant leeway in enforcing the rules. Industry attorneys said they expected it to borrow elements from a proposal Mr. Pruitt himself drafted for Oklahoma in 2014, in the course of challenging the Obama administration’s plan.
Michael Abboud, an E.P.A. spokesman, declined a request to discuss the proposal.
In a statement, Mr. Murray said that he would have preferred to see the Clean Power Plan scrapped with no replacement, but that any new plan should ensure “reliable, low-cost and fuel-secure electricity in America” and preserve coal mining jobs.
Before joining the E.P.A., Andrew Wheeler, the current deputy E.P.A. administrator, worked as a lobbyist for Mr. Murray.
While details of the Trump administration’s proposal are not yet public, in the past environmental groups have argued that a narrower regulation would bring little to no benefit for the climate or clean air.
ADVERTISEMENT
The original Obama-era Clean Power Plan aimed to cut emissions from the nation’s power plants roughly 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. But as market forces have pushed hundreds of coal plants into retirement and as wind and solar power have become cheaper, many states are now on track to exceed those initial targets even in the absence of federal regulation. As a result, many environmentalists contend that the original rules were too weak, not too aggressive.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/clean-power-plan-replacement.html
-
Ineos Says New European Ethane Cracker to Benefit from U.S. Natural Gas
Jul 5, 2018 | Natural Gas Intelligence
By Jamison Cocklin
Global petrochemical giant Ineos said Tuesday it plans to invest more than $3 billion to build a world scale ethane cracker and propane dehydrogenation unit in northwest Europe to take better advantage of U.S. natural gas supplies.
Ineos said the facility would be Europe’s first new cracker in two decades. Both units, the company said, would “benefit from U.S. shale gas economics.”
The company, which already operates crackers in the region in Scotland and Norway, said a site would soon be determined, likely somewhere on northwest Europe’s coast. The facility is expected to be completed within four years.
“This new project will increase Ineos self-sufficiency in all key olefin products and give further support to our derivatives business and polymer plants in Europe,” said Chairman Gerd Franken, of Ineos’ olefins and polymers north business. “All our assets will benefit from our ability to import competitive raw materials” from the United States and the rest of the world.
The company has long-term supply agreements with several unconventional gas producers, particularly those operating in the Appalachian Basin. Ineos became the first European company to contract for U.S. shale gas feedstock in 2012 in an agreement with Marcellus Shale heavyweight Range Resources Corp.
Ineos delivered the first U.S. gas to Europe in 2016, a shipment of Appalachian ethane that was picked up at the Marcus Hook Industrial Complex near Philadelphia. The company also takes deliveries from the only other ethane export facility in the country, Enterprise Products Partners LP’s Morgan’s Point terminal on the Houston Ship Channel.
Ineos operates plastics manufacturing facilities at sites across the country, including those in California, Texas and New Mexico. It also formed a partnership five years ago with Sasol Ltd. to build a high-density polyethylene plant at its Battleground Manufacturing Complex in La Porte, TX.
“This new investment builds on the huge investment we made in bringing U.S. shale gas to Europe and will ensure the long-term future of our European chemical plants,” Ineos founder Jim Ratcliffe said.
Before it accepted ethane exports from the United States, Ineos expanded its Rafnes site in Norway and its Grangemouth cracker site in Scotland to provide more ethane storage to feed those plants, among other improvements. Tuesday’s announcement comes after another decision by Ineos last year to increase the capacity of its existing crackers.
http://www.naturalgasintel.com/articles/114943-ineos-says-new-european-ethane-cracker-to-benefit-from-us-natural-gas
-
Jul 5, 2018 | The Wall Street Journal
By Ryan Dezember
You may not have noticed it when buying propane for that Fourth of July barbecue, but the cooking fuel’s price has risen by more than half over the last year.
Prices of propane have been on a tear over the last three years, more than doubling to about 95 cents a gallon at the main U.S. trading hub in Mont Belvieu, Texas. That’s a far sharper rise than the much-ballyhooed 30% climb in U.S. crude prices over the same period, and no contest compared with the generally flat shares of energy producers and natural-gas prices.
Beyond grilling, propane is used in heating and the manufacturing of chemicals. It is an unheralded bounty of the shale boom. Like natural gas and crude oil, propane has been produced in record volumes by shale drillers, as The Wall Street Journal’s Markets newsletter noted on Thursday.
But the ease at which the liquid fuel is bottled and shipped abroad has enabled producers to sell propane extracted in Ohio and Oklahoma to places like China and Japan. It typically fetches higher prices in those export markets.
The U.S. was a net importer of propane until 2010. In 2013, it overtook Qatar as the world’s top exporter. Back home, abundant supplies depressed prices, which made exports even more enticing for producers and encouraged the construction of shipping facilities.
By 2016, the U.S. was selling more propane abroad than the next four largest exporters combined, elbowing aside OPEC members Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and Nigeria in important Asian markets, such as China, where propane is used in vast quantities to make plastics, which are often sent back to the U.S. in the form of autoparts, computer components and plastic bags.
Many shipments from the Mideast have landed instead in India, where government subsidies have encouraged its use instead of wood and cow dung for cooking.
China’s threat to place retaliatory 25% tariffs on U.S. exports, including propane, starting Friday could shake up trade patterns and reduce U.S. prices, though. Chinese traders, who are the third biggest foreign buyers of U.S. propane after those in Japan and Mexico, are likely to turn to cheaper barrels from the Mideast while displaced U.S. shipments are sent to other trade partners, said Debnil Chowdhury, of energy consultancy IHS Markit Ltd.
Mr. Chowdhury estimates that a 25% Chinese tariff could reduce U.S. propane prices by between 5% and 10% at a time when supply is already outpacing demand domestically and abroad. He and other analysts believe propane’s bull run is petering out.
“U.S. propane market has gone from strength to weakness,” Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts wrote in a recent research report. They noted that U.S. producers were able to erase a big price-boosting supply deficit this spring in a matter of weeks.
Since propane is a byproduct of both oil drilling and refining, stronger crude prices likely mean increased production. Unless domestic demand strengthens or additional exports facilities are opened, the fireworks may soon end for propane.
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2018/07/05/propane-prices-are-fired-up/
-
China Keeps LNG Off Tariff List for Now, Could Be Trade Weapon Later
Jul 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Meng Meng and Aizhu Chen
China's omission of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its vast list of U.S. products that face hefty import duties from Friday has preserved a potential weapon should the trade war with Washington deepen.
It also underscores Beijing's desire to ensure supplies of gas as it pushes to switch millions of households and businesses away from using coal as a key part of its 'war on pollution'.
China will on Friday impose tariffs on $34 billion of U.S. goods from pork to soybeans to cotton in retaliation for a similar move by Washington as trade relations sour between the world's top two economies.
"If the (trade) war escalates, (I expect) the government will not hesitate to add LNG," a state oil and gas company executive said, declining to be identified due to the sensitivity of the issue.
ADVERTISEMENT
Although U.S. LNG supplies to China have so far been tiny in volume and value compared with the around $12 billion per year of U.S. crude that arrives in the country, analysts say those levels could be set to shoot up as Beijing forges ahead with its battle to clear its skies.
Morgan Stanley has estimated annual Chinese imports of U.S. LNG could rise to as much as $9 billion within two or three years, from $1 billion in 2017. The amount could be even larger if the United States resolves a logistics bottleneck.
That would go a long way to helping balance China's trade surplus with the United States, a major bugbear of Washington's in the trade dispute. But the strategy also hands Beijing another weapon in its arsenal if the spat deteriorates further.
China's Commerce Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
However, some industry sources said the country would feel the impact of any increased tariffs on U.S. LNG, as there are a limited number of major alternative suppliers.
"If we impose tariffs on U.S. LNG, we pay a much higher opportunity cost," Mei Xinyu, a researcher at a think tank affiliated with the Commerce Ministry told Reuters.EDITORS’ PICKSLasik’s Risks Are Greater Than Many Patients RealizeHow Conservatives Weaponized the First AmendmentThe Most Powerful Conservative Donors You’ve Never Heard Of
ADVERTISEMENT
"It is easier for China to switch into other suppliers in the soybean market. Duties on soybeans hurt the U.S. more, but duties on energy products would hurt both sides."
At a meeting between the government and China's three oil and gas majors ahead of U.S. President's visit to the country last September, the companies underlined that China would have limited alternative sources for LNG imports, an official from one of the firms told Reuters.
"The conclusion at that time was that U.S. oil is not competitive," the official said. "In the gas market, we don't have much choice, mainly Qatar, Australia and the U.S."
And China is eager to avoid any repeat of last winter's gas crunch, when plunging temperatures drove people to crank up their heating amid the moves to turn away from coal.
Domestic natural gas demand rose 17.6 percent in the first five months of 2018, way above government forecasts of an annual growth rate of 7 or 8 percent, data from National Development and Reform Commission showed.
"With domestic gas production restrained, we need to expand imports to meet the target of having natural gas account for a 10-percent share of the energy consumption basket," said Wang Haohao, gas analyst with Zibo Longzhong Information Group.
"We need U.S. LNG out of energy security considerations," she added.
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/07/05/business/05reuters-usa-trade-china-gas.html
-
Shell CEO Says 'Foolhardy' to Set Carbon Reduction Targets
Jul 5, 2018 | Reuters (In The New York Times)
By Ron Bousso
Royal Dutch Shell's boss said it would be "foolhardy" for the oil and gas producer to set hard targets to reduce carbon emissions as it risked exposing the energy giant to legal challenges.
The energy industry has struggled in recent years to find a clear path to secure its role as the world shifts from fossil fuels in order to meet the 2015 Paris climate agreement goals.
Shell Chief Executive Officer Ben van Beurden last year set out ambitions last year to halve its carbon emissions by 2050, far exceeding rivals. But the Dutch CEO resisted calls by activists and some investors to set binding targets.
"It would be somewhat foolhardy to put ourselves in a legal bind by saying these are the targets we will adopt," van Beurden said at a company event.
ADVERTISEMENT
"Before we put ourselves at the mercy of a legal challenge, I want to make sure we are doing the right thing first."
Van Beurden, a vocal proponent of the world's need to meet the Paris goals, urged investors to trust him.
"You have to believe us that setting an ambition, sticking my neck out, my personal reputation, the reputation of the company, is a big enough incentive to get it right," he told reporters.
LAWSUITS
Oil companies have faced a growing number of legal challenges over climate change in recent years.
On Monday, the U.S. state of Rhode Island sued several major oil companies, including Exxon Mobil Corp , Shell and BP, accusing them of contributing to climate change that is damaging infrastructure and coastal communities.EDITORS’ PICKSAthens, RisingHow the Koch Brothers Are Killing U.S. Public Transit ProjectsThermostats, Locks and Lights: Digital Tools of Domestic Abuse
ADVERTISEMENT
BP this year announced plans to keep carbon emissions from its operations flat until 2025. But BP CEO Bob Dudley echoed van Beurden's concerns at the company's annual general meeting in May and refused to disclose details of the plan.
"You want to get us to make statements here in front of you that you can document that will lead to a class action," Dudley said in response to a question from a shareholder.
Shell spends the most among the world's top oil and gas companies on low-carbon energies, investing up to $2 billion per year in renewables and clean fuel technology, out of a total spending budget of $25 billion to $30 billion per year.
"It is more sensible to say we will go faster than society, we will catch up with society on its way to meeting Paris," van Beurden said on Thursday.
"It is a very clear ambition, we will articulate this ambitions in steps as we go along the way. We will be totally transparent."
https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018/07/05/business/05reuters-shell-carbon.html
-
Trump Touts 'Indestructible' Coal, and Gas Industry Fumes
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Hannah Northey
President Trump has a new talking point in his "Make America Great Again" tour: Gas pipelines are vulnerable to cyberattacks, and coal is "indestructible."
Trump talked up coal during a speech in West Virginia on Tuesday, telling a charity dinner for veterans that the nation's struggling coal sector is making a comeback in the name of national security.
"You bomb a pipeline, that's the end of the pipeline," Trump said. "With coal, that stuff is indestructible."
Trump also nodded to West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, whose family owns and operates a coal mining business. In recent months, the Republican governor has been pitching Trump a plan for a $15-per-ton subsidy for coal mined in northern and central Appalachia — West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee (Greenwire, June 27).
"You can move it around on a truck, you can dump it at the plant, you can do whatever the hell ... right, Jim? It can rain like crazy ... snow, sleet, wind," Trump said.
"You hit those pipelines, and they're gone. That's the end of it. For national security purposes, I don't think people talk about it enough."
The president's emphasis on coal as a national security asset aligns with leaked documents showing the White House is considering invoking federal laws to keep ailing coal and nuclear plants running.
Those documents rely on cyberthreats to natural gas pipelines as a basis for helping coal and nuclear power (E&ENews PM, May 18).
And yet the administration's strategy — echoed in repeated comments from Energy Secretary Rick Perry — is facing a challenge of justifying payments to coal and nuclear plants given a lack of support from grid operators and industry opponents. Industry sources say it's still unclear when — or how — DOE will respond to Trump's call for the department to stop the closure of coal plants and reactors.
The oil and gas sector is pushing back — to some extent.
An industry source said groups like the American Petroleum Institute are reaching out to explain and educate lawmakers and members of the Trump administration about cyber safeguards for natural gas pipelines.
And today, the head of nation's largest lobbying group for interstate pipelines shot back at the administration's national security assertions in an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle.
"Recent allegations by some that the natural gas industry is increasingly vulnerable to cyberattack are unsubstantiated and not based on any factual evidence," wrote Don Santa, president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
Santa defended the industry's track record on safety issues and said a Trump administration strategy that could cost taxpayers as much as $11.8 billion to support coal and nuclear plants is uneconomical and misses the mark.
"As [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] and others have pointed out, an attack on the electric grid is more likely, has real precedent, and would render fuel stockpiles meaningless," Santa wrote. "Meanwhile reports have indicated that nuclear plants themselves are becoming prime targets for hackers."
A number of recent events also undercut Trump's argument about coal's indestructible nature.
Frozen coal piles, for example, were cited as a major issue when a deep freeze hugged the northeastern United States in 2014, according to a report from federally appointed grid overseers.
And when Hurricane Harvey flooded the Texas Panhandle last year, waters saturated coal piles at one plant outside Houston and cut off rail deliveries to the power plant (Climatewire, Sept. 29, 2017).
Coal's woes also hit home at Trump's West Virginia appearance.
A coal company owned by Justice's family, Bluestone Energy Sales Corp., is entangled in a lawsuit involving breaches of agreements with a Pennsylvania coal marketing and logistics company, according to S&P Global. The company couldn't deliver the coal because of heavy rainfall that blasted West Virginia in May.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/05/stories/1060087941
-
US Refineries Persist in Using Toxic Acid, Despite Safer Alternatives
Jul 5, 2018 | Truthout
By Daniel Ross
Fifty refineries across the United States use hydrofluoric acid. Because this highly toxic substance can travel for miles in the form of a potentially fatal ground-hugging cloud, however, use of the chemical continues to prove highly controversial — rarely more so than now, given recent accidents at some of these refineries and potential rule changes that call into question the chemical’s long-term future in the oil refining industry.
In January 2017, California regulators announced that they were taking steps to potentially phase out a modified version of the acid being used at the two refineries in the state, but the rule is still being thrashed out, and it’s too soon to say whether an outright ban on hydrofluoric acid will be enacted there.
Hydrofluoric acid is used as a catalyst to transform crude oil into high-octane gasoline. If released into the environment in California, its ability to travel for miles would put at risk the densely populated neighborhoods surrounding both refineries in the South Bay region of Los Angeles.
Proponents of the status quo warn of the costs associated with switching to alternative processes, which could mean gasoline price spikes and plants potentially shuttered.
But Sally Hayati, president of the Torrance Refinery Action Alliance, a local community group pushing for hydrofluoric acid to be phased out, believes that industry is exaggerating the costs of moving away from the chemical, and warns of the potential consequences of allowing its continued use. The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is “bending too much to political and economic pressure by the refineries, and they’re not paying enough attention to their mandate to protect public safety,” she said about the agency responsible for the rule change. “There’s no other solution other than to get rid of [hydrofluoric acid].”
Much impetus for the ban stems from a February 2015 accident at the Torrance refinery, when weaknesses in the plant’s safety management system caused an explosion that catapulted a 40-ton chunk of debris which narrowly missed two settler tanks containing hydrofluoric acid. Had the massive hunk of metal struck the tanks, a worst-case-scenario release could have put hundreds of thousands of people at risk of injury.
Many are worried about more than just the plant’s safety record, however. Hayati, an engineering Ph.D., recently sent the AQMD a report that highlights how both plants are a major security risk, susceptible to targeted attacks by terrorists both from the ground and from the air.
An Air Quality Management District spokesperson confirmed that Hayati’s findings will be reviewed as part of the rule-making process. And if facilities that store large quantities of hydrofluoric acid are innately vulnerable to a terrorist attack, Hayati’s findings reverberate nationally. That’s because nearly 18 million people are estimated to be at risk in the event of worst-case scenario releases at the refineries across the US that still use hydrofluoric acid or modified hydrofluoric acid.
Modified hydrofluoric acid uses an additive that limits the chemical’s ability to form an aerosol cloud. It’s a major sticking point in the debate surrounding the proposed rule in California — industry figures argue that it’s the safest affordable option, among them Kim Nibarger, head of the United Steel Workers (USW) oil union, who said there is “not a lot of research or test results to prove or disprove the claims” made about modified hydrofluoric acid’s dangers.DONATE
Don't trust corporate media? Neither do we.
Make a monthly tax-deductible donation to Truthout and support accurate, independent journalism.Nearly 18 million people are estimated to be at risk in the event of worst-case scenario releases at the refineries across the US that still use hydrofluoric acid.
But many experts disagree. The use of modified hydrofluoric acid can reduce the “magnitude” of a release, but it still poses a “significant risk” to surrounding communities, said Ron White, a senior fellow with the Union of Concerned Scientists. In modifying the acid, “the intention is to reduce the scope of the release — it doesn’t make it less toxic,” said White, who explained that modified hydrofluoric acid is almost as volatile as hydrofluoric acid in terms of relevant temperatures and pressures.
Viable alternatives to hydrofluoric acid — like ionic liquid catalysts — are “significantly safer” options, he said, adding that the cost of switching over to these safer alternatives can run into hundreds of millions of dollars, but the potential risks of not doing so are too great.
“It does not take a whole lot of [hydrofluoric acid] to cause death or severe health impacts,” White said. “Unfortunately, it could take a potentially disastrous release to really move this issue in a significant way. The thing is, the possibility under this administration for a positive response is unlikely.”
American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers failed to respond to multiple emailed requests for comment.The Deadly Risk of a Traveling Plume
For a number of years, serious doubts have been raised over the safety of these facilities and their preparedness for accidents and emergencies.
In 2011, the Center for Public Integrity published a damning series of reports on the safety records at a number of refineries, including those that use hydrofluoric acid and its modified version.
The series detailed multiple fires within months at Sunoco, Inc.’s oil refinery in Philadelphia, for example, and highlighted how such events can be “key indicators” of larger problems at the facility. In the five years prior to the investigative series, 32 of the 50 refineries had been cited for “willful, serious or repeated violations” of safety rules. Of those 32 refineries, inspectors found more than 1,000 separate violations.
USW, the largest industrial union in North America, subsequently published their own report titled “A Risk too Great,” which argued that refiners still using hydrofluoric acid have inadequate safety systems, and as a result, are unprepared for accidental releases.
Their analysis of safety records collected from a number of different federal agencies and industry organizations showed that there had been 131 hydrofluoric-acid-related incidents or near misses during the previous three years. At 16 of these sites, the most serious incidents either did or could have injured workers, the report found. Half of these serious incidents could have caused injuries to the people in the surrounding communities.Thirty-two of the 50 refineries had been cited for “willful, serious or repeated violations” of safety rules.
While the USW report describes modified hydrofluoric acid as a safer alternative to the unmodified chemical, it also explains that the modification of the acid “does not keep it from vaporizing and creating a traveling plume,” nor does it reduce its toxicity. “If the release was accompanied by a fire — and many refinery accidents involve fires — the vaporization of even modified [hydrofluoric acid] would be greatly increased,” the report adds. Indeed, the industry’s own material data sheets show that the chemical can form toxic clouds upon release, just like hydrofluoric acid.
Since those reports were published, accidents continue to occur at refineries where hydrofluoric acid is stored and used. In April, a fire at the Husky Energy oil refinery in Superior, Wisconsin, reportedly sent 17 people to hospital and forced mandatory evacuations in the surrounding community. A tank containing roughly 15,000 pounds of hydrogen fluoride was at risk, though it wasn’t compromised. The Chemical Safety Board, an independent federal agency tasked with investigating major chemical accidents, is currently looking into the incident.
Communities that live in the shadow of hydrofluoric acid refineries are now reflecting on their own safety history. EPA records identify 1.7 million people at risk of exposure to the chemical in the event of a worst-case disaster scenario at the Andeavor refinery in St. Paul, Minnesota. A trace amount of hydrofluoric acid was released in an incident at the refinery just this past April.
Experts also point to other risks associated with the chemical — including those that come with its transportation. According to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figures from 2009, nearly 30,000 tons of hydrofluoric acid is transported by truck every year, and more than 264,000 tons by rail.
Fred Millar, an independent chemical expert, believes that the possible risks associated with transporting the chemical have never been “looked at carefully,” but added that in the early 1990s, the South Coast Air Quality Management District board found the bulk transportation of hydrofluoric acid to the refineries posed “unacceptable disaster release” potentials in California. Because of this and other risks, he said, the board back then voted to phase out the chemical — a decision later overturned.
In his 2007 book, The Edge of Disaster, national security expert Stephen Flynn warns — in terms similar to Hayati’s — of the potential for terrorist attacks where hydrofluoric acid is stored in bulk. Critics also voice concern about the potential vulnerabilities of these facilities to cyber assaults — a concern heightened by the growing number of cyberattacks on the nation’s power grid.
In August 2017, a Saudi Arabian petrochemical company was the victim of a cyberattack that was meant to “sabotage the firm’s operations and trigger an explosion” at the company’s plant, The New York Timesreported. An explosion was averted only because of an error in the attacker’s computer code.
Paul Orum is an expert in chemical safety policy who has given multiple Congressional testimonies on the effectiveness of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program — an arm of the US Department of Homeland Security focused on high-risk chemical facilities. While the program requires facilities that fall under its umbrella to maintain certain standards of cyber security, he questions the rigorousness of this enforcement mechanism. At the end of the day, the program fails to take advantage of measures that would “reduce the target itself,” he said.
“In other words, reduce or remove the hazardous chemicals that serve as an attractive target for terrorists,” said Orum. “Otherwise, all you have to do is get your threat assessment wrong, and your security measures are obsolete.”Resistance to Safer Alternatives
Hovering over the issue is the delayed implementation of a rule designed to tighten safety procedures at facilities covered by the EPA’s Risk Management Plan.
Finalized and passed during the waning months of the Obama administration, the federal rule was also geared toward better protecting first responders and fenceline communities. But last year, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the agency would delay implementation of the new rule until February 2019. Then in May of this year, the EPA put out for public comment a series of changes to the Obama-era rule, rescinding some amendments and modifying others, including those related to things like information disclosure.
“Accident prevention is a top priority at EPA, and this proposed rule will ensure proper emergency planning and continue the trend of fewer significant accidents involving chemicals,” Pruitt is reported as saying in explanation of these latest changes.
The Obama-era Risk Management Plan rule changes included amendments related to safer technologies, ordering certain chemical manufacturers, refineries and pulp and paper mills to examine and consider safer alternatives where practical. Some experts point out that, when it comes to hydrofluoric acid, the amendment could have forced refineries to switch to safer chemical catalysts. It could have also required refineries to store smaller quantities of the chemical. But the EPA’s latest changes rescind the safer technologies amendment entirely.
According to Gordon Sommers, associate attorney with Earthjustice, it is “unbelievable that the EPA won’t even require companies to consider” whether safer alternatives to hydrofluoric acid exist. And many community groups point out that neighborhoods that sit in the shadow of these refineries are often unaware of the risks.
“The public, understandably, has many other things to worry about,” Denni Cawley, executive director of Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, told Truthout. “It often takes community organizations to make them aware.”
Other safer options do exist. Chevron’s refinery in Salt Lake City, Utah, is in the process of switching over from hydrofluoric acid to a new ionic liquids alkylation plant. “Once the Chevron plant’s up and running, I think people need to take a serious look at making the switch,” said USW’s Kim Nibarger.
The problem, said Paul Orum, is that refinery operators as a whole aren’t incentivized enough to make the switch unilaterally. “An innovation like that, nobody wants to be the first adapter — they want someone else to work all the bugs out first,” he said, highlighting the costs associated with adapting to safer technologies. One industry estimate pins the installation cost of a new sulfuric acid alkylation unit at the Torrance refinery in California at roughly $600 million, for example. Though it should be noted that critics argue that the industry’s estimates have been inflated.
Ultimately, said Orum, “change might take a major catalyst like a bad event, or some sort of regulatory driver.”
In California, where possible regulatory changes are currently playing out, Hayati is pinning her hopes on the new rule forcing refineries to go the way of Chevron. If it doesn’t, and the state’s two modified hydrofluoric acid-using refineries still employ the chemical when the Olympic Games roll around in 2028, the potential risks associated with a successful terrorist attack at either of the facilities during the event would be “absolutely catastrophic,” she warned. “The eyes of the world will be watching,” Hayati said. “And because of the false safety claims that have been made, there would be hell to pay.”
https://truthout.org/articles/us-refineries-persist-in-using-toxic-acid-despite-safer-alternatives/
-
Ozone Implementation Rule at White House for Review
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
EPA has sent a long-delayed final version of implementation regulations for its 2015 ground-level ozone standard to the White House Office of Management and Budget for review.
The rule, proposed in late 2016, is supposed to spell out requirements for states to follow in putting together cleanup plans for areas that are in nonattainment for the 70-parts-per-billion standard (E&E News PM, Nov. 2, 2016). EPA sent the final draft to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on Tuesday, according to the Reginfo.gov site.
The rule could also address the potential revocation of the previous 2008 ozone standard of 75 ppb and the "anti-backsliding requirements" that would ensue for some areas, EPA said in its most recent semiannual regulatory agenda. But that decision likely hinges on the final outcome of a lawsuit challenging an Obama-era rule for implementation of that 2008 standard.
In a February opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with environmentalists in ruling that EPA unlawfully weakened Clean Air Act protections when it revoked the 1997 ozone standard as part of that rule (Greenwire, Feb. 16).
EPA has since sought a panel rehearing (Greenwire, April 24). The D.C. Circuit has ordered the Conservation Law Foundation and other environmental groups involved in the litigation to weigh in by Aug. 1. EPA's response is then due Aug. 15, according to online court records.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/05/stories/1060087937
-
Court Revives Litigation over Ozone Standard
Jul 5, 2018 | E&E Greenwire
By Sean Reilly
After a hiatus lasting some 15 months, a federal appellate court is restarting legal proceedings in litigation over EPA's 2015 ground-level ozone standard.
In a one-page order issued late Tuesday following a motion from a coalition of Republican-leaning states, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit returned the consolidated lawsuits to its active docket, effective Aug. 1. The court also instructed EPA and a long lineup of plaintiffs to file motions by Aug. 22 "to govern future proceedings."
At the Trump administration's request, the court had thrown the consolidated litigation into abeyance in April of last year to give EPA time to review its position in defense of the 70-parts-per-billion standard set under President Obama. That ruling, rendered barely a week before oral arguments were to be held, came over the objections of public health and environmental groups challenging the standard as too weak.
In regularly filed status reports since then, however, EPA officials have furnished virtually no information on the progress of their review. Under orders from a separate court, they've meanwhile had to proceed with implementation of the 70 ppb standard. In asking the D.C. Circuit to lift the abeyance, Wisconsin and nine other states argued in May that they would otherwise effectively lose their right to contest the standard as overly stringent.
They asked the appeals court to either end the abeyance immediately or else let it expire by Aug. 1, with a goal of holding oral arguments in September (E&E News PM, May 18). In their response, EPA lawyers raised no objection to ending the abeyance next month, voicing hope that the agency by then will have made a decision on an administrative path forward that would provide a "more solid foundation to decide the appropriate" litigation path (Greenwire, June 11).
Ozone, a lung irritant that is the main ingredient in smog, is formed by the reaction of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in sunlight. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is supposed to review — and, if needed, revise — the standards for ozone and five other "criteria" pollutants every five years to assess whether any changes are needed to protect public health and the environment.
EPA had tightened its ozone standard from 75 ppb to 70 ppb in October 2015, citing the Clean Air Act's mandate to protect the public. As the Trump administration acknowledged, that step was undergirded by extensive risk and scientific assessments.
Rather than directly revisit a decision that's now almost 3 years old, EPA instead seems more focused on a fresh review of its ozone standard under new ground rules. On Tuesday, the agency sent the final version of the long-delayed rule to implement the 2015 threshold standard to the White House Office of Management and Budget for a standard review (see related story).
Under the terms of the new review launched late last month, an outside panel known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee will have to weigh in on any "adverse public health, welfare, social, economic or energy effects" that may result from setting a new standard or compliance with an existing one (Greenwire, June 25). Those ground rules, set by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt in May, also require completion of the review by October 2020. While that deadline is in keeping with the Clean Air Act, it means that the assessment must be conducted in less than 2 ½ years, an unusually compressed timetable.
At the administration's request, the D.C. Circuit last year also froze proceedings in two other major air pollution cases that were on the cusp of oral arguments. One of those revolves around EPA's handling of cost considerations in setting its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants; the other pertains to a requirement for states to end exemptions for violations stemming from plant startups, shutdowns and malfunctions (Greenwire, April 28, 2017). As of this morning, both of those cases remained in abeyance, according to online court records.
https://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2018/07/05/stories/1060087931
-
E-Waste Offers an Economic Opportunity as Well as Toxicity
Jul 5, 2018 | The New York Times Magazine
By Brook Larmer
The police raid on a junkyard on the outskirts of Bangkok had all the trappings of a drug bust. Swarming onto the open-air property in late May, officers from the Royal Thai Police found undocumented workers from Laos and Myanmar engaged in dangerous work that exposed them to blasts of toxic fumes and dust — a common hazard on the lowest rung of their illegal and booming international trade. The products these workers handled, however, were not heroin or methamphetamines but vast piles of discarded computers, electrical wires and circuit boards. And it’s very likely that much of this electronic waste came from one of the world’s biggest producers: the United States.
E-waste has become the world’s fastest-growing trash stream. For all of us who have discarded a phone or computer for a newer, sleeker model, the reasons are hardly a mystery. Still, the growth is staggering: The worldwide accumulation of e-waste has more than doubled in the last nine years. In 2016, according to the United Nations University, a global think tank that tracks the problem, the yearly accumulation reached 49.3 million tons — enough to fill more than a million 18-wheel trucks stretching from New York to Bangkok and back. By 2021, the annual total is predicted to surpass 57 million tons.
The explosion of e-waste highlights its dual (and dueling) identities as both environmental scourge and potential economic resource. Though often laced with lead, mercury or other toxic substances, laptops and phones also contain valuable elements like gold, silver and copper. Yet barely 20 percent of the world’s e-waste is collected and delivered to formal recyclers. The fate of the rest is largely unknown. Only 41 nations compile e-waste statistics, and their partial data can’t keep up with the expansion of electronic devices into so many consumer categories — toys and toilets, watches and refrigerators. In the United States, which generated an estimated 6.9 million tons of e-waste in 2016 (42 pounds per person), most e-waste probably goes straight into the trash. By one account, e-waste makes up just 2 percent of the total volume in American landfills — but more than two-thirds of heavy metals.
ADVERTISEMENT
Despite being the world’s second-largest producer — China recently claimed the top spot — the United States is the only developed country that hasn’t ratified the Basel Convention on hazardous waste, a treaty that restricts the exports of e-waste and that has the support of 186 parties. Moreover, the United States has no national law for managing e-waste, leaving the issue to the states. (Fifteen states still have no e-waste legislation in effect.) The European Union, by contrast, has some of the toughest enforcement of e-waste laws in the world, banning exports to developing countries and compelling manufacturers to help fund recycling. Europe’s recycling rates for electronics — around 35 percent overall — are much higher than the American rate. “The U.S. has always been the elephant in room that nobody wants to talk about,” says Deepali Sinha Khetriwal, a Mumbai-based research associate at the United Nations University. “Until it decides to play a part, we can’t really solve the problem of e-waste shipments.”ImageCreditAndrew Rae
A significant but ultimately unquantified portion of American e-waste is quietly exported, mostly to Asia. Until last year, China was handling an estimated 70 percent of the world’s processed e-waste. In January, Beijing imposed a sweeping ban on the import of e-waste as part of its “National Sword” campaign to slash the levels of what it calls “foreign garbage.” Though spurred by environmental concerns — rivers choked with toxic chemicals, local children with high levels of lead in their blood — Beijing’s move also seems emblematic of its increasing self-sufficiency and growing rejection of the West. The ban has caused upheaval in the global trade in e-waste, diverting huge amounts to smaller nations ill equipped to handle the overflow.
Even before the ban came into full effect, Chinese waste traders were setting up shop in Thailand. Days after the May raid outside Bangkok, the Thai police displayed seven containers at a local port, each packed with 24 tons of mostly broken electronics. So far, the Thai police have suspended the operations of five illegal e-waste processing facilities and found evidence of dozens of smaller high-polluting operations that risk contaminating the countryside. “Thailand is getting hit by a tidal wave of electronic waste,” says Jim Puckett, executive director of the Basel Action Network, a Seattle-based nonprofit that has used GPS devices to track illegal exports of e-waste to Asia. “The rest of Asia better get ready, because they are next.”
The bulk of used electronics shipped to the developing world are meant to give second and third lives to devices and help bridge the world’s digital divide. But the cloak of “reuse and repair” is often used to hide illegal exports of e-waste. This is ostensibly scrap, but the frenzy of hazardous e-waste activity in cities in Pakistan and Ghana, for example, testifies to the riches hidden in the piles of discarded electronics. According to researchers at U.N.U., the raw materials contained in e-waste were worth roughly $61 billion in 2016, more than the gross domestic product of even middle-income countries like Croatia or Costa Rica.
The precious metals in e-waste, found especially in circuit boards, are more concentrated than in the most productive mines. In 2016, the gold in the world’s e-waste equaled more than a tenth of the gold mined globally that year. And yet much of this treasure is simply reburied in landfills. Based on e-waste disposal rates, Americans alone throw out phones worth $60 million in gold and silver every year.EDITORS’ PICKSHow Saying #MeToo Changed Their LivesWhere a Taboo Is Leading to the Deaths of Young GirlsHow ‘Desus & Mero’ Conquered Late Night
ADVERTISEMENT
The idea of “mining” e-waste has tantalized the recycling and electronics industries for decades. Until recently, most methods to extract value have been costly, inefficient and hazardous. Backyard recyclers in places like India and Indonesia recover gold by bathing circuit boards in nitric and hydrochloric acid, thus poisoning waterways and communities. Others, like the migrant workers in Thailand, break down used electronics with cooking stoves and shredders and wear no protection against the emissions.
Over the last few years, however, innovators have devised safer techniques in the lab that would wrest value from e-waste. One isolates rare-earth elements with carbon nanotube technology; another recovers key minerals by bombarding them with underwater sound waves. Josh Lepawsky, a Canadian geographer and the author of “Reassembling Rubbish,” finds hope in a curious phenomenon: the growing re-export of e-waste from the developing world back to advanced countries that have greater recycling capacity. An “e-waste offset” by which countries importing high-quality used electronics send back an equal volume of e-waste “is very promising,” Lepawsky says.
As the extraction of metals becomes more efficient and eco-friendly, tech manufacturers may feel compelled to get raw materials from their own end-of-life products rather than from the earth. Apple, for instance, has pledged to make all of its future laptops and iPhones out of renewable resources or recycled materials. The idea goes beyond business to national security. “Governments are starting to take a more strategic view of e-waste, too,” Khetriwal says. “They ask, ‘How can we secure the raw materials we need for the future?’ ” Some of these metals and rare-earth elements are scarce, and some, like cobalt, are found mostly in conflict zones. By mining the ever-expanding mountains of e-waste, countries could steel themselves against the volatility in prices and supplies of the global market.
Some e-waste optimists envision a “circular economy” in which refurbished, reused and recycled raw materials help fuel a sustainable future. Japan was an early leader of this movement, pushing e-waste recycling with tough laws and, more recently, appealing gimmicks. At the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo, athletes will receive gold, silver and bronze medals forged from recycled e-waste — emblems of a world in which e-waste can take on the sheen of immortality.
The utopian vision of a circular economy is a long way off, though. E-waste recycling remains stubbornly low in most parts of the world. Even the extraction of precious metals has proved hard for companies to capitalize on. And the remaining mass of e-waste — mainly plastics laced with metals, chemicals and flame retardant — pose a more intractable problem. The recycling of these complex plastics would probably need to be subsidized or enforced through legislation — and few countries outside Europe or Japan have shown the commitment to make that happen.
To move toward a circular economy, manufacturers would also need to embrace a “green design” that minimizes the generation of e-waste in the first place. Companies like Apple and Dell, though, have not taken enough measures to make their products easier to use longer. “Planned obsolescence,” the intentional creation of products that rapidly become outdated so customers must replace them with ever-newer models, remains the modus operandi of the tech industry. Manufacturers argue that the approach stimulates not only profits but also the very innovation that drives the global economy. And it has produced a Pavlovian response in consumers, for whom the temptation to buy a slightly cooler phone every couple of years has hardened into a seeming necessity. Not long ago, one tech manufacturer introduced a cheaper, longer-lasting phone — the perfect antidote to planned obsolescence. It was not a hit — but it was a reminder that we all share some responsibility for the explosion of e-waste in scrap yards across the world.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/magazine/e-waste-offers-an-economic-opportunity-as-well-as-toxicity.html
Industry and Association News
LCSA News
Chemical Management News
Energy News
Chemical Security News
Transportation and Infrastructure News - There are no clips to report at this time.
Environment News
Add recipients
Suggested